2-1 September 2008

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

When choosing alternative routes for the proposed Project, OPPC also considered issues and concerns 

addressed during construction of pipelines recently completed in the area. As such, the Final Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs) for the Entrega Pipeline Project (Entrega) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

[FERC] 2005a), the WIC Piceance Basin Expansion Project (WIC Piceance) (FERC 2005b), and the OPPC 

Overland Pass NGL Pipeline Project (BLM 2007a) provided background information on the Project area and 

NGL transport during the development of this EA. 

The alternatives considered and analyzed in detail include the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. 

In the application submitted by OPPC, variations from the proposed pipeline route also were presented, 

including a South Connector Route Alternative and a North Connector Route Alternative. However, upon 

further consideration, these alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis because of problems 

encountered during construction of previous pipelines (Entrega and WIC Piceance) and/or anticipated 

undesirable residual impacts associated with the alternative route(s). The alternatives that were considered but 

eliminated are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3. 

All activities associated with the proposed Project are consistent with the following land use plans: 

• White River Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP (BLM 1997); 

• Little Snake RMP and ROD (BLM 1989); 

• ROD for the Oil and Gas Plan Amendment to the Little Snake RMP/EIS (BLM 1991); and 

• Rawlins RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2008a). 

2.1 Proposed Action 

OPPC proposes to construct and operate a 152-mile-long, 14-inch-diameter NGL pipeline that would begin at 

the recently approved Willow Creek Gas Plant southwest of Meeker, Colorado, and end at the existing Echo 

Springs pump station southeast of Wamsutter, Wyoming. OPPC proposes to begin construction of the pipeline 

and associated facilities in September 2008 and be in service in July 2009. Construction is estimated to take 

approximately 6 months. An overview map showing the location of pipeline and associated facilities for the 

Proposed Action is provided in Figure 2.1-1. 

2.1.1 Pipeline 

The pipeline would be engineered and constructed in conformance with the requirements of U.S. Department 

of Transportation (USDOT) regulations (49 CFR Part 195). The 14-inch pipe would be constructed with highstrength steel pipe (grade 5L X70) with factory-applied, fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE) external coating with a wall 

thickness of 0.219 inch. Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current system. The pipeline 

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

regulations. 
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

0 4 8 16

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Meter Stations

Echo Springs Pump Station

Proposed Willow Creek Gas Plant

Proposed Mid-Point Pump Station

Valve Sites

Contractor/Pipe Yard

J L Davis Lateral

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Figure 2.1-1

Associated Pipeline

Facilities

2-2
2-3 September 2008

2.1.2 Ancillary Facilities 

Additional facilities associated with the Proposed Action would include one 6-inch-diameter lateral, 2 meter 

stations, 1 possible future pump station, 12 mainline valves (MLVs), 5 pigging facilities, 1 contractor/pipe yard, 

1 new access road, and possible future electrical powerlines. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the facilities and their 

proposed locations. 

Table 2.1-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project 

Facility Name MP County, State 

Pipeline 

Willow Creek Gas Plant to Echo Springs 

Pump Station (14-inch diameter) 

0.0 – 152.2 Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado; 

Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming 

J. L. Davis Lateral (6-inch-diameter) 5.6 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

Meter and Pump Stations 

Meter Stations 0.0, 5.6 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

Pump Station (future) 82.4 Moffat County, Colorado 

MLVs 

MLVs 1 – 3 18.9 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

19.6 

32.9 

MLVs 4 – 9 46.3 Moffat County, Colorado 

59.1 

59.7 

71.7 

92.8 

93.9 

MLVs 10 – 12 107.9 Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

124.6 

139.1 

Pigging Facilities 

Willow Creek Gas Plant – Launcher 0.0 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

J. L. Davis Tie-in – Launcher (6-inch) L0.01 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

J. L. Davis Tie-in – Receiver (6-inch) 5.6 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

Mid-point – Launcher/Receiver 82.4 Moffat County, Colorado 

Echo Springs Pump Station – Receiver 152.2 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Yards 

Craig Contractor/Pipe Yard (existing) NA2 Moffat County, Colorado 
2-4 September 2008 

Table 2.1-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project 

Facility Name MP County, State 

Access Road 

New (0.4 mile long by 15 feet wide) 19.3 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

Electrical Power Lines (future) 

White River (approximately 0.5 mile) 19.2 Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

Yampa River (200 feet) 59.0 Moffat County, Colorado 

Midpoint (approximately 3.8 miles) 82.2 Moffat County, Colorado 

Little Snake (approximately 6.7 miles) 92.9 Moffat County, Colorado and Carbon 

County, Wyoming 

1

The launcher at the J. L. Davis tie-in would be located at the origination point of the J. L. Davis Lateral (MP L0.0). 

