MISSION STATEMENT 
 

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

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

the present and future generations 

BLM/WY/PL-07/012+5101 
 

AS-06-01095 
 
MISSION STATEMENT 
 

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

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

future generations 

BLM/WY/PL-07/012+5101 
 

AS-06-01095 
 

FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 
 



ABSTRACT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
 

OVERLAND PASS PIPELINE PROJECT 
 

(X) Draft ( ) Final 

Lead Agency: 	 The United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office 

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

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

Washington, and Yuma counties, Colorado; and 

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

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

counties, Kansas 

Address Comments 

on this EIS to: 	 Bureau of Land Management 

Attention: Chuck Valentine, Realty Specialist 

1300 North Third Street 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

or 

Email: Overland_Pipeline_WY@blm.gov 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Grassland in Colorado. 

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

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

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

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

on the pipeline. 

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

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

144 mainline valves at 92 sites. The pipeline and aboveground facilities would be constructed in 

accordance to federal pipeline safety regulations. 

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

would be permitted under a separate permitting process. 

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

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

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

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

represents the continuation of the existing conditions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

difficulties for construction and restoration. 

The BLM Preferred Alternative is the Proposed Action. 
Executive Summary 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG) in Colorado. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

facilities, and 144 mainline valves at 92 sites. The pipeline and aboveground facilities would be constructed in 

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

meter stations, though the powerlines would be permitted under a separate permitting process. 

Overland Pass’ Proposed Action includes applicant-proposed protection measures for environmental 

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

addition, the BLM and USFS have developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the environmental 

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

which mitigation measures would be attached as conditions to any Record of Decision. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrain, causing potential difficulties for construction and restoration. 

The BLM preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. 

ES-1
 
Alternative Impact Summary 

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

Proposed Action 

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

associated aboveground facilities with the implementation of applicant-proposed protection measures. The 

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

pipeline permitted under this alternative. 

Air Quality 

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

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

violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard. 

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

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

Geology and Geological Hazards 

Project construction and operation would not alter existing topography because the construction ROW would 

be re-contoured to match the adjacent terrain. The project would not interfere with oil and gas drilling or any 

current active or planned mining operations. Because the pipeline primarily would be located adjacent to 

existing pipelines, construction of the Proposed Action would not further reduce access to underlying mineral 

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

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

operation of the project would not worsen unfavorable geological conditions in the area. The project would 

cross approximately 462 miles of geological formations that contain vertebrate fossils, and noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate and plant fossils. Overland Pass has conducted pre-construction surveys and 

would monitor pipeline construction to protect or recover important fossils. 

Soils 

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

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

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

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

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

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

volatile nature of NGL. 

Water Resources 

The Proposed Action would require 97 perennial waterbody crossings. With the exception of the South Platte 

River, which would be crossed by the horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing method, all other perennial 

waterbodies would be open-cut in accordance with the general procedures identified in the project-specific 

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

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

Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and North Platte rivers would have the potential to cause increased turbidity 

and sedimentation; channel and bank modifications, and associated impacts to fisheries and other habitats. 

For hydrostatic testing and dust control purposes, Overland Pass would use approximately 18.3 and 

46.6 acre-feet of water from the Colorado and Platte river basins, respectively. An additional 34.0 acre-feet of 

water would be withdrawn from private wells and 32.7 acre-feet from the storage ponds at the ONEOK 

ES-2
 
Bushton Plant for these uses. Impacts to both surface water and groundwater quality resulting from a pipeline 

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

The project temporarily would affect 81 acres of wetlands during construction. In general, wetland and riparian 

habitat would be allowed to regenerate to the original cover type, with the exception of 0.5 acre of scrub-shrub 

and forested wetlands that would be maintained in an herbaceous state for pipeline inspection and 

maintenance purposes. While the recovery of most herbaceous wetlands are expected within 2 to 3 years, 

recovery of scrub-shrub and palustrine forested wetlands could take a decade or more. 

Vegetation 

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

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

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

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

within 2 years, full recovery of these native vegetation communities would be long-term (greater than 5 years) 

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

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

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

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

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

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

fragmentation by creating 130 miles of new ROW and expanding 630 miles of existing pipeline corridors. The 

proposed pipeline route would cross crucial big game habitat in Wyoming and Colorado. Measures to minimize 

wildlife impacts include the co-location of the Proposed Action with existing ROWs where possible, avoidance 

of construction within designated big game wintering areas during seasonal closure periods, installation of 

ditch plugs with ramps that would allow animals to cross over open ditch sections and escape from the trench, 

limitations on the amount of open trench allowed at any given time, spatial and timing restrictions near active 

raptor nests, and reclamation of disturbed areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

Overland Pass would construct across 34 different waterbodies in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas that 

support game fish species, including 12 that support warmwater species and 22 that support coldwater 

species. While impacts to most waterbody crossings would be mitigated by the implementation of the 

project-specific POD, open-cut crossings at the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and North Platte rivers would 

have the potential to cause increased sedimentation; channel and bank modification, with subsequent 

changes to channel morphology; and impacts to fisheries. At the Green River, impacts to kokanee salmon and 

brown trout would occur due to sedimentation affecting eggs and larvae. Water depletions in the Colorado and 

Platte river basins associated with hydrostatic testing and dust control are an issue for federally listed species 

that occur downstream. Pipeline construction also could affect amphibian species and their habitat in wetlands, 

streams, ponds, and seasonally flooded areas crossed by the route. Because NGLs dissipate quickly and 

have low environmental persistence, impacts to fisheries and amphibians resulting from a pipeline spill would 

be short-term and low in magnitude. 

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

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

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

affect any federally listed species. The project also could affect 45 BLM-sensitive species, nine USFS sensitive 

ES-3
 
species, and 22 state listed species. These species were evaluated in the Biological Report/Biological 

Evaluation, currently being finalized by the BLM and USFS. 

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

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

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

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

would require mitigation measures to protect this species. For aquatic species, impacts could result from 

sedimentation, alteration of stream and bank habitat, and water depletions. Water depletions in the Colorado 

and Platte river basins associated with hydrostatic test and dust control water withdrawals are an issue for 

federally listed species that occur downstream, however the USFWS would require mitigation for water 

depletions in the Colorado and Platte river basins. Trenching of Hams Fork and Blacks Fork rivers would result 

in long-term adverse impacts to habitat for BLM-sensitive fish species (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, 

and roundtail chub) and may result in population level decline for one or more of these species. 

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

impacts are anticipated, the combination of Overland Pass’ proposed protection measures (as defined in the 

POD and its project-specific Conservation Measures Plan) and additional BLM- and USFWS-identified 

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

Land Use and Aesthetics 

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

4,619 acres would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the project life. Of this area, 9.6 acres would underlie 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts would occur to area residences and businesses during construction. 

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

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

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

Transportation and Traffic Management Plan and identified mitigation would minimize transportation impacts. 

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

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

conform to visual resource criteria. While temporary noise impacts may occur during construction, noise 

impacts during operations would be minimal due to the use of electric pumps and would be limited to the 

vicinity of the pump and meter stations. 

Cultural Resources 

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

Proposed Action. To date, these surveys identified 308 cultural resource sites in Wyoming, 66 in Colorado, 

and 47 in Kansas within the survey area. To date, 123 sites in Wyoming, 30 sites in Colorado, and 6 sites in 

Kansas have been recommended, or are officially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). Potential adverse effects to identified NRHP-eligible sites would be mitigated prior to pipeline 

construction. Unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources would be protected as described in the 

ES-4
 
project-specific unanticipated discoveries plan. Therefore, all impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources from 

project construction would be mitigated. 

Native American Concerns 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social and Economic Conditions 

Overland Pass proposes to employee between 325 and 650 workers to construct the pipeline and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

property taxes. For the first year of operation, Overland Pass estimates that $10 million ($1.5 million, 

$990,000 in Colorado, and $7.5 million in Kansas) would be generated in property and ad valorem local taxes. 

These tax revenues typically would be used by local and state governments for infrastructure improvements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

every 5 years. 

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

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

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

NGLs. 

ES-5
 
No Action Alternative 

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

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

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

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

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

Air Quality 

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

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

Geology and Geological Hazards 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soils 

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

natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Water Resources 

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

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

Vegetation 

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

of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

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

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

Land Use and Aesthetics 

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

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

Cultural Resources 

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

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

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

collected. 

ES-6
 
Native American Concerns 

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

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

the tribes as identified for the Proposed Action would occur. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

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

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

taxes, taxes on goods and services, and ad valorem property taxes, estimated to be valued at over $10 million 

in the first year of operation. Private landowners would not receive compensation for easement agreements 

with Overland Pass. 

Public Safety 

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

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

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

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

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

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

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

pipeline permitted under this alternative. 

Air Quality 

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

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

violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard. 

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

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

Geology and Geological Hazards 

Project construction and operation would not alter existing topography because the construction ROW would 

be re-contoured to match the adjacent terrain. The project would not interfere with oil and gas drilling or any 

current active or planned mining operations. Because the pipeline primarily would be located adjacent to 

existing pipelines, construction of the Proposed Action would not further reduce access to underlying mineral 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fossils. 

Soils 

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

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

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

ES-7
 
Measures to minimize soil impacts include erosion control measures, topsoil separation and handling 

procedures, remediation of compacted soils, and application of revegetation seed mixtures in appropriate for 

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

the low probability of a spill and the volatile nature of NGL. 

Water Resources 

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

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

accordance with the general procedures identified in the project-specific POD and site-specific waterbody 

crossing plans. While impacts to most waterbody crossings would be mitigated by the implementation of the 

project-specific POD, open cut crossings at the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and North Platte Rivers would 

have the potential to cause increased sedimentation; channel and bank modification, with subsequent 

changes to channel morphology; and impacts to fisheries. When compared to the same section of the 

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

water for hydrostatic testing and dust control purposes due to the increased length of the pipeline route. Water 

depletions in the Colorado and Platte river basins are an issue for federally listed species that occur 

downstream. Impacts to both surface water and groundwater quality resulting from a pipeline spill would be 

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

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

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

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

state. While the recovery of most herbaceous wetlands are expected within 2 to 3 years, recovery of 

scrub-shrub and palustrine forested wetlands could take a decade or more. 

Vegetation 

Compared to the Proposed Action, this alternative would disturb 4.8 miles of additional vegetation. Overland 

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

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

within 2 years, full recovery of these native vegetation communities would be long-term (greater than 5 years) 

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

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

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

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

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would disturb wildlife habitat, displace 

individual animals, and contribute to habitat fragmentation by creating 29.8 miles of new ROW and expanding 

1.0 mile of existing pipeline corridors. Like the Proposed Action in this area, this alternative does not cross 

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

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

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

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

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

areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

ES-8
 
This alternative would cross the same waterbodies as the Proposed Action in Wyoming that support game fish 

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

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

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

nature of NGL. 

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

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

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

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

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

rangeland. Compared to the Proposed Action, a total of 2.3 additional acres would be dedicated to operational 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

businesses during construction. 

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

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

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

Overland Pass’ Transportation and Traffic Management Plan and identified mitigation would minimize 

transportation impacts. 

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

would be painted with a color(s) that conform to visual resource criteria. While temporary noise impacts may 

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

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

Cultural Resources 

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

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

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

NRHP, five are unevaluated, one is eligible for the NRHP and one is an NRHP-eligible linear feature (though 

the affected segment is unevaluated). If the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

was selected, 5 sites within 100 feet of the segment of the Proposed Action that are classified as not eligible 

for the NRHP located would be eliminated. Potential adverse effects to identified NRHP-eligible sites would be 

mitigated prior to pipeline construction. Unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources would be protected as 

described in the project-specific cultural resources unanticipated discoveries plan. Therefore, all impacts to 

NRHP-eligible cultural resources from project construction would be mitigated. 

ES-9
 
Native American Concerns 

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

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

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

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

Social and Economic Conditions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NGLs. 

Cumulative Impacts 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-10
 
The cumulative area of previous surface disturbance within the study area from existing utility projects from 

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

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

Air Quality 

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

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

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

control on roads and excavated surfaces. 

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

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

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

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

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

presently are not known. 

Geology and Geological Hazards 

Cumulative impacts related to geological hazards are not anticipated. 

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

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

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

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

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

accomplished through well pad offsets and directional drilling. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and added to the existing body of knowledge. 

Soils 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

measures. Some soils on previously re-vegetated ROWs may be re-disturbed by construction on adjacent new 

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

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

projects parallel the proposed Overland Pass pipeline. The Proposed Action would disturb approximately 10.6 

square miles in this utility corridor. 

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

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

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

ES-11
 
mixtures would be applied that are appropriate to soil conditions and expected future uses (grazing, wildlife 

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

projects is low. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Resources 

While Overland Pass would use groundwater to hydrostatically test their pipeline, other existing and proposed 

pipeline and other utility projects do not consume groundwater. No cumulative impacts on groundwater volume 

or quality from these projects are expected. 

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

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

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

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

bank stabilization measures would prevent cumulative sedimentation increases where the projects cross the 

same stream channel at the same location. 

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

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

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

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

method or additional mitigation. 

Based on currently available schedules, the various projects would not be conducting concurrent hydrostatic 

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

volume reductions on the Green, North Platte, and Laramie rivers. 

Cumulative impacts to wetlands would occur where the Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline, Enterprise Western 

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

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

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

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

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

and other herbaceous species. 

Vegetation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-12
 
control the spread of noxious weeds, thereby minimizing the degree and duration of the cumulative impact of 

these projects. 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

game ranges crossed. 

Overthrust Wamsutter, Enterprise Western Expansion, and Overland Pass pipeline projects would cross five 

streams (Blacks Fork, Bitter Creek, Green River, North Platte River, and Medicine Bow River) in Wyoming that 

contains game fisheries. Cumulative waterbody construction impacts would not occur in the same season. 

Channel armoring measures, and sediment control measures proposed by Overland Pass for these crossings 

would reduce downstream sedimentation on fish habitats. Pre-existing bank and channel instability associated 

with previous pipeline projects are contributing to increased sedimentation downstream of the utility corridor at 

some crossing. Measures recommended to reduce erosion and channel scouring would benefit fisheries. 

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

plover, and burrowing owl, occurs within the cumulative affects area. Pipeline projects would be subject to 

construction timing restrictions and other mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these species and their 

habitats. 

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

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

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

mitigation measures to avoid the loss of roost or nest trees. Therefore, these projects would not contribute to 

cumulative impacts to bald eagle winter or nesting habitat, nor would construction activities coincide with bald 

eagle critical use periods along these rivers. 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

The Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Expansion, and Overthrust Wamsutter pipeline projects incrementally 

would add to the acreage of aboveground oil and gas pipelines in Wyoming. While installation of new pipelines 

in an existing corridor incrementally would reduce the area available for future development, use of established 

utility corridors concentrates cumulative land use impacts. With the exception of a rural residential area 

between Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyoming (Rockies Express West and Overland Pass), the Overland Pass, 

Overthrust Wamsutter, and Enterprise Western Expansion projects would not cumulatively affect residential 

land uses. The existing pipeline corridor between Laramie and Cheyenne pre-dates the subdivision of existing 

rangeland in this area, and owners and new buyers were informed of the pipeline easements in their deeds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-13
 
co-located with the proposed pipeline route at these locations, cumulative visual resource impacts caused by 

additional pipeline construction would not occur. 

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

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

cumulatively with other nearby industrial sources. 

Cultural Resources/Native American Consultation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social and Economic Conditions 

Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter, Rendezvous, and Kanda Lateral pipeline projects may be constructed 

in a similar timeframe. Workforces for these projects may place demands on local infrastructure (temporary 

housing, other services). The potential for the maximum cumulative workforce likely would occur in the vicinity 

of Green River and Rock Springs, Wyoming. Based on current high levels of oil and gas activity in this region, 

it is expected that there may be a shortage of temporary housing for non-local workers and increased 

demands on local emergency services. 

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

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

roads on BLM- or USFS-administered land. 

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

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

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

employment and demands on local services are expected. 

Public Safety 

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

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

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

Part 192 and Part 95. 

ES-14
 
Overland Pass Master Acronyms List 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

amsl above mean sea level 

ANF Ashley National Forest 

AOPL Associations of Pipe Lines 

APE area of potential effect 

AQCC Air Quality Control Commission 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

BA biological assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BO Biological Opinion 

bpd barrels per day 

BR Biological Report 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBM coal bed methane 

CBNG coal bed natural gas 

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife 

CDP Census-designated Place 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

CDT Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

CDTA Continental Divide Trail Alliance 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS CERCLA Information System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CGS Colorado Geological Survey 

CO carbon monoxide 

CR County Road 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EAC Environmental Advisory Committee 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Emergency Response Plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FBE fusion bond epoxy 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FGNRA Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FR Federal Register 

i 
Acronym List (Continued) 

FSA Farm Service Agency’s 

FSM USFS Manual 

GLO General Land Office 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence areas 

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling 

HEL highly erodible lands 

hp horsepower 

I-25 Interstate 25 

I-70 Interstate 70 

I-80 Interstate 80 

ISO International Standard Operations 

KAQR&S Kansas Air Quality Regulations and Statues 

KDA Kansas Department of Agriculture 

KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

KDWP Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

KGS Kansas Geological Survey 

KSHS Kansas State Historical Society 

kV kilovolt 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

Ldn day-night (average sound) level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MAPL Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC 

mg/l milligram per liter 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MLRA Major Land Resource Areas 

MLV mainline valve 

MMI Modified Mercalli Index 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOP maximum operating pressure 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MUID Map Unit Identifier 

mya million years ago 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFS National Forest System 

NGHA Non-game Habitat Areas 

NGL Natural Gas Liquids 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1986 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NO3 nitrate 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

ii 
Acronym List (Continued) 

NPA National Programmatic Agreement 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRG Natural Resource Group 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWIS National Water Information System 

NWP Nationwide permits 

O3 ozone 

OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ONRW Outstanding Natural Resource Water 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

Overland Pass Overland Pass Pipeline Company LLC 

PAM Polyacrylamide 

Pb lead 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFO palustrine forested 

PLJV Playa Lakes Joint Venture 

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

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

PNG Pawnee National Grassland 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch, gauge 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW right-of-way 

RP reference point 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIA Special Interest Area 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOX sulfur oxides 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

spp. species (plural) 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

tcfy trillion cubic feet per year 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

tpy tons per year 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

TWA Temporary Workspace Area 

iii 
Acronym List (Continued) 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Corps of Engineers 

USBOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

V Volt 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAQS&R Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Williams Willliam’s Field Service Company, LLC 

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

WYCRO Wyoming Cultural Records Office 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

iv 
Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................ES-1 
 

OVERLAND PASS MASTER ACRONYMS LIST.................................................................................................. i 
 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................................................1-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.6 Non-federal ROW Easement Acquisition Process...........................................................................1-10
 

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement.......................................................................................................1-10
 

1.7.1	 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................1-10
 

1.8 Issues.................................................................................................................................................1-11
 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................2-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2	 The No Action Alternative......................................................................................................2-33
 

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

2.2.3.1 Proposed Facilities ...............................................................................................2-34
 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..........................................................2-36
 

2.3.1	 System Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-36
 

2.3.1.1 Trucking or Railroad Transport ............................................................................2-36
 

2.3.1.2 Enterprise Pipeline System..................................................................................2-37
 

v 
2.3.1.3 Alternative Pipeline Configurations......................................................................2-39
 

2.3.2 Route Alternatives .................................................................................................................2-40
 

2.3.2.1 I-80 Energy Corridor.............................................................................................2-40
 

2.3.2.2 Northern Energy Corridor.....................................................................................2-40
 

2.3.2.3 Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor ...........................................2-41
 

2.3.2.4 MAPL Route .........................................................................................................2-41
 

2.3.3 Local Route Variations ..........................................................................................................2-42
 

2.3.3.1 Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation ...........................................................2-42
 

2.3.3.2 Green River Crossing Variation ...........................................................................2-42
 

2.3.3.3 Trona Mines Variations ........................................................................................2-42
 

2.3.4 Aboveground Facility Location Alternatives..........................................................................2-42
 

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-43
 

2.4.1 Summary and Comparison of Action Alternatives................................................................2-43
 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................................................3.1-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands/Riparian Zones.............................................................3.5-17
 

3.5.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.5-21
 

3.5.2.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................3.5-21
 

3.5.2.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................3.5-21
 

3.5.2.3 Floodplains, Wetlands/Riparian Zones.............................................................3.5-21
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7.2.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................3.7-12
 

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

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

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

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

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

3.8.1.3 Aesthetics (Visual and Noise) ...........................................................................3.8-10
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.10 Native American Consultation .......................................................................................................3.10-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES....................................................................................................4.1-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

4.3 Geology and Geologic Hazards.......................................................................................................4.3-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.4-12
 

4.4.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.4-12
 

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

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

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

4.5.1.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................4.5-12
 

4.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas .....................................................4.5-16
 

4.5.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.5-17
 

4.5.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.5-17
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7.2.2 Aquatic Species.................................................................................................4.7-24
 

4.7.2.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................4.7-24
 

4.7.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.7-24
 

4.7.3.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................4.7-24
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii 
4.8.1.4 Utilities..................................................................................................................4.8-9
 

4.8.1.5 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................4.8-10
 

4.8.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.8-13
 

4.8.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.8-13
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.12 Public Safety...................................................................................................................................4.12-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 CUMULATIVE.............................................................................................................................................5.1-1
 

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

5.2 Cumulative Impacts to Resources...................................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.1 Climate and Air Quality.........................................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.2 Geology.................................................................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.2.1 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.2.2 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.2.3 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................5.2-6
 

5.2.3 Soils.......................................................................................................................................5.2-7
 

5.2.3.1 Erosion.................................................................................................................5.2-7
 

5.2.3.2 Sensitive Soils .....................................................................................................5.2-7
 

5.2.4 Water Resources................................................................................................................5.2-10
 

5.2.4.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................5.2-10
 

5.2.4.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................5.2-10
 

5.2.4.3 Wetlands............................................................................................................5.2-11
 

5.2.5 Vegetation...........................................................................................................................5.2-11
 

5.2.5.1 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species....................................................5.2-11
 

5.2.6 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species ................................................5.2-11
 

5.2.6.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................5.2-11
 

5.2.6.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................5.2-12
 

ix 
5.2.6.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................5.2-12
 

5.2.7 Land Use and Visual Resources........................................................................................5.2-13
 

5.2.7.1 Land Use............................................................................................................5.2-13
 

5.2.7.2 Visual Resources...............................................................................................5.2-14
 

5.2.8 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................5.2-14
 

5.2.9 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................................5.2-14
 

5.2.10 System Safety and Reliability.............................................................................................5.2-15
 

6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................6-1
 

7.0 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES....................................................7-1
 

8.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN 
 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 
 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ....................................................................................................................8-1
 

9.0 ELECTRIC POWERLINES............................................................................................................................9-1
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .............................................................................................10-1
 

REFERENCES 

GLOSSARY 

INDEX 

APPENDIX A – SITE-SPECIFIC MAPS FOR ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES 

APPENDIX B – CONSTRUCTION, RECLAMATION, AND REVEGETATION PLAN 

APPENDIX C – HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN 

APPENDIX D – WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN 

APPENDIX E – COMPARISON OF ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

APPENDIX F – WATERBODY CROSSING TABLES 

APPENDIX G – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES TABLES 

APPENDIX H – BLM CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION PROCEDURES 

APPENDIX I – CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE SUMMARY TABLES BY STATE 

APPENDIX J – RISK ASSESSMENT 

x 
LIST OF TABLES 

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

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

Table 1.7-1 Public Scoping Meetings........................................................................................................ 1-11
 

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

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

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

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

other Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-13
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2.3-1 Relative Risk of Pipelines Compared to Other Transportation Methods.............................. 2-37
 

Table 2.3-2 Comparison of the Western Expansion Project to the Proposed Action.............................. 2-39
 

Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment 
 

RP 62.3 to RP 87.1................................................................................................................. 2-44
 

Table 3.2-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................. 3.2-4
 

Table 3.3-1 Geologic Conditions Along the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route .......................... 3.3-1
 

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

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

Table 3.3-4 Potential Geologic Hazards Within the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Project ............ 3.3-9
 

Table 3.4-1 Mileage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Overland 
 

Pass Pipeline Route .............................................................................................................. 3.4-3 

Table 3.4-2 Mileage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the 

Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route ............................................................................. 3.4-5 

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

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route .......................................................................... 3.4-10 

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

Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route................................................. 3.4-10
 

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

Table 3.5-2 Summary of Major and Sensitive Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project ....... 3.5-6
 

Table 3.5-3 Summary of Impaired Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project ......................... 3.5-6
 

Table 3.5-4 Surface Water Intakes Within 10 Miles Downstream of Proposed Crossings .................... 3.5-9
 

Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface................................................................................. 3.5-11
 

Table 3.5-6 Private Water Supply Wells................................................................................................. 3.5-16
 

xi 
Table 3.5-7 Major Floodplains Crossed by the Project..........................................................................3.5-20 

Table 3.5-8 Summary of Wetland Types Crossed by the Overland Pass Pipeline .............................. 3.5-20 

Table 3.6-1 Miles of Vegetation Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route ............................................ 3.6-1 

Table 3.6-2 Vegetation Types and Sub-Communities that Occur Along the Proposed 

Pipeline Route ....................................................................................................................... 3.6-3
 

Table 3.6-3 Noxious Weeds that Potentially Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route....................... 3.6-4
 

Table 3.7-1 Common Wildlife Species in the Project............................................................................... 3.7-1
 

Table 3.7-2 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat with Timing Restrictions Affected by the Project............ 3.7-2
 

Table 3.7-3 Management Indicator Species for the Project .................................................................... 3.7-4
 

Table 3.7-4 Game Fish Occurrence and Fishery Classifications for Waterbodies
 

Crossed by the Project .......................................................................................................... 3.7-6 

Table 3.7-5 Game Fish Spawning Periods and Habitat .......................................................................... 3.7-8 

Table 3.8-1 Summary of Federal, State, and Locally Owned Land Crossed by the 

Proposed Pipeline Route ...................................................................................................... 3.8-1
 

Table 3.8-2 Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed Action............. 3.8-2
 

Table 3.8-3 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route (in miles) ........... 3.8-4
 

Table 3.8-4 Conservation Reserve Program Land Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route .............. 3.8-7
 

Table 3.8-5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas Affected by the Proposed Pipeline Route ............. 3.8-8
 

Table 3.8-6 BLM VRM and USFS SMS Classifications for Areas Crossed by the
 

Proposed Pipeline Route .................................................................................................... 3.8-10
 

Table 3.10-1 Status of Native American Consultation ............................................................................. 3.10-4
 

Table 3.11-1 States and Counties Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Project....................................... 3.11-1
 

Table 3.11-2 Affected Communities Along the Proposed Project ........................................................... 3.11-2
 

Table 3.11-3 Socioeconomic Conditions in Affected Counties Along the Proposed Project.................. 3.11-3
 

Table 3.11-4 Total Housing for Counties along the Proposed Project....................................................3.11-4
 

Table 3.11-5 Available Housing Summary in Counties along the Proposed Project.............................. 3.11-6
 

Table 3.11-6 Existing Public Services and Facilities Along the Proposed Overland Pass 
 

Pipeline Route ..................................................................................................................... 3.11-7
 

Table 3.11-7 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Counties ..................................................... 3.11-11
 

Table 3.11-8 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Communities ..............................................3.11-12
 

Table 4.3-1 Areas Containing Shallow Bedrock where Blasting may be Required................................ 4.3-1
 

Table 4.3-2 Comparison of Steep Slopes and Side Slopes Along the Proposed Action 
 

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

Table 4.4-1 Acreage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Overland 

Pass Pipeline Route .............................................................................................................. 4.4-2 

Table 4.4-2 Acreage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the 

Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route ............................................................................. 4.4-4 

Table 4.4-3 Characteristics and Limitations of Soils at Pump and Meter Stations................................. 4.4-8 

Table 4.4-4 Comparison of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding Segment of the 

Proposed Action (Acres) ..................................................................................................... 4.4-13
 

xii 
Table 4.4-5 Acreage Summary of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Affected by the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route .......................................................................... 4.4-13
 

Table 4.5-1 Locations Where Active Erosion or Channel Incising is Occurring ..................................... 4.5-7
 

Table 4.5-2 Potential Water Sources for Construction of the Proposed Project..................................... 4.5-8
 

Table 4.6-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project................................ 4.6-2
 

Table 4.7-1 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat with Timing Restrictions Affected by the
 

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 4.7-2 

Table 4.7-2 Impacts for Special Status Species .................................................................................... 4.7-12 

Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for 

Special Status Wildlife Species........................................................................................... 4.7-15
 

Table 4.7-4 Impacts for Management Indicator Species....................................................................... 4.7-19
 

Table 4.7-5 Acres Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status Plant Species.................... 4.7-20
 

Table 4.8-1 Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed Action ........... 4.8-7
 

Table 4.8-2 Estimated Construction Equipment Noise From the Proposed Overland 
 

Pass Aboveground Facilities............................................................................................... 4.8-11
 

Table 4.8-3 Estimated Sound Levels from Pump Stations....................................................................4.8-12
 

Table 4.11-1 Pipeline Construction Workforce......................................................................................... 4.11-1
 

Table 4.12-1 Locations Where Heavier Wall Pipe Would Be Installed ................................................... 4.12-3
 

Table 5.1-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources within the General 
 

Area of the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline..................................................................... 5.1-2 

Table 5.1-2 Estimated Cumulative Utility Use Area within the Existing Utility Corridor 

Occupied by the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline ............................................................ 5.1-4 

Table 5.2-1 Overland Pass Project Cumulative Impacts for River Crossings, and 

Streams Containing Fisheries in Wyoming .......................................................................... 5.2-8 

Table 6-1 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ 6-1 

Table 7-1 Summary of Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of Resources by the 

Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 7-1
 

Table 9-1 Electrical Powerline Requirements for the Proposed Action .................................................. 9-2 
 

xiii 
List of Figures 

Figure 1.1-1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
 

Figure 2.2-4 Project Overview Kansas ......................................................................................................... 2-6 
 

Figure 3.5-2 Major Aquifer Systems ........................................................................................................ 3.5-14
 

Figure 3.5-3 Elk Mountain Sole Source Aquifer ...................................................................................... 3.5-18
 

Figure 3.5-4 Casper Aquifer Protection Area .......................................................................................... 3.5-19
 

Figure 3.6-1 Land Cover ............................................................................................................................ 3.6-2
 

Figure 5.1-1 Utility Corridor Relationships with Sensitive Resources ...................................................... 5.1-5
 

Figure 2.2-1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2-3
 

Figure 2.2-2 Project Overview Wyoming...................................................................................................... 2-4
 

Figure 2.2-3 Project Overview Colorado ...................................................................................................... 2-5
 

Figure 2.2-5 Typical Construction ROW..................................................................................................... 2-11
 

Figure 2.2-6 Typical Construction ROW – Adjacent to Existing Pipeline.................................................. 2-12
 

Figure 2.2-7 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ............................................................................... 2-20
 

Figure 2.2-8 Conceptual Horizontal Directionally Drilled Waterbody ........................................................ 2-25
 

Figure 2.2-9 Route Alternatives Rock Springs Area .................................................................................. 2-35
 

Figure 2.3-1 Enterprise Pipeline System Alternative.................................................................................. 2-38
 

Figure 3.5-1 Regional Watersheds............................................................................................................ 3.5-7
 

Figure 3.8-1 Noise Sensitive Area Location Map.................................................................................... 3.8-13
 

Figure 4.4-1 USFS Compaction Reduction Tool..................................................................................... 4.4-11
 

Figure 4.5-1 Typical Incised Bank Stabilization – Profile View................................................................. 4.5-5
 

Figure 4.5-2 Typical Incised Bank Stabilization – Plan View.................................................................... 4.5-6
 

xiv 
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 Introduction 

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

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

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

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

(Figure 1.1-1). The pipeline would be approximately 14-inch-diameter between Opal and Echo Springs, 

Wyoming, and 16-inch-diameter from Echo Springs, Wyoming, to Conway, Kansas. The pipeline would 

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

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

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

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

referred to as the Overland Pass Pipeline Project (Proposed Action). Overland Pass would construct the new 

pipeline within a temporary 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way (ROW). After construction and reclamation, 

the permanent ROW would be 50 feet wide, centered on the pipeline. The ownership of land crossed by the 

project is identified in Table 1.1-1. Overland Pass proposes to begin construction of the project in July 2007 

with an in-service date by the fourth quarter of 2007. 

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

Federal – 

BLM 

Federal – 

USFS Tribal State Local Private Total 

Wyoming 98.8 2.0 0.0 21.4 3.9 201.1 327.2 

Colorado 0.0 22.4 0.0 11.3 0.4 137.7 171.8 

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.9 260.9 

Pipeline 

Total 

98.8 24.4 0.0 32.7 4.3 599.7 759.9 

1

Slight discrepancies in total values due to rounding. 

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

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

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

(EIS). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

corridors. 

1-1

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

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

that regulates and manages public domain lands. The Project would affect public land administered by three 

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

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

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

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

and conditions would be included for public and NFS lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

valves located along the proposed pipeline route. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mountain supply basin. In summary, approval of the proposed Project would meet the mutual needs of 

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

infrastructure in the Rocky Mountain region. 

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

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

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

more useful in other applications, such as: 

1-3
• Ethane – primarily used for the production of plastics; 

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

utilized in the production of plastics; and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

increase in NGLs that would need to be moved. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.3 Decisions to Be Made 

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

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

Plans (RMPs) for regional BLM field offices; 3) Forest Management Plans for the PNG and Ashley National 

Forest (ANF); and 4) Overland Pass’ Plan of Development (POD), which describes how and where the project 

would be constructed and operated and how the ROW would be reclaimed. The decision as to whether the 

Proposed Action would be authorized would be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) prepared by 

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

USFS-administered land. 

1.3.1 Bureau of Land Management 

BLM decisions to be made include: 

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

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

including permanent access roads; 

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

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

contractor yards; 

1-4
• Whether or not to approve the temporary use of access roads associated with the construction of the 

pipeline; and 

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

authorization. 

1.3.2 U.S. Forest Service 

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

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

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

1.4 Federal Approval Process and Authorizing Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4.1 Bureau of Land Management 

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

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

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

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

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

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

managed by two or more federal agencies. 

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

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

responsible for imposing stipulations and regulations to protect public safety and the environment. BLM would 

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

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

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

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

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

proposed treatment of cultural resources; 4) additional mitigation measures or permit conditions required by 

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

1.4.2 U.S. Forest Service 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-5
Subpart B and in the USFS Manual (FSM), Chapter 2700. FSM 2702 directs USFS officers to manage special 

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

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

sound business management principles. 

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

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

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

with all other guidance and mandates. 

1.4.3 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would outline the appropriate measures to mitigate the effect. 

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

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

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

Action. Compliance with NHPA and AIRFA would require consultation with the Tribes on the effects of the 

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

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), and religious sites. 

1.4.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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

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

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

conducted by any federal agencies should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined...to be critical...” [16 USC § 1536(a)(2)(1988)]. The BLM and the applicant as a 

non-federal party, are required to consult with the USFWS to determine whether any federally listed or 

proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed project. If, upon review of existing data, the BLM determines that these species or habitats may be 

affected by the proposed project, the BLM is required to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to identify the 

nature and extent of adverse impact, and to recommend mitigation measures that would avoid the habitat 

and/or species or that would reduce potential impact to acceptable levels. If, however, the BLM determines 

that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat would 

be affected by the proposed project, no further action by the BLM is necessary. 

A draft BA with the BLM’s findings would be prepared and submitted to the USFWS for review. If the USFWS 

concurs with the BA’s conclusions and finds that the proposed project is not likely to affect a listed species or 

cirtical habitat, the USFWS issues a letter of concurrence. If, however, the USFWS finds that the project is 

likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat, the BLM would be required to request formal 

1-6
consultation with the USFWS in which the USFWS, in conjunction with the BLM and the applicant, must 

prepare and issue a BO and incidental take statement prior to the start of construction. 

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

project approval. 

1.4.5 Office of Pipeline Safety 

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

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

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

To comply with federal regulations (49 CFR Parts 194 and 195), Overland Pass would be required to develop 

a comprehensive Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for their pipeline system and areas of operation. The OPS 

would need to review and approve Overland Pass’ ERP prior to operation. 

Additionally, the OPS would conduct regular inspections of pipeline facilities in the future to enforce continual 

compliance with federal regulations, including the review and approval of Overland Pass’ Integrity 

Management Plan for High Consequence Areas (HCAs). 

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

Act 

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

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

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

following Nationwide permits (NWP) may be applicable; NWP 3 for maintenance activities; NWP 12 for utility 

construction; and NWP 14 for trail/road crossings of wetlands associated with utilities. Overland Pass intends 

to submit its Section 404 permit applications to the appropriate USACE District offices in 2007. 

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Federal 1 

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

the undertaking. 

U.S. Department of Interior 

BLM ROW Grant for the pipeline and all 

related facilities located on federal land 

Consider issuance of a ROW Grant 

for the portion of the project on federal 

land. 

Temporary Use Permit for temporary 

workspace areas and temporary 

access roads 

Consider the issuance of a 

Temporary Use Permit for the portion 

of the project on federal land. 

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

impact on federally listed or proposed 

species. Provide BO if the project is 

likely to adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species, or their 

habitats. 

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

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

USFS 

Special Use Permit for Paleontological 

Resources 

Consider approval of the 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for 

Paleontological Resources. 

Letter of concurrence to the BLM from 

the ANF and the PNG 

Consider issuance of Special Use 

Authorizations for the portion of the 

project on National Forest System 

land. Pursuant to Section 28 of the 

MLA, the BLM has been delegated 

authority to issue ROW authorizations 

across all federal lands for projects 

involving multiple federal jurisdictions 

with the concurrence from the agency 

head. 

Biological Report that includes a 

biological evaluation for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and sensitive 

species and an analysis of effect for 

management indicator species 

Coordinate with the BLM to ensure 

pertinent information is included in the 

environmental impact statement, 

biological report, and biological 

evaluation. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas 

Consultation Consultation regarding erosion control 

recommendations, revegetation 

specifications, and identification of 

Conservation Reserve Program 

lands. 

U.S. Department of Defense 

USACE - Omaha District (Wyoming and 

Colorado) and Kansas City District 

Section 404, CWA Consider issuance of Section 404 

permits for working navigable waters 

of the U.S. and the placement of 

dredge or fill material into all waters of 

the U.S., including wetlands. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 

Regions 7 and 8 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

In conjunction with states, consider 

issuance of water use and water 

crossing permits. 

Section 402, CWA, National Polluant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) 

In conjunction with states, review and 

issue NPDES permit for discharge of 

hydrostatic test water and discharge 

of groundwater associated with 

construction activities. 

Section 404, CWA (veto power for 

wetland permits issued by the USACE) 

Review CWA, Section 404 wetland 

dredge-and-fill applications for the 

USACE with Section 404 veto power 

for permits issued by the USACE. 

Stormwater Discharge Permit In conjunction with states, review and 

issue stormwater permit for activities 

associated with pipeline and 

aboveground facilities construction. 

State - Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Division NPDES Storm Water Permit Program - 

General Permit for Construction Storm 

Water Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Water and Wastewater Program - 

General Permit for Temporary 

Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating temporary discharges of 

wastewaters to surface waters of the 

state associated with hydrostatic 

testing of pipes, tanks or other similar 

vessels; construction dewatering, 

other. 

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

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

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

temporary increases in turbidity as a 

result of construction activities. 

Section 401 Certification Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(blanketed under USACE Section 404 

authorization). 

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

the use of water for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

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

species. 

State - Colorado 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

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

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. 

Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of a Temporary 

Use Permit to conduct environmental 

and engineering surveys. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

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

construct with the potential for fugitive 

dust. 

Division of Water Resources - Water 

Quality Control Division 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(blanketed under USACE Section 404 

permits). 

 Construction Stormwater Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Construction Dewatering Wastewater 

Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating dewatering of groundwater 

from the construction work area. 

Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating hydrostatic test water 

discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

Division of Water Resources - State Engineers 

Office 

Application for Surface Water Right Consider use of surface waters for 

appropriations required for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Colorado Historical Society 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

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

state-owned land. 

State - Kansas 

Kansas Corporation Commission Certificate of Convenience and 

Authority to Transport the Business of 

a Liquids Pipeline Carrier 

Certificate to construct pipeline and 

associated facilities across all land. 

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

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

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

the use of water for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Permit for Stream Obstructions and 

Channel Changes 

Consider the issuance of a permit to 

cross waterbodies. 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) 

Bureau of Water Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(Blanketed under USACE Section 404 

Permits). 

Stormwater Discharge Permit Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating hydrostatic test water 

discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

(KDWP) 

State Listed Species Consultation Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. 

Kansas State Historical Society 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

1

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

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

1.6 Non-federal ROW Easement Acquisition Process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for utilities engaged in interstate commerce. 

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement 

1.7.1 Public Involvement 

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

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

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

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

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

analysis on areas of high interest and concern. 

1-10
On March 24, 2006, the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the project was published in the Federal Register (FR), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1.7-1. 

Table 1.7-1 Public Scoping Meetings 

Meeting Location Meeting Date Number of Attendees 

Hays, Kansas April 17, 2006 20 

Greeley, Colorado April 18, 2006 8 

Cheyenne, Wyoming April 19, 2006 14 

Rock Springs, Wyoming April 20, 2006 11 

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

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

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

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

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

and answering route-specific questions. 

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

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

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

comments, private individuals provided 40 comments, of which 33 individual comments were from residences 

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

Arrowhead Springs Subdivision submitted a petition with 21 signatures expressing their opposition to the 

proposed project. Comments also were received from federal, state, and county agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and elected officials. 

1.8 Issues 

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

issues associated with the proposed pipeline construction. 

1. Proposed pipeline route and location: 

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

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

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

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

impacts to health and public safety. 

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

utility corridors. 

1-11
2. Construction impacts: 

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

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

3. Impacts to water quality and quantity: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

quantities of water for agricultural use and other downstream users. 

4. Impacts to threatened and endangered and sensitive species: 

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

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

species include: ferruginous hawk and western sage grouse. 

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

Colorado cutthroat trout. 

5. Socioeconomics: 

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

environment of communities. 

1-12
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

2.1 Introduction 

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

through interdisciplinary interaction between resource professionals, and in collaboration with the cooperating 

state agencies and tribal governments. The alternatives considered and analyzed in detail include: 

• The Proposed Action; 

• The No Action Alternative; and 

• The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

The BLM’s preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. 

All possible activities associated with each alternative including the No Action Alternative are assumed to apply 

to BLM-administered and NFS lands only. All activities associated with this project are consistent with the 

following land use plans from west to east: 

• ANF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), USFS (1986a); 

• Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Management Plan, USDA Forest Service (1986b); 

• Kemmerer Resource Management Plan (RMP), BLM (1986); 

• Green River RMP, BLM (1997); 

• Great Divide (Rawlins) RMP, BLM (1990), under revision; and 

• Revision of the LRMP, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and PNG, USFS (1997). 

Any future implementation activity associated with this project based on this EIS must conform to the 

applicable land use plan in effect. 

2-1
 
2.2 Description of Alternatives 

Numerous minor deviations and variations from the original proposed pipeline route described in the 

application submitted by Overland Pass were considered. Three alternatives, including the Proposed Action, 

were studied in detail. A description of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study may be found 

in Section 2.3. 

2.2.1 The Proposed Action 

Overland Pass proposes to construct and operate a 760-mile-long interstate NGL transmission system that 

would begin at existing NGL facilities in Opal, Wyoming, and end at existing storage and processing facilities in 

Bushton and Conway, Kansas. In addition to the pipeline, Overland Pass would construct 3 pump stations 

(including 1 future pump station), 7 meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, 144 mainline valves (MLVs) at 92 sites 

(17 remotely activated block valves, 58 manual block valves, 62 check valves, and 7 valves at the meter 

stations), and related ancillary facilities. An overview map of the project location and facilities is provided in 

Figure 2.2-1. State maps showing the pipeline route and aboveground facilities are provided in Figures 2.2-2 

to 2.2-4. Site-specific maps for major aboveground facilities (pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, 

pipe storage, and contractor yards) are provided in Appendix A. 

Overland Pass proposes to begin construction of the pipeline and associated facilities (e.g., pump stations, 

valves) in July of 2007. The project would take approximately 6 months to complete. The in-service date for 

these facilities would be November 30, 2007. BLM anticipates that a final decision for the project would be 

made no earlier than August 2007 which could delay the in-service date by an unspecified amount of time. 

2.2.1.1 Proposed Facilities 

Pipeline Facilities 

Between Opal Meter Station (Reference Point [RP]1

 0.0) and the Echo Springs Pump Station (RP 146.5), the 

Overland Pass pipeline would consist of 14-inch-diameter pipe; between Echo Springs Pump Station and 

Conway Meter Station (RP 749.4), the proposed pipeline would consist of 16-inch-diameter pipe. The 

maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the system would be 1,440 psig. 

The pipeline would be constructed in accordance with applicable USDOT regulations (49 CFR Part 195). For 

normal mainline construction, the 14-inch pipe would have a wall thickness of 0.219 inch, while the 

16-inch-diameter pipe would have a wall thickness of 0.250 inch. Slightly thicker walled pipe would be used at 

aboveground facilities, under road and rail crossings, within HCAs and as required by federal regulation. The 

pipeline would be constructed of high-strength steel pipe (grade 5L X70) with factory applied fusion bond 

epoxy (FBE) external coating. Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current system. All pipe 

would be manufactured, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal 

regulations. 

Pump Stations and Ancillary Facilities 

Aboveground facilities associated with the Proposed Action would include 3 pump stations (2 proposed, 

1 future), 7 meter stations, 144 MLVs at 92 sites, and 11 pigging facilities (Table 2.2-1). The new pump 

stations would enable Overland Pass to maintain the required pressure for firm NGL deliveries and to restore 

the drop in pressure that would otherwise occur as the NGL flows through the pipeline. Overland Pass would 

construct the meter stations at interconnections with other pipelines. 

1 RPs refer to fixed locations along the proposed pipeline route that are used as markers to identify resources and features along the 

route. The spacing interval between any two adjacent RPs is typically 1 mile; however, the distance may be as little as 1,425 feet or as 

great as 7,200 feet due to localized adjustments that have occurred in the proposed route alignment since the original route was 

proposed. 

2-2
 




Table 2.2-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project 

Facility Name1 RP2 County, State 

PIPELINE 

Opal, Wyoming to Echo Springs Pump Station 

(14 inches in diameter) 

0.0 – 146.5 Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Carbon counties, 

Wyoming; 

Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and Laramie 

counties, Wyoming; Weld, Morgan, Logan, 

Washington, Yuma counties, Colorado; 

Echo Springs Pump Station to Conway, Kansas 

(16 inches in diameter) 

146.5 – 

749.4 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, 

Graham, Grove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, Barton, 

Ellsworth, Rice, McPherson counties, Kansas 

PUMP STATIONS 

Echo Springs Pump Station 

(Two 1,250 International Organization of Standardization 

[ISO] horsepower [hp] pumps, one is a backup unit) 

146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Laramie Pump Station 

(Two 2,000 ISO hp pumps, one is a backup unit) 

271.7 Albany County, Wyoming 

WaKeeney Pump Station (future) 

(estimate total of 3,000 ISO hp) 

606.0 Sheridan County, Kansas 

METER STATIONS 

Opal Meter Station (Receipt – Williams) 

(interconnect facility sized for receipt of 80,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

0.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming 

Echo Springs Meter Station (Receipt – Williams) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 40,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Laramie Meter Station 271.7 Albany County, Wyoming 

Washington County Meter Station 447.8 Washington County, Colorado 

WaKeeney Meter Station 606.0 Sheridan County, Kansas 

Bushton Meter Station (Delivery – ONEOK) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 109,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

717.5 Ellsworth County, Kansas 

Conway Meter Station (Delivery – Williams) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 109,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

749.4 McPherson County, Kansas 

MAINLINE VALVES (MLV) 

MLV #1 to MLV #63 0.0 – 307.4 Lincoln, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany and 

Laramie counties, Wyoming 

MLV #64 to MLV #92 322.7 – 

488.7 

Weld, Morgan, Logan, Washington, Yuma 

counties, Colorado 

MLV #93 to MLV #136 493.5 – 

749.4 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, 

Graham, Grove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, Barton, 

Ellsworth, Rice, McPherson counties, Kansas 

PIGGING FACILITIES 

Opal Plant – Launcher 0.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming 

Sweetwater Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 72.1 Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Echo Springs Pump Facility – Launcher and Receiver 146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Albany Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 257.9 Albany County, Wyoming 

Weld Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 342.7 Weld County, Colorado 

Washington County Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 447.8 Washington County, Colorado 

Thomas Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 552.9 Thomas County, Kansas 

2-7
 
Table 2.2-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project 

Facility Name1 RP2 County, State 

Ellis Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 654.7 Ellis County, Kansas 

Bushton Plant (adjacent) – Launcher and Receiver 717.5 Ellsworth County, Kansas 

Williams Plant – Launcher and Receiver 736.2 Rice County, Kansas 

Conway Plant – Receiver 749.4 McPherson County, Kansas 

1

Aboveground facilities are illustrated in Appendix A. 

2

All reference points are based on Overland Pass’ reference system and are approximate. 

The two proposed pump stations are capable of delivering up to 109,000 bpd. In the future, Overland Pass 

could increase its delivery volume to 150,000 bpd with the construction of a pump station at WaKeeney, 

Kansas. Because the construction of the WaKeeney Pump Station is likely within the foreseeable future, it is 

included in the Proposed Action for this EIS analysis. 

Meter stations consist of custody transfer meter stations and system check meter stations. Three meter 

stations (Opal, Bushton, and Conway) would occur within existing previously disturbed commercial/industrial 

areas. The Echo Springs Pump and Meter Station, Laramie Pump Station and Meter Station, Washington 

County Meter Station, and WaKeeney Meter Station would each disturb new areas. 

The Proposed Action would include construction of four custody transfer meter stations (Opal, Echo Springs, 

Bushton, and Conway). The Opal Meter Station would be adjacent to the Williams Opal Plant (RP 0.0) and 

would require a 930-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral on Williams’ property to interconnect the Opal Plant mainline 

piping with the Overland Pass mainline. The Echo Springs Meter Station would be at Williams’ Echo Springs 

Plant (RP 146.5) and would require approximately 1,260-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral from the Echo Springs 

Plant to Overland Pass. Bushton’s Meter Station would be located on ONEOK’s Bushton Plant property 

(RP 717.5) and would require a 340-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral to deliver to the Bushton Plant. Finally, the 

Conway Meter Station would be located in Williams’ Conway Plant property (RP 749.4) and would require a 

short 12-inch-diameter lateral to deliver to the Williams’ Conway Plant piping adjacent to the meter station site. 

The exact tie-in point has not yet been determined. The systems to which Overland Pass would interconnect 

and the proposed lateral lengths and diameters are summarized in Table 2.2-2. 

Table 2.2-2 Proposed Receipt and Delivery Laterals for the Project 

Station/Interconnection With 

Lateral Length1 

(feet) 

Lateral diameter 

(inches) 

Opal Custody Transfer Meter Station 

 Delivery from Williams 

930 12 

Echo Springs Custody Transfer Meter Station

 Delivery from Williams 

1,260 12 

Bushton Custody Transfer Meter Station 

 Receipt by Oneok 

340 12 

Conway Custody Transfer Meter Station

 Receipt by Williams 

Not determined 12 

1

Lateral lengths are approximate. 

2.2.1.2 Land Requirements 

Table 2.2-3 summarizes the land requirements for the Proposed Action. Overland Pass proposes to use a 

75-foot-wide construction ROW for the majority of the proposed pipeline route and for all receipt and delivery 

laterals. Figure 2.2-5 illustrates the typical construction ROW and equipment work locations where the 

proposed pipeline route would not be located near an existing pipeline; Figure 2.2-6 illustrates the proposed 

2-8 
construction ROW where the pipeline would be located parallel to an existing pipeline. Overland Pass also has 

requested that 50 feet of the construction ROW (centered on the proposed pipeline) be retained as part of 

Overland Pass’ permanent easement, which would be permanently maintained (e.g., by periodic clearing) 

during operation of the new facilities. At steep slopes or sideslope areas, an additional 25 feet could be 

needed and additional temporary workspace would be required at roads, railroad, pipeline, powerline, 

waterline, and waterbody crossings. 

Table 2.2-3 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Proposed Action 

State/Facility RP 

Land Affected During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected During Operation 

(acres) 

Federal Other Federal Other 

BLM USFS State Private BLM USFS State Private 

Wyoming 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 0.0 to 321.1 898.3 17.8 228.2 1,829.6 598.9 11.9 152.1 1,219.8 

Additional TWAs Various 185.2 1.7 68.0 345.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals 0.0, 146.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Stations 146.5, 271.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 

Meter Stations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Yards 0, 18, 84, 146 (2), 

178, 281 (2) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 67.3 

Wyoming Subtotal 1,083.5 19.5 296.2 2,258.4 614.9 11.9 152.2 1,294.7 

Colorado 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 321.1 to 492.3 0.0 204.1 106.4 1,252.2 0.0 136.1 70.9 834.8 

Additional TWAs Various 0.0 14.1 19.2 141.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Station NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Meter Stations 447.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Yards 330, 437, 438 (2), 

439 

0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colorado Subtotal 0.0 218.3 125.6 1,435.2 0.0 136.6 70.9 835.5 

Kansas 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 492.3 to 749.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,371.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,581.1 

Additional TWAs Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 445.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals 717 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Stations 606.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 

2-9
 
Table 2.2-3 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Proposed Action 

State/Facility RP 

Land Affected During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected During Operation 

(acres) 

Federal Other Federal Other 

BLM USFS State Private BLM USFS State Private 

Meter Stations 606.0, 717.5, 

749.4 

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Yards 524, 562, 566, 590 

(2), 591 (2), 692, 

749 

0.0 0.0 0.0 55.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,880.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,584.2 

Project Total 4 1,083.5 237.8 421.8 6,574.0 614.0 148.1 223.1 3,715.4 

1

Assumes a 75-foot-wide construction ROW and 50-foot-wide operational ROW in all locations. 

2

Construction and operational land use impacts for several aboveground facilities (e.g., MLVs) would occur entirely within the ROW and 

therefore are included with the pipeline ROW totals. 

3

Does not include a potential disturbance of 3.6 acres (construction) and 1.9 acres (operation) for the future WaKeeney Pump Station. 

4

Slight discrepancies in total values are due to rounding. 

Construction of the Proposed Action would disturb approximately 8,317 acres of land, including the pipeline 

construction ROW, additional temporary workspace areas, pump stations, and other aboveground facilities. Of 

this total, about 6,908 acres would be disturbed by the pipeline construction ROW, about 1,220 acres would be 

disturbed by additional TWAs, and 24 acres would be disturbed for aboveground facilities. Overland Pass also 

would require 24 pipe storage and contractor yards, resulting in a total of 160 acres of additional disturbance. 

Disturbance due to construction of powerlines is quantified separately (Chapter 9.0). 

These totals do not include the short-term use of about 582 access and haul roads totaling 2,577 miles in 

length to access the ROW, many of which would require upgrading or maintenance. 

Approximately 4,619 acres of the 8,317 acres used for construction would be required for operation of the 

project. Of this total, about 4,606 acres would be for the pipeline permanent ROW, 3 acres for lateral 

permanent ROW, an additional 10 acres would be utilized for the aboveground facilities. Disturbed lands 

would be restored and allowed to revert to former use. 

Approximately 13 percent of the land affected by construction and operation of the project would be 

BLM-managed lands and about 3 percent are administered by the USFS. Approximately 3 percent of the land 

affected by construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be on State of Wyoming and Wyoming 

local government lands, less than 2 percent on State of Colorado lands. There is no federally managed or 

state owned land traversed by the proposed pipeline in Kansas. The remainder of the land that would be 

affected (79 percent) is privately owned. A detailed description of land ownership is presented in Section 3.8. 

2-10
 


Pipeline ROW 

Approximately 623.7 miles of the 759.9 miles of pipeline (83 percent) would be co-located2

 with existing 

pipeline, utility, or road ROWs. Approximately 136.1 miles (17 percent) of the route proposed for construction 

would be newly created ROW (Table 2.2-4). Where the proposed pipeline route would parallel existing utilities, 

Overland Pass’ new permanent ROW would be adjacent to the existing permanent ROWs. As proposed, the 

new pipeline generally would be installed with a 50-foot offset from the nearest existing pipeline centerline. 

Table 2.2-4	 Overland Pass Pipeline Segments of ROW that are Not Co-located with other 
 

Utilities1
 

Begin RP End RP Length (miles) 

0.0 0.6 0.6 

62.0 67.7 5.8 

75.5 103.0 27.5 

107.9 108.4 0.4 

116.6 118.5 1.9 

120.1 137.2 17.1 

145.9 147.1 1.2 

147.7 153.6 5.9 

180.3 181.3 1.0 

194.8 195.8 1.0 

199.7 200.4 0.7 

227.0 228.4 1.5 

243.5 244.8 1.3 

292.4 292.6 0.2 

293.3 293.5 0.1 

306.5 308.8 2.3 

315.5 315.8 0.3 

323.4 324.0 0.6 

337.2 337.6 0.4 

340.5 340.6 0.1 

342.1 342.4 0.3 

362.4 362.6 0.2 

363.2 363.3 0.1 

379.2 379.4 0.2 

380.1 380.4 0.2 

382.8 382.9 0.1 

386.0 386.1 0.1 

388.2 388.5 0.4 

410.2 413.6 3.4 

416.4 416.6 0.2 

430.6 431.1 0.5 

434.9 436.0 1.1 

452.9 454.9 2.0 

455.6 456.1 0.5 

Overland Pass considers its proposed pipeline to be “co-located” with existing ROWs where its proposed construction ROW abuts an 

existing pipeline, utility, or road ROW; or its proposed pipeline route is located generally parallel to a pipeline, utility, or road ROW and 

does not stray from this general alignment. Deviations from existing ROWs are limited to areas where site-specific environmental or 

engineering constraints justify routing away from the existing ROW or where it is necessary to proceed cross-country from one ROW to 

another to maintain the general direction of the pipeline. 

2-13 

2 
Table 2.2-4 Overland Pass Pipeline Segments of ROW that are Not Co-located with other 

Utilities1 

Begin RP End RP Length (miles) 

458.5 464.2 5.7 

475.5 478.0 2.5 

480.1 480.5 0.4 

482.8 483.1 0.3 

487.5 487.8 0.3 

488.5 488.8 0.3 

494.4 494.7 0.3 

498.7 499.1 0.4 

503.1 503.2 0.1 

504.6 504.7 0.0 

509.9 510.3 0.4 

514.4 515.0 0.6 

538.7 538.8 0.1 

542.7 544.3 1.6 

549.5 550.4 0.9 

560.9 562.5 1.6 

564.0 564.1 0.1 

566.4 567.7 1.3 

572.2 572.7 0.5 

575.2 575.4 0.2 

582.3 582.5 0.2 

586.8 587.2 0.4 

588.7 589.0 0.3 

595.3 595.5 0.2 

608.3 609.0 0.7 

610.7 610.8 0.1 

612.4 613.4 1.0 

614.9 615.1 0.2 

615.3 615.4 0.1 

621.4 622.1 0.7 

623.6 624.2 0.6 

635.1 635.4 0.3 

645.2 645.8 0.6 

650.5 650.7 0.2 

656.4 657.0 0.6 

659.7 660.2 0.5 

662.4 662.9 0.5 

668.9 669.7 0.8 

696.6 697.0 0.4 

700.8 701.3 0.5 

703.3 703.6 0.3 

705.5 706.1 0.6 

707.8 709.8 2.0 

715.5 736.1 20.6 

748.5 749.4 0.9 

 New ROW total 130.1 

1

Co-located ROWs are considered to be any ROW (e.g., utility) that is adjacent to the proposed pipeline route. Minor pipeline deviations 

from an adjacent facility to avoid and accommodate feature crossings still are considered to be co-located. 

2-14 
Additional Temporary Workspace Areas 

In addition to the construction ROW, Overland Pass has identified the types of additional TWAs that would be 

required and where these sites would be located. Dimensions and acreages of typical TWAs are identified in 

Table 2.2-5. These additional TWAs would be needed for areas requiring special construction techniques 

(e.g., river, wetland, and road crossings; horizontal directional drill entry and exit points; steep slopes; rocky 

soils) and construction staging areas. Prior to construction, Overland Pass would be required to file a complete 

and updated list of TWAs with the BLM for review and approval prior to use. Additional TWAs on federal land 

would require authorization from the BLM. 

Table 2.2-5 Dimensions and Acreage of Typical Additional Temporary Workspace Areas 

Feature 

Dimensions 1

 (length by width in feet at 

each side of crossing) Acreage 1 

Steep hill or side slopes Length of area x 25, dependent upon hill 

and/or side slope grade 

Varies 

Spread mobilization/demobilization and 

staging 

300 x 300 2.1 

Foreign pipeline crossovers L-shaped Varies 

Foreign pipeline/utility/other buried 

feature2 

150 x 25 0.1 

Stringing truck turnarounds 100 x 150 0.3 

Two-lane roads/single railroad2 200 x 75 0.3 

Four-lane roads/multiple 

railroads/Interstate2 

Length of feature + 50 feet x 50 to 75 Varies 

Open-cut waterbodies <25 feet wide2 200 x 50 + 200 x 100 0.2 + 0.5 

Open-cut waterbodies 25 to 50 feet 

wide2 

200 x 75 + 200 x 125 0.3 

Open-cut waterbodies 50 to 100 feet 

wide2 

250 x 75 + 250 x 125 0.4 

Directionally drilled waterbodies2 300 x 25 to 100 + the length of the drill +0.7 1

Dimensions and acreage are for each workspace; some crossings require workspace on both sides of the feature. 

2

Multiple TWAs could be required at a single feature. Dimensions presented are the minimum required; actual dimensions would
 

depend upon site-specific conditions. 
 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Off-ROW extra workspace areas that would be used during the construction phase of the project include pipe 

storage yards and contractor yards. Pipe storage yards are where pipe would be delivered, inventoried, and 

stored prior to stringing it on the ROW. Contractor yards would be used to stage construction, store materials, 

park equipment, and set up temporary construction offices. Pipe storage and contractor yards range in size, 

depending upon the amount of material proposed to be stored at each location. 

Overland Pass currently intends to use 24 pipe storage and contractor yards during construction (6 yards 

would be shared between two different spreads). Each yard is located on non-federal land. Overland Pass has 

selected, to the extent practical, existing commercial/industrial sites or sites that previously were used for 

construction. Existing public or private roads would be used to access each yard. Where yards would not be 

located on previously used sites, Overland Pass selected sites on the best available terrain to minimize the 

need for grading or filling. Generally, yard preparation would be limited to a small amount of grading and 

leveling, and possibly importing some fill. Both pipe storage yards and contractor yards would be used on a 

temporary basis and would be restored upon completion of construction. Table 2.2-6 lists the locations for 

each pipe storage and contractor yard. 

2-15
 
Table 2.2-6 Proposed Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Associated with the Proposed Action 

Spread and Name1 

Approximate 

Reference 

Point Acres County, State Land Use 

Opal (3) 0 0.9 Lincoln County, Wyoming Developed 

Black's Fork 18 8.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Thayer Junction 84 18.9 Sweetwater County, Wyoming Developed 

Echo Springs 146 4.3 Carbon County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Echo Springs 146 3.0 Carbon County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Rawlins 178 10.8 Carbon County, Wyoming Developed 

Laramie 281 12.5 Albany County, Wyoming Developed 

Laramie 281 6.8 Albany County, Wyoming Developed 

Carr 330 12.4 Weld County, Colorado Rangeland 

Unnamed #1 437.1 1.3 Washington County, Colorado Agricultural 

Otis (2) 438 23.8 Washington County, Colorado Developed 

Unnamed #2 438.9 1.7 Washington, Colorado Agricultural 

Bird City 524 8.2 Cheyenne County, Kansas Agricultural/ 

Developed 

Gem 562 12.2 Thomas County, Kansas Agricultural 

Rexford 566 4.1 Thomas County, Kansas Agricultural 

Hoxie (2) 590 10.0 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Unnamed Hoxie #1 591.3 3.1 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Unnamed Hoxie #2 591.3 3.1 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Hoisington 692 13.0 Barton County, Kansas Developed 

Conway 749.2 2.1 McPherson County, Kansas Agricultural 

1

Maps available in Appendix A. 

Access Roads 

Overland Pass plans to use 582 existing access roads on a temporary basis to transport personnel, 

equipment, vehicles including high clearance vehicles and heavy trucks, and materials to the work areas. 

Approximately 139 access roads would be used in Wyoming, 107 roads would be used in Colorado, and 

336 roads would be used in Kansas. These access roads include federal and state highways, and numerous 

county, BLM, USFS, and private roads. Most paved and many gravel roads may not require improvement or 

maintenance prior to or during construction unless the road base deteriorated or became unsafe or 

impassable. “Improvement” is defined for this project as, “grading, blading, or straightening activities that would 

result in changing the roads’ current condition, prior to use.” 

Overland Pass has indicated that it would need to improve and maintain approximately 95 existing roads in 

order to provide a safe and level transportation surface for construction vehicles (37 in roads in Wyoming, 

11 roads in Colorado, and 47 roads in Kansas). These existing roads consist mostly of dirt roads, such as 

farm, ranch, BLM, or USFS access roads and two-track trails. These roads would probably require some level 

of improvement to support construction equipment, vehicles and ongoing maintenance during the construction 

period, especially when rain occurs and travel over the roads degrades their condition. Road improvements 

such as blading and filling would be restricted to the existing road footprint (i.e., the road may not be widened) 

wherever possible where there is evidence that the road was previously graded. Overland Pass also has 

proposed that where there is no evidence of previous grading or if the road required widening, road 

maintenance only would be allowed after completing biological and cultural resources surveys, and completing 

appropriate consultations with the SHPO and USFWS. In all cases, roads would be used and maintained only 

with permission of the landowner or land management agency. 

As a part of its permanent aboveground facilities, Overland Pass also would construct short, permanent 

access roads from public roads to the proposed pump stations, meter stations, and MLVs. The estimated 

2-16
 
acres of disturbance associated with proposed permanent access roads are included in the Aboveground 

Facilities discussion. Prior to construction, Overland Pass would finalize proposed permanent access roads 

along with any additional temporary access roads and submit them to the BLM for review and approval. At a 

minimum, construction of new access roads would require completion of cultural resources and biological 

surveys, along with the appropriate SHPO and USFWS consultations and approvals. Other state and local 

permits also may be required prior to construction. In the future, maintenance of newly created access roads 

would be the responsibility of Overland Pass, with jurisdiction over the road remaining with the affected land 

management agency or private landowner. Any permanent access roads on federal land would be considered 

an ancillary facility to the ROW and added to any grant or special use permit from the BLM or USFS, 

respectively. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Overland Pass would use a total of approximately 24 acres of land for construction of aboveground facilities, 

including pump stations, meter stations, MLVs, pigging facilities, and permanent access roads. Of these 

24 acres, 10 acres would be retained and used during operation. The remaining acres of land would be 

restored and would revert to its previous use. 

Overland Pass would construct three new electrical pump stations: Echo Springs, Laramie, and in the future, 

WaKeeney (Table 2.2-1). Each station would consist of a pump building, utility building, and parking area for 

station personnel. Stations would operate on locally purchased power for electricity for pumps, lights, and 

heating in the buildings and would be fully automated for unmanned operation. Remote start/stop, set point 

controls, unit monitoring equipment, and station information would be installed at each location. Pipeline 

entering and exiting the pump facilities would be below grade as practicable, but would come above ground 

prior to entering and exiting the pump buildings. 

