3.1-1 September 2008

3.0 Affected Environment 

3.1 Air Quality 

3.1.1 Climate 

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

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

Project area due to significant geographical features. The climate of the west slope in western Colorado is 

primarily influenced by Pacific air masses, which flow over the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains. As the 

air masses pass over these mountains, they lose much of the moisture that is typical of maritime air. This 

produces the arid environment of the intermountain region. In fact, the overwhelming characteristic of the 

intermountain portion of the west slope climate at lower elevations is arid. Typically, arid climates receive less 

than 10 inches of precipitation annually. The higher elevations, localized areas, and mountains generally 

receive greater amounts of precipitation, often 4 to 5 times as much as lower elevations. 

As shown in Table 3.1-1, specific characterization of the local weather based on data from Meeker, Colorado, 

indicates an average annual maximum temperature of 60.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and an average annual 

minimum temperature of 27.4°F. As shown in Table 3.1-2, specific characterization of local weather data from 

Wamsutter, Wyoming, indicates an average annual maximum temperature of 55.3°F and an average annual 

minimum temperature of 27.3°F. Average annual precipitation in each location is less than 20 inches. 

3.1.2 Existing Air Quality 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established by the USEPA for six criteria 

pollutants. The purpose of the NAAQS is to protect human health (primary standards) and public welfare 

(secondary standards). Pollutant concentrations in the ambient air that are greater than the NAAQS are 

considered potentially harmful. The USEPA set NAAQS for the following air contaminants: nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The states are required to implement and enforce the 

NAAQS under a process called State Implementation Plans, which are approved by the USEPA. 

The USEPA (2008) has designated areas of the U.S. as “attainment,” “non-attainment,” or “unclassified” with 

respect to ambient air quality standards. Federal and state air quality regulations are designed to ensure that 

ambient air quality from existing and new sources are in compliance with the ambient standards. All areas of 

Colorado and Wyoming through which the Project would be located are classified as attainment for all criteria 

pollutants. NAAQS and Colorado and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and WAAQS, 

respectively) are listed in Table 3.1-3. 
3.1-2 

Table 3.1-1 Average Temperature and Precipitation at Meeker, Colorado 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct N

Average Max. Temperature (°F) 36.4 40.4 48.1 58.5 69.1 79.0 85.7 83.1 75.1 63.6 4Average Min. Temperature (°F) 6.9 11.6 20.1 28.1 34.7 40.4 47.0 46.0 37.6 28.2 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 1.10 1.02 1.34 1.72 1.48 1.20 1.37 1.79 1.59 1.50 Average Total Snowfall (in.) 15.0 11.9 11.3 5.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.7 Average Snow Depth (in.) 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2008, Station 055484 – Period of Record: 1/11/1900 to 6/30/2007. 

Table 3.1-2 Average Temperature and Precipitation at Wamsutter, Wyoming 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct N

Average Max. Temperature (°F) 27.9 32.7 41.2 53.7 64.6 75.8 83.9 81.5 72.2 59.0 4Average Min. Temperature (°F) 7.3 10.5 17.8 26.0 34.2 42.3 49.0 47.1 38.5 28.6 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 0.25 0.24 0.37 0.69 1.05 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.76 0.57 0Average Total Snowfall (in.) 4.0 3.4 3.7 2.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 Average Snow Depth (in.) 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: WRCC 2008, Station 489459 – Period of Record: 8/1/1948 to 11/30/2004. 
Table 3.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS (μg/m3

) CAAQS (μg/m3) WAAQS (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 100 100 100 

CO 1-Hour 

8-Hour 

40,000 

10,000 

40,000 

10,000 

40,000 

10,000 

SO2 3-Hour 

24-Hour 

Annual 

1,300 

365 

80 

700 

365 

80 

1,300 

260 

60 

PM10 24-Hour 

Annual 

150 

50 

150 

50 

150 

50 

PM2.5 24-Hour1

Annual 

35 

15 

35 

15 

35 

15 

O3 8-Hour 147 147 147 

Pb Monthly 

Quarterly 

-- 

1.5 

1.5 

-- 

-- 

1.5 

Hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) 

0.5-Hour -- -- 40/702

1

Based on the annual 98th percentile concentration. 

2

40 microgarms per cubic meter (μg/m3) not to be exceeded more than twice in any 5 consecutive days. 70 μg/m3 not to be 

exceeded more than twice per year. 

National standards, other than O3 and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than 

once a year. Annual pollutant averaging periods shall not be exceeded. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained 

when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in each year, averaged over 3 consecutive years, is equal to or 

less than the standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). 

The CDPHE and WDEQ have responsibility for monitoring statewide air quality. Most monitoring typically is 

performed in areas where levels of air pollution are anticipated to be significant. Ambient air monitoring data in 

the vicinity of the proposed Project does not exist in Colorado, as there are no monitoring locations for criteria 

pollutants located in Rio Blanco or Moffat counties. Per the CDPHE, background levels in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project area in Colorado are identified in Table 3.1-4. 

Table 3.1-4 Air Quality Background Levels in Colorado 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period Concentration Units Location 

PM10 Annual 11 ug/m3 American Soda, Piceance 2003-2005 

24-hour 36 ug/m3

SO2 Annual 0.002 ppm Unocal, 1983-1984 

3-hour 0.009 ppm 

24-hour 0.005 ppm 

NO2 Annual 0.005 ppm Rural default based on EnCana near 

Parachute Creek 

CO 1-hour 1.0 ppm American Soda, Piceance 2003-2005 

8-hour 1.0 ppm 

Source: CDPHE 2008. 

3.1-3 September 2008
3.1-4 September 2008 

There is an air quality monitoring station located approximately 2 miles west of Wamsutter, Wyoming. The 

station began operation in March 2006. Monitoring equipment includes an O3 analyzer, NO2 analyzer, PM10

monitor, and meteorology sensors. At this time, the station is not equipped with a digital camera. This station 

broadcasts near real-time meteorology and pollutant measurements. When data from this monitor was 

reviewed on February 20, 2008 (WDEQ 2008), the 8-hour rolling average for O3 was 0.057 ppm, the 24-hour 

rolling average for NO2 was 0.011 ppm, and the 24-hour rolling average for PM10 was 6 μg/m3. Each of these 

readings is well below the NAAQS and WAAQS identified in Table 3.1-3. As mentioned previously, air quality 

in the region is classified as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants. 

The nearest federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I Areas are the Flat Tops Wilderness 

area, located approximately 35 miles (56 km) from the Project, and the Mount Zirkel Wilderness area located 

approximately 70 miles (113 km) from the Project. Dinosaur National Monument, a Colorado-designated 

Class I area for SO2, is located approximately 30 miles (48 km) from the Project. 

3.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide are all naturally occurring greenhouse gases (GHGs) 

whose concentrations in the atmosphere have increased as a result of human activities since the dawn of the 

industrial revolution. GHGs in general, and CO2 in particular, have become an issue of intense public debate 

and much recent litigation. In Massachusetts v. USEPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that CO2 satisfies the 

definition of “air pollutant” and that the USEPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other GHGs 

from new motor vehicles under the CAA (Supreme Court of the United States 2006). It is important to note that 

the Court did not rule that CO2 and other GHGs were subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA), nor 

did the Court require creation of any standards or emission control requirements for GHGs. 

CO2 is not a criteria pollutant for which NAAQS are set, nor is it regulated under New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS), Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or any other CAA regulatory emission 

standards or limitations. Therefore, although CO2 is an air pollutant, it is not a regulated air pollutant for CAA 

regulatory and permitting purposes. No regulatory limitations or other CAA emission standards apply to CO2. 

3.1.4 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding air quality would be the same as described for the 

Proposed Action. 
3.2-1 September 2008

3.2 Geology, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources 

3.2.1 Physiography and Geology 

The proposed Project route would cross parts of two major physiographic provinces: the Uinta-Piceance Basin 

Section of the Colorado Plateaus Province and the Wyoming Basin Province of the Rocky Mountain System 

Division (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2003) (Figure 3.2-1). The Wyoming Basin Province generally 

consists of mountain ranges separated by broad basins, while the Colorado Plateau province is characterized 

by plateaus and mesas, often heavily incised by erosion. The proposed Project is in the Colorado Plateaus 

from MP 0.0 to approximate MP 48.0 and in the Wyoming Basins Province from approximate MP 48.0 to 

MP 152.2. Elevations range from approximately 6,200 to 7,400 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with the 

highest areas of elevation being encountered at the southern end of the proposed route. 

The bedrock geology in the proposed Project area consists of Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary 

rocks. The rock units and brief descriptions are presented on Table 3.2-1. The bedrock formations that would 

be crossed and location of formation contacts have been taken from the paleontological survey that was 

conducted for the Project in January 2008 (Erathem-Vanir Geological 2008) and from published USGS 

sources (Love and Christiansen 1985; Tweto 1979). Because of inter-fingering relationships between the 

Green River and Wasatch formations, contacts are often difficult to distinguish. 

Unconsolidated Recent and Pleistocene-aged surficial deposits are present in the form of alluvium, colluvium, 

or sand dunes. These deposits can be found in stream valleys as modern alluvium (stream-laid deposits), 

older alluvium found on terraces, or eolian (wind-blown) deposits (Love and Christiansen 1985; Tweto 1979). 

3.2.2 Mineral Resources 

The primary mineral resources in the proposed Project area are oil and natural gas. The proposed Project 

route would cross the Uinta-Piceance Basin and the Greater Green River Basin, important oil and gas 

producing basins. The proposed Project is located in two sub-basins of the Greater Green River Basin: the 

Sand Wash Basin and the Washakie Basin. Table 3.2-2 provides a summary of the oil and gas fields that 

would be crossed by the proposed Project. Analysis of the proposed route indicates that approximately 22 oil 

and gas wells were located within 400 feet of the centerline of the Proposed Action (Table 3.2-3). Most of the 

wells are producing gas wells, but several have been plugged and abandoned or the status was not 

determinable from the database. 

Another important mineral resource in the vicinity of the proposed Project is coal. The proposed Project lies 

within two defined coal resource regions: the Uinta Coal Region and the Green River Coal Region 

(Averitt 1972). The proposed Project would cross the Danforth Coal Field that lies in the Uinta Coal Region. No 

major operating coal mines are in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Guilinger and Keller 2004; Colorado 

Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 2008; Wyoming Mining Association 2008). 

Oil shale resources may be present where the proposed Project would cross the Uinta and Green River 

Formations (Table 3.2-1). Oil shale has been mined in the vicinity, but there are no operating mines. Other 

mineral resources in the area include uranium, limestone, and aggregate. Uranium and limestone have been 

mined near Maybell, Colorado. While limestone is actively mined, there is no current uranium mining activity 

(Guilinger and Keller 2004; Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 2008). From approximate 

MP 100.0 to MP 140.0, the proposed route would cross rock that may be underlain by oil shale deposits of the 

Green River Formation, but the deposits are low grade (less than 25 barrels per ton) and there are no 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

64

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

Deception

Creek

Price Creek

White River

Strawberry

Creek

Little Snake River

Piceance Creek

Dry Fork

Piceance Creek

Yampa River

Yampa River

Spring Creek

White River

Yampa River

Sand Creek

Colorado

Plateau

Province

Southern Rocky

Mountain

Province

Wyoming

Basin

Province

Middle Rocky

Mountain

Province

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.2-1

Physiographic

Provinces

0 81 4 6

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Physiographic Province

Colorado Plateau

Wyoming Basin

Middle Rocky Mountain

Southern Rocky Mountain

3.2-2
Table 3.2-1 Summary of Geologic and Paleontologic Resources Along the Proposed Route 

Geologic 

Formation/Deposit Age Description 

Fossil Potential/BLM 

Condition1 

Alluvium/Colluvium Quaternary 

(Recent) 

Sand, silt, clay, and gravel None/3 Spor

entire 

Older alluvium/colluvium 

Pleistocene Sand, silt, clay, and gravel Vertebrates/3 Near 

pedim

Uinta Fm (Tu) Eocene Sandstone and siltstone Vertebrates, invertebrates, 

plants, trackways/1 

MP 0w/Tg

Green River Fm (Tg) Parachute Creek Mbr (Tgp) Undivided Garden Gulch, Douglas Creek, & Anvil Points Mbrs (Tgl) Laney Member (Tgla) contains: LeClede & Hartt Cabin Beds Tipton Tongue (Tgt) Lumen Tongue (Tglu) 

Eocene Sandstone, siltstone, and 

marlstone (oil shale) 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1 

MP 1throupipel

Wasatch Fm (Tw) Cathedral Bluffs Tongue (Twc) Niland Tongue (Twn) 

Eocene Claystone, mudstone, 

sandstone, and conglomerate 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1-2 

19.0 

Mesaverde Group (Kmvg) Williams Fork Formation (Kmw) Iles Formation (Kmi) 

Late Cretaceous Sandstone, shale, and coal 

beds 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/2 

42.0 w/Qu

Mancos Shale (Km) Late Cretaceous Organic-rich, marine shale Invertebrates, plants, traces, 

rarely vertebrates/2 

48.0 w/QuTbp 

Browns Park (Tbp) Miocene Slightly consolidated 

tuffaceous sediment 

Vertebrate, invertebrates, plants/2-3 

51.0 

3.2-3 
3.2-4 

Table 3.2-1 Summary of Geologic and Paleontologic Resources Along the Proposed Route 

Geologic 

Formation/Deposit Age Description 

Fossil Potential/BLM 

Condition1 

Williams Fork (Kmw) Late Cretaceous Sandstone, shale, and coal 

beds 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/2 

62.5 

Lewis Shale (Kls) Late Cretaceous Marine shale containing 

isolated sandstone lenses 

Invertebrates, vertebrates (rare)/2 

63.0 

Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone (Kla) 

Late Cretaceous Sandstone, carbonaceous 

shale, and thin coal beds 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1-2 

63.25 

Fort Union Paleocene Shale, sandstone, and coal Vertebrates, invertebrates, 

plants 

63.5 

Wasatch Fm (Tw) Cathedral Bluffs Tongue (Twc) Niland Tongue (Twn) 

Eocene Claystone, mudstone, 

sandstone, and conglomerate 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1-2 

64.0 Twn, 

Green River Formation Eocene Sandstone, siltstone, and 

marlstone (oil shale) 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1 

139.0 

Wasatch Formation Eocene Claystone, mudstone, 

sandstone, and conglomerate 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1-2 

143.0 

Green River Formation Eocene Sandstone, siltstone, and 

marlstone (oil shale) 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1 

143.5 

Wasatch Formation Eocene Claystone, mudstone, 

sandstone, and conglomerate 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1-2 

144.0 

Washakie Formation (Twa); Adobe Town Member (Twka) 

Eocene Interbedded Volcaniclastic 

sedimentary rock and clastic sandstone 

Vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, traces/1 

101.0 interm

1BLM conditions defined in Section 3.2.4. 