2

NA = not applicable; the contractor/pipe yard is located off of the pipeline ROW. 

Under the Proposed Action, OPPC would construct two meter stations; one at the southern terminus of the 

pipeline and one at the origination point of a 2,000-foot, 6-inch-diameter lateral within the grounds of the 

existing J. L. Davis gas treatment facility. The station at MP 0.0 would serve as a custody transfer and system 

check station to measure the volume of NGL transported over the pipeline. When complete, it would be 

approximately 0.5 acre (100 feet by 200 feet) partially within the pipeline ROW, with the additional space 

extending to the northeast. This facility would consist of a meter building with communication, a meter skid, a 

pig launcher, and filtration traps. 

The potential future midpoint pump station would be constructed in two phases, as needed. Phase 1 would be 

built concurrent with the construction of the pipeline and would include construction of the launcher/receiver 

and MLV. Phase 2 would only be built at some date in the future should the volume of NGL transported 

through the pipe increase above 70,000 bpd. The pump station would enable OPPC to maintain the required 

pressure for firm NGL deliveries and to restore the drop in pressure that would otherwise occur as the NGL 

flows through the pipeline. Should the pump station be built in the future, it would be approximately 1.8 acres 

(274 feet by 284 feet), partially within the proposed pipeline ROW with the additional space extending to the 

southeast, away from the ROW of the existing pipelines in the corridor. This facility would consist of a pump 

building, utility building, and parking area for station personnel. The station would operate on locally purchased 

power for electricity for lights, heating, communication, and valves in the buildings, and would be fully 

automated for unmanned operation. Remote start/stop, set point controls, unit monitoring equipment, and 

station information would be installed. The pipeline entering and exiting the pump facility would be below grade 

as practicable, but would come aboveground before entering and exiting the pump building. 

The Proposed Action would include the construction of 12 MLVs: 9 block valves and 3 check valves. All 

12 MLVs would be constructed within the permanent 50-foot ROW. Block valves are located at key river 

crossings as well as at various other points along the route and would be installed to enable shut-off of the 

pipeline for safety purposes. Check valves would generally be located downstream of the key river crossings 

and are designed to prevent backflow of NGL. 

One pig launcher would be located at the southern origin of the pipeline at MP 0.0, one at the origin of the 

J. L. Davis lateral within the existing J. L. Davis gas facility, and one at the mid-point location at MP 82.4. Pig 

receivers would be located at the J. L. Davis tie-in at MP 5.6, at the mid-point location at MP 82.4, and at the 

northern terminus at MP 152.2. All launchers and receivers would be within the 50-foot-wide permanent ROW 

or within the footprint of existing facilities. The pigging facilities launch and receive a device that moves through 
2-5 September 2008

the length of the pipeline to clean it. The pipeline would be cleaned approximately monthly during operation of 

the pipeline. The pigging also would be used for smart pigging, which would be done once every 5 years. 

OPPC would use an existing contractor/pipe yard southwest of Craig, Colorado, to store pipe and other 

construction materials and equipment during construction of the Project. This approximately 51.6-acre yard is 

located at Township 6 North (T6N), Range 91 West (R91W), Section 2 and was used as a pipe yard for the 

Entrega Pipeline Project (FERC 2005a). 