Overland Pass would install seven meter stations along the proposed pipeline route, including four custody 

transfer meter stations and three system check meter stations. The Opal, Bushton, and Conway Custody 

Transfer meter stations would occur within existing, previously disturbed commercial/industrial areas, while the 

Echo Springs, Laramie, Washington County, and WaKeeney System Check meter stations would each disturb 

new areas (Table 2.2-1). 

Overland Pass would construct 137 MLVs along the proposed route (Table 2.2-1). Valves were located along 

existing access points where possible. Seventeen of the MLVs would be equipped with electric actuators. 

These valve facilities would have the capability to be quickly and remotely closed by the master control 

center’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Fifty-eight of the MLVs would be block 

valves that would be manually operated by Overland Pass to shut down the NGL flow in both directions. 

Sixty-two MLVs would be check valves that are designed to prevent backflow of NGL. Seven valves are 

associated with meter stations. Check valves operate automatically each time the pipeline is shut down or 

when flow stops. Block valves and check valves typically are co-located due to their different methods of 

operation. MLVs would be constructed within the 75-foot construction ROW. The block and check valves 

would be operated within a 25-foot-wide by 25-foot-long site, while remotely activated valves would operate 

within a 100-foot by 25-foot site. In either situation, all MLVs would be located within the permanent 50-footwide ROW. The MLVs would be located based on engineering hydraulic considerations and in accordance 

with current USDOT regulations. 

A total of 11 pigging facilities would be constructed and operated along the pipeline route (Table 2.2-1). Nine 

of these pigging facilities would have both launcher and receiver capabilities, one would have launcher 

capabilities only, and one would have receiver capabilities only. Launchers and receivers would allow the 

pipeline to accommodate a high-resolution internal line inspection tool known as a smart pig. Smart pigs and 

cleaning pigs would periodically move through the pipeline to inspect and clean it. 

The aboveground facilities would be painted a color that would be compatible with the existing character of the 

surrounding landscape based on consultation with the land management agency or landowner. 

2-17
 
2.2.1.3 Construction Processes Common to All Action Alternatives 

This section describes the design, layout, and general sequence of actions required to construct a pipeline 

project. The descriptions in this section would be the same for the Proposed Action and for the Southern 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

Construction Planning 

At a minimum, the proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated in accordance 

with all applicable requirements included in the USDOT regulations in 49 CFR 192, Transportation of Natural 

Gas and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, and other applicable federal and state 

regulations. These regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural 

gas pipeline accidents and failures. Among other design standards, Part 192 specifies pipeline material and 

qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Overland Pass has prepared a draft POD that outlines federal-specific construction procedures, environmental 

requirements, project plans, and mitigation measures that would be implemented by Overland Pass during 

construction of the Proposed Action on federally managed land. This document describes routine construction 

and reclamation procedures in upland areas as well construction methods for crossing wetlands and 

waterbodies. Applicant-proposed mitigation measures also are contained in Overland Pass’ POD. Overland 

Pass has submitted a draft POD that is available for viewing on the BLM website at: www.blm.gov/wy/ 

st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/overland_pipeline.html. Overland Pass will prepare a final POD that includes 

mitigation measures that are described in this EIS. In addition, site-specific stipulations not included in the 

POD but determined to be necessary on federal lands would be included in any ROW grant issued by the 

BLM. The site-specific measures included in the POD would not contradict the mitigation measures of this EIS. 

Included in its draft POD, Overland Pass has prepared several specific plans that include measures to mitigate 

for potential impacts. These plans are intended to serve as overall best management practices (BMPs) for 

construction and operation of the entire project, on both federally managed and non-federally managed lands. 

The mitigation plans include: 

• Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B); 

• Site-specific Waterbody Crossing Plans; 

• Traffic and Transportation Management Plan; 

• Emergency Response Plan; 

• Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; 

• Conservation Measure Plan; 

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; 

• Storm Water Protection Plan; 

• Blasting Plan; 

• Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix C); 

• Horizontal Directional Drilling Inadvertent Release Control Plan; 

• Weed Management Plan (Appendix D); and 

• Winter Construction Plan. 

For example, Overland Pass’ Weed Management Plan includes site-specific measures that would be 

implemented to control noxious weeds and invasive plant species, including the use of cleaned, weed-free 

equipment; the use of high-pressure water to remove seeds and other propagules from equipment prior to 

transport from a site (except during freezing conditions when compressed air and mechanical means would be 

2-18
 
used for cleaning equipment); and the use of certified weed-free straw bales to control erosion. Details of the 

Weed Management Plan including important committed mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.6. 

General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Before starting construction, Overland Pass would finalize engineering surveys of the ROW centerline and 

extra workspaces, and complete land or easement acquisition on private and state land. On federal land, 

Overland Pass would need to obtain a ROW grant from the BLM. Overland pipeline construction generally 

proceeds as a moving assembly line as shown in Figure 2.2-7. Construction of the main pipeline is planned for 

five simultaneous construction areas, called spreads, averaging about 150 miles each (Table 2.2-7). The 

pump stations each would be constructed by separate construction crews. Overland Pass plans to initiate 

construction in the third quarter of 2007, and construction would be completed by the end of the year. This 

schedule is contingent on Overland Pass receiving approvals to construct the pipeline. 

Table 2.2-7 Construction Spreads for the Project 

Spread Name Reference Points State 

Spread 1 0.0 to 147.0 Wyoming 

Spread 2 147.0 to 281.0 Wyoming 

Spread 3 281.0 to 438.0 Wyoming/Colorado 

Spread 4 438.0 to 591.0 Colorado/Kansas 

Spread 5 591.0 to 749.4 Kansas 

Standard pipeline construction is composed of specific activities including survey and staking of the ROW, 

clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing, bending, welding, lowering-in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, 

and cleanup. In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, Overland Pass would use special 

construction techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used 

when constructing across rugged terrain, waterbodies, wetlands, paved roads, highways, and railroads (see 

Special Construction Procedures subsection below). 

Survey and Staking. The first step of construction would involve marking the limits of the approved work area 

(i.e., the construction ROW boundaries, additional temporary workspace areas) and flagging the location of 

approved access roads and foreign utility lines. Wetland boundaries and other environmentally-sensitive areas 

also would be marked or fenced for protection at this time. Before the pipeline trench is excavated, a survey 

crew would stake the centerline of the proposed trench. 

Clearing and Grading. Before clearing and grading activities were conducted, landowner fences would be 

braced and cut, and temporary gates and fences would be installed to contain livestock, if present. A clearing 

crew would follow the fence crew and would clear the work area of vegetation and obstacles (e.g., trees, logs, 

brush, rocks). Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences or straw bales would be installed prior 

to vegetation removal along wetlands and riparian areas. Grading would be conducted where necessary to 

provide a reasonably level work surface. Where the ground is relatively flat and does not require grading, 

rootstock would be left in the ground. More extensive grading would be required in steep side-slopes or vertical 

areas and where necessary to prevent excessive bending of the pipeline. Temporary erosion controls (e.g., silt 

fencing or straw bales) would be installed prior to vegetation removal adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas. 

Trenching. The trench would be excavated to a depth that provides sufficient cover over the pipeline after 

backfilling. Typically, the trench will be about 4.5 to 5 feet deep (to allow for about 3 feet of cover) and about 

3.5 to 4 feet wide in stable soils. Additional cover would be provided at road and waterbody crossings. Less 

cover is required in rocky areas (18 inches) in open areas; additional cover (30 inches) would be required in 

rocky areas in commercial and residential areas, roads, and residential ditches. In sandy, unstable soils, the 

trench could be considerably wider because the walls could cave or slough during trenching. 

2-19
 

When rock or rocky formations were encountered, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers or rock trenchers would 

be used for fracturing the rock prior to excavation. In areas where mechanical equipment could not break up or 

loosen the bedrock, blasting would be required (see Blasting subsection below). Excavated rock would be 

used to backfill the trench to the top of the existing bedrock profile. 

Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, topsoil generally would be separated from subsoil only over the 

trench itself. Separated topsoil would be stored on the working side of the trench and in a pile separate from 

subsoil (which would be stored on the spoil side of the trench) to allow for proper restoration of the soil during 

the backfilling process (Figure 2.2-5). In areas where the ROW would be graded to provide a level working 

surface and where there was a need to separate topsoil from subsoil, the ROW would be graded to collect 

topsoil before any subsoil was disturbed. Again, topsoil would be piled such that the mixing of subsoil and 

topsoil would not occur. Gaps would be left between the spoil piles to prevent storm water runoff from backing 

up or flooding. Topsoil would be returned to its original horizon after subsoil was backfilled in the trench. 

In areas where rangeland is used for grazing and livestock could not be temporarily relocated by the 

landowner, construction activities could potentially hinder the movement of livestock across those allotments. 

Wildlife accustomed to freely moving through the area in search of food and water also could be hindered by 

construction activities. To minimize impact on livestock and wildlife movements during construction, Overland 

Pass would install trench plugs (areas where the trench is excavated and replaced with minimal compaction) 

to allow livestock and wildlife to safely cross the open trench. Trench plugs would be constructed with a ramp 

on each side to enable animals that fall into the trench an avenue of escape. To allow for safe passage, trench 

plugs would be constructed at 0.5-mile intervals and where the trench is intersected by visible livestock or 

wildlife trails or as directed by the Environmental Inspectors (EI). 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding. Prior to or following trenching, sections of externally coated pipe up 

to 80 feet long (also referred to as “joints”) would be transported by truck over public road networks and along 

authorized private access roads to the ROW and placed or “strung” along the trench in a continuous line. 

After the pipe sections were strung along the trench and before joints were welded together, individual 

sections of the pipe would be bent where necessary to allow for uniform fit of the pipeline with the varying 

contours of the bottom of the trench. A track-mounted, hydraulic pipe-bending machine would shape the pipe 

to conform to the contours of the terrain. Where multiple or complex bends were required in a section of pipe, 

that section of the pipeline would be bent at the factory. 

After the pipe sections were bent, the joints would be welded together into long strings and placed on 

temporary supports. The pipeline joints would be lined up and held in position until securely joined by welding. 

Welds would be inspected by quality control personnel and non-destructive examination to determine the 

quality of the weld. Federal regulations require nondestructive testing of all welds in areas such as inside 

railroad or public road ROWs and in certain other areas. Overland Pass has agreed to nondestructively test 

100 percent of the girth welds using radio graphic examination or other USDOT-approved method prior to 

hydrostatic testing. Radiographic examination is one example of a nondestructive method of inspecting the 

inner structure of welds and determining the presence of defects. Welds that do not meet established 

specifications would be repaired or removed. Once the welds were approved, a protective epoxy coating 

would be applied to the welded joints. The pipeline would then be electronically inspected or “jeeped” for faults 

or voids in the epoxy coating, and visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. 

Damage to the coating would be repaired before the pipeline was lowered into the trench. 

Twenty-foot-wide gaps in the strung pipe string and topsoil piles would be left at least every 0.5 mile and at 

major game crossing trails or livestock watering trails that intersect the trench line. A corresponding soft plug 

that would be at least 5 feet wide would be installed to allow passage to livestock and wildlife. Prior to 

lowering-in of the pipe into the trench, multiple sections of pipeline may be welded together above the ditch to 

create welded lengths of pipe. These sections of pipeline would be lowered into the ditch after they were 

joined. 

2-21
 
Lowering-in and Backfilling. Before the pipeline is lowered in, the trench would be inspected to be sure it is 

free of livestock or wildlife, as well as rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or protective coating. 

In areas where water accumulated, dewatering could be necessary to inspect the bottom of the trench. The 

pipeline then would be lowered into the trench. On sloped terrain, trench breakers (stacked sand bags or 

foam) would be installed in the trench at specified intervals to prevent subsurface water movement along the 

pipeline. The trench would then be backfilled using the excavated material. In rocky areas, the pipeline would 

be protected with a rock shield (fabric or screen that is wrapped around the pipe to protect the pipe and its 

coating from damage by rocks, stones, and roots). Alternatively, the trench bottom would be filled with padding 

material (e.g., finer grain sand, soil, or gravel) to protect the pipeline. No topsoil would be used as padding 

material. 

Overland Pass estimates that reasonable construction progress will leave 10 to 12 miles of trench open at a 

time. Overland Pass does not propose to limit the length of trench open at any one time due to practical 

concerns regarding the rate of construction, estimated to move at a rate of approximately 2 miles per day. 

Hydrostatic Testing. The pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in 40 sections to ensure the system was 

capable of withstanding the operating pressure for which it was designed. This process involves isolating the 

pipe segment with test manifolds, filling the line with water, pressurizing the section to a pressure 

commensurate with the MOP and class location, and then maintaining that pressure for a period of 8 hours. 

The hydrostatic test would be conducted in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 192. Overland Pass proposes 

to obtain water for hydrostatic testing from a combination of groundwater and surface water sources through 

specific agreements with landowners and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The pipeline 

would be hydrostatically tested after backfilling and all construction work that would directly affect the pipe has 

been completed. If leaks are found, they would be repaired and the section of pipe retested until specifications 

were met. Water used for the testing would then be transferred to another pipe section for subsequent 

hydrostatic testing or the water would be tested to ensure compliance with the NPDES discharge permit 

requirements, treated if necessary, and discharged. Hydrostatic testing is discussed further in Section 4.5. 

Final Tie-in. Following successful hydrostatic testing, test manifolds would be removed and the final pipeline 

tie-ins would be made and inspected. 

Commissioning. After final tie-ins are complete and inspected, the pipeline would be cleaned and dried using 

mechanical tools (pigs) that are moved through the pipeline with pressurized, dry air. The pipeline would be 

dried to minimize the potential for internal corrosion. Once the pipe has dried sufficiently, pipeline 

commissioning would commence. Commissioning involves activities to verify that equipment has been 

properly installed and is working, the controls and communications systems are functional, and that the 

pipeline is ready for service. In the final step, the pipeline is prepared for service by purging the line of air and 

loading the line with natural gas liquids. 

Cleanup and Restoration. During cleanup, construction debris on the ROW would be disposed of and work 

areas would be final graded. Preconstruction contours would be restored. Segregated topsoil would be spread 

over the surface of the ROW and permanent erosion controls would be installed. After backfilling, final cleanup 

would begin as soon as weather and site conditions permit. Every reasonable effort would be made to 

complete final cleanup (including final grading and installation of erosion control devices) within 20 days after 

backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas). Construction debris would be cleaned up and taken to a 

state-approved disposal facility. 

After permanent erosion control devices are installed and final grading has occurred, all disturbed work areas 

would be seeded as soon as possible. Seeding is intended to stabilize the soil, revegetate areas disturbed by 

construction, and, depending upon land use, restore native flora. Timing of the reseeding efforts would depend 

upon weather and soil conditions and would be subject to the prescribed dates and seed mixes specified by 

the landowner, land-managing agency, or NRCS recommendations. 

Pipeline markers would be installed at fence, road, and railroad crossings and other locations (as required by 

49 CFR 192) to show the location of the pipeline. Markers would identify the owner of the pipeline and convey 

2-22
 
emergency information. Special markers providing information and guidance to aerial patrol pilots also would 

be installed. 

Special Construction Procedures 

In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, Overland Pass would use special construction 

techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used when 

constructing across paved roads, highways, railroads, steep terrain, waterbodies, wetlands, and when blasting 

through rock. These are described below. 

Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings. Construction across paved roads, highways, and railroads would 

be in accordance with the requirements of Overland Pass’ road and railroad crossing permits and approvals 

obtained by Overland Pass. In general, major paved roads, highways, and railroads would be crossed by 

boring beneath the road or railroad. Boring requires the excavation of a pit on each side of the feature, the 

placement of boring equipment in the pit, then boring a hole under the road at least equal to the diameter of 

the pipe. Once the hole was bored, a prefabricated pipe section would be pushed through the borehole. For 

long crossings, sections could be welded onto the pipe string just before being pushed through the borehole. 

Boring would result in minimal or no disruption to traffic at road, highway, or railroad crossings. Each boring 

would be expected to take 2 to 10 days. 

Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be crossed using the open-cut method where permitted by 

local authorities or private owners. The open-cut method would require temporary closure of the road to traffic 

and establishment of detours. If no reasonable detour is feasible, at least one lane of traffic would be kept 

open, except during brief periods when it is essential to close the road to install the pipeline. Most open-cut 

road crossings would be completed and the road resurfaced within a few days. Overland Pass would take 

measures, such as posting signs at open-cut road crossings, to ensure safety and minimize traffic disruptions. 

Steep Terrain. Additional grading may be required in areas where the proposed pipeline route would cross 

steep slopes. Steep slopes often need to be graded down to a gentler slope to accommodate pipe-bending 

limitations. In such areas, the slopes would be cut away, and, after the pipeline is installed, reconstructed to 

their original contours during restoration. 

In areas where the proposed pipeline route crosses laterally along the side of a slope, cut and fill grading may 

be required to obtain a safe, flat work terrace. Topsoil would be stripped from the entire ROW and stockpiled 

prior to cut and fill grading on steep terrain. Generally, on steep side-slopes, soil from the high side of the 

ROW would be excavated and moved to the low side of the ROW to create a safe and level work terrace. After 

the pipeline is installed, the soil from the low side of the ROW would be returned to the high side, and the 

slope’s original contours would be restored. Topsoil from the stockpile would be spread over the surface, 

erosion control features installed, and seeding implemented. 

In steep terrain, temporary sediment barriers such as silt fence and certified weed-free straw bales would be 

installed during clearing to prevent the movement of disturbed soil off the ROW. Temporary slope breakers 

consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the ROW during grading, and permanent 

slope breakers would be installed during cleanup. Following construction, seed would be applied to steep 

slopes, and the ROW would be mulched with certified weed-free straw or covered with erosion-control fabric. 

Fabric would be installed on all slopes leading to waterbodies, immediately after the bank was recontoured. 

Overland Pass would use mulching materials approved by the BLM or the USFS, as appropriate on the portion 

of the route that is under their jurisdictions. Sediment barriers would be maintained across the ROW until 

permanent vegetation is established. 

Waterbody Crossings. Perennial waterbodies would be crossed using one of four techniques: the open-cut 

method (Overland Pass’ preferred method), horizontal directional drill (HDD) method, flume method, or 

dam-and-pump method as described below. 

2-23
 
If a waterbody was flowing at the time of construction, Overland Pass’ preferred crossing method would be to 

use an open-cut. The open-cut method involves trenching through the waterbody while water continues to flow 

through the construction work area. Pipe segments for the crossing would be fabricated adjacent to the 

waterbody. Backhoes generally operating from one or both banks would excavate the trench within the 

streambed. In wider rivers, in-stream operation of equipment may be necessary. Trench plugs (stacked, 

compacted sand bags) would be placed to prevent the flow of water into the upland portions of the trench. 

Trench spoil excavated from the streambed generally would be placed at least 10 feet away from the water’s 

edge. Sediment barriers would be installed where necessary to control sediment and to prevent excavated 

spoil from entering the water. After the trench is dug, the prefabricated pipeline segment would be carried, 

pushed, or pulled across the waterbody and positioned in the trench. The trench would then be backfilled with 

native material or with imported material if required by applicable permits. Following backfilling, the banks 

would be restored and stabilized. 

If requested by agencies for specific river crossings, Overland Pass may be required to use the HDD method 

of construction to reduce overall environmental impacts at these crossings. The HDD method involves drilling 

a pilot hole under the waterbody and banks, then enlarging the hole through successive reamings until the 

hole is large enough to accommodate a prefabricated segment of pipe. Throughout the process of drilling and 

enlarging the hole, a slurry made of non-toxic fluids, such as naturally occurring bentonite and water, would be 

circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the hole open. This 

slurry is referred to as drilling mud. Pipe sections long enough to span the entire crossing would be staged and 

welded along the construction work area on the opposite side of the waterbody and then pulled through the 

drilled hole. Ideally, use of the HDD method results in no impact on the banks, bed, or water quality of the 

waterbody being crossed. Figure 2.2-8 shows a conceptual HDD waterbody crossing. 

Flume and dam-and-pump methods also could be considered as alternative crossing methods. The flume 

crossing method involves diverting the flow of water across the trenching area through one or more flume 

pipes placed in the waterbody. The dam-and-pump method is similar to the flume method except that pumps 

and hoses would be used instead of flumes to move water around the construction work area. In both 

methods, trenching, pipe installation, and backfilling are done with the streambed in a relatively dry condition 

while water flow is maintained for all but a short reach of the waterbody at the actual crossing. Once backfilling 

is completed, the flume or pump hoses are removed and the streambanks restored and stabilized. 

The project also would cross intermittent waterbodies. Many of these intermittent waterbodies are dry washes. 

If these intermittent waterbodies are dry at the time of crossing, Overland Pass proposes to use conventional 

upland cross-country construction techniques. If an intermittent waterbody is flowing when crossed, Overland 

Pass may install the pipeline using one of the waterbody crossing methods discussed above or wait until water 

is not flowing. At ditches lined with concrete and aqueducts made out of pipe, Overland Pass would use the 

bore crossing method described above. When crossing waterbodies, Overland Pass would adhere to the 

guidelines outlined in Overland Pass’ POD and the requirements of its waterbody crossing permits. For major 

waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide measured from bank-to-bank) and sensitive waterbodies, Overland 

Pass would prepare site-specific crossing plans (Overland Pass 2006). 

Additional TWAs would be required on both sides of all waterbodies to stage construction, fabricate the 

pipeline, and store materials. On federal lands, these workspaces would be located at least 50 feet away from 

the water’s edge. Before construction, temporary bridges (e.g., clean rock fill over culverts, timber mats 

supported by flumes, railcar flatbeds, flexi-float apparatus) would be installed across all perennial waterbodies 

to allow construction equipment to cross. Construction equipment would be required to use the bridges, except 

the clearing crew who would be allowed one pass through the waterbodies before the bridges were installed. 

Clearing adjacent to waterbodies would involve the removal of vegetation from the construction ROW and 

additional TWAs. If no herbaceous strip existed, sediment barriers would be installed at the top of the 

streambank. Initial grading of the herbaceous strip would be limited to the extent needed to create a safe 

approach to the waterbody and to install bridges. 

2-24
 
Overland Pass

Pipeline Project

Figure 2.2-8

Conceptual Horizontal

Directionally

Drilled Waterbody

Waterbody

Conceptual 

Pipe Profile

Entry

Point

Required Depth

Exit 

Point

PROFILE

2-25
During clearing, sediment barriers would be installed and maintained across the ROW adjacent to waterbodies 

and within additional temporary workspace areas to minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Silt fence 

and/or certified weed-free straw bales located across the working side of the ROW would be removed during 

the day when vehicle traffic is present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms could 

be installed and maintained across the ROW in lieu of silt fence and/or straw bales. 

In general, equipment refueling and lubricating at waterbodies would take place in upland areas that are 

500 feet or more from the edges of the water on federal lands. When circumstances dictate that equipment 

refueling and lubricating would be necessary in or near waterbodies, Overland Pass would follow its SPCC 

Plan to address the handling of fuel and other hazardous materials. 

After the pipeline is installed beneath the waterbody using one of the methods described above, restoration 

would begin. Waterbody banks would be restored to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of repose. 

Erosion-control fabrics would be installed immediately after the bank is recontoured. Rock riprap or gabion 

baskets (rock enclosed in wire bins) would be installed as necessary on steep waterbody banks in accordance 

with permit requirements. Waterbody banks temporarily would be stabilized within 24 hours of completing 

in-stream construction. Sediment barriers, such as silt fence and/or certified weed-free straw bales or drivable 

berms would be maintained across the ROW at all waterbody approaches until permanent vegetation was 

established. Temporary equipment bridges would be removed following construction. 

Wetland Crossings. Pipeline construction across wetlands would be similar to typical conventional upland 

cross-country construction procedures, with several modifications and limitations to reduce the potential for 

pipeline construction to affect wetland hydrology and soil structure. To minimize impacts to the environment, 

Overland Pass would cross wetlands using the procedures outlined in Overland Pass’ POD. To precisely 

identify the wetlands that would be affected by the proposed project, Overland Pass conducted field 

delineation of wetlands. Prior to construction, Overland Pass would provide final wetland delineation reports to 

the USACE. 

Overland Pass proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction ROW through wetlands. Additional TWAs would 

be required on both sides of wetlands to stage construction, fabricate the pipeline, and store materials. These 

additional TWAs would be located in upland areas a minimum of 50 feet from the wetland edge on federal 

lands, and a minimum of 10 feet on private land. 

Construction equipment working in wetlands would be limited to that essential for ROW clearing, excavating 

the trench, fabricating and installing the pipeline, backfilling the trench, and restoring the ROW. In areas where 

there is no reasonable access to the ROW except through wetlands, non-essential equipment would be 

allowed to travel through wetlands only if the ground was firm enough or had been stabilized to avoid rutting. 

Otherwise, non-essential equipment would be allowed to travel through wetlands only once. 

Clearing of vegetation in wetlands would be limited to trees and shrubs, which would be cut flush with the 

surface of the ground and removed from the wetland. To avoid excessive disruption of wetland soils and the 

native seed and rootstock within the wetland soils, stump removal, grading, topsoil segregation, and 

excavation would be limited to the area immediately over the trenchline. A limited amount of stump removal 

and grading could be conducted in other areas if dictated by safety-related concerns. 

During clearing, sediment barriers, such as silt fence and certified weed-free staked straw bales, would be 

installed and maintained adjacent to wetlands and within additional TWAs as necessary to minimize the 

potential for sediment runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the full width of the construction 

ROW at the base of slopes adjacent to wetland boundaries. Silt fence and/or certified weed-free straw bales 

installed across the working side of the ROW would be removed during the day when vehicle traffic was 

present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms could be installed and maintained 

across the ROW in lieu of silt fence or certified weed-free straw bales. Sediment barriers also would be 

installed within wetlands along the edge of the ROW, where necessary, to minimize the potential for sediment 

to run off the construction ROW and into wetland areas outside the work area. 

2-26
 
The method of pipeline construction used in wetlands would depend largely on the stability of the soils at the 

time of construction. If wetland soils are not excessively saturated at the time of construction and can support 

construction equipment on equipment mats, timber riprap, or straw mats, construction would occur in a 

manner similar to conventional upland cross-country construction techniques. In unsaturated wetlands, topsoil 

from the trenchline would be stripped and stored separately from subsoil. Topsoil segregation generally would 

not be possible in saturated soils. 

Where wetland soils were saturated and/or inundated, the pipeline could be installed using the push-pull 

technique. The push-pull technique would involve stringing and welding the pipeline outside of the wetland and 

excavating and backfilling the trench using a backhoe supported by equipment mats or timber riprap. The 

prefabricated pipeline would be installed in the wetland by equipping it with buoys and pushing or pulling it 

across the water-filled trench. After the pipeline is floated into place, the floats would be removed and the 

pipeline would sink into place. Most pipe installed in saturated wetlands would be coated with concrete or 

equipped with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. 

Because little or no grading would occur in wetlands, restoration of contours would be accomplished during 

backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary to prevent the subsurface 

drainage of water from wetlands. Where topsoil has been segregated from subsoil, the subsoil would be 

backfilled first, followed by the topsoil. Topsoil would be replaced to the original ground level leaving no crown 

over the trenchline. In some areas where wetlands overlie rocky soils, the pipe would be padded with rock-free 

soil or sand before backfilling with native bedrock and soil. Equipment mats, timber riprap, gravel fill, geotextile 

fabric, and/or certified weed-free straw mats would be removed from wetlands following backfilling. 

Where wetlands are located at the base of slopes, permanent slope breakers would be constructed across the 

ROW in upland areas adjacent to the wetland boundary. Temporary sediment barriers would be installed 

where necessary until revegetation of adjacent upland areas was successful. Once revegetation is successful, 

sediment barriers would be removed from the ROW and disposed of properly. 

In wetlands where no standing water is present, the construction ROW would be seeded in accordance with 

the recommendations of the local soil conservation authorities or land management agency. Lime, mulch, and 

fertilizer would not be used in wetlands. 

Blasting. Overland Pass has stated that blasting might be required in areas where competent shallow bedrock 

or boulders were encountered that could not be removed by conventional excavation methods. If blasting were 

required to clear the ROW and to fracture the ditch, strict safety precautions would be followed. Overland Pass 

would exercise extreme care to avoid damage to underground structures, cables, conduits, pipelines, and 

underground watercourses or springs. To protect property or livestock, Overland Pass would provide adequate 

notice to adjacent landowners or tenants in advance of blasting. Blasting activity would be performed during 

daylight hours and in compliance with federal, state, and local codes and ordinances and manufacturers’ 

prescribed safety procedures and industry practices. Overland Pass currently is developing a Blasting Plan for 

inclusion in the POD. 

Residential Construction. Based on aerial alignment sheets, no residences would be located within 50 feet 

of the Proposed Action area. Additionally, no commercial buildings were identified within 50 feet of the 

proposed construction work area. Should reroutes be required that would place the pipeline within 50 feet of 

an occupied home or building, Overland Pass would develop site-specific construction plans to mitigate the 

impacts of construction on residential and commercial structures located within 50 feet of the proposed project 

area. 

Fences and Grazing. Fences would be crossed or paralleled by the construction ROW. Overland Pass would 

contact grazing lessees prior to crossing any fence on public lands or any fence between public and private 

land, and would offer the lessee the opportunity to be present when the fence is cut so that the lessees can be 

satisfied that the fence is adequately braced and secured. The grazing permitees would be contacted prior to 

the start of construction and reclamation on their allotments. Before cutting the wires for pipeline construction, 

2-27
 
each fence crossed by the ROW would be braced and secured to prevent the slacking of the wire. To prevent 

the passage of livestock, the opening in the fenceline would be temporarily closed when construction crews left 

the area. If gaps in natural barriers used for livestock control were created by the pipeline construction, the 

gaps would be fenced according to the landowners or land management agency requirements. 

All existing improvements, such as fences, gates, irrigation ditches, cattle guards, and reservoirs would be 

maintained during construction and repaired to pre-construction conditions or better. If pipelines transporting 

water for livestock and wildlife were damaged by construction activities, Overland Pass would repair the 

pipelines to the landowner or land management agency specifications. If needed, Overland Pass has 

committed to providing an emergency source of agricultural-use water. 

Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures 

Construction activities at each of the three pump stations would follow a standard sequence of activities: 

clearing and grading, installing foundations for the pump and control buildings, and erecting the structures to 

house the pumps and associated facilities. A MLV would be required at each station. In addition, a pipeline pig 

launcher and/or pig receiver facility would be installed at each of the pump stations. Construction activities and 

the storage of building materials would be confined to the pump station construction sites. 

The sites for the pump stations would be cleared of vegetation and graded as necessary to create a level 

surface for the movement of construction vehicles and to prepare the area for the building foundations. 

Foundations would be constructed for the buildings, and soil would be stripped from the area of the building 

foundations. 

Each pump station would include two buildings: one utility building and one pump building. The utility building 

would include control equipment to filter, measure, and regulate fuel gas. The pump building at each station 

would house the pumps. The natural gas piping, both aboveground and belowground, would be installed and 

pressure-tested using methods similar to those used for the main pipeline. After testing is successfully 

completed, the piping would be tied in to the main pipeline. Piping installed below grade would be coated for 

corrosion protection prior to backfilling. In addition, all below-grade facilities would be protected by a cathodic 

protection system. Before being put into service, pumps, controls, and safety devices would be checked and 

tested to ensure proper system operation and activation of safety mechanisms. 

Electrical power would be required at each of the major aboveground facilities (pump stations and meter 

stations) and at each of the remotely operated valves. Currently, Overland Pass anticipates that a 4,160-volt 

(V) powerline would be extended from a nearby high voltage transmission powerline into the Echo Springs 

Pump Station and Meter Station site, within the proposed ROW. Additionally, a 480-V powerline would be 

extended from a nearby high voltage transmission powerline into the proposed Opal Meter Station site, within 

the proposed pipeline ROW. The remaining pump stations and meter stations would be located at sites in 

close proximity to high voltage transmission powerlines to operate the proposed facilities. The details of the 

powerlines that would be extended currently are being determined and will be provided at a later date. 

Table 2.2-8 summarizes electrical power and distribution lines requirements. 

After the completion of startup and testing, the pump station sites would be graded and landscaped. A 

permanent security fence would be installed around each pump station site. Because each of the pump station 

sites would be located in remote, undeveloped areas and/or adjacent to existing commercial/industrial 

facilities, the station buildings would be designed to be as consistent as possible with the character of the 

surrounding land uses. The pump stations would be painted a color to enable the structures to blend into the 

surrounding landscape, native vegetation would be used for landscaping, and the minimum lighting necessary 

for safe operation of the facilities would be installed. Overland Pass proposes to construct the stations in 2007; 

any landscaping would occur in the spring or early summer of 2008. 

2-28
 
Table 2.2-8 Summary of Electrical Power Supply Requirements for Valves, Pump Stations, and 

Meter Stations 

Facility 

Reference 

Point Utility Company 

Length of 

Connection 

Line 

Voltage 

Opal Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

0.0 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Opal Plant power to be run 

underground 

<0.25 mile 480 V 

Remote Valve and 

Sweetwater Pigging 

Facility 

72.1 Pacific Power and Light (Rocky 

Mountain Power) 

100 feet 12,240 V 

Echo Springs Pump 

Station and Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

146.5 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Echo Springs Plant 

<0.25 mile 34.5 

kilovolt (kV) 

Remote Valve 207.0 Carbon Power and Light 2.9 miles 13.2 kV 

Laramie Pump Station 

and Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

271.7 Laramie Pump Station, power to be 

provided by Carbon Power and Light 

as part of the entire station 

2.4 miles 34.5 kV 

Remote Valve 307.4 High West Energy 0.2 mile 12,470 V 

Remote Valve 323.0 Poudre Valley REA Powerline crosses 

valve site 

15 kV 

Remote Valve 342.7 High West Energy <1 mile (within 

0.5) 

12,470 V 

Remote Valve 389.8 Xcel Energy 1 to 1.5 miles 13.2 kV 

Washington County 

Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

447.8 YW Electric 1 to 1.5 miles 12,470 V 

Remote Valve 507.9 Prairieland Electric 1 to 1.5 miles 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve and 

Thomas Pigging Facility 

552.9 Midwest Energy <0.5 mile (within 

0.25) 

13.2 kV 

WaKeeney Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

606.0 Western COOP 0.5 mile 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve and Ellis 

Pigging Facility 

654.7 Western COOP <0.5 mile (within 

0.25) 

13.2 kV 

Bushton Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

717.5 Power to be provided by ONEOK at 

the Bushton Plant 

<0.25 mile 480 V 

Remote Valve 736.2 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Mitchell Plant 

0.1 mile 480 V 

Conway Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

749.4 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Conway Plant 

0.1 mile 480 V 

Construction activities would include clearing, grading, trenching, installing piping, erecting buildings, fencing 

the facilities, cleanup, and restoration. The meter stations would operate on locally provided power. 

Mainline valve construction would be concurrent with the construction of the pipeline with valves installed at 

spacings as required by the USDOT (49 CFR 192). Where practical, mainline valves typically would be located 

near public roads to allow year-round access. Permanent access roads or approaches may be constructed 

within the permanent ROW to some mainline valve sites. 

2-29 
The construction of pig launchers and receivers would be concurrent with the construction of the meter 

stations and mainline valves. Activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, and clean-up and restoration 

would occur simultaneously with construction activities associated with the pipeline and pump stations. 

Corrosion Protection 

An external coating would be applied to the pipeline and all buried facilities to protect against corrosion. 

Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current. 

Construction Workforce and Schedule 

Overland Pass proposes to begin construction in July 2007; construction would last 6 months. Overland Pass 

proposes to complete construction and begin service by the fourth quarter of 2007. Overland Pass anticipates 

a peak workforce of approximately 600 construction personnel. Construction personnel would consist of 

Overland Pass employees, contractor employees, construction inspection staff, and environmental inspection 

staff. Overland Pass is planning to build the pipeline in five spreads, with construction activity occurring 

simultaneously in each spread. Overland Pass anticipates 50 to 75 construction and inspection personnel 

associated with each spread, plus an additional 20 persons for activities such as pipe unloading. The 

construction of the aboveground facilities would require an additional 50 to 75 workers. During construction, 

personnel would work during daylight hours, 6 to 7 days per week depending on schedule constraints. 

Table 2.2-9 outlines Overland Pass’ proposed construction schedule and workforce requirements by spread 

for the proposed project. 

Table 2.2-9 Pipeline Construction Workforce and Proposed Schedule 

Associated Aboveground Begin End Estimated 

Spread Facilities (RP) RP RP Workforce County and State 

1 Echo Springs Pump Station 0.0 147.0 75 to 150 Lincoln, Sweetwater and Carbon 

(147.5) counties, Wyoming 

Opal and Echo Springs Meter 

Stations (0.0 and 146.5) 

2 Laramie Pump Station (271.7) 147.0 281.0 75 to 150 Sweetwater, Carbon and Albany 

Laramie Meter Station (271.7) counties, Wyoming 

3 No pump or meter stations 281.0 438.0 50 to 100 Albany and Laramie counties, 

Wyoming; Weld, Morgan, Logan, 

and Washington counties, Colorado 

4 Washington County Meter 

Station (RP 447.8) 

438.0 591.0 50 to 100 Washington and Yuma counties, 

Colorado; Cheyenne, Rawlins, 

Thomas, and Sheridan counties, 

Kansas 

5 WaKeeney Meter Station 

(606.0) 

591.0 749.4 75 to 150 Sheridan, Graham, Gove, Trego, 

Ellis, Russell, Barton, Ellsworth, 

Bushton and Conway Meter Rice, and McPherson counties, 

Stations (717.5 and 749.4) Kansas 

Overland Pass, through its construction contractors and subcontractors, would attempt to hire temporary 

construction staff from the local population, if the local population offers skilled workers in fields related to 

pipeline construction. At peak workforce, Overland Pass anticipates that up to about 20 percent of the total 

construction workforce could be hired locally (currently residing in Kansas, Colorado, or Wyoming). The 

remaining portion of the workforce (80 percent or more) would include non-local personnel. Based on the 

specialized nature of the position, environmental inspection staff most likely would consist entirely of non-local 

employees. 

2-30
 
Overland Pass estimates that 5 to 20 permanent employees would be required to oversee the operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline, including the pumping stations. These employees most likely would be non-local, 

as they would have specialized responsibilities or have current employment with Overland Pass. No additional 

personnel would be hired to operate and maintain the pumping stations as these facilities would be 

constructed to operate automatically. Any specific operation and maintenance task which could not be 

completed by the existing staff would be completed on a contractual and as-need basis. 

Only work vehicles would be allowed on the construction ROW or additional temporary workspace areas 

during construction. Equipment operators would drive a company-owned or personal pick-up truck to the 

construction site. Parking would be limited to the construction ROW, additional temporary workspace areas, or 

along existing authorized access roads. Adjacent ROWs would not be used for parking. Construction workers 

would not be permitted to travel cross-country during construction of the project. 

Environmental Inspection, Compliance Monitoring, and Post-approval Variances 

Environmental Inspection. The environmental inspection and compliance monitoring programs for the 

project would address requirements placed on the project by the federal and other agencies. 

Overland Pass proposes to assign EIs to each construction spread. The EIs would likely be hired from a 

qualified third-party contractor. The responsibilities of the EIs are outlined in Overland Pass’ POD and would 

include ensuring that the ROW Grant and environmental conditions attached to other permits and 

authorizations are met. During the construction phase, Overland Pass’ EIs would inspect all construction and 

mitigation activities to ensure compliance with the requirements of environmental plans, permits, and 

conditions. EIs also may oversee cultural resource monitors and/or biological monitors that may be required to 

monitor and evaluate construction impacts on resources as specified in this EIS. 

Inspectors from the BLM and USFS, as appropriate, also would conduct field inspections during construction. 

Other federal and state agencies also may conduct oversight of inspection to the extent determined necessary 

by the individual agency. 

After construction is completed, the BLM and USFS, as appropriate, would continue to conduct oversight 

inspection and monitoring. If it is determined that any of the proposed monitoring timeframes are not adequate 

to assess the success of restoration, Overland Pass would be required to extend its post-construction 

monitoring programs. The BLM would retain Overland Pass’ bond or other security until the BLM is satisfied 

with Overland Pass’ reclamation efforts. 

Compliance Monitoring. In addition to the EI program, Overland Pass would provide funding to implement a 

third-party compliance monitoring program during construction of the project. The compliance monitoring 

program would be implemented under the direction of the BLM and USFS. 

The overall objective of the compliance monitoring program is to monitor and document Overland Pass’ 

compliance and/or noncompliance with environmental requirements during construction of the Project. The 

environmental requirements to be monitored would be limited to those requirements and conditions that are 

either located on federal land (BLM and NFS) or those conditions that result from a federal permit requirement 

including: 

•	 The environmental mitigation measures that were proposed by Overland Pass throughout the 

permitting phase of the project; 

•	 The Overland Pass POD, which would be appended to the BLM ROW Grant; 

•	 The conditions contained in the BLM ROD and the BLM ROW Grant and Temporary Use Permits; 

•	 The USFWS BO concerning listed endangered or threatened federal species or their habitat; 

•	 The approved treatment plan(s) and MOA for the treatment and protection of cultural resources; 

and 

2-31
 
•	 Additional stipulations included in permits from other authorizing federal agencies. 

During construction, full-time Compliance Monitors would conduct daily ongoing inspections of construction 

activities and mitigation measures and provide regular feedback on compliance issues to the BLM, Overland 

Pass, and Overland Pass’ EI team. Construction progress and environmental compliance would be tracked 

and documented by the preparation and submittal of daily and weekly reports. The Compliance Monitors 

would report directly to a Compliance Manager. The Compliance Manager would report directly to the 

designated BLM Project Manager and USFS Project Manager. 

Other objectives of the compliance monitoring program are to: 

•	 Facilitate the timely resolution of compliance-related issues in the field; 

•	 Provide continuous information to the BLM and USFS regarding noncompliance issues and their 

resolution; and 

•	 Review, process, and track construction-related variance requests in a timely manner. 

Compliance Monitors would assist with implementation of the variance process in accordance with a 

predetermined level of decision-making authority granted by the BLM and USFS. 

Post-approval Variance Process. Surface disturbance locations and acreages identified in this EIS are 

anticipated to be sufficient for the construction and operation (including maintenance) of the project and all 

ancillary improvements. However, route realignments and other project refinements often continue past the 

project review phase and into the construction phase. As a result, work area locations and disturbed acreages 

documented in the EIS often change after project approval. These changes frequently involve minor route 

realignments or moving approved temporary workspace, adding new temporary workspace, and adding 

access routes to work areas and associated temporary use areas. This section describes the procedure used 

for assessing impact on workspace areas outside those specifically listed in this EIS and for approving their 

use. 

Subsequent to project approval, when work areas outside those evaluated in this EIS are found to be needed, 

additional inventory and evaluation would be performed to ensure that the impact on biological, cultural, and 

other resources would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. New workspace location 

and survey results would be documented and forwarded to the BLM and USFS, as applicable, in the form of a 

“variance request;” one of the two federal agencies would take the lead on reviewing the request, depending 

on the ownership status of the subject land. Appropriate agency consultations/approvals would be 

conducted/obtained prior to approval of the variance. At the conclusion of the project, as-built drawings would 

be provided to the BLM and the USFS. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Overland Pass would operate and maintain the project facilities in accordance with the USDOT regulations in 

49 CFR 195 and other applicable federal and state regulations. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline 

system would, in most cases, be accomplished by Overland Pass personnel. Overland Pass estimates that 

operation of the pipeline would require up to 20 additional employees. Operation of the pipeline would require 

access along the pipeline ROW by Overland Pass personnel. While Overland Pass would make an effort to 

notify landowners prior to entering private property, landowner notification is not required for entry along the 

ROW, particularly in emergency situations. 

ROW Monitoring and Maintenance. In order to maintain accessibility of the ROW and to accommodate 

pipeline integrity surveys, woody vegetation that might affect the integrity of the pipeline would periodically be 

cleared over the pipeline. In most areas, the ROW would be maintained in an herbaceous state. Large trees 

would be removed from the permanent ROW. Overland Pass would use only mechanical mowing or cutting 

along its ROW for normal vegetation maintenance. 

2-32
 
Noxious weeds and invasive plant monitoring and control activities would occur during routine ROW 

monitoring and maintenance activities. Noxious weeds and invasive plants discovered within the ROW would 

be controlled according to the measures specified in Overland Pass’ Weed Management Plan (Appendix D). 

In the future, pipeline integrity surveys and vegetation maintenance could identify areas on the ROW where 

permanent erosion control devices need to be repaired or additional erosion control devices may be needed. If 

problem areas were evident, erosion control devices would be repaired or installed as necessary and the 

ROW would be stabilized to prevent future degradation. 

In the vicinity of waterbodies, wetlands, and upland areas, Overland Pass would adhere to the operation and 

maintenance procedures described in Overland Pass’ POD and its appendices. Operation and maintenance 

procedures, including record keeping, would be performed in accordance with the USDOT requirements. 

Pipeline Integrity 

Overland Pass’s pipeline facilities would be operated and maintained in accordance with the federal safety 

standards (49 CFR 195). Operation and maintenance of project facilities would be performed by or at the 

direction of Overland Pass. The pipeline would be inspected periodically from the air and on foot as operating 

conditions permit, but no less frequently than as required by 49 CFR 195. These surveillance activities would 

provide information on possible encroachments and nearby construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and 

other potential concerns that may affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. Evidence of population 

changes would be monitored and class locations changed as necessary. MLVs also would be inspected 

annually and the results documented. 

Future Plans and Abandonment 

Overland Pass has no plans to expand the system or increase its capacity at the present time. If, in Overland 

Pass’ judgment, future market demands warrant expansion of the project, Overland Pass would file an 

appropriate application with the BLM at that time. 

Properly maintained, the proposed pipeline is expected to operate for 50 or more years. If and when Overland 

Pass abandons any of the proposed facilities, the abandonment would be subject to separate approvals by the 

BLM, USFS, and other land management agencies. On federal lands, the BLM would require Overland Pass 

to submit an abandonment plan at least 90 days prior to anticipated abandonment. Overland Pass has no 

plans for abandonment of the pipeline system. 

Upon abandonment of the pipeline, in part or in whole, the ROWs associated with the abandoned facilities 

normally would be returned to the landowners/land management agencies according to the specific easement 

agreements between the landowners/land managing agencies. However, on federal lands, the pipeline ROW 

could be used for other utility ROW (e.g., fiber optic lines) depending upon future decisions made by the BLM. 

2.2.2 The No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject the project as proposed. The BLM would not issue a 

ROW grant for the project. Without a ROW grant across federal lands, the Overland Pass pipeline could not be 

constructed due to the federal land ownership patterns in the region. 

Since it is not possible to construct an interstate pipeline without crossing BLM-administered land as proposed, 

the Overland Pass pipeline could not be constructed. There is an existing pipeline system (Enterprise NGL 

Pipeline) that is currently operating near its capacity (225,000 bpd). The Enterprise Pipeline system 

(Enterprise) transports NGL to Mont Belvieu, Texas. The recently approved Western Expansion Project (MAPL 

2005) could expand the capacity of Enterprise by accommodating up to 50,000 bpd of additional capacity. 

Despite these expansions, regional gas development is expected to outpace the pipeline capacity in the near 

future. Consequently, Enterprise, including the Western Expansion Project, was evaluated as a System 

2-33
 
Alternative, but was eliminated from detailed evaluation because it did not meet the purpose and need 

(Section 2.3.1.2). 

Despite the lack of sufficient transportation capacity, the extraction of natural gas (and associated NGLs) 

would continue unabated due to the nationwide demand for these products. Since the amount of NGLs being 

produced in the region is expected to exceed the existing pipeline transportation capacity and given the market 

values of NGL, alternative proposals to transport or store the NGL likely would be developed. 

If the project were not approved, other pipeline projects may be proposed in the future. Given the market value 

of the volumes of natural gas liquids being produced in the region, ONEOK, Williams, Overland Pass, or other 

companies could submit a new ROW grant application to the BLM for a different pipeline route. This would 

initiate a new and separate NEPA process. To date, the BLM has not received any other NGL transmission 

pipeline applications in this region. 

As a consequence of the No Action Alternative, pipeline transportation alternatives for regional natural gas 

liquid producers would not exist in the forseeable future. The No Action Alternative would eliminate 

pipeline-to-pipeline shipping competition between Enterprise and Overland Pass pipeline systems for the 

Rocky Mountain NGL markets. In addition, the No Action Alternative would not increase the regional NGL 

pipeline system diversity, which can help stabilize national supplies. 

2.2.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative is a ROW window identified in the Green 

River RMP. The BLM encourages, but does not require, new linear projects (e.g., pipelines, electrical 

transmission powerlines, communication cables) to construct within these windows. Based on a number of 

issues, including physical constraints and constructability issues, this route alternative would follow a portion of 

the Southern Energy Corridor as described below. 

The Southern Energy Corridor diverges from the Proposed Action at approximately RP 62 to avoid potential 

future development of the City of Green River and eventually follows the Mid-America Pipeline System (MAPL 

System) from approximately RP 92 to RP 120. In contrast to the Proposed Action, the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative generally follows the MAPL pipeline southeast until it intersects 

with County Road 430 where the corridor then begins to head back northeast toward Interstate 80 (I-80) 

(Figure 2.2-9). The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would diverge from the 

MAPL route and rejoin the Proposed Action at approximately RP 87, thereby skirting around the north edge of 

Copper Ridge in a relatively flat valley (Cutthroat Draw). This would avoid extremely steep terrain associated 

with Copper Ridge. The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass is approximately 4.8 miles longer 

than the corresponding segment of the Proposed Action. 

2.2.3.1 Proposed Facilities 

The proposed facilities for this alternative would not change substantially from the Proposed Action. Overland 

Pass would still construct a 14-inch diameter pipeline. The pump station configuration would not be changed 

and meter station locations would not change. The Sweetwater pigging facility at RP 72.1 would be shifted to 

an accessible location along the alternative route. 

2-34
 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

The NEPA process requires that the lead federal agency evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Proposed 

Action, including the No Action Alternative. With the exception of the No Action Alternative, alternatives would 

need to meet the project objective of delivering NGL volumes of 150,000 bpd from the project origins at Opal 

and Echo Springs to midstream delivery points at Bushton and Conway. Key issues identified in the scoping 

process are used to identify alternatives that could potentially reduce environmental impacts. Alternatives 

evaluated in detail within the EIS must be reasonable, feasible, and result in similar or reduced impacts 

compared to the Proposed Action. 

Based on these considerations, the BLM considered but eliminated many variations to the original proposed 

route including: 

• System Alternatives 

- Trucking or Railroad Transport; 

- Enterprise Pipeline System; 

- Alternative pipeline configurations; 

• Route Alternatives 

- I-80 Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- Northern Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- MAPL Route Alternative; and 

• Local Route Variations. 

2.3.1 System Alternatives 

System alternatives are alternatives to the Proposed Action that would make use of other existing, modified, or 

proposed transmission systems to meet the stated objectives of the project. A system alternative would make 

it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed project, although some modifications or additions to one 

or more pipeline systems may be required to increase existing capacity, or another entirely new system may 

need to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts; however, the 

impacts could be less than, similar to, or greater than that associated with construction of the Proposed Action. 

2.3.1.1 Trucking or Railroad Transport 

While NGLs potentially could be transported via trucking or by rail transport, both alternative forms of transport 

would be more costly than shipping by pipeline. Moreover, statistics indicate that pipelines tend to be safer 

modes of transport. 

Pipelines operate more safely than other transportation modes as indicated in Table 2.3-1. These statistics 

indicate that trucking is 87 times more likely to result in human fatalities than by pipeline. Similarly, trucking 

results in 35 times more fires and explosions than pipelines (Associations of Pipe Lines [AOPL] 2006). 

Assuming one truck could load and unload every 2 minutes, it is estimated that a fleet of over 2,500 trucks 

would be necessary to transport a volume of NGLs similar to the Overland Pass Pipeline (Allegro Energy 

Group 2001). Because trucks shared the same highways and roads as the general public, this large number of 

trucks transporting NGLs poses a greater safety hazard than pipelines and railroads that utilize a different set 

of ROWs. In addition to the potential hazards to public safety, this large number of trucks also would increase 

the cost of transportation; increase fuel consumption; increase emissions; increase local traffic congestion 

2-36
 
(particularly in rural areas such as Opal, Bushton, and Conway); and increase the number of animal-vehicle 

collisions when compared to transport by pipeline. 

Table 2.3-1 Relative Risk1

 of Pipelines Compared to Other Transportation Methods 

 Fatalities Injuries Fire/Explosion 

Truck 87 2 35 

Rail 3 0.1 9 

Barge 0.2 4 4 

Tank Ship 4 3 1 

Pipeline 1 1 1 

1

Relative risk is calculated on incidents per ton*mile for each transportation mode (AOPL 2006). 

Similarly, replacement of the Overland Pass pipeline would require the daily arrival and departure of 

75 pressurized railcars (assuming 2,000 barrel capacity)3

. While substantially safer than trucking, rail transport 

is not as safe as pipeline transport in terms of fatalities and fires and explosions. Moreover, the significant 

increase in railcars would increase the cost of NGL transportation, increase fuel consumption; increase 

emissions; increase local rail traffic (particularly in rural areas such as Opal, Echo Springs, Bushton, and 

Conway); and increase animal-railcar collisions when compared to transport by pipeline. 

Given the increased number of trucks or pressurized railcars that would be required to transport similar 

volumes of NGLs and the associated increased public safety risk and environmental impacts, truck and rail 

transport were not considered viable alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

2.3.1.2 Enterprise Pipeline System 

Enterprise, an existing pipeline system was evaluated as a system alternative to the proposed Overland Pass 

Pipeline route. Enterprise is the only pipeline system that currently moves NGL from southwestern Wyoming. 

Enterprise operates the MAPL System and the Seminole Pipeline System (Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission [FERC] 2005; MAPL 2005a) (Figure 2.3-1). The MAPL system includes the Rocky Mountain 

Pipeline and the Conway South Pipeline (MAPL 2005a). The Rocky Mountain Pipeline is approximately 

2,548 miles long and transports NGL from points in Wyoming to Hobbs-Gains, Texas. The Conway South 

Pipeline is a bi-directional pipeline approximately 1,938 miles long that extends between Hobbs-Gains, Texas, 

and Conway, Kansas. 

Enterprise currently does not transport NGL from the Rocky Mountains to the Conway Hub. Instead, it 

transports mixed NGL via the Rocky Mountain Pipeline from the Rocky Mountain Overthrust and San Juan 

basins to the Hobbs Hub located on the Texas-New Mexico border. It also connects the Conway Hub to the 

Hobbs Hub via the Conway South Pipeline. Under normal operations, the Conway South pipeline moves NGL 

from Kansas refineries toward Hobbs Hub, and does not move mixed NGL toward Conway (MAPL 2005a). 

NGL in the Enterprise system is shipped from Hobbs via the Seminole Pipeline to Mont Belvieu, where it is 

fractionated into its constituents for commercial and residential uses. 

Enterprise reports that because of strong drilling activity and increasing production of rich natural gas and 

associated NGL in the Upper Green River, Piceance, and San Juan basins, the Rocky Mountain Pipeline is 

operating near full capacity and that NGL dedicated to the Enterprise-affiliated Mont Belvieu NGL fractionator 

continue to exceed the capacity of the fractionator (MAPL 2005b). As a result, Enterprise has begun two 

expansion projects to increase NGL capacity, one of which is the Western Expansion Project, the other is 

expansion of the Mont Belvieu fractionator facility. 

3 Estimate based on 10,000 barrel capacity per railcar, traveling 500 miles per day of travel, and transporting 150,000 bpd. 

2-37
 

The proposed Western Expansion Project would increase the capacity of the Rocky Mountain segment of the 

Enterprise Alternative from its current capacity of 225,000 bpd to 275,000 bpd. Because of the Western 

Expansion Project and increasing NGL production, the Enterprise-affiliated Mont Belvieu complex is 

considering the construction of a new NGL fractionator that could increase the facility’s fractionation capacity 

by an additional 60,000 bpd. 

Currently, the Rocky Mountain region produces approximately 25 percent of the natural gas in the U.S., and 

experts predict that gas production in the Rocky Mountain region could increase from 3.3 tcfy in 2002 to 

6.3 tcfy in 2025 (USDOE 2004). Given this relatively significant increase in natural gas production, NGL 

available for transport also would increase. Despite the added 50,000 bpd capacity brought by the proposed 

Western Expansion Project, further expansion would be needed to accommodate the forecast NGL production 

from the Rocky Mountain area. 

In order to transport additional volumes of NGL proposed by the project, the Enterprise system would require 

further expansion through construction of pipeline loops on the Rocky Mountain Pipeline. In addition to a new 

loop pipeline, its pumping capacity would have to be increased by constructing new pumping stations or 

upgrading the many existing pumping stations. 

The Rocky Mountain Western Expansion Project is compared to the Proposed Action in Table 2.3-2. Because 

the Enterprise Alternative would not meet Overland Pass’ capacity, infrastructure diversity, schedule, or 

delivery to Conway Hub goals, it was eliminated as a viable alternative to the Proposed Action. 

Table 2.3-2 Comparison of the Western Expansion Project to the Proposed Action 

Comparison Factor 

Enterprise Western 

Expansion Project Proposed Action 

Proposal About 202 miles of pipeline 

broken into 12 loops connected 

to existing MAPL System, 

between Wamsutter, Wyoming 

and Hobbs, New Mexico 

About 760 miles of new, 

contiguous pipeline between 

Opal, Wyoming and Conway, 

Kansas 

Services Echo Springs and Opal? Yes Yes 

Takes advantage of existing fractionation 

facilities near the Conway Hub? 

No Yes 

Adds alternative means to transport NGL 

from Rockies? 

No Yes 

Proposed in-service date December 2006 December 2007 

Additional capacity offered 50,000 bpd 150,000 bpd 

Federal lands crossed 53.4 miles 123.2 miles 

Co-location with other transportation or 

energy facilities 

100 percent 83 percent 

2.3.1.3 Alternative Pipeline Configurations 

Alternative pipeline configurations were considered that included a pipeline diameter configuration of 16 to 

18 to 20 inches in diameter, changing the diameter from 16 to 18 inches at Echo Springs and from 18 to 

20 inches at Laramie. The larger diameter pipeline would require less pump capacity to move the 150,000 bpd 

of NGL proposed by Overland Pass. However, increasing pipe diameter and wall thickness would increase 

capital costs that eventually become economically infeasible. Conversely, utilizing small diameter pipe for the 

project would require more pumping capacity due to hydraulic friction to move the 150,000 bpd of NGL through 

a smaller pipe. Overland Pass conducted an analysis and determined that the 14-inch- and 16-inch-diameter 

pipeline would balance efficiency and cost in moving 150,000 bpd along this pipeline route. 

2-39
 
The amount of surface disturbance would be comparable for all pipe diameters considered since the 

construction ROWs for 12- to 20-inch-diameter pipe would be the same (i.e., 75 feet wide). 

2.3.2 Route Alternatives 

Due to the concerns expressed during scoping by agency personnel and by the public in the Green River and 

Rock Springs area, route alternatives were examined for this portion of the pipeline. Major route alternatives 

are substantially different route alignments that still fulfill the project’s purpose. Across the Green River area, 

the Proposed Action currently follows portions of Enterprise’s existing east-west MAPL pipeline and I-80 

(Figure 2.2-9). 

Appendix E provides a summary table that compares the various route alternatives in terms of length of 

pipeline, amount of side-slope construction, additional surface disturbance, waterbody crossings, the number 

of occupied structures within 500 feet, and other relevant factors. 

2.3.2.1 I-80 Energy Corridor 

To minimize surface disturbance, the most direct west-to-east pipeline route was evaluated. This route would 

follow the I-80 Energy Corridor through the Green River area. Overland Pass provided a preliminary route that 

would utilize the I-80 Energy Corridor to the extent practical. This route alternative would avoid the City of 

Green River by initially following the Proposed Action until it intersects U.S. Highway 191. The I-80 Energy 

Corridor route alternative then heads north primarily along U.S. Highway 191 in a designated corridor, and 

then reconnects with the I-80 Energy Corridor (Figure 2.2-9). 

The I-80 Energy Corridor passes through portions of the cities of Green River and Rock Springs and is highly 

congested with existing pipelines. There are two areas in particular that are physically constrained from further 

corridor expansion. The first is located around the City of Green River. In this area, the I-80 Energy Corridor is 

constrained to the north by difficult terrain and by residential development to the south. Due to the recognized 

lack of space within this corridor, the Green River RMP recommends that any remaining space within the 

corridor be used for local pipelines dedicated to local transportation of natural gas. The second severely 

constrained portion of the I-80 Energy Corridor is located further east near Black Butte and BBC Mine Permit 

areas. In this area, the I-80 Energy Corridor already is heavily congested and is constrained from expansion to 

the north and south by these coal leases. 

This I-80 Energy Corridor route alternative is approximately 8.2 miles longer than the Proposed Action, 

including 0.4 mile of land with greater than 30 percent slope. The route would cross or closely approach areas 

with documented subsidence near the town of Rock Springs and near Point of Rocks. The I-80 Energy 

Corridor already is close to carrying capacity with 8 to 22 existing utility lines in place depending on location 

along the corridor. Finally, the route would be located in 9.4 more miles of populated areas than compared with 

the Proposed Action route. 

In the Green River RMP, the BLM states that the I-80 corridor is “an avoidance area for major utility lines” 

between Green River and Point of Rocks and suggests that the area be restricted to local distribution service 

lines. This decision was based on the congestion in the area as well as surface mining. In order to avoid the 

over-congestion and physical constraints of the I-80 Energy Corridor, a pipeline potentially could be routed 

further north along the Northern Energy Corridor or south along the Southern Energy Corridor. 

As a result of the utility line congestion, the 8.2 miles of additional pipeline required (and greater land 

disturbance), and the two physical constraints along the I-80 Energy Corridor, this route alternative was 

considered but eliminated from more detailed consideration (Appendix E). 

2.3.2.2 Northern Energy Corridor 

The Northern Energy Corridor primarily follows a pipeline and the electrical transmission powerline associated 

with the Jim Bridger power plant located north of Rock Springs. This route heads northeast from approximately 

2-40
 
RP 28, just west of the U.S. Highway 30 interchange, crossing approximately 20 miles of mineable trona 

deposits, including FMC Corporation’s (FMC’s) Westvaco trona mine. The route reaches the Table Mountains, 

then heads southeast back toward I-80, reconnecting with the I-80 corridor near the Bitter Creek Road 

interchange. This route bypasses the congestion and geographic constraints associated with the I-80 corridor. 

However, the route is approximately 14.4 miles longer than the Proposed Action, would intersect 0.1 mile of 

slopes greater than 30 percent, and bisects 20 miles of trona mine leases. 

This route was eliminated as a reasonable alternative due to its overall length, amount of surface disturbance, 

construction difficulty and cost (i.e., amount of side-slope and steep slopes), number of perennial waterbodies 

crossed, conflicts with trona mine leases, and increased proximity to populated areas and occupied structures 

(Appendix E). 

2.3.2.3 Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor 

At about RP 62, the Southern Energy Corridor diverges south of the Proposed Action, avoiding the southern 

portion of the City of Green River Development Area, an area identified for potential future development by the 

City of Green River. Within this western portion of the Southern Energy Corridor, the route alternative would 

not be co-located with other existing utilities. Construction access and existing slopes at this alternative’s 

Green River crossing would pose a serious construction issue. It also would require the construction of a 

separate roadway. This alternative would cost an additional $3 million and would require an additional work 

crew. Additionally, the length (7.4 miles) of the Western Segment would be more than twice the length of the 

Proposed Action through this area (3.2 miles), causing greater surface disturbance. This alternative was 

eliminated due to poor construction feasibility, increased surface disturbance, increased need for reclamation, 

and increased potential for future maintenance issues. 

2.3.2.4 MAPL Route 

Preliminary routing efforts along the Southern Energy Corridor attempted to co-located the new Overland Pass 

Pipeline ROW with existing utilities to the maximum extent practical. The MAPL route would diverge from the 

Proposed Action at RP 62.3, follow the Southern Energy Corridor, and rejoin the Proposed Action at RP 92.2. 

Similarly, the MAPL route would diverge from the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative near County Road 430. The MAPL route would follow the existing MAPL pipeline up a steep slope 

that crosses Copper Ridge (Figure 2.2-9). The MAPL Route Alternative generally lies within the Southern 

Energy Corridor and would be approximately 4.8 miles longer than the Proposed Action. It would cross 

4 perennial streams and be located within 500 feet of 14 buildings. 

The Southern Energy Corridor, including the MAPL route, is broadly characterized by rocky and rough terrain 

and would require substantial portions to be constructed using steep and side slope construction techniques. 

In particular, Copper Ridge, with slopes in excess of 50 degrees, would pose extreme challenges for pipeline 

construction, operations, and maintenance. Because of the severity of the steep slopes in areas such as 

Copper Ridge, large earth-moving equipment would need to be suspended from cables and winches in order 

to construct the pipeline, posing an elevated risk to the construction workers and equipment. Along this 

alternative, 7 miles of rocky soils may require blasting to construct the pipeline. 

When compared to other routes, the MAPL route has an elevated potential for landslide activity because it 

closely approaches small landslide deposits in Circle Creek Canyon (Township 16 North [T16N] Range 105 

West [R105W]). In 1981, a landslide on Copper Ridge caused the complete rupture of the existing MAPL 

pipeline. Slope instability may have been partially attributable to the difficulty of maintaining the pipeline ROW 

in extreme slopes with unstable soils and poor reclamation potential. Consequently, this alternative was 

eliminated from more detailed analysis. 

2-41
 
2.3.3 Local Route Variations 

2.3.3.1 Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation 

During scoping, comments were received from residents of the Arrowhead Springs subdivision. Many 

comments focused on issues related to the proximity of the pipeline to the residential area and concerns about 

impacts to water quality, particularly in a nearby spring that flows north towards the subdivision. Based on 

these scoping comments, Overland Pass evaluated whether the pipeline could be routed approximately 1 mile 

south of the Arrowhead Springs subdivision (Figure 2.2-9). After conducting field reconnaissance and based 

on BLM’s recommendation, Overland Pass revised their proposed route to address concerns of the Arrowhead 

Springs Subdivision. 

The Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation represents Overland Pass’ original route through this area. 

Because the potential impacts associated with the revised Proposed Action are less than those associated 

with the original route through the area, the Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation was eliminated from 

further analysis. 

2.3.3.2 Green River Crossing Variation 

Concerns were initially expressed regarding the Proposed Action’s Green River crossing, located at the upper 

end of the Flaming Gorge reservoir. Preliminary evaluations raised the possibility of the Proposed Action being 

located within an area subject to potential scour due to the fluxuations in the full pool of Flaming Gorge 

Reservior. A route variation was suggested that would be further north of the Proposed Action location, but 

would be closer to residential areas near the City of Green River. 

The USFS conducted a site visit and concluded that the proposed Green River crossing location minimized 

potential environmental impacts and was preferable to the location of the proposed variation because access 

to the proposed site was better, it was further from residential development and the town of Green River and 

that scour potentials were likely comparable at both locations. In addition, the variation does not parallel 

existing pipeline facilities and would create a second potential corridor and crossing for any future projects. 