Source: Erathem-Vanir Geological (2008); Love and Christiansen (1985); Tweto (1979). 
Table 3.2-2 Oil and Gas Fields Crossed by the Proposed Route 

Field Name Status State Producing Strata Approximate MP 

Piceance Creek Active Colorado Cretaceous, Tertiary 1.0 – 7.0 

Powell Park Active Colorado Cretaceous, Tertiary 20.0 – 22.0 

Danforth Hills North Active Colorado Jurassic 49.0 – 50.0 

Big Hole Active Colorado Cretaceous 80.0 – 82.0 

State Line Shut-in Wyoming Tertiary 95.0 – 98.0 

Cedar Breaks Active Wyoming Cretaceous 103.0 – 104.0 

Wild Rose Active Wyoming Cretaceous 133.0 – 139.0 

Frewen Active Wyoming Cretaceous 140.0 – 143.0 

Echo Springs Active Wyoming Cretaceous 150.0 – 152 

Sources: DeBruin (2005); Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2008); Wray et al. (2002); Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (2006). 

Table 3.2-3 Oil and Gas Wells within 400 Feet of the Proposed Route 

Milepost 

Distance from Centerline 

(feet) 

Relative Direction 

from Centerline 

0.8 

3.0 

3.3 

3.4 

4.1 

5.2 

20.2 

20.9 

49.2 

49.3 

51.2 

80.0 

81.9 

104.0 

124.2 

124.5 

125.1 

125.1 

125.6 

132.0 

136.9 

138.6

146 

184 

141 

242 

337 

297 

223 

166 

55 

355 

350 

257 

348 

364 

371 

273 

213 

214 

81 

12 

203 

381 

West 

East 

West 

East 

West 

East 

West 

West 

East 

West 

West 

West 

East 

East 

East 

West 

West 

West 

West 

East 

West 

West 

Sources: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2008); Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2008). 

3.2-5 September 2008
3.2-6 September 2008 

active oil shale extraction operations in the vicinity of the Wyoming portion of the proposed Project (Root et al. 

1973; Wyoming Mining Association 2008). There are several sand and gravel pits in the vicinity of the 

proposed route (Table 3.2-4). 

Table 3.2-4 Aggregate Pits in Close Proximity to the Proposed Pipeline Route 

MP 

Location 

(Section, Township, Range) Status 

5.0 – 5.25 NE Section 8, T2S, R96W Intermittent 

16.0 SWSW Section 31, T1S, R95W Active 

57.0 – 58.0 Section 33, T7N, R95W 

Section 4, T6N, R95W 

Undetermined; numerous pits in 

vicinity 

Source: Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (2008). 

An important mineral resource in the Piceance Basin is the sodium carbonate mineral nahcolite, which is 

similar to trona that is mined in the Green River Basin of Wyoming. Sodium carbonate has a variety of 

industrial uses. Nahcolite occurs in association with oil shale and the resource potential in the Piceance Basin 

is estimated at 32 billion tons (Dyni 1996). The proposed route would not cross any active nahcolite mines 

(Guilinger and Keller 2004; Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 2008). The proposed route is 

east of the high-grade nahcolite deposits and is underlain by nahcolite bearing oil shale beds that are less than 

100 feet thick while the thickest nahcoilite bearing beds are up to 1,000 feet thick 6 miles northwest of the 

MP 1.0 (Hardy et al. 2003; Dyni 1996). 

Sodium carbonate mineralization may be present in the members of the Green River Formation that would be 

crossed in the Wyoming portion of the proposed Project, but would be of very low grade as compared to the 

trona further west in the Green River Basin or nahcolite deposits in the Piceance Basin (Dyni 1996). There are 

no mines that extract this commodity along the proposed route in Wyoming (Wyoming Mining Association 

2008). 

3.2.3 Geological Hazards 

Geologic hazards are natural physical conditions that can result in damage to the land and structures, or injury 

to people. Potential geologic hazards in the proposed Project area consist of seismic related hazards, 

landslide, and flooding/scour. The conditions necessary for the occurrence of other geologic hazards, such as 

subsidence and volcanism, are not present in the proposed Project area (Colorado Geological Survey 2001; 

National Atlas 2008). 

3.2.3.1 Seismicity 

Northwest Colorado and south-central Wyoming have historically had little earthquake activity (USGS 2008a; 

Case and Green 2000). The strongest earthquake reported in the proposed Project area occurred on April 5, 

1999, in southwestern Carbon County, about 20 miles southeast of Wamsutter, Wyoming (Case et al. 2002). A 

4.6 magnitude earthquake was felt over a large area of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming. Damage 

consisted of cracked walls and masonry. No potentially active faults were identified near or along the proposed 

route (USGS and Colorado Geological Survey 2008). An active fault is defined as a fault where movement has 

occurred in the last 10,000 years (USGS 2008b). 

The USGS ground motion hazard mapping indicates that potential ground motion hazard in the proposed 

Project area is low to moderate. The hazard map used estimates of peak ground acceleration expressed as a 
percentage of the acceleration of gravity with a 2 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years (Frankel et al. 

1997; USGS 2008c). The ground motion from a large earthquake event in the proposed Project area would 

create ground motions of 20 percent or less of gravity. 

3.2.3.2 Landslides 

Landslide is a term used for various processes involving the movement of earth material down slopes 

(USGS 2004). Landslides can occur in a number of different ways in different geological settings. Large 

masses of earth become unstable and by gravity begin to move downhill. The instability can be caused by a 

combination of steep slopes, periods of high precipitation, undermining of support by natural processes 

(stream erosion), or unintentional undercutting or undermining the strength of unstable materials in the 

construction of roads and structures. 

The proposed Project is located in areas of varying landslide susceptibility and recorded incidence 

(Table 3.2-5). Landslide susceptibility “refers to the likelihood of a landslide occurring in an area on the basis 

of terrain conditions,” but does not take into account the probability of occurrence (National Research 

Council 2004). Incidence is based on the percentage of area involved in movement (low: less than 1.5 percent; 

moderate: 1.5 to 15 percent, and high: more than 15 percent) (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). A segment of the 

proposed route that would cross areas characterized by low incidence and high susceptibility is the Uinta 

Formation where slides and slumps involve the Parachute Creek member (O’Sullivan 1987). An area of 

moderate incidence and low susceptibility that would be crossed by the proposed route is the Tertiary lake bed 

and continental deposits of the Green River and Wasatch Formations (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). In this area, 

beds become unstable due to sliding and flowing, especially during wet conditions. The northern segment of 

the proposed route is in an area that has less relief than the southern portion of the route (MP 0.0 to MP 116.0) 

and potential slope instability is moderated. The proposed route would not cross identified landslide deposits 

(Carrara 1980; Colton et al. 1976; Hail and Pipiringos 1994; Hail and Smith 1994; Roehler 1985; Whitney 

1981; Wyoming Geological Survey 2004). The proposed route would not cross steep slopes where the 

bedrock is the Mancos Shale. 

Table 3.2-5 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Along the Proposed Route 

Pipeline Segment 

(Approximate Mileposts) Landslide Incidence Landslide Susceptibility 

0.0 – 19.0 Low High 

19.0 – 116.0 Low Moderate 

116.0 – 152.0 Low to moderate Low 

Sources: National Atlas (2008); Radbruch-Hall et al. (1982). 

3.2.3.3 Flood Hazards 

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

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

The proposed pipeline route would cross 5 perennial streams and 50 ephemeral drainages, all of which are 

locations where seasonal or flash flooding could occur (Appendix A). 

3.2.3.4 Subsidence 

No ground subsidence or karst hazards are present in the vicinity of the proposed route (Colorado Geological 

Survey 2001; National Atlas 2008). 

3.2-7 September 2008
3.2-8 September 2008 

3.2.4 Paleontological Resources 

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 handbook 

states: 

"Public lands may be classified based on their likelihood to contain fossils, using the following criteria: 

a. 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. 

b. 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. 

c. 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 in order 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.” 

Table 3.2-1 summarizes the paleontologic resource potential and sensitivity of geologic formations crossed by 

the proposed route. The proposed route was surveyed for paleontologic resources (Erathem-Vanir 

Geological 2008). Most of the proposed route is underlain by Condition 1 and 2 formations, indicating a high 

degree of sensitivity for the probability of scientifically important fossils. Eight new fossil localities were 

discovered and a number of previously documented localities were identified. 

3.2.5 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

The surficial geological materials that would be crossed by the GRP Land Re-route Alternative consist of 

recent and older alluvium (Tweto 1979). The bedrock is composed of the Wasatch Formation (Table 3.2.1). 

Only one oil and gas well was identified within 400 feet of the re-route (377 feet east of approximate 

MP ALT-1.2). It was an exploratory well that was plugged and abandoned in 1995 (COGCC 2008). There are 

no gravel pits or other mining activities close to the re-route (Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and 

Safety 2008). There are no geologic hazards due to seismicity, landslides, or subsidence. The potential flood 

hazard would be greater since the re-route would cross 5 more drainages. The paleontological potential would 

be low since the re-route would cross alluvial material at the surface and most likely within the depth of 

excavation. 
3.3-1 September 2008

3.3 Soils 

The soil baseline characterization for the proposed Project route in Colorado is based on Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) database review and analyses. Field mapping methods using national standards are 

used to construct the soil maps in the SSURGO database. Mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 

1:63,360. SSURGO is the most detailed level of soil mapping done by the NRCS. SSURGO digitizing 

duplicates the original soil survey maps. The map extent for a SSURGO dataset is a soil survey area 

(NRCS 2007a). 

Sweetwater and Carbon counties in Wyoming do not have an NRCS correlated soil survey. General Soil Map 

(STATSGO) data are used for those areas where SSURGO data are unavailable. STATSGO data contain 

physical and chemical properties, as well as interpretative grouping for approximately 18,000 soil series 

recognized in the U.S (NRCS 2007b). 

Soil resources within the proposed Project area have formed within the Cool Central Desertic Basins 

Mountains and Plateaus Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 34A (NRCS 2006a). 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 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. 

A variety of soils occur across the proposed Project area. This soil variability stems primarily from a variety of 

parent materials as influenced by topography, aspect, elevation, vegetation, and differential rates of mineral 

weathering. The soils formed from alluvium, residuum, and colluvium parent materials derived from 

sandstones and shales. 

The Rio Blanco County survey area consists of river basins and moderately to steeply sloping mountains. The 

proposed route originates near Piceance Creek. The Piceance Creek basin consists of a nearly level narrow 

valley floor with deep alluvial soils. The valley is bounded by steep, eroded areas of hills, ridges, and canyon 

sides with shallow soils and outcroppings of sandstone, shale, limestone, or siltstone. The White River Valley 

is a broad valley with deep alluvial, often hydric soils. The valley is surrounded by ridges, foothills, and 

mountainsides with shallow to moderately deep soils formed in residuum and colluvium. 

The Moffat County survey area consists of river basins, rolling hills, and moderately to steeply sloping 

mountains. The proposed route crosses two of the rivers within the survey area, the Yampa and Little Snake. 

The Yampa River basin consists of a nearly level broad valley floor with deep alluvial soils and strongly rolling 

hills dissected by numerous creeks. The Little Snake River basin consists of a nearly level valley floor with 

deep alluvial soils and strongly rolling hills dissected by numerous intermittent creeks. Steep breaks are 

common in this basin. The mountainous areas consist of strongly sloping narrow to broad plateaus dissected 

by very steep-sided gulches dropping several hundred feet below the plateaus. 

The Sweetwater County and Carbon County survey areas consist of shrublands on gently rolling to moderately 

steep slopes. The proposed route crosses the Willow and Sand Creek drainages in the south portion of 

Sweetwater County, while avoiding Willow Creek Rim. The proposed route would continue north through 

moderately sloping breaks and gradually transitions to gently rolling hills. 

Appendix B contains a table listing the various soil types within the proposed Project area. The soils proposed 

to be disturbed are developing on a variety of slopes ranging from 1 to 90 percent. Some of these have a 

severe hazard of erosion by water. A propensity for gullying is common to selected soil types within the 
3.3-2 September 2008 

proposed Project area. In Colorado, soil types such as Badland, Gullied Land, and Torrifluvents are typically 

eroded and often unvegetated. Maybell and Ryan Park soils would be encountered in Wyoming and Colorado. 

These soils are droughty and prone to wind erosion when disturbed. Hydric soils may be present on soils 

characterized by swales, floodplains, stream terraces, alluvial fans, alluvial flats, and valley floors. Soils such 

as Hagga are found in Colorado and Wyoming and are poorly drained with a fluctuating water table. A saline 

phase of the Battlement soil would be encountered in Colorado. The soils have saline soil properties, which 

can affect reclamation potential. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS defines prime farmland as land that has the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops and that is available for these uses. It has the 

combination of soil properties, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields 

of crops in an economic manner if it is treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. 

Approximately 207 acres of Prime Farmland would be crossed by the proposed route in Colorado. There 

would be no occurrences of Prime Farmland along the proposed route in Wyoming. 

Topsoil depths in Colorado and Wyoming are listed in Table 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2, respectively. 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, 6 to 12 inches, 12 to 18 inches, 18 to 24 inches, 

and greater than 24 inches. 