The potential future electric powerlines would be constructed, operated, and maintained by local power 

providers to provide power for the proposed future pump station and remotely activated valves located along 

the proposed pipeline route. A maximum of four locations have been identified as potentially needing electrical 

power at some time in the future. The White River location would be constructed by the White River Electric 

Association and the other three would be constructed by the Yampa Valley Electric Association. These would 

all be 7.2-kilovolt lines constructed with 12- to 15-inch-diameter vertical poles within a 30-foot temporary 

construction ROW and a 20-foot permanent operational ROW. Average span between poles would be 300 to 

350 feet. If determined necessary at a future time, all siting, permitting, and clearances necessary for the 

construction and operation of these powerlines would be the responsibility of the local power provider and 

would not be included in the ROW grant application for approval by BLM for the proposed Project described in 

this EA. 

2.1.3 Access Roads 

With the exception of one new access road proposed to be built on fee land, OPPC proposes using a 

combination of existing state, county, private, and BLM roads to access the ROW during construction. These 

existing roads were used on the recently constructed Entrega and WIC Piceance pipelines. The one new 

access road would be constructed on the south side of the White River crossing at the request of the 

landowner and would be 15 feet wide by approximately 0.4 mile long encompassing 0.7 acre. 

Equipment and materials would be hauled in accordance with state requirements. Some of the existing roads 

might require modifications, including grading and/or widening, to make them usable for pipeline construction. 

OPPC would maintain the roads, which would include blading throughout the construction period to keep 

roads level and not rutted. For those areas where improvements would occur outside the pre-construction 

roadway, all areas of new impact would be reclaimed and reseeded using the reclamation techniques and 

seeding mixes proposed in the Environmental Protection Plan, which is an appendix to the POD for this 

Project (CH2M Hill Trigon, Inc. 2008). Temporary access along the ROW would be reclaimed at the end of 

construction. Operations and maintenance activities could require year-round access post construction. The 

locations of identified access roads and proposed modifications are listed in the POD as part of the 

Transportation Management Plan. Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 show the access roads to be used in Colorado and 

Wyoming, respectively. Table 2.1-2 lists all access roads proposed to be constructed or potentially widened 

along with the acres of impact. 

2.1.4 Land Requirements 

Table 2.1-3 summarizes the land requirements for the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would primarily 

run parallel to the existing Entrega/WIC Piceance pipeline corridor. The pipeline would generally be 

constructed within 50 feet of the existing pipeline centerline (25-foot off-set from the edge of the existing 

ROW), where applicable, but could be increased or decreased depending on the site-specific circumstances 

as required. The construction ROW would be 75 feet wide for the majority of the proposed pipeline route with 

additional width as needed at temporary work areas (TWAs) such as steep slopes or side slopes, at major 

road and river crossings, and for truck turn-around areas. After construction, OPPC proposes a 50-foot-wide 
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

Moffat

County

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Routt

County

40

13

13

70

317

394

325

8

7

4

7

7

57

17

5

107

51

29

4

57

5 Rio

Blanco

Meeker

Maybell Craig

Baggs

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

3

44

17

19

64

21N

53 74

91

7

92

6

22

58

CO UT

WY

Figure 2.1-2

Transportation Network

and Access Roads

(Colorado)

0 5 10

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Roads

Access Roads

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

2-6
MP 95

MP 90

MP 150

MP 145

MP 140

MP 135

MP 130

MP 125

MP 120

MP 115

MP 110

MP 105

MP 100

789

4

Wamsutter Road 23

4

Baggs

Wamsutter

Sand Creek

BLM 

4411

Willow Rd.

RD 608

Butte Rd.

RD 700

CO UT

WY

Figure 2.1-3

Transportation Network

and Access Roads

(Wyoming)

0 3 6

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Named Streams and Rivers

Access Roads

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

2-7
2-8 September 2008 

Table 2.1-2 Access Roads Proposed to be Constructed or Potentially Widened 

County/ 

State 

MP at 

Centerline Class1

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Existing 

Road Width

(feet) 

Additional 

Width 

Needed 

(feet) 