Consequently, the Green River Crossing Location Variation was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.3.3 Trona Mines Variations 

Mineable trona deposits are located to the west of the City of Green River. The original proposed pipeline 

route would bisect trona mine leases in this area, including General Chemical and FMC leases. During 

scoping, concerns were raised about the pipeline’s route through this area, potential conflicts with use in the 

future, and potential mine-induced subsidence issues. FMC plans to mine these deposits in 2009 and General 

Chemical mining activity is schedule for 2020. As a result of these issues, Overland Pass evaluated an 

alternative route that would bypass these areas approximately 1 mile to the north to eliminate conflicts with 

future mining activities. Overland Pass incorporated this reroute into their Proposed Action that added 

1.1 miles to the entire project length between RP 33.5 and RP 36.2. 

After Overland Pass developed a reroute for this area, it was determined that the reroute would interfere with a 

planned ventilation shaft associated with mining activities near Little America. Based on this additional issue, 

Overland Pass subsequently revised their proposed route to avoid this area. 

The Trona Mines Variation represents the original routes through the mine lease areas. Because the potential 

impacts associated with the revised Proposed Action are less than those associated with the original routes 

through the area, the Trona Mines Variations was eliminated from further analysis. 

2.3.4 Aboveground Facility Location Alternatives 

Review of the proposed aboveground facility locations did not identify any significant issues. Consequently, no 

alternative facility locations were identified. 

2-42
 
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

2.4.1 Summary and Comparison of Action Alternatives 

Land requirements and aboveground facilities required for the construction and operation of the Proposed 

Action are described in Section 2.2.1. 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative (Section 2.2.3) would have the similar 

facility requirements as the Proposed Action, with the number and location of pump stations, meter stations, 

pigging facilities, valves, and pipe storage and contractor yards remaining the same. While many impacts to 

environmental resources from the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be 

similar in magnitude and duration compared to the Proposed Action, the alternative would cause greater 

surface disturbance, be more difficult to construct and reclaim, be in close proximity to a greater number of 

buildings, and be more costly to construct. The Proposed Action would cross more miles of OPS-designated 

High Consequence Areas (HCAs) due to its proximity to the Rock Springs area. The primary differences 

between the Proposed Action and the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative are 

identified in Table 2.4-1. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the resources discussed 

in Table 2.4-1 would not be affected. Because natural gas development would continue in the region, 

regardless of whether this project was constructed or not, the supply of natural gas liquids would exceed the 

existing, regional NGL transportation capacity. As a result, other NGL transportation projects likely would be 

proposed in the foreseeable future. 

2-43
 
Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment RP 62.3 to RP 87.1 

Proposed Action 

Southern Energy 

Corridor— Copper 

Ridge Bypass Additional Discussion 

Construction Impacts

 Length of Route (miles) 26.0 30.8 Chapter 2 

 Co-located ROW (estimated miles) 7.8 26.4 Table 2.2-4 

 Surface Disturbance: Table 4.8-1

 Temporary (acres) 236 280 

 Permanent (acres) 158 181 

Additional surface disturbance associated with 

side-slope construction (acres) Base case Base case + 18 acres Sections 3.4 and 4.4 

 TWAs (acres) 73.7 87.3 Sections 3.8 and 4.8 

Access Roads (#) 11 23 Sections 3.8 and 4.8 

 Road crossings: Sections 3.8 and 4.8 

 Paved (#) 1 1 

 Gravel/Dirt (#) 20 19 

Installation Costs ($millions) Base Case Base Case + $4.4 M 

 Major Constraints for Construction None More steep and difficult 

terrain 

Sections 4.3 or 4.4 

Water Resources

 Waterbody Crossings: Sections 3.5 and 4.5, Appendix F

 Intermittent (#) 46 47 

 Perennial (#) 2 4 

 Total (#) 48 51 

 Water Depletions: Sections 4.5 and 4.7, Appendix C 

 Hydrostatic Test Water (estimated gallons) Base Case Base Case + 300,000 

 Dust Control Water (estimated gallons) 764,263 905,359 

Vegetation

 Wetland Habitat (estimated acres) <0.01 0.2 Sections 3.5, 3.6, 4.5, and 4.6 

2-44 
Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment RP 62.3 to RP 87.1 

Proposed Action 

Southern Energy 

Corridor— Copper 

Ridge Bypass Additional Discussion 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species 

Big Game Crucial Habitat (acres) 0 5.4 Sections 3.7 and 4.7 

 Threatened and Endangered Species  Habitat (acres) 

Base Case No substantial difference 

from Base Case with 

exception of cliffassociated species (e.g., 

golden eagles) 

Sections 3.7 and 4.7 

Land Use

 Federal Land Ownership (miles) 10.9 18.5 Sections 3.8 and 4.8 

Cultural Resources 

Eligible Sites (Unevaluated Sites) (#) 0 (0) 1 (6) Sections 3.9 and 4.9 

Public Health and Safety

 OPS-designated HCAs: Sections 3.12 and 4.12 

 Drinking water (miles) 6.4 0 

 Ecological Areas (miles) 0 0 

 Populated Areas (miles) 3.5 0 

Buildings within 500 feet of the ROW (#) 3 14 Sections 3.12 and 4.12 

Note: Distance between Reference Points may not equal 1 mile. 

2-45 
3.0 Affected Environment 

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 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, 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 65 μg/m3 65 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. 

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 Overland Pass 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, 

mudtone, 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 Overland Pass 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. 

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 Within the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Project 

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 Within the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Project 

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 F). 

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 E). 

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 Overland Pass Pipeline Route1 

Droughty

9

Other 

Wyoming 

2.7 

16.8 

25.2 

9.0 

0.3 

54.0 

Colorado 

0.0 

6.2 

1.5 

2.5 

1.1 

6.4 

17.7 

Kansas

0.5 

0.1 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

2.8 

11.1 

14.4 

0.2 

0.0 

28.5 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Shallow-toBedrock8

Other

5.0 

51.7 

25.5 

21.0 

14.5 

117.7 

0.0 

7.4 

0.4 

0.1 

0.9 

1.9 

10.7 

0.5 

0.4 

0.0 

0.7 

0.1 

3.3 

3.7 

1.0 

1.4 

0.4 

1.2 

l dera Fe

5.7 

35.1 

9.6 

1.4 

0.0 

51.8 

0.0 

4.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Stony – 

Rocky7

Other

0.9 

8.9 

11.8 

15.3 

14.7 

51.6 

0.0 

3.3 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

3.3 

7.0 

 0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

2.1 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

l dera Fe

1.1 

6.2 

6.4 

0.8 

0.0 

14.5 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

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 

Compaction 

Prone6

Other

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

l dera Fe

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 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

 Hydric5

Other

0.3 

0.7 

0.0 

3.3 

0.3 

4.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.6 

1.1 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

l dera Fe

0.1 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

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 

0.0 

Prime 

Farmland4

Other

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

1.4 

0.0 

23.9 

6.0 

7.3 

22.7 

23.2 

83.1 

26.0 

14.2 

21.6 

27.4 

0.5 

26.0 

23.0 

4.4 

27.6 

7.9 

27.4 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

13.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

13.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Highly

Erodible

Wind3

Other

2.4 

7.8 

4.0 

0.6 

0.0 

14.8 

0.0 

3.6 

2.0 

2.9 

5.2 

28.4 

28.4 

 0.7 

0.1 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

2.3 

5.6 

3.7 

0.0 

0.0 

11.6 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Highly

Erodible

Water2 

Other

7.2 

63.1 

57.0 

36.8 

20.2 

184.3 

0.1 

43.4 

5.4 

5.8 

10.9 

24.6 

90.2 

14.0 

5.2 

2.7 

7.5 

0.6 

8.3 

4.7 

1.3 

1.4 

0.4 

1.3 

l dera Fe

8.2 

43.1 

 24.7 

 1.9 

0.0 

77.9 

0.0 

17.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

 0.0 

17.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

State/County 

Lincoln Sweetwater CarbonAlbanyLaramie 

Wyoming Subtotal 

Larimer Weld Morgan Logan Washington Yuma

Colorado Subtotal 

Cheyenne Rawlins Thomas Sheridan Gove Trego Ellis Russell Barton Ellsworth Rice 

3.4-3
Table 3.4-1 Mileage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route1 

Droughty

9

Other

0.0 

1.1 

72.8 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

29.4 

Shallow-toBedrock8

Other

0.0 

12.7 

141.1 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

55.9 

Stony – 

Rocky7

Other

0.0 

4.2 

62.8 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

14.6 

Compaction 

Prone6

Other

0.1 

0.3 

1.4 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

 Hydric5

Other

0.0 

1.5 

7.2 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

Prime 

Farmland4

Other

5.3 

211.3 

310.3 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

13.0 

Highly

Erodible

Wind3

Other

0.0 

1.2 

44.4 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

12.2 

Highly

Erodible

Water2 

Other

0.1 

47.5 

322.0 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

95.4 

State/County 

McPherson 

Kansas Subtotal 

Project Total10 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 stones larger than 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 Overland Pass Pipeline Route

Slope Class2 (percent) 

>24 

Other 

Wyoming 

0.3 

4.0 

1.6 

6.5 

1.9 

14.3 

Colorado 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.3 

Kansas

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

0.3 

2.8 

0.3 

0.5 

0.0 

3.9 

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 

0.0 

>18 – 24 

Other

0.6 

17.4 

13.4 

7.2 

7.9 

46.5 

0.0 

2.2 

0.6 

0.8 

4.2 

9.8 

17.6 

2.3 

1.8 

0.4 

2.5 

0.2 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

0.7 

11.8 

4.9 

0.6 

0.0 

18.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>12 – 18 

Other

2.0 

16.8 

14.5 

8.4 

4.0 

45.7 

0.0 

4.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

4.2 

8.5 

7.9 

2.6 

2.1 

4.5 

0.3 

4.7 

1.8 

0.6 

0.3 

0.1 

0.4 

l dera Fe

2.2 

11.4 

5.4 

0.2 

0.0 

19.2 

0.0 

11.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>6 – 12 

Other

0.0 

6.0 

10.5 

3.3 

2.8 

22.6 

0.0 

9.9 

0.7 

0.3 

3.2 

3.2 

17.3 

1.0 

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0 

1.8 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

l dera Fe

0.0 

4.5 

5.4 

0.1 

0.0 

10.0 

0.0 

3.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0 – 6 

Other

8.9 

36.9 

22.1 

25.3 

3.9 

97.1 

0.0 

42.2 

6.1 

8.8 

21.5 

27.1 

105.7 

27.0 

14.5 

21.8 

27.9 

0.5 

28.4 

29.6 

4.7 

27.6 

7.9 

27.7 

l dera Fe

7.3 

28.5 

13.2 

0.6 

0.0 

49.6 

0.0 

17.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

17.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

 Topsoil Depth1 (inches) 

>24 

Other

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 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

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 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>18 – 24 

Other

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

0.3 

1.8 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

 0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

1.7 

3.5 

0.5 

1.2 

0.3 

1.5 

l dera Fe

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 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>12 – 18 

Other

0.5 

10.3 

0.0 

5.3 

1.5 

17.6 

0.0 

2.2 

0.4 

0.5 

0.4 

2.0 

5.5 

 5.5 

1.9 

1.2 

3.2 

0.2 

4.7 

3.6 

0.3 

1.4 

0.4 

2.4 

l dera Fe

0.6 

7.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

7.7 

0.0 

1.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.3 

0.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>6 – 12 

Other

3.2 

11.9 

17.6 

7.5 

9.0 

49.2 

0.0 

36.1 

4.4 

4.1 

17.0 

22.7 

84.3 

22.1 

13.5 

20.8 

27.2 

0.6 

28.1 

25.2 

4.4 

25.1 

7.2 

23.6 

l dera Fe

2.2 

10.0 

8.6 

0.4 

0.0 

21.2 

0.0 

11.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

11.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0 – 6 

Other

8.0 

59.0 

44.6 

36.5 

9.6 

157.7 

0.0 

20.0 

2.6 

5.3 

11.7 

19.9 

59.5 

10.9 

3.7 

2.6 

4.3 

0.3 

1.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.1 

0.8 

l dera Fe

3

7.7 

41.8 

20.7 

1.7 

0.0 

71.8 

0.0 

9.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

9.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

State/County 

Lincoln Sweetwater Carbon Albany Laramie 

Wyoming 

Subtotal 

Larimer Weld Morgan Logan Washington Yuma 

Colorado 

Subtotal 

Cheyenne Rawlins Thomas Sheridan Gove Trego Ellis Russell Barton Ellsworth Rice 

3.4-5
Table 3.4-2 Mileage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route

Slope Class2 (percent) 

>24 

Other

0.0 

0.6 

15.2 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

3.9 

>18 – 24 

Other

0.0 

8.1 

72.1 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

18.4 

>12 – 18 

Other

0.0 

25.3 

79.5 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

20.2 

>6 – 12 

Other

0.0 

4.3 

44.2 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

13.5 

0 – 6 

Other

5.4 

223.0 

425.8 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

67.2 

 Topsoil Depth1 (inches) 

>24 

Other

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>18 – 24 

Other

0.1 

9.2 

11.1 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

>12 – 18 

Other

0.1 

24.9 

48.0 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

9.0 

>6 – 12 

Other

4.8 

202.4 

335.9 

l dera Fe

0.0 

0.0 

33.0 

0 – 6 

Other

0.4 

24.7 

241.9 

l dera Fe

3

0.0 

0.0 

 81.2 

State/County 

McPherson 

Kansas

Subtotal 

Project Total41Topsoil 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, Tresano series, 3 to 10 percent slopes, is 

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 8 percent slope class. 

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 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 

erosion by water and wind. Approximately 56 percent of the proposed pipeline route crosses prime farmland in 

Colorado. 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 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 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 seires) 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. 

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 cross 97 perennial waterbodies, 789 intermittent waterbodies, and 

13 playas/ponds. 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 F. 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, which are defined as those with widths greater than 100 feet and streams classified 

by the state as high quality aquatic resources. Table 3.5-3 provides a list of all impaired waterbody crossings, 

which include streams identified on the national Section 303(d) list as impaired waters for one or more 

chemical parameters. The complete list of waterbody crossings provided in Appendix F, 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 playas which are often dry for part of the year. 

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 F indicates surface water classifications in more detail. The four surface water 

classes include: 

Class 1: Waters with the highest natural water quality and/or other qualities with extraordinary value to 

the people of Wyoming; 

Class 2: Waters that are known to support fish or drinking water supplies; 

Class 3: Waters that support aquatic life other than fish; and 

Class 4: Waters that do not support aquatic life. 

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. The Green River is listed as a Class 1 Surface Water by the 

State of Wyoming which identifies it as an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW). 

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 Location: 

High Flow / Low Flow, cubic 

feet per second (cfs)1 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

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 (December) 

0.0 47.9 

Upper Green River – Slate Creek 

1,480 See Green River below 47.9 53.8 

Upper Green – Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

2,460 Green River near Green 

River: 4,590 (June) / 744 (December) 

53.8 62.0 

Bitter Creek 2,200 Bitter Creek near Bitter Creek: 

15 (April) / 0.87 (January) 

62.0 119.1 

Great Divide Closed Basin 3,870 Unglaciated basin (little or no external drainage); dispersed 

playas and sand dunes, floodplains and terraces, and rolling alluvial fans. Streams are ephemeral or weakly intermittent. Many streams are incised and flow onto playas. Substrate commonly is fine textured material or platy shale gravels. Playas are seasonal and have high level of soluble salts. 

Separation Creek near Riner: 9.7 (May) / 0.0 (September) 

119.1 173.6 

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 above 

Seminoe Reservoir near Sinclair: 4,280 (June) / 317 (January) 

173.6 223.4 

Medicine Bow River 1,430 Rock Creek at Arlington: 

424 (June) / 11 (December) 

223.4 243.6 

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 Laramie: 524 (June) / 35 (January) 

243.6 291.8 

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 Location: 

High Flow / Low Flow, cubic 

feet per second (cfs)1 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

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 near proposed ROW 

291.8 295.0 

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 Granite Canyon: 7.1 (May) / 0.62 (December) 

295.0 321.1 

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 Carr: 

0.99 (June) / 0.25 (August) 

321.1 337.5 

Crow Creek 1,410 Crow Creek near Barnesville: 

0.0 (all months) 

337.5 368.4 

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 368.4 386.3 

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 Balzac: 1,460 (June) / 143 (November) 

386.3 429.9 

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 River near Wray: 24 (April) / 19 (September) 

429.9 480.6 

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 Spring Canyon near Idalia: 4.3 (April) / 0.0 (August) 

480.6 492.3 

3.5-3
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 Location: 

High Flow / Low Flow, cubic 

feet per second (cfs)1 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

KANSAS 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 Spring 

Canyon near Idalia: 4.3 (April) / 0.0 (August) 

492.3 496.0 

South Fork Republican River 2,720 South Fork Republican River 

near Colorado – Kansas state line: 10 (June) / 1.1 (August) 

196.0 523.8 

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 523.8 534.3 

South Fork Beaver Creek 771 No data 534.3 541.6 Upper Sappa Creek 1,020 South Fork Sappa Creek near 

Achilles: 11 (June) / 0.18 (November) 

541.6 560.5 

Prairie Dog Creek 1,060 Rolling plains and dissected breaks with broad undulating to 

rolling ridge tops and hilly to steep valley sides. Tertiary sandstone and loess on uplands with alluvium on floodplains and stream terraces. 

No data near proposed ROW 560.5 566.4 

Upper North Fork Solomon River 

1,350 No data near proposed ROW 566.4 574.7 

Upper South Fork Solomon River 

1,150 No data near proposed ROW 574.7 590.5 

Upper Saline River 1,910 Saline River near Wakeeney: 

45 (July) / 4.2 (December) 

590.5 621.7 

Big Creek 852 Big Creek near Ogallah: 

80 (June) / 3.1 (December) 

621.7 639.5 640.2 641.0 

661.0 671.6 

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 Pfeifer: 188 (June) / 18 (January) 

639.5 640.2 

641.0 661.0 

671.6 693.9 

Little Arkansas 1,320 Plains and ridgetops locally mantled with loess. Dissected 

sedimentary rocks form valley slopes. Areas of sandy plains and dunes. 

Little Arkansas River near Little River: 25 (June) / 1.5 (December) 

733.9 748.9 

749.1 749.4 

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 watershed divide. 

748.9 749.1 

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 Location: 

High Flow / Low Flow, cubic 

feet per second (cfs)1 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

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 (December) 

693.9 733.9 

Little Arkansas 1,320 Little Arkansas River near 

Little River: 25 (June) / 1.5 (December) 

744.2 748.9 

749.1 749.4 

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 and Sensitive Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project 

State / County RP Waterbody Name 

Proposed Crossing 

Method Comment 1 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 0.9 Hams Fork River Open Cut Sensitive Fishery 

Lincoln 18.9 Blacks Fork River Open Cut Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 41.3 Blacks Fork River Open Cut Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 59.3 Green River 2, 3 Open Cut Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 107.2 Bitter Creek 2 Open Cut Sensitive Fishery 

Carbon 195.5 North Platte River Open Cut Major Waterbody 

Carbon 228.1 Medicine Bow River Open Cut Major Waterbody 

Colorado 

Logan 413.2 South Platte River HDD Major Waterbody 

Yuma 491.7 Arikaree River Open Cut Major Waterbody 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 510.4 South Fork Republican River Open Cut Major Waterbody 

1 Waterbody crossings greater than 100 feet are considered major. Playas/ponds were not included in this list. However, if water greater 

than 100 feet were present during construction then these would be classified as major waterbodies and treated accordingly. 

2 Crossing on federally managed land. 

3 Classified as an ONRW and Wyoming Class 1 Water. 

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 710.9 Calf 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 

Rice 742.1 Salt Creek I Ammonia, Atrazine, Copper, Chloride, 

Nitrate, Nitrite 

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 F, there also are five playa/pond crossings in Wyoming. Frewen Lake and the playa at 

RP 190.6 in Carbon County are on federally managed land and are greater than 1,000 feet wide. The three 

remaining proposed playa/pond crossings are approximately 250 feet wide. All five proposed playa/pond 

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 F. The state 

classified uses for surface water are: 

• Aquatic Life Cold, Class 1 or 2; 

• Aquatic Life Warm, Class 1 or 2; 

• Recreation Class 1 or 2; 

• 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 proposed 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 seven unnamed playas/ponds in Colorado (Appendix F). Four of the crossings 

are less than 250 feet wide, one is less than 100 feet wide, and one is of unknown width. The playa 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 F. 

The South Fork Republican River is the only major stream crossing proposed in Kansas (Table 3.5-2). 

Overland proposes to cross this river using the open cut method. 

Fifteen proposed crossings on 13 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 playa at RP 527.7 is proposed to be crossed in Kansas. The proposed crossing is less than 

100 feet wide (Appendix F). 

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. 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 occur 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 

State / Regional 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

Approximate 

Depth to Water, 

feet below 

ground surface 

Range in 

Dissolved Solids 

Concentration 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics References2 

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 

Naftz 1996; 

Whitehead 1996; USGS-National Water Information System (NWIS) 2006. 

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 

Naftz 1996; 

Whitehead 1996; USGS NWIS 2006. 

Wilkins Peak / Tipton Shale members 

50 to 60 Varies; likely 500 

or more 

500 to 2,000 Shale and organic 

marlstone 

Member parts of Green River Formation. Typically a confining unit providing little water to wells 

Mason and Miller 2005; Whitehead 1996. 

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 Fort Union aquifers 

Mason and Miller 2005; Whitehead 1996. 

Fort Union Formation Primarily 155 

to 165 

Locally less than 200, generally 200 to 500 

800 to 3,320 Sandstone, shale, and 

coal 

Also outcrops around Rock Springs uplift 

Mason and Miller 2005; Whitehead 1996. 

Mesa Verde Aquifer (Lance Formation, Fox Hills Sandstone, Lewis Shale, and Mesa Verde Group) 

60 to 125, 165 to 200 

Locally less than 200 along edges of Rock Springs uplift, locally less than 100 near Rawlins 

1,000 to 10,000 Sandstone and shale Outcrops around dome-like 

Rock Springs uplift; confined in middle of uplift; stratigraphically underlies Fort Union formation. Also outcrops at Rawlins uplift to east 

Mason and Miller 2005; Whitehead 1996; Bartos et al. 2006; Berry 1960. 

3.5-11
Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface 

State / Regional 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

Approximate 

Depth to Water, 

feet below 

ground surface 

Range in 

Dissolved Solids 

Concentration 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics References2

 Upper Tertiary Browns Park/North Park/Arikaree formations 

200 to 215 200 or more 100 to 750 Dominantly 

sandstones, with siltstones and conglomerates 

Complex stratigraphy and different naming conventions between references 

Lowry et al. 1973; Bartos et al. 2006. 

 Lower Tertiary / Upper Cretaceous Hanna and Ferris formations 

215 to 250 Locally less than 

50 

200 to 4,000 Sandstones Lower Tertiary intermingled 

with Upper Cretaceous 

Lowry et al. 1973; Bartos et al. 2006. 

Medicine Bow, Lewis Shale and Mesa Verde Aquifers 

215 to 250 Locally less than 

50 

200 to 4,000 Sandstones and shales Upper Cretaceous 

intermingled with Lower Tertiary 

Lowry et al. 1973; Bartos et al. 2006. 

Wind River Formation 250 to 260 50 to 100 1,000 to 2,000 Sandstones Tertiary Lowry et al. 1973.  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 

Lowry et al. 1973. 

Casper Formation 275 to 290 300 or more 500 or less Sandstones and 

limestones 

Water depth and quality vary according to lithology and location on uplift. Important water source 

City of Laramie 2006. 

Sherman Granite 290 to 307 Precambrian age; forms 

uplift. Supplies little groundwater to wells or springs 

Love and Christiansen 1985. 

 High Plains White River and Ogallala formations 

307 to 325 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, 

sandstone, claystone 

Miocene-aged formations, Ogallala underlain by the White River, including Brule and Chadron members 

Love and Christiansen 1985; Lowry and Crist 1967. 

COLORADO White River and Laramie formations 

325 to 380 200 or more 200 to 400 Sandstone, claystone Miocene-aged formations, 

White River includes Brule and Chadron members 

Tweto 1979; Lowry and Crist 1967. 

3.5-12
Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface 

State / Regional 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

Approximate 

Depth to Water, 

feet below 

ground surface 

Range in 

Dissolved Solids 

Concentration 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics References2

 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 

Tweto 1979. 

 High Plains Ogallala Formation 430 to 490 Mostly 100 to 300, 

but 0 to 50 near CO/KS line 

Less than 500 Conglomerate, 

sandstone, claystone 

Irrigation pumping has modified the depth to water in many areas. Extensive aquifer 

Robson and Banta 1995; McGuire 2005. 

KANSAS High Plains Ogallala Formation 490 to 650 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, 

sandstone, claystone 

Irrigation pumping has modified the depth to water in many areas. Extensive aquifer 

Robson and Banta 1995; McGuire 2005. 

 Other Rocks Pierre Shale, Niobrara Formation 

650 to 700 500 or more 1,000 or more Shales, marlstones Generally of Cretaceous 

age, these rocks supply little water to wells or springs 

Latta 1950. 

Ogallala Formation 700 to 749 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, 

sandstone, claystone 

Irrigation pumping has modified the depth to water in many areas. Extensive aquifer 

Robson and Banta 1995; McGuire 2005. 

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 

Latta 1950. 

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, no springs were identified within 100 feet of the proposed pipeline route (NRG 2006). 

Subsequent field surveys did not identify any springs along the proposed ROW. However, USGS maps 

indicate that springs are in some locales crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 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. 

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. It is currently not known if any of these wells 

are flowing wells. 

3.5-15
Table 3.5-6 Private Water Supply Wells 

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 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 consist of 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 in Colorado, groundwater supplies and allocations in this 

3.5-16
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/Riparian Zones 

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 zones occur along floodplains associated with perennial, ephemeral, and intermittent rivers and 

creeks and typically support a combination of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. 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). While wetlands and riparian zones make up a small 

3.5-17


percentage of Wyoming’s, Colorado’s, and Kansas’ land mass, covering less than 1 percent of the landscape, 

they are critical to many species in the state and serve as filters for runoff. 

Table 3.5-7 Major Floodplains Crossed by the Project 

State/RP Waterbody Name Proposed Crossing Method 

Wyoming 

18.9 and 41.3 Blacks Fork River floodplain Open Cut 

59.3 Green River floodplain1 Open Cut 

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. 

Based on field survey data, a total of 163 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 

163 wetlands is approximately 6.5 miles, accounting for approximately 0.9 percent of the total proposed 

pipeline route. Table 3.5-8 summarizes wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Table 3.5-8 Summary of Wetland Types Crossed by the Overland Pass Pipeline 

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 

Source: Overland Pass Pipeline Project – 2006 Wetland Survey (WEST 2006d). 

Slight discrepancies in total mileage are due to rounding. 

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. 

3.5-20
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 

temporarily store 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. 

In addition to wetlands traversed by the proposed pipeline route, the PNG has identified multiple playas along 

the proposed pipeline route in Colorado. Playas are shallow, circular-shaped, depressional seasonal wetlands 

that are primarily filled by rainfall, although some playas found in cropland settings may also receive water 

from irrigation runoff. Compared to other wetlands, playas undergo frequent, unpredictable wet and dry cycles. 

The resulting wet-dry cycle of playas 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 [PLJV] 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 playas/ponds 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 F, Table F-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/Riparian Zones 

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. 

3.5-21
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 shrub-scrub 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 playas, desert lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Foothills shrub-scrub 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. 

Riparian woodland communities crossed by the proposed pipeline route are associated with the North Platte 

River, Medicine Bow River (2), a tributary to Foote Creek, and Rock Creek (2) crossings. 

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 

3.6-4
Table 3.6-3 Noxious Weeds1

 that Potentially Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Common Name Scientific Name Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba X X 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale X 

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 

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. 

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). Represenative 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 occurs within the ANF and does not have a list of MIS 

species established specifically for the FGNRA. 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 Project 

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 

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 playas/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. 

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 

3.7-4
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 playas/ponds 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 macroinvertabrates) 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, the proposed pipeline route would cross 70 perennial streams in Wyoming, some of which are 

crossed multiple times. Of these perennial crossings, 21 streams 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, Tenmile Creek, 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 

playas/ponds 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 

er drum t a hw Fres

Wyoming Colorado 

ss a b White

Yellow Bullhead

X 

llhead u B acklB

X 

sh tfi a C ead ath lF

sh tfi l Cae Chann 

X

X

XS

X 

s ei h Spec Sunfis

X

X 

Bluegill

X

ppie ar C acklB

e ip ap ite CrhW

s emouth Bas rg La

X 

s sa outh bml l Sma

X X

X 

t ou r inbow T Ra

 XS

XS

XS

X

XS

X

XS 

lleye Wa

X

X 

lmon Saeen Koka

XS 2

t u at Tro ro Cutth 

) veri R (Snake

X 

out r Brown T

X

X

X

XS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

out r T k Broo 

X

XS

XS

XS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

n atio icfiss y Clar e sh iF

1

2AB 

2AB 

1

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

2AB 

WW2 

CW1 

s ng is Cros er of Numb

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

3

4

2

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 

County

Lincoln 

Lincoln 

Sweetwater 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Albany 

Logan 

Yuma 

Waterbody

Hams Fork River Blacks Fork River Green River North Platte River Medicine Bow River Bear Creek Wagonhound Creek Tributary to Upper Foote Creek Foote Creek Rock Creek Onemile Creek Threemile Creek Dutton Creek Cooper Creek Fourmile Creek Sevenmile Creek Little Laramie River Browns Creek Laramie River Dale Creek Lone Tree Creek South Platte River Chief Creek 

3.7-6
Table 3.7-4 Game Fish Occurrence and Fishery Classifications for Waterbodies Crossed by the Project 

er drum t a hw Fres

Kansas

X

X 

ss a b White

X 

Yellow Bullhead

X

X

X 

llhead u B acklB

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

sh tfi a C ead ath lF

X

X 

sh tfi l Cae Chann 

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X 

s ei h Spec Sunfis

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

Bluegill

X

X 

ppie ar C acklB

X 

e ip ap ite CrhW

X

X

X

X

X

X 

s emouth Bas rg La

X X

X

X

X

XX

X 

s sa outh bml l Sma

t ou r inbow T Ra

X 

lleye Wa

lmon Saeen Koka

t u at Tro ro Cutth 

) veri R (Snake

out r Brown T

X 

out r T k Broo 

n atio icfiss y Clar e sh iF

1

CW1 

WW1

S

E

E

E

E

E

EE

E 

s ng is Cros er of Numb

4 1

1 1

3

1

1

1

6

1

1 

County

Yuma

Yuma 

Cheyenne

Rawlins 

Graham 

Trego 

Trego 

Ellis 

Rice Rice 

Rice 

Waterbody

North Fork Republican

River Aikaree River South Fork Republican River Beaver Creek Saline River Plum Creek Big Creek Smokey Hill River Plum Creek Cow Creek Little Arkansas River 

1Fishery classifications: 

Wyoming Class 1 (Outstanding Waters); 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 or warmwater biota

including special status species, or could support species if water quality conditions were corrected. Class 2 defined as waters that are not capable of sustaining a wide variety of coldwater 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 playas/ponds 

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). 

Colorado 

Fish. The Colorado portion of the proposed pipeline route would cross 10 perennial streams in Colorado, of 

which four support game fish populations (South Platte River, Chief Creek, North Fork Republican River, and 

the Aikaree River). The North Fork Republican River and Chief Creek are classified as coldwater fisheries as 

3.7-8
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, 

South Pawnee Creek, North Sterling Creek, South Platte Ditch, and Sand Hill Creek) also are classified as 

warmwater nongame fisheries. Three of these streams (Chief Creek, North Fork Republican River, and 

Aikaree River) are considered Class 1 waters, 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. Seven relatively small unnamed playas/ponds 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. The proposed pipeline route would cross 17 perennial streams in Kansas, nine of which contain game 

fish species (Table 3.7-4). All of these streams are considered warmwater fisheries, with the number of game 

fish species ranging from 2 to 10 species. The most diverse game fish community occurs in 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 “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 playa 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 playas 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. 

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 

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). 

3.7-9
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 G, Table G-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 G, 

Table G-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, six federally listed endangered, 

threatened, or candidate bird species and two mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. An 

additional 24 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. 

Colorado. Within Colorado, four federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species and two 

mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. One additional bird species listed as threatened by 

the state of Colorado has been retained. Seventeen 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, four federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species and one 

mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. Two bird and one mammal species listed as 

threatened or endangered by the state of Kansas have been retained. An additional 12 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 

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 Ashley National 

Forest. 

3.7-10
• 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 Aikaree rivers; 

• Suckermouth minnow – South Platte River, Aikaree 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 Smokey Hill and Republican rivers, 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. 

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; 

3.7-11
• 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 Wyoming or 

Kansas. 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 G, Tables G-1 and G-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. 

3.7.2.2 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). 

3.7-12
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 CDOW or 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 managed for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, or leased to 

private tenants for livestock grazing. 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 primarily managed by the BLM, although some 

rangeland also is owned or managed by the 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 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 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 (in miles) 

State/County 

Rangeland1 Agricultural2 Open3 Forest4 Developed5 Water6 Total7 

Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 10.1 10.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 <0.1 10.5 11.7 Sweetwater 55.5 78.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 2.1 2.4 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 81.3 Carbon 29.1 59.3 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 <0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 29.3 62.1 Albany 2.1 45.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 2.1 50.8 Laramie 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 

Subtotal7 96.9 212.9 0.0 7.6 1.6 1.2 2.1 3.6 0.2 0.8 <0.1 0.2 100.8 226.4 

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 0.1 Weld 22.3 50.5 <0.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.4 58.4 Morgan 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Logan 0.0 6.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.9 Washington 0.0 13.4 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 Yuma 0.0 26.1 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 44.6 

Subtotal7 22.3 103.2 <0.1 44.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.6 <0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 22.4 149.4 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 0.0 16.4 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 Rawlins 0.0 5.6 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 Thomas 0.0 3.5 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 Sheridan 0.0 10.2 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 Gove 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Trego 0.0 14.6 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 Ellis 0.0 13.1 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 32.3 Russell 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 Barton 0.0 5.6 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 Ellsworth 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 

3.8-4
Table 3.8-3 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route (in miles) 

State/County 

Rangeland1 Agricultural2 Open3 Forest4 Developed5 Water6 Total7 

Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other 

Rice 0.0 1.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 McPherson 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 

Subtotal7 0.0 74.1 0.0 182.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.9 

Project Totalg 119.2 390.3 <0.1 235.1 1.6 1.3 2.1 7.1 0.3 2.6 <0.1 0.3 123.2 636.7 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 agricultural areas.3Open 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 crossings, and road crossings. 6Open 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. 

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, 

22.3 miles are federally owned land. Several tracts of land are owned and administered by the BLM or 

owned by the Colorado State Land Board and administered by the CDOW for grazing, primarily for 

sheep and cattle. 

• 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. 

3.8-6
• 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. 

• 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 

3.8-7
Table 3.8-4 Conservation Reserve Program Land Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route 

State/ County Miles 

Ellis 1.2 

Russell 1.0 

Barton 0.5 

Ellsworth 0.2 

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. 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 

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 

Kansas 

Trego 625.8 Smokey Valley Scenic Byway State of Kansas 

Wyoming. Approximately 1.8 miles of the proposed 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 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 to the North Platte 

River Valley. The Snowy Range Scenic 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 in Weld County. The Pawnee Pioneer Trails 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 (Visual and Noise) 

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 Route1

Agency/Field Office/ 

Begin Reference Point 

Reference Point 

Begin End VRM/SMS Class 

BLM 

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 Route1 

Agency/Field Office/ 

Begin Reference Point 

Reference Point 

Begin End VRM/SMS Class 

USFS 

FGNRA 57.0 59.6 Retention 

PNG2 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. 

2

The PNG 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. 

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 PNG 

visual classifications are: 

3.8-11
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 H. 

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, 

308 cultural resource sites and 144 isolated finds were identified. Of the 308 sites, 104 are historic, 181 are 

prehistoric, and 23 sites contain both prehistoric and historic components (Appendix I, Table I-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 204 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 144 isolated finds located during the inventory, 103 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 308 sites located during the field survey, 123 are recommended or officially determined eligible for 

listing on the NRHP and 185 are recommended or officially determined not eligible for the NRHP. Sixty-two of 

the 123 recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible sites are historic, 51 are prehistoric, and 

10 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 I, Table I-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 through August 2006, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Colorado portion of 

the proposed project corridor (Horn et al. 2006). 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, 66 cultural resource sites and 51 isolated finds were identified (Appendix I, 

Table I-2). Of the 66 sites, 42 are historic, 20 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 of the 46 historic sites or site components are linear sites, including 8 segments of railroad grades; 

7 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 26 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 

19 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. 

Eighteen of the 24 prehistoric sites or site components were of unknown age or cultural affiliation. The six 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 66 sites located during the field survey, 27 sites and the prehistoric component of one multi-component 

site (SWL403) are recommended or officially determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and 38 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 I, Table I-2. 

In the fall of 2006, an additional Class III inventory of four reroutes, additional temporary work spaces, and a 

different configuration of a pipe yard were conducted (Horn 2006). The inventory resulted in the examination of 

18.4 acres of private land and 29.4 acres of the PNG, for a total of 47.8 acres. Two new sites and one 

previously recorded site were recorded during the inventory (Appendix I, Table I-2). The two new sites are 

located on the PNG and consist of a prehistoric lithic scatter of unknown age and a historic homestead. The 

previously recorded site is a segment of a historic railroad grade. 

Of the two newly recorded sites, the prehistoric lithic scatter is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP 

while the historic homestead is recommended as eligible. The previously recorded segment of the historic 

railroad grade was initially recorded during the original inventory conducted from April through August 2006 

and was lengthened as a result of the additional inventory. The segment is considered to be a contributing 

element of the NRHP-eligible Burlington & Missouri River Railroad/Chicago, Burlington & Quincy 

Railroad/Burlington Northern Railroad grade. 

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 Class 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 Class 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 

3.9-5
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 April through August 2006, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Kansas portion of 

the project corridor (Maymon 2006). The inventory included examination of the proposed pipeline corridor, 

alternate pipeline routes, additional TWAs, access roads, and aboveground facilities, including proposed pump 

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 I, Table I-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 I, Table I-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 I, Table I-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 

3.9-6
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 I, Table I-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 playa 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. 

3.9.2 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 

3.9-7
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. 

3.9-8
3.10 Native American Consultation 

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. 

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 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 re-vegetation 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 an 

agreement document 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 Consultation 

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 proposed project. 

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 

Have indicated concerns with the project and consultation is on-going as the project continues. Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors during construction and requested to be notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have asked for a plant survey of the project area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed mixes included to ensure that vegetation is restored to pre-construction stands. Tribe requested additional surveys of project area to determine if additional areas included sacred sites. 

Cherokee Nation March 30, 2006 April 4,6,2006 Tribe stated they did not have any concerns with the proposed project. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 April 5, 2006 

May 22, 2006 need to address all follow up dates here 

Tribe stated they had no concerns with the proposed project, but requested to be kept informed with project updates and project reports. 

Cheyenne River Lakota Tribe 

March 31, 2006 April 4, 2006 need to address all 

follow up dates here 

Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects but have not received any response. 

Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma 

March 31, 2006 April 5, 2006 

June 26, 2006 need to address all follow up dates here 

The tribe did not have any concerns with the proposed project, but requested to be kept 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 

Have indicated concerns with the project as known TCPs are located within the project area. Consultation with the tribe is ongoing through the project. 

Crow Creek Lakota Tribe 

April 2, 2006 April 7, 2006 

May 3, 9, 16, 2006 need to address all follow up dates here 

Tribe indicated they did not have any concerns with the project, but stated they would review project information before making a decision. Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects but have not received any response. 

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 

Tribe requested additional surveys of project area to determine if additional areas included sacred sites. Consultation is on-going as the project continues. 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe March 31, 2006 April 7, 11, 12, 2006 The tribe stated they did not have any concerns with the project and requested no 

further involvement. 

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 

Have indicated concerns with the project and consultation is on-going as the project continues. 

Kiowa Tribe March 30,2006 April 4, 11, 2006 The Kiowa stated they did not have concerns with the project. 

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 Consultation 

Northern 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 

Tribal representatives were concerned with sites that had religious significance and recommended tribal monitors during construction, and to be kept informed of any inadvertent discoveries. Tribe requested additional surveys of project area to determine 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 meetings, field visits to the project area, and project updates. Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects but have not received any response. 

Osage Nation of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 April 10, 13, 2006 

August 2, 10, 2006 

Tribe stated they have no concerns with the project. Would like to be notified of inadvertent discoveries and informed of the project through updates and reports. 

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 March 31, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

Tribe stated that they did not have any concerns with the proposed project. 

Rosebud Lakota Tribe April 2, 2006 April 4, 2006 need to address all 

follow up dates here 

Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects but have not received any 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 

Tribe requested reroutes around specific areas of the project area with known TCPs. Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors during construction and requested to be notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have asked for a plant survey of the project area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed mixes included to ensure that vegetation is restored to pre-construction stands. 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

March 30, 2006 April 18, 2006 need to address 

all follow up dates here 

Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects but have not received any response. 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

April 2, 2006 June 7, 11, 14, 18, 2006 Tribe indicated that they had no concerns with the project, but would like to be 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 

Tribe requested reroutes around specific areas of the project area with known TCPs. Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors during construction and requested to be notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have asked for a plant survey of the project area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed mixes included to ensure that vegetation 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 on-going as the project continues. 

Source: Seletstewa 2006, 2007. 

3.10-5 
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 three 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 

 Arrowhead Springs Sweetwater CDP 0.5 68

 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 

 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 

Civilian 

Labor 

Force 

(persons) 

2005 

Unemployment 

Rate (%) 

2004 / 2005 

WYOMING 453,427 493,782 8.9 5.1 19,134 37,892 254,508 4.0 

Lincoln 12,328 14,573 15.4 3.6 17,533 40,794 8,477 3.4 Sweetwater 38,816 37,613 -3.1 3.6 19,575 46,537 22,676 2.9 Carbon 16,655 15,639 -6.1 2.0 18,375 36,060 8,115 3.5 Albany 30,783 32,014 4.0 7.5 16,706 28,790 18,831 3.0 Laramie 73,125 81,607 11.6 30.4 19,634 39,607 42,633 3.8 

COLORADO 3,293,462 4,301,261 30.6 41.5 24,049 47,203 2,304,454 5.0 

Larimer 186,154 251,494 35.1 96.7 23,689 48,655 166,986 4.1 Weld 131,782 180,936 37.3 45.0 18,957 42,321 111,454 4.7 Morgan 21,947 27,171 23.8 21.0 15,492 34,568 14,010 4.5 Logan 17,570 20,504 16.7 11.1 16,721 32,724 10,288 4.2 Washington 4,811 4,926 2.4 2.0 17,788 32,431 2,730 3.8 Yuma 8,955 9,841 9.9 4.2 16,005 33,169 6,076 3.3 

KANSAS 2,477,805 2,688,418 8.5 32.9 20,506 40,624 1,374,698 5.1 

Cheyenne 3,243 3,165 -2.4 3.1 17,862 30,599 1,645 3.6 Rawlins 3,405 2,966 -12.9 2.8 17,161 32,105 1,425 3.6 Thomas 8,254 8,180 -0.9 7.6 19,028 37,034 4,287 3.1 Sheridan 3,044 2,813 -7.6 3.1 16,299 33,547 1,539 2.6 Gove 3,229 3,068 -5.0 2.9 17,852 33,510 1,524 3.0 Trego 3,696 3,319 -10.2 3.7 16,239 29,677 2,006 2.5 Ellis 25,999 27,507 5.8 30.5 18,259 32,339 17,386 3.2 Russell 7,832 7,370 -5.9 8.2 17,073 29,284 3,525 4.4 Barton 29,380 28,205 -4.0 31.3 16,695 32,176 15,284 3.7 Ellsworth 6,584 6,525 -0.9 9.0 16,569 35,772 3,232 4.0 Rice 10,612 10,761 1.4 14.8 16,064 35,671 5,451 4.7 McPherson 27,264 29,554 8.4 32.8 18,921 41,138 17,630 3.6 

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 Temporary Housing Summary 

Vacant Rental 

Units 

Rental 

Vacancy Rate 

(%) 

Median 

Monthly Rent 

($) 

Vacant for 

Seasonal, 

Recreational, or 

Occasional Use 

Vacant for 

Migrant 

Workers 

Total 

Apartment 

Units and 

Motel Rooms 

Mobile Home / 

RV Spaces 

WYOMING 

Lincoln 122 275 21.8 464 912 9 1,135 1,350 Sweetwater 282 681 16.2 428 243 12 2,388 3,911 Carbon 217 360 16.9 377 1,050 13 987 2,978 Albany 140 356 5.2 464 1,097 1 1,509 1,418 Laramie 328 820 7.7 473 238 1 3,032 2,787 

Wyoming Subtotal 1,089 2,492 13.6% (avg) $441 (avg) 3,540 36 9,051 12,444 

COLORADO 

Larimer 795 1,334 4.1 678 4,870 11 NA 4,145 Weld 744 837 4.0 564 191 50 11,000 729 Morgan 103 174 5.5 482 333 1 1,013 NA Logan 127 309 12.0 451 74 0 1,220 1,043 Washington 58 57 9.8 341 49 0 749 332 Yuma 75 88 7.4 375 60 6 438 412 

Colorado Subtotal 1,902 2,799 7.1% (avg) $482 (avg) 5,577 71 14,420 6,661 

KANSAS 

Cheyenne 68 25 7.5 314 15 0 44 96 Rawlins 63 42 12.5 328 38 0 51 155 Thomas 52 83 7.7 373 18 1 635 560 Sheridan 28 22 10.0 286 25 0 37 81 Gove 38 30 10.7 330 22 2 135 142 Trego 32 41 13.3 326 106 0 201 130 Ellis 113 302 6.9 431 43 0 3,866 987 Russell 100 150 15.9 325 60 1 564 282 Barton 261 456 12.5 390 64 1 1,560 1,208 Ellsworth 66 81 13.8 336 302 1 182 459 Rice 80 98 9.4 340 84 1 275 646 McPherson 127 206 6.6 416 35 0 951 860 

Kansas Subtotal 1,028 1,536 10.6% (avg) $350 (avg) 812 7 8,501 5,606 

PROJECT TOTAL 4,019 6,827 10.1% (avg) $404 (avg) 9,929 114 31,972 24,711 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 Overland Pass 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 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

WYOMING 

Lincoln 5 10 7 10 2 South Lincoln Medical Center (Kemmerer); 

Star Valley Medical Center (Afton) 

10.0 

Sweetwater 4 1 10 1 1 Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County 

(Rock Springs) 

6.6 

Carbon 7 2 8 2 1 Memorial Hospital of Carbon County 

(Rawlins) 

1.6 

Albany 3 4 5 4 1 Ivinson Memorial Hospital (Laramie) 5.1 Laramie 4 4 10 11 2 United Medical Center West (Cheyenne); 

Cheyenne VA Medical Center (Cheyenne) 

11.6 

COLORADO 

Larimer 6 28 16 18 3 Poudre Valley Hospital (Fort Collins); 

McKee Medical Center (Loveland); Estes Park Medical Center (Estes Park) 

29.1 

Weld 16 24 19 8 1 North Colorado Medical Center (Greeley) 31.9 Morgan 3 17 4 11 2 East Morgan County Hospital (Brush); 

Colorado Plains Medical Center (Fort Morgan) 

18.0 

Logan 2 14 6 14 1 Sterling Regional Medical Center (Sterling) 12.7 Washington 1 15 3 10 0 N/A (see Morgan, Logan, or Yuma County) N/A Yuma 3 2 4 2 2 Wray Community District Hospital (Wray); 

Yuma District Hospital (Yuma) 

2.1 

KANSAS 

Cheyenne 2 5 2 1 1 Cheyenne County Hospital (Saint Francis) 6.3 Rawlins 2 16 4 5 1 Rawlins County Health Center (Atwood) 16.6 Thomas 2 9 4 2 1 Citizens Medical Center (Colby) 9.7 Sheridan 2 6 2 6 1 Sheridan County Health Complex (Hoxie) 5.9 Gove 2 22 3 15 1 Gove County Medical Center (Quinter) 22.7 Graham5 2 6 4 9 1 Graham County Hospital (Hill City) 6.1 

3.11-7
Table 3.11-6 Existing Public Services and Facilities Along the Proposed Overland Pass 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 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

Trego 2 5 3 5 1 Trego County Lemke Memorial Hospital 

(WaKeeney) 

1.8 

Ellis 5 6 4 6 2 Hays Medical Center (Hays); 

NW Kansas Surgery Center (Hays) 

6.4 

Rush5 2 12 6 9 1 Rush County Memorial Hospital (La Crosse) 17.0 Russell 3 14 11 11 1 Russell Regional Hospital (Russell) 13.9 Barton 4 8 8 3 4 Clara Barton Hospital (Hoisington); 

Ellinwood District Hospital (Ellinwood); Central Kansas Medical Center (Great Bend); Surgical and Diagnostic Center of Great Bend (Great Bend) 

8.1 

Ellsworth 4 2 5 3 1 Ellsworth County Medical Center (Ellsworth) 16.0 Rice 5 3 8 2 1 Rice County Hospital District No. 1 (Lyons) 6.5 McPherson 8 11 11 9 3 Memorial Hospital Inc. (McPherson); 

Mercy Hospital Inc. (Moundridge); Lindsborg Community Hospital (Lindsborg) 

8.5 

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 therefore been included. 

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 $10 million distributed proportionately to each state: approximately 15 percent to 

Wyoming, 10 percent to Colorado, and 75 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 Arrowhead Springs, Green River, Rawlins, Table Rock, 

and Wamsutter within 0.5 mile, and 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 

Median 

Family 

Income 

(1999)5 

Families With 

Income Below 

the Poverty 

Level6 (%) 

(1999) 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 45,685 8.0 

Lincoln 14,573 97.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.7 1.2 44,919 6.4 Sweetwater 37,613 91.6 0.7 1.0 0.6 9.4 3.6 2.4 54,173 5.4 Carbon 15,639 90.1 0.7 1.3 0.8 13.8* 5.2 2.1 41,991 9.8* Albany 32,014 91.3 1.1 1.0 1.8* 7.5 2.6 2.2 44,334 10.8* Laramie 81,607 88.9 2.6* 0.8 1.1 10.9* 4.0 2.6 46,536 6.5 

COLORADO 4,301,261 82.8 3.8 1.0 2.3 17.1 7.2 2.8 55,883 6.2 

Larimer 251,494 91.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 6.3 3.4 2.2 58,866 4.3 Weld 180,936 81.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 27.0* 13.3 2.7 49,569 8.0* Morgan 27,171 79.7 0.3 0.8 0.4 31.2* 16.4 2.5 39,102 8.5* Logan 20,504 91.7 2.0 0.6 0.5 11.9 3.8 1.4 42,241 9.0* Washington 4,926 96.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 6.3 2.0 0.9 37,287 8.6* Yuma 9,841 94.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 12.9 4.1 1.2 39,814 8.8* 

KANSAS 2,688,418 86.1 5.7 0.9 1.7 7.0 3.4 2.1 49,624 6.7 

Cheyenne 3,165 97.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.5 34,816 7.4* Rawlins 2,966 98.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 40,074 7.9* Thomas 8,180 97.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 45,931 6.6 Sheridan 2,813 98.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.6 38,292 12.0* Gove 3,068 97.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.7 1.0 40,438 8.0* Trego 3,319 97.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.2 1.0 40,524 11.2* Ellis 27,507 96.1 0.7 0.2 0.8 2.4 1.3 0.9 44,498 6.5 Russell 7,370 97.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 40,355 9.1* Barton 28,205 93.0 1.1 0.5 0.2 8.3 3.5 1.6 39,929 9.9* Ellsworth 6,525 93.7 3.6 0.5 0.2 3.6 0.9 1.2 44,360 4.0 Rice 10,761 94.7 1.2 0.6 0.3 5.6 1.8 1.4 40,960 8.5* McPherson 29,554 96.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.9 0.8 1.2 48,243 4.2 

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 proposed. 2States 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 population percentage in the general 

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 Hispanic or in combination with one 

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 local variations in the cost of living. 6The 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 higher percent of the population 

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 Median 

Family 

Income 

(1999)5 

Families With 

Income Below the 

Poverty Level6 (%) 

(1999) 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 45,685 8.0 

Arrowhead Springs 0.5 92.6 0.0 0.0 5.9* 0.0 0.0 1.5 83,654 0.0 Green River 0.5 92.1 0.3 1.4 0.4 10.2* 4.2 1.6 59,100 3.1 Opal 0.5 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 1.0 52,083 0.0 Rawlins 0.5 85.9 0.8 1.5 0.9 21.0* 8.3 2.6 42,137 10.4* Sweeney Ranch 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 Table Rock 0.5 86.6 0.0 1.2 1.2* 11.0* 3.7 7.3 48,750 0.0 The Buttes 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63,750 0.0 Wamsutter 0.5 93.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 13.0* 3.1 2.3 46,250 11.4* Elk Mountain 2 95.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.2 2.1 1.0 46,042 0.0 Granger 2 82.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 8.2 9.6 52,083 10.5* James Town 2 95.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 6.5 1.1 2.9 53,295 4.5 Laramie 2 90.8 1.2 0.9 2.0* 7.9 2.9 2.2 43,395 11.1* Little America 2 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6* 28.6 0.0 18,750 0.0 Sinclair 2 96.2 0.5 1.4 0.0 2.6 0.9 0.9 54,688 1.7 

COLORADO 82.8 3.8 1.0 2.3 17.1 7.2 2.8 55,883 6.2 

Raymer 0.5 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.1 0.0 36,875 14.8* Eckley 2 85.3 0.4 1.8* 0.0 19.4 10.8 1.8 26,250 17.8* Wray 2 94.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 10.0 3.5 1.6 38,942 11.3* 

KANSAS 86.1 5.7 0.9 1.7 7.0 3.4 2.1 49,624 6.7 

Bird City 0.5 99.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.4 32,589 15.0* Susank 0.5 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 18,125 33.3* WaKeeney 0.5 97.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 1.5 40,547 6.3 Windom 0.5 95.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 38,125 7.1* Frederick 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46,250 0.0 Little River 2 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 2.2 33,125 16.0* Menlo 2 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 27,500 25.0* 

1Affected areas are those communities where existing facilities exist, or communities where new pipeline facilities or surface disturbing activities associated with pipeline refurbishment are proposed. 2Communities 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. 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 population percentage in the general 

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 Hispanic or in combination with one 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 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 local variations in the cost of living. 6The 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 a higher percent of the population below the 

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 Organizations 

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
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Analysis Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines 

Assumptions 

1. Overland Pass’ construction and operation methods and environmental protection measures contained in 

the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) would be implemented on federal 

lands, and similar procedures would be used on non-federal lands, with the primary differences identified 

in Chapter 2.0. Individual landowners may include specific construction and reclamation requirements in 

ROW agreements with Overland Pass. These requirements would likely result in similar or less 

environmental impacts than discussed in this section. 

2. Overland Pass would acquire all necessary federal, state, and local permits and approvals to construct 

and operate the Overland Pass Pipeline system (but not including powerlines, which would be controlled 

and operated by power companies), regardless of whether the requirements for these permits and 

approvals are listed in this document. 

Guidelines 

1. For the Proposed Action and all alternatives, the term “Construction Phase” is defined fully in Chapter 2.0. 

Activities in this phase include the surface-disturbing activities needed to construct the pipeline, pump 

stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, valves, and permanent access roads so that the entire pipeline 

system can be placed into service. It also includes reclamation activities for areas where the surface has 

been disturbed. 

2. For the Proposed Action and all alternatives, the term “Operation Phase” is defined fully in Chapter 2.0. 

Activities in this phase include transportation of NGLs in the Overland Pass Pipeline system. This 

definition also includes normal operations; routine pipeline ground and aerial inspections; emergency 

response activities; future routine internal and external integrity inspections and repairs along short 

segments of the entire pipeline; and future remedial restoration activities such as reseeding and repair of 

erosion control structures. 

3. Prior to abandonment, Overland Pass would coordinate with appropriate federal and state management 

agencies to ensure that abandonment procedures follow agency-approved procedures at that time. 

4. For all resources, unless specific exceptions are stated, short-term impacts are those that would occur 

over a 5-year period or less, while long-term impacts are those that exceed 5 years.

5. Overland Pass’ committed environmental protection measures included in their draft POD were used to 

evaluate environmental impacts. Several site-specific plans that are part of the applicant’s draft POD 

have been included as an appendix to the EIS. Other specific plans are not attached but are referred to in 

this document and can be found on the BLM website as technical reference reports 

(www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/overland_pipeline.html). The POD is currently a draft 

document that will be finalized by Overland Pass and submitted to BLM for review and approval after 

completion of a final EIS. 

6. Mitigation measures contained in the EIS are recommendations. If the project was approved, the 

Authorized Officer would determine which mitigation measures would be added as stipulations in any 

ROW grant that BLM would grant for the project. 

4.1-1
4.2 Climate and Air Quality 

4.2.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Construction dust generation. 

• Construction equipment pollutant emissions. 

Analysis 

In addition to the new NGL pipeline, Overland Pass plans to construct three pump stations (including one 

future pump station) and seven meter stations as listed in Table 2.1-1. The proposed pipeline project would 

generate air emissions through short-term construction activities. Emissions from all phases of construction 

would be subject to applicable state and federal air regulations. The air emissions potentially resulting from 

construction of the proposed compression facilities and presented in this report represent worse-case 

scenarios based on currently available equipment. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline and pump stations would result in intermittent and short-term fugitive 

emissions. The average daily uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions for a typical pipeline spread (4 miles per 

day) are estimated at 1430 pounds per day using an emission factor of 1.2 tons per acre per month for 

construction activities (USEPA 1995). By applying water as a control measure, the potential emissions may be 

reduced by 50 to 80 percent, resulting in actual emissions of approximately 700 – 300 pounds per day. 

Emissions would be restricted to the brief construction period along each stretch of the pipeline route. 

Construction impacts would diminish once construction activities end and after disturbed areas are reclaimed. 

These emissions would include dust from soil disruption and combustion emissions from the construction 

equipment. The fugitive dust emissions would depend on the moisture content and texture of the soils that 

would be disturbed. However, emissions from construction are not expected to cause or significantly contribute 

to a violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard because the construction equipment would be 

operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours only. Emissions from the gasoline and diesel engines 

would be minimized because the engines must be built to meet the standards for mobile sources established 

by the USEPA mobile source emission regulations (Title 40 CFR Part 85). In addition, the USEPA is requiring 

that the maximum sulfur content of diesel fuel for highway vehicles be reduced from 500 ppmw to 15 ppmw by 

mid-2006, making lower sulfur diesel available nationwide. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

The procedures proposed by Overland Pass are sufficient to minimize impacts to air resources. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Operational emissions. 

4.2-1
Analysis 

The proposed pipeline project includes long-term operation of the stationary emission units at the pump 

stations. The pumps are electric and therefore do not emit any emissions. Emergency flares would be the only 

source of emissions at the proposed pump stations. The emergency flares are used when a blow down of the 

pipeline is necessary. Blow downs occur only during emergency situations and are not required for routine 

maintenance of the pump station. 

Emissions from operation would be subject to applicable state and federal air regulations. Potential emissions 

would be less than the PSD major source thresholds of 250 tpy for all criteria; therefore, the project sources 

would not be subject to PSD permitting. and are not expected to have a significant impact on air quality. As 

such, dispersion modeling is not required under the federal construction permitting program. Overland Pass 

would not need to obtain air permits for the proposed pump stations. 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. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

No operational impacts to air quality are expected. 

4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject Overland Pass’ application to construct the pipeline as 

proposed and the project would not be constructed. Because natural gas extraction in the region would 

continue and associated NGL production is expected to exceed existing pipeline capacity, other pipeline 

projects may be proposed in the future. 

When viewed in its entirety, the proposed Overland Pass proposed pipeline route is a fairly direct route from 

NGL supply sources to delivery points in Kansas. Other pipeline routes that would achieve the stated purpose 

and need of the project likely would be of similar or longer in overall length. Consequently, other future 

pipelines would have similar or greater impacts to air quality during construction and operation due to the 

additional length of pipe and pump power sources with similar or greater emissions. 

4.2.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be 4.8 miles greater in length than 

the Proposed Action. As a result, there would be an increase in the emissions and dust during construction. 

However, the overall change in length represents less than a 1 percent change for the entire route and 

therefore would not result in significant overall differences between the alternatives. 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would not require additional pumps or 

pump stations to be constructed. The alternative would, however, require 42.5 hp, compared to the 30 hp 

required by the Proposed Action. Despite this difference in horsepower, no change in air quality is anticipated 

because the pump stations would be electric-powered. 

4.2-2
4.3 Geology and Geologic Hazards 

4.3.1 Proposed Action 

4.3.1.1 Physiography and Geology 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Disturbances to topography. 

Analysis 

The effects of construction would include disturbances to the topography along the ROW and at aboveground 

facilities due to grading and trenching activities. Upon completion of construction, Overland Pass would restore 

topographic contours and drainage patterns as closely as possible to the pre-construction condition. 

Blasting potentially could adversely impact the geologic and physiographic environment. Limited blasting could 

be required in areas where shallow bedrock or boulders were encountered that could not be removed by 

conventional excavation with a trackhoe trencher, ripping with a bulldozer followed by trackhoe excavation, or 

hammering with a trackhoe-attached device (hoe-ram) followed by excavation. Blasting is more likely to be 

required in areas where hard bedrock is near the surface. 

Overland Pass’ construction specialists reviewed the proposed pipeline route and estimate that blasting may 

be necessary along approximately 21.6 miles (3 percent) of the proposed pipeline route. Based on the 

proposed construction spreads, the areas where blasting may be required are identified in Table 4.3-1. 

Table 4.3-1 Areas Containing Shallow Bedrock where Blasting may be Required 

State County Location (RP) 

Length of Area Containing 

Shallow Hard Bedrock 

(miles) 

Wyoming Lincoln, Sweetwater 0.0 – 45.0 1.3 

Sweetwater 45.0 – 103.0 3.5 

Sweetwater, Carbon 103.0 – 147.0 3.5 

Carbon, Sweetwater 147.0 – 194.0 3.8 

Carbon 194.0 – 196.0 0.6 

Carbon 196.0 – 208.0 4.2 

Carbon, Albany 208.0 – 281.0 0.7 

Wyoming/Colorado Albany, Weld 281.0 – 330.0 3.9 

Colorado/Kansas multiple counties 330.0 – 749.4 0.0 

PROJECT TOTAL 21.6 

Blasting operations could damage nearby structures, including buildings, springs and wells, and existing 

underground pipelines. 

Additional Mitigation 

Overland Pass developed a blasting plan as part of their draft POD that incorporates notification and 

monitoring requirements (Overland Pass 2006). 

4.3-1 
Conclusion 

The construction techniques proposed by Overland Pass are largely sufficient to minimize impacts and restore 

surface contours. However, agricultural lands that rely on flood irrigation may have overland flow of water 

disrupted by the pipeline trench, even after compaction and restoration (Section 4.4.1). 

While blasting could adversely affect nearby structures, springs and wells, and existing underground pipelines, 

Overland Pass has committed to repair or fairly compensate landowners for damage to these features. Based 

on Overland Pass’ proposed procedures and committed mitigation, no significant adverse impacts would be 

anticipated from blasting activities. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• No issues associated with geological resources were identified with operation. 

Analysis 

Operation of the proposed pipeline and associated aboveground facilities would not materially alter the 

geologic and physiographic conditions or worsen existing unfavorable geologic conditions in the area. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

No significant adverse impacts to geological resources would be anticipated. 

4.3.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential interference with existing mining operations. 

Analysis 

Construction activities along the proposed ROW could interfere with current mining or mineral extraction 

activities. As shown in Tables 3.3-2, the proposed pipeline route crosses numerous oil and gas fields. In 

addition, the proposed pipeline route crosses areas of known trona mining, coal resources, and is close to 

active sand and gravel quarries (Table 3.3-3). Nevertheless, construction would have very minor and shortterm impact on current mineral extraction activities due to the temporary and localize nature of pipeline 

construction activities. 

No oil and gas wells were identified within the proposed pipeline construction ROW. However, blasting 

operations potentially could damage nearby oil and gas wells, and trenching could encounter underground 

gathering pipelines associated with the wells. Because oil and gas generally is produced from depths of more 

than 1,000 feet, construction of the pipeline would not be expected to affect the ability of the wells to produce 

oil and/or natural gas. Rather, any construction-related damage that could occur would be limited to surface or 

near-surface components of the wells and gathering systems, which could temporarily disrupt production until 

repairs were made. Potential affects of blasting on nearby wells would be mitigated by implementing Overland 

Pass’ Blasting Plan (Overland Pass 2006). Prior to construction, Overland Pass shall identify any associated 

4.3-2
underground gathering lines in the project construction ROW and either avoid piping or take appropriate 

precautions to protect the integrity of such facilities. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Potential impacts to surface mining operations, if any, would be limited to temporary short-term encumbrances 

during construction and would be minimized by Overland Pass working with the owners and/or operators of 

these mining operations during ROW negotiations and facilities construction to minimize conflicts where 

mineral resources could be affected. Because construction of the pipeline would be limited to near-surface 

disturbance, the proposed project would not impact oil and gas production in the area or other underground 

resource recovery operations, such as coal. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential for reduced access to underlying minerals. 

• Potential interference with future mining operations. 

• Potential damage to pipeline and ancillary facilities from mine-induced subsidence. 

Analysis 

Long-term operation of a pipeline has the potential to preclude access to mineral resources. Overland Pass 

recognized the potential conflicts with trona mining and re-routed around leased areas where mining is 

anticipated in the foreseeable future, thereby reducing the potential for future conflicts with trona mining 

(Section 2.3.3.3). 

Placement of a pipeline over underground mining operation could place the pipeline at risk for surface 

subsidence to result in damage to the pipeline, aboveground facilities, and interruption of service. Since most 

of the proposed pipeline route is co-located in existing pipeline ROW, there is low potential for the preclusion of 

mineral resources. However, subsidence over active mining areas could present some problems. Subsidence 

over trona mining areas is on the order of around 6 feet. The amount of subsidence is influenced by a number 

of factors including, but not limited to, the mining method, thickness of mined-out material, the depth of the 

overburden, and the strength of overburden materials (Dunrud 1976). No underground salt mining operations 

were identified beneath the proposed pipeline route in Kansas. 

Additional Mitigation 

GEO-1: Overland Pass shall conduct studies prior to construction to determine if subsidence is occurring or if 

potential subsidence could occur along the proposed pipeline route. If subsidence has occurred or has 

the strong potential to occur, Overland Pass shall use appropriate design standards and ground 

monitoring devices to assure pipeline integrity. 

Conclusion 

Operation of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would not have a significant added impact on 

current or future mineral recovery operations in the area because most of the proposed pipeline route would 

follow existing ROWs that have already precluded mineral development along the proposed pipeline route. 

Additionally, impacts on future mineral development would not constitute a significant loss of mineral resource 

4.3-3
or mineral availability because of the narrow, linear nature of the pipeline ROW relative to the expanse of 

areas with mineral resource potential. 

It is anticipated that the pipeline would be backfilled with materials derived from the trench excavation, and it 

might be necessary to obtain some construction sand and gravel from local, existing commercial sources for 

use as backfill, road base, or surface facility pads. These demands for sand and gravel would not substantially 

affect the long-term availability of construction materials in the area. 