Table 3.3-1 Topsoil Depth Along the Proposed Pipeline Route in Colorado (acres) 

Proposed Action County 

0-6 

inches 

6-12 

inches 

12-18 

inches 

18-24 

inches 

>24 

inches 

Permanent Easement Rio Blanco 108.0 62.4 25.8 18.4 10.4 

Temporary Easement Rio Blanco 54.6 31.7 12.6 8.7 5.2 

TWAs Rio Blanco 24.4 23.1 8.4 0.9 5.3 

Permanent Easement Moffat 185.0 134.5 7.6 8.0 16.1 

Temporary Easement Moffat 105.7 67.1 3.8 3.8 7.8 

TWAs Moffat 30.6 26.0 0.7 2.1 8.5 

Totals1 508.3 344.8 58.9 41.9 53.3 

1

Does not include 51.6 acres for an off-ROW existing contractor/pipe yard or 5.5 acres for new and potentially widened access roads. 

Discrepancies in acreage totals are due to rounding. 

Table 3.3-2 Topsoil Depth Along the Proposed Pipeline Route in Wyoming (acres) 

Proposed Action County 

0-6 

inches 

6-12 

inches 

12-18 

inches 

18-24 

inches 

>24 

inches 

Permanent Easement Sweetwater 170.5 100.8 24.1 0.3 19.0 

Temporary Easement Sweetwater 85.2 50.4 12.1 0.1 9.6 

TWAs Sweetwater 36.8 17.3 5.0 0.2 4.3 

Permanent Easement Carbon 21.3 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Temporary Easement Carbon 10.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TWAs Carbon 3.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Totals1 328.1 189.3 41.2 0.6 32.9 

1

Does not include 0.8 acre for potential widening of existing access roads. Discrepancies in acreage totals are due to rounding.
3.3-3 September 2008

Table 3.3-3 and Table 3.3-4 list slope presented as classes based on the aggregate percentages of 

component soil series that are within a particular 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, 

5 to 8 percent, 8 to 15 percent, 15 to 30 percent, and greater than 30 percent slopes. 

Table 3.3-3 Slope Class Along the Proposed Pipeline Route in Colorado (acres) 

Proposed Action County 0-5% 5-8% 8-15% 15-30% >30% 

Permanent Easement Rio Blanco 31.9 34.2 49.9 92.1 16.9 

Temporary Easement Rio Blanco 19.9 17.0 24.6 46.6 8.7 

TWAs Rio Blanco 7.7 8.2 9.3 28.7 8.2 

Permanent Easement Moffat 56.8 151.3 76.1 49.4 17.6 

Temporary Easement Moffat 29.9 82.1 37.2 29.8 9.2 

TWAs Moffat 13.6 26.0 9.1 11.5 7.7 

Totals1 155.8 318.8 206.2 258.1 68.3 

1

Does not include 51.6 acres for an off-ROW existing contractor/pipe yard or 5.5 acres for new and potentially widened access roads. 

Discrepancies in acreage totals are due to rounding. 

Table 3.3-4 Slope Class Along the Proposed Pipeline Route in Wyoming (acres) 

Proposed Action County 0-5% 5-8% 8-15% 15-30% >30% 

Permanent Easement Sweetwater 166.0 0.6 66.1 68.8 13.2 

Temporary Easement Sweetwater 83.0 0.3 33.1 34.4 6.6 

TWAs Sweetwater 27.4 0.2 16.3 16.4 3.3 

Permanent Easement Carbon 32.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 

Temporary Easement Carbon 16.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 

TWAs Carbon 5.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Totals1 332.9 2.8 116.6 119.6 23.1 

1

Does not include 0.8 acre for potential widening of existing access roads. Discrepancies in acreage totals are due to rounding.

3.3.1 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding soil types would be similar to those described for the 

Proposed Action except that it would cross 1.08 additional miles of the Maybell series, 0.45 additional miles of 

the Ryark-Maybell complex, 0.08 additional miles of Torriorthents-Torripsamments complex, and 0.32 fewer 

miles of the Morapos series. Other soil types crossed would be similar to the corresponding segment of the 

Proposed Action with less than 0.02 miles difference. 
3.4-1 September 2008

3.4 Water Resources 

3.4.1 Surface Water 

3.4.1.1 Watersheds and Waterbodies 

The proposed pipeline would be located within two major surface water regions: the Upper Colorado River 

Basin and the Great Divide Basin (Figure 3.4-1). Within the Upper Colorado River Basin, the primary 

waterbodies include the White and Yampa rivers, Piceance Creek (tributary to the White River), and the Little 

Snake River (tributary to the Yampa River). Spring Creek, Deception Creek, Bob Hughes Creek, Strawberry 

Creek, and the Dry Fork of Piceance Creek are additional tributary streams important to surface water 

resources along the proposed pipeline route. The Wyoming portion of the assessment area contains a number 

of small ephemeral or intermittent streams that form tributaries to Muddy Creek, which flows into the Little 

Snake River outside the Project area near Baggs, Wyoming. Table 3.4-1 further describes the watersheds in 

the proposed Project area. 

Table 3.4-1 Watershed Characteristics in the Proposed Project Area 

Regional 

Watershed / 

Sub-basin 

Begin MP / 

End MP General Characteristics 

Stream Gage Location: High 

Flow / Low Flow, 

cubic feet per second (cfs) 1

Upper Colorado River Basin 

White River 0.0 / 36.5 Benches, mesas; cliffs and hillslopes with 

alluvial fans and stream valleys. Areas of 

low relief mix with areas of high relief. 

White River below Meeker: 

1,800 (June) / 336 (January) 

Yampa River 36.5 / 73.5 Rolling sagebrush steppes with cuestas and 

hillslopes; alluvial fans and terraces near 

toeslopes. 

Yampa River near Maybell: 

6,210 (May) / 243 (September) 

Little Snake River 73.5 / 142.4 Rolling sagebrush steppes bordering shaly 

benches and mesas; alluvial fans and gully 

systems below cliffs and hillslopes. 

Little Snake River near Dixon, 

Wyoming: 

2,560 (May) / 27 (October) 

Great Divide Basin 

Closed Basin 142.4 / 152.0 Broad plains with dispersed dry lakes and 

sand dunes, floodplains and terraces, and 

rolling alluvial fans. Streams are 

ephemeral or weakly intermittent. 

Seasonally inundated lakes concentrate 

soluble salts. 

Separation Creek near Riner: 

9.7 (May) / 0.0 (September) 

1

Flow values are monthly averages in cubic feet per second, for the highest average flow month and the lowest average flow month. 

Source: Chapman et al. 2004; Chapman et al. 2006; USGS 2008. 

The Great Divide Basin is a large, enclosed basin (having no external drainage) in southwestern Wyoming. 

Only the proposed ROW immediately south of Wamsutter is located in the Great Divide Basin (Figure 3.4-1). 

The remainder of the project area primarily drains westward to the Green River. Appendix A further lists the 

waterbody crossings along the proposed Project route. 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

64

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

Deception

Creek

Price Creek

White River

Strawberry

Creek

Little Snake River

Piceance Creek

Dry Fork

Piceance Creek

Yampa River

Yampa River

Spring Creek

White River

Yampa River

Sand Creek

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.4-1

Regional Watersheds

and Principal Rivers

0 81 4 6

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Regional Watershed

Great Divide-Upper Green

White-Yampa

Colorado Headwaters

North Platte

3.4-2
3.4-3 September 2008

Based on USGS maps, approximately 60 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project. Of these, 

55 are intermittent or ephemeral. Five perennial stream crossings would include the Little Snake River, Yampa 

River, White River, Piceance Creek, and the Dry Fork of Piceance Creek. Of these, the Dry Fork crossing 

would be a minor crossing (less than 10 feet wide), the Little Snake River, White River, and Piceance Creek 

crossings would be intermediate (between 10 and 100 feet wide), and the Yampa River would be a major 

crossing (over 100 feet wide). There are no impaired waters along the proposed Project, nor are there 

waterbodies designated as Section 10 navigable water under the Rivers and Harbors Act, as defined by 

33 CFR, Section 328. 

The proposed Project closely parallels Spring Creek and Deception Creek at locations immediately upstream 

of the Yampa or White rivers. In addition to the streams, rivers, and other features identified above, a number 

of springs are located near the proposed ROW. These include a series of springs along Strawberry Creek, 

close to the proposed ROW and downgradient of it between MP 30.8 and MP 31.8. A stockpond with a nearby 

area of wetlands or seeps occurs in Coyote Basin, between MP 40.0 and MP 41.0. A spring also is located in 

this vicinity approximately 1 mile to the west, upgradient of the proposed ROW. Further north, the proposed 

ROW closely parallels an ephemeral tributary from approximately MP 44.0 to MP 46.3. The proposed ROW 

then closely parallels Bob Hughes Creek along the toe of a small ridge, from approximately MP 46.3 to 

MP 46.7. From MP 48.3 to MP 52.3, the proposed ROW closely parallels Deception Creek and would cross at 

MP 49.9 and again at MP 52.1, immediately upstream of Dry Lake Reservoir. Spring Creek is located 

alongside the proposed ROW from approximately MP 62.5 to MP 66.0. Barber Spring is located near MP 64.5, 

and Omsted Spring is located along the proposed ROW at MP 65.5. Mayberry Spring is located about 

150 yards upstream of the proposed ROW at MP 78.0, where the pipeline would cross Greasewood Gulch. An 

unnamed spring is located downstream of the gulch, approximately 0.7 mile downgradient of the proposed 

ROW. Clayton Spring is located in a small draw, approximately 0.5 mile east of proposed MP 78.5. 

In Wyoming, Lower Willow Creek Spring borders the stream channel approximately 0.5 mile west of MP 108.4, 

upstream and approximately 100 feet lower than the proposed ROW through the vicinity. Near Courthouse 

Butte, the proposed ROW is located between two parallel ephemeral channels from approximately MP 112.5 

to MP 113.5. These are headwater channels that drain southwestward back to Willow Creek. Dad Dail 

Reservoir and Stratton Springs are located on the other side of the small divide, on South Barrel Springs Draw 

about 1 to 2 miles east of approximately MP 115.3 on the proposed ROW. The proposed ROW is on a higher 

bench through this area, with minimal drainage pathways leading to these water features. From MP 133.0 to 

MP 142.0, the proposed ROW would cross a small enclosed basin with a number of ephemeral tributaries 

leading to dry lakes such as the Red Lakes and other similar features. From approximately MP 145.0 to the 

northern terminus, the proposed ROW would cross ephemeral channels in another enclosed basin. These 

lead to several other dry lakes such as Fivemile Lake. 

In addition to these identifiable features, a number of gully systems occur along the proposed ROW. These are 

particularly common in the eroding tablelands generally between Maybell, Colorado, and approximately 

MP 120.0. 

3.4.1.2 Floodplains 

In Rio Blanco County, Colorado, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified Zone A flood 

hazard areas (100-year, 24-hour regulatory floodplains) in narrow delineations along the proposed ROW at 

Piceance Creek, the Dry Fork of Piceance Creek, the White River, and along Strawberry Creek to slightly 

upstream of Cave Gulch (MP 32.0) (FEMA 2008). In Moffat County, Colorado, and Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, readily available maps depicting Zone A floodplain delineations have not been identified. 

3.4.1.3 Water Supply Watersheds 

The proposed route would not cross any protected public water supply watershed systems. No potable public 

water intakes are located within 3 miles downstream of any of the perennial stream crossings. Drinking water 
3.4-4 September 2008 

sources at Maybell (downstream of the proposed Yampa River crossing) consist entirely of privately owned 

domestic wells (Poirot 2005). Based on review of USGS topographic maps, the proposed pipeline route would 

cross one aqueduct in Colorado at about MP 60.9. 

No waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline route receive effluent from municipal or industrial 

wastewater treatment facilities within a 3-mile radius of the proposed crossing locations (USEPA 2004). 

3.4.1.4 Sediment Contamination 

The proposed pipeline route would not cross any watersheds containing areas of probable concern for 

sediment contamination (USEPA 2004). Additionally, none of the waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route are known to contain contaminated sediments (Vranka 2004; Parker 2004). 

3.4.2 Groundwater 

The proposed Project would be located within the Sand Wash Basin of northwestern Colorado and the 

Washakie Basin of Wyoming, sub-basins of the Wyoming Basin physiographic province (Thornbury 1965). 

The Project also would lie within the Colorado Plateaus physiographic province. The major water bearing 

formations underlying the proposed Project area are part of the Colorado Plateaus aquifer system 

(Thornbury 1965; Whitehead 1996) and the Upper Colorado River Basin Aquifer System (Whitehead 1996). 

The Colorado Division of Water Resources well permit database indicates that there are approximately 

2,157 bedrock aquifer wells of record in the Sand Wash Basin. Records indicate that 90 percent of the water 

supply wells in the basin are 500 feet or less in depth. The average well depth is 245 feet, and the deepest 

well of record is 3,000 feet below ground surface (bgs). 

Aquifers within the proposed project area consist mainly of consolidated sedimentary bedrock formations. 

Figure 3.4-2 illustrates the locations of major water-bearing geologic formations that would underlie the 

proposed Project. Some of these aquifers overlap each other at varying depths. In addition to sedimentary 

rocks, narrow stream-laid deposits of sands and gravels form alluvial groundwater sources along major 

drainages. Significant alluvial aquifers occur along the Yampa and White rivers and Strawberry Creek. Alluvial 

aquifers also occur along the Little Snake River and Spring Creek, both tributaries to the Yampa River. Depth 

to water is shallow in these aquifer zones (often less than 20 feet). Water quality varies, but is typically suitable 

for domestic and agricultural uses. 

Along the proposed Project route, primarily in Moffat County, Colorado, near the southeastern margins of the 

Washakie Basin, relatively small yields are supplied by aquifer zones of the Laney Member of the Green River 

Formation (Whitehead 1996; FERC 2005b). The Laney aquifer is the uppermost aquifer present locally in the 

Colorado Plateau Aquifer system. This aquifer consists of fractured sandstone beds assigned to the Laney 

Member of the Green River Formation. The sandstone beds of the uppermost Laney Member yield sufficient 

water for domestic and livestock-watering supplies. Water in the Laney aquifer is fresh to slightly saline. 