Estimated 

Acres 

Impact 

(acres)2

Rio Blanco 

County, CO 

6.1 C Dirt 5,061 10 2 0.2 

10.9 C Dirt 10,257 10 2 0.5 

16.5 C Dirt - 2-track 393 8 4 0.0 

16.7 C Dirt - 2-track 1,228 8 4 0.1 

17.1 C Dirt 172 8 4 0.0 

17.2 C Dirt 81 8 4 0.0 

19.3 New NA3 2,040 0 15 0.7 

24.8 B Dirt 8,920 10 2 0.4 

24.9 C Dirt 431 10 2 0.0 

29.0 C Dirt - 2-track 7,562 10 2 0.4 

33.7 C Dirt 8,197 10 2 0.4 

34.1 C Dirt 5,821 10 2 0.3 

Moffat 

County, CO 

36.2 C Dirt 3,582 10 2 0.2 

53.1 C Dirt 2,213 10 2 0.1 

53.2 C Dirt 10,411 10 2 0.5 

57.0 C Dirt 3,315 8 4 0.3 

59.6 C Dirt - 2-track 41,135 11 1 0.9 

65.0 C Dirt 3,104 10 2 0.1 

74.6 C Dirt 599 10 2 0.0 

75.1 C Dirt 290 10 2 0.0 

76.2 C Dirt 777 10 2 0.0 

77.2 C Dirt 145 10 2 0.0 

90.6 C Dirt 1,365 10 2 0.1 

91.9 C Dirt - 2-track 588 6 6 0.1 

93.6 C Dirt 5,138 10 2 0.2 

Sweetwater 

County, WY 

95.2 B Dirt 2195 8 4 0.2 

98.0 B Dirt (Cherokee 

Trail Rd.) 

6,610 8 4 0.6 

Total (acres) 6.3 

1

All access roads proposed for use during the proposed Project have been designated as follows: 

 Class A = well maintained and need little or no improvement; gravel or paved with bar ditches; and all-weather roads. 

 Class B = maintained dirt road with little or no gravel that may not be all-weather road or 4-wheel-drive only in bad conditions. 

 Class C = not-maintained 2-track road with grass in center. 

2

All impacts associated with widening existing roads to be temporary; new access road assumed to be permanent. 

3

NA = not applicable. 
2-9 September 2008

Table 2.1-3 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Proposed Action 

State/Facility MP 

Land Affected During 

Construction 

(acres)1

Land Affected During 

Operation 

(acres)2

Colorado 

Pipeline Facilities 

 Pipeline ROW 0.0 - 94.7 873.8 573.9 

 Additional TWAs Various 130.0 0.0 

 J. L. Davis Lateral 5.6 3.4 2.3 

Aboveground Facilities3

 Willow Creek Meter Station4 0.0 0.0 0.2 

 J. L. Davis Meter Station5 5.6 0.0 0.0 

 Mid-point Pump Station6 82.4 0.0 0.0 

 MLVs Various 0.0 0.0 

 Launchers and Receivers Various 0.0 0.0 

Contractor/Pipe Yard Off-ROW 51.6 0.0 

Access Roads7 Various 5.5 0.7 

Colorado Subtotal7,8 1,064.3 577.1 

Wyoming 

Pipeline Facilities 

 Pipeline ROW 94.7 - 152.2 522.8 348.6 

 Additional TWAs Various 69.3 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities3

 MLVs Various 0.0 0.0 

 Receiver 152.2 0.0 0.0 

 Access Roads7 Various 0.8 0.0 

Wyoming Subtotal7,8 592.9 348.6 

Project Total7,8 1,657.2 925.7 

1

Standard construction ROW would be 75 feet wide with extra width as needed to accommodate construction in rough terrain, on side 

slopes, for topsoil segregation, and for preparation of road and waterbody crossings. 

2

Standard operation ROW would be 50 feet wide. 

3

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

therefore are included with the pipeline ROW and additional TWA totals. 

4

Does not include total temporary disturbance of 0.5 acre during construction and additional 0.3 acre of permanent disturbance during 

operations already accounted for under pipeline facilities. 

5

Construction and operational land use impacts would occur entirely within the existing J. L. Davis gas processing facility. 

6

Does not include the potential disturbance of 1.8 acres for construction and operation of the potential future build-out of the midpoint 

pump station. 

7

Values include one new access road and existing access and haul roads that would need to be widened for construction. 