While there is a slight risk of mine-induced subsidence along localized portions of the Proposed Action, federal 

regulations require Overland Pass to design, operate, and maintain its pipeline to account for risk factors, such 

as subsidence. 

4.3.1.3 Geological Hazards 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Geological hazards that could affect pipeline and workers during construction. 

Analysis 

The hazard of concern during construction of the pipeline would be from unintentional undercutting of slopes or 

construction on steep slopes resulting in instability that would lead to landslides. Overland Pass attempted to 

minimize the amount of steep slopes crossed by the pipeline. Special pipeline construction practices described 

in Section 2.2.1.3 would minimize slope stability issues during construction. Implementation of Overland Pass’ 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) and Blasting Plan would reduce the potential 

for construction-related activities to trigger landslides or other slope failures. Additional committed measures 

for potential ground failure would include the implementation of erosion control measures as described in the 

POD. At a minimum, these measures would include the construction of trench breakers, permanent slope 

breakers, and establishment of permanent vegetation within the ROW. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed project facilities would not materially alter the geologic and physiographic 

conditions or worsen existing unfavorable geologic conditions in the area. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential damage to pipeline and ancillary facilities from earthquakes (ground shaking and 

subsidence) and fault displacement. 

• Potential damage to the pipeline and ancillary facilities from ground subsidence in karst terrain. 

• Potential damage to the pipeline from flood scour. 

4.3-4
Analysis 

Seismicity. Seismic hazards could potentially damage the project facilities through strong ground shaking, 

surface faulting, or secondary ground deformation such as liquefaction and flow failure. Pipelines and 

aboveground facilities are capable of withstanding substantial ground motion. The proposed project is in an 

area where the probability of a strong earthquake is low. Since ground motion hazard probability is low, there 

is a low risk of related hazards of earthquake induced landslides. The proposed project does not cross 

identified active faults so ground displacement due to fault movement is not a concern. 

To protect the pipeline and facilities from seismic activity and its associated hazards, project facilities would be 

constructed and tested to meet federal standards outlined in 49 CFR Part 195 and geotechnical studies would 

be conducted so that facilities would be designed and constructed to minimize any effects that shaking or 

faulting could have on the project facilities. 

Subsidence. Potential subsidence as a result of underground mining is discussed in Section 4.3.1.2. Two 

other causes of potential subsidence were discussed in Section 3.3.1.3 and include solution of subsurface salt 

or chalk beds by the natural circulation of groundwater. Subsidence also can be induced by leakage of water 

from improperly cased or damaged oil field produced water disposal wells. 

Overland Pass avoided areas prone to subsidence whenever practical and sites of proposed surface facilities 

were selected to avoid any known underground mines in the area. Overall, the potential for localized 

subsidence or collapse features to develop along the proposed pipeline route is low. 

Localized areas of subsidence that materialize as a sinkhole can cause a span area in the pipeline. The length 

of acceptable span varies depending on the pipe design parameters, but can be easily calculated. The 

strength and ductility of the pipeline allows it to span over a considerable distance without threatening the 

integrity of the pipeline. Overland Pass would study potential subsidence areas (RP 675 to RP 749) and 

monitor the proposed pipeline route for sinkholes during construction and operation. If a span was created that 

posed a safety hazard, Overland Pass would be required to mitigate the hazard as required by USDOT 

regulations. 

Flooding and Scour. Flooding could damage the project facilities by inundating surface facilities, causing 

debris flows which could damage surface facilities, or scouring stream beds at the point of the pipeline 

crossing, which could impact pipelines by leaving unsupported spans of pipe. In general, seasonal flooding 

hazards exist where the proposed pipeline route would cross major streams and rivers, and flash flooding 

hazards exist where the pipeline would cross small watersheds. The proposed pipeline route would cross 

70 perennial, 404 intermittent waterbody, and 5 playa crossings in Wyoming, 10 perennial. 74 intermittent 

waterbody, and 7 playa crossings in Colorado, and 17 perennial 311 intermittent waterbody, and 1 playa 

crossing in Kansas, all of which are locations where seasonal or flash flooding could occur. Though flooding in 

and of itself does not represent a significant risk to buried pipelines, stream scour and mud/debris flows that 

can accompany flooding can impact pipelines by exposing and leaving unsupported spans of pipe. To 

minimize these effects, the pipeline would be buried at a sufficient depth to avoid possible scour at waterbody 

crossings. In addition, regular visual inspection of the proposed pipeline route would be used to identify areas 

that might be potentially exposed after flood events. 

Flooding also could damage the project facilities by inundating surface facilities, scouring streambeds at the 

point of the pipeline crossing, or causing debris flows that could damage surface facilities. Aboveground 

facilities (pump stations, meter stations, pigging stations, and MLVs) do not appear to be located within areas 

susceptible to flooding. 

Additional Mitigation 

USDOT pipeline regulations specifically address mitigation of geological hazards. No additional mitigation was 

identified. 

4.3-5
Conclusion 

Operation of the pipeline and its associated facilities would not affect the geologic and physiographic 

conditions in the project area. Due to the routing of the pipeline and its design, it is unlikely that the pipeline 

facilities would suffer significant damage from geologic hazards or other naturally occurring events during 

operation. Further, construction and operation of the project and facilities would not worsen unfavorable 

geologic conditions in the area. 

4.3.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential damage and loss of scientifically valuable fossils from ROW clearing and trench excavation. 

Analysis 

Construction activities have the potential to damage or destroy scientifically important or unique fossils. 

Potential impacts to fossil localities during construction could be both direct and indirect. Trenching through 

significant fossil beds could result in direct damage to or destruction of fossils. Indirect effects during 

construction could include erosion of fossil beds due to slope regrading and vegetation clearing. Another 

possible indirect effect could be unauthorized collection of significant fossils by construction workers or the 

public due to increased access to fossil localities along the ROW. 

To manage impacts to fossil localities, Overland Pass intends to prepare and would implement a 

Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Paleo Plan) to protect fossil resources on federal lands that 

may be encountered during project construction, including the resources identified during the field survey. 

Primary elements of the Paleo Plan include: 

• Paleontological monitoring and spot checking of construction activities across Condition 1 and 2 units; 

• Mitigation procedures for fossil localities identified during construction (e.g., avoidance, excavation, 

recording of localities); 

• Provisions for the preparation and curation of fossil collections; and 

• Provisions for the preparation of a final report based on the recovered data. 

All work conducted under the Paleo Plan would be performed by qualified paleontologists with trained 

assistants. 

Under no circumstances would fossils be removed from private lands for any reason, including curation, 

without the written consent of the landowners. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Adherence to the Paleo Plan would minimize adverse impacts to paleontological resources on federal lands. 

Important paleontological resources on non-federal lands may be recovered only with approval of the 

landowners, and therefore may be unavailable for scientific curation. 

4.3-6
Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Future maintenance activities could cause potential damage and loss of scientifically valuable fossils. 

Analysis 

Any potential effects would be isolated due to the probable dispersed nature of maintenance activities. Also, 

potential damage during operations and maintenance minimal since work would occur on previously disturbed 

ROW. 

Mitigation 

PALEO-1: On federal lands, paleontological monitoring shall occur in areas where future maintenance 

activities require trenching or excavation in areas that would be wider than the original trench. 

Conclusion 

Normal operation of the proposed pipeline and its associated facilities would not disturb important 

paleontological resources. Maintenance activities would result in surface disturbance, but typically would occur 

within the trenchline previously disturbed during construction. Since no new disturbances would be anticipated 

from maintenance activities (i.e., maintenance activities would occur within the ROW), impacts to 

paleontological resources would be negligible. 

4.3.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, none of the identified potential project-specific impacts would occur. Impacts 

would occur at present levels as the result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.3.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The geological resources affected by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would 

be the same as the Proposed Action except for a greater amount of steep or side slopes (Table 4.3-2) and 

their associated potential hazards. 

Table 4.3-2 Comparison of Steep Slopes and Side Slopes Along the Proposed Action

and the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Areas with Steep Slopes or Side Slopes (miles) 

Proposed Pipeline Route 10% >10% >20% >30% Total 

Proposed Action 3.4 0.8 1.5 0.0 5.7 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 8.4 1.4 1.7 0.1 11.6 

4.3-7
4.4 Soils 

4.4.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential topsoil losses from wind and water erosion on disturbed surfaces during and after 

construction. 

• Potential reduction in soil productivity and quality from topsoil losses, soil mixing and compaction. 

• Pre-existing soil contamination or contamination from construction operations. 

Analysis 

Impact assessments were based on a wide range of soil characteristics. Acres of disturbed soils along the 

proposed pipeline route are summarized according to important soil characteristics that influence the 

magnitude of construction impacts (Table 4.4-1). Topsoil depth and slope classes based on aggregate 

percentages of component soil series within a particular class are identified in Table 4.4-2. 

Erosion by Water and Wind 

Susceptibility to erosion is a complex function of characteristics such as soil texture and structure, topography, 

surface roughness, soil cover (made up of vegetation, duff/litter, rock, and woody debris), and climate. Erosion 

also may be influenced by the length of time the soils are bare and by disruption of drainage and erosion 

control structures. Erosion resulting from water occurs primarily on loose, non-cohesive soils on moderate to 

steep slopes, particularly during high intensity storm events. Wind-induced erosion often occurs on dry, fine 

sandy soils where vegetation cover is sparse and strong winds are prevalent. 

The majority of the proposed pipeline route crosses range and shrublands on gently rolling to moderately 

steep slopes that are highly erodible. Of the total 6,906 acres (excluding TWA’s, aboveground facilities, access 

roads and open water acres) potentially affected by pipeline construction, the majority (3,793 acres, 

55 percent) are considered highly erodible by water. Approximately 8 percent (516 acres) of the soils along the 

proposed pipeline route are highly erodible by wind, although there is considerable overlap between wind and 

water erosion classes in some counties. Approximately 65 percent (4,474 acres) of the soils along the 

proposed pipeline route have average slope-ranges in the 0 to 5 percent category, 608 acres of which are on 

federally managed lands. Thirty-three percent of the remaining soils range from greater than 5 percent to 

30 percent slope (2,256 acres), 475 acres of which are on federally managed lands. Approximately 2 percent 

of soils have slopes greater than 30 percent (176 acres), 37 acres of which are on federally managed lands. 

Many of the soils within the proposed disturbance footprint are considered susceptible to water and wind 

erosion. Approximately 2,385 acres of soils highly susceptible to erosion by water would be crossed in 

Wyoming, 977 acres would be crossed in Colorado, and 431 acres would be crossed in Kansas. 

Approximately 241 acres of soils highly susceptible to erosion by wind would be crossed in Wyoming, 

265 acres would be crossed in Colorado, and 10 miles would be crossed in Kansas. Of the total, 

approximately 868 and 113 acres of soils susceptible to water and wind erosion, respectively, are on federally 

managed lands. 

Soils subject to water erosion include steeply sloping land with shallow soils. Highly wind erodible soils along 

the proposed pipeline route are associated with sandy and silty textured, sparsely vegetated soils on a variety 

of parent materials. Although accelerated erosion due to construction-related soil disturbance could occur at 

any stage of construction, the maximum potential for erosion within the construction ROW would be expected 

while soils are loose, on top of the soil surface in spoil piles. Erosion also would be of concern after final 

grading has occurred but before a vegetative cover had been reestablished. If the ground surface was left 

4.4-1
Table 4.4-1 Acreage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route 

Droughty

9 

Other 

Wyoming 

24

153 

229 

82 

3

491 

Colorado 

0

57 

14

23

10 

58 

162 

Kansas

5

1

0

3

0

1

0

0 

l ra de Fe

26

100 

131 

2

0

259 

0

8

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Shallow-toBedrock8

Other

45

470 

231 

191 

132 

1,070 

0

67

3

1

8

17 

96 

5

3

0

6

1

30 

34 

9 

l ra de Fe

51

319 

87 

13 

0

471 

0

37

0

0

0

0

37 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Stony –

Rocky7

Other 

8

81 

107 

139 

134 

469 

0

30

0

4

0

30 

64 

3

0

0

0

0

10 

19 

4 

l ra de Fe

10 

56 

59 

7

0

132 

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Compaction

Prone6

Other 

0

0

0

7

0

7

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

 Hydric5

Other 

3

7

0

30 

3

43 

0

0

0

4

0

6

10 

5

3

2

2

0

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

1

7

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Prime

Farmland4

Other

0

0

0

0

13

13 

0

349 

54

67

206 

211 

887 

236 

129 

197 

249 

4

236 

209 

40 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

118 

0

0

0

0

118 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Highly

Erodible

Wind3

Other 

22

70 

36 

6

0

134 

0

33

18 

26 

48 

134 

259 

5

1

0

3

0

1

0

0 

l ra de Fe

21

52 

34 

0

0

107 

0

6

0

0

0

06

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Highly

Erodible

Water2

Other 

67

573 

518 

334 

184 

1,676 

0

394 

49

53

99 

223 

818 

127 

47 

25 

68 

5

75 

43 

12 

l ra de Fe

75

392 

224 

18

0

708 

0

159 

0

0

0

0

159 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Total Acres1 

Other

106 

738 

564 

462 

186 

2,056 

<1 

532 

67

90

264 

405 

1,358 

350 

174 

224 

318 

10 

326 

293 

48 

l ra de Fe

95

 535 

 267 

19

0

 916 

0

 204 

0

0

0

0

 204 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

State/County 

LincolnSweetwaterCarbonAlbanyLaramie

Subtotal

LarimerWeld

MorganLoganWashingtonYuma

Subtotal

CheyenneRawlinsThomasSheridan GoveTrego EllisRussell

4.4-2
Table 4.4-1 Acreage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route 

Droughty

9 

Other 

0

0

0

0

10 

663 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

267 

Shallow-toBedrock8

Other

13 

4

11 

0

116 

1,281 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

508 

Stony –

Rocky7

Other 

0

0

2

0

38 

571 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

133 

Compaction

Prone6

Other 

0

0

2

1

3

12 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0 

 Hydric5

Other 

0

0

1

0

13 

66 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

8 

Prime

Farmland4

Other

251 

72 

249 

49 

1,921 

2,821 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

118 

Highly

Erodible

Wind3

Other 

0

0

0

0

10 

403 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

113 

Highly

Erodible

Water2

Other 

13 

4

12 

0

431 

2,925 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

868 

Total Acres1 

Other

254 

72 

254 

49 

2,372 

5,786 

l ra de Fe

0 0

0

0 0

1,120 

State/County 

BartonEllsworthRiceMcPherson

Subtotal

Project Total10 1Acreage was calculated using actual pipeline length and assumes a 75-foot-wide ROW. Values do not include 1,408 acres associated with aboveground facilities, laterals, pipe

and contractor yards, TWAs, and access roads, or 3.5 acres associated with open water. Values within a table row do not add up to the total listed in the Total Acres column because soils may occur in more than one characteristic class or may not occur in any class listed in the table. Federal 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 > 5 percent (weight basis) of stones larger than 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. 

4.4-3
Table 4.4-2 Acreage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route 

Slope Class3 (percent) 

>30 

Other 

Wyoming 

2

37 

15 

59 

17

130 

Colorado 

0

0

0

0

0

3

3 

Kansas

3

1

1

1

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

3

26 

3

5

0

36 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>15 – 30 

Other 

5

158 

122 

66

72 

423 

0

20 

5

8

38 

89 

160 

21 

17 

3

23 

2

8

0 

l ra de Fe

6

108 

44 

6

0

164 

0

3

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>8 – 15 

Other 

18

153 

130 

76 

37

414 

0

38

0

0

2

38 

78 

72 

24 

19 

39 

3

42 

16 

20

104 

51 

2

0

177 

0

9

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

>5 – 8 

Other 

0

54 

96 

30

26 

206 

0

90 

7

2

29 

29 

157 

9

2

1

1

0

17 

9 

l ra de Fe

0

41 

49 

1

0

91 

0

31 

0

0

0

0

31 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 – 5

Other

81

336 

201 

231 

34

883 

0

384 

55

80 

195 

246 

960 

245 

130 

200 

254 

5

259 

268 

l ra de Fe

66

256 

120 

5

0

447 

0

161 

0

0

0

0

161 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Topsoil Depth2 (inches) 

>24 

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>18 – 24 

Other 

0

0

0

14 

3

17 

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

3

0

15 

32 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>12 – 18 

Other 

4

93 

0

47

14

158 

0

20

3

5

4

18 

50 

50 

18 

10 

29 

2

43 

33 

l ra de Fe

5

66 

0

0

0

71 

0

11

0

0

0

0

11 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>6 – 12 

Other

29

108 

160 

68 

82 

447 

0

329 

41 

37 

154 

206 

767 

201 

121 

190 

247 

6

256 

228 

l ra de Fe

20

91 

78 

4

0

193 

0

108 

0

0

0

0

108 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 – 6

Other

73

537 

404 

333 

87

1,434 

0

182 

23

48 

106 

181 

486 

99 

34 

24 

39 

2

12 

0 

l ra de Fe

70

378 

189 

15

0

652 

0

85

0

0

0

0

138 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

Total Acres1 

Other

106 

738 

564 

462 

186 

2,056 

<1 

532 

67

90 

264 

405 

1,358 

350 

174 

224 

318 

10 

326 

293 

l ra de Fe

95

 535 

 267 

19

0

 916 

0

 204 

0

0

0

0

 204 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

State/County 

LincolnSweetwaterCarbonAlbanyLaramie

Subtotal

LarimerWeldMorgan

Logan WashingtonYuma

Subtotal

CheyenneRawlinsThomasSheridan GoveTrego Ellis 

4.4-4
Table 4.4-2 Acreage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Route 

Slope Class3 (percent) 

>30 

Other

0

0

0

0

0

6

139 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

37 

>15 – 30 

Other 

0

0

0

0

0

74 

657 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

167 

>8 – 15 

Other 

6

3

1

4

0

229 

721 

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

l ra de Fe

86 

>5 – 8 

Other 

0

0

0

1

0

40 

403 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

122 

0 – 5

Other

42 

251 

71 

249 

49 

2,027 

3,870 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

746 

Topsoil Depth2 (inches) 

>24 

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>18 – 24 

Other 

5

10 

3

13 

1

83 

101 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

>12 – 18 

Other 

3

13 

4

20 

1

226 

434 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

82 

>6 – 12 

Other

40 

228 

64 

214 

44 

1,839 

3,053 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

301 

0 – 6

Other 

0

3

1

7

3

224 

2,198 

l ra de Fe

0

0

0

0

0

0

737 

Total Acres1 

Other

48 

254 

72 

254 

49 

2,372 

5,786 

l ra de Fe

0

0 0

0

0

0 1,120 

State/County 

RussellBartonEllsworthRiceMcPherson

Subtotal

Project Total 

1 Acreage was calculated using actual pipeline length and assumes a 75-foot-wide ROW. Values do not include 1,408 acres associated with aboveground facilities, laterals, pipe and 

contractor yards, and additional TWAs, access roads, or 3.5 acres associated with open water. Federal lands data based on BLM-provided land layers and USFS jurisdictional boundaries for the FGNRA and PNG. 

2 Topsoil includes A-horizons (layers 1, 11, and 12) listed in the STATSGO database layer table. 

3 Slopes are grouped by the averages of the high and low slope ranges provided in the STATSGO database for each MUID component soil series. For example, Tresano series, 3 to

10 percent slopes, is 20 percent of MUID CO010. Its average slope is 6.5 percent. The representative acreage, calculated by multiplying percent composition by the total MUIDacreage, is included in the >5 to 8 percent slope class. 

4.4-5
smooth and bare during this period, winds could dislodge soil particles and rainfall intercepting bare surfaces 

could result in increased erosion. 

Soil Productivity 

The mixing of soil horizons during grading, trenching, and backfilling would lower soil productivity of agricultural 

and rangeland by diluting the physical, biological and chemical properties of the topsoil with less productive 

subsoil. This could affect revegetation success. Segregation of topsoil helps to mitigate these effects. If topsoil 

is lost, mitigation can be difficult because it may take hundreds to thousands of years for a topsoil horizon to 

form naturally. 

Erosion of the topsoil spoil pile could occur during construction, leading to a decreased amount of topsoil to be 

placed back on the surface. This could affect nutrient cycling and soil productivity. Approximately 2,903 acres 

of prime farmland or potentially prime farmland on highly productive agricultural soils would be affected by the 

proposed project. Protecting topsoil spoil piles from wind and water erosion is essential in these areas. 

Approximately 49 percent of the soils affected by the proposed project would have between 6 and 12 inches of 

topsoil, while approximately 42 percent of soils have between 0 and 6 inches of topsoil. Erosion, rutting, and 

the mixing of topsoil and subsoil horizons is of particular concern in areas with thin topsoil horizons because 

soil productivity can be drastically decreased if topsoil is mixed with subsoil or topsoil is lost to erosion. Only 

approximately 9 percent of the proposed project would affect soils with more than 12 inches of topsoil. 

Summaries of acres of various topsoil depths are located in Table 4.4-2. 

Soil Compaction and Rutting 

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together and the pore spaces between them are 

reduced and bulk density is increased. Moist fine textured soils are most susceptible to severe compaction. 

However, compaction may occur on loamy to coarse textured soils and under drier conditions due to multiple 

passes by heavy mechanical equipment. 

Rutting occurs when the soil strength is not sufficient to support the applied load from vehicle traffic. Rutting 

affects the surface hydrology of a site as well as the rooting environment. The process of rutting physically 

severs roots and reduces the aeration and infiltration of the soil, thereby degrading the rooting environment. 

Rutting also disrupts natural surface water hydrology by damming surface water flows, creating increased soil 

saturation upgradient from ruts, or by diverting and concentrating water flows creating accelerated erosion. 

Rutting is most likely to occur on moist or wet fine textured soils but may also occur on dry sandy soils due to 

low soil strength. Soil rutting is an important indication that other physical soil impacts may be occurring on a 

site. 

Soil compaction and rutting could result from the movement of heavy construction vehicles along the 

construction ROW and additional TWAs, and on temporary access roads. The degree of compaction would 

depend on the moisture content and texture of the soil at the time of construction. Compaction would be most 

severe where heavy equipment operates on moist to wet soils with high clay contents. Detrimental compaction 

also can occur on soils of various textures and moisture contents if multiple passes are made by high 

ground-weight equipment. If soils are moist or wet where trenchline only topsoil trenching has occurred, topsoil 

also may adhere to tires and/or tracked vehicles and be carried away. Rutting restrictions would help to 

mitigate these concerns. 

Soil that is excessively compacted is limited in its ability to function. Compaction damages soil structure and 

reduces pore space, which impedes the movement of air and water to plant roots and can result in lower 

growth rates and hinder revegetation. Compaction reduces infiltration and results in excessive surface runoff, 

erosion, nutrient loss, and potential water-quality problems. Detrimental soil compaction, when extreme and 

unmitigated, can directly result in an irretrievable reduction in soil productivity. 

4.4-6
Stony/Rocky Soils and Shallow-to-Bedrock Soils 

Grading, trenching, and backfilling may bring stones to the surface that could interfere with or damage 

agricultural equipment and hamper revegetation efforts by reducing soil moisture holding capacity. Ripping and 

blasting of shallow bedrock during construction could result in incorporation of bedrock fragments into topsoil. 

Approximately 10 percent (705 acres) of the proposed pipeline route contains soils with substantial rocks and 

stones in the surface horizons. The majority of stony/rocky soils occur in the Wyoming and Colorado segments 

of the proposed pipeline route with 601 acres located in Wyoming, 65 acres in Colorado, and 38 acres in 

Kansas. Of the total, 133 acres are located on federally managed lands. Summaries of acres in stony-rocky 

classes are listed in Table 4.4-1. 

Soils containing shallow bedrock occupy approximately 26 percent (1,788 acres) of the proposed project. The 

majority of soils containing shallow bedrock are located in Wyoming (1,539 acres), with an additional 

133 acres in Colorado, and 116 acres in Kansas. Of the total, 571 acres are located on federally managed 

lands. Approximately 20 percent of the total acreage of shallow bedrock is designated as hard rock that could 

require blasting. The remaining areas of shallow bedrock are soft enough to be ripped with backhoes or 

bulldozers equipped with rippers. The majority of shallow-to-bedrock soils are located in Sweetwater and 

Carbon counties, Wyoming (789 and 318 acres, respectively). Summaries of acres in shallow bedrock classes 

are provided in Table 4.4-1. 

Droughty Soils 

Revegetation success within the construction ROW could be a concern on droughty soils. Coarse-textured 

soils in moderately well drained or drier drainage classes are particularly susceptible to drought. Revegetation 

success on droughty soils could be compromised if seeding and revegetation efforts occur during dry periods. 

Approximately 13 percent (930 acres) of soils affected by the proposed project are inherently droughty. The 

majority of droughty soils are located in Wyoming (750 acres). An additional 170 acres are in Colorado and 

10 acres are located in Kansas. Of the total, 267 acres are located on federally managed land. Summaries of 

acres in droughty soil-classes are listed in Table 4.4-1. 

Drain Tiles 

Pipeline construction activities could disrupt or damage existing subsurface drainage systems. Hydric soils are 

generally an indicator of areas that may require drain tiles for crop production. The proposed project would 

affect approximately 74 acres (approximately 1 percent of total area) of hydric soils. The majority of hydric soils 

are in Wyoming (51 acres). An additional 10 acres are in Colorado and 13 acres are located in Kansas. Of the 

total, 8 acres are located on federally managed lands. This represents a relatively small percentage of the total 

acreage affected and few if any drain tiles are expected to be encountered. 

Irrigation Systems 

Grading, trenching, and backfilling could disrupt water flow to irrigation systems. Overland Pass has committed 

to maintaining water flow to irrigation systems throughout construction, unless landowner permission was 

obtained to temporarily interrupt water flow. 

Soil Contamination 

Soil contamination along the proposed pipeline route could result from material spills during construction and 

trench excavation through pre-existing contaminated areas. These impacts typically would be minor because 

of the low frequency and volumes of these occurrences. However, if large spills occur they could result in the 

removal and disposal of large amounts of soil. Saturated soils may have the potential to diffuse contaminants. 

Mitigations that buffer wetlands and waterbodies from refueling or fuel storage, would help to prevent spills in 

saturated areas. No areas of pre-existing soil contamination were identified along the proposed pipeline route. 

4.4-7
Aboveground and Ancillary Facilities 

Construction of the project would involve the construction of two pump stations (plus one future pump station 

at WaKeeney) and seven meter stations. None of these aboveground facilities would be located on federally 

managed land. Meter stations at Opal, Bushton, and Conway would be constructed within existing, previously 

disturbed commercial/industrial properties, resulting in no additional soil impacts than are already experienced 

at these facilities. Additional facilities would affect previously undisturbed lands including the Echo Springs 

Pump and Meter Station, Laramie Pump and Meter Station, Washington County Meter Station (RP 447.8), and 

the WaKeeney Meter (and future pump) Station (Table 4.4.3). Because these sites may exist for an 

indeterminate amount of time, site-specific impacts could result in an irretrievable reduction in soil productivity. 

Table 4.4-3 Characteristics and Limitations of Soils at Pump and Meter Stations 

Station Name 

Map Unit 

Symbol1 Map Unit Name 

Susceptibility to 

Erosion 

Prime 

Farmland 

Opal Meter Station NA Previously disturbed 

commercial/industrial site 

NA No 

Echo Springs Pump and 

Meter Station 

WY166 Multiple STASTGO MUIDs Susceptible to water 

and wind erosion 

No 

Laramie Pump and 

Meter Station2,3 

188 McFadden gravelly fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 

Not highly susceptible 

to erosion. 

No 

Washington County 

Meter Station (RP 

447.8)2,3 

4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 3 to 

9 percent slopes 

Susceptible to water 

erosion. 

No 

WaKeeney Meter Station 

(future pump station)2,3 

1620 Keith silt loam, 1 to 3 percent 

slopes 

Not highly susceptible 

to erosion. 

Yes 

Bushton Meter Station NA Previously disturbed 

commercial/industrial site 

NA No 

Conway Meter Station NA Previously disturbed 

commercial/industrial site 

NA No 

1

Map unit estimated from station footprints and soil survey map sheets. 

2

Map unit symbols and names taken from the applicable map sheets in NRCS county soil surveys.

3

Susceptibility to water and wind erosion and prime farmland designations determined from NRCS data provided in county soil surveys 

and Soil Survey Geographic database (USDA NRCS 2005, 1994). 

Construction activities affecting new land would involve initial soil disturbance due to grading and excavation 

and a change in land use as a result of construction and operation. The majority of the soils that would be 

affected by construction and operation of the pump station exhibit low susceptibility to water and wind erosion. 

At the proposed Wyoming and Colorado locations, no prime farmland soils would be impacted by construction 

and operation of the stations; in Kansas, prime farmland soils potentially would be affected. 

The project also would require the construction and operation of 11 pigging facilities and 144 MLVs along the 

proposed pipeline route (Table 2.2-1). Pigging facilities would be constructed within a 208-foot by 208- to 

250-foot site, while operation of a launcher/receiver would occur within a 175- to 125-foot by 125-foot site. The 

block and check valves would be operated within a permanent 25-foot by 25-foot fenced area, while remote 

valve sites would be operated within a 100-foot by 25-foot site. MLVs would be situated entirely within the 

permanent ROW. Soil constraints for pigging facilities and MLVs would be the same as those identified for the 

surrounding pipeline ROW. 

Ancillary facilities consist of contractor and pipe storage yards and access roads. Overland Pass would use 

24 pipe storage and contractor yards during construction (Table 2.2-6). Each yard is located on non-federal 

land. In Wyoming, seven of the eight yards would be located on previously developed sites, while three would 

be on rangeland. One yard in Colorado would be on previously developed land, while the other four would be 

on agricultural or rangeland. Thirteen yards would be required in Kansas, of which two would be on developed 

4.4-8
or partially developed land. The remaining sites would be on agricultural land. Generally, yard preparation 

would be limited to grading and leveling, and possibly importing some fill. Where the yards would be located in 

rangeland, topsoil would be stripped and stored at the edge of the yard and temporary traffic lanes would be 

installed by placing gravel over geotextile fabric. If gravel compresses through the geotextile fabric, rock could 

be incorporated into the soil and would be difficult to remove. Impacts would be similar to those of pipeline 

construction (i.e., possibility of reduction of soil quality by topsoil loss or mixing with subsoils, compaction, and 

introduction of invasive or noxious weeds). Upon completion of the project, the traffic lanes would be removed, 

compacted soils would be mitigated according to Overland Pass’ POD and topsoil would be restored to its 

original position. 

Access to the project primarily would be via existing public roads that would not require modifications. Some of 

the access roads, however, would be dirt roads, such as BLM or USFS access roads and two-track trails. 

Road maintenance, such as grading and filling, likely would not be required to maintain the dirt roads in a 

passable condition unless rain occurs and travel over the roads deteriorates surface conditions. 

Additional Mitigation 

SOIL-1: On the PNG, to minimize topsoil erosion, hydrologic impacts, and potential impacts to range and 

wildlife, Overland Pass shall limit the time that a trench would remain open to 1 mile of open trench 

at the end of each construction day. 

SOIL-2: On the PNG, if topsoil losses are noted due to wind erosion by the EI of PNG inspector, Overland 

Pass shall apply a Polyacrylamide (PAM) tackifier within 24 hours to the topsoil spoil pile. 

The tackifier shall be a liquid formulation having PAM as the primary active ingredient, and shall be 

available as a prepackaged product. The PAM shall be a linear, anionic copolymer, which is safe to 

humans, wildlife, and fisheries. Studies conducted by the USDA/Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) demonstrated that soil stabilization was optimized by using very high molecular weight (12 to 

15 mg/mole), highly anionic (greater than 20 percent hydrolysis) PAM. Magnesium chloride shall not 

be used on the PNG. 

SOIL-3: On federal lands, Overland Pass shall consult with the applicable federal agency on roads that 

require maintenance or reclamation during or after construction. Two-track roads found to be 

disturbed by construction activities would be reclaimed, at the agencies discretion, by decompacting 

soils, constructing permanent erosion control (such as drivable water bars), and reseeding the entire 

roadbed. The two-track shall be allowed to reestablish through normal traffic patterns and use. 

SOIL-4: On the PNG, Overland Pass shall offset their pipeline 30 feet from the existing, adjacent pipeline. 

SOIL-5: On lands managed by the BLM and the ANF, full ROW topsoil stripping shall occur to a depth of 

6 inches. On the PNG, the full dept of the topsoil horizon shall be removed from the trenchline only. 

SOIL-6: On the PNG, pocking shall not be used. At the time of final slope recontouring, Overland Pass shall 

install photodegradable or biodegradable erosion control fabric that is non-toxic to vegetation or 

germination of seed, and non-toxic or injurious to humans or wildlife, on waterbody banks and slopes 

over 10 percent. Overland Pass shall anchor the erosion control fabric in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

SOIL-7: In areas where topsoil has not been removed, rutting from construction activities shall not exceed 

4 inches on all federal lands, with the exception of the PNG where the rutting restriction is 3 inches. 

If rutting exceeds these depths, it shall be considered excessive and operations halted until 

conditions are dry. If conditions do not improve, Overland Pass shall consult with the applicable 

federal agencies to determine if alternate topsoil removal techniques may be employed to alleviate 

rutting concern. 

4.4-9
SOIL-8: Prior to preparation of the final POD, Overland Pass shall consult with the federal land management 

agencies to obtain detailed soil inventory information that will be used to fine-tune the proponents 

site-specific reclamation and revegetation plans. Site-specific changes and mitigation measures 

shall be incorporated by RP into the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan. The 

changes shall be incorporated directly into the text of the final POD or made an addendum to the 

final POD for the project. 

SOIL-9: On the PNG, the entire length of the working side of the ROW shall be ripped to the depth of 

compaction using the required compaction reduction tool, equipped with winged shanks 

(Figure 4.4-3). 

SOIL-10: On the PNG, certified weed-free straw or hay mulch shall be crimped in at a rate of 1.5 tons/acre. 

SOIL-11: Overland Pass would test for compaction at regular intervals no less than every 0.25 mile on the 

working side of the ROW. Where the soil has a 15 percent increase in bulk density from the average 

undisturbed density, mitigate for compaction by ripping to the depth of compaction with a ripper or 

subsoiler. 

Conclusion 

The soils in the project area are diverse with a broad range of textures and depths. Much of the proposed 

pipeline route crosses soils that have shallow topsoil, are susceptible to erosion, have poor reclamation 

potential, and are prone to compaction and rutting. Pipeline construction activities may result in adverse 

impacts on the soil resources. Soil impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of Overland Pass’ POD 

(including the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan). Measures to minimize soil impacts include 

erosion control measures, topsoil separation and handling procedures, and remediation of compacted soils. 

Impacts anticipated from pipeline construction include the possibility of reduction of soil quality by topsoil loss 

or mixing with subsoils, compaction, and introduction of invasive or noxious weeds. 

Application of the additional mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to soil resources. SOIL-1, 

SOIL-2, SOIL-6, and SOIL-10 would reduce the amount of topsoil lost to erosion. SOIL-3 would reduce 

compaction and rutting on two-track roads, reducing topsoil loss and minimizing the expansion of the two-track 

by braiding. By increasing the overlap between adjacent ROWs, SOIL-4 would decrease the amount of newly 

disturbed ROW by 20 percent. SOIL-7 would reduce the risk of topsoil and subsoil mixing and loss of soil 

productivity due to rutting. SOIL-9 and SOIL-11 would mitigate compaction that may occur on the working side 

of the ROW due to multiple passes by heavy equipment. 

The STATSGO data used for analysis represents general soil data and does not provide a detailed 

representation of existing conditions. As a result, the BLM and USFS prefer that the project-specific POD 

provide a higher level of resolution to the soils data in order to properly identify areas of concern. SOIL-8 would 

provide an opportunity for land management agencies to work with Overland Pass to identify specific resource 

concerns along the proposed pipeline route and incorporate site-specific mitigations as necessary. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential topsoil losses from wind and water erosion on disturbed surfaces during and after 

maintenance activities. 

• Potential reduction in soil productivity and quality from topsoil losses, soil mixing and compaction. 

• Soil contamination from pipeline leaks, particularly in prime farmland. 

4.4-10
Overland Pass

Pipeline Project

Figure 4.4-1

U.S.F.S. Compaction

Reduction Tool

Source: USDA 2003

NOTTO SCALE

4.4-11
Analysis 

Potential topsoil losses from wind and water erosion could occur during maintenance operations along the 

ROW or at aboveground facilities. These activities would be dispersed along the length of the proposed 

pipeline route and would occur intermittently. 

There is a small probability the pipeline could accidentally leak, releasing NGL into the environment 

(Section 3.12). The physical, chemical and toxicological properties of the NGLs that Overland proposes to 

transport were evaluated to determine potential environmental effects (Appendix J). NGLs primarily consist of 

gas that is liquefied by pressure (e.g., propane). Consequently, in the unlikely event of a pipeline release, NGL 

components would rapidly volatilize, thereby resulting in minimal impacts to soil resources. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Operation of the WaKeeney Meter Station would result in the conversion of approximately 1 acre of prime 

farmland to industrial use. 

Maintenance activities would result in localized impacts of short duration (less than 14 days in most cases) and 

these impacts would be dispersed along the entire route. 

If NGLs were accidentally released into the environment, minimal impacts, if any, would be expected to soil 

resources. 

4.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed or operated. No project-related 

disturbance would occur to soils. Impacts would continue at present levels as a result of natural conditions and 

existing development in the project area. 

4.4.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Effects of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be the same as the 

Proposed Action with the exception of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

Steep and side slope construction would result in 35 acres of TWAs along the Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, compared to 17 acres for the Proposed Action. These areas would be more 

susceptible to erosion and would be more difficult to reclaim. 

Acres of various soil characteristics that would be affected by the construction of the alternative route and the 

corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route have been provided in Tables 4.4-4 and 4.4-5. The 

alternative route would affect fewer acres of prime farmland relative to the corresponding segment of the 

proposed pipeline route. However, the alternative route would affect more acres of soils susceptible to erosion 

caused by wind and water, hydric soils, stony-rocky soils, shallow depth to bedrock, and droughty soils. 

Impacts to 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 affect approximately 59 acres of soils with topsoil depths greater than 12 inches 

compared with the corresponding segment of the proposed, which would not cross soils with topsoil depths of 

greater that 12 inches. In addition, the alternative route would affect more acres of soils with steeper slopes 

than the corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route. 

4.4-12
Table 4.4-4 Comparison of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Action (Acres) 

Highly Highly 

Erodible 

Water

1 

Erodible 

Wind2 

Prime 

Farmland3 Hydric4 

Compaction 

Prone5 

StonyRocky6 Shallow-toBedrock7 Droughty8 

Proposed Action 226.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 24.4 183.1 224.1 

Southern Energy 279.7 13.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 28.2 223.2 278.2 

Corridor – 

Copper Ridge 

Bypass 

Alternative 

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 4.4-5 Acreage Summary of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Affected by the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route 

 0-6 >6-12 

Topsoil1 

(inches) 

>12-18 >18-24 >24 0-5 >5-8 

Slope2 

(percent) 

>8-15 >15-30 >30 

Proposed 

Action 

162.1 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.1 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 

Southern 

Energy Corridor 

– Copper Ridge 

Bypass 

Alternative 

205.9 14.4 44.4 15.2 0.0 80.2 28.12 128.32 22.32 20.3 

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. 

4.4-13
4.5 Water Resources 

4.5.1 Proposed Action 

4.5.1.1 Surface Water 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Increased turbidity and sedimentation in streams resulting from in-stream construction; 

• Risk of fuels, solvents, or hazardous material spills during construction; 

• Channel and bank modification, affecting channel morphology; 

• Reductions in flow volumes in streams where water is withdrawn for hydrostatic testing; 

• Potential transmittal of whirling disease, zebra mussels or other invasive aquatic species between 

watersheds; 

• Accelerated erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation from disposal of hydrostatic testing water; and 

• Increased salt loading from surface discharge in the Colorado River Basin. 

Analysis 

Crossings 

Overland Pass proposes to select waterbody crossing methods based on the presence or absence of water, 

flow conditions, and stream width. In general, if an intermittent or ephemeral waterbody had no perceptible 

flow at the time of crossing, upland construction techniques would be used. The open cut construction 

technique (i.e., wet-ditch method) would be used for flowing streams less than 30 feet wide. Dry-ditch methods 

(flume or dam-and-pump methods) would be used for stream with perceptible flow and widths greater than 

30 feet. On the PNG, all intermittent streams would be crossed using a dry-ditch technique. 

In most cases, open-cut and dry ditch waterbody crossings typically would be completed within 24 to 48 hours. 

Crossing methods for ten major and sensitive waterbody crossings, including Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork 

River (two crossings), Green River, Bitter Creek, North Platte River, Medicine Bow River, South Platte River, 

Airkaree River, and South Fork Republican River are identified in Table 3.5-2. Site-specific crossing plans for 

these crossings are being developed by Overland Pass. The plans will address: 

• The method and equipment that would be used to excavate the in-stream trench; 

• The location of the spoil storage in the waterbody and onshore, and the mitigative measures that 

would be used to control and store the spoil; 

• The method that would be used to install the pipeline across the waterbody, including the amount of 

time required for the installation; 

• The method and material that would be used to backfill the trench in the riverbed; 

• An explanation of the size requirements of the additional TWAs on each bank (such as trench size 

and work that would be done at each workspace); 

• A description of any special mitigation that would minimize impact on riparian vegetation and in-stream 

habitat; and 

• A discussion of special mitigation for contaminated sediments. 

4.5-1
As proposed by Overland Pass, all but one of these major and sensitive waterbodies (South Platte River) 

would be crossed using the open-cut construction method. 

Open cut crossing procedures could result in temporary impacts to surface waters. Trenching across small 

waterbodies would cause a minor, short-term increase in the sediment load. Because the disturbance area 

would be substantially greater for streams greater than 30 feet in width, Overland Pass would use dry-ditch 

methods at these crossings. Overland Pass would adhere to the measures contained in its Construction, 

Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) to prevent or minimize impacts to surface water. On 

non-federally managed land, spoil would be placed or stored a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of a water 

body. On federally managed land spoil would be placed or stored a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of a 

water body. Nonetheless, impacts including temporarily increased turbidity and downstream sedimentation 

would occur at open cut crossings. These impacts could affect fisheries, recreation, and public water supplies. 

TWAs would be required at waterbody crossings unless impractical due to topography or other technical 

constraint. Overland Pass proposes to set these areas back at least 50 feet from the riparian edge on federal 

land and 10 feet on private land. Refuling, storage and use of hazardous materials, and equipment storage 

would be set back 500 feet from the riparian edge on federal land and 100 feet on private land. 

Open cut crossings of sensitive waterbodies (Table 3.5-2) could result in significant impacts to environmental 

resources. Trenched crossings in these locations could temporarily increase sediment load and degrade 

surface water quality. At most locations, trenching would result in physical alteration of channel morphology, 

including streambanks and bottom substrates. The impact and extent would vary with soil materials. In 

general, application of erosion control techniques would keep impacts minimized and localized. At the Hams 

Fork and Blacks Fork, however, open cut crossings in silt or soft material may have long-term effects, such as 

scouring, sedimentation and erosion. Fine silts and colloids also could result in diminished aesthetics of the 

waterbodies for anglers and other recreational users, and impact potable water supplies that obtain water from 

surface water intakes. There are five known surface water intakes within 10 miles downstream of the proposed 

pipeline crossings (Table 3.5-4). Overland Pass would provide written notification to the authorities responsible 

for potable surface water supply intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at least 1 week 

before beginning work in a waterbody, or as otherwise specified by that authority. Additionally, Overland Pass 

would notify the appropriate state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning trenching or blasting within the 

waterbody, or as specified in state permits. 

Overland Pass initially planned to HDD the Green River crossing in southwestern Wyoming. Site-specific 

geotechnical investigations have subsequently indicated that such a crossing method would have a high risk of 

failure due to unsuitable soil and rock characteristics, as well as from uncontrolled water flow into the bore from 

the aquifer. The USFS has concerns about an open cut alternative to an HDD crossing, due to recreation and 

fisheries resources in the locale. 

Pipeline integrity during floods and related channel scouring is a major concern for the proposed open-cut 

crossing of the Green River. The channel is approximately 300 feet wide at the proposed crossing location. If 

the pipeline burial depth was insufficient and bed or bank materials were eroded away, portions of the pipe 

may become unsupported. If deep scouring took place during a large flood event, an exposed pipeline would 

be subjected to the force of the floodwater and to impacts from rocks or debris transported in the flow. Over 

time, either repeated smaller floods or the occurrence of a single large event could threaten the structural 

integrity of the pipeline. 

A leak or rupture would create adverse impacts to surface water and related fisheries and recreation resources 

downstream. Emergency control valves are proposed on either side of the Green River over an approximately 

2.6 mile length of the pipeline, and the proposed crossing generally is centered within this distance. In case of 

rupture, these valves would activate and minimize the volume of product spilled. However, adverse impacts 

still would occur from transported NGLs being released to the surface water environment and from emergency 

response activities disturbing the river channel and adjacent floodplains. Because of these potential impacts, 

additional mitigation measure WATER-9 is recommended. Implementation of mitigation measure WATER-9 

4.5-2
may generate additional impacts on fishery resources; these are discussed in the respective resource section 

(Section 4.7). 

The BLM is concerned about the use of the open cut method at several crossings: Blacks Fork River, Hams 

Fork River, Bitter Creek, and North Platte River. The use of the open cut crossing method by other recent 

pipeline projects across the Blacks Fork and Hams Fork rivers resulted in adverse affects by changing channel 

and streambank morphology, modifying flow velocities, increasing sedimentation, and creating related adverse 

impacts to the aquatic community, which includes the presence of special status fish species and game 

fisheries. BLM recommends the Blacks Fork and Hams Fork rivers be directionally drilled to avoid additional 

impacts on game and special status species and to minimize impediments to fish movement in the rivers. 

The BLM has similar concerns for the North Platte River due to its high recreational value and use as a 

municipal drinking water supply. The recent Entrega Pipeline Project open cut this river. After observing this 

crossing, the BLM recommends the North Platte River be directionally drilled to avoid similar sedimentation 

impacts on water resources. However, since the North Platte River crossing would not occur on federal lands, 

the BLM has no authority to enforce this recommendation. 

Bitter Creek (RP 108) contains a unique population of flannelmouth suckers, considered to be a sensitive 

species by the BLM and WGFD, downstream of the crossing location. Overland Pass proposes to use upland 

construction techniques if no water is flowing at the time of construction. If water is flowing at the time of 

construction, Overland Pass proposes to open-cut the crossing without disturbing the existing beaver dam and 

aquatic habitat immediately up stream of the crossing location. 

Overland Pass has committed to one HDD river crossing at the South Platte River in Colorado and associated 

ditches. Consequently, construction-related impacts on aquatic resources due to sedimentation would be 

minor at this river. HDD minimizes impacts by avoiding instream activities. Nevertheless, there is a possibility 

that mud consisting of water, bentonite and cuttings, from the directional drilling (or from HDD failure or tunnel 

collapse) could inadvertently enter the active stream along the drilling route. However, if mud seepage was 

detected, the drilling operation would be stopped immediately to reduce pressure within the bore hole. 

Corrective measures would be implemented to eliminate or minimize seepage. If any seepage enters the 

stream, increased turbidity of the surface water would be localized and short-term in duration (less than 1 day). 

Long-term impacts from drilling mud would be mitigated by the measures described above. 

In the event the HDD is not successful at the South Platte river crossing, the potential for open-cut methods 

would be evaluated. Similar impacts described above for open-cut crossings (temporary increases in sediment 

loading) could occur. Erosion control techniques would keep suspended sediment localized and conditions 

would be expected to return to pre-construction levels within several days. 

Fuel Spills 

The use of heavy equipment to complete pipeline installation across waterbodies increases the potential for 

accidental releases of fuels, lubricants, and coolants. The accidental release of these materials could 

adversely affect aquatic species and, in a few cases (e.g., North Platte River, Rock Creek, Smoky Hill River), 

contaminate public water supplies that rely on surface water intakes located downstream of the waterbody 

crossing. Overland Pass would minimize the potential impact of spills of hazardous materials by adhering to its 

SPCC Plan (Overland Pass 2006). The SPCC Plan describes preventive measures such as personnel 

training, equipment inspection, and refueling procedures to reduce the likelihood of spills; and mitigative 

measures, such as containment and cleanup, to minimize potential impacts should a spill occur. On federal 

land, a minimum setback distance of 500 feet from riparian zones would be maintained for all refueling 

activities, storage and use of hazardous materials, and equipment storage. On private land, this minimum set 

back distance would be 100 feet. 

Overland Pass has committed to install bridge structures at all perennial waterbody crossings or at intermittent 

crossings greater than 30 feet that have flowing condition at the time of construction to allow for construction 

equipment and vehicles to cross the waterbody. Clearing equipment and equipment for installation of a bridge 

4.5-3
would be allowed to pass across the waterbody or wetland only once. Overland Pass would limit the amount 

and duration of instream work using heavy equipment at these crossings. As described above, Overland Pass 

would provide advance notification to the operators of surface water intakes regarding waterbody construction 

schedules and would notify the operators and the BLM of any accidental releases of hazardous materials that 

could impact their water supply. 

Vehicle and equipment use within and adjacent to waterbodies also could pose a risk to water quality from fuel 

or lubricant spills. If fuel reached a waterbody, aquatic species could be exposed to toxic conditions, 

depending on factors such as volume spilled, stream velocity, and channel morphology. 

Bank Stability and Flooding 

Long-term impacts on water quality could result from alteration of the streambank and removal of riparian 

vegetation. Vegetative cover along streambanks of a waterbody provides bank stability and erosion control. If 

not stabilized and revegetated properly, soil erosion associated with surface runoff and streambank sloughing 

could result in deposition of sediments in the waterbodies after construction was completed. Given the 

relatively small width of disturbance associated with a pipeline crossing, the above potential impacts would be 

considered minor relative to an entire stream system. Overland Pass would ensure that disturbed areas 

successfully revegetate with wetland herbaceous and/or woody plant species by implementing the 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). 

Overland Pass has identified 29 locations of active erosion or channel incising (Table 4.5-1). To minimize 

impacts to these locations and to avoid exacerbating conditions, Overland Pass defined procedures that would 

be implemented to stabilize these stream crossings, including the use of permanent slope and trench 

breakers, geotextile fabric, and 1 foot of clean gravel or native cobble to reduce bottom scour (Figures 4.5-1 

and 4.5-2). 

If necessary, specialized, site-specific construction practices and plans would be developed in areas where 

standard construction practices are not sufficient to protect a resource. For open-cut crossings, waterbody 

banks would be stabilized and temporary sediment barriers installed within 24 hours of completing instream 

construction activities. For dry-ditch crossings, streambed and bank stabilization would be completed before 

returning flow to the waterbody channel. Waterbody banks would be returned to preconstruction contours or to 

a stable angle of repose. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

The appropriation of large volumes of hydrostatic test water from surface water sources could temporarily 

affect the recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the 

source’s total flow or volume. 

Water withdrawal from the Green River at the crossing would not constitute withdrawal of a large percentage 

of the available surface water. A review of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) data found that the 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir water volumes ranged from approximately 2,500,000 acre-feet to 

3,500,000 acre-feet during October/November from 1996 to 2005. The most recent reported volume was 

3,000,000 acre-feet in October, 2005 (USBOR 2006a). The USBOR forecast 3,311,000 acre-feet of water 

would be present in the Reservoir in December of 2007 (USBOR 2006b), when Overland Pass proposes to 

conduct hydrostatic testing. 

The Overland Pass Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix C) lists five streams, numerous private wells in Colorado 

and Kansas, and storage ponds at the ONEOK Bushton Plant as water sources for hydrostatic testing. The 

withdrawal location and volumes are provided in Table 4.5-2. Overland Pass proposes to withdraw water 

between November 1 and December 15, 2007. Withdrawal rates from surface water sources would not 

exceed 0.5 percent of the average monthly flow rates as identified by the USGS. 

4.5-4


Table 4.5-1 Locations Where Active Erosion or Channel Incising is Occurring 

RP Name Stream Type 

0.95 Hams Fork River Perennial 

1.08 Trib to Hams Fork Perennial 

12.88 Trib to Blacks Fork Intermittent 

15.82 Trib to Blacks Fork Intermittent 

21.95 Trib to Blacks Fork Intermittent 

25.41 Trib to Blacks Fork Intermittent 

35.49 Trib to Spider Creek Intermittent 

41.33 Blacks Fork Perennial 

55.72 Logan Draw Intermittent 

65.13 Trib to Bitter Creek Intermittent 

74.30 Trib to Sweetwater Creek Intermittent 

76.07 Trib to Bitter Creek Intermittent 

91.20 Trib to Black Butte Creek Intermittent 

107.30 Bitter Creek Perennial 

118.10 Trib to Bitter Creek Intermittent 

200.24 Trib to St. Mary’s Creek Intermittent 

230.75 Trib to Bear Creek Intermittent 

242.21 Irrigation canal Intermittent 

329.20 Trib to Owl Creek Intermittent 

331.73 Trib to Owl Creek Intermittent 

334.42 Trib to Eastmen Creek Intermittent 

479.30 Trib to Nork Fork Intermittent 

513.26 Bluff Creek Intermittent 

515.62 Trib to Bluff Creek Intermittent 

542.57 North Fork Sappa Creek Intermittent 

679.40 Trib to Smokey Hill River Intermittent 

699.97 Trib to Cow Creek Intermittent 

715.35 Trib to Plum Creek Intermittent 

717.30 Plum Creek Perennial 

In addition to hydrostatic test water, water for dust control would be taken from the same sources (Table 4.5-2) 

or from surface water municipal supplies nearby. If existing surface water municipal supplies were used for 

dust control, these volumes would not be considered new depletions. Collectively, hydrostatic testing and dust 

control could use up to 39.5 acre-feet from surface water sources in the Colorado River Basin and up to 

77.3 acre-feet from surface water sources in the Platte River Basin. 

Potential impacts on surface water resources from hydrostatic testing withdrawals may include reductions in 

flow rates, reductions in streamflow presence and extent within the channels and associated habitats, and 

potential water quality effects. Water quality effects may include increased turbidity from pump installation 

activities, and changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations due to flow reductions. 

Overland Pass has identified potential water sources to be used for filling each pipe test section and has been 

in consultation with the various agencies regarding water use. Overland Pass will continue these consultations, 

including those with the USFWS regarding water depletion and potential downstream impacts on threatened 

and endangered species if hydrostatic test water is removed from sensitive water resources. Based on these 

continuing consultations and other provisions in the proposed hydrostatic testing plan, potential impacts from 

surface water withdrawals are likely to present minimal potential for adverse effects. Effects that do occur 

would vary with flow conditions and agency guidance at the time of construction, and would be temporary in 

nature. 

4.5-7
Table 4.5-2 Potential Water Sources for Construction of the Proposed Project 

Approximate 

RP Potential Source(s) 

Volume for 

Dust Control 

Volume for 

Hydrostatic Testing1 

gallons acre-feet gallons acre-feet 

Colorado River Tributaries 

41.3 Blacks Fork River 6,920,000 21.2 2,447,856 7.5 

59.3 Green River 3,529,144 10.8 

 Subtotal 21.2 18.3 

Platte River Tributaries 

195.5 North Platte River 6,920,000 21.2 6,777,341 20.8 

277.1 Laramie River 3,100,000 9.5 2,502,362 7.7 

412.4 North Sterling Ditch of the South Platte River 5,902,678 18.1 

 Subtotal 30.7 46.6 

Other Sources 

444.2 – 598.6 Private Wells

2

 3,100,000 9.5 7,992,552 24.5 

718.0 Storage Ponds at ONEOK Bushton Plant 2,300,000 7.1 8,342,418 25.6 

 Subtotal 16.6 50.1 

TOTALS 22,340,000 68.5 37,494,351 115.0 

1

Source of Information: Hydrostatic Test Plan (Overland Pass 2006). 2

Based on an analysis of the well location and relationship to groundwater and lack of connectivity to surface flow, none of this 

groundwater drains into the Platte River surface water tributaries. 

Surface water depletions in the Colorado River and Platte River basins for hydrostatic testing or dust control 

purposes are an issue for federally listed species that occur in downstream portions of the Colorado River and 

Platte River basins. The USFWS requires consultation for any water withdrawals in these basins that could 

affect surface water quantity. Section 4.7.1.2 discusses the impacts of water depletions from the proposed 

project on federally listed species in the Colorado River and Platte River basins. 

Overland Pass plans to discharge hydrostatic test water onto suitable upland areas or to surface waters. A 

splash pup would be used to minimize impacts on surface waters. A splash pup is a smaller section of pipeline 

welded at the end of the discharge line at a 90° angle. Use of a splash pup can be an effective means of 

minimizing erosion and dissipating energy to avoid increasing the turbidity of the waterbody and causing 

significant changes to the flow velocity of a river. Hydrostatic testing activities would be monitored by 

inspectors and the outflow rates adjusted as necessary to avoid erosion impacts. Discharge of hydrostatic test 

water would follow NPDES permit requirements for water quality, and discharge permits would be obtained 

from the respective states prior to discharge. 

The discharge of large volumes of hydrostatic test water to surface water sources could temporarily affect the 

biological uses of the resource. If discharge rates are not carefully controlled, discharges into surface waters 

could cause erosion of the stream banks and stream bottoms, resulting in a temporary increase of sediment 

load and destruction of habitat. These discharges could potentially affect state-designated uses. Overland 

Pass would minimize the potential for these effects through the use of energy-dissipating devices that would 

disperse and slow the velocity of any discharges. Overland Pass would not discharge into state-designated 

exceptional value waters, waterbodies which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered 

species, or waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate federal, state, and local 

permitting agencies granted written permission. Overland Pass would minimize the potential effects of 

hydrostatic testing on surface water resources by adhering to the measures in the Construction, Reclamation, 

and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). The Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix C) addresses the procedures for 

hydrostatic test water appropriations and discharges. These measures and procedures include regulating the 

rate of withdrawal of hydrostatic test water to avoid adverse impact on downstream flows. Overland Pass 

4.5-8
would be testing only new pipe and no chemicals would be added to the water during hydrostatic testing, 

unless chemical additives are stipulated in the discharge permit. Overland Pass would acquire the necessary 

permits from state agencies before withdrawing hydrostatic test water, including specific approvals from 

applicable resource agencies. 

If the source water is surface water, the hydrostatic test water would be tested for potential pollutants and then 

discharged to stable upland areas (surfaces with a gradient less than 10 percent) along the construction ROW. 

With respect to discharging hydrostatic test water, the text discussion in the proposed Hydrostatic Testing Plan 

(Appendix C) differs somewhat from the notes on drawings and the maps/photos of proposed discharge 

locations in the plan. As a result, impacts from erosion, sedimentation, turbidity, and transfer of water between 

waterbodies could occur. Additional mitigation measure WATER-8 is recommended in order to minimize the 

potential for these impacts. 

Transfer of Disease and Nuisance Organisms 

In-stream construction activities and hydrostatic testing could transport whirling disease and parasites or 

invasive organisms such as zebra mussels between drainages. The Proposed Action would cross waters in 

Wyoming where the whirling disease organism may be present (i.e., Green, North Platte, Medicine Bow, 

Laramie rivers). Whirling disease is present in all perennial streams in Colorado except Chief Creek (Walker 

2006; Money 2006). There is no evidence that invasive aquatic fauna exist in the Colorado stream systems 

crossed by the pipeline. In addition, there is at least one drainage in Kansas that now contains zebra mussels, 

and other invasive species also are a possibility. Implementation of Overland Pass’ proposed discharge 

provisions in the Hydrostatic Test Plan and equipment washing proposed at state lines for weed control will 

help control the transfer of such organisms. 

Salt Loading to the Colorado River 

By far, most of the salt contributed to the Colorado River originates from background geologic conditions and 

land uses over large areas. Water draining from irrigated agricultural fields, and runoff and erosion from marine 

shale outcrops are two examples of sources of salt loading. Based on construction and operation plans, 

Overland Pass would not contribute to salt loads in the Colorado River. 

Additional Mitigation 

WATER-1: To minimize impacts, all waterbodies (regardless of size and flow) and wetlands on federal 

lands shall have an approved crossing structure consisting of either a temporary culvert, rock 

fill, or equipment bridge. One pass of clearing equipment and equipment for installation of a 

bridge shall be allowed across the waterbody or wetland. 

WATER-2: Power washing of equipment with water shall be required after equipment crosses perennial 

streams to avoid transfer of whirling disease, parasites, or nuisance organisms. 

WATER-3: No chemical or biological additives shall be allowed during hydrostatic testing unless approved 

by the appropriate agency responsible for the NPDES permit. 

WATER-4: When water is withdrawn from surface water sources (e.g., for dust control or hydrostatic 

testing), Overland Pass shall utilize a filter with a mesh size screen that would prevent 

entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. 

WATER-5: Although the playas and ponds to be crossed have no perceptible flow, Overland Pass shall 

use construction techniques applicable for flowing waterbodies when playas and ponds are 

crossed. 

WATER-6: During wet ditch crossings, streambed spoil shall be removed and subsequently restored to 

retain the natural bed materials of the streambed. Under no circumstances shall foreign 

4.5-9
substrate materials (e.g., introduced gravel) be used to back-fill a channel crossing, unless 

they are native to the immediate locale and mimic the natural bed material. This practice shall 

apply to both perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels on federal lands. 

WATER 7: On federal land, Overland Pass shall reduce the total construction ROW width to 60 feet in 

riparian and wetland areas. 

WATER 8: Overland Pass shall consult with appropriate state and federal agencies (USFWS and others) 

before discharging hydrostatic test waters directly into surface waterbodies. Agency 

recommendations shall be implemented prior to such direct discharges, which as Overland 

Pass proposes, would be made to the waterbody of origin where the surface water was 

withdrawn. Test water that is not discharged directly to surface waterbodies shall be 

discharged onto stable upland locations near the point of withdrawal, or sprayed on level or 

nearly level croplands as irrigation water. Irrigation water applications shall be done in 

coordination with landowners as proposed. Stable upland areas shall have slopes less than 

10 percent, be minimally susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by having suitable soil and 

abundant vegetation, and be large enough to provide adequate infiltration while avoiding 

concentrated flow on land surfaces. Such areas shall be at least 200 feet away from active 

gullies or other channels. Hydrostatic test water shall not be disposed of via wells or other 

means of groundwater injection. 

WATER-9: Prior to construction of the proposed open cut crossing at the Green River, Overland Pass 

shall further investigate the channel materials and flood hydrology conditions at the crossing 

location. Subsequently, the site-specific crossing plan shall be modified to ensure sufficient 

pipeline burial and crossing stability with regard to the anticipated total scour depth under 

conditions of the 100-year, 24-hour flood on the local-area watershed (between the crossing 

site and Fontenelle Reservoir) plus a corresponding flow release from Fontenelle Reservoir. 

The pool elevation at Flaming Gorge Reservoir may be approximated for appropriate seasonal 

conditions to account for the effects of reservoir backwater on flow conditions at the proposed 

crossing reach. Overland Pass shall use accepted methods and equations to estimate the 

anticipated scour depth and necessary factors of safety. Overland Pass shall then review its 

current proposed site-specific crossing plan for the Green River, and in coordination with the 

USFS, USFWS, and other agencies as appropriate, plan and implement any modifications 

necessary to: 

a. Reasonably ensure that the pipeline would not be exposed during the design flood event, 

either through sufficient burial depth, selection and placement of well-graded backfill, or a 

combination of control methods; 

b. Minimize erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation during and after construction; 

c. Minimally obstruct fish passage during and after construction. 

d. Reclaim the site (and all adjacent disturbed areas), such that: 

1. The channel bed and banks are stabilized using appropriate materials and 

construction techniques; 

2. Recreational aesthetics are maintained or improved; and 

3. All debris and spoils are disposed of appropriately. 

4.5-10
Conclusion 

Construction impacts to surface waters potentially could include increased turbidity sedimentation in streams 

resulting from in-stream construction; the potential for fuel spills; channel and bank modification, affecting 

channel morphology; reductions in flow volumes in streams where water is withdrawn for hydrostatic testing; 

and potential transmittal of whirling disease, zebra mussels, or other invasive aquatic species between 

watersheds. These surface water impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of Overland Pass’ POD 

including the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan, site-specific waterbody crossing plans, and 

the Hydrostatic Test Plan. Measures to minimize surface water impacts include the use of erosion control 

measures such as sediment barriers to prevent silt-laden water from entering wetlands and waterbodies; 

restoring original contours; revegetating disturbed areas; and appropriate setback distances for additional 

TWAs, storage of fuel and hazardous materials, and equipment storage from the edge of wetlands and 

waterbodies. 

Implementation of the additional mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to surface waters. 

WATER-1 would reduce sediment impacts downstream of a crossing by limiting instream and bank 

disturbance from construction equipment. WATER-2 would prevent or minimize the transport of nuisance 

organisms from one waterbody to another. Measure WATER-3 would further protect instream water quality by 

ensuring that hydrostatic test discharges meet water quality standards. WATER-4 would reduce impacts on 

aquatic resources during water withdrawals associated with dust control and hydrostatic testing. WATER-5 

would minimize construction impacts to playas and ponds. Implementation of WATER-6 would avoid alteration 

of the streambed substrate (i.e., roughness) that can affect sedimentation and erosion regimes, degrade the 

channel, and create fish barriers. WATER-7 would reduce the extent of construction impacts in riparian and 

wetland areas. WATER-8 would reduce erosion impacts from hydrostatic test water discharges, and WATER-9 

would promote crossing stability at the Green River and help protect existing resources in the area. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential reductions in surface water quality from pipeline spills or leaks in small, medium, and large 

streams. 

Analysis 

Effects of a possible pipeline rupture at a stream crossing would have a short-term impact on surface water. In 

addition, accidental releases or leaks from the pipeline could impact surface water quality by introducing 

hydrocarbons into soil followed by surface runoff. The Risk Assessment (Appendix J) describes the physical, 

chemical, and toxicological properties of the NGLs that Overland Pass proposes to transport. NGL properties 

were evaluated to determine potential environmental effects in the event of a spill. NGLs primarily consist of 

gases that are liquefied by pressure. NGLs released into the environment would quickly volatilize and are only 

minimally water soluble. Potential impacts would be short-term and low magnitude due to the characteristics of 

NGLs and the localized extent of the affected area. 

Surface water intakes were identified in Table 4.5-2. Valves would be placed in close proximity to perennial 

waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline. In the event of a pipe failure these valves would be closed to 

minimize the leakage and allow for repair of the pipe. The potential for a pipeline leak is discussed in 

Appendix J. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

4.5-11
Conclusion 

The effects of a pipeline release of NGLs into a waterbody would have minimal, if any, impact on surface water 

quality. 

4.5.1.2 Groundwater 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Reduced availability of groundwater near wells pumped as water sources for hydrostatic testing, dust 

control, equipment washing, or other uses; 

• Contamination of near-surface groundwater as a result of spills during refueling or storage and 

handling of lubricants, solvents, or other materials; 

• Interference with existing groundwater movement and supply in areas of shallow groundwater or 

springs, as a result of trenching or blasting; 

• Impacts to terrestrial resources, wetlands, and/or surface water from discharge of poor quality 

groundwater or wastes incidentally encountered during trenching, or from discharge of poor quality 

groundwater used for hydrostatic testing, dust control, or other project purposes; and 

• Long-term interference with existing groundwater movement in areas of shallow groundwater or 

springs due to trench backfilling. 