The Wasatch Formation is the primary source of water to wells along the proposed Project route. A member of 

the Colorado Plateau aquifer system, the Tertiary-age Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer is the uppermost regional 

aquifer in the Sand Wash Basin. Depth to groundwater varies, but it is often under 200 feet bgs. Wells in the 

valley bottoms, west of the Little Snake River, indicate that water levels in the Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer are 

at or near land surface. East of the Little Snake, water levels in the Wasatch zone are generally below the land 

surface by several to 100 feet (Whitehead 1996). Reported well-yield values range from a few tenths of a 

gallon per minute (gpm) to 2,700 gpm. Ninety percent of the water-supply wells of record have a reported yield 

of 18 gpm or less, suggesting these wells are intended for domestic or livestock purposes. Hydraulic 

conductivities for the Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer range from 0.02 to 938 feet per day, based on aquifer pump 

tests (Whitehead 1996). 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

64

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

Deception

Creek

Price Creek

White River

Strawberry

Creek

Little Snake River

Piceance Creek

Dry Fork

Piceance Creek

Yampa River

Yampa River

Spring Creek

White River

Yampa River

Sand Creek

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.4-2

Major Waterbearing

Formations

0 4 8 16

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Waterbearing Formations

Aquifer Name

Colorado Plateaus aquifers

Confining unit

Paleozoic aquifers

Upper Tertiary aquifers

3.4-5
3.4-6 September 2008 

Published water quality data for the Sand Wash Basin are minimal. Glover et al. (1998) indicate that the total 

dissolved solids (TDS) in the recharge areas for the Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer are less than 500 milligrams 

per liter (mg/l), but concentrations increase down the flow paths. Based on this interpretation, good water 

quality should exist along the western and eastern margins of the basin, with increasing TDS toward the Little 

Snake River (Whitehead 1996). 

South of the Yampa River, sandstones of the Browns Park Formation also yield water. On a regional basis 

within Colorado, these units have been grouped with the Mesa Verde aquifer system (Robson and Banta 

1995; FERC 2005b). In the Piceance Basin of Rio Blanco County and southern Moffat County, the Uinta 

Formation and the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation contain the major aquifer zones. 

Regionally, these are part of the Uinta-Animas aquifer system (Robson and Banta 1995; FERC 2005b). 

Intergranular spaces in these rocks have mostly been filled with bicarbonate cements, but numerous fractures 

produce substantial permeability. Dissolved solids concentrations in the upper part of the aquifer range from 

500 to over 1,000 mg/l. 

Springs are known to occur along the southern half of the proposed route, and would likely occur at isolated 

locations in the northern portion as well. A number of these are located in or adjacent to alluvial deposits, at 

the intersection of the channel and groundwater flow within the stream terrace system. Others occur on 

hillsides at a distance upgradient from the proposed route. Springs in these locations are not likely to be 

affected by construction practices. The two closest mapped springs occur at MP 64.5 and MP 65.5, the Barber 

and the Omsted springs, respectively. Both springs are more than 2,000 feet from the centerline. 

3.4.3 Wetlands 

Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S., such as streams, also are considered to be waters of the U.S. 

In addition, and as used herein, the term “wetlands” has a regulatory definition as defined in 33 CFR 328, 7(b). 

The term “wetland” is defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, 

bogs and similar areas.” Note that the frequency and duration of saturation may vary by geographical region, 

and is largely dependent upon local climatic conditions. 

Riparian areas form a 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. 

Based on field wetland surveys in Colorado and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) analysis in Wyoming 

(Table 3.4-2), wetlands occupy approximately 7.7 acres of the proposed pipeline ROW. Based on field 

surveys there are approximately 5.2 acres of wetlands along the proposed pipeline ROW in Colorado (West 

Water Engineering [WWE] 2008). The NWI analysis for Wyoming identified approximately 2.5 acres of 

wetlands in Sweetwater and Carbon counties. None of the proposed aboveground facilities are located within 

wetlands surveyed by OPPC. 

Further field studies completed in the summer of 2008 and submitted after this EA was distributed to the public 

indicated that the pipeline would potentially cross a total of 29 wetlands. These included 20 previously 

delineated wetlands from the WIC Piceance and Entrega pipeline projects. The remaining 9 wetlands will be 

delineated by OPPC biologists prior to submission of the data to the USACE for 401/404 permitting. Most 

wetlands identified within the pipeline corridor and ancillary facilities are associated with perennial streams and 

springs. Wetlands within or adjacent to the proposed pipeline corridor are relatively small, and range in size 

from less than 0.1 acre to approximately 1.0 acre. 
Wetland vegetation communities occurring along the proposed Project area include emergent wetland 

communities. The most common type of wetland along the proposed Project area is emergent wet meadow. 

Emergent wetlands are dominated by rooted herbaceous vegetation. Common water sources for wetland 

communities include sub-irrigation in alluvial settings, springs at surface/bedrock interfaces, seepage from 

ditches and canals, irrigation runoff, and ponding in concave topography. 

Table 3.4-2 Summary of Wetland Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State /County 

Wetland 

Classification Milepost Acres 

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco PEM 18.8 0.6 

PEM 19.3 1.0 

PEM 31.5 0.6 

PEM 32.5 0.2 

 Moffat PEM 38.9 0.01 

PEM 40.8 0.2 

PEM 41.3 0.4 

PEM 46.1 0.2 

 PEM 59.2 0.1 

PEM 77.8 0.3 

PEM 93.6 0.2 

PEM 59.5 1.0 

PEM 83.5 0.4 

Colorado Total 5.2 

Wyoming 

 Sweetwater PEM 105.2 0.3 

PEM 107.6 0.3 

PEM 143.6 0.1 

PEM 143.8 1.1 

PEM 143.9 0.7 

Wyoming Total 2.5 

Total 7.7 

3.4.4 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Water resources along the GRP Land Re-route Alternative are similar to those described for the Proposed 

Action. Six ephemeral streams would be crossed by the alternative route; all of which are small streams that 

are headwater tributaries to Bighole Gulch. Similar to the ephemeral streams listed near MP 88 for the 

3.4-7 September 2008
3.4-8 September 2008 

Proposed Action in Appendix A, Table A-1, the beneficial use of these six tributaries is Aquatic Life Cold 2 

(not capable of sustaining coldwater biota), Recreation 2 (suitable for wading or other streamside activities), 

and agriculture (including livestock watering). 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding groundwater would be the same as described for the 

Proposed Action. 
3.5-1 September 2008

3.5 Vegetation 

3.5.1 Vegetation Communities 

Five general vegetation communities characterize the proposed Project area: shrub-scrub, woodlands, 

agricultural land, grassland, and wetlands. Figure 3.5-1 depicts the distribution of these vegetation 

communities throughout the vicinity of the proposed Project and a general description of each is presented in 

Table 3.5-1. 

Table 3.5-1 Vegetation Communities Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Vegetation Type Sub-Community Common Species 

Shrub-scrub Sagebrush big sagebrush, black sagebrush, sand sagebrush, broom 

snakeweed, rabbitbrush, prickly pear, mountain mahogany, 

horsebrush, spiny hopsage, ephedra, saltbush, Indian ricegrass, 

needle and thread grass, western wheatgrass, Great Basin 

wildrye, crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass, and yarrow 

Salt desert scrub/ 

greasewood 

greasewood, saltbush, spiny hopsage, budsage, winterfat, and 

western wheatgrass 

Foothill shrub-scrub mountain mahogany, scrub oak (Gambel oak), serviceberry, 

mountain snowberry, western wheatgrass, and elk sedge 

Woodlands Pinyon-juniper 

woodland 

Colorado pinyon pine, Utah juniper, one-seed juniper, Rocky 

Mountain juniper, big sagebrush, black sagebrush, mountain 

mahogany, snakeweed, bitterbrush, little rabbitbrush, Sandberg 

bluegrass, needle and thread grass, Indian ricegrass, squirreltail, 

western wheatgrass, stemless golden weed, oval buckwheat, 

yellow-eye cryptantha, scarlet gilia, dwarf cateye, brittle prickly 

pear, claretcup, and heartleaf twistflower 

Agriculture Pasture/hay/ 

orchard 

irrigated hay and alfalfa fields, livestock feeding areas, 

horticultural areas 

Grassland Sagebrush steppe big sagebrush, black sagebrush, broom snakeweed, rabbitbrush, 

prickly pear, mountain mahogany, ephedra, fourwing saltbush, 

winterfat, blue grama, bottlebrush squirreltail, Indian ricegrass, 

needle and thread grass, western wheatgrass, cheatgrass, Great 

Basin wildrye, yarrow, viscid rabbitbrush, and mountain 

snowberry 

Wetlands Emergent baltic rush, inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, sedges, bluejoint 

reedgrass, and bent grass 

Scrub-shrub willow, thinleaf alder, river birch, and red-osier dogwood 

Littoral/playa Due to their ephemeral nature, the entire composition of these 

wetlands can change over short periods of time 

Shoreline and 

aquatic bed 

narrowleaf cottonwood, salt cedar, willow, thinleaf alder, river 

birch, red-osier dogwood, wild rose, serviceberry, and snow berry 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

64

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.5-1

Vegetation

Land Cover

0 81 4 6

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Land Cover

Agricultural Land

Forest Land

Grassland

Other (Barren, Developed)

Shrublands

Wetlands

3.5-2
3.5-3 September 2008

The two predominant vegetation communities that would occur in the proposed Project area are shrubland and 

woodland, comprising 72 and 15 percent of the vegetated lands based on miles crossed, respectively 

(Table 3.5-2). 

Table 3.5-2 Vegetation Cover Types Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Vegetation Cover Types Miles Crossed 

Shrub-scrub 109.9 

Woodlands 22.5 

Agricultural Land 10.4 

Grasslands 7.9 

Wetlands 1.5 

Total 152.2 

Source: CDOW 1998; WYGAP 1996. 

3.5.1.1 Shrub-scrub 

Shrubland accounts for approximately 72 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. 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 sub community occurs along the length of the proposed Project, 

extending from Colorado into Wyoming on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains. 

3.5.1.2 Woodlands 

Woodlands occur along approximately 15 percent of the proposed pipeline route. Woodland sub-communities 

include pinyon-juniper and riparian woodland. Colorado pinyon pine and Utah juniper dominate the 

pinyon-juniper woodland plant community. The pinyon-juniper sub-community is highly competitive and 

supports a highly variable understory. The pinyon component of this sub-community increases at higher 

elevations. The riparian woodland sub-community occurs adjacent to surface waters and is characterized by 

the presence of narrow leaf cottonwood and willow. 

3.5.1.3 Agriculture 

Agricultural land occurs along approximately 7 percent of the proposed pipeline route. This community is 

primarily comprised of irrigated hay and alfalfa fields. These areas are used primarily for livestock grazing. 

3.5.1.4 Grassland 

Grassland occurs along approximately 5 percent of the proposed pipeline route, with sagebrush steppe being 

the dominant sub-community. Sagebrush steppe is semi-closed steppe characterized by an overstory of 

sagebrush and understory of grasses, forbs, and smaller shrubs. Grass species comprise more than 
3.5-4 September 2008 

50 percent of the species composition in this community; big sagebrush is the dominant shrub component 

throughout. 

3.5.1.5 Wetlands 

Wetlands occur along less than 1 percent of the proposed pipeline route. Wetlands crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route are discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.3. 

3.5.2 Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds are most prevalent in areas of prior surface disturbance, such as agricultural areas, roadsides, 

existing utility ROWs, and wildlife or livestock concentration areas. Prevention of the introduction or spread of 

noxious and invasive weeds is a high priority to federal, state, and county agencies. Under EO 13112 (FR 

1999), Invasive Species, 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 will be taken in conjunction with the actions. 

The terms “noxious weed” and “invasive weed” are often used interchangeably to describe any plant that is 

unwanted and grows or spreads aggressively. The term “noxious weed” is legally defined under both federal 

and state laws. Under the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 

[7 USC 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” (Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 2000). The Federal Plant Protection Act contains a list of 137 federally restricted and regulated 

noxious weeds, as per CFR Title 7, Chapter III, Part 360, including 19 aquatic and wetland weeds, 62 parasitic 

weeds, and 56 terrestrial weeds. Each state is federally mandated to uphold the rules and regulations set forth 

by this act and manage their lands accordingly. 

In addition to federal noxious weed lists, each state crossed by the proposed project maintains a list of 

regulated and prohibited noxious and invasive weed species. Colorado regulates noxious and invasive species 

through the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, which classifies noxious weeds into three lists, A, B, and C (35 CRS 

5.5 101-119). Each list has specific control requirements, with the most stringent requirements for those 

species found on List A. Only List A species are required by law to be controlled (Colorado Department of 

Agriculture 2007). County weed control boards or districts are present in most counties crossed by the analysis 

areas. These county weed control boards monitor local weed infestations and provide guidance on weed 

control. The species that are managed and regulated by the state and county agencies are included in 

Appendix C. 

The three BLM field offices also provided lists of noxious weed species having the potential to occur along the 

proposed ROW (Appendix C). The BLM tries to manage and control the spread of these species. In total, 

there are 20 species included on these lists, of which 14 may occur in the proposed Project area in Colorado 

and 16 may potentially occur within the proposed Project area in Wyoming. 

The states of Colorado and Wyoming also maintain similar, but not identical, lists of designated noxious weed 

species (Appendix C). In total, there are 42 noxious weed species that potentially occur within the proposed 

Project area in Colorado and 24 noxious weed species that potentially occur within the proposed Project area 

in Wyoming. 

Additionally, field surveys were conducted for noxious weeds in 2007 (WWE 2008) and the findings are 

summarized in Appendix C. 
3.5-5 September 2008

3.5.3 Special Status Plant Species 

In light of potential environmental consequences to special status plant species, a detailed analysis including 

historical occurrences within the region as well as a geologic and soil analysis of the proposed route was 

conducted to determine if sensitive plant species would be affected by the proposed Project. 