8

Slight discrepancies in acreage totals are due to rounding.
2-10 September 2008 

permanent easement centered on the proposed pipeline centerline. This permanent ROW would be 

maintained (e.g., by periodic clearing) by OPPC for aerial observation and maintenance of the pipeline. Of the 

ancillary facilities described previously, only the new and widened access roads, the J. L. Davis lateral, and the 

potential future pump station would require new land disturbance; the remaining facilities would be constructed 

within the permanent ROW for the pipeline or within already disturbed areas associated with existing facilities. 

Of the approximately 1,599 acres total necessary for construction of the proposed ROW (excluding the 

contractor/pipe yard and access roads), approximately 673 acres are considered temporary disturbance for 

construction. All acreage would be reclaimed. However, a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW would be maintained 

encompassing approximately 926 acres. Low-growing grasses, shrubs, and forbs would be allowed. Trees 

over the pipeline may be removed to allow for aerial inspections. 

Approximately 47.5 percent of the proposed pipeline route would cross federal land managed by the BLM, 

5.8 percent would cross state land (SWAs or state trust lands) and 46.7 percent would cross private land. 

Approximately 96 percent of the pipeline route is adjacent to existing pipeline or other utility corridors. In these 

areas, the pipeline would be constructed such that a 25-foot-wide offset is maintained from the edge of the 

nearest pipeline or utility easement. This offset area would not be used for equipment during construction of 

the Project. Disturbed lands would be restored and allowed to revert to former use. Table 2.1-4 lists locations 

where the proposed pipeline route would not be collocated with other existing pipeline or utility corridors and 

would therefore be crossing land not previously developed, hereafter referred to as greenfields. Within the first 

5 miles of the route, the pipeline would cross greenfields before joining with the existing WIC Piceance pipeline 

ROW. The remaining deviations from existing ROWs are limited to areas where site-specific environmental or 

engineering constraints justify routing away from the existing ROW. 

Table 2.1-4 Pipeline Segments not Collocated with Other Pipeline or Utility ROWs 

Begin MP End MP Length (miles) 

0.8 3.1 2.3 

3.2 4.7 1.5 

18.9 20.8 1.9 

92.5 93.0 0.5 

142.5 143.0 0.5 

Total New ROW 6.7 

Most of the aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline would be constructed within the pipeline ROW. 

Only part of the mid-point pump station, the J. L. Davis lateral, one new access road, and the existing 

contractor/pipe yard to be used would be outside of the pipeline ROW. The new access road would require 

0.7 acre of newly disturbed, private land. The 2,000-foot-long J. L. Davis lateral would require a 75-foot-wide 

construction ROW and a 50-foot-wide operational ROW for 3.4 acres and 2.3 acres, respectively, on 

previously disturbed land paralleling existing pipelines. The contractor/pipe yard is an existing yard located in 

Craig, Colorado, on private land. No new disturbances would be needed for this facility. 

The mid-point pump station would be constructed in two stages. Phase 1 would be constructed concurrent 

with construction of the pipeline and utilize an area 75 feet wide and 200 feet long that would be centered 

along the pipeline centerline at MP 82.4. During construction, this area would exist within the temporary 

construction ROW. During operation, this facility would remain within the permanent ROW. During Phase 2, 

approximately 1.8 acres would be required to construct the pump station. This 274-foot by 284-foot area would 

encompass the Phase 1 area and would extend beyond the 75-foot ROW disturbed during construction. 
2-11 September 2008

In addition to the 75-foot nominal construction ROW, OPPC would utilize an additional 199 acres of TWAs for 

construction of the Proposed Action. These additional TWAs would be needed in areas requiring special 

construction techniques (e.g., river, wetland, and road crossings; horizontal directional drilling [HDD] entry and 

exit points; steep slopes; and sensitive or rocky soils) and construction staging areas. Dimensions and 

acreages of typical TWAs are identified in Table 2.1-5. 