Analysis 

As described in Section 3.5.1.2, groundwater occurs near the land surface at numerous locations along the 

proposed ROW. These areas primarily consist of alluvial aquifer zones that occur in relatively narrow bands 

along streams and rivers. Examples include the Hams Fork at Opal, Wyoming; the Medicine Bow River near 

Elk Mountain, Wyoming; Rock Creek at Arlington, Wyoming; streams in the vicinity of Laramie, Wyoming; the 

South Platte River near Merino, Colorado; and the South Fork of the Republican River near St. Francis, 

Kansas. 

Elsewhere along the proposed ROW, water-bearing zones generally are greater than 50 feet below ground 

surface, and commonly are greater than 100 feet below the ground surface. Under these conditions, little or no 

impacts to groundwater resources would occur from project construction. 

In areas of near-surface aquifers, the potential for contamination of groundwater during construction would be 

avoided or minimized by the implementation of the SPCC Plan, which is part of Overland Pass POD (Overland 

Pass 2006). Components of the plan include good housekeeping, containment requirements, and inspections 

at contractor yards; personnel training in spill prevention and response; readily available clean-up materials 

and containment equipment; and established protocols for spill response, clean-up, and reporting. In addition, 

locations for materials storage, equipment refueling, and maintenance would be restricted to protective 

distances from wells, waterbodies, and wetlands. These practices would avoid or minimize impacts to 

groundwater resources from activities undertaken during the construction sequence. 

Dewatering 

As stated in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Overland Pass 2006), it could be 

necessary to dewater the trench where shallow groundwater was intercepted and impeded trenching or other 

activities in the construction sequence. Dewatering would be necessary to provide a safe working 

environment. According to the SWPPP, trench dewatering discharges would be directed into sediment control 

structures, such as filter bags placed in well-vegetated upland areas. Well vegetated upland areas typically 

would be located outside, but immediately adjacent to, the bladed construction ROW, but within the areas that 

4.5-12
were inventoried and analyzed in this document. On federal land, the approval to locate a dewatering structure 

outside the construction ROW would be made using a Level 1 variance. The duration of these discharges 

would depend on the length of time the trench was open in a particular locale. In areas of existing or potential 

subsurface drainage, installations such as trench breakers would be placed to minimize changes in the 

existing hydrologic conditions. If tile drains were encountered, they would be repaired to their pre-construction 

level of function. 

Dewatering would cause temporary impacts to shallow groundwater resources over limited areas. The 

magnitude and importance of such impacts would be small, since trench excavation would be relatively 

shallow and trench backfill would not be likely to permanently obstruct groundwater drainage. After pipe 

installation and trench backfilling, near-surface groundwater levels and gradients eventually would be restored 

to approximate pre-construction conditions through natural seepage and re-saturation. Depending on 

site-specific conditions, this process could occur over a period of days to months. This would be an 

unavoidable short-term impact of construction. 

Blasting 

Blasting during construction could reduce groundwater yields to wells and could damage existing pump 

installations. To minimize adverse effects of blasting, a formal Blasting Plan has been developed for the 

project (Overland Pass 2006), and would be in effect prior to the start of construction. In accordance with the 

plan, the peak particle velocity during blasting would not exceed 1.5 inches per second at any aboveground 

structure, including water wells. If blasting were to occur within 200 feet of identified water wells or potable 

springs, Overland Pass has committed to conduct water flow performance and water quality testing before 

blasting. If the water well was damaged by blasting, either the well owner would be compensated for damages 

or a new well would be provided. In addition, Overland Pass would provide an alternative potable water supply 

to the landowner until repairs have occurred. Locations of water wells or systems within 200 feet of blasting 

activities have been identified by Overland Pass. These measures would avoid or minimize adverse impacts to 

groundwater supply locations from blasting activities. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

An additional impact of project construction on groundwater resources would occur from withdrawals made to 

supply hydrostatic testing water, dust control efforts, and equipment washing. Of these activities, the largest 

withdrawals would be for hydrostatic testing. The current Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix C) proposes to 

make groundwater withdrawals for this purpose between RP 444.2 and RP 598.6 (Table 4.5-2). This portion of 

the ROW extends from eastern Colorado (Washington County) into northwestern Kansas (Sheridan County). 

The South Platte River floodplain extends along the proposed pipeline route from approximately RP 413 to 

RP 416. Thus, the river alluvium is approximately 28 miles east of the potential well-water source area. Further 

eastward in the area of proposed groundwater sources, the major aquifer is the Ogallala Formation. For 

project purposes, there would be no discernible hydrologic connection between the proposed area of 

groundwater sourcing and the Colorado River tributaries, the North Platte, or the South Platte. There may be 

surface water/groundwater interactions along this stretch of the pipeline with respect to the alluvial deposits 

along the Arikaree River and the South Fork of the Republican River. The Saline and Solomon rivers and their 

tributaries have narrow alluvial deposits that provide relatively little water to wells. Depending on the well 

locations where withdrawals are made, slight drawdown effects may temporarily occur over short reaches of 

perennial streams within 0.5 mile or so of the source well. If such an effect occurs, it could create a minimal 

impact on streamflows. 

Proposed total hydrostatic test withdrawals from groundwater are approximately 25 acre-feet. This is a 

relatively small volume in comparison to extensive agricultural withdrawals in the region. Based on water-use 

values (USDA 2006), an irrigated cornfield of approximately 130 acres uses approximately 230 acre-feet of 

water to produce a corn crop in northeastern Colorado. Approximately 300 acre-feet are required to produce a 

corn crop on 130 acres in western Kansas. The section proposed for the highest groundwater withdrawal 

volume (RP 512 through RP 562) would use approximately 2.6 million gallons (approximately 8 acre-feet) for 

hydrostatic testing. Additional pumping would be required for dust control, equipment washing, and other 

4.5-13
miscellaneous uses, but these volumes are expected to be less than those needed for hydrostatic testing. 

Little or no short-term impact to groundwater levels or availability would result from the proposed project uses, 

since supplies would be purchased from existing groundwater users, based on existing rights. The change in 

beneficial use (from agriculture or other existing use to a temporary industrial use) likely would create a shortterm impact on land use. Mitigating these minor impacts by substituting streamflow or reservoir withdrawals for 

groundwater pumping would generate impacts to surface water and associated resources (e.g., fisheries and 

wildlife). These alternative impacts probably would be greater than the groundwater impacts offset by the 

supply substitution. No impacts to long-term groundwater resource availability or quality would result from the 

proposed withdrawals for project purposes. 

Overland Pass has proposed measures in a Hydrostatic Testing Plan (Appendix C) to manage test water 

discharges. Compliance with approved requirements to control discharge and drainage would mitigate 

potential land and water resources impacts from groundwater discharges. However, many wells on the Great 

Plains intercept aquifers other than the Ogallala Formation or streamlain alluvial deposits. In addition, these 

common groundwater sources are absent in some locales. Because of this, other sources of groundwater 

could be needed for project uses. However, the water quality in alternative aquifer sources (such as some 

waterbearing zones in the Dakota Formation, Carlile Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, or Permian rocks) may not 

be suitable for surface discharge. When discharged on the surface, existing elevated concentrations of 

dissolved solids or other water quality constituents in these aquifers could create water quality impacts to 

vegetation, land use, or nearby wetlands or surface water. 

Springs and Flowing Wells 

The proposed alignment would be located several hundred feet away from springs that are known to occur in 

specific locales from RP 205 to RP 209 (east of Wolcott, Wyoming), and from RP 282 to RP 286 (southeast of 

Laramie, Wyoming). Due to topographic and geologic conditions, trenching would not be likely to affect these 

known seep or spring features. The backfilled trench is not likely to permanently obstruct groundwater 

drainage through alluvial deposits or other areas where groundwater is at relatively shallow depths, though it 

may act as a conduit to transport water unless proper trench plugs are installed. 

The existence and locations of flowing wells has not been investigated for the project. This effort would need to 

be conducted in the field. Implementation of recommended mitigation measure GW-3 would minimize potential 

interruption of flowing wells. 

Additional Mitigation 

GW-1: Groundwater pumped and discharged aboveground for construction purposes shall meet agricultural 

water quality standards in the respective states and/or districts where it is discharged. 

GW-2: When groundwater is observed during construction (e.g., sites requiring dewatering due to 

groundwater, saturated wetlands), permanent trench breakers shall be installed to prevent 

unintentional transport of groundwater by the pipeline trench. 

GW-3: Overland Pass shall conduct additional field surveys prior to construction to ascertain the existence 

and location of any flowing wells within 500 feet of the construction ROW. If any flowing well occurs 

within this distance of the ROW, their general hydrogeologic setting shall be further investigated, the 

need for porous trench backfill shall be implemented as necessary to avoid the obstruction of 

groundwater flow to the well. 

Conclusion 

Potential impacts to groundwater resources from pipeline construction include damage to nearby wells, well 

yield, and pumps from blasting; contamination of shallow aquifers from fuel, lubricant, or hazardous material 

spills or leaks; temporary modification of shallow groundwater flow (where present) through trench dewatering 

and pipeline installation; and reduction in groundwater levels where wells are pumped for hydrostatic testing 

4.5-14
purposes. Impacts to groundwater resources would be minimized or avoided by use of standard construction 

practices and protection measures as described in Overland Pass’ Blasting Plan, SPCC Plan, Hydrostatic 

Testing Plan, and Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan. All of these plans are included in 

Overland Pass’ POD (Overland Pass 2006). The additional mitigation measure GW-1 would ensure that 

groundwater used for hydrostatic testing purposes is of sufficient quality so as to not impact terrestrial 

resources when discharged aboveground. GW-2 would prevent the unintentional transport of groundwater via 

the pipeline trench. 

Operation Phase 

Issue 

• Potential reductions in groundwater quality from pipeline spills, leaks, or ruptures on shallow aquifers 

used for rural residential, livestock, and municipal water supplies. 

Analysis 

Spills/Leaks 

If a pipeline leak occurred, released NGLs would vaporize. Gases would percolate up through the soil and 

sediments, and eventually dissipate into the atmosphere. Most, if not all of the NGL components would 

evaporate on the land surface or within the vadose (unsaturated) zone above the water table. Only 

approximately 2 to 4 percent of the NGL components would not readily volatilize at atmospheric pressure 

(Appendix J). A small portion of these could enter shallow groundwater depending on the location of the 

rupture or leak after eventually migrating through unsaturated materials. Because of their slight solubility in 

water, contamination from NGL components would be limited to a few parts-per-million. These concentrations 

would be further reduced by diffusion and natural attenuation, which would further reduce the risk to potential 

receptors (BLM 2005). 

The potential exists for groundwater contamination and subsequent withdrawal to a use (e.g., domestic or 

municipal supply, livestock watering) if a catastrophic rupture occurs near a well that is pumping during or near 

the time of rupture. Emergency shutoff valves would limit the extent of contamination. Implementation of 

recommended additional mitigation measure GW-4 would minimize potential impacts from such an event. 

Due to the geologic setting, operational impacts from the Proposed Action on the sole source aquifer in the Elk 

Mountain area are not expected to occur. Given the characteristics of NGLs and their transport conditions 

within the pipeline, it is unlikely that adverse impacts on groundwater and wells in the Casper Aquifer 

protection zone would occur. Furthermore, applicable USDOT regulations for hazardous liquids pipelines 

promote structural integrity, early leak detection, and rapid response (Section 3.12). These factors would 

provide further protection toward avoiding groundwater impacts. 

Additional Mitigation 

GW-4: If a pipeline rupture occurs within 500 feet of a groundwater supply source (well or spring), Overland 

Pass shall immediately notify the owner of the source, and shall comply with any mitigation and/or 

monitoring provisions reached through agreements with the source owner and appropriate 

regulatory agencies. 

Conclusion 

In the event of a pipeline rupture or spill, groundwater impacts from pipeline operation likely would be minimal 

due to the rapid volatilization of NGLs once released from pressure and their marginal solubility in water. 

4.5-15
4.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential modifications in wetland productivity due to modifications in surface and subsurface flow 

patterns; and 

• Modifications in wetland vegetation community composition and structure from construction clearing. 

Analysis 

Construction in wetlands primarily would result in temporary effects including the temporary loss of wetland 

vegetation, soil disturbance, and temporary increases in turbidity and fluctuations in wetland hydrology. To 

minimize these impacts on wetlands, Overland Pass would overlap its construction ROW along previously 

disturbed corridors for approximately 83 percent of the proposed pipeline route. No aboveground facilities 

would be located within wetlands. 

Based on wetland field delineation data and a proposed 75-foot-wide construction ROW, the proposed pipeline 

route temporarily would affect 59.0 acres of wetlands (Table 4.6-1). Of that total disturbance, 0.7 acre occurs 

on federally managed land. TWAs would impact an additional 21.6 acres of wetlands, 0.2 acre of the total 

disturbance occurring on federally managed land. 

Large riparian areas are associated with the North Platte River and Medicine Bow River crossings in 

Wyoming. Overland Pass proposes TWAs within these and other riparian areas. 

To minimize environmental impacts to floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas during the construction phase 

of the project, Overland Pass would implement the construction and mitigation procedures provided in the 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B), which include topsoil salvage and 

replacement, grading the construction ROW to restore pre-construction contours and drainage patterns, and 

limiting human disturbance/access. Following these construction procedures and mitigation measures would 

greatly increase the probability that emergent (PEM) wetland communities (representing 93 percent of all 

wetlands affected) would revegetate rapidly (within 3 years) (Van Dyke 1994; FERC 2004). Disturbance to 

PSS and PFO wetlands would result in a long-term impact as the recovery of these communities would take 

5 to 10 years and 50 to 100 years for a mature forest, respectively. 

Pipeline construction in wetlands could temporarily alter wetland surface and subsurface water flow patterns 

through trenching activities. This hydrologic impact would be localized and temporary until permanent trench 

breakers were installed and the trench was backfilled. 

Additional Mitigation 

Mitigation measures GW-1, GW-2, VEG-1, and WATER-7 describe mitigation measures to minimize impacts 

to riparian areas and wetlands. 

Conclusion 

Wetland herbaceous vegetation generally would begin to be re-established along the ROW within 2 to 3 years 

post-construction. Recovery of scrub-shrub wetlands would require up to a decade, and 50 or more years 

would be required for recovery of palustrine forested wetland communities. Impacts on wetland and riparian 

communities would depend on the individual vegetation community and site-specific soil and moisture 

conditions received post-construction. 

4.5-16
Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Modifications in wetland and riparian vegetation community composition and structure from 

operational maintenance; and 

• Potential for spills to adversely affect wetlands. 

Analysis 

Following construction, wetland and riparian vegetation would be allowed to regenerate to the original cover 

type, with the exception of 0.5 acre, which would be maintained as herbaceous vegetation within the 

permanent 10-foot-wide operational ROW to facilitate pipeline maintenance and monitoring. Trees greater 

than 15 feet in height would be removed from a 30-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. Wetland 

vegetation would be lost temporarily during construction; however, with the exception of scrub-shrub and 

forested wetlands that would be maintained in an herbaceous state, all wetland vegetation would be 

reestablished within 3 years following construction. The success of wetland revegetation would be monitored 

for the first 5 years after construction (in July, during the first, third, and fifth growing seasons) or until wetland 

revegetation is successful. No aboveground facilities would be located in wetlands or floodplains. 

In the unlikely event of a pipeline release in a wetland or riparian area, NGL components would rapidly 

volatilize, thereby posing minimal impacts, if any. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Pipeline operational ROW maintenance activities in wetlands and riparian areas would result in localized, 

short-term impacts as a result of periodic clearing of woody vegetation over the pipeline centerline. If NGLs 

were accidentally released into the environment, minimal impacts, if any, would be expected to wetland and 

riparian resources. 

4.5.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed nor operated. No 

project-related disturbance would occur for water resources. Impacts to water resources would continue at 

present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.5.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The effects of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative on surface water and 

groundwater resources would be similar to impacts discussed for the Proposed Action. There would be two 

additional streams crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative (one Little 

Bitter Creek crossing and two Cedar Creek crossings). No hydrostatic test water withdrawals would occur in 

these streams. Overland Pass estimates this alternative would require approximately 300,000 gallons of 

additional water for hydrostatic testing (Appendix E). 

The effects of this alternative on groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian resources would be similar to 

impacts described for the Proposed Action. Groundwater resources for this alternative are similar to the 

groundwater resources described for the Proposed Action. 

4.5-17
4.6 Vegetation 

4.6.1 Proposed Action 

4.6.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Special Status Plant Species 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Vegetation removal for facility construction with consequent reduction in wildlife habitat and increased 

risk of soil erosion. 

Analysis 

Construction and operation activities would affect vegetation communities in a variety of ways, from temporary 

herbaceous trampling and partial removal of aboveground plant cover to minimal long-term vegetation 

removal. Clearing, trenching, grubbing, blading, and vegetation trampling would occur within the proposed 

project areas. Impacts to vegetation communities associated with construction are classified as short-term or 

long-term. These short-term and long-term disturbance areas would be reclaimed and would provide forage 

and habitat for wildlife within 3 to 5 years following successful reclamation. 

Construction of the proposed project would involve short-term impacts due to construction on approximately 

4,759 acres of grasslands, 768 acres of shrublands, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 60 acres of forested 

areas, and 81 acres of wetland vegetation as shown in Table 4.6-1. The majority of the pipeline ROW would 

be allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions. 

The primary impact of the proposed project on vegetation would be the cutting, clearing, and/or removal of 

existing vegetation within the construction work area. The degree of impact would depend on the type and 

amount of vegetation affected and the rate at which the vegetation would regenerate after construction. 

To minimize environmental impacts and ensure site stabilization and revegetation, Overland Pass would follow 

construction procedures detailed in its POD, including its Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan 

(Appendix B). The Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan describes methods that would be 

implemented to stabilize disturbed sites by reducing runoff and erosion; to reestablish a vegetation condition 

comparable to preconstruction conditions; to restore functional qualities of the area including wildlife habitat 

and livestock forage; and to prevent degradation of areas off the construction ROW. Additionally, Overland 

Pass would follow the measures outlined in the SPCC Plan and the SWPPP to minimize and mitigate potential 

impacts on wetlands. 

Timely stabilization of the construction ROW and reseeding with an appropriate seed mix would minimize the 

duration of vegetation disturbance. The BLM would inspect the pipeline ROW on federal lands for a minimum 

of five years to ensure Overland Pass’ compliance with revegetation standards established in Overland Pass’ 

POD. 

Long-term impacts could occur on short-grass prairie and sagebrush steppe, as well as native grasslands and 

shrublands. Reclamation efforts would re-establish vegetation along the ROW within 2 growing seasons, but 

full recovery of these habitats could take a minimum of 5 to 7 years (or longer for shrublands) due to poor soil 

and low moisture conditions. 

Long-term construction impacts could occur on shrublands, such as sagebrush. Recovery of these habitats 

could take a minimum of 20 to 30 years due to poor soil and low moisture conditions. 

4.6-1
Table 4.6-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project1 

Facility/State 

Grassland Shrubland Agricultural Land Forest Land Wetlands2 

Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 

Pipeline 

Wyoming Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

 2,397.0 0.0 409.8 0.0 28.8 0.0 45.4 30.3 55.9 0.5 

713.4 0.0 153.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 18.6 12.4 0.7 0.0 

1,683.6 0.0 256.1 0.0 28.4 0.0 26.8 17.9 55.2 0.5 

Colorado Total

Federal

Non-Federal

 907.5 0.0 232.4 0.0 408.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.0 

204.4 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

703.1 

0.0 232.4 0.0 407.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.0 

Kansas4 Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

667.2 

0.0 14.6 0.0 1,668.9 0.0 8.4 5.6 1.7 <0.1 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

667.2 0.0 14.6 0.0 1,668.9 0.0 8.4 5.6 1.7 <0.1 

Pipeline Total 

Pipeline Federal 

Pipeline Non-Federal 

3,971.7 0.0 656.8 0.0 2,106.1 0.0 54.0 36.1 59.0 0.5 

917.8 0.0 153.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 18.6 12.4 0.7 0.0 

3,053.9 0.0 503.2 0.0 2,105.2 0.0 35.4 23.7 58.3 0.5 

Additional Temporary Workspace Areas 

Wyoming Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

 462.5 0.0 92.4 0.0 28.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 

138.4 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 

324.1 0.0 49.1 0.0 28.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 8.6 0.0 

Colorado Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

 106.2 0.0 16.7 0.0 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 

13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

92.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 

Kansas4 Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

 175.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 251.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 7.8 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

175.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 251.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 7.8 0.0 

Additional Temporary Workspace Areas Total 

Additional Temporary Workspace Areas Federal 

Additional Temporary Workspace Areas Non-Federal 

744.2 0.0 111.7 0.0 322.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 21.6 0.0 

151.8 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 

592.4 0.0 68.5 0.0 322.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards (Non-Federal Lands) 

Wyoming 

Opal Yard Blacks Fork Contractor Yard Thayer Junction Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard5Echo Springs Yards (2) Rawlins Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard5Laramie Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard (2) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

8.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7.3 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 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4.6-2
Table 4.6-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project1 

Facility/State 

Grassland Shrubland Agricultural Land Forest Land Wetlands2 

Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 

Colorado 

Carr Contractor Yard Otis and Unnamed Pipe Storage/Contractor 

Yards5 (4) 

12.4 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 0.0 0.0 

Kansas 

Bird City Pipe Storage Yard Gem Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard Hoxie and Unnamed Yards (4) Rexford Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard Hoisington Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard5 Conway Yard 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 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 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Total 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Appurtenances (Valves, Pigging Facilities, and Tees) 

Wyoming Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

3.0 

1.6 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.2 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3.0 1.4 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colorado Total 

Federal 

Non-Federal 

1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas4 Total

Federal 

Non-Federal 

1.0 

0.4 0.0 <0.1 2.0 1.3 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 

1.0 0.4 0.0 <0.1 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Appurtenances Total 

 Appurtenances Federal 

Appurtenances Non-Federal 

5.0 2.6 0.0 <0.1 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.2 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5.0 2.4 0.0 <0.1 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities (Non-Federal Lands) 

Wyoming 

Echo Springs Pump Station Echo Springs Meter Station e Opal Meter Station5 Laramie Pump and Meter Station 

Aboveground Facilities Wyoming Total 

3.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1.5 0.1 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 0.0 5.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4.6-3
Table 4.6-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project1 

Facility/State 

Grassland Shrubland Agricultural Land Forest Land Wetlands2 

Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 Const. Oper.3 

Colorado 

Washington County Meter Station and Pigging Facility 

Aboveground Facilities Colorado Total

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas 

WaKeeney Meter Station7Bushton Meter Station and Pigging Facility5Conway Meter Station and Pigging Facility5

Aboveground Facilities Kansas Total 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 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 0.0 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities Project Total 10.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Project Total6 4,758.9 6.2 768.5 <0.1 2,471.8 2.3 60.5 36.0 80.6 0.5 Federal Lands Total6 1,069.6 0.2 196.8 <0.1 1.7 0.0 20.1 12.4 0.9 <0.1 Non-Federal Lands Total6 3,689.3 6.0 571.7 <0.1 2,470.2 2.3 23.6 23.6 79.7 0.5 1Const. – construction. Oper. – operation. Based on a 75-foot-wide construction ROW and 50-foot-wide permanent ROW. Does not include developed, commercial land, open water, or 

barren areas that do not display vegetation characteristics. 2Wetland totals may differ from Table 3.5-7 where National Wetland Inventory map data were use to calculate wetland impacts. 3No permanent impacts would occur as part of pipeline construction as vegetation would be allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions with the exception of areas required for 

aboveground facilities, forested areas that would be maintained in an herbaceous state within the permanently maintained 50-foot-wide operational ROW, and a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline in paulstrine scrub-shrub and forested wetlands areas. In addition, if conditions require, non-forested vegetation would be cleared over the entire 

50-foot-wide permanent ROW on an as-needed basis not to exceed once every 3 years. In wetlands and riparian areas, a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline could be 

maintained annually in an herbaceous state. In addition, if conditions required, trees within a 25-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline could be selectively cut and removed from the ROW on an as-needed basis not to exceed once every 3 years. 4All lands crossed by the proposed pipeline in Kansas would be non-federal lands. 

5Pipe storage/contractor yards or aboveground facility would be located on land (e.g., commercial/industrial) that does not display vegetation characteristics. 6The 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. Totals do not include 

82.2 acres for access roads during pipeline operation. 

7Does not include areas in agricultural land associated with the potential future WaKeeney Pump Station. 

4.6-4
Impacts on agricultural vegetation communities would be short term in nature, as the vegetation would 

generally be reestablished within 2 years of restoration depending on climatic conditions. Overland Pass would 

not reseed cultivated agricultural areas unless requested by the landowner. 

Clearing of forest and/or woodland vegetation within the construction ROW would result in long-term 

environmental change. Over time, natural growth would restore the unmaintained portions of the temporary 

construction ROW and TWAs back to a forested community. The rate of forest reestablishment would depend 

upon the type of vegetation, the length of growing season, and the natural fertility of the soils. Regrowth to the 

sapling-young tree stage could take 15 to 30 years, while regrowth of forests to mature conditions could take 

between 50 to 100 years depending on the species. 

Riparian communities would be crossed by the project including large riparian areas associated with the North 

Platte River and Medicine Bow River crossings. Overland Pass proposes TWAs within riparian areas. 

Wetland vegetation would be temporarily lost during construction; however, with the exception of scrub-shrub 

and forested wetlands that would be maintained in an herbaceous state, all wetland vegetation would be 

anticipated to be reestablished within 3 years following construction. 

It would likely require 10 or more years following successful reclamation for sensitive plant communities, 

especially forested or wetland plant communities, to return to pre-disturbance condition. Successful 

reclamation of sagebrush communities could take in excess of 50 years, depending on the species of 

sagebrush, soil conditions, and the amount of precipitation received post-construction. The severity of these 

disturbances depends on the timing and duration of the disturbance activities and the sensitivity of the plant 

communities. 

Additional Mitigation 

VEG-1: To minimize impacts to waterbodies, wetlands, and riparian areas, Overland Pass shall set back 

TWAs a minimum distance of 50 feet from the edge of waterbodies, wetlands, or riparian areas, 

whichever distance would provide the greatest protection. The distance shall be measured from the 

water bank of the waterbody, the margin of a wetland, and the exterior edge of a riparian area. In 

addition, erosion and sediment control measures, including but not limited to, silt fence, straw bales, 

berms, water bars, and mulching shall be installed around each TWA to prevent soil movement into 

the nearby sensitive area. Riparian areas form a transition between permanently saturated wetlands 

and upland areas and are typically associated with waterbodies (see Glossary). 

Conclusion 

Herbaceous cover generally would begin to be re-established along the ROW within 2 years post-construction. 

However, full recovery of non-agricultural communities often would require more than 5 years, while recovery 

of agricultural and wetland communities would be expected more quickly. Impacts on vegetation communities 

would depend on the individual vegetation community, site-specific soil conditions, and the amount of 

precipitation received post-construction. Reduction of the construction ROW width to 60 feet in riparian 

woodlands and wetlands in WATER-7 would reduce the area of disturbance to this important vegetation type. 

Implementation of the additional mitigation measure (VEG-1) would reduce impacts to wetlands and riparian 

communities by at least 20 percent on federal lands. 

4.6-5
Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Permanent vegetation changes in the ROW and areas of aboveground facilities. 

• Potential for spills to adversely affect vegetation, particularly threatened and endangered plant 

species. 

Analysis 

Operational impacts on vegetation primarily would be limited to areas required for operation of the pump 

stations, meter stations, and other aboveground appurtenances (approximately 6.2 acres of grassland and 

2.3 acres of agricultural land). In addition, Overland Pass would permanently maintain a 50-foot-wide corridor 

in forested areas and a 10-foot-wide corridor in palustrine forested areas. This corridor would be kept in an 

herbaceous state by periodic mowing or brush clearing according to the guidelines outlined in the 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). The degree of impact would depend on the 

frequency of vegetation maintenance conducted during operation and the type and amount of vegetation 

affected. Given the long recovery period for woodlands, maintenance of vegetation in the future would be 

nominal. 

The Echo Springs Meter Station at RP 146.5 would be located on grasslands within the existing Echo Springs 

facility. During construction, 3.7 acres would be disturbed and 1.7 acres converted to operation of the meter 

station. The Echo Springs Pump Station would be located within a sagebrush steppe community and would 

affect a total of 1.5 acres of grassland temporarily and 0.1 acre of grassland permanently. The Laramie Pump 

and Meter Station (RP 271.7) would be new facilities. The Laramie Pump and Meter Stations would be located 

within a mixed grass prairie community and would affect a total of 5.2 acres of grassland temporarily and 

1.8 acres of grassland permanently. 

The Opal (RP 0.0) and Conway (RP 749.4) meter stations would be located within existing, previously 

disturbed commercial/industrial areas; therefore, no vegetation impacts beyond those already experienced at 

these sites would be anticipated during the construction and operation of these facilities. The Bushton Meter 

Station would impact 1.2 acres of agricultural land during construction and 0.2 acre during operation of the 

facility. The Washington County Meter Station (RP 447.8) and WaKeeney Meter Station (RP 606.0) would be 

new meter stations located in agricultural communities and would affect 2.7 acres of agricultural land 

temporarily and 0.4 acre of agricultural land permanently. If the WaKeeney Pump Station were built in the 

future, it is estimated that it would affect 3.7 acres of agricultural land during construction and 1.7 acres of 

agricultural land during operation. 

Potential vegetation impacts could occur during maintenance operations along the ROW or at aboveground 

facilities. These activities would be dispersed along the length of the Project and would occur intermittently. 

There is a small chance that the pipeline could accidentally leak, releasing NGL into the environment 

(Section 3.12). NGLs primarily consist of gas that is liquefied by pressure (e.g., propane). Consequently, in the 

unlikely event of a pipeline release, NGL components would rapidly volatilize, thereby posing minimal impacts 

to vegetation (Appendix J). 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Operational impacts on vegetation would be limited to areas required for operation of aboveground facilities 

affecting approximately 6.2 acres of grassland and 2.3 acres of agricultural land. 

4.6-6
Maintenance activities along the proposed pipeline route would result in localized impacts of short duration 

(less than 14 days in most cases) and these impacts would be dispersed along the entire proposed pipeline 

route. 

If NGLs were accidentally released into the environment, minimal impacts, if any, would be expected to soil 

resources. 

4.6.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential expansion of noxious weeds and invasive plant populations along the pipeline ROW. 

Analysis 

The prevention of the spread of noxious weeds is a high priority to the communities in Wyoming, Colorado, 

and Kansas. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction could create optimal conditions for 

the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed-infested areas 

into weed-free areas could disperse invasive noxious weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the 

establishment of noxious weeds in previously weed-free areas. 

To control the spread of noxious and invasive weeds along the pipeline corridor, Overland Pass would 

implement weed control measures in accordance with existing regulations and jurisdictional land management 

agency or landowner agreements and in accordance with its Weed Management Plan (Appendix D). 

Applicant-proposed mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, preconstruction surveys, vehicle 

cleaning stations, and certified weed-free straw bales, and certified weed-free seed mixes for restoration. 

In order to accomplish weed prevention and control in the most appropriate and effective manner, Overland 

Pass has committed in their Weed Management Plan to monitor noxious weeds annually for 5 years following 

construction. In areas where weed infestations still required management, surveys and control measures 

would be implemented where problem areas still existed. Post-construction weed control measures may 

include the application of herbicide or mechanical, and/or alternative methods. The weed control measure 

chosen would be the best method available for the time, place, and species of weed as mutually agreed upon 

by Overland Pass and the appropriate regulatory agencies. 

Landowners would be consulted regarding weed control status and implementation measures and encouraged 

to report concerns to Overland Pass. In the event noxious weed species become established in the ROW, 

Overland Pass would make good faith efforts to control weeds in the ROW and to work with adjacent 

landowners to prevent spread of the species to adjacent lands. 

Additional Mitigation 

VEG-2: Only certified weed-free straw bales shall be used to construct sediment control devices or used as 

mulch applications. Hay bales shall not be used for mulching or erosion control, except as approved 

on the PNG (see also SOIL-10). 

VEG-3: Seed mixes shall be tested for viability to ensure that desirable seed viability exceeds 95 percent. 

Seed mixes shall have a certified content that contains 0 percent noxious weeds. 

Conclusion 

Despite efforts to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, it is possible that pipeline construction would increase 

the prevalence of noxious and invasive weeds along the ROW or that weeds would be transported into areas 

4.6-7
that were relatively weed-free. Implementation of Overland Pass’ Weed Management Plan would minimize the 

spread of undesirable weed species. Mitigation measures VEG-2 and VEG-3 would minimize the introduction 

of undesirable weed species within the project area. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Future maintenance activities may cause the same effects discussed for construction. 

Analysis 

The potential impacts are the same as discussed for construction, but would pertain only to the aboveground 

facility areas and the permanent ROW. 

Additional Mitigation 

VEG-4: Overland Pass shall continue to monitor and control invasive plant species and noxious weeds along 

the ROW for the life of the project. 

Conclusion 

Despite efforts to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, it is possible that pipeline maintenance activities would 

increase the prevalence of noxious and invasive weeds along the ROW or that weeds would be transported 

into areas that were relatively weed-free. Implementation of VEG-4 would minimize the spread of undesirable 

weed species from operational impacts. 

4.6.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed or operated. No project-related 

disturbance would occur to vegetation and impacts would continue at present levels as a result of natural 

conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.6.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Vegetation communities along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative are 

comparable to those along the Proposed Action. The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative would be 4.8 miles longer than the Proposed Action, resulting in an additional 44 acres of 

temporary disturbance. Steep and side slope construction would result in 35 acres of TWAs along the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, compared to 17 acres for the Proposed Action. 

These areas would be more susceptible to erosion and would be more difficult to reclaim. 

4.6-8
4.7 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

4.7.1 Proposed Action 

4.7.1.1 Wildlife 

Construction 

Issues 

• Habitat reductions and fragmentation from construction clearing; 

• Direct disturbance and loss of individuals from construction activities along the ROW and access 

roads; and 

• Indirect effects consisting of displacement of individuals and loss of breeding success from exposure 

to construction noise, and from higher levels of human activity. 

Analysis 

Potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife species from the proposed project can be classified as short-term, 

long-term, and permanent. Short-term impacts consist of habitat removal, activities associated with project 

construction, and changes in wildlife habitats lasting less than 5 years. Long-term impacts would consist of 

changes to wildlife habitats lasting 5 years or more. Permanent impacts result from construction of 

aboveground facilities that convert natural habitat to natural gas operations. The severity of both short- and 

long-term impacts would depend on factors such as the sensitivity of the species impacted, seasonal use 

patterns, type and timing of project activities, and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and 

climate). 

In total, surface disturbing activities would affect approximately 5,639 acres of wildlife habitat of which 

1,183 acres would occur as a new greenfield ROW. The greenfield portions of the proposed pipeline route 

consist of 5 general vegetation communities: shrubland (approximately 633 acres), grassland (192 acres), 

agriculture (387 acres), woodland (29 acres), wetlands (15 acres), developed (8 acres), and no vegetation 

(13 acres). 

Approximately 662 acres of the new greenfield ROW consists of forest land and shrubland habitats. These 

two habitat types require significant timeframes for restoration and impacts to these habitats are considered 

long-term. However, due to the linear nature of the project over a large geographic area, and its configuration 

next to existing disturbance, these acreages represent a minimal amount of available wildlife habitat on a 

regional basis. 

Game Species 

Direct impacts to big game species (elk, mule deer, pronghorn) would include the incremental loss of potential 

forage (native vegetation and previously disturbed vegetation) and would result in an incremental increase in 

habitat fragmentation within the proposed surface disturbance areas. However, as noted above, these 

incremental losses of vegetation would represent only a minimal amount of available habitat within the broader 

project region. The loss of native vegetation would be long term (greater than 5 years and, in some cases 

more than 50 years). In the interim, herbaceous species may become established within 3 to 5 years, 

depending on future weather conditions and management practices (e.g., livestock grazing) that would affect 

reclamation success in the project region. In most instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the disturbed areas 

would be available for wildlife species until grasses and woody vegetation were reestablished within the 

disturbance areas. However, assuming the adjacent habitats are at or near carrying capacity, and given the 

current drought conditions in the project region, displacement of wildlife species as a result of construction 

could cause some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife populations. Indirect impacts would result from increased 

noise levels and human presence during surface disturbance activities. Big game animals (especially 

4.7-1 
pronghorn and mule deer) likely would decrease their use within 0.5 mile of surface disturbance activities (BLM 

1995). However, this displacement would be short-term and animals would return to the disturbance area 

following construction activities. Vehicular activity associated with construction activities also would increase 

potential for collisions and possible big game mortality within the project area and on associated access 

routes. 

Construction activities within big game crucial winter range would result in the incremental disturbance of 

approximately 338 acres of mule deer habitat, 718 acres of pronghorn habitat, and 99 acres of elk habitat. 

Approximately 140 acres of the identified habitat is crucial winter habitat for two species. Of the 1,141 acres of 

crucial winter habitat that would be impacted, 138 acres would occur as a new ROW. Big game crucial winter 

habitat with timing restrictions and disturbance acreage area is presented in Table 4.7-1. However, on a 

regional basis, these acreages of disturbance would represent a small percentage of the overall habitat within 

these areas. The effects of animal displacement, avoidance, and potential for collision are of greatest concern 

in the crucial winter habitat (WGFD 2005e). 

Table 4.7-1 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat with Timing Restrictions Affected by the Proposed 

Action 

State/Range Type 

 Total Acres 

Impacted 

Acres 

Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands 

Wyoming 

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Habitat 338.2 80.0 258.2 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter Habitat 669.5 198.2 471.3 

Elk Crucial Winter Habitat 99.0 6.1 92.9 

Colorado 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter Habitat 48.6 2.3 46.3 

Multiple agencies have expressed concerns regarding big game species potentially falling into the trench and 

being injured or entrapped when attempting to jump over strung pipe (WGFD 2005e; BLM 2006b). In order to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife from pipeline construction, Overland Pass has committed to installing 

trench plugs at a maximum interval distance of 0.5 mile, with a corresponding gap in the welded pipe left open 

at each trench plug. A 20-foot gap would be left at trench plugs in all spoil and topsoil stockpiles. Finally, 

Overland Pass has agreed to install a suitable ramp-up out of the trench with a 5-foot-wide path maintained 

across the trench plug. 

Indirect impacts resulting from construction include increased noise levels and human presence during surface 

disturbing activities. Big game (especially pronghorn, elk, and mule deer) and more mobile small game 

animals likely would decrease their use within 0.5 mile of surface disturbance activities (Ward et al. 1980; 

Ward 1976). This displacement would be short-term and animals would return to the disturbance area 

following construction activities. 

Nongame Species 

Direct impacts to nongame species from surface disturbance activities would result in the incremental 

long-term loss of habitat and increased fragmentation until vegetation became reestablished. Potential impacts 

also would result in mortalities of less mobile or burrowing non-game species (e.g., small mammals, birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates) as a result of crushing from vehicles and equipment. Other impacts would 

include the short-term displacement of some of the more mobile species (e.g., medium-sized mammals, adult 

birds) as a result of surface disturbance activities. Although the habitats adjacent to the proposed disturbance 

area may support some displaced animals, species that are at or near carrying capacity could suffer some 

increased mortalities. 

Direct impacts to nesting raptors that are located within or adjacent to the proposed pipeline route, would 

include abandonment of a breeding territory or nest sites or the potential loss of eggs or young as a result of 

4.7-2 
surface disturbance activities (e.g., ground disturbance, noise, human presence). These losses, if they were to 

occur, would reduce productivity for that breeding season. However, the degree of these potential impacts 

would depend on a number of variables such as the location of the nest site, the species’ relative sensitivity, 

breeding phenology, and possible topographic shielding. Impacts to one golden eagle nest could result from 

the construction of a transmission line associated with this project. Potential impacts to nesting raptors from 

construction activities could be minimized through related mitigation measures identified in Additional 

Mitigation. 

Migratory bird species that use the shrub-scrub habitat type for nesting in the project area include Brewer’s 

sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher (Nicholoff 2003). Grassland is frequented by such migratory birds 

as the horned lark, lark bunting, and vesper sparrow (Beidleman 2000). Common migratory birds within the 

woodland community (mainly pinyon-juniper) include the gray flycatcher, Bewick’s wren, chipping sparrow, and 

blue-gray gnatcatcher. Habitat fragmentation and “edge effects” are concerns for nesting migratory birds, 

resulting in overall changes in habitat quality, habitat loss, increased animal displacement, reductions in local 

wildlife and migratory bird numbers, and changes in species composition. However, the severity of these 

effects on migratory birds depend on factors such as sensitivity of the species, seasonal use, type and timing 

of project activities, and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate). 

Because the majority of the project would be co-located with an existing ROW, new edge habitat would 

replace existing edge habitat. In addition, most of the pipeline would cross relatively open habitat types 

(e.g., grassland, agriculture, and shrubland) rather than fragmenting dense woodland habitat. As such, effects 

to migratory birds and their habitats from habitat fragmentation resulting from the proposed project would be 

low. 

Overland Pass’s proposed construction schedule would overlap with the breeding season for many migratory 

bird species. Potential impacts to migratory birds resulting from construction would be the same as those 

discussed above for raptor species. 

EO 13186 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative impact to migratory bird populations. The 

executive order also requires the federal agency to identify where unintentional “take” is likely to have a 

measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations. Effects to non-sensitive ground-nesting birds (which 

do not have significantly reduced populations) would not result in long-term or significant population-level 

effects, given the stability of local populations and the abundance of available habitat outside of the proposed 

ROW, and the linear nature of the project over a large geographic range. As a result, population-level impacts 

to migratory bird species would not be anticipated from the construction of the proposed project. 

Additional Mitigation 

WILD-1: The duration a trench is open shall be limited to 10 days from RP 0 to RP 110 on federal land 

administered by the BLM Kemmerer and Rock Springs field offices. 

WILD-2: The pipeline and pipeline trench shall be inspected on a regular basis during construction and 

immediately prior to backfilling to identify entrapped animals. Wildlife found in trenches during 

construction shall be coaxed to the nearest ramp and either be encouraged to exit the trench, 

removed by hand, or trapped (if other methods are unsuccessful). If any animal in the trench is 

determined to be a special status species, only authorized individuals shall be allowed to remove it 

from the trench. 

WILD-3: If construction occurs during migratory bird breeding seasons, Overland Pass shall consult with the 

BLM and the USFWS and prepare a plan to mitigate construction impacts to nesting migratory birds. 

WILD-4: Overland Pass shall consult with the USFWS and BLM to develop mitigation measures to avoid or 

minimize blasting impacts on nesting birds. Prior to blasting, a report specifying the specific 

locations (by RP) where blasting would occur, known raptor and other migratory bird nest locations 

4.7-3 
within the general vicinity of the blasting, and mitigation measures that would be implemented to 

minimize impacts on nesting birds shall be filed with the BLM for approval. 

WILD-5: Overland Pass shall implement a mandatory employee education program for all construction 

personnel to minimize wildlife impacts and vehicle collisions during project construction. 

WILD-6: Overland Pass shall comply with the spatial and timing buffers for raptors identified in the 

applicant-committed measures with the exception of lands administered by the PNG where the 

timing restriction component would extend from February 1-July 31. 

Conclusion 

Construction of the Overland Pass Pipeline would disturb wildlife habitat, displace individual animals, and 

contribute to habitat fragmentation by creating 128 miles of new greenfield ROW and expanding 622 miles of 

existing pipeline corridors. Impacts to wildlife would be mitigated by implementation of Overland Pass’ POD 

(Overland Pass 2006), including the Conservation Measure Plan; Construction, Reclamation, and 

Revegetation Plan (Appendix B); SPCC Plan, Traffic Management Plan; and Weed Management Plan 

(Appendix D). Measures to minimize impacts to wildlife include co-location of the pipeline with existing ROWs 

where possible, use of a minimum construction ROW width and work space areas to reduce impacts to wildlife 

habitat, the use of trench plugs every 0.5 mile intervals or at game trail crossings (and a corresponding gap in 

the welded pipe string), limiting the amount of time and distance of open trench, avoidance of construction 

activities in elk, mule deer, and pronghorn wintering areas during seasonal closure periods, adherence to 

spatial and timing buffers for active raptor nests, and reclamation of disturbed areas. 

The additional mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to wildlife. Mitigation measures WILD-1 and 

WILD-2 would further reduce direct impacts to wildlife by reducing the possibility of injury or death as a result 

of pipeline construction activities by limiting the duration of time the trench is exposed and by providing the 

means for wildlife to escape. If construction occurs during the breeding season, mitigation measure WILD-3 

would avoid the potential take of active nests during actual construction. Mitigation measure WILD-4 would 

minimize indirect effects of blasting on nesting birds. Reduction of the construction ROW width to 60 feet in 

riparian woodlands and wetlands in WATER-7 would reduce the area of disturbance to this valuable wildlife 

habitat type, particularly since the clearing of riparian woodlands would result in a long-term impact. Mitigation 

measure WILD-5 and WILD-6 would further reduce the potential for wildlife disturbance and construction 

equipment and vehicle collisions with wildlife. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Habitat reductions and fragmentation from ROW maintenance during operations; 

• Indirect effects consisting of displacement of individuals, and loss of breeding success from exposure 

to operational noise, and from higher levels of human activity; and 

• Potential loss of individuals from exposures to spills. 

Analysis 

Direct impacts to wildlife species from maintenance activities associated with the Proposed Action would be 

the same as discussed above for construction. In order to reduce potential impacts to important wildlife 

resources as a result of maintenance activities on BLM-administered lands, Overland Pass would gain 

approval from the authorized BLM officer. The authorized BLM officer would coordinate with the appropriate 

BLM wildlife biologist(s) to determine if the activity would result in a direct impact to important wildlife 

resources. 

4.7-4 
Potential indirect impacts on general wildlife (big game, nesting birds, small game, etc.) could result from 

increased noise levels from the operation of the three proposed pump stations. The distance wildlife is 

displaced is strongly influenced by the level and timing of the human activity, topography, and the presence of 

vegetation (Lyon 1979), presumably due to noise attenuation and visual cover. Overall, reductions in bird 

population densities in both open grasslands and woodlands are attributed to a reduction in habitat quality 

produced by elevated noise levels (Reijnen et al. 1995, 1997). Reijnen et al. (1996) determined a threshold 

effect for bird species to be 47 dBA, while a New Mexico study in a pinyon-juniper community found that 

effects of gas well compressor noise on bird populations were strongest in areas where noise levels were 

greater than 50 dBA. However, moderate noise levels (40 to 50 dBA) also showed some effect on bird 

densities in this study (LaGory et al. 2001). 

An additional indirect long-term impact to wildlife species would result from increased levels of human-wildlife 

interaction within the proposed project area. By expanding the existing ROWs, and creating 1,237 acres 

(136 miles) of new greenfield ROW, the project could add to the existing matrix of open areas, jeep trails, and 

cleared ROWs currently attracting OHV users. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Impacts to wildlife from pipeline operations include the permanent habitat conversion of approximately 

6.2 acres of grassland and 2.3 acres of agricultural land to aboveground facilities use. Maintenance and 

operation of the pipeline would result in localized impacts to wildlife related to noise and an increase in 

human-wildlife interactions. Maintenance and operation of one transmission line would result in impacts to one 

golden eagle nest. These impacts would be of short duration and the majority would be dispersed along the 

entire proposed pipeline route. 

4.7.1.2 Aquatic Resources 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Direct loss of individuals or effects on habitat from short-term disturbance to stream channels from 

construction equipment and trench dewatering; 

• Direct loss of individuals or effects on habitat from short-term increases in sedimentation from 

open-cut pipeline crossings and erosion from adjacent disturbed lands; 

• Potential fuel spills from equipment and toxicity to aquatic biota if fuel reached a waterbody; 

• Local short-term reductions in habitat if surface water is affected by hydrostatic testing and dust 

control; 

• Potential loss of aquatic organisms during pumping for hydrostatic testing; 

• Potential loss of individuals from disease or invasive species if contaminated water or mud is 

transferred between watersheds; and 

• Potential direct mortalities to amphibians from vehicle traffic. 

4.7-5 
Analysis 

Fish 

Crossings 

Since Overland Pass has committed to horizontal directional drilling at one river crossing (South Platte River), 

construction-related impacts on aquatic biota and their habitat in this river would be minor. The HDD crossing 

of the river would minimize impacts to game and nongame fish species and invertebrates by avoiding instream 

construction activities. It is possible that mud from the directional drill could inadvertently enter the active 

stream. However, if mud seepage was detected, the drilling operation would be stopped immediately to reduce 

pressure within the bore hole. Corrective measures would be implemented to eliminate or minimize seepage 

(Overland Pass 2006). If any seepage enters the stream, increased turbidity or physical disturbance to the 

bottom substrate would be localized and short-term in duration (less than 1 day). If the HDD crossing method 

fails at the South Platte River and a decision is made to abandon this method, an open cut crossing would be 

completed. Impacts for this method are discussed below. 

Open-cut trenching would be used at the other perennial streams, 33 of which contain 1 or more game fish 

species (Table 3.7-4). Details on construction procedures for stream crossings are provided in the 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). Open-cut trenching could result in the 

following impacts to aquatic biota: 

• Loss or alteration of in-stream habitat through direct disturbances from equipment; 

• Loss of riparian vegetation along streambanks; 

• Disruption of fish movement; 

• Direct disturbance to spawning; and 

• Water quality effects involving sedimentation or possible fuel spills. 

In-stream Habitat 

Construction methods for crossing waterbodies would be based on the presence or absence of water, flow 

conditions, and stream width. If a waterbody has no perceptible flow at the time of crossing, upland 

construction techniques would be used. Wet-ditch construction techniques (i.e., open cut) would be used for 

streams less than 30 feet wide. Construction would be completed within 24 to 48 hours. Since it is anticipated 

that all PNG intermittent crossings would be dry at the time of construction, upland techniques would be used. 

If water is present and does not subside within 48 hours, these streams would be crossed using a dry-ditch 

technique (flume or dam and pump). Dry-ditch methods also would be used for stream with perceptible flow 

and widths greater than 30 feet. Site-specific construction plans are being developed and will provide detailed 

crossing methods for ten waterbody crossing (Overland Pass 2006). 

Trenching and backfilling within the trenchline would result in physical alteration of channel morphology 

including streambanks and bottom substrates. The impact duration and extent of impact largely would depend 

on the composition of soil materials within the trench and stream channel. Disturbance to channels with firm 

substrates consisting of gravels, cobble, or clay material would exhibit short-term sedimentation as a result of 

trenching activities. These types of substrates are present in most of the streams proposed for trenching. 

These types of soils on the streambanks also would be less prone to erosion. By implementing erosion control 

techniques as part of the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan, suspended sediment levels 

would be localized and expected to return to pre-construction levels within several days. In contrast, 

disturbance to channels with silt or soft materials would result in a long-term alteration of bottom substrates 

and channel morphology. Examples of these types of perennial streams include the Hams Fork River, one of 

the Blacks Fork River crossings (RP 18.9), and Bitter Creek. Past trenching activities and placement of gravels 

in backfill at the Blacks Fork River crossing has resulted in long-term effects such as scouring of stream 

4.7-6 
bottom materials, sedimentation, and erosion from unstable streambanks. Scouring in the Blacks Fork River 

also has contributed to decreased depth to the point that it limits fish movement through the area. 

Within the FGNRA, the Green River also would be trenched, which would result in alteration of stream bottom 

habitat, increase in sedimentation and turbidity, and disturbance to streambank morphology and vegetation, as 

described in the water resource impacts (Section 4.5). The estimated disturbance to the channel bottom from 

trenching and placement of flume pipes across the width of the river would be approximately 22,500 square 

feet, based on a trench width of 75 feet and a channel width of 300 feet at the proposed crossing. The flume 

pipes would be used as a temporary bridge for equipment, as well as a means to maintain flow in the river. 

In-stream construction activities would require approximately two weeks. Impacts to aquatic habitat could 

continue beyond the construction period as a result of potential channel scouring or bank erosion. Additional 

impact information is provided in the Bank Cover, Water Quality Effects, Fish Movement, and Spawning 

sections. 

Trenching also could result in possible mortalities to macroinvertebrates and small-size fish. Large-size fish 

are expected to move away from the construction area. Based on previous studies, macroinvertebrate 

communities typically recolonize disturbed areas in the spring and summer during the following year after 

disturbance (Waters 1995). 

Overland Pass has proposed to use bridge structures for construction equipment on all waterbodies that are 

flowing and widths greater than 30 feet. Bridge structures would avoid impacts to aquatic habitat. However, 

equipment use in streams less than 30 feet wide with water present would alter or disturb bottom substrates 

and channel structure. Additional mitigation would be provided by measure WATER-1, which would require 

bridges for all waterbodies (regardless of size and flow) and wetlands. This measure would eliminate the 

effects of vehicle crossings on aquatic habitat. 

Bank Cover 

Vegetative cover along streambanks of a waterbody provides cover for fish, shading, bank stability, erosion 

control, and increased food and nutrient supply due to the deposition of insects and vegetative matter into the 

watercourse. Loss of bank during construction at stream crossings may reduce cover and shading in a 

relatively small stream segment (up to 50-foot width per bank). Given the relatively small width of disturbance 

associated with a pipeline crossing, the above potential impacts would be considered minor relative to an 

entire stream system. All waterbody banks would be restored to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle 

of repose, as approved by the EI. 

The Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) also indicates that TWAs would be 

located at least 50 feet from the water’s edge of perennial and intermittent waterbodies on federally managed 

land and at least 10 feet away on non-federally managed land. Additional mitigation would be provided by 

measure VEG-1, which would require that the setback distance from TWAs would be 50 feet from riparian 

areas adjacent to waterbodies. This would reduce effects on riparian vegetation. 

Direct Disturbance to Spawning 

In-stream construction activities could displace spawning fish from preferred habitat and result in the utilization 

of lower quality spawning habitat. As shown in Table 3.7-5, spawning periods for coldwater fish species is 

March through May or September through November. Warmwater fish species generally spawn from May 

through July or August. Based on recommendations from WGFD and CDOW, the Construction, Reclamation, 

and Revegetation Plan would implement the following construction windows to minimize impacts on spawning 

fish. The construction period for coldwater fisheries would avoid peak spawning periods for trout species. The 

proposed construction window for warmwater fisheries (June 1 through November 30) could overlap with 

spawning periods for some species in June and July. 

4.7-7 
• Coldwater fisheries – June 1 through September 30; 

• Warmwater fisheries – June 1 through November 30; 

• Hams Fork and Blacks Fork Rivers and Bitter Creek – August 1 through September 30; and 

• South Platte River – August 1 through November 30. 

Trenching activities in the Green River would occur during an estimated two week period between 

mid-September and mid-October. In-stream disturbance would affect spawning movements for kokanee 

salmon and brown trout, as fish move through the construction area to reach spawning areas. Although flumes 

would be present at the crossing to maintain river flow, physical activity in the trench area at the upstream end 

of the flumes would likely affect fish movement. Additional mitigation (WILD-7) would be implemented to 

minimize effects on kokanee salmon by scheduling construction between October 16 and November 20. This 

schedule would minimize disturbance to the first run of kokanee salmon, which is usually completed by the end 

of September. WGFD’s preferred construction period of August 1 through September 15 cannot be followed in 

2007, based on the expected approval of the ROD. Alteration of bottom substrates also could affect eggs 

deposited by kokanee salmon and brown trout. Eggs could be crushed by flume pipes or trenching or indirectly 

affected by sedimentation in areas located downstream of the crossing. Additional off-site mitigation would be 

considered through discussions with the BLM, FGNRA, and WGFD. 

Water Quality Effects 

In-stream construction activities would result in short-term increases in total suspended solids (TSS) levels and 

turbidity in a section of the stream within and immediately downstream of the crossing. The estimated 

disturbance area would range from approximately 270 to 4,250 feet2

, depending on the width and soil type at 

the crossing. Other surface disturbance activities associated with TWAs and road improvements near streams 

also could contribute short-term sedimentation. The setback distance for TWAs would be 50 feet from the 

water’s edge of perennial and intermittent streams on federally managed land and 10 feet from the water’s 

edge on private land. This buffer is applicable to streams with flow at the time of construction. Additional 

mitigation measure VEG-1 would require that the setback distance from TWAs would be 50 feet from riparian 

areas adjacent to waterbodies, which would help reduce sediment input to streams. The extent of downstream 

movement of suspended sediment would depend on flow and channel configuration. Sedimentation and 

increased turbidity conditions could continue in the Green River for at least 4 weeks (2-week construction plus 

2 or more weeks after construction is completed), as a result of the extensive area disturbed within the channel 

and the use of the TWA adjacent to the river. By constructing during the low flow period, movement of 

suspended sediment would be limited in downstream extent. Localized increases in sediment could affect fish 

by clogging gills or damaging gill membranes, reducing vision, contributing to susceptibility to disease from 

added stress, or burying eggs or larvae. Macroinvertebrates could be affected by direct mortalities from 

equipment or physiological effects from sediment covering the organisms. 

Vehicle and equipment use within and adjacent to waterbodies also could pose a risk to aquatic biota from fuel 

or lubricant spills. If fuel reached a waterbody, aquatic species could be exposed to toxic conditions, 

depending on factors such as volume spilled, stream velocity, and channel morphology. Impacts could include 

direct mortalities or reduced health of aquatic organisms. 

Interruption of Fish Movement 

Most water crossing methods allow movement of fish across the ROW. However, some techniques such as 

dry-ditch crossing techniques, may block or delay normal movements. Trenching techniques in larger streams 

such as the Laramie River would maintain flow through the construction area using flumes. Long-term 

interruption of fish movement in a waterbody or a relatively short-term delay in spawning migration could result 

in adverse impacts. By adhering to the construction periods discussed above, impacts on spawning migrations 

would not be expected in most perennial streams. Exceptions would include the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, and 

Green rivers, where fish movements could be affected by construction activities. As discussed in the in-stream 

habitat section, trenching could result in a barrier to fish movement in the Hams Fork and Blacks Fork rivers 

4.7-8 
during low flow periods due to scouring. Construction in the Green River could affect kokanee salmon and 

brown trout spawning migrations as a result of placement of flumes and trenching activities in the river. 

Transfer of Disease and Nuisance Organisms 

Overland Pass’ POD indicates that construction equipment would be washed at the state lines. In-stream 

construction activities could transport whirling disease and parasites or invasive organisms such as zebra 

mussels between drainages within each state. Whirling disease is present in a number of the streams that 

would be crossed (i.e., Green, North Platte, Medicine Bow, Laramie rivers in Wyoming and all perennial 

streams in Colorado except Chief Creek) (Walker 2006; Money 2006). Whirling disease and parasite 

infestations on fish could affect their overall health. Fish numbers could be reduced as a result of mortalities or 

effects on reproduction. Mitigation measure WATER-2 would be implemented, which would involve power 

washing of equipment at all perennial stream crossings to avoid transfer of whirling disease, parasites, or 

nuisance organisms. 

Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control 

Hydrostatic testing and dust control would result in temporary reductions in surface water quantity and habitat 

for aquatic organisms. The Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix C) lists five streams, numerous private wells in 

Colorado and Kansas, and storage ponds at the ONEOK Bushton Plant as water sources for hydrostatic 

testing. The withdrawal location and volumes are provided in Table 4.5-2. The water would be withdrawn 

during the period November 1 and December 15, 2007. As discussed in Section 4.5, hydrostatic testing 

withdrawals would result in relatively small reductions in the Blacks Fork River, Green River, Laramie River, 

and South Platte River. Dust control could use up to 21.2 acre-feet of surface water from tributaries to the 

Colorado River and 30.7 acre-feet from tributaries to the Platte River. If the water sources for dust control are 

municipalities, these volumes would not be considered new depletions, since they are existing water supplies. 

Collectively, hydrostatic testing and dust control could use up to 39.5 acre-feet of surface water in the 

Colorado River Basin and up to 77.3 acre-feet in the Platte River Basin. On an individual stream basis, the 

water depletions would represent a relatively small reduction in habitat for aquatic biota. In addition, there 

would be conflicts regarding minimum flow requirements for the six streams, since minimum flows have not 

been established for fisheries in segments at or downstream of the proposed crossings. 

Although the WGFD and CDOW do not have standards for pump mesh sizes, appropriate size mesh sizes 

would be used on pumps to minimize entrainment of fish species or nuisance organisms that may be present. 

Decisions on the mesh size would be based on early life stages that could be present at the time of water 

pumping. The discharge of hydrostatic test water would follow state permit requirements, which would 

minimize potential effects on aquatic biota. The water would be tested for potential pollutants and then 

discharged to stable upland areas along the construction ROW if the source was surface water. Water would 

be returned to each source after meeting water quality standards, or discharged to an upland site located at 

least 50 to 100 feet from the edge of a waterbody to avoid erosion or introducing nuisance organisms into 

streams (mitigation WATER-3). Specific discharge locations are provided in the Hydrostatic Test Plan. Energy 

dissipaters also would be used at the discharge points to prevent erosion. 

Amphibians 

Construction 

Construction activity within the Proposed Action ROW would cross potential habitat for amphibian species in 

all three states. Potential habitat would consist of flooded areas, wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes. Most of 

the frog and turtle species use these habitats throughout the year. Some of the toad species migrate from 

upland terrestrial areas to use aquatic habitats for breeding in the spring or summer. Vehicle traffic within the 

ROW and waterbody crossing could potentially affect breeding for these species. Construction activities within 

waterbodies could alter habitat used for eggs and rearing of young, as well as possibly causing direct 

mortalities. Vehicle activity also could cause increased sediment in the disturbance area. Toads also could be 

4.7-9 
affected during movements between upland areas and water sources used for breeding (spring and summer). 

Vehicle traffic could crush individual toads during movements to and from waterbodies. 

The implementation of mitigation (VEG-1) involving a 50-foot setback for TWAs on federally managed lands, 

as measured from the edge of riparian vegetation to perennial and intermittent streams, would eliminate direct 

disturbance to some of the potential breeding sites for this species. 

Operation 

Operational effects of maintenance activities are not expected to impact amphibians unless vehicles 

inadvertently crushed individual during movements to and from breeding sites or affected shallow burrow 

areas. 

Additional Mitigation 

WILD-7: The Green River crossing shall be constructed between October 16 and November 20, which would 

minimize impacts to the spawning movement of kokanee salmon (first run fish). 

Conclusion 

Aquatic resource impacts anticipated from pipeline construction at most stream crossings include a temporary 

increase in sedimentation to waterbodies crossed by the open-cut method; short-term disturbance to stream 

channels, aquatic habitat, bank cover, and spawning sites; potential short-term reductions in habitat from water 

withdrawals for hydrostatic testing and dust control; potential loss of aquatic organisms during pumping for 

hydrostatic testing, potential loss of individuals from invasive species or disease if contaminated water is 

transferred between watersheds, and potential fuel spills from construction equipment and toxicity to aquatic 

organisms if the fuel spill reached a waterbody. These impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of 

the POD, Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan, and site-specific waterbody crossing plans 

(designated for environmentally sensitive waterbody crossings). Measures to minimize aquatic resource 

impacts include erosion control and streambank stabilization measures, reducing the amount of time 

conducting instream construction activities, and workspace and refueling setbacks from waterbodies. Overland 

Pass would avoid bank and channel disturbance to the South Platte River by using the HDD crossing method. 

The remaining streams and rivers would be open-cut in accordance with Overland Pass’ POD (Overland Pass 

2006). Overland Pass would avoid construction of crossings during state agency coldwater and warmwater 

fisheries spawning periods. Open-cut crossings would cause short-term (usually 3 days or less) suspended 

sediment increases in stream and river channels. Long-term impacts to habitat and fish populations in the 

Hams Fork and Blacks Fork rivers as a result of scouring and channel disturbance. In addition, trenching at the 

Green River crossing would adversely affect spawning movements and eggs deposited by kokanee salmon 

and brown trout. Mitigation measure WILD-7 would be implemented to minimize effects of trenching at the 

Green River crossing on the late-run of kokanee salmon. 

Application of the additional mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to aquatic resources. WATER-1 

and VEG-1 would further reduce the amount of sediment input into waterbodies during construction. WATER-2 

would reduce the risk of the inadvertent introduction of nuisance organisms, whirling disease, or parasites from 

one waterbody into another. WATER-4 would reduce impacts on aquatic resources during water withdrawals 

associated with dust control and hydrostatic testing. WATER-5 would minimize construction impacts to ponds 

and lakes (playas). Implementation of WATER-6 would avoid alteration of the streambed substrate (i.e., 

roughness) that can affect sedimentation and erosion regimes, degrade the channel, and create fish barriers. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential localized sedimentation and disturbance to habitat if maintenance activities were required at 

a stream crossing. 

4.7-10 
Analysis 

Routine maintenance of the pipeline ROW would consist of periodic vegetation clearance once every three 

years. Vegetation removal adjacent to waterbodies would be limited to at least a 25-foot-wide riparian strip, as 

measured from the waterbody’s mean high water mark. As a result, maintenance activities would not affect 

aquatic biota or their habitat. 

Operational effects of a possible pipeline rupture at a stream crossing are limited to localized stream bottom 

disturbance. Since released product would be in a gaseous state and quickly volatilize, it would not be toxic to 

aquatic biota. Additional information on the fate of the NGLs and potential toxicity is provided in Appendix J. If 

a rupture occurred at a stream crossing, stream substrates could be dissipated from the rupture point. 

Macroinvertebrate mortalities could occur at the rupture point. Fish are expected to move away from the 

rupture area. Potential impacts would be short-term and low magnitude due to the localized extent of the 

affected area. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation for project operation is required to further reduce impacts on aquatic biota and their 

habitat. 

Conclusion 

Routine operation and maintenance activities would have minor effects on aquatic resources. Minimal impacts, 

if any, would be expected to aquatic biota if NGLs were accidentally released into waterbodies. 

4.7.1.3 Special Status Species 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• The construction issues for wildlife special status species are the same as listed for wildlife resources 

(Section 4.7.1). 

• The construction issues for special status fish species are the same as listed for aquatic resources. 

• Hydrostatic testing is an issue for federally listed species that occur in downstream portions of the 

Colorado River and Platte River basins. The USFWS requires consultation for any water withdrawals 

in these basins that could affect surface water quantity. 

• The construction issues for special status plant species are the same as listed for vegetation 

resources (Section 4.6.1). 

Analysis 

The impact analysis for special status species focused on those species that were identified as potentially 

occurring within the project area. A total of 77 terrestrial species and 15 aquatic species have been identified 

as potentially occurring within the project area (Table 4.7-2 and Appendix G). As required under Section 7 of 

the ESA, a draft BA was prepared for the project to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect 

any federally listed species. Fifteen federally threatened and endangered species and two candidate species 

were analyzed in the BA. BLM- and USFS-sensitive species also were analyzed in the BR/BE. Impacts to 

special status species are summarized in Table 4.7-3, in the BA and in the BR/BE. 