In accordance with the Section 7 of the ESA, the lead agency (in this case, the BLM), in coordination with the 

USFWS must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out 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. For the purpose of complying with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, BLM 

initiated informal consultation with the USFWS on February 8, 2008. 

In addition, as stated in Special Status Species Management, BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2001), 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 18 sensitive plant species were originally identified as potentially occurring within the proposed 

Project area. These species, their associated habitats, and their potential for occurrence along the proposed 

route are summarized in Appendix D. Occurrence potential along the proposed route was evaluated for each 

species based on its habitat requirements and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, six BLM 

sensitive species (park rockcress, ephedra buckwheat, Utah genetian, narrow-leaf evening primrose, Rollins 

cryptanth, and Western prairie-fringed orchid) were eliminated from detailed analysis. The rationale for 

eliminating these species from further analysis is summarized in Appendix D. 

Several of the threatened, endangered, and special status (TESS) plant species listed in the tables are only 

associated with habitats found in specific geological formations. Two federally listed plants species, Dudley 

Bluffs bladderpod, and Dudley Bluffs twinpod, and one BLM sensitive plant species, Piceance bladderpod, are 

found only in the white shale outcrops of the Green River Formation at elevations between 6,000 to 8,600 feet. 

Potential habitat for these plants exists in PL Gulch, Dry Fork of Piceance Creek, Hay Gulch near the White 

River, and the Little Snake River. Other TESS plants that potentially could be found in the proposed Project 

area are less restricted to geologic formations but are strongly associated with certain habitat types. One 

federally listed plant species, Ute ladies’-tresses, and three BLM sensitive plant species, many-stemmed 

spider-flower, persistent sepal yellowcress, and Ownbey’s thistle, are often found in riparian or semi-moist 

environments. The remaining BLM sensitive plant species that potentially could be expected in the proposed 

Project area (Nelson milkvetch, Gibben’s penstemon, and contracted Indian ricegrass) are plants generally 

associated with drier environments found in the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper plant communities. 

3.5.4 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding vegetation would be similar to that described for the 

Proposed Action. However, the GRP Land Re-route Alternative would occur in areas where the vegetation 

communities have not been recently disturbed through construction activities, whereas the Proposed Action 

route would occur in areas where the vegetation communities have been recently affected by pipeline 

construction and revegetation activities. During the biological surveys conducted in 2008, the only noxious 

weed observed in the vicinity of the alternative route was scattered cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) located 

throughout the proposed alternative corridor; no special status plants were observed along the alternative 

route. The presence of sparse cheatgrass in the vicinity is common throughout the landscape and is likely to 

occur in the re-route area. 
3.6 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

3.6.1 Wildlife 

The predominant wildlife habitats along the proposed pipeline route consist of shrub-scrub (sagebrush, salt 

desert shrub/greasewood, mountain mahogany), woodlands (pinyon-juniper, riparian), agricultural land, 

grassland (sagebrush steppe, mixed grass prairie, short-grass prairie), and wetlands. These vegetation types 

support a diversity of wildlife species and are discussed in detail in Section 3.5.1, Vegetation. This section 

focuses on species of high economic and/or recreational importance and those that are considered sensitive 

to human disturbance. 

3.6.1.1 Big Game 

The primary big game species that occur within the proposed Project area are elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. 

White-tailed deer also could be present. Certain habitat ranges for these species are considered crucial for 

maintenance of game populations. In Wyoming, WGFD and the BLM have established several categories 

based on seasonal use of the habitat. For example, severe winter range areas are considered essential in 

determining a game population's ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the long term. These areas may 

not usually be a part of a herd's range, but are used as survival areas during extremely harsh winters when no 

alternative ranges or habitats are available. Likewise, the CDOW has identified severe winter ranges for elk, 

mule deer, and pronghorn in Colorado. 

Elk inhabit a variety of habitats along the proposed Project route including grassland, shrubland, coniferous 

forests, aspen, and, to a lesser extent, agriculture and pastureland. Approximately 29.4 miles of severe winter 

range for elk would be crossed by the proposed Project route in Moffat County in western Colorado. No elk 

severe winter range would be crossed in Rio Blanco County. One severe winter range area of particular 

importance along the proposed Project route was identified by the CDOW. This area occurs from the north end 

of the Deception Creek Canyon in Moffat County through the Spring Creek Canyon, north of the Yampa River. 

A considerable portion of this critical area is located on the Bitter Brush SWA. No elk severe winter range 

would be crossed by the proposed Project route in Wyoming. 

Mule deer occur throughout the majority of the proposed Project region, inhabiting virtually all vegetation types, 

but reach the greatest densities in shrublands on rough, broken terrain, which provides abundant browse and 

cover habitat. Approximately 24.0 miles of severe winter range for mule deer would be crossed by the 

proposed Project ROW in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties in Colorado, including one important winter range, 

as described above for elk. In addition, approximately 3.5 miles of crucial winter range would be crossed by 

the proposed Project route in Sweetwater County in southern Wyoming. 

Pronghorn are generally found in prairie grassland and semi-desert shrubland habitats on flat to rolling terrain 

with good visibility. They are most abundant in short- or mid-grass prairies and are least common in xeric 

habitats. Approximately 12.3 miles of severe winter range for pronghorn would be crossed by the proposed 

Project route in Moffat County in western Colorado, including one important wintering area, as described 

above for elk. In addition, approximately 4.5 miles of crucial winter range would be crossed by the proposed 

Project route in Sweetwater County in southern Wyoming. The proposed route crosses pronghorn migration 

corridors at MP 93.3, MP 122.34, and MP 127.66. 

3.6.1.2 State Wildlife Areas 

In Colorado, the proposed pipeline route would cross two SWAs: the Piceance Creek SWA and Bitter Brush 

SWA (both owned by the CDOW). The Piceance Creek SWA would be crossed by the proposed pipeline at 

two locations in the area immediately south of the White River (MP 11.8 to MP 12.5 and MP 13.0 to MP 15.9). 

The Bitter Brush SWA is located along Deception Creek, south of the Yampa River (MP 55.0 to MP 58.0 and 

MP 58.3 to MP 58.9). Both of these SWAs constitute a portion of the big game severe winter range areas 

3.6-1 September 2008 
3.6-2 September 2008 

described above. No Wildlife Habitat Management Areas would be crossed by the proposed route in 

Wyoming. State lands are discussed further in Section 3.7, Land Use. 

The Piceance Creek SWA was purchased by the CDOW to provide hunting opportunities and winter range for 

deer and elk. The Piceance Creek SWA contains suitable habitat for nesting raptors (including American 

peregrine falcon, eagles, and northern goshawk), sage-grouse, and mountain plover. The SWA also provides 

potentially suitable habitat for special status plant species such as Piceance bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs 

bladderpod, narrow-stem gilia, Dudley Bluffs twinpod (a.k.a. Piceance twinpod), and Ute ladies’-tresses 

(FERC 2005b). 

Small Game Species

Small game species that occur within the proposed Project area include upland game birds, waterfowl, 

furbearers, and other small mammals. Furbearers include beaver, muskrat, mink, badger, bobcat, coyote, and 

red fox. Small game species include greater sage-grouse, mourning dove, white-tailed jackrabbit, desert 

cottontail, Nuttall's cottontail, and a number of migratory waterfowl. The greater sage-grouse is considered the 

most sensitive small game species along the proposed Project route and is discussed further as a special 

status species in Appendix D. 

Nongame Species

A diverse number 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. Common wildlife 

species include small mammals such as bats, voles, squirrels, gophers, prairie dogs, woodrats, and mice. 

These small mammals provide a substantial prey base for predators in the area including larger mammals 

(coyote, badger, bobcat), raptors (eagles, buteos, accipiters, owls), and reptiles (FERC 2005a,b). 

Raptors and Other Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1981, as amended (16 USC 

Section 703-712) and EO 13186 (FR 2001). The MBTA serves to protect migratory birds from deleterious 

impacts. EO 13186 was enacted to, among other things, ensure that environmental analyses of federal actions 

evaluate the impacts of actions and agency plans on migratory birds. 

Other elements of EO 13186 state that the federal agency should restore and enhance the habitat for 

migratory birds and abate the detrimental alteration of the environment from pollution. EO 13186 also states 

that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. Federally listed 

and other sensitive bird species are discussed in Section 3.6.3. 

Migratory birds are considered integral to natural communities and act as environmental indicators based on 

their sensitivity to environmental changes caused by human activities. Some of the more visible bird species 

that occur within the proposed Project region are lark bunting, Brewer's sparrow, and chipping sparrow. 

Migratory bird species that use the shrub-scrub habitat type for nesting along the proposed Project route 

include Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher (FERC 2005b). 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 (FERC 2005b). 

Representative raptor species that occur as residents or migrants within the proposed Project region include 

eagles (bald and golden eagles), buteos (red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, ferruginous hawk), falcons 

(peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, American kestrel), accipiters (northern goshawk, Cooper's hawk, 

sharp-shinned hawk), owls (great-horned owl, burrowing owl, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, northern 

saw-whet owl), the northern harrier, and the turkey vulture. In order to assess current nest activity, OPPC 
conducted raptor breeding surveys for the proposed Project during July and August 2007 and April and May of 

2008 (WWE 2008). The bald eagle, golden eagle, northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, ferruginous hawk, 

prairie falcon, and burrowing owl are discussed in detail in Appendix D. 

The breeding raptor surveys were conducted to identify occupied territories or active nest sites located within 

0.5 mile of the outside edge of the proposed construction ROW. Based on the results of the year 2007 and 

2008 breeding raptor surveys, a total of 25 active nest sites (Colorado – 20, Wyoming – 5) were documented 

within 1 mile of the proposed route. The active nest sites were occupied by red-tailed hawk (10), golden eagle 

(2), burrowing owls (1), American kestrel (2), bald eagle (2), Cooper’s hawk (1), Swainson’s hawk (1), 

Sharp-shinned hawk (1), and great-horned owl (2); three nests were not identified to the species level. 

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

The proposed Project route would cross five waterbodies that support fisheries, including one that supports 

warmwater fisheries and four that support coldwater fisheries (Table 3.6-1). These fisheries are all in 

Colorado; no waterbodies that support fisheries would be crossed in Wyoming. No waterbodies are present 

within the boundaries of the proposed aboveground facilities; thus, there would be no impacts on fisheries at 

these locations. 

Table 3.6-1 Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Project 

Waterbody Milepost 

Fishery 

Classification 

Maximum 

Crossing 

Width 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

Piceance Creek 0.28 Coldwater 25 Open Cut 

Dry Fork Piceance Creek 12.01 Coldwater <10 Dry Crossing 

White River 19.31 Coldwater 75 HDD 

Yampa River 59.53 Warmwater 140 HDD 

Little Snake River 93.61 Coldwater 40 HDD 

Sources. FERC 2005a,b; CH2M Hill Trigon, Inc. 2008.

Waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project contain a variety of game and nongame fish 

species (CDOW 2008a; FERC 2005a,b; USFWS 2004a). Representative game fish species that occur in the 

vicinity of the proposed crossing of the Yampa River include smallmouth bass, channel catfish, and northern 

pike. Other non-game fish species having the potential to occur in the Yampa River near the proposed pipeline 

route include carp, fathead minnow, speckled dace, redside shiner, and bluehead sucker. Representative 

game species that occur in the White River include mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, brown trout, northern 

pike, channel catfish, and green sunfish. The Little Snake River supports a limited number of mountain 

whitefish and rainbow trout east of the proposed crossing below Baggs, Wyoming (FERC 2005b). Dry Fork 

Piceance Creek supports brook trout in non-drought years. Representative non-game species that occupy the 

White River, Little Snake River, Piceance Creek, and Dry Fork Piceance Creek include roundtail chub, 

speckled dace, redside shiner, mountain sucker, and flannelmouth sucker. The bluehead sucker, mountain 

sucker, roundtail chub, and flannelmouth sucker are discussed in detail in Section 3.6.3, Special Status 

Wildlife Species. 

3.6.3 Special Status Wildlife 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 

3.6-3 September 2008 
3.6-4 September 2008 

species that are protected under the ESA, as amended, or are considered as candidates for such listing by the 

USFWS, and those species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered. For this EA, special status 

species also include those species that have been designated by the BLM as sensitive. 

3.6.3.1 Terrestrial Animals 

A total of 37 sensitive terrestrial species (mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) were originally identified 

as potentially occurring within the proposed Project area. These species, their associated habitats, and their 

potential for occurrence along the proposed Project route are summarized in Appendix D. Occurrence 

potential along the proposed Project route was evaluated for each species based on its habitat requirements 

and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, six species (swift fox, yellow-billed cuckoo, Mexican 

spotted owl, trumpeter swan, Baird’s sparrow, and boreal toad) were eliminated from detailed analysis (see 

Appendix D for rationale). The proposed Project would not affect these six species. 

Northwestern Colorado has the largest population of greater sage-grouse in Colorado, containing 

approximately two-thirds of the sage-grouse counted in Colorado each year. Sagebrush habitats in northwest 

Colorado provide the largest concentration of high priority sagebrush habitat in the state. In fall 2007, CDOW 

defined core habitat areas for sage grouse in Colorado by considering factors such as proximity to leks, 

density of males on leks, and sagebrush patch size. These core areas, also referred to as high priority 

habitats, are the most critical to sage grouse and presumably other sagebrush obligates (CDOW 2008c).

3.6.3.2 Fish Species 

Nine sensitive fish species were originally identified as potentially occurring within the Project area. These 

species, their associated habitats, and their potential for occurrence along the proposed Project route are 

summarized in Appendix D. The potential for occurrence at proposed stream crossings and downstream 

reaches was evaluated for each species based on its habitat requirements and/or known distribution. The 

proposed Project would cross designated critical habitat for the federally listed Colorado pikeminnow at the 

Yampa River crossing. This species has been found within the immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing in 

recent years by the CDOW (CDOW 2008b). The federally listed bonytail chub, humpback chub, and razorback 

sucker do not occur in the proposed Project area but are included in our detailed analysis based on potential 

water depletion activities (i.e., hydrostatic testing) associated with the proposed Project in the Colorado River 

Drainage (USFWS 2008). The closest occupied habitat for these three species is located at the following 

approximate distances downstream of the proposed crossings: 30 to 40 river miles downstream of the Yampa 

River crossing (razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub); 70 river miles downstream of the White 

River crossing (razorback sucker); and at least 30 river miles downstream of the Little Snake River crossing 

(razorback sucker) (FERC 2005a,b). 