Table 2.1-5 Dimensions and Acreage of Typical Additional Temporary Workspace Areas 

Feature 

Dimensions 

(L x W in feet)1

TWA Required 

(acres)1

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

upon slope grade 

Varies 

Foreign pipeline crossovers L-shaped Varies 

Foreign pipeline/utility/other buried 

feature2

150 x 25 0.1 

Stringing truck turnarounds 100 x 150 0.3 

Two-lane roads/single railroad2 200 x 75 0.3 

Four-lane roads/multiple 

railroads/Interstate2

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

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

Open-cut waterbodies 25 to 50 feet 

wide2

200 x 75 and 200 x 125 0.3 

Open-cut waterbodies 50 to 100 feet 

wide2

250 x 75 and 250 x 125 0.4 

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

1

Values presented are for each workspace; some crossings require workspace on both sides of the feature. 

2

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

depend upon site-specific conditions. 

2.1.5 Construction Processes 

This section describes the general sequence of actions required to construct a pipeline project. Figure 2.1-4

illustrates the typical construction ROW and equipment work locations for the portions of the proposed route 

that would not be located adjacent to an existing pipeline ROW; Figure 2.1-5 illustrates the proposed 

construction ROW where the pipeline would be collocated adjacent to an existing pipeline ROW. 

2.1.5.1 Construction Planning 

Before starting construction, OPPC would finalize engineering surveys of the ROW centerline and extra 

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

would need to obtain a ROW grant from the BLM. 
PROFILE

NOTES:

1. CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL TYPICALLY BE 75' WIDE. THE PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE 50' WIDE. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE WILL BE

 NECESSARY AT MAJOR ROAD AND RIVER CROSSINGS, SIDESLOPES, AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS REQUIRED.

2. STOCKPILE TOPSOIL SEPARATELY FROM DITCH SPOIL AS SHOWN OR IN ANY CONFIGURATION APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR.

3. 2' SETBACK FROM SPOIL TO EDGE OF TRENCH. 

12"

MAXIMUM

50'

75'

CONSTRUCTION ROW

50'

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

ROW

WORKING S IDE

PERMANENT ROW

25'

S POIL S IDE

PROPOSED

PIPELINE

EDGE OF ROW

TOPSOIL DITCH

S POIL

25'

EDGE OF ROW

TOPSOIL

12"

MAXIMUM

50'

75'

CONSTRUCTION ROW

50'

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

ROW

WORKING S IDE

PERMANENT ROW

25'

S POIL S IDE

PROPOSED

PIPELINE

EDGE OF ROW

TOPSOIL DITCH

S POIL

25'

EDGE OF ROW

TOPSOIL

Overland Pass Pipeline

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

Figure 2.1-4 

Typical

Construction ROW

04/08/08

2-12
12"

MAXIMUM

50'

75'

CONSTRUCTION ROW

50'

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

ROW

WORKING S IDE

PERMANENT ROW

25'

S POIL S IDE

EXISTING

PIPELINE

PROPOSED

PIPELINE

EDGE OF ROW

NOTES :

TOPSOIL DITCH

S POIL

25'

EDGE OF EXISTING

FOREIGN PIPELINE /

EDGE OF

PROPOSED ROW

TOPSOIL

12"

MAXIMUM

50'

75'

CONSTRUCTION ROW

50'

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

ROW

WORKING S IDE

PERMANENT ROW

25'

S POIL S IDE

EXISTING

PIPELINE

PROPOSED

PIPELINE

EDGE OF ROW

TOPSOIL DITCH

S POIL

25'

EDGE OF EXISTING

FOREIGN PIPELINE /

EDGE OF

PROPOSED ROW

TOPSOIL

1. CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL TYPICALLY BE 75' WIDE. THE PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE 50' WIDE. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE WILL BE

 NECESSARY AT MAJOR ROAD AND RIVER CROSSINGS, SIDESLOPES, AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS REQUIRED.

2. STOCKPILE TOPSOIL SEPARATELY FROM DITCH SPOIL AS SHOWN OR IN ANY CONFIGURATION APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR.

3. THE OFFSET FROM ACTIVE PIPELINE, WHERE APPLICABLE, WILL BE 50' (CENTERLINE TO CENTERLINE) FOR MOST LOCATIONS BUT MAY BE INCREASED OR

 DECREASED DEPENDING ON THE SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.