4.7-11 
Table 4.7-2 Impacts for Special Status Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

 Impact Potential

2 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Federally Listed Species 

Mammals 

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes FE; CO-E; WY-NSS1; 

KS-E 

MA MA NE 

Preble's meadow jumping 

mouse 

Zapus hudsonius preblei FT; CO-T MA MA NE 

Birds 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT; CO-T; WY-NSS2; 

KS-T 

MA MA MA 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC; BLM-WY; WY-NSS2 MA NE NE 

Whooping crane Grus americanus FE; CO-E; KS-E MA MA NE 

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos FE; KS-E; CO-E MA MA NE 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus 

circumcinctus 

FT; CO-T; KS-T MA MA NE 

Lesser Prairie Chicken Tynpanuchus pallidicinctus FC NE NE NE 

Amphibians 

Wyoming toad Bufo baxteri FE, WY-NSS1 MA NE NE 

Fish 

Bonytail Gilia elegans FE; CO E; USFS-R4S MA NE NE 

Colorado pikeminnow Plychocheilus lucius FE; CO-E MA NE NE 

Humpback chub Gilia cyphus FE; CO E; USFS-R4S MA NE NE 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE; CO-E; USFS-R4S MA NE NE 

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus FE; KS-E MA MA NE 

Plants 

Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana spp. 

Coloradensis 

FT MA MA NE 

Blowout penstemon Penstemon haydenii FE MA NE NE 

Ute ladies' tresses Sprianthes diluvialis FT ; USFS-R4S MA MA NE 

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara FT MA MA NE 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Mammals 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2; USFS-R2S 

MI MI NI 

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis BLM-WY; WY-NSS2 MI MI NI 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BLM-WY; WY-NSS2 MI MI NI 

Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2; CO-SOC; 

KS-SINC 

MI MI MI 

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Swift fox Vulpes velox CO-SOC; USFS-R2S; 

BLM-WY 

MI MI MI 

White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus BLM-WY MI MI NI 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus BLM-WY; USFS-R2S; 

CO-SOC 

NI MI MI 

Idaho pocket gopher Thomomys idahoensis BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Wyoming pocket gopher Thomomys clusius BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Birds 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia USFS-R2S; BLM-WY; 

CO-T 

MI MI MI 

Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri BLM-WY; USFS-R2S MI MI NI 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis CO-SOC; BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S; KS-SINC 

MI MI MI 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BLM-WY; USFS-R2S MI MI MI 

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus BLM-WY; CO-SOC; 

USFS-R2; KS-SINC 

MI MI MI 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus CO-SOC; BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S; KS-SINC 

MI MI MI 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM-WY; 

KS-SINC 

MI MI MI 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus KS-E; BLM-WY MI NI MI 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus BLM-WY MI MI NI 

4.7-12 
Table 4.7-2 Impacts for Special Status Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

 Impact Potential

2 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinators BLM-WY; WY-NSS2 MI NI NI 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi BLM-WY MI MI MI 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus CO-SOC; BLM-WY; WYNSS2 MI NI NI 

Reptiles 

Midget faded rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor BLM-WY; CO-SOC MI NI NI 

Amphibians 

Western boreal toad Bufo borealis boreas CO-E; BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2 

MI MI NI 

Great Basin spadefoot toad Spea intermontana BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Spotted frog Ranus pretiosa BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens BLM-WY; USFS-R2S; 

CO-SOC 

MI MI NI 

Fish 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus BLM-WY; WYGF-NSS1 MI NI NI 

Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis BLM-WY; WYGF-NSS1 MI NI NI 

Leatherside chub Gila copei BLM –WY; WYGF-NSS1 MI NI NI 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta BLM-WY; WY-NSS1; MI NI NI 

Plants 

Laramie columbine Aquilegia laramiensis BLM -WY MI NI NI 

Nelson's milkvetch Astragalus nelsonianus BLM-WY MI MI NI 

Trelease's 

racemose milkvetch 

Astragalus racemosus var. 

treleasei 

BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Cedar Rim thistle Cirsium aridum BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Ownbey's thistle Cirsium ownbeyi BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Large-fruited bladderpod Lesquerella macrocarpa BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Prostrate bladderpod Lesquerella prostrata BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Gibbens' beardtongue Penstemon haydenii BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Tufted twinpod Physaria condensata BLM-WY MI NI NI 

Persistent 

sepal yellowcress 

Rorippa calycina BLM -WY MI NI NI 

Laramie false sagebrush Sphaeromeria simplex BLM -WY MI NI NI 

Green River greenthread Thelesperma caespitosum USFS- R4S; BLM -WY MI NI NI 

USFS Sensitive Species 

Birds 

Cassin's sparrow Aimophilia cassini USFS-R2S MI MI MI 

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii USFS-R2S MI MI NI 

Chestnut-collard longspur Calcarius ornatus USFS-R2S MI MI NI 

Northern harrier Cirus cyaneus USFS-R2S MI MI MI 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum USFS-R2S MI MI NI 

Black tern Childonias niger USFS-R2S; KS-SINC MI MI MI 

Plants 

Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis USFS-R2S NI MI NI 

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre USFS-R2S NI MI NI 

Wyoming feverfew Parthenium alpinum Former USFS-R2S NI MI NI 

State Status Species 

Mammals 

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides CO-SOC MI MI NI 

Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii KS-SINC NI NI MI 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WY-NSS2 MI MI NI 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus WY-NSS2; KS-SINC MI MI NI 

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius KS-T NI NI MI 

Birds 

Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus KS-T; CO-SOC MI MI MI 

Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis KS-SINC NI NI MI 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus KS-SINC MI MI MI 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus KS-SINC MI MI MI 

Reptiles 

Glossy snake Arizona elegans KS-SINC NI MI MI 

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus KS-SINC MI MI MI 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis CO-SOC MI MI MI 

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos KS-SINC MI MI MI 

Yellow mud turtle Kinosternon flavescens CO-SOC NI MI MI 

4.7-13 
Table 4.7-2 Impacts for Special Status Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

 Impact Potential

2 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Amphibians 

Northern cricket frog Aeris crepitans CO-SOC NI MI MI 

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi CO-SOC NI MI MI 

Fish 

Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus CO-E; KS-SINC NI MI NI 

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni CO-T; KS-SINC NI MI NI 

Orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectable CO SOC NI MI NI 

Stonecat Noturus flavus CO SOC NI MI NI 

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis CO-E NI MI NI 

Invertebrates 

Cylindrical papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus KS-SINC NI NI MI 1

 Status Definitions: 

KS-SINC= Kansas Species in Need of Conservation 

WY-NSS1= Wyoming Critically Imperiled Species 

WY-NSS2= Wyoming Imperiled Species 

BLM-WY = Wyoming BLM sensitive. 

USFS-R2S = USFS Region 2 sensitive species 

USFS-R4S = USFS Region 4 sensitive species 

PNG= Pawnee National Grassland 2

 Impact Definitions: 

MA= indicates that this federally listed species may be affected by the proposed action. 

NE= indicates that no effect to this federally listed species would result from the proposed action. 

MI= BLM Sensitive Species, USFS Listed Species, or State Status Species may be impacted by the proposed action. 

NI= No impact to this BLM Sensitive Species, USFS Sensitive Species, or State Status Species would result from the proposed 

action. 

As part of Overland Pass’ POD, applicant-committed protection measures have been developed for the project 

in a Conservation Measures Plan to prevent or minimize direct impacts on special status species (Overland 

Pass 2006). The Overland Pass Conservation Measure Plan includes measures that would be implemented if 

federally listed species, species of concern, or a BLM-sensitive species were identified along the proposed 

pipeline route during project-specific surveys. In coordination within the BLM, the Conservation Measure Plan 

includes protection measures that would prevent or minimize potential impacts to federally listed species, such 

that the proposed project would not be likely to adversely affect these species. For special status species, the 

Conservation Measure Plan includes measures that would prevent or minimize impacts, such that the 

proposed project would not be likely to result in a loss of viability, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a 

loss of species viability range wide. 

Wildlife Species 

Direct impacts would include the incremental long-term loss or alteration of potential breeding and/or foraging 

habitats, and increased incremental habitat fragmentation until native vegetation has become reestablished. 

Acres of special status wildlife species habitat that would be directly impacted by construction activities are 

included in Table 4.7-3. Potential impacts also could result in mortalities of less mobile or burrowing species 

as a result of crushing by vehicles and equipment, and the potential abandonment of a nest site or territory and 

the loss of eggs or young. Other impacts would include short-term displacement of some of the more mobile 

species from the disturbance areas as a result of increased noise and human presence. However, based on 

Overland Pass’ committed environmental protection measures as defined in their POD and Conservation 

Measure Plan, in combination with additional mitigation measures identified below for special status wildlife 

species, potential impacts to special status wildlife resources would be low. 

4.7-14 
Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status 

Wildlife Species 

Common 

Name

Scientific 

 Name Status1

Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Federally Listed Species 

Mammals 

Black-footed 

ferret 

Mustela 

nigripes 

FE; CO-E; 

WY-NSS1; 

KS-E 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

 399 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

17 

No Impact 

Preble's 

meadow 

jumping 

mouse 

Zapus 

hudsonius 

preblei 

FT; CO-T Reproduction/Foraging: 

3 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

<1 

No Impact 

Birds 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

FT; CO-T; 

WY-NSS2; 

KS-T 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 3 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 4 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging:<1 

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

FC; BLMWY; WYNSS2 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 5 

No Impact No Impact 

Whooping 

crane 

Grus 

americanus 

FE; CO-E; 

KS-E 

Downstream Impacts2 Downstream Impacts2 No Impact 

Interior least 

tern 

Sterna 

antillarum 

athalassos 

FE; KS-E; 

CO-E 

Downstream Impacts2

 Downstream Impacts2 No Impact 

Piping plover Charadrius 

melodus 

circumcinctus 

FT; CO-T; 

KS-T 

Downstream Impacts2

 Downstream Impacts2 No Impact 

Lesser 

Prairie 

Chicken 

Tynpanuchus 

pallidicinctus 

FC No Impact No Impact No Impact 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Mammals 

Fringed 

myotis 

Myotis 

thysanodes 

BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2; 

USFS-R2S 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,974 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 1,563 

No Impact 

Long-eared 

myotis 

Myotis evotis BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,974 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 1,563 

No Impact 

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum 

BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,974 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 1,563 

No Impact 

Townsend's 

big-eared 

bat 

Plecotus 

townsendii 

BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2; 

CO-SOC; 

KS-SINC 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,974 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 1,563 

Roosting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,372 

Pygmy 

rabbit 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis 

BLM-WY Reproduction/Foraging: 

392 known occupany3 

1758 suitable habitat 

No Impact No Impact 

Swift fox Vulpes velox CO-SOC; 

USFS-R2S; 

BLM-WY 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

667 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

1,316 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

2,336 

White-tailed 

prairie dog 

Cynomys 

leucurus 

BLM-WY Reproduction/Foraging: 

399 known occupancy

3 

1758 suitable habitat 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

No Impact 

No Impact 

4.7-15 
Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status 

Wildlife Species 

Common 

Name

Scientific 

 Name Status1

Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Black-tailed 

prairie dog 

Cynomys 

ludovicianus 

BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S; 

CO-SOC 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

No known occupancy3 

667 suitable habitat 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

17 known occupancy3 

1,316 suitable habitat 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

No known occupancy3 

2,336 suitable habitat 

Idaho pocket 

gopher 

Thomomys 

idahoensis 

BLM-WY Reproduction/Foraging: 

565 

No Impact No Impact 

Wyoming 

pocket 

gopher 

Thomomys 

clusius 

BLM-WY Reproduction/Foraging: 

1,109 

No Impact No Impact 

Birds 

Burrowing 

owl 

Athene 

cunicularia 

USFS-R2S; 

BLM-WY; 

CO-T 

Nesting/Foraging: 

399 known occupancy

3 

667 suitable habitat 

Nesting/Foraging: 

17 known occupacy3 

1,316 suitable habitat 

Nesting/Foraging: 

No known occupancy3 

2,336 suitable habitat 

Mountain 

plover 

Charadrius 

montanus 

BLM-WY; 

CO-SOC; 

USFS-R2; 

KS-SINC 

Nesting/Foraging: 

28 known occupancy4 

598 suitable habitat 

Nesting/Foraging: 

No known occupancy4 

1,864 suitable habitat 

Nesting/Foraging: 

No known occupancy5 

2,336 suitable habitat

5 

Brewer's 

sparrow 

Spizella 

breweri 

BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S 

Nesting/Foraging: 

1,758 

No Impact No Impact 

Ferruginous 

hawk 

Buteo regalis CO-SOC; 

BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S; 

KS-SINC 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,914 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging:1,568 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,372 

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Lanius 

ludovicianus 

BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S 

Nesting/Foraging: 

2,140 

Nesting/Foraging: 228 Nesting/Foraging: 15 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Numenius 

americanus 

CO-SOC; 

BLM-WY; 

USFS-R2S; 

KS-SINC 

Nesting/Foraging: 696 Nesting/Foraging: 913 Nesting/Foraging: 669 

Northern 

goshawk 

Accipiter 

gentiles 

BLM-WY Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 5 

No Impact No Impact 

Golden 

eagle 

Aquila 

chrysaetos 

BLM-WY; 

KS-SINC 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,914 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging:1,568 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 2,372 

Peregrine 

falcon 

Falco 

peregrinus 

KS-E; 

BLM-WY 

Nesting: No Impact 

Foraging: 24 

No Impact No Impact 

Sage 

sparrow 

Amphispiza 

belli 

BLM-WY Nesting/Foraging: 

1,758 

No Impact No Impact 

Sage 

thrasher 

Oreoscoptes 

montanus 

BLM-WY Nesting/Foraging: 

1,758 

Nesting/Foraging: 228 No Impact 

Trumpeter 

swan 

Cygnus 

buccinators 

BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2 

Nesting/Foraging: 4 No Impact No Impact 

White-faced 

ibis 

Plegadis chihi BLM-WY Nesting/Foraging: 6 Nesting/Foraging: 4 Nesting/Foraging: <1 

Greater 

sage-grouse 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

CO-SOC; 

BLM-WY; 

WY-NSS2 

Nesting/Foraging: 

1,758 

No Impact No Impact 

Reptiles 

Midget faded 

rattlesnake 

Crotalus 

viridis 

concolor 

BLM-WY; 

CO-SOC 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

91 

No Impact No Impact 

4.7-16 
Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status 

Wildlife Species 

Common 

Name

Scientific 

 Name Status1

Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

USFS Sensitive Species 

Birds 

Cassin's 

sparrow 

Aimophilia 

cassini 

USFS-R2S Nesting/Foraging: 639 Nesting/Foraging: 907 Nesting/Foraging: 667 

McCown’s 

longspur 

Calcarius 

mccownii 

USFS-R2S Nesting/Foraging: 123 Nesting/Foraging: 619 No Impact 

Chestnutcollard 

longspur 

Calcarius 

ornatus 

USFS-R2S Nesting/Foraging: 639 Nesting/Foraging: 619 No Impact 

Northern 

harrier 

Cirus cyaneus USFS-R2S Nesting/Foraging: 639 Nesting/Foraging: 907 Nesting/Foraging: 667 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

USFS-R2S Nesting/Foraging: 639 Nesting/Foraging: 907 No Impact 

Black tern Childonias 

niger 

USFS-R2S; 

KS-SINC 

Nesting/Foraging: 58 Nesting/Foraging: 5 Nesting/Foraging: 2 

State Status Species 

Mammals 

Northern 

pocket 

gopher 

Thomomys 

talpoides 

CO-SOC Reproduction/Foraging: 

639 

Nesting/Foraging: 907 No Impact 

Franklin’s 

ground 

squirrel 

Spermophilus 

franklinii 

KS-SINC No Impact No Impact Reproduction/Foraging: 

8 

Long-legged 

myotis 

Myotis volans WY-NSS2 Reproduction: No 

Impact 

Foraging:45 

Reproduction: No 

Impact 

Foraging: <1 

No Impact 

Pallid bat Antrozous 

pallidus 

WY-NSS2; 

KS-SINC 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

2,974 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

1,563 

No Impact 

Eastern 

spotted 

skunk 

Spilogale 

putorius 

KS-T No Impact No Impact Reproduction/Foraging: 

669 

Birds 

Snowy 

plover 

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

KS-T; COSOC Nesting/Foraging: 58 Nesting/Foraging: 5 Nesting/Foraging: 2 

Black rail Laterallus 

jamaicensis 

KS-SINC No Impact No Impact Nesting/Foraging: 2 

Short-eared 

owl 

Asio 

flammeus 

KS-SINC Nesting/Foraging: 691 Nesting/Foraging: 909 Nesting/Foraging: 669 

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

KS-SINC Nesting/Foraging: 52 Nesting/Foraging: 1 Nesting/Foraging: 2 

Reptiles 

Glossy 

snake 

Arizona 

elegans 

KS-SINC No Impact Reproduction/Foraging: 

679 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

1,193 

Western 

hognose 

snake 

Heterodon 

nasicus 

KS-SINC No Impact Reproduction/Foraging: 

619 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

561 

Common 

garter snake 

Thamnophis 

sirtalis 

CO-SOC Reproduction/Foraging: 

56 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

1 

Reproduction/Foraging: 

2 

4.7-17 
Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status 

Wildlife Species 

Common Scientific Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities 

Name Name Status1 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Eastern 

hognose 

snake 

Heterodon 

platirhinos 

KS-SINC No Impact No Impact Reproduction/Foraging: 

563 

1

Status Definitions: 

KS-SINC= Kansas Species in Need of Conservation 

WY-NSS1= Wyoming Critically Imperiled Species 

WY-NSS2= Wyoming Imperiled Species 

BLM-WY = Wyoming BLM sensitive. 

USFS-R2S = USFS Region 2 sensitive species 

USFS-R4S = USFS Region 4 sensitive species 

PNG= Pawnee National Grassland 2

While these species are not impacted within in the states crossed by the Proposed Action, Platte River water depletions could cause 

downstream impacts. 3 These acreages do not reflect occupied habitat on private lands 

4

As noted during 2006 suitable habitat surveys 5

Kansas impact acreage derived from vegetation data. Suitable habitat surveys were not completed in Kansas. 

MIS Species 

Temporary habitat reductions for MIS species would occur in the following habitat types: sagebrush, 

shortgrass prairie, cliff and rock outcrops, and midgrass prairie. A corresponding reduction in populations of 

these species would be minimized by the availability of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the project area. 

Species that are at or near carrying capacity could suffer some increased mortalities. Additional impacts to 

MIS species are discussed by habitat association in Tables 4.7-3 and 4.7-4, below and in the BR. This project 

meets the objectives of Forest Plans for the PNG and the ANF-FGNRA for MIS species. 

Aquatic Resources 

The impact analysis for sensitive fish and amphibian species is generally the same as discussed for aquatic 

resources. Impacts are applicable to streams that contain sensitive fish species, as listed below by state. 

Species potentially occurring in these streams are discussed in Section 3.7.1.1. Potential habitat consisting of 

flooded areas, wetlands, streams, and playas/ponds also occurs in Wyoming and Colorado for special status 

amphibian species (Table 3.7-4). 

• Wyoming – Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green River, and Bitter Creek; 

• Colorado – South Platte, Chief Creek, North Fork Republican River, and Arikaree River; and 

• Kansas – Smokey Hill and South Fork Republican rivers. 

Since Overland Pass has committed to directional drilling at one waterbody (South Platte River) that contain 

special status fish species, construction-related impacts on special status fish species and their habitat would 

be minor at this river crossing. It is possible that mud from the directional drilling could inadvertently enter the 

active stream along the drilling route. However, if mud seepage is detected, the drilling operation would be 

stopped immediately to reduce pressure within the bore hole. Corrective measures would be implemented to 

eliminate or minimize seepage. If any seepage enters the stream, increased turbidity or physical disturbance to 

the bottom substrate would be localized and short-term in duration (less than 1 day). 

4.7-18 
Table 4.7-4 Impacts for Management Indicator Species 

Habitat 

Association 

Species Project-related Impacts 

Sagebrush Sage grouse Sagebrush is a minor component on FGNRA forest service lands located 

within the project area. Potential impacts to sage grouse are identified in 

Section 4.7.1.3 and in the BR. 

Cliffs and Rock 

Outcrops 

Golden eagle Direct impacts to marginal rock cliff habitats occurring in the FGNRA would 

occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts to raptors and 

passerines potentially nesting in this habitat type would be direct (loss of 

foraging habitat) and indirect (human activity, noise). This species is 

discussed further in the BR. 

Shortgrass prairie Mountain Plover; Shortgrass prairie is the major component of USFS lands located within 

the proposed project area. Potential impacts to raptors are identified above 

under non-game species, while mountain plover impacts are discussed in 

Section 4.7.1.3. Both of these species are discussed in the BR. 

 Ferruginous Hawk 

Midgrass prairie Ferruginous Hawk

 Lark Bunting 

Midgrass prairie is a minor component of the USFS lands located within 

the proposed project area. Impacts to raptors and migratory birds are 

discussed above under non-game species. 

Prairie dog towns Black-tailed prairie 

dog; 

 Western burrowing 

owl 

Prairie dog towns and western burrowing owl would be impacted 

throughout the USFS lands located within the project area in the PNG. 

These impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.1.3 and in the BR. 

Prairie woodlands Mule deer No USFS lands located within the project area contain prairie woodlands. 

Various habitats 

economic 

Mule deer; 

Elk 

This habitat type doesn’t occur on USFS lands located within the proposed 

project. 

Open-cut trenching would be used at the other perennial streams that contain one or more special status fish 

species. Details on construction procedures for stream crossings are provided in the Overland Pass 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). Open-cut trenching could result in the same 

types of impacts as discussed for aquatic resources. Impact issues would result from trenching in the Hams 

Fork River and one of the Blacks Fork River crossings (RP 18.9), which would adversely affect habitat for 

special status fish species. Trenching also could adversely affect habitat for flannelmouth sucker and roundtail 

chub. Mitigation measures SSS-9 would be implemented for the Bitter Creek crossing, which would involve a 

dry crossing method, if perceptible exists at the time of construction. 

To avoid impacts on spawning fish, the following construction windows would be followed. 

• Hams Fork and Blacks Fork Rivers and Bitter Creek – August 1 through September 30; and 

• South Platte River – August 1 through November 30. 

The proposed construction period of June 1 through November 30 for the North Fork Republican River could 

potentially affect stonecat spawning, which occurs in June through August. Stonecat is a Colorado special 

concern species. Construction could physically disrupt spawning behavior or displace stonecat from their 

spawning areas. Mitigation measure SSS-10 would be implemented, which would schedule construction to 

avoid the spawning periods (May 31 through August 1). The construction period of mid-September through 

mid-October in the Green River would not be an issue for special status fish species, since none use this 

section of the river for spawning. 

Hydrostatic testing and dust control would affect surface flows in the Colorado River and Platte River basins. 

Four federally listed fish species occur in the Colorado River Basin (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, 

humpback chub, and bonytail). The Platte River Basin supports federally listed fish (pallid sturgeon) and bird 

species (Section 4.7.1). As listed in Table 4.5-2, the total estimated surface water use would be 39.5 acre-feet 

4.7-19 
in the Colorado River Basin and 77.3 acre-feet in the Platte River Basin. These water withdrawals would 

represent an adverse effect on listed fish species in both basins. 

The USFWS has required mitigation for surface water depletions in the Upper Colorado River and Platte River 

basins, as summarized below. 

• Upper Colorado River Basin – The Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species 

in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Plan) was established in 1988 to mitigate for water 

depletions to federally listed fish species. Water users are required to make a one-time payment to the 

Recovery Plan. The current fee (2007 fiscal year) is $17.24/acre-foot. In 1995, an intra-USFWS 

Opinion determined that the fee for depletions of less than 100 acre-feet (annual average) would no 

longer be required. Payments for larger depletions basically provides mitigation for the projects with 

small depletions such as estimated for the Proposed Action (39.5 acre-feet) 

• Platte River Basin – The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program was approved in 2006 to 

provide a basin-wide approach by the Department of Interior and the states of Wyoming, Colorado, 

and Nebraska to benefit endangered species in the Platte River. The purpose of the program is to 

provide land, water, and scientific monitoring and research to evaluate benefits from the program. The 

program’s long-term objective is to provide sufficient water to and through the central Platte River 

habitat area to assist in improving and maintaining habitat for target species using incentive-based 

projects. The USFWS determines the depletion for the projects in the Platte River Basin by dividing 

the estimated water withdrawal (77.3 acre-feet for the project) by the life of the project (30 years 

assuming the timeframe of the ROW grant). This represents an estimated depletion of 2.6 acre-feet. 

Depletions less than 25 acre-feet do not require a fee. 

Appropriate size mesh sizes would be used on pumps to minimize entrainment of early life stages of special 

status fish species that may be present in the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and South Platte rivers 

(mitigation WATER-4). Decisions on the mesh size would be made based on early life stages that could be 

present at the time of water pumping. 

Plant Species 

A total of 18 special status plant species have been identified as potentially occurring within the project area 

(Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-5 and Appendix G). Special status plant species may be directly impacted by surface 

disturbing activities such as clearing, trenching or trampling. The primary impact of the proposed project on 

vegetation would be the cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work 

area. However, based on Overland Pass’ commitment to follow construction procedures detailed in its POD 

and Construction, Restoration, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B), potential impacts to special status plant 

species would be low. Acres of special status plant species habitat that would be affected by construction 

activities are included in Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-5 Acres Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

Acres Impacted by Construction Activities 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Federally Listed Species 

Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana 

spp. coloradensis 

FT No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Blowout penstemon Penstemon haydenii FE No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Ute ladies' tresses Sprianthes diluvialis FT ; USFS-R4S No Impact No Impact No Impact 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Laramie columbine Aquilegia laramiensis BLM -WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Nelson's milkvetch Astragalus nelsonianus BLM-WY 3.4 No Impact No Impact 

Trelease's 

racemose milkvetch 

Astragalus racemosus 

var. treleasei 

BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

4.7-20 
Table 4.7-5 Acres Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

Acres Impacted by Construction Activities 

 Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Cedar Rim thistle Cirsium aridum BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Ownbey's thistle Cirsium ownbeyi BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Large-fruited bladderpod Lesquerella macrocarpa BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Prostrate bladderpod Lesquerella prostrata BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Gibbens' beardtongue Penstemon haydenii BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Tufted twinpod Physaria condensata BLM-WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Persistent 

sepal yellowcress 

Rorippa calycina BLM -WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Laramie false sagebrush Sphaeromeria simplex BLM -WY No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Green River greenthread Thelesperma 

caespitosum 

USFS- R4S; BLM -

WY 

No Impact No Impact No Impact 

USFS Sensitive Species 

Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis USFS-R2S No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre USFS-R2S No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Sandhill goosefoot Chenopodium cycloides USFS-PNG No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Wyoming feverfew Parthenium alpinum Former USFS-R2S No Impact 1.1 No Impact 

1

 Status Definitions: 

BLM-WY = Wyoming BLM sensitive. 

USFS-R2S = USFS Region 2 sensitive species. 

USFS-R4S = USFS Region 4 sensitive species. 

PNG= Pawnee National Grassland. 

Additional Mitigation 

Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse 

SSS-1: If crossing of suitable habitat for Prebles meadow jumping mouse occurs during the breeding season 

(June or July), captured adults shall be released at the trap site and followed to attempt to determine 

if they have young in a nest. If a nest is located within the ROW, a decision shall be made to move 

the ROW and avoid the nest or delay the crossing until late July when the young should be mobile 

and able to be trapped and moved from the immediate area. 

SSS-2: In suitable habitat for Prebles meadow jumping mouse, the width of the ROW shall be reduced to 

60 feet. 

Migratory Birds 

Sage Grouse 

SSS-3: The ROW width shall be reduced to 60 feet within 2 miles of identified sage grouse leks. 

SSS-4: Construction and maintenance shall not occur within 2 miles of a sage grouse lek from March 1 

through July 15, between the hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. from RP 42.9 to RP 110.4 on lands 

administered by the BLM Rock Springs Field Office. 

4.7-21 
Mountain Plover 

SSS-5: Construction and maintenance shall not occur within 656 feet of identified mountain plover 

concentration areas between April 1 and June 30. 

SSS-6: If an active mountain plover nest is observed, planned development activities shall be delayed at 

least 37 days from the date the nest is observed or 1 week post hatching. 

Midget faded Rattlesnake 

SSS-7: In midget faded rattlesnake habitat identified during survey efforts (WEST 2006b), construction on 

south- and east-facing slopes shall be avoided by a distance of 100 feet and by a distance of 

500 feet on north-end west-facing slopes. Avoidance of these habitat areas would require re-routing 

of the proposed pipeline route. 

Eastern Spotted Skunk 

SSS-8: Trees felled and brush cleared within 200 feet of the proposed Big Creek crossing (RP 670) shall be 

piled in a stack(s) adjacent to the existing riparian area to restore/increase habitat for the eastern 

spotted skunk. 

Flannelmouth Sucker and Roundtail Chub 

SSS-9: If there is perceptible flow within Bitter Creek at the time of crossing, Overland Pass shall use a dry 

crossing method (dam-and-pump or flume method) to protect the flannelmouth sucker populations. 

Stonecat 

SSS-10: Per the recommendation of the CDOW (Swigle 2006c), Overland Pass shall avoid construction 

across the North Fork of the Republican River between May 31 and August 1 to avoid direct impacts 

to spawning and young stonecat. 

Conclusion 

Wildlife Species 

Impacts to special status wildlife species would be avoided or minimized through implementation of Overland 

Pass’ POD, Conservation Measure Plan, Special Status Species Survey Plan, and committed measures 

(Overland Pass 2006). Additional mitigation measures WILD-3 and SSS-1 through SSS-8 would further 

minimize potential impacts to the Prebles meadow jumping mouse, migratory birds, sage grouse, mountain 

plover, eastern spotted skunk, and midget faded rattlesnakes. These protective measures would prevent or 

minimize potential impacts to special status wildlife species, such that the proposed project would not be likely 

to result in a loss of viability, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. 

Aquatic Resources 

Impacts to special status fish species in eight streams (Bitter Creek, South Platte River, Chief Creek, North 

Fork Republican River, Republican River, Arikaree River, Smokey Hill River, and South Fork Republican 

River) would be minimized through implementation of Overland Pass’ Construction, Reclamation, and 

Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) and other POD-related plans. These plans would minimize effects on habitat 

for special status fish species as a result avoiding spawning periods, controlling sediment from disturbed 

areas, and reclaiming streambanks. Additional mitigation would include a requirement for bridges at all flowing 

stream crossings (WATER-2) and establishing a setback distance from riparian vegetation (VEG-1). Mitigation 

measure SSS-10 would further minimize impacts to the stonecat in the North Fork of the Republican River by 

avoiding construction across the river during spawning periods. Mitigation measure SSS-9 (dry ditch method if 

4.7-22 
flowing) also would be implemented in Bitter Creek to minimize impacts to flannelmouth sucker and roundtail 

chub. Collectively, these protection measures would minimize potential impacts to special status fish species 

such that the proposed project likely would not result in a loss of viability, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of species viability rangewide. 

Trenching in the Hams Fork River and the Blacks Fork River at RP 18.9 would result in long-term adverse 

impacts to habitat for special status fish species. Scouring also could affect fish movements during low flow 

periods. As a result of these impacts, population levels could decrease for one or more of the special status 

fish species (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub) in the Hams Fork and Blacks Fork 

rivers. Potential population declines could contribute to a loss of viability or trend toward listing one or more of 

these fish species. 

Construction activity within the ROW could directly affect special status amphibian species in flooded areas, 

wetlands, streams, or ponds in Wyoming and Colorado. Vehicles could cause mortalities or alter aquatic 

habitat used by these species. Mitigation measure VEG-1 (setback from waterbodies and riparian vegetation) 

would minimize effects on amphibian habitat. The project likely would not result in a loss of viability, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing or loss of species viability rangewide. 

Plant Species 

Impacts to special status plant species would be avoided or minimized through implementation of Overland 

Pass’ POD, Conservation Measure Plan, Special Status Species Survey Plan, and committed measures 

(Overland Pass 2006). These protective measures would prevent or minimize adverse impacts on special 

status plant species, such that the proposed project would not be likely to result in a loss of viability, either 

locally or rangewide. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• The issues associated with operations would be similar to the issues described for wildlife, aquatic, 

and vegetation resources; and 

• Potential localized sedimentation and disturbance to habitat if maintenance activities were required at 

a stream crossing. 

Analysis 

Wildlife Species 

Both normal and abnormal (e.g., spill event and clean up) operations would have negligible effects on special 

status wildlife resources. Impacts to special status wildlife and plant species from maintenance activities would 

be the same as those discussed above. Direct impacts would include the incremental long-term habitat loss or 

alteration of potential breeding and/or foraging habitats until native vegetation has become reestablished. 

Potential impacts also could result in mortalities of less mobile or burrowing species as a result of crushing by 

vehicles and equipment, and the potential abandonment of a nest site or territory and the loss of eggs or 

young. Other impacts could include short-term displacement of some of the more mobile species from the 

disturbance areas as a result of increased noise and human presence. In order to reduce potential impacts to 

special status wildlife species as a result of maintenance activities on BLM-administered lands, Overland Pass 

would gain approval from the authorized BLM officer. The authorized BLM officer would coordinate with the 

appropriate BLM wildlife biologist(s) to determine if the activity would result in a direct impact to special status 

wildlife resources. If applicable, appropriate mitigation measures identified above in Section 4.7.1 would be 

implemented in order to minimize potential impacts to special status wildlife resources. 

4.7-23 
Aquatic Resources 

Operational effects of maintenance activities at a stream crossing are limited to localized stream bottom 

disturbance. In the unlikely event of a pipeline leak at a stream crossing, released product would transition into 

a gaseous state and quickly volatilize. It would not be toxic to aquatic biota (Appendix J). If a rupture occurred 

at a stream crossing, fish are expected to move away from the rupture area. Potential impacts would be 

short-term and low magnitude due to the localized extent of the affected area. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Routine maintenance and operation of the pipeline would result in minimal impact, if any, to special status 

species. Maintenance activities along the proposed pipeline route would result in localized, dispersed impacts 

of short duration along the proposed pipeline route. If NGLs were accidentally released into waterbodies due to 

a pipeline leak, minimal impacts, if any, would be expected to special status species. 

4.7.2 No Action Alternative 

4.7.2.1 Wildlife 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed or operated. No project-related 

disturbance would occur other than actions already authorized on federal land by the BLM. Impacts to wildlife 

would continue at present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.7.2.2 Aquatic Species 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed or operated. No project-related 

disturbance would occur in drainages other than actions already authorized on federal land by the BLM. 

Impacts to aquatic resources in the various drainages would continue at present levels as a result of natural 

conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.7.2.3 Special Status Species 

No project-related disturbance would occur in special status species habitat other than actions already 

authorized on federal land by the BLM. Impacts to special status species and their habitat would continue at 

present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

4.7.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

4.7.3.1 Wildlife 

Vegetation composition along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative is similar to 

the corresponding portion of the Proposed Action. Consequently, the impacts of this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. However, this alternative contains more pronounced 

elevation relief than that present in the corresponding section of the Proposed Action, therefore, increased 

impacts to cliff associated species would potentially occur as a result of the implementation of this alternative. 

No additional big game crucial winter habitat would be impacted by this alternative. 

4.7-24 
4.7.3.2 Aquatic Resources 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to impacts discussed for the Proposed Action. The only 

difference is that two additional streams would be crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge 

Bypass Alternative, consisting of one Little Bitter Creek crossing and two Cedar Creek crossings. Aquatic 

resources in these streams consist of nongame fish species and macroinvertebrates. No hydrostatic test water 

withdrawals would occur in these streams. 

4.7.3.3 Special Status Species 

The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. Increased impacts 

to special status cliff obligate species potentially would result from the implementation of this alternative. No 

additional perennial streams with special status aquatic species would be crossed by the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

4.7-25 
4.8 Land Use and Aesthetics 

4.8.1 Proposed Action 

4.8.1.1 Agricultural Lands 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Construction interference with planting and harvesting annual crop and livestock management (access 

to pasture and water); 

• Reduced crop productivity because of soil mixing and compaction (see Soils); 

• Potential damage to field drainage tiles, terraces in contoured fields, surface irrigation systems and 

buried irrigation systems (center pivots); and 

Analysis 

Rangeland, used for livestock grazing, would be the most predominant land use affected by the proposed 

project. The effects of construction on rangeland are expected to be minor and short term. During construction, 

Overland Pass would leave gaps between strung sections of pipe approximately every 0.5 mile, at major game 

crossing trails or livestock trails to water sources, wherever there is a feature crossing (e.g., waterbody, road, 

utility), or where identified by the EI to allow livestock to pass between long, continuous sections prior to 

lowering in. Additionally, ramps would be installed to allow for the escape of livestock should they fall into the 

trench. These measures would mitigate potential impacts to livestock during pipeline construction. 

The primary impacts on agricultural land during construction would include the loss of crops within the work 

area and the potential for reduced yield of future crops. Agricultural land in the construction area generally 

would be taken out of production for one growing season. Preconstruction herbaceous and shrub communities 

are anticipated to reestablish within one or two growing seasons after construction. Overland Pass would 

implement the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix B) to ensure timely and 

appropriate revegetation. 

Severely compacted agricultural areas resulting from construction activities would be decompacted. While few, 

if any, drain tiles would be encountered along the proposed pipeline route, Overland Pass would replace/repair 

any drain tiles, as well as irrigation systems, damaged by construction activities in accordance with the 

Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan. 

The construction techniques proposed by Overland Pass are largely sufficient to minimize impacts and restore 

surface contours. However, agricultural lands that rely on flood irrigation may have overland flow of water 

disrupted by the pipeline trench, even after compaction and restoration (Section 3.8). 

Overland Pass should avoid agricultural properties that rely upon flood irrigation. The majority of agricultural 

lands are on private land. While the BLM has no regulatory authority to require additional mitigation on private 

land, private landowners can request mitigation as part of their easement negotiations. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

4.8-1
Conclusion 

Overland Pass would implement measures described in the Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation 

Plan to mitigate impacts on rangeland and agricultural land affected by construction activities. Additionally, 

Overland Pass would implement the measures described in other plans within its POD specific to federal lands 

(Overland Pass 2006). 

Preconstruction activities would include measures to mitigate impacts on existing and future drain tiles and 

irrigation systems, livestock exposed to open trenches, and the introduction or spread of noxious weeds. 

Overland Pass would be responsible for ensuring successful revegetation of soils disturbed by project-related 

activities. On federal lands, reclamation would be considered successful if the ROW had 80 percent of the 

species composition and cover of undisturbed, adjacent vegetation. Follow-up inspections of all disturbed 

areas would be done for 5 years (in July of the first, third, and fifth growing seasons) to evaluate revegetation 

and erosion control success. In agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields 

are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. Revegetation efforts on federal lands would 

continue until the above standards are fulfilled. 

On private lands, Overland Pass would construct the pipeline and aboveground facilities in accordance with 

federal regulations and standard industry practices. However, some of the mitigation measures that are 

stipulated for federal lands would not be required on private lands unless specified by the land owner in the 

easement agreement with Overland Pass. As a result, Overland Pass may not elect to install soft plugs within 

the pipeline trench every 0.5 mile, which could result in livestock and wildlife injuries and fatalities. Federal 

revegetation standards would not be enforced on private lands, so long-term impacts on rangeland could 

occur. Windbreak trees would be removed, and the restoration of windbreaks would depend upon individual 

agreements with land owners. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential interference with farm field cultivation and harvest. 

• Same issues identified for construction, but on a smaller scale. 

Analysis 

Following construction, rangeland uses would be allowed to continue within the permanent ROW. Temporary 

fences would be removed, the ROW restored to its pre-construction condition, and livestock would be able to 

graze and roam freely over the permanent ROW. No long-term impacts to rangeland are expected. 

Once construction was completed, the majority of agricultural land uses would be able to continue within the 

permanent, operational ROW. However, where aboveground facilities were sited on agricultural land, the land 

use would be permanently changed from agricultural to developed land. Some activities within the permanent 

ROW, such as planting of tree and shrubs would be prohibited. 

Following cleanup and reseeding of the construction ROW in agricultural areas, the affected areas would 

typically regenerate quickly. Vegetation would generally be reestablished within 2 years of restoration, 

depending on climatic conditions. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

4.8-2
Conclusion 

During operations, the ROW would revegetate and largely would revert to former uses. Most agricultural crops 

would be permitted to grow in the ROW. With the exception of forest land removed from the permanent ROW 

(accounting for less than 1 percent of land) and placement of aboveground facilities, the majority of previous 

land uses would continue unencumbered. 

While the pipeline would be constructed with a minimum of 30 inches of cover in most areas (per 49 CFR 

Part 195), there is no federal regulation mandating minimum depth of cover during operations. It is possible 

that the soil over the pipeline would erode over time, leaving the pipe with less soil cover and, in some cases, 

possibly exposed. This could pose a safety hazard in agricultural areas where plowing occurs. Consequently, 

Overland Pass would conduct visual surveillance of the ROW to monitor and correct pipeline burial depth as 

necessary. 

4.8.1.2 Transportation 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Interference with local traffic; 

• Potential damage to roads and highways from open cuts; and 

• Potential damage to roads and bridges from heavy loads. 

Analysis 

Interference with Traffic 

The existing transportation system could be temporarily impacted by commuting construction workers and 

other construction activities. Overland Pass anticipates that approximately 250 to 750 construction personnel 

would be required to complete the project, which would be divided into 5 construction spreads, each consisting 

of approximately 50 to150 workers, depending on the length of each construction spread. Construction 

personnel would consist of Overland Pass’ employees, contractor employees, construction inspection staff, 

and environmental inspection staff. The majority of these workers would commute to the construction ROW 

and/or yards early in the morning and return in the evening during non-peak traffic hours. The impacts would 

be minimal because of the work schedule and the predominantly rural locations where the pipeline would be 

constructed. Since the existing rural roadway systems are not at capacity, additional vehicles associated with 

construction would not cause significant traffic congestion problems. 

Temporary traffic increases would occur during construction on several primary public roads in Wyoming. I-80 

would be utilized to access the project area from Green River to Cheyenne. From Opal to Green River, State 

Highway 30 would provide primary access to the project area. State Highways that would experience 

significant, temporary increases in traffic include 789, 130, and 287. These roads would provide construction 

crews with access to lodging and the construction area access roads. 

In Colorado, traffic increases would be significant during construction on I-25 and I-76 between Fort Collins 

and Greeley. Significant, temporary increases also would occur on State Highways 287, 85, 34, and 71, which 

would provide access to the entire northeast portion of the project area and lodging facilities for construction 

crews. 

Traffic increases would be significant during construction on I-70 from the Colorado border to the Hays area of 

Kansas. Significant, temporary traffic increases also would occur on State Highways 83, 283, 147, and 183. 

These roads would provide access to lodging for construction crews and county roads (section line roads) to 

be utilized as access roads for the project area. 

4.8-3
Up to approximately 7 pipe-stringing trucks would be making up to 2 or 3 round-trips per day on each 

construction spread from the 12 proposed pipe storage yards to reach access roads to the construction ROW. 

It is also expected that water trucks and transport trucks would make 12 or more trips per day on average to 

deliver materials and equipment to the construction ROW. Once a vehicle leaves a pipe yard, the exact route 

taken would vary depending on the current location of construction activity and the construction spread it was 

serving. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross the FGNRA at Cordwood and Davis Bottoms, near Green River, 

Wyoming. The pipeline could temporarily disrupt public access to this area during construction. Short-term 

impacts would reduce public access to the area, during which time the public would have the opportunity to 

access the river corridor further down the Green River. 

The Project could directly but temporarily affect dispersed recreationalists on public land within the PNG 

including hikers, birdwatchers, off-highway vehicle (OHV) users at the main OHV area, mountain bikers, and 

hunters as construction passes through the area. Short-term impacts would include reduced access across the 

construction ROW; increased noise, dust, and heavy equipment emissions; and fewer opportunities to view 

wildlife. 

Construction would interrupt recreational floating and fishing traffic to the Rochelle Easement along Carbon 

County Road 347, the primary access to the North Platte River in proximity to I-80. In general, these impacts 

would be short-term and limited to the period of active construction, which typically would be limited to several 

days to several weeks in any one area. Overland Pass would work with land managers to mitigate construction 

impacts such as timing and obtaining the required permits or authorizations. 

Road Damage 

Overland Pass has identified 2,577 miles of access roads that could be used during construction. The use of 

dirt roads, particularly farm and ranch roads and two-track trails, by construction vehicles and equipment could 

result in road deterioration even without rain events. Overland Pass proposes to perform road maintenance to 

maintain roads in their existing condition where there is evidence that the roads have been previously graded. 

This maintenance would only occur within the existing footprint of the road (i.e., the road would not be 

widened). “Maintenance” is defined for this project as, “blading or filling activities that would be required to 

maintain the roads’ current condition prior to use.” Mud would not be bladed off the existing road grade. 

As needed in rangeland, permanent cattle guards or steel gates would be installed across access roads to: 

• avoid safety hazards; 

• replace a permanent existing cattle guard when damaged or destroyed by construction activities; 

• fulfill the BLM’s Authorized Officer’s requirements; 

• provide temporary cattle guards or a metal gate on all fences crossed by temporary roads; 

• provide temporary or permanent cattle fencing; and 

• allow access by heavy equipment where needed. 

Overland Pass’ construction contractor would determine if existing cattle guards can support trucks and other 

equipment prior to crossing the guards. The construction contractor would be responsible for either 

strengthening the cattle guard or using another access route. 

Where there is no evidence of previous grading or the existing road requires widening, road improvement 

would be allowed only after Overland Pass completes required cultural resources and biological surveys, and 

associated agency consultations. Roads would be used and improved only with permission of the landowner. 

Access roads used for construction that require grading would be restored to their preconstruction condition, at 

the discretion of the landowner. 

4.8-4
Erosion control, revegetation, and restoration measures outlined in Overland Pass’ Construction, Reclamation, 

and Revegetation Plan would be implemented when applicable to improvements to existing access roads. 

Additional Mitigation 

LAND-1: Permits required for installation of the pipeline underneath existing public roads and, as needed, to 

transport equipment shall be obtained prior to construction. For open-cut road crossings, Overland 

Pass shall attempt to: 

• Maintain at least one lane of traffic open with detours around construction; 

• Provide plating over the open portion of the trench; or 

• Use other suitable methods when open cutting a road. 

LAND-2: If a construction method requires a road to be closed for up to 24 hours, Overland Pass shall develop 

a detour for public traffic to bypass the construction area. Overland Pass shall provide a detour for 

vehicle traffic on CR 437 along the North Platte River for the duration of the open cut river crossing. 

LAND-3: Overland Pass shall require the construction contractor to post caution signs on roads, where 

appropriate, to alert motorists of pipeline construction and warn them of slow traffic. Traffic control 

measures such as traffic control personnel, warning signs, lights, and barriers shall be used during 

construction to ensure safety and to minimize traffic congestion. 

LAND-4: Pipe trucks transporting pipe joints and low boys hauling heavy equipment shall travel with flashing 

yellow caution lights in accordance with state law. The construction contractor shall employ traffic 

control personnel as required by State DOT safety requirements for use on paved roads during 

equipment crossings to ensure safe passage of local traffic. 

LAND-5: Construction vehicles shall follow posted speed limits on rural county roads and highways and follow 

a 25 mph speed limit on the project roads. Speeds shall be reduced to 10 mph below posted limits on 

highways when traveling at night. 

LAND-6: Overland Pass shall implement the following measures to reduce traffic congestion and roadside 

parking hazards: 

• Project personnel shall exercise caution when commuting to and from the construction area to 

minimize the potential for accidents, and local speed limits shall be enforced. 

• Overland Pass shall provide the construction contractor with an equipment yard to be used as a 

primary parking area for employee personal vehicles. Personal vehicles shall not be allowed 

within the construction ROW or along roadsides near the ROW. The construction contractor shall 

provide buses for transporting workers that do not require personal vehicles to the work site from 

the yard. 

LAND-7: Overland Pass shall require its construction contractor to comply with local load weight restrictions 

when using existing public roads and crossing public bridges to prevent road and bridge damage. 

LAND-8: The construction contractor shall be directed to remove soil left on the road surface by equipment 

crossings. At the end of each workday, mats or other appropriate measures (e.g., sweeping) shall be 

used to reduce deposition of mud and soils on public roads and highways. 

LAND-9: Where culverts are required to improve a Class-B access road at stream crossings, these culverts 

shall be of adequate size to accommodate storm runoff as required by federal, state, or county road 

permits, and of sufficient strength to support construction and maintenance equipment. All 

temporary culverts shall be removed from the stream crossing after construction. 

4.8-5
Conclusion 

Overall, the number and frequency of construction vehicle trips on major highways would be low on any 

particular roadway at any one time because construction activities would move sequentially along the 

construction ROW. Travel by vehicles on the ROW on a regular basis (e.g., 90 pickups, 12 buses, 25 welding 

rigs) would be distributed along the length of the proposed pipeline route over time as the pipe was installed 

and construction activity progresses to a different part of the ROW. 

During pipeline construction, little or no disruption of traffic would result at road crossings that are bored or 

drilled. The open-cut construction method would be used across lightly traveled gravel roads and unimproved 

dirt roads. Disruptions in normal access to recreational facilities would be short-term, and alternative access 

points would be posted. 

Overland Pass has developed a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan to describe how they would 

comply with federal policy and standards relative to planning, location, improvement, maintenance, and 

operation of roads for the project. Impacts would be mitigated by posting signs during construction to indicate 

to construction personnel and the public, which roads are being utilized at any given time. The Traffic and 

Transportation Management Plan is included as part of the POD (Overland Pass 2006). 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Same issues as construction, but on a smaller scale. 

Analysis 

The Overland Pass Traffic and Transportation Management Plan describes compliance measures relative to 

planning, location, improvement, maintenance, and operation of roads for the project. As a part of its 

permanent aboveground facilities, Overland Pass would construct short permanent access roads from existing 

public roads to access pump station and meter station sites. These roads would be wholly contained within the 

ROW, or constructed within parcels that Overland Pass has identified for the construction of aboveground 

facilities. 

Operation and maintenance of the pipeline facilities would not significantly affect traffic flow on any of the 

paved roads or highways. Required periodic maintenance and inspection procedures would involve a low 

frequency of light vehicle movement on and off roadways. No impact would be expected from this activity. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusions 

No impacts to traffic would be expected from pipeline operation. 

4.8.1.3 Residential / Commercial 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Interference with residence/business access; and 

• Potential damage to residential landscapes. 

4.8-6
Analysis 

While the proposed pipeline route has been designed to maximize co-location with existing ROWs and to 

minimize impact to the environment, area residents, and local businesses, based on aerial photography, 

Structures are located within 50 feet of the Overland Pass construction ROW (Table 4.8-1). None of the 

structures appear to be occupied residences. Overland Pass would determine whether these structures are 

residences prior to construction. Where construction would cross roads that access private residences and no 

alternative entrances exist, measures would be implemented to maintain passage for landowners during 

construction. If residential property was crossed, turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping would 

be restored in accordance with the landowner's request or, alternatively, the landowner would be 

compensated. 

Table 4.8-1 Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed Action 

State/County 

Reference 

Point Description of Building 

Approximate Distance 

from Pipeline 

Centerline1 

Direction from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 18.5 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Lincoln 22.5 Structures (2) Within 25 feet W 

Sweetwater 39.6 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Carbon 146.5 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Sweetwater 163.2 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Carbon 189.8 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Carbon 247.6 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Albany 268.1 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Albany 286.2 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Colorado 

Weld 386.1 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Weld 399.1 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Logan 411.8 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Logan 414.0 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Logan 414.4 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Washington 430.9 Structure Within 50 feet NE 

Washington 446.5 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Washington 447.7 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Yuma 456.3 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Yuma 465.8 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Yuma 470.4 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Yuma 484.6 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 513.6 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Cheyenne 528.7 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Rawlins 545.6 Structure Within 50 feet NE 

Sheridan 577.4 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Sheridan 587.4 Structure Within 50 feet NE 

Sheridan 595.4 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Sheridan 607.2 Structure Within 50 feet NE 

Gove 608.8 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Trego 626.1 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Trego 635.3 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Ellis 656.8 Structure Within 50 feet N 

4.8-7
Table 4.8-1 Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed Action 

State/County 

Reference 

Point Description of Building 

Approximate Distance 

from Pipeline 

Centerline1 

Direction from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Ellis 659.8 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Barton 690.2 Structure Within 50 feet N 

Barton 691.0 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Barton 698.8 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Barton 705.5 Structure Within 50 feet SW 

Rice 717.5 Structure Within 50 feet E 

Rice 738.3 Structure Within 50 feet S 

Rice 743.4 Structure Within 50 feet N 

1

Includes area affected by construction ROW and additional TWAs. 

Additional Mitigation 

LAND-10: Overland Pass shall notify landowners prior to the start of construction adjacent to a residence. 

LAND-11: Overland Pass shall maintain traffic flow and emergency vehicle access on roadways with traffic 

control personnel or detour signs where necessary. 

LAND-12: Overland Pass shall backfill and restore in residential areas as soon as possible, and fence off or 

plate sections of trench left open near residences at the end of the construction day. 

LAND-13: Overland Pass shall periodically inspect road surfaces near residences and, if necessary, clean 

street surfaces and wet exposed soil to prevent generation of fugitive dust. 

Conclusions 

Overland Pass would implement the procedures identified in their Traffic and Transportation Management 

Plan which would limit traffic, noise, and dust impacts to area residences and businesses. Implementation of 

additional mitigation measures would minimize construction impacts particularly where residents are located 

near the ROW. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Same issues as construction, but on a smaller scale. 

Analysis 

Impacts to residents during operations would be minimal due to the infrequent and temporary nature of 

operational activities. 

Most developed land uses would be able to continue following construction. However, some activities, such as

the building of new commercial or residential structures would be prohibited on the permanent ROW. 

Additional Mitigation

No additional mitigation is identified.

4.8-8
Conclusion 

To ensure public safety and pipeline integrity, commercial and residential structures would not be allowed on 

the permanent ROW. 

4.8.1.4 Utilities 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Buried utility crossings – water lines, fiber optic lines, natural gas and product lines; and 

• Offsets from other utilities (overhead electric transmission lines, other pipelines). 

Analysis 

The Proposed Action has been designed to maximize co-location with existing ROWs and to minimize impact 

to the environment, area residents, and local businesses. Where Overland Pass’ facilities would be co-located 

with an existing pipeline ROW, the proposed pipeline centerline generally would be located 50 feet from the 

existing pipeline’s centerline. In most cases, Overland Pass’ proposed 75-foot-wide construction ROW would 

overlap the area disturbed by the previous construction of these existing pipelines. Co-locating the proposed 

pipeline ROW with existing ROWs would reduce the amount of new disturbance associated with this project. 

While co-location of pipelines reduces the amount of new disturbance on the landscape, there are safety 

considerations that detract from being built too close together. Depending on a number of factors, transmission 

pipelines generally are constructed between 25 to 60 feet apart. Overland Pass generally would offset 50 feet 

from existing pipelines. The Southern Star pipeline, which Overland Pass is co-located with for a substantial 

length of the proposed pipeline route, has indicated their preference for 50-foot or more separation between 

pipelines. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

With the exception of the PNG, the proposed pipeline centerline generally would be located 50 feet from 

existing pipeline centerlines, where possible. Based on SOIL-4, the offset from an existing pipeline would be 

reduced to 30 feet on the PNG, thereby reducing new surface disturbance. Potential impacts would be limited 

to construction and would be short-term. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Same issues as construction, but on a smaller scale. 

Analysis 

Following construction, Overland Pass would maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW for operation of the 

pipeline facilities. Overland Pass would participate in the state’s one-call programs to ensure maintenance 

activities do not harm other underground utilities. 

4.8-9
Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Co-location with existing pipeline ROWs would help consolidate and minimize impacts associated with utilities. 

4.8.1.5 Aesthetics 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• New aboveground facilities (pump stations, valves) and new pipeline ROWs may modify natural 

landscapes viewed from special management areas and public locations; and 

• Construction noise to nearby residences. 

Analysis 

Visual Resources 

Public lands that would be affected by the proposed pipeline are comprised mostly of lands managed by the 

BLM. The BLM has a VRM standard for each resource area that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route. BLM-owned public lands are managed so that the quality of scenic and visual resources is maintained. 

Overland Pass would adhere to these BLM requirements. 

Visual impacts associated with the construction ROW and additional TWAs would include the removal of 

existing vegetation and the exposure of bare soils, as well as earthwork and grading scars associated with 

heavy equipment tracks, trenching, blasting, rock formation alteration or removal, and machinery and tool 

storage. Other visual effects could result from the removal of large individual trees that have intrinsic aesthetic 

value; the removal or alteration of vegetation that currently could provide a visual barrier; or landform changes 

that could introduce contrasts in visual scale, spatial characteristics, form, line, color, or texture. 

Visual impacts would be greatest where the proposed pipeline route paralleled or crossed roads, trails, or 

prominent off-site observation points, and where the pipeline ROW could be seen by passing motorists or 

recreationalists. The duration of visual impacts would depend on the type of vegetation or land formation that 

was cleared or altered. The impact of vegetation clearing would be shortest on rangeland consisting of short 

grasses and hay fields, where the reestablishment of vegetation following construction would be relatively fast 

(generally 3 to 5 years). The impact would be greater on shrub rangeland, which could take several years to 

regenerate. The greatest potential visual impact would result from the removal of large trees, which would take 

longer than other vegetation types to regenerate and would be prevented from reestablishing on the 

permanently maintained 50-foot-wide ROW. Topographic alterations such as sidehill cuts that could be 

necessary to construct the pipeline would be restored during ROW restoration. The visibility of such alterations 

would diminish over time as the affected areas aged and began to blend with the surrounding landscape. 

To minimize construction impacts on visual resources, Overland Pass aligned the proposed pipeline route, 

where feasible, adjacent to existing pipeline ROWs or other transportation corridors. In areas where ROW 

co-location was not possible for engineering and/or construction reasons, Overland Pass aligned the proposed 

pipeline route to avoid aesthetic features to the extent possible. 

The proposed pipeline route would be co-located with another pipeline (Southern Star) across the PNG. 

Construction adjacent to the pipeline ROW would result in an incremental and visible widening of the existing 

previously disturbed corridor. The visibility of this impact would diminish after the ROW is restored and 

4.8-10
revegetated. Impacts on the PNG are expected to be short-term in nature, as the vegetation would generally 

be reestablished within 3 to 5 years of restoration depending on climatic conditions. 

The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 2.0 miles of the FGNRA within ANF. Visual impacts would 

be within established requirements. Aboveground facilities would be painted earth tones with matte finish. 

Noise 

Noise associated with construction of the proposed Overland Pass pipeline and aboveground facilities would 

be intermittent. Neighbors in the vicinity of the construction areas may hear the construction noise, but the 

overall impact would be temporary. Nighttime noise due to construction would normally be absent since most, 

if not all, construction would be limited to daytime hours. Estimated construction equipment noise is presented 

in Table 4.8-2. 

Table 4.8-2 Estimated Construction Equipment Noise From the Proposed Overland Pass 

Aboveground Facilities 

Equipment Type Noise at 50 feet (dBA) 

Heavy Equipment 85 

Air Compressors 84 

Welders 67 

Concrete Truck 71 

Miscellaneous Trucks (Pick-ups, etc.) 65 

Source: USEPA 1974. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

The proposed pipeline would be buried and the topographical contours would be returned to their 

preconstruction condition. Therefore, visual impacts associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed pipeline facilities would be within BLM VRM management objectives. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• New aboveground facilities (pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, valves) and new pipeline 

ROWs may modify natural landscapes viewed from special management areas and public locations; 

• Additional pump stations in the future would increase aesthetic impacts; 

• Same issues as construction, but on a smaller scale; 

• Operational noise/smells to nearby residences; and 

• Proximity of the pipeline to public gathering places. 

4.8-11
Analysis 

Visual Resources 

Overland Pass proposes to construct pump stations, meter stations, valves, and pigging facilities at various 

locations along the proposed pipeline route. These aboveground structures would be permanent and would 

remain in operation throughout the life of the pipeline. The impacts on visual resources from each individual 

facility would depend on the pre-construction condition and the visibility from the surrounding area. To the 

extent possible the pump stations would be constructed adjacent to existing commercial/industrial facilities that 

already experience a visual impact, and the meter stations would be constructed in association with a pump 

station where applicable or placed within an area to minimize visual impacts. Visual impacts from the operation 

of the aboveground facilities would be low. 

The most substantive long-term visual impacts as a result of aboveground facilities would be limited to valves 

or pigging facilities located on federally managed land. The landscape of much of the proposed pipeline route 

is gently rolling with vegetation limited to shrubs or grasses. The views are long – up to many miles. 

Successful revegetation would blend the belowground portions of the pipeline with its surroundings. However, 

aboveground improvements would be very noticeable in this landscape. Aboveground facilities would meet the 

prudent operational requirements of the pipeline owners and operators and also would be compatible with the 

surrounding landscape. This would entail the selection of ground surfacing, building surfacing, fencing, signing, 

and color selection and finish. 

Noise 

During operation, noise impacts associated with the proposed pump and meter stations would be limited to the 

vicinity of the facility. Estimated noise levels from aboveground facilities are listed in Table 4.8-3. 

Table 4.8-3 Estimated Sound Levels from Pump Stations 

Distance from Pump Station 

Estimated Sound Level from Echo Springs and 

Laramie Pump Stations 

(dBA) 

0.25 mile 41 

0.5 mile 33 

1 mile 24 

2 miles 15 

Based on aerial alignment sheets, no occupied residences appear to be located within 50 feet of the proposed 

project area. The Echo Springs (RP 146.5), Laramie (RP 271.7), and future WaKeeney Pump Stations would 

be located in rural areas with few noise sources in the immediate vicinity. No NSAs are located within 1 mile of 

the Echo Springs and Laramie pump stations, there would be one NSA within 2,550 feet from the future 

WaKeeney Pump Station, if the station were built (Figure 3.8-1). Given the far distances and relatively rural 

area, noise levels in areas where people are located would not differ from background noise. 

Additional Mitigation 

VISUAL-1: Downward shield lighting or low profile lighting, and motion sensors shall be used at all 

facilities to minimize nighttime visual effects. 

VISUAL-2: MLVs located on the PNG shall be painted in earth tones with a matte finish and the site shall 

not be graveled. In addition, fences around the MLVs on the PNG shall be barbed wire similar 

to livestock fences in the area. 

4.8-12
Conclusion 

Visual impacts would be mitigated by locating the aboveground facilities in areas already used by other 

pipelines and by using agency-approved paint colors. 

No noise impacts would occur from most aboveground facilities due to their rural and isolated locations. 

However, if the WaKeeney Pump Station were constructed in the future, noise impacts could occur to the 

closest NSA. The level of noise would likely be greater than existing background noise at this location. 

4.8.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed or operated. No project-related 

disturbance would occur other than actions already authorized on federal land by the BLM. Impacts to 

aesthetic resources would continue at present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development 

in the project area. 

4.8.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to impacts discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.8-13
4.9 Cultural Resources 

4.9.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Construction of the Overland Pass Pipeline and its associated facilities could affect NRHP-eligible 

properties such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and 

objects; 

• Previously undiscovered cultural resources, including burials and associated funerary objects, could 

be discovered and adversely affected during ground-disturbing activities associated with project 

construction; 

• Unauthorized artifact collection and vandalism; and 

• Introduction of visual or auditory elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant 

historic feature. 

Analysis 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on 

historic properties and provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment. Historic property, as defined by the 

regulations implementing Section 106, means “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or 

object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the NPS.” The term includes properties 

of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the 

National Register criteria. Potential impacts to historic properties are assessed using the “criteria of adverse 

effect” (36 CFR 800.5[a][1]), as defined in the implementing regulations for the NHPA. “An adverse effect is 

found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that 

qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.” The analysis of impacts 

using these criteria is limited to those resources that are listed in the NRHP or have been recommended as 

eligible. 

Those areas in which impacts are planned or are likely to occur are referred to as the “area of potential effect” 

or APE. Specifically, the APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may 

directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of NRHP-eligible cultural resources, if any such 

resources exist. Additionally, the APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be 

different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16[d]). 

The APE should include: 

• All alternative locations for all elements of the Proposed Action; 

• All locations where the Proposed Action may result in disturbance of the ground; 

• All locations from which elements of the Proposed Action (e.g., pump stations or land disturbance) 

may be visible or audible; 

• All locations where the Proposed Action may result in changes in traffic patterns, land use, public 

access, etc.; and 

• All areas where there may be indirect as well as direct effects. 

Only those cultural resources located in the APE were reviewed to determine if any would be subject to 

impacts that could affect their eligibility for the NRHP based on NRHP criteria for evaluation. 

4.9-1
Project impact or effects include not only the physical disturbance of a historic property, but also may include 

the introduction, removal, or alteration of various visual or auditory elements, which could alter the traditional 

setting or ambience of the property. In consultation with Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming SHPOs; USFS; and 

Native American Tribes; BLM would determine whether construction of the proposed project would affect any 

properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP. The BLM has developed protective measures to 

minimize adverse effects on important cultural resource values. Protective measures are used in response to 

the proposed actions of BLM programs involving surface disturbance. These measures include, but are not 

limited to, cultural resource inventories, evaluation of cultural resources located during inventory, assessment 

of a site’s setting where applicable, BMPs, and mitigation of potential adverse impacts on important cultural 

resources. See Appendix H for a detailed description of standard protective measures and BMPs. 

If a property would be adversely affected, mitigation would be proposed. Mitigation may include, but would not 

be limited to, one or more of the following measures: 1) avoidance through the use of realignment of the 

proposed pipeline route, relocation of temporary extra workspace, or changes in the construction and/or 

operational design; 2) data recovery, which may include the systematic professional excavation of an 

archaeological site; or 3) Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record 

(HAER) or other agreed upon historic recordation process. 

Avoidance through project redesign is the preferred method of mitigation. However, when avoidance is not 

feasible, data recovery, HABS/HAER documentation, or any other agreed upon mitigation measure would be 

implemented prior to construction. Based on the Class III inventory reports for Wyoming, Colorado, and 

Kansas, it is determined that there would be adverse effects to historic properties as a result of project 

construction. 

The potential for the discovery of unanticipated cultural resources during construction activities exists within 

proposed disturbance areas and could result in adverse effects. Unanticipated discoveries would result in 

displacement or loss (either complete or partial) of the cultural resource involved. Displacement of cultural 

resources adversely affects the potential to understand the context of the site and limits the ability to 

extrapolate data regarding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. However, mitigation of impacts 

from discoveries is often accomplished through data recovery excavations. 

Prior to BLM authorization of the project, Overland Pass would submit a cultural resources unanticipated 

discoveries plan to the BLM for review which outlines the way in which cultural resources would be treated 

and the responsibilities of the project proponent. This plan would be reviewed by the BLM archaeologist 

and submitted to the SHPOs for concurrence. If any previously unknown cultural resources are discovered 

during construction, all construction activities would cease within the vicinity of the discovery, and the BLM 

would enact the cultural resources unanticipated discoveries plan. 

If construction or other project personnel discover what they believe to be human remains, funerary objects, 

or items of cultural patrimony, construction would cease within the vicinity of the discovery and the BLM 

Authorized Officer and local law enforcement officials would be notified of the find. Construction would not 

resume in the area of the discovery until the BLM Authorized Officer has issued a notice to proceed. 

Treatment of any discovered human remains and associated funerary objects would be handled in 

accordance with the provisions of NAGPRA and/or applicable Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas laws. 

Additional Mitigation 

ARCH-1: To minimize unauthorized collecting of archaeological material or vandalism to known archaeological 

sites, Overland Pass and their contractors, and all construction personnel, shall attend mandatory 

training and be educated on the significance of cultural resources and the relevant federal 

regulations intended to protect them. 