3.6.4 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

The GRP Land Re-route Alternative proposes an alternative route for the pipeline through an area designated 

by CDOW as “core sage-grouse habitat” (CDOW 2008c). The proposed re-route travels within 0.6 miles of an 

active sage-grouse lek. The Proposed Action route travels through previously disturbed habitat that has 

already impacted local wildlife populations. Other than this distinction, given the relative proximity of the GRP 

Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the Proposed Action, the affected environment 

regarding wildlife, aquatic resources, and special status species would be the similar to that described for the 

Proposed Action. 
3.7-1 September 2008

3.7 Land Use, Recreation, Visual Resources 

3.7.1 Land Ownership 

Approximately 53 percent (81.1 miles) of the land crossed by the proposed Project is managed or owned by 

public entities. The remaining 47 percent (approximately 71.1 miles) crosses privately owned land. Of the 

public land total, the majority is federal land managed by the BLM, while a smaller percentage is owned and 

managed by the states. Figure 3.7-1 depicts the land ownership in the Project vicinity and Table 3.7-1

summarizes land ownership that would be crossed by the Proposed Action. 

Table 3.7-1 Summary of Land Ownership Crossed by the Proposed Project (miles) 

State/Ownership Federal State Private Total 

Colorado 28.5 7.8 58.7 95.0 

Wyoming 43.8 1.0 12.4 57.2 

Project Total 72.3 8.8 71.1 152.2 

Federal lands managed by the BLM and crossed by the proposed route in Colorado are managed by two BLM 

field offices: the WRFO in Meeker, Colorado, and LSFO in Craig, Colorado. These lands are managed 

according to the guidelines outlined in the RMPs for these two field offices. These guidelines manage these 

lands for multiple uses as described above (BLM 1989, 1997). State-owned land in Colorado crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route is managed for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, or leased to private tenants for 

livestock grazing. Some state lands designated as special interest areas are discussed in Section 3.7.3. 

The federal lands managed by the BLM crossed by the proposed route in Wyoming are managed by the RFO 

in Rawlins, Wyoming. In general, the BLM manages these lands for multiple uses, including recreation, wildlife 

management, livestock grazing, wild horses, and mineral resources under guidelines set forth in the Rawlins 

RMP (BLM 2008a). Some federal lands designated as special interest areas are managed by the BLM as 

listed in Section 3.7.3. 

3.7.2 Existing Land Uses 

Land use types crossed by the proposed Project were assigned a land use classification using GAP Land 

Cover descriptions (CDOW 1998; WY GAP 1996). The proposed Project would cross four land use types: 

rangeland, agriculture, forest, and wetlands. A summary of miles crossed by the proposed route for each land 

use type is provided in Table 3.7-2. 

3.7.2.1 Rangeland 

Rangeland constitutes the predominant land use type that would be crossed by the proposed Project 

(117.8 miles; 77 percent). Of this, 59.9 miles of rangeland are on federal land managed by the BLM. 

Rangeland includes grasslands, pasture, livestock grazing areas, and shrublands. Grazing is permitted in 

specific allotments managed by the BLM or private landowners (Table 3.7-3). In Colorado, the BLM-managed 

grazing allotments are used for grazing cattle, sheep and horses (BLM 2007b). On the Wyoming 

BLM-managed lands, grazing consists primarily of cattle and sheep, with some horse and bison (BLM 2008a). 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

64

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.7-1

Land Ownership

0 4 8 16

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

National Park Service

Private

State Lands

3.7-2
3.7-3 September 2008

Table 3.7-2 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Project (miles) 

Rangeland1 Agricultural2 Forest3 Wetlands4 Total Miles 

State/County Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other 

Colorado 

Rio Blanco 4.4 8.2 0.1 8.1 9.6 6.4 0.0 0.0 14.1 22.7 

Moffat 13.1 36 0.2 2.1 0.5 4.5 0.5 1.0 14.3 43.6 

Subtotal 17.5 44.2 0.3 10.2 10.1 10.9 0.5 1.0 28.4 66.3 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 39.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 11.5 

Carbon 3.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.2 

Subtotal 42.4 13.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.8 13.7 

Project Total 59.9 57.9 0.3 10.2 11.5 10.9 0.5 1.0 72.2 80.0 

1

Rangeland consists of grasslands, pasture, livestock grazing areas, and shrublands. 

2

Agricultural land consists of irrigated and dry land crop fields and related facilities. 

3

Forest land consists mainly of non-agricultural wooded uplands. 

4

The values 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. 

Sources: CDOW 1998; WY GAP 1996. 

Table 3.7-3 BLM Grazing Allotments Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State/County 

Approximate Crossing 

Length (miles) 

Number of Grazing 

Allotments Total AUMs1

Colorado 

Rio Blanco 24.2 12 119,610 

Moffat 57.6 36 13,973 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 51.9 10 10,300 

Carbon 5.6 1 2,680 

1

Includes Animal Unit Months (AUMs) on private and state lands. 
3.7-4 September 2008 

In Colorado, the proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 61.7 miles of rangeland; the majority of 

which would be located on privately owned land in Moffat County. In Wyoming, the proposed pipeline route 

would cross approximately 56.1 miles of rangeland; 70 percent of which would be on federal land in 

Sweetwater County. 

3.7.2.2 Agricultural 

Agricultural land that would be crossed by the proposed Project consists of dryland pastures, irrigated pasture 

and hay meadows, farmlands, and associated farm or ranch facilities. Primary crops are grains and alfalfa. 

Some of the crop lands are dry-farmed while other areas are under irrigation, including pivot irrigation. In 

Colorado, approximately 11 percent (10.5 miles) of land that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

are agricultural. No agricultural land would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming. 

3.7.2.3 Forest Land 

The primary forest land types are pinyon-juniper and juniper woodlands. Forest land accounts for 22.4 miles, 

or approximately 15 percent of the total length of the proposed pipeline route. The majority of the forest land 

crossed would be in Rio Blanco County, Colorado (16.0 miles). A small percentage of forest land that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route would be in Wyoming, all of which (1.4 miles) would be in Sweetwater 

County. 

3.7.2.4 Residential and Commercial Areas 

Information about planned future residential and commercial developments was provided by the counties 

crossed by the proposed Project. There are no proposed commercial or residential development projects 

planned along the proposed pipeline route. The only development in the area consists of other oil and gas 

projects. OPPC would continue to coordinate with local planning and zoning offices to reduce the potential 

cumulative impacts that may result from concurrent pipeline and residential or commercial development. 

3.7.3 Special Land Uses and Recreation 

Generally, recreation and special interest areas include federal, state, or county parks and forests; 

conservation lands; wildlife habitat management areas; natural landmarks; scenic byways; designated trails; 

recreational rivers; and campgrounds. Recreation and special interest areas were identified using Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) records, landowner information, and NRCS data. The proposed pipeline 

route would cross a total of 10 recreation and special interest areas (one area would be crossed twice). 

Figure 3.7-2 depicts the recreation and special interest areas in the proposed Project vicinity, and Table 3.7-4

lists the location and land management agency responsible for each. The proposed route would not cross any 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, or Conservation Reserve Program/Wetland Reserve Program lands. Other historic or culturally 

significant areas that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route include the Overland and Cherokee 

trails, which are discussed further in Section 3.8, Cultural Resources. 

Of the 10 recreation and special interest areas that would be crossed by the proposed route, eight are located 

in Colorado and two are located in Wyoming. The pipeline would not cross any developed recreation areas 

(i.e., campgrounds, picnic grounds, or organized recreation areas, such as baseball fields). 
MP 5

MP 95

MP 90

MP 85

MP 80

MP 75

MP 70

MP 65

MP 60

MP 55

MP 50

MP 45

MP 40

MP 35

MP 30

MP 25

MP 20

MP 15

MP 10

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

Moffat

County

Sweetwater

County

Carbon

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

Colorado

Wyoming

40

287

13

64

789

13

139

70

430

71

71

317

394

325

8

318

7 10

4

19 Wamsutter Road

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

23

29

55

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

Bitter

Creek

Monell

Table

Rock

Wamsutter

Riner

Rawlins

Point of

Rocks

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.7-2

Recreation and

Special Interest Areas

0 4 8 16

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

CNHP PCA

CNHP Draft PCA

WY WHMA

Wilderness Study Area

ACEC

Colorado SWA

3.7-5
3.7-6 September 2008 

Table 3.7-4 Recreation and Special Interest Areas Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State/County MP 

Crossing 

Length 

(miles) Name 

Managing 

Agency/State 

Colorado 

Rio Blanco 14.9 – 15.5 0.6 Hay Gulch Potential Conservation 

Area (PCA)1

State of Colorado 

Rio Blanco 13.0 – 15.9 2.9 North Ridge Unit - Piceance Creek 

SWA 

CDOW 

Rio Blanco 11.8 – 12.5 0.7 Little Hills Experiment Station - 

Piceance Creek SWA 

CDOW 

Moffat 49.8 – 51.5 1.7 Deception Creek PCA State of Colorado 

Moffat 55.0 – 58.0 3.0 Bitter Brush SWA CDOW 

Moffat 58.3 – 58.9 0.6 Bitter Brush SWA CDOW 

Moffat 59.1 – 59.7 

60.7 – 61.3 

1.2 Middle Yampa River PCA Various 

Moffat 86.7 – 87.5 0.8 GRP NRCS 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 97.6 NA Cherokee Trail BLM 

Sweetwater 127.3 NA Overland Trail BLM 

1

Status currently under review by the CNHP. 

3.7.3.1 Colorado 

Natural Areas 

The proposed route would traverse three natural areas in the State of Colorado designated by the CNHP as 

Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) due to the potential occurrence of sensitive plant and/or animal 

communities. These areas include the Hay Gulch PCA, the Deception Creek PCA, and the Middle Yampa 

River PCA. 

The Hay Gulch PCA site supports a bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) grassland community 

and a population of Dudley Bluffs twinpod (Physaria obcordata). The Deception Creek PCA contains a 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Tridentat/Leymus cinereus) bottomland shrubland plant community. The 

Middle Yampa River PCA contains an occurrence of the skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata) riparian shrubland. 

Historically this area, supported populations of the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and the 

humpback chub (Gila cypha). Sections 3.5 and 3.6 discuss these special status plant and wildlife species in 

more detail. 
3.7-7 September 2008

Piceance Creek SWA and Bitter Brush SWA

The Piceance Creek SWA was purchased by the CDOW to provide hunting opportunities and winter range for 

deer and elk. Within this SWA, research on big game species occurs at the Little Hills Game Experiment 

Station and CDOW personnel reside in homes on the property. The station provides big and small game 

hunting opportunities, as well as fishing opportunities. The Bitter Brush SWA is managed for wildlife habitat, 

hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing opportunities. 

GRP Lands

One section of newly designated GRP land would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. GRP is a 

voluntary program, run by the NRCS, Farm Service Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service, offering landowners 

the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance grasslands on their property. It also provides assistance for 

rehabilitating grasslands. This land was designated as GRP land in August 2007. 

3.7.3.2 Wyoming 

Overland and Cherokee Trails 

There are no historic interpretation signs or areas at the proposed Overland Trail or Cherokee Trail crossings, 

and no well-preserved wagon ruts are evident. 

3.7.4 Visual Resources 

The BLM is responsible for identifying and protecting scenic values on public lands under several provisions of 

the Federal Land Policy Management Act and NEPA. The BLM VRM system was developed to facilitate the 

effective discharge of that responsibility in a systematic, interdisciplinary manner. The VRM system provides 

the methodology to inventory existing scenic quality; assign visual resource inventory classes based on a 

combination of scenic values, visual sensitivity, and viewing distances; and assign visual management 

objectives. 

The BLM general management objectives for public lands provide design standards to manage landscapes 

associated with the four VRM classes assigned to the various landscapes. The BLM VRM classes range from 

Class I to Class IV, with Class I being the most restrictive and Class IV the least restrictive. These VRM 

classes are determined through an inventory process and are used to provide guidance to management staff 

and industry when proposing and deliberating surface-disturbing activities. 

Class I Objective. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This 

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management 

activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention. Class I is assigned to those areas where a management decision has been made to maintain a 

natural landscape. This includes congressionally and administratively designated areas where decisions 

have been made to preserve a natural landscape. 

Class II Objective. The objective of this class is 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 Objective. The objective of this class is 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. 
3.7-8 September 2008 

Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major 

modifications 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. 

Rehabilitation Areas. Areas in need of rehabilitation from a visual standpoint should be flagged during 

the inventory process. The level of rehabilitation will be determined through the RMP process by 

assigning the VRM class approved for that particular area. 

The proposed Project would cross within 1 mile of VRM Class I lands and would cross lands designated as 

VRM Classes II (0.1 mile), III (87.2 miles), and IV (35.8 miles). Figure 3.7-3 depicts the VRM Class I and 

Class II areas near the proposed Project. 

3.7.5 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

The GRP Land Re-route Alternative would diverge from the Proposed Action route for approximately 2.0 miles 

in order to avoid crossing the 0.8-mile portion of GRP land. The total length of this alternative would be 

3.3 miles; therefore, adding a net 1.3 miles to the total length of the project. The entire portion of the land 

crossed by the GRP Land Re-route Alternative is managed or owned by public entities with approximately 

2.7 miles managed by the BLM and 0.6 mile is managed by the state of Colorado. In contrast, the majority of 

the lands crossed by the Proposed Action is managed or owned by state and private entities (0.9 and 0.8 mile, 

respectively). A small percentage (0.3 mile) is managed by the BLM. 