4.9-2
Conclusion 

Potential adverse effects to identified NRHP-eligible sites would be mitigated prior to pipeline construction. 

Unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources would be protected as described in the cultural resources 

unanticipated discoveries plan prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, all impacts to NRHP-eligible 

cultural resources from project construction would be mitigated. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Issues would be similar to those identified for construction. 

Analysis 

Maintenance activities would result in localized impacts that would be dispersed along the entire proposed 

pipeline route. Maintenance activities would occur within areas previously disturbed by construction. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Potential adverse effects to identified NRHP-eligible sites would be mitigated prior to pipeline construction. 

Unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources would be protected as described in the cultural resources 

unanticipated discoveries plan prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, all impacts to NRHP-eligible 

cultural resources would be mitigated. 

4.9.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed. As a result, none of the 

potential impacts to cultural resources as identified for the Proposed Action would occur. However, additional 

knowledge of local or regional prehistory of the project area that would have been obtained through data 

recovery would not be collected. 

4.9.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

At this time, a Class III cultural resources inventory of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative has not been completed. A Class I inventory of previously recorded sites within the project area 

resulted in the identification of nine sites within 100 feet of the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative centerline and five sites located within 100 feet of the segment of the proposed 

pipeline centerline that would be eliminated if the bypass were chosen. 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 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 bypass centerline is unevaluated. Therefore, compared to the Proposed 

Action, there potentially would be more impacts to cultural resources if the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative were chosen. Potential impacts to cultural resources and measures to protect them 

would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

4.9-3
4.10 Native American Concerns 

4.10.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Protection of sites with cultural, traditional, or religious importance to the tribes. 

Analysis 

The BLM Rawlins Field Office invited tribal officials from the 22 identified Native American tribes to participate 

in two informational meetings and three field visits. The purpose of the meetings and subsequent field tours 

was to discuss the Proposed Action, visit selected archaeological sites that were thought to have traditional, 

cultural, or religious importance to the tribes, solicit any concerns the tribes may have regarding tribal 

resources in the Proposed Action area, and, in general, discuss the Native American consultation process. 

During the field visits, tribal representatives expressed concerns specifically for all cultural resources that 

would be directly impacted by the proposed pipeline route and its construction. Additional concerns included 

protection of cultural sites during construction through the use of tribal monitors, what laws each state has for 

protection of burials on private and state lands, mitigation of potential impacts, and inadvertent discoveries. 

Potential impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources, TCPs, or places of cultural, traditional, or religious 

importance to the tribe as a result of the Proposed Action, as well as measures to avoid or mitigate potential 

adverse effects to these resources, would be the same as those described in Section 4.9. 

Native American consultation regarding potential impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources, TCPs, or places 

of cultural, traditional, or religious importance currently is taking place between the BLM Rawlins Field Office 

and tribal representatives. No surface disturbance would occur within or immediately adjacent to the boundary 

of a potentially NRHP-eligible property or place of tribal importance prior to completion of all consultation 

required by law. Any such data recovery or mitigation plan would be reviewed and approved by the BLM and 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas SHPOs. Tribal representatives would be asked to participate in the 

development of any such data recovery or mitigation plan. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation is recommended. 

Conclusion 

Potential impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources, TCPs, or places of cultural, traditional, or religious 

importance to the tribe as a result of the Proposed Action would be the same as those described in 

Section 4.9. 

The BLM intends to continue consultation throughout the environmental review and construction phase of the 

Proposed Action. Renewed contacts with some or all of the tribes may result from unanticipated discoveries. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Issues would be related to maintenance activities and would be similar to those identified for

construction. 

4.10-1
Analysis 

Maintenance activities would result in localized impacts that would be dispersed along the entire proposed 

pipeline route. Maintenance activities would occur within areas previously disturbed by construction. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Potential impacts to identified NRHP-eligible sites, TCPs, or places of traditional, cultural, or religious 

importance to the tribes as a result of the Proposed Action would be the same as those described in 

Section 4.9. 

The BLM intends to continue consultation throughout the environmental review and construction phase of the 

project. Renewed contacts with some or all of the tribes may result from unanticipated discoveries. 

4.10.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed. As a result, none of the 

potential impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources, TCPs, or places of traditional, cultural, or religious 

importance to the tribes as identified for the Proposed Action would occur. 

4.10.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

If the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative were chosen, Native American 

consultation would follow the same protocol as the Proposed Action. Potential impacts to NRHP-eligible sites, 

TCPs, or places of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to the tribes, and measures to avoid or mitigate 

potential impacts, would be addressed as described above for the Proposed Action. 

4.10-2
4.11 Social and Economic Conditions 

4.11.1 Proposed Action 

4.11.1.1 Population, Employment, and Income 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Changes in local population and employment during construction. 

• Monetary compensation for easement and damages to land and property. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass proposes to begin construction in July 2007. Construction would last 5 to 6 months and is 

anticipated to be complete with the pipeline in service by the fourth quarter of 2007. Overland Pass anticipates 

a peak workforce of approximately 600 construction personnel consisting of Overland Pass employees, 

contractor employees, construction inspection staff, and environmental inspection staff. The proposed pipeline 

is planned to be built in five spreads, with construction activity occurring simultaneously in each spread. 

Overland Pass anticipates 50 to 75 construction and inspection personnel associated with each spread, plus 

an additional 20 persons for activities such as pipe unloading. The construction of the aboveground facilities 

would require an additional 50 to 75 workers. During construction, personnel would work during daylight hours, 

6 to 7 days per week depending on schedule constraints. Table 4.11-1 outlines Overland Pass’s proposed 

construction schedule and workforce requirements by spread for the proposed pipeline route. 

Table 4.11-1 Pipeline Construction Workforce 

Spread 

Number RP Range 

Associated Aboveground 

Facilities Counties / States 

Estimated 

Workforce 

1 0.0 – 147 1 Pump Station (Echo Springs) 

2 Meter Stations (Opal and Echo 

Springs) 

Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Carbon 

counties, Wyoming 

75 to 150 

2 147 - 281 1 Pump Station (Laramie) 

1 Meter Station (Laramie) 

Sweetwater, Carbon, and Albany 

counties, Wyoming 

75 to 150 

3 281 – 438 NA Albany and Laramie counties, 

Wyoming 

Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, and 

Washington counties, Colorado 

50 to 100 

4 438 – 591 1 Meter Station (Washington 

County) 

Washington and Yuma counties, 

Colorado 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, and 

Sheridan counties, Kansas 

50 to 100 

5 591 – 749.4 3 Meter Stations (WaKeeney, 

Bushton, and Conway) 

Sheridan, Gove, Trego, Ellis, 

Russell, Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and 

McPherson counties, Kansas 

75 to 150 

Overland Pass, through its construction contractors and subcontractors, would attempt to hire temporary 

construction staff from the local population, if the local population offers skilled workers in fields related to 

pipeline construction. At peak workforce, Overland Pass anticipates that up to approximately 20 percent of the 

total construction workforce could be hired locally (currently residing in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas). The 

remaining portion of the workforce (approximately 80 percent) would include non-local personnel. Based on 

4.11-1 
the specialized nature of the position, environmental inspection staff would most likely consist entirely of 

non-local employees. 

The Overland Pass Pipeline would be constructed in predominantly rural and sparsely populated areas. The 

proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 124 miles of federal land, which represents approximately 

16 percent of the total land affected by the project. Overland Pass expects the impacts to socioeconomic 

resources along the proposed pipeline route to be similar on federally owned land as on non-federal land. 

Therefore, Overland Pass’ proposed mitigation measures for socioeconomic resources would be the same, 

regardless of land ownership. 

Overland Pass would acquire pipeline ROW easements from landowners and provide landowners with 

monetary compensation for the conveyance of those easements. Agreements between Overland Pass and the 

landowner would specify compensation for damage to property during construction, loss of use during 

construction, loss of renewable and nonrenewable or other resources, and allowable uses of the permanent 

ROW after construction. If an easement could not be negotiated with the landowner, the property could be 

condemned. In this case, the property owner would still be compensated by Overland Pass, but the amount of 

compensation would be determined by the courts. Overland Pass has stated that they would make every effort 

to negotiate in good faith to avoid using this authority and would condemn only as a last resort. 

The effect that a pipeline easement may have on property values has been factored into the negotiations 

between the parties during the easement acquisition process. The easement acquisition process is designed 

to provide fair compensation to the landowner for the right to use the property for initial pipeline construction 

and subsequent operation and maintenance. Appraisal methods used to value land are based on objective 

characteristics of the property and any improvements. The impact a pipeline could have on the value of a tract 

of land depends on many factors, including the size of the tract, the values of adjacent properties, the 

presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. Because approximately 

83 percent of the proposed pipeline route would parallel existing pipelines corridors, construction of the 

proposed pipeline is not expected to change the general use of the land. On tracts proposed to be crossed 

where pipelines do not currently exist however, the terms and conditions of the easement would preclude 

construction of aboveground structures on the permanent ROW for safety as well as maintenance purposes. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation identified. 

Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities would temporarily increase the populations of the 

communities in the vicinity of the project by an average of 90 to 100 people per spread. Additionally, 

landowners would be compensated for the temporary loss of the use of their land during construction as well 

as for damages caused during construction. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Changes in local population and employment during operations. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass estimates that 5 to 20 permanent employees would be required to oversee the operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline, including the pumping stations. These employees would most likely be non-local, 

as they would have specialized responsibilities or have current employment with Overland Pass. No additional 

personnel would be hired to operate and maintain the pumping stations as these facilities would be 

4.11-2
constructed to operate automatically. Any specific operation and maintenance task that could not be 

completed by the existing staff would be completed on a contractual and as-need basis. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation identified. 

Conclusion 

If approved, Overland Pass would obtain pipeline ROW easements from landowners in return for monetary 

compensation. Compensation would be based on fair market value of the land. Landowners may negotiate for 

the loss of use of their property, such as the reimbursement of crops lost due to construction activities. 

Because landowners would be compensated for the value of their property, no long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

4.11.1.2 Infrastructure 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Increased demands on local infrastructure (emergency and fire protection services, hospitals, rental 

housing) during construction. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass’ construction workforce is described in Section 4.11.1.1. Approximately 80 percent of the 

workforce would be non-local. Due to the relatively short period of construction activity in any given area, it is 

anticipated that most non-local workers would not be accompanied by their families during their work tenure. 

Consequently, it is expected that most project workers would use temporary housing, such as hotels/motel, RV 

parks, and campgrounds. Some workers likely would rent furnished apartments and homes, due to the 

constrained availability of other accommodations, though this is generally less preferable because landlords 

and property management companies prefer extended term commitments. Most of the temporary workers 

would seek housing in the more populated, service-oriented towns located within a reasonable commuting 

distance to the work site. As the more convenient options fill, workers would seek alternatives, driving further, 

looking at smaller communities, even using campgrounds in nearby parks, which typically have limits on the 

length of occupancy. Furthermore, some individuals may desire to relocate during the term of the project as 

the active construction area in each spread moves along the proposed pipeline route. The net effect of these 

factors is that the temporary housing demand would be dynamic. 

Considering the various types of temporary housing available according to the year 2000 statistics provided, it 

appears likely that the local housing market would be able to handle the influx of temporary workers during 

construction for the proposed project for some of the proposed pipeline route, but in the more rural areas 

(especially along Spreads 4 and 5), it would be more difficult for local housing markets to fill the temporary 

housing needs due to the more limited availability of temporary housing in close proximity to construction work 

sites. Construction workers in these areas likely would drive further to find housing in nearby small towns or 

rely more heavily on RV parks and campgrounds. 

Caution should be taken in relying too heavily on housing data from the year 2000 census as a basis for 

analysis, particularly in the areas along the proposed pipeline route where the cumulative impacts of the 

energy boom has heavily impacted the region, and the housing situation likely has changed significantly in the 

past six years. Housing values, rents, and camping rates have risen dramatically in the region in recent years, 

particularly along the I-80 corridor through Wyoming and in Larimer and Weld counties in Colorado. It is likely 

that many of the more rural areas and/or those areas further from major interstate highways (e.g., areas along 

Spread 4 and some of Spread 5) have not seen the investment in new construction of rental units and 

4.11-3
hotels/motels necessary to accommodate the multiple pipeline construction crews working in the area because 

the demand for such accommodations is seen as short-term; once the energy boom is over, the demand for 

such facilities would drop significantly. 

Other construction-related impacts on local services would include increased demand for emergency services 

and medical care, local police assistance during construction at road crossings to facilitate traffic flow, and 

permits for vehicle load and width limits. In general, the degree of impact on local services would vary from 

community-to-community, depending on the number of non-local workers and accompanying family members 

that temporarily reside in each community, the duration of their stay, and the size of the community. Although 

these factors are too indeterminate and variable to accurately predict the magnitude of impact, the effects 

would be short-term. 

In the more remote locations along the proposed pipeline route, such as southern Wyoming and northern 

Colorado, where the nearest trauma center may be as far as 30 to 50 miles away, response times to highway 

or construction-related accidents could be lengthy given communication, dispatch, and travel time 

considerations. Overland Pass has developed an on-site ERP to identify emergency response personnel and 

the logical sequence of actions to be taken in the event of an emergency during construction and operation of 

the proposed pipeline project. Overland Pass has committed to working with the local law enforcement, fire 

departments, and emergency medical services to coordinate effective emergency response. 

Additional Mitigation 

No mitigation is proposed based on understanding of current conditions. 

Conclusion 

There would be a temporary increase in local housing demand due to the construction of the project. Effects 

would be localized as construction crews moved along the length of each construction spread. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Increased demand on local infrastructure during operations. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass estimates that 5 to 20 permanent employees would be required to oversee the operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline, including the pumping stations. These employees most likely would be non-local, 

as they would have specialized responsibilities or have current employment with Overland Pass. No additional 

personnel would be hired to operate and maintain the pumping stations as these facilities would be 

constructed to operate automatically. Any specific operation and maintenance task that could not be 

completed by the existing staff would be completed on a contractual and as-need basis. 

The limited number of permanent employees associated with the proposed project would have little or no 

impact on the long-term housing market and negligible long-term impacts on public services. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

No impacts to local infrastructure, including housing, are anticipated during operations due to the small number 

of permanent employees needed to operate the pipeline. 

4.11-4
4.11.1.3 Fiscal Relationships 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Short-term fiscal benefits (local purchases and sales taxes). 

• Long-term fiscal benefits (payroll taxes). 

Analysis 

Taxes that may apply, other than property taxes levied by various state, county, or local taxing jurisdictions, 

would include taxes on gross receipts from the sales of goods and services. These taxes and fees vary by 

region or locality and would be received only during the construction period (5 to 6 months). Additionally, 

Overland Pass would make local materials purchases, and pay sales tax for the lease and/or rental of office 

space, construction equipment, and the storage space for construction equipment. 

Construction field offices would include, but not be limited to, the four ROW offices located in Green River and 

Cheyenne, Wyoming; Sterling, Colorado; and Hays, Kansas. Each ROW office would employ between 5 and 

10 persons and operate until the end of the project. 

Overland Pass estimates that local purchases made by personnel associated with the construction of the 

project primarily would include consumables, fuel, and miscellaneous construction-related materials 

(e.g., office supplies). The costs estimated for the entire project related to materials would be: 

• Fuel costs (diesel fuel and gasoline for equipment): 

− Diesel fuel = $5.2 million 

− Gasoline = $1.7 million 

• Miscellaneous lumber, consumables, and office supplies = $12.2 million 

Construction personnel would be lodged locally during construction of the project. Based on the estimated 

workforce and duration of the construction period, Overland Pass estimates that approximately $12.2 million 

would be spent locally on lodging, including RV parks, and food, including restaurants (NRG 2006). 

Payroll taxes also would be collected from the workers employed on the project. Overland Pass anticipates 

that total payroll for temporary employees on the project would be $43.3 million (approximately $17.6 million in 

Wyoming, $10.4 million in Colorado, and $15.3 million in Kansas). This would temporarily increase the tax 

revenue for the states; however, on a state-wide basis, the increase is anticipated to be minimal. Payroll taxes 

from the permanent employees would comparatively have no effect on state, county, or local tax revenues. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

The construction of the project would provide monetary benefits to local economies through employment, local 

purchases, lodging, payrolls, and sales taxes. 

4.11-5
Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Long-term fiscal benefits (property taxes). 

Analysis 

Overland Pass would be required to pay property and ad valorem1

 taxes to the state governments of 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. The states would then distribute those payments to counties based upon the 

number of miles crossed by the proposed pipeline route in each county. For the first year of operation, 

Overland Pass estimates that $10 million ($1.5 million in Wyoming, $990,000 in Colorado, and $7.5 million in 

Kansas) would be generated in property and ad valorem local taxes2

. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Operation of the Overland Pass Pipeline would result in long-term fiscal benefits totaling $10 million in the first 

year of operation. 

4.11.1.4 Environmental Justice 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Potential for disproportionate project effects on low-income or minority populations. 

Analysis 

Based on a review of the minority population and income status of communities crossed by and in the 

proximity of the proposed pipeline route, it has been determined that Green River, Rawlins, Laramie, and Little 

America, Wyoming, have the most significantly high minority populations on the proposed pipeline route. The 

minority populations of concern in Green River, Rawlins, and Little America are Hispanic. The Hispanic 

populations account for 1,204 people in Green River (10.2 percent of the total population) and 1,793 people in 

Rawlins (21.0 percent of the total population). The total population of Little America, Wyoming, is significantly 

smaller than these other two cities (only 56 people), but 25 of these (or 44.6 percent) are Hispanic. The 

minority population of concern in Laramie is Asian or Pacific Islander with 2.0 percent of the total population or 

544 out of a total population of 27,204. All other minority populations identified along the proposed pipeline 

route based on the percentage of the population when compared to the population in the state, where not 

significant when raw numbers were considered. For example, Eckley, Colorado, was identified as having a 

Native American minority population 1.5 times greater than that of the surrounding area (the State of 

Colorado); however, when looking at the overall population, this percentage only accounts for 5 people in a 

total population of 278. 

1 Ad Valorem and Property Taxes are synonyms and can be used interchangeably. Ad Valorem is Latin meaning “According To Value” 

which is the basis of property tax calculations. An Ad Valorem tax is based on the principle that the amount of tax paid is determined by 

the fair market value of the Real and Personal Property owned. This valuation is performed by state or local (county) government 

officials, depending on the type of entity being taxed. The tax collection process is performed on the local (county) level. 

2 Colorado construction work in progress is 100 percent tax exempt until the project becomes operational. Materials, supplies and inventory 

are granted a permanent 100 percent property tax exempt status. 

4.11-6
Many of the communities crossed or in the proximity of the proposed pipeline route have been identified as 

having low income populations when compared to the percent of families below the poverty level in the 

respective state, particularly in Colorado (all 3 communities) and Kansas (8 of 10 communities). For each of 

the low income communities in Colorado and Kansas, the median family income is at least $10,000 less than 

that of their respective states ($55,883 for Colorado and $49,624 for Kansas). Conversely, the median family 

incomes in most of the communities crossed by or in the proximity of the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming 

are very near (within $4,000) or above the median family income of the state ($45,685). The one community in 

Wyoming where this is not the case is Little America which has a median family income of only $18,750, but 

the percent of the population below the poverty level for this community is 0 percent according to the 

2000 Census statistics. 

Additional Mitigation 

None proposed based on understanding of current conditions. 

Conclusion 

Although several of the counties that would be affected by the project have higher percentages of minorities 

and higher poverty levels than the states in which they are located, the potential adverse impacts that could be 

associated with construction of the pipeline would not disproportionately affect minorities or those living below 

the poverty level. The proposed project would be expected to create economic benefits for local communities, 

regardless of race, by generating employment opportunities and local expenditures by workers. Completion of 

the project also would result in an increase of state and local property tax revenues that would benefit local 

communities. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Issues are the same as construction. 

Analysis 

No additional analysis necessary. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

The operation of the pipeline would not disproportionally affect areas containing minorities or those living 

below the poverty level. 

4.11.2 No Action Alternative 

Should the No Action Alternative be selected for this project, Overland Pass would not need to acquire pipeline 

ROW easements. Thus, landowners would not receive monetary compensation for the conveyance of those 

easements. Additionally, there would be no potential for damage to property during construction, no loss of use 

of land during construction, and no potential for loss of renewable and nonrenewable or other resources due to 

the construction of the proposed pipeline. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no influx of approximately 600 construction personnel. 

Therefore, there would be no increase in the demand for housing or emergency police and/or medical 

services. Additionally, there would be no impact on local traffic during construction. 

4.11-7
Should the No Action Alternative be selected, there would be no increase in short- or long-term fiscal gains by 

states, counties, and local governments from the payment of property taxes, payroll taxes, or taxes on gross 

receipts from the sales of goods and services. Minimally this would include the loss of approximately: 

• $10 million or more annually in property taxes ($1.5 million in Wyoming, $990,000 in Colorado, and 

$7.5 million in Kansas). 

• $43.3 million in payroll taxes ($17.6 million in Wyoming, $10.4 million in Colorado, and $15.3 million in 

Kansas). 

• $19.1 million in sales (and associated sales taxes) of materials and supplies during construction 

(miscellaneous lumber, consumables, and office supplies). 

• $12.2 million (and associated taxes) on lodging, including RV parks, and food, including restaurants. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impact on minority or low-income populations in 

communities along the proposed pipeline route. 

4.11.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would direct the pipeline route in an area of 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, that does not currently cross or is within the proximity of any communities. 

Consequently, any socioeconomic impacts for the Proposed Action with the Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be the same as those for the Proposed Action. 

4.11-8
4.12 Public Safety 

4.12.1 Proposed Action 

4.12.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Storage and handling of hazardous materials. 

• Previously contaminated sites. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass would dispose of construction wastes in accordance with Overland Pass’ SPCC Plan 

(Overland Pass 2006). Construction debris would not be placed in or adjacent to waterways and construction 

trash would be removed from the ROW each day. Overland Pass would comply with applicable state and local 

waste disposal, sanitary sewer, or septic system regulations. 

Soil contamination along the proposed pipeline route may result from at least two sources: material spills 

during construction and trench excavation through pre-existing contaminated areas. A variety of potentially 

hazardous chemicals associated with equipment operation, welding, and coating of pipe would be used during 

construction. Impacts from spills would typically be minor because of the low frequency and volumes of these 

occurrences. 

Pipeline construction would necessitate the storage and use of vehicle and equipment fuels, lubricants, and 

hazardous materials. Overland Pass’ SPCC Plan addresses procedures to ensure the proper handling and 

storage of these materials. The plan also addresses inadvertent spills resulting from construction of the 

pipeline and lists federal and state emergency notification personnel that would be contacted in the unlikely 

event the project encounters previously unidentified contamination. Should a spill occur, Overland Pass would 

clean it up in accordance with its SPCC Plan. 

The proposed pipeline would not intercept any known areas of soil or groundwater contamination. A review of 

USEPA Region 8 Superfund Site Status Summaries for Wyoming and Colorado and Region 7 Site Status 

Summaries for Kansas as well as the CERCLIS database shows no Superfund sites intersected by the 

proposed pipeline route (USEPA 2006b). 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 and is located 

approximately 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. According to USFS personnel the project should not 

impact the live munitions associated with the site on the south side of I-80, as the actual firing range was sited 

several miles to the north east along Highway 30 (north of I-80). 

Overland Pass would cross the impaired waterbodies located in Wyoming and Kansas (Table 3.5-3) using the 

conventional open-cut method and adhering to the measures contained in its Construction, Reclamation, and 

Revegetation Plan (Appendix B). These measures include, but are not limited to, installing and maintaining 

sediment barriers to prevent silt-laden water from entering wetlands and waterbodies, restoring original 

contours, and revegetating disturbed areas. Overland Pass would cross the South Platte River, an impaired 

waterbody, using the HDD method. 

The proposed project could cross areas where groundwater quality has been impacted, but which were not 

identified in the regulatory review or which are not otherwise known. Because excavations associated with the 

project would be generally less than 8 feet deep, the potential to encounter groundwater in the pipeline trench 

4.12-1
is low, except where the pipeline crosses or approaches surface water bodies. Therefore, the potential to 

encounter pre-existing contaminated groundwater is low. 

If contaminated or suspect soils (e.g., hydrocarbon contamination) were identified during trenching operations, 

Overland Pass would suspend work in the area of the suspected contamination until the type and extent of the 

contamination was determined. The type and extent of contamination, the responsible party, and local, state, 

and federal regulations would determine the appropriate cleanup method(s) for these areas. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolants, and solvents from construction equipment 

could occur, but the impacts typically would be minor due to the low frequency and volumes of these 

occurrences. There are currently no known contaminated sites crossed by the proposed pipeline route or 

affected by aboveground facilities. If spills or unanticipated contaminated soils were encountered, Overland 

Pass would address the issue by adhering to the procedures identified in its SPCC Plan. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Potential for pipeline leak, fire, or explosion. 

Analysis 

Potential for Leaks 

The transportation of NGL by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an accident and 

subsequent release of NGLs. NGL consists primarily of ethane, butane, isobutene, and propane. These 

compounds are liquid when pressurized, but would immediately volatize if released from the pipeline. These 

compounds are relatively non-toxic, but are classified as simple asphyxiates, possessing a slight inhalation 

hazard. If breathed in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. NGLs are 

highly flammable but require an ignition source to ignite. NGLs released into the environment would rapidly 

disperse in the air. 

The USDOT classifies NGL as a hazardous liquid. The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the 

pipeline must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the USDOT Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR Part 195. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for 

the public and to prevent pipeline and facility accidents and failures. Part 195 specifies material selection and 

qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

The USDOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR Part 195 are intended to ensure adequate 

protection for the public and to prevent hazardous liquid pipeline and associated facility accidents and failures. 

Part 195 specifies material selection and qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from 

internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. Overland Pass would design, construct, and operate the pipeline 

in accordance to federal regulations. Important features to ensure the safe operation of the pipeline include: 

• Hydrostatic testing verify the pipeline’s integrity prior to operations; 

• Corrosion protection by using high integrity FBE coating and cathodic protection; 

• Internal inspection of the pipe using “smart pigs” designed to detect irregularities on the internal and 

external surfaces of the pipe; 

4.12-2
• SCADA system to continuously monitor the pipeline and the pressure of its contents; 

• Participation in state “one call” programs; 

• Use of remotely activated valves at key locations; and 

• Thicker wall pipe used in residential areas. 

To enhance public safety, Overland Pass has committed to installing heavier walled pipe at locations where 

existing cities and multiple homes are within 0.5 mile of the proposed pipeline (Table 4.12-1). The heavy-wall 

pipe section would extend 0.5 mile beyond the populated area. 

Table 4.12-1 Locations Where Heavier Wall Pipe Would Be Installed 

Location RP Distance 

Storage / industrial site near Wamsutter, 

Wyoming 

RP 138.2 to RP 139.2 1.0 mile 

Laramie, Wyoming Area RP 275.2 to RP 277.3 2.1 miles 

Laramie, Wyoming Area RP 281.0 end of highway 

crossing to RP 282.0 

1.0 mile 

Raymer, Colorado RP 386.6 to RP 387.9 1.3 miles 

WaKeeney, Kansas RP 623.8 to RP 626.6 2.8 miles 

Susank, Kansas RP 692.0 to RP 693.0 1.0 mile 

Mitchell, Kansas RP 733.9 to RP 735.0 1.1 miles 

Upon obtaining the necessary permits for its project, finalizing the proposed pipeline route, and prior to 

construction, Overland Pass would determine if its proposed pipeline could affect these locations. If 

appropriate, these locations would be incorporated into an Integrity Management Plan specific to Overland 

Pass as required by the USDOT to ensure pipeline safety. 

While pipelines are one of the safest means of transporting large volumes of NGLs (Section 2.8.4.1), pipeline 

accidents can occur. Based on historical accident data gathered by the OPS (2006), leading cause of pipeline 

incidents was caused by outside forces, primarily the damage caused by mechanical equipment, such as 

bulldozers and backhoes. To minimize the hazards posed by outside forces, the pipeline would be constructed 

in rural areas and Overland Pass would participate in the “one call” system. Although some localized areas of 

geological instability (e.g., landslides) occur along the proposed pipeline route, modern pipelines are fairly 

robust to these types of stressors and geological hazards are not expected to pose a major threat to the 

pipeline. The pipeline would routinely be inspected and if outside force damage were suspected (whether 

through outside force or ground movement), internal inspection tools (i.e., “geo pigs” and “smart pigs”) would 

be used to verify the pipeline’s integrity. 

Corrosion is another major factor that contributes to pipeline leaks. To minimize corrosion, the pipeline would 

be constructed with FBE coated pipe and cathodic protection would be installed. As required by federal 

regulations, the pipeline ROW would be routinely inspected with internal inspection tools to identify anomalies 

such as dents and scrapes caused by outside forces, deformities caused by earth movement, and internal and 

external corrosion. Overland Pass would ensure pipeline integrity and public safety by repairing pipeline 

damage as required by federal regulations. 

Overland Pass would use SCADA and other monitoring systems to continuously monitor the pipeline for 

indications of abnormal events. In the unlikely event of a pipeline accident, Overland Pass would be able to 

remotely activate its motorized block valves, thereby isolating the affected segment within minutes of 

detection. Overland Pass would have local personnel available to respond immediately to an emergency and 

expects that these first responders would be on-site within a 1-hour timeframe. 

4.12-3
Prior to operating the pipeline, Overland Pass would develop an ERP that identifies emergency personnel and 

the logical sequence of actions that would be taken in the event of an emergency involving the Overland Pass 

system facilities. The ERP would establish emergency shutdown procedures, communication coordination, 

and clean-up responsibility to minimize hazards that could result from a NGL pipeline emergency, such as 

liquid leaks, explosions, and fires. Key elements of the plan would include procedures for: 

• Receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and natural 

disasters; 

• Establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and 

coordinating emergency response; 

• Eemergency shutdown of systems and safe restoration of service; 

• Making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; and 

• Protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential hazards. 

The ERP would include incident and emergency notification lists; emergency communication procedures; 

emergency preparedness, such as training topics; and emergency response procedures associated with 

natural and construction-related hazards. 

As discussed in Appendix J, release of NGLs into the environment does not pose a major threat to water 

quality or soil contamination. Rather the greatest hazard would be the danger of fires and explosions. Overland 

Pass wild develop an Integrity Management Plan to minimize environmental impacts including those specific to 

HCAs occurring within the proposed project area. 

Fire, Explosion, Injuries, and Fatalities 

NGLs are flammable liquids. While the probability of an accident is low, there is the potential for a fire. Based 

on OPS historical data (2005), less than 20 percent of NGL pipeline accidents have resulted in fires and 

7 percent have resulted in explosions. Fires and explosions could result in property damage, injuries, and 

fatalities. The OPS data show an overall decreasing trend in the total number of accidents related to 

hazardous liquid pipelines since 1990 (OPS 2005). 

As part of its safety program, Overland Pass would consult with local responders regarding the potential 

hazards posed by the NGL pipeline; however, NGLs do not pose a unique fire hazard and would not require 

specialized training. If a fire or explosion were to occur, Overland Pass’ local emergency responders and local 

fire departments likely would be among the first to respond. In many cases, firefighters may elect to allow the 

fire to extinguish itself, focusing on containment of the fire and protection of nearby property. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Overland Pass would comply with these federal pipeline safety regulations, including 49 CFR Part 195. 

Compliance with federal pipeline safety regulations would ensure that the Overland Pass pipeline was 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a safe manner. 

The potential for a pipeline incident with the potential for injuries, fires, and explosions along the pipeline would 

be low. Overland Pass’ accident prevention program includes participation in one-call programs and corrosion 

protection measures. Use of the SCADA system and other monitoring capabilities would help to rapidly identify 

pipeline problems and minimize the potential for impacts. As required by federal regulations, Overland Pass 

would finalize their ERP prior to operations. This ERP would define the steps to be taken in the event of a 

4.12-4
release, so that impacts to humans and the environment would be minimized. Additional mitigation at sensitive 

resource areas would not be necessary because of the rapid volatilization of NGLs. 

4.12.1.2 Emergency Response 

Construction Phase 

Issues 

• Worker safety. 

Analysis 

The hazards associated with pipeline construction would be typical of that on most construction sites where 

heavy equipment is operated. Hazards could include driving hazards (including winter conditions and big game 

collisions), explosives, fires, and natural disasters. 

The potential for construction accidents was exemplified by a recent incident in Wyoming. On November 11, 

2006, an existing 36-inch natural gas pipeline owned by Western Interstate Company was struck by a 

bulldozer operated by construction crews building the Kinder Morgan Entrega Natural Gas Pipeline. The 

incident occurred outside of Cheyenne, Wyoming and the resulting explosion killed one construction worker. 

The cause of the accident is still under investigation. 

Accidents such as this occasionally occur, though most do not result in fatalities. As discussed in Section 

4.12.1.1, third-party excavation damage (e.g., the cause of the Entrega pipeline accident) is a leading cause of 

pipeline incidents. To prevent these types of accidents, pipeline operators participate in accident prevention 

programs, such as the one call programs, which identifies the location of underground utilities. The ongoing 

investigation will determine why the Entrega pipeline was struck and whether the one call system was correctly 

implemented. 

To minimize risk to workers, Overland Pass would follow pipeline construction industry standard practices and 

BMPs to mitigate potential construction-related incidents. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation was identified. 

Conclusion 

Adherence to Overland Pass’ POD, pipeline construction industry standard practices, and BMPs would 

minimize potential construction-related incidents. 

Operation Phase 

Issues 

• Emergency response to a pipeline leak, fire or explosion. 

Analysis 

Overland Pass would meet or exceed federal pipeline safety requirements (49 CFR Part 195), and these 

procedures and programs would increase public safety, maintain the integrity of the pipeline, and minimize the 

potential pipeline incidents related to third-party encroachments. 

4.12-5
As discussed above, Overland Pass’ ERP establishes initial written emergency shutdown procedures, 

communication coordination, and clean-up responsibility to minimize hazards, such as liquid leaks, explosions, 

and fires. Overland Pass would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before 

the pipeline is placed in service. 

Once the pipeline is constructed and pipeline operations commence, Overland Pass intends to re-define its 

organizational management structure outlined in the ERP and amend the plan so that it meets the minimum 

federal safety requirements. 

Additional Mitigation 

No additional mitigation is identified. 

Conclusion 

Overland Pass anticipates a 1-hour response time in most instances with the assistance of local emergency 

response teams in the surrounding communities. Releases would be quickly contained by sectionalized block 

valves. NGLs would quickly evaporate and dissipate into the atmosphere; however, any residual material 

would be cleaned up and the area remediated as soon as possible. The final ERP would identify the steps to 

be taken to protect health, property, and the environment. 

4.12.2 No Action Alternative 

If BLM rejects the project as proposed, the Proposed Action would not be constructed. Impacts to public safety 

would continue at current levels. 

Given the oil and gas development in the region, NGLs would still need to be transported from the region. 

Other pipelines that would transport NGLs to the Conway, Kansas, region would likely be of similar or greater 

length and, consequently, would have similar or greater impacts on public safety. Alternative transport 

methods (e.g., trucking or rail) would result in substantially greater impacts to public safety (Section 2.8.4). 

4.12.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Impacts to public safety associated with this alternative would not be significantly different than for the 

Proposed Action. No HCAs have been identified along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative. 

4.12-6
5.0 Cumulative 

5.1 Cumulative Impacts 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of proposals under their review. 

Cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.7 as “...the impact on the environment 

that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions regardless of what agency... or person undertakes such other actions.” These actions 

include current and projected area development (e.g., oil and gas); management activities and authorizations 

on public lands (e.g., range conversion and forestry programs); land use trends; and applicable 

industrial/infrastructure components (e.g., utility corridors). Although the individual impacts of each separate 

project might not be significant, the additive effects of multiple projects could be. 

The primary cumulative impact study area consists of an existing utility corridor that the Overland Pass 

pipeline would traverse throughout its length. The widest portion of this corridor (approximately 2 miles wide) 

extends from Granger, Wyoming (RP 30) to the Wyoming/Colorado border (RP 330). Up to eight existing 

natural gas, refined products, and NGL pipelines occupy this corridor. Other linear facilities located within or 

adjacent to this large pipeline corridor include I-80, the Union Pacific Transcontinental Railroad, several fiber 

optic cables, and low voltage electrical transmission lines. Also included in this cumulative study area are 

pipeline projects approved or under construction (Rockies Express West, Enterprise Western Expansion). 

Nearby communities in Wyoming served by I-80 include Wamsutter, Rawlins, Laramie, and Cheyenne. Oil and 

gas well field developments are located within this major east-west utility corridor in the Great Divide Basin 

(vicinity of Wamsutter). 

The reasonably foreseeable pipeline projects are those currently being reviewed under NEPA (Overthrust 

Wamsutter Pipeline Project, Pinedale Anticline Pipeline Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

[SEIS], Kanda Lateral), and oil and gas field and mining development applications and Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) submitted to the BLM. 

Projects and activities included in this analysis generally are those located within the same counties directly 

affected by construction of the Overland Pass. Most effects of more distant projects are not assessed because 

their impact generally would be localized and would not significantly contribute to cumulative impact in the 

proposed project area. However, the air quality study area consists of the regional air sheds. Table 5.1-1 

identifies existing, under construction, or proposed projects that were evaluated in the Overland Pass 

cumulative analysis. 

Figure 5.1-1 is a schematic drawing illustrating the number of existing gas and liquids pipelines included in the 

existing utility corridor where the Overland Pass would be located, as well as sensitive resources encountered 

along the entire route. The majority of the existing pipelines in this utility corridor were constructed in the last 

30 years, and the revegetation of the ROW has varied with climate and soil type. From Rawlins eastward, 

grasslands largely have recovered to former cover; the shrub-scrublands consisting of saltbush and Wyoming 

sagebrush from Rawlins, Wyoming, west to Opal, Wyoming, have only partially recovered former shrub cover 

and height. Recent or proposed pipeline projects, such as the Overthrust Wamsutter Expansion Pipeline, and 

Enterprise Western Expansion, would be only partially revegetated by the time Overland Pass proposes to 

construct its pipeline. 

For this analysis, cumulative impacts were based on existing (through 2006) and foreseeable project surface 

disturbances that occur within 1 mile of the proposed Overland Pass pipeline route. Table 5.1-2 provides an 

estimate of the utility use surface area for the projects considered in this analysis. It is estimated that the total 

cumulative utility surface use area for this project exceeds 200 square miles over the 759.9-mile Proposed 

Action length. The Overland Pass pipeline would contribute approximately 5 percent of this total, and other 

new pipeline projects from 1 to 2 percent. Surface disturbance widths of 75 feet were assumed for the small 

diameter pipeline projects (Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Expansion), and 125 feet for the large diameter 

5.1-1
Rockies Express West pipeline. Older existing pipelines and the I-80 corridor which have largely revegetated 

ROWs are discussed within cumulative impacts as appropriate (e.g., habitat fragmentation). 

Table 5.1-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources within the General Area of 

the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline 

Project /Activity 

Project 

Location 

(State) 

Counties Where 

Project Coincides 

with the Proposed 

Overland Pass 

Pipeline Description 

Anticipated Date 

of Construction/ 

Project Status 

Multiple existing 

natural gas, NGLs, 

and petroleum 

products pipelines; 

fiber optic cables; 

ancillary 

aboveground 

facilities (compressor 

and pump stations). 

Wyoming, 

Colorado, 

Kansas 

All counties crossed 

by the project. 

In Wyoming, multiple pipelines (up to 8) are 

located in a wide utility corridor that extends from 

RP 27 to RP 330. The Overland Pass pipeline is 

not located in this utility corridor between RP 54 

and RP 103, and from RP 137 to RP 163. From 

RP 330, the Overland Pass pipeline parallels the 

Southern Star natural gas pipeline for the 

majority of the length to the terminus at RP 749. 

Existing, 

constructed prior to 

2006 

Rockies Express/ 

Entrega Project. 

Wyoming, 

Colorado 

Wyoming: 

Sweetwater, Carbon, 

Albany, Laramie; 

Colorado: Weld 

328 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline. The Overland Pass pipeline parallels 

the Rockies Express/Entrega Pipeline for 

164 miles from RP 166 east of Wamsutter to the 

Colorado/Wyoming border (RP 330). The project 

includes a new compressor station at 

Wamsutter, Wyoming. The Echo Springs lateral 

that feeds the Entrega Pipeline near Continental 

Divide would cross over the Overland Pass 

pipeline north of I-80. 

Construction 

underway; inservice by 2007 

Enterprise Western 

Expansion Project 

Wyoming Sweetwater 50,000 bpd expansion of existing NGL pipeline 

system, consisting of 202 miles of looped 

pipeline segments and pump station upgrades. 

Three loop segments would be located adjacent 

to the Overland Pass pipeline ROW. Total length 

parallel to Overland Pass pipeline is 

approximately 20 miles. 

ROD issued in 

2005; under 

construction 

Overthrust 

Wamsutter Pipeline 

(evaluated as part of 

the Rockies Express 

West Project). 

Wyoming Sweetwater 77 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

between Green River (Kanda) and Wamsutter, 

includes 2 compressor stations. This project 

(among others) would convey gas to the Rockies 

Express/Entrega Pipeline at Wamsutter. 

Draft EIS released 

in November 2006 

El Paso Kanda 

Lateral Project 

Utah, 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 128 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline 

between the Uinta Basin, Utah, and Kanda, 

Wyoming. The Kanda Lateral would cross over 

the Overland Pass pipeline at the Kanda hub 

(RP 63). 

Draft EA in 

preparation; 

construction 

expected in late 

2007 

Questar Rendevous 

Pipeline Project 

 Wyoming Sweetwater Approximately 103 miles of 30-inch pipeline from 

the Pinedale Anticline to the vicinity of Granger, 

Wyoming. This pipeline would cross over the 

Overland Pass pipeline at RP 28. 

Included in the 

Pinedale Anticline 

Supplemental EIS 

being prepared by 

the Pinedale BLM 

office 

Oil and Gas 

Development 

Wyoming Sweetwater Vermillion Basin Area; up to 56 gas wells 

southwest of Bitter Creek. 

Drilling in progress 

Sweetwater Pappy Draw Exploratory Coal Bed Methane 

(CBM) Project; drill 20 exploratory wells in BLM’s 

Pappy Draw Unit Area. 

BLM EA in 

progress 

Carbon Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project; 

drill 2,200 wells over 20 years in southern 

Carbon County. 

BLM Final EIS in 

progress 

Carbon Seminoe Road Gas Development Project; drill 

and operate 1,240 CBM wells over a 30- to 

40-year project life; includes 16-inch diameter 

gas transmission pipeline. 

BLM Final EIS in 

progress 

Sweetwater Continental Divide – Creston Project: drill and 

develop 1,250 natural gas wells approximately 

40 miles southwest of Rawlins, Wyoming. 

BLM NOI published 

March 2006 

Sweetwater, Uinta, 

and Lincoln 

Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project: 

infill drill 1,860 natural gas wells. 

BLM Draft EIS in 

progress 

5.1-2
Table 5.1-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources within the General Area of 

the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline 

Project /Activity 

Project 

Location 

(State) 

Counties Where 

Project Coincides 

with the Proposed 

Overland Pass 

Pipeline Description 

Anticipated Date 

of Construction/ 

Project Status 

Carbon Brown Cow II POD: drill and develop 12 coal bed 

natural gas (CBNG) wells in Atlantic Rim Natural 

Gas Development project area, approximately 

7.5 miles north of Baggs. 

FONSI/DR issued 

September 2006 

Sweetwater Hiawatha Field Project: drill up to 4,207 natural 

gas wells. 

NOI issued in 

September 2006 

Mining Wyoming Sweetwater Pit 14 (Coal) Lease: addition of maintenance 

tract adjacent to the existing Black Butte Mine. 

Final EIS issued 

November 2006 

5.1-3
Table 5.1-2 Estimated Cumulative Utility Use Area within the Existing Utility Corridor Occupied by the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline 

Overland 

Pass RP 

Begin 

Overland 

Pass RP 

End Miles 

Existing 

Pipelines 

(Estimated) 

Existing1 

Estimated 

Corridor Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Utility Use 

Surface Area 

(square mile) 

Overthrust 

Wamsutter Pipeline 

Surface Area 

(square mile) 

Overland Pass3 

Utility Use Surface 

Area (square mile) 

Enterprise3 

Utility Use 

Surface Area 

(square mile) 

Total Utility 

Use Surface 

Area (square 

mile) 

0 9 9 0 to 2 100 0.2 0.1 0.3 9 27 18 3 300 1.5 0.3 0.1 1.9 

27 44 17 6 600 5.0 0.2 5.2 44 50 6 6 300 2.8 0.1 2.9 50 54 4 2 150 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.7 54 62 8 1 75 0.9 0.1 1.0 62 68 6 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 68 76 8 1 75 1.1 0.1 1.2 76 103 27 0 0 0.0 0.4 0.4 

103 120 17 3 500 11.4 0.2 0.1 11.7 120 137 17 0 500 13.0 0.2 13.2 137 148 11 1 75 2.1 0.2 2.3 148 159 11 0 0 0.0 0.2 0.2 159 163 4 1 75 2.3 0.1 2.4 163 196 33 5 600 22.3 0.7 0.5 23.5 196 236 40 6 to 8 500 22.3 0.9 0.6 23.9 236 269 33 6 to 8 700 35.7 0.8 0.5 36.9 269 294 25 6 400 22.3 0.6 0.4 23.2 294 307 13 6 500 29.1 0.3 0.2 29.6 307 323 16 4 300 18.4 0.4 0.2 19.0 323 336 13 3 300 19.1 0.2 19.3 336 749 413 1 75 10.6 5.9 16.5 

Total 749 221.5 3.8 10.6 0.3 236.3 1The existing utility corridor includes pipelines, pump and compressor stations, fiber optic lines, Interstate Highways, and railroads. The overall corridor width is the sum of the widths of major linear 

utilities within approximately 1 mile of the proposed Overland Pass pipeline centerline. Secondary roads and highways are not included in this estimate. 

2Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline. The utility use area is based on a surface disturbance width of 125 feet. 3Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Expansion Pipelines. The utility use surface area for each project is based on a surface disturbance width of 75 feet. 

5.1-4
Potential Conservation Areas/National Conservation Areas

Raptor Breeding Areas

Wildlife

Resources

Areas

I-80 Corridor

Oil and Gas

Developments 

6 to 8 

Arlington

Arrowhead 

o 

d

ar ol o

C

g n omi

y

W

o 

d

ar ol o

C

Opal Meter 

Station RP 0.0 

Echo Springs Pump

Sage Grouse Habitat 

Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline

Enterprise Western Expansion 

r e mya R/ at oeK ei mar aL 

Big Game Crucial Winter Range Fork Blacks Fork Blacks r e vi Rn eer G k eer Cr etti B

r evi Re tt a l P h tr o N

r e vi R w o B e ni c i de M

r evi Re t t a l P h t uoS

r e vi R e er a kir A

i R

il b 

Rk 

F

S

Green River 

0 

6 

3 

5 6 

4 

1 1

Springs 

k r oF s ma H

2 

Rockies Express/Entrega Pipeline 

P

New

opulated

Pipelines

(2006-2007) 

Existing

Pipelines 3

Paralleled

Overland

Pass

Pipeline Laramie Pump and Washington 

and Meter Station Meter Station County Meter 

RP 146.5 RP 271.7 Station RP 447.8 

Major or 

Sensitive

Waterbodies 

0 188 375 

Reference Point
5.2 Cumulative Impacts to Resources 

5.2.1 Climate and Air Quality 

Cumulative fugitive dust (particulate) increases may occur where Overland Pass and Overthrust Wamsutter 

are using the same access road system to construct their projects (Section 5.2.7). Both projects would follow 

state and local requirements for dust control on roads and excavated surfaces. As noted previously, the two 

projects could overlap very briefly in the same work area. 

Overland Pass proposes to use electrical pumps at two proposed locations in Wyoming. As a consequence, 

Overland Pass would not directly contribute to hydrocarbon emissions from its facilities. Indirectly, the 

electricity used by Overland Pass would be produced by coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants within 

the region. It is anticipated that demands for project electrical power would be met by existing and new 

generating capacity. The specific locations of new generating capacity presently are not known. 

The Echo Springs and Laramie pump stations would be located in rural locations, and 1 mile or more from any 

residential locations. Each pump station would be sited at a new location, and therefore would not interact 

cumulatively with other nearby industrial sources. 

5.2.2 Geology 

5.2.2.1 Mineral Resources 

Nearly all of the proposed pipeline route, and those pipelines that parallel the proposed pipeline route, cross oil 

and gas producing reservoirs. Some of the existing pipelines overlie trona mineral and coal deposits. Other 

mineral sources crossed by the pipelines include gravel, uranium in the Medicine Bow Mountains, and copper, 

gypsum, carbonates, and granite along the flanks of the Laramie Range (BLM 2002b). Although the presence 

of facilities within the corridor that would be occupied by the existing and proposed pipelines would preclude 

extraction of gravel and other minerals, oil and gas production could be accomplished through well pad offsets 

and directional drilling. In most cases, the Overland Pass pipeline generally is adjacent to existing pipelines 

(e.g., Rockies Express West) in Wyoming. Where the proposed pipeline route is not adjacent to an existing 

pipeline or other utilities, it is due to routing or environmental concerns (e.g., steep terrain, cultural resource 

site) or realigned to join another ROW. The amount of near-surface coal deposits precluded from future 

development due to the proposed pipeline route adjacent represents a very small increase in the cumulative 

effects. In fact, a recent study of the coal basins underlying the Rawlins Field Office jurisdictional area (BLM 

2002b) indicates that coal mining in this area is at a distinct economic disadvantage as compared to the 

Powder River Basin, and that no new mines are expected to open to exploit these coal deposits in the 

foreseeable future. 

5.2.2.2 Geologic Hazards 

Regional seismic hazards, including earthquake ground shaking and subsidence and fault movement sufficient 

to cause damage, are very unlikely (see Section 3.3). Several existing pipelines within the Overland Pass 

corridor cross faults but none of these faults are active. Consequently, cumulative impacts related to fault 

movement and seismic activity are not anticipated. 

5.2.2.3 Paleontological Resources 

The proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 54 miles of BLM Condition 1 geologic units on BLM 

lands in western Wyoming, and 18 miles on the PNG administered by the USFS in Colorado. Condition 1 is 

represented by “areas that are known to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or 

plant fossils.” Construction of the Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Pipeline, and the Overthrust Wamsutter 

Pipeline would contribute approximately 1.7, 0.3, and 0.4 square miles, respectively, of surface and trench 

disturbance in Condition 1 units. Pre-construction paleontological surveys have been, or would be completed 

for approved projects. Trench monitoring would be conducted in areas with high potential for important fossils. 

5.2-1
Fossil material would be recovered and recorded from sites that warrant these investigations. Construction of 

the Overland Pass pipeline would contribute to the cumulative exposure and potential loss of scientifically 

valuable fossils, but construction monitoring would ensure that new scientific information would be collected 

and added to the existing body of knowledge. 

5.2.3 Soils 

The cumulative area of previous soil disturbance within the study area from existing utility projects from Opal, 

Wyoming, to Conway, Kansas, is approximately 222 square miles (Table 5.2-1). Cumulative impacts where 

this line parallels older utilities would be minimal with the effective implementation of BMPs and mitigations. 

More recent utility projects may be in the process of rehabilitation. Potential cumulative impacts could occur 

where these disturbances overlap. These impacts would be highly localized and primarily limited to the time of 

construction and 3 to 5 years following construction with successful reclamation. Cumulative impact would be 

minimized, however, with the effective implementation of erosion control and restoration measures. 

Some soils on previously re-vegetated ROWs may be re-disturbed by construction on adjacent new pipeline 

ROWs in the future. Pipeline projects scheduled for 2006 and 2007 construction (Overthrust Wamsutter 

Pipeline, Enterprise Western Expansion) would disturb 3.8 and 0.3 square miles where these projects parallel 

the proposed Overland Pass pipeline. The Proposed Action would disturb approximately 10.6 square miles in 

this utility corridor. 

5.2.3.1 Erosion 

Potential cumulative erosion impacts could occur where pipeline construction disturbance areas overlap, or are 

located near each other between RP 0 and RP 329. BMPs for soil management and protection would be 

applied across all ownerships for these pipeline projects. Revegetation mixtures would be applied that are 

appropriate to soil conditions and expected future uses (grazing, wildlife habitat). As a consequence, the 

potential for cumulative erosion increases caused by one or more of these projects is low. 

5.2.3.2 Sensitive Soils 

The primary sensitive soils cumulative impacts issue is the maintenance of agricultural soil productivity where 

these soils have been disturbed by multiple pipelines. Based on STATSGO soils data, the project would cross 

approximately 4.9 miles of hydric soils in Wyoming, 1.1 miles in Colorado, and 1.5 miles in Kansas. These 

areas generally equate to irrigated pasturelands where shallow water tables have been augmented by 

seasonal irrigation. The majority of these areas are located in Albany and Laramie counties, Wyoming. The 

primary cumulative impact issue is to ensure that surface drainage is restored across the proposed Overland 

Pass construction ROW as well as adjacent pipeline ROWs, and to ensure that soil compaction is relieved in 

haylands and pasture. The Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline, and Enterprise Western Expansion 

projects have prepared, or would be required to prepare plans to restore and monitor irrigated soils. 

Application of these plans would ensure that agricultural productivity would be maintained indefinitely. 

Soil mixing and compaction could occur on other sensitive soils (shallow, wet, rocky, saline) during 

construction. Where these pipeline corridors overlap and compaction is not mitigated a reduction in infiltration 

and runoff could result. These effects would be addressed on a site-specific basis by the various projects and 

would be minimized by proper implementation of soil protection measures and mitigations for decompaction. 

5.2-2
Table 5.2-1 Overland Pass Project Cumulative Impacts for River Crossings, and Streams Containing Fisheries in Wyoming 

Crossing/ Method/ 

Ownership 

Associated Parallel Buried 

Utilities Issues 

Proposed Construction Methods/ Mitigation 

Measures 

Hams Fork River (RP0.9) Open Cut Private 

Pipeline 75 feet upstream • Bank armoring – stream channel modification. 

• Channel scouring. • Bank stabilization. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Flow bypass flumes to maintain flow during 

construction. 

• Channel floor armoring with rock to reduce 

scouring risk. 

• Sand bags to stabilize banks. 

Blacks Fork River (RP 18.9) Open Cut Private 

4 pipelines - 50 to 125 feet downstream 

• Downstream sedimentation on resident fisheries 

habitat (Water quality classification 2AB). 

• Bank armoring – stream channel modification. 

• Channel scouring. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Flow bypass flumes to maintain flow during 

construction. 

• Channel floor armoring with rock to reduce 

scouring risk. 

• Rip rap (rock) to stabilize banks. 

Blacks Fork River (RP 41.3) Open Cut Private 

3 pipelines – 50 to 100 feet downstream. 

• Downstream sedimentation on resident fisheries 

habitat (Water quality classification 2AB). 

• Existing erosion problem on adjacent ROW 

downstream; bank instability. 

• Channel scouring 

• Bank armoring – stream channel modification. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Flow bypass flumes to maintain flow during 

construction. 

• Spoil storage outside the channel; replace channel 

sediment with rock to reduce scouring risk. 

• Rip rap (rock) to stabilize banks. 

Green River (RP 59.3) Open Cut Federal - USFS 

No parallel utilities within 500 feet of the proposed crossing. 

• Downstream sedimentation on game fisheries 

habitat (Class 1 Fishery). 

• Migration of Kokanee salmon (spawning 

period). 

• Channel scouring that could exceed pipe burial 

depth (USFS calculations). 

• Greater pipe burial depth would require greater 

channel spoil removal, resulting in greater stored spoil volume, and greater in-stream sedimentation. 

• Low flow construction period; partially avoid 

Kokanee salmon migration period. 

• Flow bypass flumes to maintain flow during 

construction. 

• Spoil storage outside the channel; replace channel 

sediment with rock to reduce scouring risk. 

• Pull-in pipe section to reduce work time in the 

channel. 

Backfill trench with rock (from flume) to provide scour protection. 

 Bitter Creek (RP 107.2) Open Cut Private 

4 pipelines, 1 fiber optic cable within 250 feet downstream of proposed crossing. 

• Bank armoring – stream channel modification. • Channel scouring. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Excavation of trench across channel with 

backhoes (no flow management devices or channel armoring. 

• Bank stabilization with rip rap. 

5.2-3
Table 5.2-1 Overland Pass Project Cumulative Impacts for River Crossings, and Streams Containing Fisheries in Wyoming 

Crossing/ Method/ 

Ownership 

Associated Parallel Buried 

Utilities Issues 

Proposed Construction Methods/ Mitigation 

Measures 

North Platte River (RP 195.5) Open Cut State of Wyoming – Game and Fish Commission 

3 pipelines within 300 feet upstream of the proposed crossing. 

• Downstream sedimentation on resident fisheries 

habitat (Water quality classification 2AB). 

• Bank armoring – stream channel modification. 

• Channel scouring. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Excavation of trench across channel with 

backhoes timber mats. 

• Flow maintained with flumes under a 7-foot 

Portadam. 

• Spoil storage within the river (downstream). 

• Pull-in pipe section to reduce construction time 

within the river. 

• Bank stabilization with rip rap. 

Medicine Bow River (RP 228.1) Open Cut Private 

4 pipelines, 2 fiber optic cables from 50 to 300 feet downstream of the proposed crossing. 

• Downstream sedimentation on resident fisheries 

habitat (Water quality classification 2AB). 

• Unfavorable crossing location (immediately 

downstream of two actively cutting river bends) because other pipelines are already located in the best crossing locations within this utility corridor. 

• Extensive bank stabilization required to prevent 

river from cutting into the permanent ROW. 

• Low flow construction period. 

• Dry crossing – sandbag dams upstream and 

downstream of trench – single flume to bypass river flow. 

• Sandbags and rip rap to stabilize banks, especially 

bend immediately upstream of the ROW. 

5.2-4
5.2.4 Water Resources 

5.2.4.1 Surface Water 

Overland Pass proposes to directionally drill the South Platte River and, consequently, there would be no 

cumulative sediment increases at this crossing. The proposed pipeline projects would follow the FERC 

procedures and/or BLM stipulations for open-cut crossing smaller perennial streams and intermittently flowing 

waterbodies. In most cases, the site-specific erosion control and bank stabilization measures would prevent 

cumulative sedimentation increases where the projects cross the same stream channel at the same location. 

Overland Pass proposes to open cut the crossings of the rivers and larger streams in Wyoming. Table 5.2-1 

provides a summary of: the existing buried utilities located at the same crossing point; proposed crossing 

construction methods; applicant-committed measures to reduce sedimentation from channel excavation and to 

protect stream banks; and additional recommended measures to reduce water quality reductions at individual 

crossings. The crossing methods and adjacent utilities are described in site-specific crossing plans provided to 

BLM by Overland Pass. 

The Enterprise Western Expansion Project would be constructed across the Blacks Fork and Bitter Creek, and 

the Rockies Express/Entrega Project across the North Platte and Medicine Bow rivers several months to 

1 year before the Overland Pass would cross the same waterbodies at nearly the same locations. Each project 

would be responsible for stabilizing the stream banks and the channel, and would be offset from the Overland 

Pass ROW. It is unlikely that these prior, but very recent projects would cause new channel stabilization 

requirements for Overland Pass. 

However, there are existing channel and bank stability problems associated with other pipelines that share the 

pipeline corridor proposed for use by Overland Pass (Table 5.2-1). Existing bank erosion and channel 

down-cutting are occurring at the crossing of the Black Fork at RP 41.3. It is recommended that a scour control 

plan, and a joint project with the adjacent pipeline owners be undertaken to ensure the long-term stability of all 

adjacent pipelines in the corridor at that location. 

The proposed Overland Pass crossing of the Medicine Bow River is in an unfavorable upstream position 

relative to other pipelines because of the large number of pipelines already installed at the same location. 

Extensive bank rip rap on upstream bends would be required to stabilize the permanent Overland Pass ROW. 

It is recommended that woody vegetation plantings be incorporated into the bank stabilization plan to reduce 

the amount of rock rip rap required. 

Based on currently available schedules, the various projects would not be conducting concurrent hydrostatic 

tests at the same locations and, consequently, these projects would not cause cumulative water withdrawal 

volume reductions on the Green, North Platte, and Laramie rivers. 

The proposed Overland Pass pipeline alignment parallels numerous pipelines and other linear features that 

cross alluvial floodplains and fans that are subject to periodic flooding and scour. Although Overland Pass has 

taken steps to avoid or limit the effects of scour, should an event occur, it could affect one or more other 

pipelines in addition to the Overland Pass pipeline. Potential cumulative damage interactions among pipelines 

as the result of a major channel scouring event are not expected. 

5.2.4.2 Groundwater 

Existing pipeline and other utility projects do not consume groundwater. None of the pipeline projects currently 

under construction (Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline, Enterprise Western Expansion), and none of the proposed 

projects (Overland Pass) would use groundwater to hydrostatically test their pipeline. The proposed projects 

would implement spill containment and control plans as required by the BLM and state agencies. No 

cumulative impacts on groundwater volume or quality from these projects are expected. 

5.2-5
5.2.4.3 Wetlands 

Cumulative impacts to wetlands would occur where the Rockies Express/Entrega, Enterprise Western 

Expansion, and Overland Pass projects would be co-located between Overland Pass’ RP 0 and RP 329 at the 

Cheyenne Hub. The majority of this disturbance would be in palustrine emergent wetlands and hayfields, 

dominated by grasses and sedges. Within Wyoming, the Overland Pass pipeline would disturb approximately 

55 acres of wetland (primarily hayfields). In the segments co-located with Overland Pass, the Rockies 

Express/Entrega Pipeline would disturb approximately 98 acres. Where they are co-located with Overland 

Pass, the Enterprise Western Expansion would not cause cumulative wetland disturbance impacts. The 

natural gas pipeline projects would apply FERC wetland crossing procedures and/or BLM stipulations, and 

would be subject to conditions contained in USACE 404 permits and state water quality permits. None of the 

wetlands crossed would be permanently filled or drained. Therefore, cumulative effects to wetlands would be 

minor and short-term because of rapid recovery by grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous species. 

5.2.5 Vegetation 

5.2.5.1 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species 

Based on input from local NRCS offices and the BLM, weed populations already exist, or potentially exist on 

the land adjacent to proposed construction ROWs for the Rockies Express West, Overthrust Wamsutter, 

Enterprise Western Expansion, and Overland Pass pipeline projects. These projects would apply weed 

controls prior to and during construction, including pre-construction weed control and equipment cleaning. 

These projects also would be responsible for monitoring and controlling weed invasions on federal lands; 

comparable programs have been recommended on private lands, subject to landowner agreements. Based on 

proposed weed control measures and equipment cleaning, these projects would not cumulatively contribute to 

new weed infestations. 

The total amount of vegetation that may be affected by all of the proposed projects is substantial but still 

relatively small compared to the abundance of similar habitat in the project area. While these projects could 

potentially fragment vegetation habitat, this effect would be minimal because no densely forested areas would 

be crossed by the proposed pipelines. This effect would be further reduced by the co-location of many of these 

projects with existing ROWs. All of the projects would include mitigation measures designed to minimize the 

potential for long-term erosion, increase the stabilization of site conditions, and in many cases control the 

spread of noxious weeds, thereby minimizing the degree and duration of the cumulative impact of these 

projects. 

5.2.6 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

5.2.6.1 Wildlife 

Habitat 

The removal of forest land and shrubland habitats would result in a long-term habitat reduction because the 

regeneration of woody species is slow in the project region. Construction and operation of the proposed 

Overland Pass pipeline would incrementally add to the width of habitat discontinuities within existing utility 

corridors, which may affect the movement of species dependent on these habitats and would cumulatively 

reduce carrying capacity for woodland- and shrubland-dependent species. 

Big Game 

The Overland Pass pipeline would cross elk, mule deer, and pronghorn critical or crucial winter habitats in both 

Colorado and Wyoming, respectively. The incremental surface disturbance contributed by the Overland Pass 

pipeline to the cumulative projects would represent a small fraction (less than 1 percent) of the individual big 

game ranges crossed. Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline, and Enterprise Western Expansion 

Pipeline projects have coordinated with the BLM, CDOW, and WGFD to develop revegetation seeding 

5.2-6
mixtures that include shrub, forb, and grass species that are used by big game, as well as other target species. 

The application of these mixtures, followed by ROW monitoring after construction (Appendix B) would ensure 

that there is a long-term effort to restore big game forage in designated critical (Colorado) and crucial 

(Wyoming) winter habitat. 

These projects would cross big game winter ranges in relatively remote areas of southern Wyoming. These 

projects would be subject to winter construction closures depending on severity of the early winter, so that 

wintering big game conflicts would be largely avoided during this season. Big game winter range closures are 

being determined for the Overland Pass by the BLM in consultation with the WDGF. 

5.2.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

Overland Pass proposes to open-cut five streams (Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Bitter Creek, Green 

River, North Platte River, Medicine Bow River, and Laramie River) in Wyoming that contains game fisheries 

(Table 5.2-1). Several of these waterbodies also would be crossed by the Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline and 

Enterprise Western Expansion pipeline projects several months to 1 year earlier than the Overland Pass 

project. Cumulative waterbody construction impacts would not occur in the same season. Channel armoring 

measures, and sediment control measures are proposed by Overland Pass for these crossings to reduce 

downstream sedimentation on fish habitats. As described under water resources, pre-existing bank and 

channel instability associated with previous pipeline projects are contributing to increased sedimentation 

downstream of the utility corridor at the Hams Fork and Blacks Fork river crossings. BLM recommendation to 

reduce erosion and channel scouring at this location would benefit fisheries that would otherwise be affected 

by the project. 

5.2.6.3 Special Status Species 

With the exception of occasional foraging by bald eagles (but no winter roost sites), none of the species 

discussed below would be affected by other pipeline projects within the proposed pipeline cumulative study 

area. 

Bald Eagle 

Within the cumulative affects area, bald eagles use winter roosts and occasionally nest along the Green, North 

Platte, Medicine Bow, Rock Creek, and Laramie rivers. Pipeline crossings for the Rockies Express/Entrega 

Pipeline and Overland Pass pipelines would be subject to construction timing restrictions during critical bald 

eagle use seasons, and would be requested to implement measures to avoid the loss of roost or nest trees. 

No other known projects are scheduled for work locations at these crossings and these projects would be 

constructed in different years. Therefore, these projects would not contribute to cumulative impacts to bald 

eagle winter or nesting habitat, nor would construction activities coincide with bald eagle critical use periods 

along these rivers. 

Black-footed ferret and other prairie dog colony inhabitants (burrowing owl, mountain plover) 

The Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter, Rockies Express/Entrega, and Enterprise Western Expansion 

pipeline alignments would cross prairie dog colonies between Opal (RP 0.0) and RP 152, east of Rawlins, 

Wyoming. The construction of these projects has and would cumulatively cause surface disturbance in prairie 

dog colonies and potential loss of prairie dog individuals, which are black-footed ferret prey. These projects 

would be subject to pre-construction surveys. If ferrets were sighted, construction would not be authorized until 

the necessary consultation with the USFWS had occurred. If mountain plovers or burrowing owls were sighted 

during pre-construction surveys, construction constraint periods would be established to ensure that fledglings 

leave the areas before construction begins. Based on these measures, no cumulative impacts to these 

species are expected, with the exception of the short-term surface disturbance within prairie dog colonies 

during construction. 