The GRP Land Re-route Alternative is approximately 1.1 mile west of the Proposed Action and the affected 

environment regarding land use, grazing allotments, and visual resources would be the same as described for 

the Proposed Action. There are no additional recreation areas or special land uses were identified along the 

alternative route and the entire alternative route is with VRM Class III landscape. 
MP 38

MP 37

MP 36

MP 35

MP 34

MP 33

MP 32

MP 31

MP 30

MP 29

MP 28

MP 27

MP 26

MP 25

MP 24

MP 23

MP 22

MP 21

MP 20

MP 19

MP 18

MP 17

MP 16

MP 15

MP 14 MP 13

MP 12

CO UT

WY

Figure 3.7-3

Visual Resource Management

Class I and II Areas near the

Proposed Pipeline

012 0.5

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Named Streams and Rivers

County Boundary

State Boundary

Proposed Pipeline

Visual Resource Management

Classification

VRM Class 1

VRM Class 2

VRM Class 3

VRM Class 4

3.7-9
3.8-1 September 2008

3.8 Cultural Resources 

From August to October 2007 and in May 2008, the majority of the proposed pipeline corridor was inventoried 

by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Alpine) in Colorado and Wyoming (Greubel et al. 2008; Mueller 

and Moore 2008). The inventory covered a 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipeline 

centerline. Some portions of the proposed pipeline corridor, totaling 1.6 miles in Colorado and 9.5 miles in 

Wyoming, were not surveyed for cultural resources because the entire corridor had been adequately surveyed 

during previous cultural resource inventory projects. In addition, Alpine completed field inventories of newly 

defined proposed Project facilities, several minor reroutes, the J. L. Davis lateral, a pipe yard, access roads, 

and railroad siding. 

Prior to the initiation of the field inventory, site file searches were conducted at state and federal agencies to 

identify areas previously subjected to cultural resource inventory and previously recorded sites. The 

identification of previously recorded sites serves two purposes: 1) to help formulate expectations regarding site 

types and densities likely to be encountered during the field inventory and 2) to ensure that sites previously 

recorded in the proposed pipeline corridor are either relocated or accounted for in some manner. The site file 

search study area included a 2-mile-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipeline centerline. Although most 

of the areas included in the 2008 field inventories were covered by the original site file searches, it was 

necessary for Alpine to conduct an additional file search for newly defined facilities and minor reroutes that fell 

outside of the original 2-mile-wide file search study area. 

3.8.1 Colorado 

In August 2007, Alpine conducted a site file search through the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation (OAHP). In addition, site files at the BLM WRFO and LSFO were examined, and Historic General 

Land Office (GLO) maps were inspected to identify potential historic site locations. As a result of the files 

search and GLO map review, 328 previously recorded sites were identified in the 2-mile-wide study corridor. 

Of the 328 sites, 284 are prehistoric and 44 are historic. Ninety-six percent of the prehistoric sites are classified 

as either open camps or open lithic scatters. The remaining prehistoric sites include isolated storage cists, 

rockshelters, and architectural sites. Prehistoric sites with architecture consist of sites with pithouses. Of the 

historic sites, 30 percent are agricultural complexes, which include homesteads, farms, and ranches. 

Twenty-three percent of the historic sites are roads or trails, and the remaining historic sites include bridges, 

canals and ditches, corrals, dams, brush fences, artifact scatters, and campsites. 

In April 2008, Alpine conducted a site file search through the Colorado OAHP for those minor reroutes and 

newly defined facilities that fell outside of the original file search study area. Additionally, site files at the BLM 

WRFO and LSFO were examined, and Historic GLO maps at the two BLM field offices were inspected to 

identify potential historic site locations. As a result of the files search and GLO map review, a prehistoric open 

camp and a prehistoric fire-cracked rock scatter were identified in the file search study area. 

During fall 2007, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Colorado portion of the proposed 

pipeline corridor (Greubel et al. 2008). As a result of the inventories, 79 sites were located in the 300-foot-wide 

survey corridor. Of the 79 sites, 42 are prehistoric, 28 are historic, three are multi-component sites consisting 

of prehistoric and historic components, and six sites have been destroyed by previous disturbance. Thirty-five 

(83 percent) of the prehistoric sites are open camps. The remaining prehistoric sites include open lithic 

scatters, open lithic scatter and procurement area, and a storage cist. Historic sites include, but are not limited 

to, artifact scatters, homesteads, road segments, hunting camps, and ditches. One of the multi-component 

sites includes a prehistoric rockshelter and lithic scatter and historic structure. The remaining two 

multi-component sites consist of a historic homestead and prehistoric open camp, and a historic artifact scatter 

and prehistoric lithic scatter. 

In May and June 2008, Alpine conducted additional field inventories of minor reroutes and newly defined 

facilities, as well as along segments of the proposed pipeline corridor that previously had been denied access 
3.8-2 September 2008 

from the landowner (Mueller and Moore 2008). Thirteen sites were located during the inventories. Of these, 

1 is a prehistoric open camp and 12 are historic sites, which include 4 scatters/hunting camps, 2 hunting 

camps, 2 ditches, and a road, artifact scatter, corral/hunting camp, and dugout with associated historic debris. 

A summary of sites located during the 2007 and 2008 inventories in Colorado, plus their National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility and management recommendations, can be found in Appendix E. 

3.8.2 Wyoming 

In July 2007, Alpine conducted a site file search through the Wyoming Cultural Records Office. In addition, site 

files at the BLM RFO were examined, and Wyoming GLO maps were inspected to identify potential historic 

site locations. As a result of the files search and GLO map review, 522 previously recorded sites were 

identified in the 2-mile-wide study corridor. Of the 522 sites, 470 are prehistoric and 52 are historic. 

Ninety-eight percent of the prehistoric sites are classified as either open camps or open lithic scatters. The 

remaining prehistoric sites include lithic procurement sites, a cairn, and architectural sites. Prehistoric sites 

with architecture include three sites with stone enclosures. Of the historic sites, 40 percent are historic artifact 

scatters and 37 percent are stock camps. The remaining historic sites include roads or trails, cabins, cairns, 

and historic inscriptions. Two important trails recorded in the proposed Project area are the Overland and 

Cherokee trails. 

In April 2008, Alpine conducted a site file search at the BLM RFO for those minor reroutes and newly defined 

facilities that fell outside of the original file search study area. In addition, Historic GLO maps were inspected to 

identify potential historic site locations. No previously recorded sites were identified in the file search study 

area. 

During fall 2007, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Wyoming portion of the proposed 

pipeline corridor (Greubel et al. 2008). As a result of the inventories, 69 sites were located in the 300-foot-wide 

survey corridor. Of the 69 sites, 46 are prehistoric, 7 are historic, 3 are multi-component sites consisting of 

prehistoric and historic components, and 13 sites have been destroyed by previous disturbance. Twenty-five 

(54 percent) of the prehistoric sites are open camps and 16 (35 percent) are open lithic scatters. The 

remaining prehistoric sites include lithic scatters and a lithic processing site. Historic sites include artifact 

scatters, a road segment, open camp, and the Overland and Cherokee trails. One of the multi-component sites 

consists of a historic artifact scatter and prehistoric open lithic scatter. The remaining multi-component sites 

include a prehistoric open lithic scatter and historic isolate, and a prehistoric lithic scatter and historic trash 

scatter. 

In May and June 2008, Alpine conducted additional field inventories of minor reroutes and newly defined 

facilities, as well as along segments of the proposed pipeline corridor that previously had been denied access 

from the landowner (Mueller and Moore 2008). Four sites were located during the inventories. Of these four 

sites, one is a prehistoric open camp and three are prehistoric lithic scatters; no historic sites were located 

during the inventory. 

A summary of sites located during the 2007 and 2008 inventories in Wyoming, plus their NRHP-eligibility and 

management recommendations, can be found in Appendix E. 

3.8.3 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

In August 2008, Alpine conducted a files search through the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation for the proposed GRP Land Re-route Alternative (Alexander 2008), and the site files and 

inspected the historic GLO maps at the BLM Little Snake Field Office. One previously conducted inventory 

was identified in the 2-mile-wide file search study area. No cultural resources were identified during the 

inventory. At this time, Alpine also conducted a Class III inventory along the approximate 3.3-mile-long 

alternative route. As a result of the inventory, one previously unrecorded prehistoric lithic scatter and four 
3.8-3 September 2008

previously unrecorded isolated finds (three prehistoric and one historic) were documented in the 300-foot-wide 

survey corridor. The prehistoric lithic scatter and all of the isolated finds are recommended as not eligible for 

the NRHP; no further work is recommended. 
3.9-1 September 2008

3.9 Native American Traditional Values 

3.9.1 Ethnographic Context 

Historic and archaeological data indicate that the Ute and Shoshone were the primary indigenous occupants of 

the Project area. From A.D. 1300 to 1700, the Ute generally occupied the portion of the Project area north of 

the San Juan Mountains and south of the Yampa River in western Colorado. The Shoshone homeland was 

primarily western Wyoming and southern Idaho, and north of the Uinta Mountains (Greubel et al. 2008). 

After the 1700s, the Ute continued to inhabit primarily the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau. The 

acquisition of the horse increased their range east to the High Plains to hunt and south to the Spanish and 

Pueblo settlements in northern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona for raiding and trading. The Ute lifeway 

continued until the 1850s, when gold was discovered in Colorado and white settlements and subsequent 

conflicts intensified. Treaties forced the Utes to reduce their range, and in 1881, the Ute were removed to one 

of three reservations, two in southeastern Colorado and one in northeastern Utah. 

Historic evidence indicates that the Shoshone traveled great distances to hunt, trade, and raid. Between A.D. 

1650 and 1700, the Shoshone acquired the horse, thus allowing more intensive bison hunting and greater 

travel for resource procurement. However, during this time the Crow, Blackfoot, and other tribes had acquired 

large quantities of firearms and horses and forced the Shoshone to withdraw to central and western Wyoming 

and southern Idaho. The Shoshone who lived in Wyoming would later be known as the Wind River or Eastern 

Shoshone. 

The reader is referred to Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 1: Plains (DeMallie 2001) for a 

comprehensive ethnographic overview of the Project area. 

3.9.2 Native American Consultation 

In compliance with the NHPA, as amended, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation for the 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA on September 26, 2007, by sending letters to Indian tribes either living in, or with 

traditional ties to, the proposed Project area. These tribes include Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, 

Northern Ute, Shoshone-Bannock, Southern Ute, and Ute Mountain Ute. The letters were sent to inform the 

various tribes of the proposed undertaking and invite the tribes to provide any information about places with 

traditional cultural importance that may be located in the proposed Project area. Included with the letters was a 

map of the proposed pipeline route and a self-addressed stamped postcard for the tribes to indicate their level 

of interest and return to the BLM. The Southern Ute were the only tribe to return the postcard in which they 

requested to be contacted in the event human remains are found during Project construction. 

Subsequent to the letters, the BLM telephoned the five tribes that had not responded to the consultation letter. 

As a result, the Eastern Shoshone requested additional information on the proposed Project and the Northern 

Arapaho Tribe requested participation in any field visits to the proposed Project area. To date, no responses to 

messages left for the Northern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Shoshone-Bannock tribes have been received by 

the BLM. 

On February 21, 2008, the BLM sent follow-up letters, which included a preliminary summary of the cultural 

resources inventory, to all six previously contacted tribes. In the letters, BLM requested review of the 

preliminary results of the cultural resource inventory and any information, concerns, or issues the tribes may 

have regarding the proposed Project. At this time, none of the tribes have responded to the second letter. The 

BLM will continue to make a good faith effort to consult with the tribes regarding the proposed Project. 
3.9-2 September 2008

3.9.3 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

If the GRP Land Re-route Alternative was selected for construction, the BLM would send a letter to the abovelisted tribal groups to inform them of the revised pipeline route and solicit their concerns about places of 

traditional cultural importance that may be located along the proposed alternative. Consultation between the 

BLM and the identified tribal groups would follow the same protocol as for the Proposed Action. 
3.10-1 September 2008

3.10 Socioeconomics 

3.10.1 Population, Employment, and Economics 

In 2000, the population of Colorado was 4,301,261 and the population of Wyoming was 493,782. In part due to 

energy development activities, the estimated population in Colorado climbed by 10.5 percent to 4,753,377 in 

2006. The estimated population in Wyoming increased by 4.3 percent to 515,004 over the same period (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2006). The four counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route are largely rural, generally 

with a single population center in proximity to the route. Garfield and Routt counties in northwestern Colorado, 

although not directly affected by the proposed route, border those directly affected counties, and thus may 

experience effects from the proposed Project. Therefore, these counties are included in the analysis where 

appropriate. The least populous county crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor is Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, which had an estimated population of 6,180 in 2006. The most populated county directly affected by 

the proposed pipeline route is Sweetwater County, Wyoming, which had an estimated population of 38,763 in 

2006. A majority of the population in Sweetwater County is centered near Rock Springs, Wyoming, which is 

approximately 70 miles west of the northern portion of the proposed Project. Table 3.10-1 summarizes recent 

population changes for the proposed Project area. 

Table 3.10-1 Population Change in the Proposed Project Area, 2000 to 2006 

Change, 2000 to 2006 

State / County 2000 2006 (estimated) Absolute Percent 

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco 5,986 6,180 194 3.2 

 Moffat 13,181 13,680 346 3.8 

 Garfield 43,791 51,908 8,117 18.5 

 Routt 19,690 21,580 1,890 9.6 

Wyoming 

 Sweetwater 37,613 38,763 1150 3.1 

 Carbon 15,639 15,325 -314 -2.0 

Sources: Census 2000; U.S. Census Bureau 2006. 

Of the counties potentially affected by the proposed Project, either directly or indirectly, only Routt and Garfield 

have experienced substantial population growth over the past 6 years. Moffat and Rio Blanco counties realized 

moderate population gain. Much of the growth in northwestern Colorado has been tied to the substantial 

energy exploration and development activity in recent years. Population changes in Wyoming have been 

relatively limited in scale, with Sweetwater County modestly gaining population and Carbon County modestly 

losing population between 2000 and 2006. 

As of December 2007, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties in Colorado had relatively small labor forces (8,703 and 

5,443, respectively). In Wyoming, approximately 11 percent of the civilian labor force resides within the two 

counties that would be affected by the proposed pipeline route. Of the two counties, Carbon County has the 

smaller civilian labor force with 8,104 persons, and Sweetwater County has the larger civilian labor force with a 

total of 24,104 persons. 
3.10-2 September 2008 

Unemployment rates across the proposed Project area have declined over the past year, and as of December 

2007, ranged from 2.2 percent in Rio Blanco County, Colorado to 3.5 percent in Moffat County, Colorado 

(Table 3.10-2) (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 2007; Wyoming Department of Employment 

2007). Statewide unemployment rates for the same period were 4.5 percent in Colorado and 3.1 percent in 

Wyoming. Given the limited size of the local labor force in these more rural counties, the number of available 

workers is very low, for example, 119 unemployed in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, and 278 unemployed in 

Carbon County, Wyoming. 

Table 3.10-2 Labor Market Conditions in the Proposed Project Area, December 2007 

State / County Labor Force Employed Unemployed 

Unemployment 

Rate 

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco 5,443 5,324 119 2.2% 

 Moffat 8,703 8,397 306 3.5% 

 Garfield 37,438 36,456 982 2.6% 

 Routt 16,172 15,729 443 2.7% 

Wyoming 

 Carbon 8,104 7,826 278 3.4% 

 Sweetwater 24,104 23,507 597 2.5% 

Sources: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 2007; Wyoming Department of Employment 2007. 

In northwestern Colorado, the primary employment sectors of the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route are agriculture, oil and gas development, trade and construction. Mining (both mineral and oil and gas 

development), public administration, and trade and tourism/travel also are important employment sectors in 

Wyoming. The latter is due in part to the I-80 corridor across southern Wyoming. 

In 2005, per capita personal income was $37,510 in Colorado and $37,305 in Wyoming. The four counties 

traversed by the proposed pipeline route have per capita incomes ranging from $26,793 in Moffat County, 

Colorado, to $38,039 in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Sweetwater County was the only county in which per 

capita personal income was higher than the state average (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

3.10.2 Infrastructure 

3.10.2.1 Housing 

Housing availability within the proposed Project area is a function of the housing stock, recent economic and 

population growth, the inventory of short-term accommodations, such as recreational vehicle (RV) parks and 

hotel and motel rooms, and demand for housing from other sources. In 2000, the total housing supply ranged 

from 2,855 units in Rio Blanco County to 17,336 units in Garfield County. Carbon County registered a total 

housing supply of 8,307 units (Table 3.10-3). 
3.10-3 September 2008

Table 3.10-3 Housing Inventory in the Proposed Project Area 

State / County 

Total 

Units – 2000 

Available Rental 

Units – 2000 

Building 

Permits 2006 

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco 2,855 127 50 

 Moffat 5,635 189 52 

 Garfield 17,336 217 757 

 Routt 11,217 956 1,359 

Wyoming 

 Sweetwater 15,921 680 268 

 Carbon 8,307 360 58 

Sources: Census 2000; Colorado Division of Local Government 2004; Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

2008. 

A key indicator of housing availability to meet short-term needs is the number of available rental units. Among 

the rural counties in the western portion of the proposed Project area, the number of such units recorded in the 

2000 Census ranged from 127 units in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to 680 units in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming. In the case of the latter, most of those units were in Rock Springs or Green River, a considerable 

distance from the proposed route. 

A combined 428 new units were issued building permits in Rio Blanco, Moffat, Carbon, and Sweetwater 

counties in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). Significant new construction has occurred in Routt and Garfield 

counties, although many of the new housing units were single-family residences. 

A second, more critical component of local housing markets is the inventory of short-term accommodations. 

Such accommodations include RV spaces, motel and hotel rooms, and mobile home spaces. In some 

instances, recreational cabins and seasonal housing for migratory workers also may be available. With the 

exception of Rio Blanco County, Colorado, with only 404 units, the inventory of such accommodations is 

relatively larger in most of the counties because tourism, travel, and outdoor recreation play major roles in the 

local economies (Table 3.10-4). 

The short-term accommodations tend to be geographically concentrated in the largest communities in each 

county, although there are some RV parks and smaller motels in outlying communities, particularly in 

Wyoming along the Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor in Sweetwater County and in southwestern Carbon County. 

Vacancy surveys of rental housing in Wyoming indicate limited availability across the study area, with 

estimated vacancy rates of under 1.0 percent in Sweetwater County and 8.4 percent in Carbon County. 

However, the latter represents only about 50 units (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2004). Vacancy 

rates for rental housing are not reported for rural Colorado, but anecdotal reports suggest limited availability in 

many communities, although housing is reportedly more available in the Craig area following the recent 

completion of a major retrofit project at the nearby power plant. Anecdotal information also indicates limited 

availability of short-term lodging across most of the western portion of the study area, particularly in 

Sweetwater and Rio Blanco counties, due to ongoing energy resource development and seasonal tourism and 

hunting demand. Given the above, housing availability can be characterized as limited to very limited in most 

counties. 
3.10-4 September 2008 

Table 3.10-4 Estimated Temporary Housing Inventory, Winter 2004 

State/County RV Spaces 

Motel/Hotel 

Rooms 

Mobile Home 

Spaces Total 

Temporary 

Housing 

Availability 

Colorado

 Rio Blanco 108 143 153 404 Very Limited 

 Moffat 221 600 858 1,679 Fair to Good 

 Garfield 196 >1,000 NA >1,196 Very Limited 

 Routt 105 >1,000 NA >1,105 Good 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 215 1,718 3,696 5,629 Limited 

Carbon 395 1,367 2,583 4,345 Limited 

Total 1,140 >5,828 7,290 >14,358 

Note: RV spaces exclude some or all spaces in national forest and state park campgrounds. Only some, unknown number, of the 

mobile home spaces are available at any one time and may not be available for short-term use. 

Source: FERC 2005a. 

3.10.2.2 Public Services and Facilities 

Table 3.10-5 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 numbers of larger 

communities in the county. Law enforcement is provided by multiple providers including the respective state 

patrols, county sheriffs, and local police departments. In many instances, mutual aid/cooperative agreements 

among agencies allow members of one agency to provide support or backup to the other agencies in 

emergency situations. 

A network of fire departments and districts provide 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. Together, these factors can increase response times to incidents. Federal land 

management agencies also maintain wild land and forest fire suppression capabilities in the region, though 

these capabilities are not generally staffed for quick response dispatch. 

At least one acute care hospital is operating in each county crossed by the proposed route, providing 

emergency medical care and in several cases also serving as the base for local emergency medical response 

and transport services. As in the case of fire suppression, response times to highway or construction-related 

accidents in parts of the proposed Project area may be lengthy given communication, dispatch and travel time 

considerations. 
3.10-5 September 2008

Table 3.10-5 Existing Public Services and Facilities in the Proposed Project Area 

State/County 

Police/Sheriff 

Departments1 Fire Departments2 Medical Facilities3

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco 3 2 2 Hospitals 

 Moffat 2 2 1 Hospital 

 Garfield 1 6 1 Hospital 

 Routt 4 6 1 Hospitals 

Wyoming 

 Sweetwater 4 9 1 Hospital 

 Carbon 7 8 1 Hospital 

1

Capitol Impact 2008. Does not include special law enforcement units for universities. 

2

Firehouse Network 2008. Includes volunteer, district, city, and town departments, but does not include departments and services

offered by the BLM or the Department of Defense. 

3

Colorado Health and Hospital Association 2008. Wyoming Hospital Association 2008. 

Higher level trauma centers capable of treating serious injuries requiring more specialized or intensive care are 

located in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The most serious injuries may require transport to regional trauma centers 

in Grand Junction, Colorado, and Casper, Wyoming, or even to Denver, Colorado, or Salt Lake City, Utah. The 

regional trauma centers all provide emergency medical air transport, via either helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, 

with airports capable of accommodating fixed-wing aircraft located in Rifle, Meeker, and Craig, Colorado; and 

Rawlins and Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

3.10.2.3 Transportation 

The major transportation routes that would be crossed by the proposed Project include U.S. I-80, U.S. 

Highway 40, and Colorado State Highway 64. Access roads and the transportation network are discussed in 

Section 2.1. Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 show the access roads that would be used for the proposed Project. 

Another significant transportation feature in the region is the Union Pacific Railroad mainline route across 

southern Wyoming. The railroad and I-80 corridors generally parallel each other across Sweetwater and 

Carbon counties. 

3.10.3 Fiscal Relationships 

Local municipal governments, school districts, and some other government-funded entities rely heavily on 

property and sales tax revenues to fund their ongoing operations. Table 3.10-6 lists the 2005 total assessed 

valuation from all sources and estimated gross retail sales of all establishments for the four directly affected 

counties. Note that the values for Wyoming and Colorado counties are not directly comparable due to 

differences in property assessment practices, but comparisons between counties within a state reflect 

differences in the scale of development and natural resource wealth. For instance, assessments on mineral 

production account for about 63 percent of the total assessed valuation in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and 

76 percent of the total in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Other state-assessed property, including utilities and oil 

and gas transmission systems, account for 48 percent of the total valuation in Moffat County, Colorado, and 

between 10 and 13 percent of the total in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 
3.10-6 September 2008 

Statewide total assessed valuation on gas transmission pipelines in 2003 was $255.6 million in Colorado and 

$121.7 million in Wyoming. 

Table 3.10-6 County Property and Sales Tax Base for Counties Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State / County Assessed Valuation 2005 Gross Retail Sales 2005 

Colorado 

 Rio Blanco $434,639,420 (2005) $407,800,000 

 Moffat $390,341,690 (2005) $291,835,000 

Wyoming 

 Sweetwater $ 1,563,354,342 (2005) $1,073,949,000 

 Carbon $ 898,683,428 (2006) $344,978,000 

Note: Retail sales for Colorado are for calendar year 2005, those for Wyoming are Fiscal year 2005. 

Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2006; Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2008; Wyoming 

Taxpayers Association 2008. 

Gross annual retail sales are a reflection of the local population, income, level of travel and tourism in the 

region, presence of special populations such as a college or university, and economic stimulus provided by 

special activities such as construction projects and energy and mineral resource development. In both states, 

all of the counties and many of the communities within the counties levy sales taxes on retail purchases. 

Based on total annual gross retail sales, Moffat County, Colorado, has the smallest trade and service sectors 

of all the counties crossed by the proposed Project, while Sweetwater County, Wyoming, has the largest. 

3.10.3.1 Property Values 

Approximately 48 percent of the land affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project would be 

on federal public lands. Six percent is state and local lands, and the remainder of the land that would be 

affected (46 percent) is privately owned. A detailed description of land ownership is presented in Section 3.7. 

On both public and private lands, OPPC would acquire an easement for both the temporary (for construction) 

and permanent ROWs. The easement would provide OPPC the right to construct, operate, and maintain the 

pipeline, and establish a permanent ROW. In return, OPPC would compensate the landowner for use of the 

land and the temporary loss of crops or forage. Where the proposed pipeline route would cross federal land, 

OPPC would acquire a ROW grant for construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The ROW grant 

essentially allows OPPC to lease the land from the BLM. 

3.10.4 Environmental Justice 

A summary of the population types (i.e., races) residing within the four counties crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route based on U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 is presented in Table 3.10-7. In Colorado, the 

proposed pipeline route would cross counties that contain a smaller proportion of minorities than are found 

statewide in Colorado. In Wyoming, demographics for the counties of Carbon and Sweetwater show a slightly 

larger proportion of minorities compared to the Wyoming statewide average. 

The percent of population with incomes below the poverty level also are summarized in Table 3.10-7. In 

Colorado, Rio Blanco County has a poverty rate greater than the statewide average, while poverty rates in 

Moffat County are less than the statewide average. In Wyoming, the poverty rate in Sweetwater County has a 
3.10-7 September 2008

smaller percentage of people below the poverty line than the statewide average, while Carbon County is lightly 

higher than the statewide average. 

Table 3.10-7 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Counties 

Racial/Ethnic Categories (% of Total Population) 

State / 

County White 

Black or 

African 

American 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

Other 

Races 

Two or 

More 

Races Hispanic1

Persons 

Below 

Poverty 

Level, 

percent 

Colorado 82.8 3.8 10.0 7.2 2.8 17.1 9.3 

 Rio Blanco 95.0 0.2 0.8 2.0 1.7 4.9 9.6 

 Moffat 93.6 0.2 0.9 3.2 1.8 9.5 8.3 

Wyoming 92.1 0.8 2.3 2.5 1.8 6.4 11.4 

 Sweetwater 91.6 0.7 1.0 3.6 2.4 9.4 7.8 

 Carbon 90.1 0.7 1.3 5.2 2.1 13.8 12.9 

1

Persons 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. 

Source: Census 2000. 

3.10.5 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding socioeconomics would be the same as described for the 

Proposed Action. 
3.11-1 September 2008

3.11 Public Health and Safety 

3.11.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Pre-existing soil contamination along the proposed pipeline route may exist. However, review of the USEPA 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS) 

Database (USEPA 2006) and state Superfund Site Status Summaries indicates that the proposed pipeline 

route does not intercept any known areas of contamination. No Superfund sites are intersected or within 

5 miles of the proposed pipeline route (USEPA 2006). 

3.11.2 Emergency Response 

The existing public services and facilities available in the Project vicinity are discussed in detail in 

Section 3.10.2. In general, the public services available are directly related to the number of cities and towns in 

each county as well as population figures. The number of police and/or sheriff departments within each county 

that would be affected by the proposed Project ranges from two departments in Moffatt County, Colorado, to 

seven departments in Carbon County, Wyoming. Sweetwater County, Wyoming, has nine fire departments 

and Carbon County has eight. Moffat and Rio Blanco counties in Colorado have two fire departments each. 

Rio Blanco County has two hospitals and the other counties each have one. 

3.11.3 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

Given the relative proximity of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative to within approximately 1.1 mile of the 

Proposed Action, the affected environment regarding public health and safety would be the same as described 

for the Proposed Action.