5.2-7
Sage grouse 

Active sage grouse lek (breeding) sites occur within 2 miles of the Overland Pass, Enterprise Western 

Expansion, and Overthrust Wamsutter pipeline routes in Wyoming. Projects would be subject to seasonal 

construction restrictions to avoid critical sage grouse breeding and brood-rearing periods. These projects 

would contribute to incremental increases in the width of the existing pipeline corridors. The combined 

construction ROWs through this segment could be as much as 200 feet, which could more than double the 

pipeline corridor width in some sagebrush habitats. Between Wamsutter and Arlington (a distance of 

approximately 110 miles), the Overland Pass would largely parallel Rockies Express West and would expand 

a large existing pipeline corridor through Wyoming sagebrush habitats. Reduction in sagebrush cover exposes 

sage grouse to higher predation rates and may limit bird movement across these discontinuities. Reduction in 

sage grouse populations and reductions in use of traditional lek sites have been documented in oil and gas 

well fields in Alberta, Wyoming, and Colorado (Connelly et al. 2000). Other factors, such as wildfires, periodic 

drought, invasion by cheatgrass, and intensive livestock grazing also adversely affect sage grouse habitat 

suitability (Connelly et al. 2004). In summary, the Overland Pass and other regional pipeline projects would 

contribute to the cumulative long-term reduction in, and fragmentation of sage grouse habitat in Wyoming by 

expanding an existing utility ROW. These projects would adhere to seasonal restrictions during sage grouse 

breeding and brood-rearing periods, and therefore cumulative indirect effects from increased human activity 

and noise during construction would not occur. 

5.2.7 Land Use and Visual Resources 

5.2.7.1 Land Use 

Conversion and Construction Effects 

The Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Expansion, Rockies Express/Entrega, and Overthrust Wamsutter 

pipeline projects incrementally would add to the acreage of aboveground oil and gas pipeline facilities in 

Wyoming. Assuming that approximately 300 acres are already dedicated to compressor stations, MLVs, meter 

stations, and pig launchers/receivers, Overland Pass proposes to add 14 acres in Wyoming for aboveground 

facilities. Enterprise Western Expansion Project would require an estimated 9 acres for new aboveground 

facilities (valves, pigging facilities, and interconnections), Rockies Express/Entrega would require 

approximately 17 acres in Wyoming, and Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline would require 52 acres for its 

aboveground facilities in Wyoming. 

While installation of new pipelines in an existing corridor would incrementally reduce the area available for 

future development, use of established utility corridors concentrates cumulative land use impacts. With the 

exception of a rural residential area between Cheyenne and Laramie (Rockies Express/Entrega and Overland 

Pass), the Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter, and Enterprise Western Expansion projects would not 

cumulatively affect residential land uses. The majority of rural residential lots between Cheyenne and Laramie 

are approximately 40-acre parcels. The existing corridor contains 5 to 6 utilities (pipelines and fiber optic 

cables) in this area. Adding Rockies Express/Entrega and Overland Pass together, the 50-foot permanent 

ROW for 8 utilities across the full width of a 40-acre parcel would be 12.1 acres, or approximately 30 percent 

of the parcel area. However, the existing pipeline corridor pre-dates the subdivision of existing rangeland in 

this area, and owners and new buyers were informed of the pipeline easements in their deeds. 

Special Management Areas 

The Overland Pass and the Rockies Express/Entrega pipelines both cross the Continental Divide Trail at RP 

178.5. The construction periods of the two projects would not overlap at this location. Both projects would 

maintain recreational user access along this trail by providing short detours, and restoration of existing roads 

and trails. 

5.2-8
5.2.7.2 Visual Resources 

The majority of the proposed pipeline route across federal lands where visual management standards have 

been established are already highly modified by existing utility projects. Two Class II Visual Resource 

Management Areas where minimum landscape modifications would be allowed are located between RP 0 to 

RP 1.6 (Kemmerer Field Office), and between RP 59.2 to RP 60.4 (Rock Springs Field Office). No other 

proposed projects would be co-located with the proposed pipeline route at these locations; therefore 

cumulative visual resource impacts caused by additional pipeline construction would not occur. 

The primary Overland Pass aboveground facilities (Echo Springs and Laramie pump and meter stations) 

would be constructed adjacent to an existing utility corridor. These new facilities would be located in rural 

locations, and therefore would not viewed by a large number of recreational and highway travelers. Cumulative 

impacts resulting from greater visibility of industrial facilities in natural settings are not expected. 

5.2.8 Cultural Resources 

Records searches and pedestrian surveys have been completed in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. There is 

a potential for sites eligible to the NRHP to be affected by pipeline projects constructed adjacent to each other 

in the same utility corridor. Effects on eligible sites by the individual projects would be determined 

independently through reviews by the BLM and the SHPOs of the individual states. In some instances, the 

cumulative surface disturbance of multiple projects in the same corridor may require rerouting of one or more 

projects to minimize surface disturbance effects on cultural resources. 

5.2.9 Socioeconomics 

The Overland Pass pipeline and other pipeline projects may be constructed in a similar timeframe. While 

detailed schedules are not available, it is likely that the Overthrust Wamsutter Project could overlap with the 

Overland Pass construction timeframe and the two projects would be constructed in the same general area. 

Assuming approximately 1 mile of pipeline construction completed each day, the workforces of the two 

projects could broadly overlap over a period of several weeks. The Rendevous pipeline and Kanda Lateral 

also may be constructed in late 2007, and the workforces for these projects may place demands on local 

infrastructure (temporary housing, other services). The potential for the maximum cumulative workforce likely 

would occur in the vicinity of Green River and Rock Springs, Wyoming. Based on current high levels of oil and 

gas activity in this region, it is expected that there may be a shortage of temporary housing for non-local 

workers, resulting in longer employee commutes, or the requirement for contractors to obtain more temporary 

housing in the vicinity of the pipeline spreads. There also may be increased demands on local emergency 

services, based on the large number of projects underway at the same time, and the large distances to be 

traveled for emergency response. 

The majority of the Overland Pass and Overthrust Wamsutter work areas are in rural areas, with good access 

to I-80 across Wyoming. Cumulative traffic impacts are not expected except where multiple projects are being 

constructed simultaneously, such as the vicinity of Kanda and Granger in western Wyoming. These cumulative 

impacts would be short-term as pipeline spreads move away from congested areas. 

The Overland Pass and Overthrust Wamsutter projects would follow transportation plans to manage 

construction vehicles, and would follow standard measures for fence repair, provision of temporary gates, and 

provision of temporary crossings for livestock. Equipment turning onto and off state highways and access 

roads may require flagmen and other controls to limit the risk of accidents on public roads. Both projects would 

be required to obtain local crossing permits for county roads, which would define weight limits and 

maintenance standards. The BLM and USFS have defined minimum standards for maintenance of existing 

roads, and construction and operation of any new permanent roads on BLM- or USFS-administered land. 

The construction workforces for projects occurring in the same time frame would contribute to short term 

increases in local sales tax revenues, and long term increases in the property tax base. Few long-term 

5.2-9
employees would be needed to operate these new pipelines, and therefore no long term impacts to 

employment and demands on local services are expected. 

5.2.10 System Safety and Reliability 

As discussed previously, no cumulative operational safety impacts are expected among pipelines and other 

facilities located in the same general utility corridor because of the spacing between pipelines, the depth of soil 

cover, and requirements to meet USDOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and 

Part 95. 

5.2-10
6.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are the effects on natural and human resources that would remain after 

mitigation measures have been applied. Table 6-1 contains a summary of those impacts. 

Table 6-1 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Soils. A small fraction of the construction ROW and ancillary facility topsoil that would be graded, 

stockpiled, and replaced would be mixed, buried, or lost from the ROW or site because of wind and water 

erosion, especially across sensitive soils. 

Native Vegetation/Wildlife Habitats. Clearing and grading native and non-native grassland, shrubland, 

and forest communities would result in long-term changes in species composition and community 

structure (height and density) within the pipeline construction ROW and ancillary sites. Based on 

reconnaissance of existing pipeline ROWs, recovery of pre-existing vegetation cover and diversity for 

grassland communities after disturbance generally is 5 years. Shrubland forest communities would begin 

to regenerate within 10 years. 

Land Use – Utility use conversion. Private land would be converted to utility uses within new 

permanent utility ROWs during the 30-year project life. Land uses that would not interfere with pipeline 

operations (e.g., farming, livestock grazing, etc.) would continue. 

Land Use – Conversion to industrial land uses. Rangeland and agricultural land would be converted 

to pipeline products terminals, pump stations, and pressure control stations for the project life. The 

Proposed Action could result in conversion of 9 acres to industrial land uses. 

Water Quality. Unavoidable temporary impacts to water quality could occur during construction at river 

crossings. Turbidity and sedimentation could be increased, although mitigation measures would minimize 

extent and duration of impacts. Accidental discharges may occur, however, these would be infrequent, 

quickly dispersed, or cleaned up. Similarly, unplanned releases of drilling mud could occur during 

installation of HDD stream crossings, but this would be quickly mitigated. 

Wildlife Resources. Aquatic habitat could be unavoidably disturbed, either in the short term or the long 

term at river crossings. Trenching activities could result in mortalities to fish, macroinvertebrates, and 

amphibians. Egg and juvenile life stages would be the most vulnerable to equipment. Trenching at the 

Green River crossing could cause mortalities to kokanee salmon and brown trout eggs. Trenching at the 

Hams Fork River and one of the Blacks Fork River (RP 18.9) crossings could cause long-term effects on 

habitat for special status fish species. Potential scouring also could affect fish movements during low flow 

periods. Terrestrial biota could be disturbed, removed, or, in rare instances, killed during construction 

activities. Measures would be taken to reduce potential effects on special status species. 

Public Safety. Installation of a pipeline has some degree of unavoidable impact with regard to public 

safety. Risk analysis indicates the occurrence of a pipeline accident affecting the public is unlikely. The 

pipeline is new and incorporates safety features and design aspects that increase safety. 

Aesthetics. The presence of the pipeline and associated facilities has an unavoidable aesthetic effect. 

Early in the project the pipeline would be visible, as vegetation re-establishes. At night, lights at 

aboveground facilities could be seen; this is unavoidable because lighting is necessary for safety 

purposes. 

Cultural Resources. Construction could result in the loss of unique or significant archaeological 

information. Required surveys reduce this potential. 

6-1
7.0 Irreversible/irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot 

be recovered or reversed. Examples include permanent conversion of wetlands and playas, or loss of cultural 

resources, soils, wildlife, agricultural, and socioeconomic conditions. The losses are permanent. Irreversible is 

a term that describes the loss of future options. It applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable 

resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity, that are 

renewable only over long periods of time. Irretrievable is a term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, 

or use of natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably 

while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not 

irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production. The monetary investment by 

Overland Pass is not considered to be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. If this project 

was not built, the investment that would have otherwise been spent on these projects could be spent 

elsewhere. 

The proposed project would require an irretrievable commitment of natural resources from direct consumption 

of fossil fuels and construction materials. In addition, the purpose of the project is to irreversibly and 

irretrievably use natural gas resources. Additional resource commitments are shown on Table 7-1. 

Table 7-1 Summary of Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of Resources by the Proposed 

Action

Resource 

Irreversible 

Impacts 

Irretrievable 

Impacts Explanation 

Water Quality and 

Quantity 

No No Water obtained from water sources for hydrostatic testing 

would be tested and discharged to the source water body or 

to stable upland areas. 

Soils and Vegetation No Yes Soil lost to increased erosion and vegetation production lost 

to conversion of land uses would be irretrievable losses. 

There would be an irreversible commitment of resources on 

land associated with the ROW and aboveground facilities. No 

irreversible or irretrievable special status plant species 

impacts are anticipated. 

Agricultural No Yes Irretrievable impacts could include the loss of agricultural crop 

production for the season during construction in impacted 

areas. No irreversible impacts are expected. 

Wildlife (terrestrial and 

aquatic) 

Yes Yes Removal or disturbance of habitat could create irreversible 

and irretrievable impacts. Aquatic habitat could be irreversibly 

affected at the Hams and Blacks Fork (RP 18.9) crossings 

and the Green River crossing. 

Cultural Resources Yes Yes Removal or disturbance of previously unidentified cultural 

resources would result in irretrievable and irreversible loss of 

data. 

Land Use Yes No Public access patterns would be maintained. Land use 

required for the operation of the pipeline would be an 

irreversible impact. 

Social and Economic No Yes There would be increased use of local contractors during 

construction of the pipeline. Non-local workforce would impact 

infrastructure resources. This represents irretrievable loss of 

workers and infrastructure during the construction phase. 

Air Quality No No Project emissions would not exceed federal or state air quality 

standards. Air quality would return to existing conditions after 

completion of the project. 

Transportation No No Short-term obstruction or temporary disruption to local roads 

would occur during construction along new pipeline 

segments. There would be no long-term impacts to 

transportation. 

7-1
8.0 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity 

Effects on resources often are characterized with respect to their being short- or long-duration. This section is 

not intended to repeat analyses already provided. Rather, the intent is to present tradeoffs in the relationship 

between short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of 

resources. That is, an important consideration when analyzing the effects of the proposed project is whether it 

will result in short-term environmental effects (adverse or beneficial) to the detriment of achieving long-term or 

maximizing productivity of these resources. 

Short-term is defined as the construction phase of the project plus 4 years (total of 5 years). Long-term is 

defined as the remaining life of the project through abandonment and reclamation. Many of the impacts 

associated with this pipeline would be short-term and would cease to be adverse impacts following ROW 

rehabilitation. No significant decreases in the productivity of the project area due to construction activities 

would be expected. 

The proposed project would result in various short-term adverse impacts, such as the temporary disturbance 

to soil and vegetation in the construction zone, temporary disruptions to traffic and increased noise impacts 

and increases in fugitive dust, plus social and economic impacts to the local infrastructure. These impacts are 

expected to end upon completion of operations and would be minimized through implementation of Overland 

Pass-committed measures. Revegetation of disturbed areas is expected to stabilize disturbed surfaces and 

control erosion. 

Adverse visual impacts would lessen with time as vegetation becomes established. The aboveground facilities 

would continue to alter the local landscape and views in the long term. 

There may be short-term impacts to surface water and aquatic habitat during the construction phase. Overland 

Pass-committed measures would minimize these short-term impacts. Exceptions would include the Hams Fork 

and Blacks Fork (RP 18.9) river crossings, where trenching could result in long-term significant effects on 

aquatic habitat as a result of changes to channel morphology, potential scouring, and increased sedimentation. 

No significant impacts are anticipated for the routine operation of the project. Upon completion of the 

construction phase, the aquatic environment generally would be expected to remain or return to its normal 

long-term productivity levels. Exceptions could occur at the Green River crossing and the Hams Fork and 

Blacks Fork crossings. Project mitigation measures would be incorporated to attempt to minimize long-term 

productivity effects. Minor short-term effects would be minimal compared with long-term benefits under the 

Proposed Action. 

8-1
9.0 Electric Powerlines 

Electrical service requirements for the proposed project include utilizing existing service lines and constructing 

electrical powerlines to pump stations, meter stations, remote valves, and pigging facilities. Because local 

electrical power providers, not Overland Pass, would be constructing and operating the electrical powerlines, 

the local electrical power companies would be responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals or 

authorizations from federal, state, and local governments. While the permitting process for the electrical 

facilities is an independent process from the pipeline ROW approval process, the construction and operation of 

these powerlines are considered connected actions under NEPA and, therefore, are evaluated within this EIS 

for the Proposed Action. 

9.1 Electrical Powerline Requirements 

Powerline requirements would vary depending on the project facility (i.e., pump stations, meter stations, 

remote valves, and pigging facilities) (Table 9.1-1). New electrical transmission powerlines would be 

constructed at 17 locations throughout most of the pipeline route from RP 0 to RP 749.4. New powerline 

connections would provide power for two pump stations, Echo Springs (RP 146.5) and Laramie (RP 271.7) 

each with a voltage of 34.5 kV. The length of these connections would be greater than 0.25 and 2.9 miles, 

respectively. Voltages for powerlines to the Unnamed (RP 448), WaKeeney, Bushton, and Conway meter 

stations would range from 12.5 kV to 13.2 kV. Lengths for these connections would range from greater than 

0.25 to 2.4 miles (Table 9.1-1). If the WaKeeney Pump Stations were constructed in the future, it is likely that 

the electrical power would be supplied from the service delivered to the WaKeeney Meter Station; thus, the 

impacts for the future station are included in the analysis. Other electric power requirements for remote valves 

and pigging facilities would be supplied from distribution service drops from adjacent distribution powerlines 

(i.e., powerline with voltage ranging between 12.5 kV to 15 kV). Each of these distribution service drops would 

require the installation of approximately one or two poles and a transformer. The length of these distribution 

service drops typically would be less than 200 feet. Utilities would restore the work area as required on 

completion of the new service drop in accordance with local standards. 

Table 9.1-1 details the land requirements for the new electrical powerlines associated with the pump stations 

for the Proposed Action. Preliminary routing has been identified for each powerline. These routes are subject 

to change as the pumping station supply requirements are further reviewed by the local utilities providing 

electrical service. Powerlines would be located entirely on private land. 

9.2 Electrical Powerline Construction 

The construction phases for each electrical powerline would consist of ROW acquisition, ROW clearing, 

construction, and site restoration and cleanup. The following is a brief summary of the typical steps associated 

with powerline construction. Actual powerline construction procedures would be developed by each utility to 

address site-specific conditions. 

• ROW Easements. The electric utilities would obtain any necessary easements and ROW grants. It is 

estimated that the construction ROW width would be 50 feet, with a 25-foot permanent ROW width. 

• ROW Clearing. Limited clearing would be required along existing roads in native and disturbed 

grasslands and croplands. Some trees may require removal to provide adequate clearance between 

the conductors and underlying vegetation. Trimming to avoid tree removal may be employed in some 

locations. 

9-1
Table 9-1 Electrical Powerline Requirements for the Proposed Action 

Facility 

Reference 

Point (RP) Power Required Utility Company 

Length of 

Connection 

Direction of Incoming 

Connection 

Line 

Voltage 

Remote Valve #1 0.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Power to be provided by Williams at the Opal Plant 

<0.25 mile Power to be run 

underground 

480 V 

Remote Valve #8 72.1 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Pacific Power and Light (Rocky Mountain Power) 

100 feet Too close to be 

determined 

12,240 V 

Remote Valve #17 (Echo Springs Pump Station) 

146.5 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service (5 MVA for entire station) 

Power to be provided by Williams at the Echo Springs Plant 

<0.25 mile Power to be run 

underground 

34.5 kV 

Remote Valve #23 207.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Carbon Power and Light 2.9 miles From the SouthWest 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #30 (Laramie Pump Station) 

271.7 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service (5 MVA for entire station) 

Laramie Pump Station, power to be provided by Carbon Power and Light as part of the entire station 

2.4 miles From the North 34.5 kV 

Remote Valve #34 307.4 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

High West Energy 0.2 mile From the North 12,470 V 

Remote Valve #35 323.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Poudre Valley REA Powerline crosses 

valve site 

Too close to be determined 

15 kV 

Remote Valve #37 342.7 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

High West Energy <1 mile 

(within 1/2) 

From the East 12,470 V 

Remote Valve #42 389.8 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Xcel Energy 1 to 1.5 miles From the West 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #47/Meter Station 

447.8 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

YW Electric 1 to 1.5 miles From the West 12,470 V 

Remote Valve #52 507.9 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Prairieland Electric 1 to 1.5 miles From the SouthEast 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #56/Scraper Trap 

552.9 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Midwest Energy <0.5 mile 

(within 1/4) 

Too close to be determined 

13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #61/Meter Station 

606.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Western COOP 0.5 mile From the East 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #66/Scraper Trap 

654.7 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Western COOP <0.5 mile 

(within 1/4) 

Too close to be determined 

13.2 kV 

Remote Valve #72/Meter Station 

718.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Power to be provided by ONEOK at the Bushton Plant 

<0.25 mile Power to be run 

underground 

480 V 

Remote Valve #74 736.0 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Power to be provided by Williams at the Mitchell Plant 

0.1 mile Power to be run 

underground 

480 V 

Remote Valve #75/Meter Station 

749.4 480 V, 5 hp, 50 amp 

Service 

Power to be provided by Williams at the Conway Plant 

0.1 mile Power to be run 

underground 

480 V 

9-2
9.2.1 Powerline Construction 

The structures would be delivered on flatbed trucks. A mobile crane or picker truck would be needed to install 

the poles. Holes for footings would be excavated for structure placement, typically with radial arm diggers. The 

wooden or steel poles would be directly embedded into the ground and anchors may be required at angles 

and dead ends. The height of each structure would be an average of 30 feet. Pole spacing typically would be 

approximately 300 feet. Conductors (wires) would be attached to the structure using porcelain or fiberglass 

insulators. Alternating current electrical transmission powerlines require four or five sets of wires, one set for 

each electrical phase and one or two sets for overhead shield wires. Pulling or reeling areas would be needed 

for installation of the conductor wires. Each pulling or reeling area would be less than 0.25 acre in size and 

spaced at approximately 300-foot intervals. 

Overland Pass has recommended that local service providers adhere to design concepts to prevent collision 

and electrocution hazards for foraging and migrating raptors, including: 

1. On single-phase structures, a minimum vertical separation of 36 inches from phase to the ground 

would be used to accommodate eagles and most wading birds; 

2. On three-phase structures, a vertical clearance of at least 43 inches between uninsulated 

conductors, ground wires, and grounded hardware on poles with 8-foot crossarms, would provide 

the required 60-inch clearance; 

3. Corner poles may be constructed in a conventional manner, if jumper wires were insulated and 

center phase non-conducting extension links were used; 

4. If conductor separation could not be achieved and covering or reframing was impractical, perch 

guards (triangles) with optional perches may be used for protection of large perching birds; 

5. Where adequate separation of conductors, or conductors and grounded parts, could not be 

achieved, covering conductors may be the only solution short of reframing or replacing structures; 

and 

6. If transformers, cutouts or other energized or grounded equipment were present on the structure, 

jumpers, cutouts, and bushings should be covered to decrease the chance of bird electrocution. 

9.2.2 Restoration 

After the powerline structures are in place and the conductors are strung between the structures, the disturbed 

areas would be restored. The soil in the disturbed areas would be reshaped and contoured to its original 

condition. Reseeding would follow landowner requirements. All litter and other remaining materials would be 

removed from the construction areas and properly disposed. 

9.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

This section addresses the natural and human resources potentially affected by the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of the proposed electrical powerlines associated with the Proposed Action. Impacts 

associated with the electrical service drops are expected to be minimal and comparable to those associated 

with supplying electricity to the average home or farm. 

As proposed, the powerline routes cross streams, wetlands, and riparian areas that are likely to attract raptors 

and migratory birds. The new electrical powerline segments would incrementally increase the collision 

potential for migrating and foraging bird species (e.g., raptors and migratory birds [APLIC 1994]). However, 

collision potential typically is dependent on variables such as the line location in relation to high use habitat 

areas (e.g., nesting, foraging, and roosting), line orientation to flight patterns and movement corridors, species 

composition, visibility, and line design. In addition, distribution lines that are less than 69 kV but greater than 

9-3
1 kV pose an electrocution hazard for raptor species attempting to perch on the structure. Configurations less 

than 1 kV or greater than 69 kV typically do not present an electrocution potential, based on conductor 

placement and orientation (APLIC 1996). 

Potential collision and electrocution impacts to bird species from the Proposed Action could be reduced further 

if electrical service providers agree to implement the mitigation measures proposed in Overland Pass’ 

Suggested Guidelines for Raptor Protection on Power Lines (Overland Pass 2006). 

9.4 Cumulative Impacts 

While the construction of the powerlines would overlap in space and time with other projects, the amount of 

surface disturbance caused by powerline construction would be negligible compared to other development 

projects discussed in Chapter 5.0. The total disturbance caused by the construction and operation of the 

powerlines would be minor and dispersed across hundreds of miles. 

9-4
10.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers 

The Draft EIS was prepared by ENSR, a third-party contractor, under the direction of the BLM. 

Representatives from the cooperating agencies contributed to and participated in the NEPA process. 

Technical input regarding the proposed project was provided by Overland Pass and their representatives. 

The following sections present the names of individuals and their area or areas of responsibility. 

Reviewers/Preparers for the BLM 

Name Responsibility 

Tom Hurshman Nationwide Project Manager 

Rawlins Field Office 

Chuck Valentine Realty Specialist 

Rhen Etzelmiller Wildlife Biologist 

Patrick Lionberger Fisheries 

Pam Murdock Cultural Resources 

Dave Simons NEPA Coordinator 

Andy Stone Hydrology 

Mark Newman Geology, Paleontology 

Susan Foley Soils, Invasive Weeds 

Krystal Clair Recreation 

Mike Jensen Engineering and Transportation 

Mike Calton Range Management 

Lynn McCarthy GIS 

Rock Springs Field Office 

John MacDonald Project Lead 

Patricia Hamilton Realty 

Richard Adams GIS 

Colleen Sievers Cultural Resources 

Lorraine Keith Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered animals 

Jim Glennon Botany and Threatened and Endangered plants 

Dennis Doncaster Hydrology 

John Henderson Riparian 

Jo Foster Recreation 

Chris Durham Natural Resource Specialist 

Kemmerer Field Office 

Jeff Brown Realty 

Lynn Harrell Cultural Resources 

Dale Wondercheck Biological Resources and Threatened and Endangered species 

Ed Feeley Range 

Dan Oles GIS 

Wyoming State Office 

Janet Kurman Environmental Coordinator 

Dale Hansen Paleontology 

Tim Nowak Archaeology 

Susan Caplan Physical Scientist: Meteorologist/Air Resources 

10-1
Reviewers/Preparers for the USFS 

Name Responsibility 

Arapahoe Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland 

Carol Kruse Project Coordinator/Realty 

John Oppenlander Lands, Realty, Recreation, Minerals 

Beth Humphrey Wildlife 

Randy Reichert Range 

Eric Schroder Soils, Hydrology 

Kevin Colby Visual Resources 

Sue Struthers Cultural Resources 

Karen Roth NEPA 

Chris Ida Engineering 

Steve Popovich Rare Plants 

Bruce Schumacher Paleontology 

Carl Chambers Hydrology 

Jeff Sorkin Air Quality 

John Barber Compliance Monitoring 

Kim Obele Weeds 

Ashley National Forest/Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

Diane Probasco Project Coordinator/Wildlife 

Clay Johnson Cultural Resources 

Bill Conroy/Chris Plunkett Hydrology 

David Herron Geology 

Alex Gouley Fisheries 

Brent Hanchett Visual Resources 

Reviewers/Preparers for ENSR, Subcontractors, and Technical Panel 

Name Education Responsibility 

ENSR Corporation 

Scott Ellis B.A., Biology and English, 1971, 

Cornell University 

Principal-in-Charge, Senior Review 

Heidi Tillquist M.S., Environmental Toxicology/ 

 Fisheries Biology, 1992, Colorado 

State University 

B.S., Wildlife Biology, 1986, 

Colorado 

State University 

Project Manager, Project 

Description, 

others 

Rollin Daggett M.S. Aquatic Ecology, 1973, 

Memorial 

 University of Newfoundland 

B.S. Zoology, 1971, Syracuse 

 University 

Assistant Project Manager, 

Fisheries, Threatened and 

Endangered species 

Scott Duncan M.S., Biology, 1984, Northern 

Arizona 

 University 

B.A., Biology, 1978, Colgate 

University 

Project Coordinator, Quality 

Assurance, others 

10-2
Reviewers/Preparers for ENSR, Subcontractors, and Technical Panel 

Name Education Responsibility 

Molly Giere M.B.A Business Administration, 

University of Dayton 

B.S. Biology, The Ohio State 

University 

Project Coordinator, Quality 

Assurance, Surface Water, 

Socioeconomics 

Bill Berg M.S. Geology, 1980, University of

 Wyoming 

B.S. Geology, 1976, Colorado State

 University 

Geology, Paleontology 

Jim Burrell M.S., Civil Engineering, 1989, 

Colorado 

State University 

B.S., Forest Management, 1974, 

 Colorado State University 

Water Resources 

Kim Munson M.A., Anthropology, 1997, Colorado 

State University 

B.A., Anthropology, 1994, Colorado 

State University 

Cultural Resources, Native American 

Concerns 

Jessica Rubado B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, 

 2003, Oregon State University 

Wildlife, Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Randy Walsh M.S. Forest Sciences, 2005, 

Colorado 

State University 

B.S. Natural Resources 

Management, 

 2002, Colorado State University 

Vegetation, Wetlands, Noxious and 

Invasive Weeds 

Terra Mascarenas B.S. Soil Science with concentration 

in 

 Environmental Science, 1997, 

 Colorado State University 

Soils 

Elizabeth Caldwell Ph.D., Environmental Toxicology, 

1991, 

University of Tennessee 

M.S. Ecology, 1984, Colorado State

 University 

B.S., Microbiology, 1978, California 

State University Los Angeles 

Land Use, Public Safety, Surface 

Water, Risk Assessment, 

Powerlines 

Vince Scheetz M.S., Systems Management, 1970, 

 University of Southern California 

B.S., Mathematics/Meteorology, 

1964, 

 Regis University, Denver 

Air Quality, Noise 

Peggy Roberts M.S., Technical Communications 

 (in progress), Colorado State 

 University 

B.J. Journalism/Public Relations, 

1997, 

 The University of Texas at Austin 

Public Relations 

10-3
Reviewers/Preparers for ENSR, Subcontractors, and Technical Panel 

Name Education Responsibility 

Todd White MDP Masters in Community 

Planning, 

 1999, University of Cincinnati 

MEn Masters in Environmental 

Science, 1992, Miami University 

M.A., Anthropology, 1989, CU 

Boulder 

B.A., Geology, 1988, Miami 

University 

GIS 

Doree Dufresne B.S., Biology, 1990, Colorado State

 University 

Database Coordination, Quantitative 

Analysis 

Susan Coughenour Western Illinois University 

coursework 

Document Production Supervisor 

10-4
References 

Allegro Energy Group. 2001. How Pipelines Make the Oil Market Work – Their Networks, Operation and 

Regulation. Prepared for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the American Petroleum Institute’s 

Pipeline Committee. 22 pp. 

Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL). 2006. The Pipeline Safety Record, from the Data. 

http://www.aopl.org/. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor Research 

Foundation. Washington, D.C. 

_____. 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Are in 1994. Edison Electric 

Institute. Washington, D.C. 

Averitt, P. 1972. Coal: In Mallory, W.W. (ed), Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region, Rocky Mountain 

Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, p. 297-299. 

Barbour, M., J. Gerritsen, B. Snyder, and J. Stribling. 1997. Revision to Rapid Bioassessment Protocol for 

the Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-D-97-002. 

Bartos, T. T., L. L. Hallberg, J. P. Mason, J. R. Norris, and K. A. Miller. 2006. Water Resources of Carbon 

County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5027. Prepared in 

cooperation with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. U. S. Geological Survey, Information Services, 

Denver, Colorado. 

Baxter, G. and J. Simon. 1970. Wyoming. Fishes. Bulletin No. 4, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Baxter, G. T. and M. D. Stone. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming. Bulletin No. 16. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 137 pp. 

Beidleman, C. A. Colorado Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Colorado Partners in Flight. Version 

1.0. 320 pp. 

Berry, D. W. 1960. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Rawlins Area, Carbon County, Wyoming. 

U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1458. Prepared in cooperation with the Wyoming Water 

Resources Board. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2006a. Geocommunicator, Lands and Minerals use Records Viewer, Mining 

Claims. 

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/NILS-PARCEL2/map.jsp?MAP=MC. Website accessed on September 29, 

2006. 

R-1 
_____. 2006b. Personal communication between B. Falvey, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, and K. Aarsby-Kail, 

Natural Resources Group, Inc., January 18, 2006. 

_____. 2006c. Personal communication between J. Dunder, Wildlife Biologist and K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural 

Resources Group, Inc., February 6, 2006. 

_____. Environmental Assessment for the Mid-American Pipeline Company, LLC [MAPL] Western 

Expansion Project. 2005. Bureau of land Management, New Mexico State Office, in cooperation with 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Regional Office, Southern Pueblos Agency, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. June 2005. pp. 381 

_____. 2002a. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 20, 2002. 

_____. 2002b. Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, Rawlins Resource Management 

Plan Planning Area, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office. February 2002. 

_____. 1998. BLM Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook H-8270-1. 

_____. 1997. Green River Resource Management Plan. 

_____. 1990. Approved Resource Management Plan for the Great Divide Resource Area. 

_____. 1986. Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary Document. 

Cappa, J. A, G. Young, J. Keller, C. Carroll, and B. Widmann. 2005. Colorado Mineral and Mineral Fuel 

Activity, 2004. Colorado Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, Information Series 70. 

Case, J. C. 1986. Preliminary Map of Mined-out Areas and Mine Subsidence Related to Coal Mining in 

Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological Survey Open File Report 86-1. 

Cerovski, A., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Plata. 2004. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, 

Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, 

Lander, Wyoming. 206 pp. 

City of Laramie. 2006. Casper Aquifer. 

http://www.ci.laramie.wy.us/cityservices/waterutilities/outreach/casper.html. 

_____. 2004. Letter from J. High, Water Outreach Coordinator, City of Laramie to M. Sales, Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, June 9, 2004. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2004. Draft Colorado 305(b) Report 

2004. 

Colorado Division of Water Resources. No date. www.water.state.co.us. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2006. Personal communication between B. Miles, Wildlife Biologist, 

CDOW and J. Rubado, ENSR, Fort Collins, Colorado. September 18, 2006. 

R-2 
_____. 2005. Response Letter to Request for Information from S. Hoover, Northeast Regional Manager, 

CDOW to K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc. January 10, 2005. 

Colorado Geological Survey (CGS). 2001. When the Ground Lets You Down – Ground Subsidence and 

Settlement Hazards in Colorado. Rock Talk, Volume 4, No. 4, October 2001. 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2006. Response to Request for Information from M. Menefee, 

Environmental Review Coordinator to K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc. January 10, 2006. 

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. June 2004. 

Connelly, J.W. M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997. 

Cowardin, L. M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Davies, W E., J. H. Simpson, G. C. Ohlmacher, W. S. Kirk, and E. G. Newton. 1984. Engineering Aspects of 

Karst. U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas, map scale 1:7,500,000and accompanying text. 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_karst.html. Website last updated on March 13, 2006. 

Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

DeBruin, R. H. 2002. Oil and Gas Map of Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological Survey, Map Series 55, 

Scale 1:500,000. 

DeLorme. 2003. Kansas Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme. Yarmouth, Maine. 

_____. 2002. Colorado Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme. Yarmouth, Maine. 

_____. 2001. Wyoming Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme. Yarmouth, Maine. 

DeMallie, R. J. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 13: Plains. November 9, 2001. William 

Sturtevant, Editor. 

Dunrud, C.R. 1976. Some Engineering Geologic Factor Controlling Coal Mine Subsidence in Utah and 

Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 969. 

Eddy, S. and J. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

414 pp. 

Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). 2006. Aquifer Protection Home Page. Laramie and Albany 

Counties, Wyoming. http://wyoaquifer.0catch.com/. 

R-3 
Ervin, S. 2005. Personal communication via e-mail from S. Ervin, Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, Bureau of Water to T. Waggoner, Natural Resource Group, Inc., November 21, 2005. 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) 2006. Conservation Reserve Program. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm. Website accessed on August 26, 2006. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2006. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood 

Insurance Definitions. http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/19def2.shtm. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2005. [111 FERC 61,128], United States of America, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC Docket No. IS05-216-

000, Order Accepting and Suspending Tariffs, Subject to Refund and Conditions, and Establishing a 

Hearing and Settlement Procedures (Issued April 29, 2005). http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Website accessed via FERC elibrary on February 12, 2005. 

_____. 2004. Research of Wetland Construction and Mitigation Activities for Certificated Section 7(c) 

Pipeline Projects. Office of Energy Projects. Washington, D.C. 

Federal Register (FR). 2001. Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 11:3853-3856. January 17, 2001. 

_____. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 8, 1999. Invasive Species. Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 

6183. February 8, 1999. 

_____. 1994. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32. 

February 11, 1994. 

_____. 1977a. Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977. Floodplain Management. Federal Register, Vol. 42, 

No. 26951, 3 CFR, p. 117. May 24, 1977. 

_____. 1977b. Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977. Protection of Wetlands. Federal Register, Vol. 42, 

No. 36961. May 24, 1977. 

Gillott, J. E. 1968. Clay in Engineering Geology. New York. Elsevier. 296 p. 

Goodwin & Associates. 2006. Phase III Archaeological and Geophysical Evaluation of Sites 14RW102, 

14SD00107, 14SD00108/109, 14SD00102, 14SD00103, 14SD00104, 14SD00110, 14SD00428, 

14SD00452, 14SD00101, 14GO00102, 14GO00301, 14TO00101, 14TO00306, 14TO00317, 

14TO00314, 14TO00103, 14TO00109, and 14RC00313, Overland Pass Pipeline Project, Rawlins, 

Sheridan, Gove, Trego, and Rice Counties, Kansas – Executive Summary. November 28, 2006. 

Guilinger, J. R. and J. W. Keller. 2004. Directory of Active and Permitted Mines in Colorado – 2002. 

Colorado Geological Survey Information Series 6B. 

Hall, M. 1998. Relative Sensitivity of Colorado Groundwater to Pesticide Impact. Fact Sheet #16, October 

1998. Radford University in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, Colorado State University Public Extension, and the Colorado Department of 

Agriculture. Colorado Department of Agriculture, Lakewood, Colorado. 

R-4 
Hamerlinck, J. D. and C. S. Arneson. 1998. Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Handbook. 

Spatial Data and Visualization Report 98-01. Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie. 

Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 

Colorado. 484 pp. 

Hickman and R. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. Biological Report 

FWS/OBS-82/10.5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land Use Team, 

Washington, D.C. 

Horn, J. C. 2006. Addendum to Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Colorado Portion of the Planned 

Overland Pass Pipeline Weld and Yuma Counties, Colorado. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 

December 2006. 

Horn, J. C., J. E. Pfertsh, S. Moore, and J. Eckman. 2006. Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the 

Colorado Portion of the Planned Overland Pass Pipeline Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, Washington, 

and Yuma Counties, Colorado. September 2006. 

Horn, J. C. and S. B. Wall. 2006. Class I Cultural Resource Overview of the Colorado Portion of the Planned 

Overland Pass Gas Pipeline, Weld, Morgan, Logan, Washington, and Yuma Counties, Colorado. 

February 2006. 

Howard, A. D. and J. W. Williams. 1972. Physiography; in Mallory, W.W. (ed), Geologic Atlas of the Rocky 

Mountain Region; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists; Denver, Colorado, p. 29-31. 

Hull-Sieg, C., and A. J. Bjugstad. 1994. Five years of following the western prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera praeclara) on the Sheyenne National Grassland, North Dakota. In: Wickett, R.G., P.D. 

Lewis, A. Woodliffe, and P. Pratt, eds. Proceedings of the 13th North American Prairie Conference, 

August 6-9, 1992, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Preney Print and Litho, Inc., Windsor, Ontario. p. 141-

146. 

Johnson, E. 2006. Personal communication between E. Johnson, Fishery Biologist, KDWP, Pratt, Kansas 

and J. Rubado, ENSR, September 9, 2006. 

Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA). 2006. Kansas Plant Protection and Weed Control and Species 

Lists. http://www.ksda.gov/. Website accessed from December 2005 to January 2006. 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). 2006. KDWP Threatened and Endangered Species. 

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/. Website accessed on March 16, 2006. 

_____. 2005. Response to Request for Information Letter from C. Hase, Ecologist, Environmental Services 

Section, KDWP to K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc., November 22, 2005. 

Kansas Geological Survey (KGS). 2006a. County Oil and Gas Production. 

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/petro/interactive.html. Website last updated on July 27, 2006. Website 

accessed on September 29, 2006. 

R-5 
_____. 2006b. Water Well Completion Records Database. www.kgs.ku.edu/magellan/waterWell/ 

index/html. 

_____. 1998. Directory of Kansas Industrial Mineral Producers. 

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/Minerals/index.html. 

_____. 1991. Geologic map of Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Map Series, No. 23, Scale 1:500,000. 

Karst, G. and J. Colbert. 2005. Personal communication via e-mail from J. Colbert, Groundwater Specialist, 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to T. Waggoner, Natural Resource Group, 

Inc., December 2, 2005. 

Keith, R. 2006. Personal communication between A. Way, Natural Resource Group, Inc. and R. Keith, 

Fishery Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, January 27, 2006. 

Kirkham, R. M. and L. R. Ladwig. 1980. Energy Resources of the Denver and Cheyenne Basins, Colorado: 

Resource Characteristics, Development Potential, and Environmental Problems. Colorado Geological 

Survey, Environmental Geology No. 12. 

LaGory, K. E., Y. S. Chang, K. C. Chun, T. Reeves, R. Liebich, and K. Smith. 2001. A study of the effects of 

gas well compressor noise on breeding bird populations of the Rattlesnake Canyon Habitat 

Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico. Final Report, May 2001. National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, National Petroleum Technology Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. 90 pp. 

Latta, B. F. 1950. Geology and Ground-water Resources of Barton and Stafford Counties, Kansas. 

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/General/Geology/Barton/index.html. Originally published as Kansas Geological 

Survey Bulletin 88. Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence. 

Litle, M. 2006. Personal communication between M. Litle, City of Laramie Department of Water and S. 

Donovan, Natural Resource Group, Inc., April 19, 2006. 

Livo, L., H. Smith, and D. Chiszar. 2000. Colorado Herpetological Society’s Guide to Reptiles and 

Amphibians of Colorado. County Record Tables for Colorado Amphibians and Reptiles. 

http://coloherp.org/geo/. 

Love, J. D. and A. C. Christensen. 1985. Geologic Map of Wyoming. Scale 1:500,000. 

Lowry, M. E. and M. A. Christ. 1967. Geology and ground-water resources of Laramie County, Wyoming: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1834. 

Lowry, M. E., S. J. Rucker IV, and K. L. Wahl. 1973. Water Resources of the Laramie, Shirley, and Hanna 

Basins and Adjacent Areas, Southeastern Wyoming. U. S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA471. U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

Lyon, L. J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal of Forestry. p. 658-

660. 

R-6 
Mid-America Pipeline System (MAPL). 2005a. MAPL Supplement No. 1 to Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission No. 40 Tariff Document. 

http://tariffs.eprod.com/directory/MAPLLC_NGL/FERC/Current/MAPLLLC_Supplement_No_1_FERC_ 

No-40.pdf. 

_____. 2005b. http://www.epplp.com/bs_ngl_p_o.html. Website accessed on February 12, 2006. 

Mason, J. P. and K. A. Miller. 2005. Water Resources of Sweetwater County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5214. Prepared in cooperation with the Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office. U. S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 

Maymon, J. H. 2006. Phase II Archaeological Survey for the Kansas Portion of the Proposed Overland Pass 

Pipeline Project in Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, Graham, Gove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, 

Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and McPherson Counties, Kansas. October 2006. 

Maymon, J. H. and C. T. Bevitt. 2006. Phase I Background Literature Review Report for the Kansas Portion 

of the Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Project in Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, Graham, 

Gove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and McPherson Counties, Kansas. March 2006. 

McGuire, V. L. 2005. Water Level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer, 1980 to 1999. U. S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 029-01. http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs02901. 

Merrill, E., T. Kohley, M. Herdendorf, W. Reimers, K. Driese, R. Marrs, and S. Anderson. 1996. The 

Wyoming Gap Analysis Project. Final Report. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Miller, J. A. and C. L. Appel. 1997. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Kansas, Missouri, and 

Nebraska. Hydrologic Atlas 730-D. U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_d/index.html. 

Money, D. 2006. Personal communication between D. Money, Fish Pathologist, University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming, and J. Rubado, ENSR, August 29, 2006. 

Naftz, D. L. 1996. Geochemistry of Selected Aquifers in Tertiary Rocks of the Upper Colorado River Basin in 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-

4065. Prepared in cooperation with the Wyoming State Engineer. U. S. Geological Survey, 

Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation. Revised. National Park Service Interagency Resources Division, National 

Register Branch, Washington D. C. 

Natural Resources Group, Inc. (NRG). 2006. Overland Pass Pipeline Project Environmental Impact Report. 

August 2006. 

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0, Wyoming Partners In Flight. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 

R-7 
Nixon, Z., M. O. Hayes, and J. N. Halls. 1998. Unusually Sensitive Areas for Drinking Water, Report for 

Kansas. Report RPI/R/12, December 1998. Research Planning, Inc., Columbia SC. Prepared for the 

U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). 2006. Office of Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Statistics. 

http://ops.dot.gov/stats/stats.htm. 

Olive, W. W., A. F. Chleborad, C. W. Frahame, J. Schloker, R. R. Schneider, and R. L. Schuster. 1989. 

Swelling Clays of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Map Series I-1940, scale 1:7,500,000. 

Overland Pass. 2006. Draft Plan of Development. 

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/overland_pipeline.html. 

Parker, K. 2005. Personal communication via e-mail correspondence between K. Parker, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, T. Waggoner, and S. Donovan, Natural Resource Group, Inc., 

December 2005. 

Parker, P. L., and T. F. King. 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 

Department of the Interior, Washington D. C. [Undated publication issued in 1989.] 

Pelmulder, S. D. 1995. Seismic Hazards: in Seismic Design Guide for Natural Gas Distributors; P. 

McDonough editor; American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake 

Engineering; Monograph No. 9, August 1995. 

Playa Lakes Joint Venture (PLJV). 2006. What are Playa Lakes? www.pljv.org. Website accessed on 

September 15, 2006. 

Radbruch-Hall, D. H., R. B. Colton, W. E. Davies, I. Lucchitta, B. A. Skipp, and D. J. Varnes. 1982. Landside 

Overview Map of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183. 

Raleigh, R. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. Biological Report FWS/OBS-82/10.24). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Washington, D.C. 

Raleigh, R., T. Hickman, R. Solomon, and P. Nelson. 1984. Habitat Suitability Information: Rainbow Trout. 

Biological Report 82 (10.60). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land Use Team, 

Washington, D.C. 

Raleigh, R., L. Zuckerman, P. Nelson. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability 

Curves: Brown Trout. Biological Report 82(10.124). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology 

Center, Washington, D.C. 

Reijnen, R. R. Foppen, C.T. Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird 

populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 32(1995): 187-202. 

R-8 
Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in 

Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 75(1996): 255-260. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the 

effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 

6:567-581. 

Retter, M. J., S. C. Phillips, K. Bedingfield, S. A. Slessman, M. Delmas, and J. Burkard. 2006. Class I 

Cultural Resources Inventory of the Wyoming Segment of the Proposed Overland Pass Gas Pipeline, 

Lincoln, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and Laramie Counties, Wyoming. Volume 1 of 3. April 13, 

2006. 

Robson, S. G. and E. R. Banta. 1995. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah. Hydrologic Atlas 730-C. U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_c/index.html. 

Scoyoc, M. 2006. Personal communication between M. Scoyoc, Stream Program Coordinator, Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks. and L. Hughes, Natural Resource Group, Inc., April 11, 2006. 

Seaber, P. R., F. P. Kapinos, and G. L. Knapp. 1994. Hydrologic Unit Maps. United States Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294. U.S. GPO: Washington, D.C. 

Seletstewa, M. 2006-2007. Native American consultation information provided by M. Seletstewa, 

Ethnographer, SWCA Environmental Consultants, via e-mail correspondence to K. Munson, 

Anthropologist, ENSR, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Sheley, R. L. and J. K. Petroff, eds. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Smithsonian National Zoological Park. 2007. Neotropical Migratory Bird Basics Fact Sheet. 

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/MigratoryBirds/Fact_Sheets/. Website accessed on 

January 22, 2007. 

Snigg, M. 2006. Personal communication between M. Snigg, Fishery Biologist, WGFD and L. Hughes, 

Natural Resource Group, Inc., April 14, 2006. 

State of Colorado, Department of Agriculture, Conservation Services Division, Noxious Colorado Weed 

Management Program. 2006. http://www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/Weedhome.html. 

Swain, R. S. and R. C. Buchanan. 2002. Salt in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Public Information 

Circular 21. http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/pic21/pic21_1.html. Website accessed on October 1, 

2006. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2006a. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland 

Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 1: BLM Kemmerer Field Office, 

Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. Volume 1 of 3. October 19, 2006. 

R-9 
_____. 2006b. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 2: BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

Volume 2 of 3. November 6, 2006. 

_____. 2006c. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 3: BLM Rawlins Field Office, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany and 

Laramie Counties, Wyoming. Volume 3 of 3, Part 1 of 2. November 22, 2006. 

_____. 2006d. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 3: BLM Rawlins Field Office, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany and 

Laramie Counties, Wyoming. Volume 3 of 3, Part 2 of 2. November 22, 2006. 

_____. 2006e. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 1: BLM Kemmerer Field Office, Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming. Addendum Report 1. January 2, 2007. 

_____. 2006f. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Overland Pass Pipeline for Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company, LLC, Volume 2: BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

Addendum Report 1. December 27, 2006. 

Swigle, B. 2006a. Personal communication between B. Swigle, Aquatic Biologist, CDOW, Brush, Colorado 

and L. Hughes, Natural Resource Group, Inc., on April 21 and 24, 2006. 

_____. 2006b. Unpublished Field Surveys for the South Platte River and Chief Creeks, Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Northeast Region, Brush, Colorado. November 15 and December 7, 2006. 

_____. 2006c. Personal communication between B. Swigle, Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 

Northeast Region, Brush, Colorado and R. Daggett, ENSR, Fort Collins, Colorado, October 17, 2006. 

Taggert, T. 2006. Kansas Herpetofaunal Atlas. http://webcat.fhsu.edu/ksfauna/herps. 

Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 

New York. 

Trimble, D.E. 1980. The Geologic Story of the Great Plains. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1493. 

Turnery, J. E. and L. Murray-Williams. 1983. Inactive Coal Mine Data and Subsidence Information Weld 

County. Colorado Geological Survey Extent of Coal Mining in Front Range Counties. 

http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Default.aspx?tabid=429. Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

Tweto, O. (compiler). 1979. Geologic Map of Colorado. Scale 1: 500,000. U. S. Geologic Survey, Reston, 

Virginia. 

Uinta Paleontological Associates, Inc. 2006. Paleontological Evaluation, Existing Data Review Along the 

Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline Project in Southern Wyoming, Northeastern Colorado and 

Northwestern Kansas . Uinta Paleontological Associates, Inc., Vernal, Utah. 

R-10
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Wetlands Research Program. Technical Report 4-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Massachusetts. 

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). 2006a. http://www.USBOR.gov/uc/crsp/GetSiteInfo. Website 

accessed on February 26, 2006. 

_____. 2006b. http://www.USBOR.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/crsp_fgd.txt. Website accessed on February 

26, 2006. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Crop Water Use Requirements. USDA Risk Management 

Agency, Topeka Regional Office, Topeka, Kansas. April 2006. 

_____. 1978. Agriculture Handbook No. 296, Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of 

the United States. http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/mlra/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2007. The 

PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 14 February 2007). National Plant Data Center, Baton 

Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

_____. 2005. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Website 

accessed on January 27, 2005. 

_____. 2003. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, California. Compaction Reduction Tool, 

Typical for Tool Bar Mounted Subsoiling, January 28, 2003. 

_____. 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database, Data Use Information. National Soil Survey 

Center, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492. Fort Worth, Texas. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Census). 2000a. 2000 Census of Population and 

Housing. http://www.census.gov/. 

_____. 2000b. Census 2000: Table DP-1 (Profile of General Demographic Characteristics) and Table DP-3 

(Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics). http://www.census.gov/. 

_____. 2000c. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qdf/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004 – Supplemental Table 102 

“Lower 48 Natural Gas Production and Wellhead Prices by Supply Region.” Office of Integrated 

Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Level IV Ecoregion Descriptions. Western Ecol. 

Div., Corvallis, Oregon. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iv.htm. Website accessed 

on January, 2007. 

_____. 2006b. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) Database. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/. Website accessed on April 18, 

2006. 

R-11
_____. 2005. Local Drinking Water Information. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/index.html. 

_____. 2004a. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United 

States National Sediment Quality Survey Second Edition. November 2004. EPA-823-R-04-007. Office 

of Science and Technology Standards and Health Protection Division, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2004b. Designated Sole Source Aquifers In Region VIII. 

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg8.html. 

_____. 1998. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 135, July 15, 1998. 

_____. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. 

_____. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare 

with an Adequate Margin on Safety, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Response to Request for Information Letter from B. Kelly, 

Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, USFWS to K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc., 

December 13, 2005. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1997. 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for 

the Arapahoe and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/arnf/projects/forest-planning/management-plan/index/shtml. Website 

accessed on January 14, 2006. 

USFS. 1997. 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt 

National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. USDA Forest Service. 

_____. 1986a. Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 

_____. 1986b. Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. National Coal Resources Data System. 

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/coal/coal_assessments/index.html. Website updated on April 4, 2006. 

Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

_____. 2006b. Earthquake Search. http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic. Website updated on May 23, 2006. 

Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

_____. 2006c. Visual Glossary. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/glossary.php?alpha=A. Website 

updated on August 3, 2006. Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

_____. 2006d. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. 

http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/. Website accessed on October 1, 2006. 

R-12
_____. 2000. Estimated Water Use in the United States, County-Level Data for 2000. 

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html. Data in support of USGS Circular 1268, Estimated 

Water Use in the United States in 2000. 

_____. 1998. Hydrologic Unit Information Files. 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/wrr97/geograp/huc_name.txt. Website accessed on January, 

2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System (USGS NWIS). 2007. Surface water monthly 

statistics for Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ks/nwis. Website accessed 

on January, 2007. 

Van Dyke, G. D, L. M. Shem, P. L. Wilkey, R. E. Zimmerman, and S. D. Alsum. 1994. Pipeline Corridors 

Through Wetlands – Summary of Seventeen Plant Community Studies at Ten Wetland Crossings. 

Center for Environmental Restoration Systems, Argonne, Illinois. 

Walker, P. 2006. Personal communication with P. Walker, Fish Pathologist, CDOW, Brush, Colorado and R. 

Daggett, ENSR, September 14, 2006. 

Ward, A. L. 1976. Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest operations and traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in south-central Wyoming. In: Proceedings Elk-logging-roads Symposium, ed. S.R. Hieb. p. 

32-43. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 142 pp. 

Ward, A. L., N. E. Fornwalt, S. E. Henrry, and R. A. Hodorff. 1980. Effects of highway operation practices 

and facilities on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. Report No. FHWA-RD-79-143. National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 48 pp. (or U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-79-143. 48 pp). 

Waters, T. 1995. Sediment in Streams. Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland, Monograph 7, 251 pp. 

Wesson, A. 2006. Summary report from A. Wesson, SWCA Environmental Consultants, sent to K. Munson, 

ENSR, November 9, 2006. 

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) 2006a. Overland Pass Pipeline Project Vegetation and 

Sensitive Species Surveys. 

_____. 2006b. Overland Pass Pipeline Project Potential Midget-faded Rattlesnake Den Site Survey. 

Cheyenne, WY. 30pp. 

_____. 2006c. Overland Pass Pipeline Project Kansas Raptor Nest Survey. Cheyenne, WY. 34pp. 

_____. 2006d. Overland Pass Pipeline Project Wetland Survey. Cheyenne, WY. 

Wray, L. L., A. D. Apeland, H. T. Hemborg, and C. A. Brchan. 2002. Oil and Gas Fields Map of Colorado. 

Colorado Geological Survey Map Series MS –33. 

R-13
Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. 2006. Compiled by U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (USDA NASS). www.nass.usda.gov/wy. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2006. Letter (WER 11284) Submitted to Tom Hurshman, 

BLM, Montrose, Colorado, April 4, 2006. 

_____. 2005a. Personal communication between G. Arthur, Deputy Director, WGFD and K. Aarbsy-Kail, 

Natural Resources Group, Inc. November 23, 2005. 

_____. 2005b. 2005 Fish Schedule and Fish Stocking Report, Regional Waters. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

_____. 2005c. Mammalian Species of Special Concern Native Species Status List Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2 

pp. January 2005. 

_____. 2005d. Avian Species of Special Concern Native Species Status List Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2 pp. 

January 2005. 

_____. 2005e. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 125 pp and appendices. 

Wyoming Mining Association. 2006. Wyoming Trona. 

http://www.wma-minelife.com/trona/TronaPage2/trnfrm03.htm. Website accessed on October 2, 2006. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2005a. Response to Request for Information Letter from M. 

Arnett, Database Specialist to K. Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc. October 31 and 

November 16, 2005. 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. 2005. www.seo.state.wy.us. December 2005. 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS). 2006. Landslide of Wyoming, index to landslide maps. 

http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsgs/hazards/landslides/landslides.htm. Website accessed on 

October 1, 2006. 

_____. 1986. Preliminary Map of Liquefaction Prone Areas in Wyoming. Open File Report 86-2. Scale 

1:1,000,000. 

Wyoming Weed and Pest Council. 2006. 2006 Declared Weed and Pest List. 

http://www.wyoweed.org/weed_lists.html. Website accessed in 2006. 

R-14
Glossary 

alluvial material composed of riverbed or delta material. 

ancillary facilities facilities associated with the pipeline system, including 

compressor stations, valves, and metering stations. 

aquifer a layer of underground sand, gravel, or porous rock in 

which water collects; a source of groundwater. 

barrel 42 gallons of natural gas liquid. 

block valve valve that can block the flow of natural gas liquids in 

both directions within the pipeline when closed. 

cathodic protection a method to reduce external corrosion by placing a 

small electrical charge on the steel pipe. 

corrosion an electrochemical process that occurs when steel is 

exposed to an electrolyte, such as soil or water. 

Corrosion can occur along the internal or external 

surfaces of the pipe. External corrosion is reduced by 

cathodic protection and pipeline coatings. Corrosion is 

monitored by internal inspection tools (internal and 

external corrosion) and corrosion coupons (internal 

corrosion). 

depth of cover in new construction areas, the burial depth typically 

would be 36 inches from the top of the pipe to the 

natural grade. No depth of cover is specified for existing 

pipe under OPS regulations. 

easement a legal instrument, usually negotiated with the 

landowner, that is used to convey a ROW to the pipeline 

company. The easement gives the pipeline company 

the right to operate and maintain its pipeline in the 

permanent ROW and, in return, compensates the 

landowner for the use of the land. 

eminent domain the right of the government to take private property for 

public use after providing just compensation by virtue of 

the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction. 

fugitive dust a non-point source of air pollution, such as from 

unpaved roads, agricultural croplands, and construction 

sites. 

G-1 
High Consequence Areas (HCAs) OPS-defined areas subject to the Integrity Management 

Rule. HCAs include high-density population areas, 

waters where commercial navigation occurs, and areas 

that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage. 

horizontal directional drilling technology used for vertical drilling has been modified 

for the horizontal installation of pipelines beneath major 

obstacles, such as rivers, railroads, and highways. 

hydrostatic testing pressure testing of a pipeline to test its structural 

integrity. Typically the line is tested to at least 

125 percent of the MAOP and the pressure is held for 

8 hours. Hydrostatic testing is a destructive test to 

evaluate the integrity of the pipe. A pipe that passes this 

test is considered safe to operate at pressures less than 

or equal to the MAOP. 

Impressed current cathodic protection cathodic protection that uses an external power source 

to place a small electrical charge on the steel pipe to 

prevent external corrosion. 

Integrity Management Rule as defined in 49 CFR 192, this OPS rule increases 

requirements for inspection, enhanced damage 

protection, improved emergency response, and other 

measures to prevent and mitigate pipeline leaks in 

HCAs. 

internal inspection tool a “smart pig”; tools that assess the pipeline’s integrity. At 

this time, there are three primary types of internal 

inspection tools: caliper pigs, magnetic leak flux pigs, 

and ultrasonic pigs. 

kV kilovolts; 1,000 electrical volts. 

Ldn Day-night (average sound) level. 

liquefaction The process by which water-saturated sediments lose 

strength and may fail during strong earthquake induced 

ground shaking. Liquefaction can result in the loss of 

ground bearing capacity or lateral spreading, both of 

which could potentially damage pipelines and ancillary 

facilities. Soil liquefaction hazards are associated with 

unconsolidated alluvial soils with a high water table. 

Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) a rating indicating the maximum pressure at which a 

pipeline or segment of a pipeline may be operated under 

the DOT regulations in normal conditions (40 CFR § 

195.406 MOP). The MOP is defined as 80 percent of 

G-2 
meters 

one-call systems 

pig 

pigging facility 

pump station 

right-of-way (ROW) 

riparian areas 

SCADA 

seasonal constraints 

the hydrostatic test pressure (also called the pressure 

rating). 

devices that measure the amount of natural gas 

transported and delivered. 

a system by which operators and other underground 

utility operators have joined together in state-level onecall notification programs. The program acts as a 

clearinghouse of information to excavators, and marks 

the location of underground utilities prior to excavation. 

a plug designed to be pushed along the inside of a 

pipeline. Pigs can be used to separate materials, clean, 

or inspect the pipeline’s surface. 

a short section of pipe controlled by valves that 

interconnect with the main pipeline to launch and 

receive cleaning and inspection tools (“pigs”) that travel 

inside the pipeline. 

ancillary facility where pumps are used to maintain 

pipeline pressure required to move natural gas liquids 

through the pipeline. 

a legal right of passage over another’s property. 

Typically, the ROW would consist of a 50-foot-wide 

permanent ROW and, during construction, an additional 

50-foot construction ROW. 

these areas form of wetland transition between 

permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. 

These areas exhibit vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent surface or 

subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or 

contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing 

rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of 

lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels are typical 

riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral 

streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of 

vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; computerized 

system that monitors and analyses the pressure within 

the pipeline every 3 to 5 seconds, notifying operators of 

any operating abnormalities. 

time periods when construction may be restricted, such 

as constraint periods associated with breeding birds. 

G-3 
smart pig An internal inspection tool that passes inside a pipe and 

contains electronic devices capable of measuring pipe 

integrity. 

Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) a measure of pipeline strength. 

temporary workspace areas located outside the construction ROW where 

additional space is required for construction. 

trona natural sodium bicarbonate. 

well head protection areas areas where land uses are managed to protect and 

maintain the quality of groundwater. 

G-4 
Index 

Area of Potential Effect (APE)................................................................................................................1-5, 4.9-1 

Arikaree River.................................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Ashley National Forest (ANF) .............................................................................................. 1-1, 2-8, 3.8-1, 4.8-1

Big game................................................................................................................................. 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Biological Assessment (BA)................................................................................................... 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Biological Opinion (BO) .......................................................................................................... 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Bitter Creek........................................................................................................ 3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5, 5.2-10 

Blacks Fork River ...........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

BLM.....................................................................................................................................................1-1, 1-4, 1-5 

Bushton, Kansas .........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4-4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Cheyenne, Wyoming ................................................................................................................................. 1-1, 2-1 

Contractor yards ................................................................................................................. 2-2, 2-43, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Conway, Kansas........................................................................................................................................ 1-1, 2-1 

Echo Springs ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1, 2-1 

Electrical power ................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 

Elk ........................................................................................................................................... 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Emergency Response Plan (ERP) .................................................................................................................. 1-5 

Endangered Species Act (ESA).................................................................................................. 1-5, 3.7-1, 4.7-1 

Enterprise Western Expansion ..................................................................................................................... 5.1-1 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ........................................................................................................... 1-1 

Erosion............................................................................................ 3.3-1, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 4.3-1, 4.4-1, 4.5-1, 5.2-7 

Federal lands ......................................................................................................................2-2, 2-43, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Fences ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-18 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area (FGNRA)...........................................................1-1, 2-8, 3.8-1, 4.8-1

Grading ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-18 

Grazing (Livestock)..............................................................................................................................3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Green River........................................................................................................ 3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5, 5.2-10 

Habitat fragmentation ............................................................................................................. 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Hams Fork River.............................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Highway .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-18 

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD).................................................................... 2-18, 3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Hydrostatic Test Plan .....................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Hydrostatic testing ..........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Incised Bank ........................................................................................................................................3.5-1, 4.5-1 

Interstate 70 (I-70) ............................................................................................................................................ 2-2 

Interstate 80 (I-80)................................................................................................................................2-40, 5.1-1 

Invasive species ..................................................................................................................... 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Kemmerer Field Office .......................................................................................................................1-1, 1-4, 1-5 

Laramie, Wyoming..................................................................................................................................... 1-1, 2-1 

Mainline valves (MLV) ........................................................................................................ 2-2, 2-43, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) .................................................................................... 2-1, 3.12-1, 4.12-1 

Medicine Bow River........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Migratory birds ........................................................................................................................ 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

I-1 
Mule deer ................................................................................................................................ 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ..................................................................................................... 1-1 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .........................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Native American .........................................................................................................3.9-1, 3.10-1, 4.9-1, 4.10-1 

Natural gas liquids (NGL)........................................................................................................ 1-1, 3.12-1, 4.12-1 

No Action Alternative...................................................................................................................................... 2-33 

North Platte River ...........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

ONEOK............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

Opal, Wyoming .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1, 2-1 

Open-cut .........................................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Overland Pass .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline ..................................................................................................................... 5.1-1 

Pawnee National Grasslands (PNG) ................................................................................... 1-1, 2-8, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Pigging facilities ..................................................................................................................2-2, 2-43, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Pipe storage yards.............................................................................................................. 2-2, 2-43, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

Plan of Development (POD)............................................................................................................................. 1-5 

Power lines ....................................................................................................................................................... 9-1 

Pronhorn ................................................................................................................................. 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2 

Public Scoping................................................................................................................................................ 1-10 

Railroad........................................................................................................................................................... 2-18 

Rawlins Field Office............................................................................................................................1-1, 1-4, 1-5 

Reclamation................................................................................................................................ 1-5, 2-18, 5.2-11 

Record of Decision (ROD) ............................................................................................................................... 1-4 

Resource management plans.......................................................................................................................... 1-5 

Revegetation...................................................................................................... 3.4-1, 3.6-1, 4.4-1, 4.6-1, 5.2-11 

Rock Springs Field Office...................................................................................................................1-1, 1-4, 1-5 

Rockies Express/Entrega Pipeline................................................................................................................ 5.1-1 

Sage grouse ........................................................................................................................... 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-11 

Site-Specific Waterbody Crossing Plans .......................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Scenery Management System (SMS) ...................................................................................3.8-10, 4.8-10, 5.14

South Fork Republican River .........................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

South Platte River...........................................................................................................3.5-1, 3.7-4, 4.5-1, 4.7-5 

Special status species............................................................................................................ 3.7-1, 4.7-1, 5.2-12 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) ............... 1-5, 3.5-1, 3.12-1, 4.5-1, 4.12-1 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)........................................................ 1-6, 3.9-1, 3.10-1, 4.9-1, 4.10-1 

Steep slopes ......................................................................................................... 2-18, 3.4-1, 3.5-1, 4.4-1, 4.5-1 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ..................................................................... 1-5, 3.5-1, 4.5-1 

Topsoil........................................................................................................................................ 2-18, 3.4-1, 4.4-1 

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan.......................................................................... 2-18, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) ...................................................................1-5, 2-18, 3.8-1, 4.8-1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).................................................................................... 1-6, 3.7-1, 4.7-1 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)......................................................................................................................1-1, 1-5 

Visual Resource Management (VRM)............................................................................... 3.8-10, 4.8-10, 5.2-14 

WaKeeney, Kansas...................................................................................................................................1-1, 2-1 

Weed Management Plan.........................................................................................1-5, 3.4-1, 3.6-1, 4.4-1, 4.6-1 

I-2