4. 2' SETBACK FROM SPOIL TO EDGE OF TRENCH. Overland Pass Pipeline

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

Figure 2.1-5 

Typical Construction

ROW - Adjacent to

Existing Pipeline

04/08/08

2-13
2-14 September 2008 

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

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

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

intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent pipeline accidents and failures. Among 

other design standards, Part 195 specifies pipeline material and qualification, minimum design requirements, 

and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

OPPC has prepared a draft POD that outlines construction procedures, project-specific plans, and applicantcommitted environmental protection measures that would be implemented during construction of the proposed 

Project (CH2M Hill Trigon, Inc. 2008). This document describes routine construction and reclamation 

procedures in upland areas as well as construction methods for crossing wetlands and waterbodies. Sitespecific stipulations not included in the final POD but determined to be necessary on federal lands would be 

included in any ROW grant issued by the BLM. 

Included in the POD, OPPC has prepared several specific plans that include measures to minimize or 

eliminate potential environmental impacts. These plans are intended to serve as overall BMPs for construction 

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

The following plans are included as appendices to the draft POD and will hereafter be referenced by the plan 

names throughout this EA: 

• Biological Resources Protection Plan 

• Blasting Plan 

• Cultural Resources Protection Plan 

• Environmental Compliance Management Plan 

• Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

• Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

• Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan 

• Hydrostatic Test Plan 

• Weed Management Plan 

• Safety Plan 

• Transportation Management Plan 

• Environmental Protection Plan

• Winter Contingency Plan 

• Drill Fluid Contingency Plan 

• Paleontological Resources Protection Plan 

2.1.5.2 General Pipeline Construction Procedure 

Standard pipeline construction would be employed along the pipeline route and typically involve the following 

sequential operations: surveying and staking of the ROW, clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing and 

bending, welding, joint coating, lowering-in and backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup and restoration. A 

complete description of pipeline construction procedures is provided in the POD (CH2M Hill Trigon, Inc. 2008). 
2-15 September 2008

2.1.5.3 Special Construction Procedures 

In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, OPPC would use special construction procedures where 

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

major paved roads, railroads, steep terrain, significant waterbodies or wetlands, and when blasting through 

rock. 

Road Crossings

Construction across paved roads and highways would be in accordance with the requirements in road 

crossing permits and approvals obtained by OPPC. In general, most dirt roads would be open-cut, while major 

gravel and paved roads would be crossed by boring beneath the road. Each boring would be expected to take 

2 to 10 days. A complete list of road crossings and the proposed crossing method for each is provided in the 

Transportation Management Plan. 

Steep Terrain

Additional grading may be required in areas where the proposed pipeline route would cross steep slopes. 

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

such areas, the slopes would be cut away and, after the pipeline is installed, reconstructed to their original 

contours during restoration. Construction in areas with steep terrain would potentially require up to 25 feet of 

additional ROW width. 

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

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

stockpiled prior to cut and fill grading on steep terrain. In general, on steep side-slopes, soil from the high side 

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

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

and the original contours of the slope would be restored. Topsoil from the stockpile would be spread over the 

surface, erosion control features installed, and seeding implemented. 

Waterbody Crossings

The pipeline would cross three major waterbodies and three perennial streams. The White, Yampa, and Little 

Snake rivers would be crossed using HDD. The HDD method involves drilling a pilot hole under the waterbody 

and banks, then enlarging the hole through successive reamings until the hole is large enough to 

accommodate a prefabricated segment of pipe. Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, 

slurry (i.e., drilling mud) made of non-toxic fluids (e.g., bentonite and water) would be circulated through the 

drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the bore open. Pipe sections long enough to 

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

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

the banks, bed, or water quality of the waterbody being crossed. 

At ditches lined with concrete and aqueducts made out of pipe, OPPC would use the HDD crossing method 

described above. When crossing waterbodies, OPPC would adhere to the guidelines outlined in the draft POD 

and the requirements of its waterbody crossing permits. 

2.1.5.4 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures 

Construction activities at the mid-point pump station, if constructed, would follow a standard sequence of 

activities: clearing and grading, installing foundations for the pump and control buildings, and erecting the 

structures to house the pumps and associated facilities. Construction activities and the storage of building 

materials would be confined to the pump station construction site. 
2-16 September 2008 

If constructed, the NGL piping to the pump station, both aboveground and belowground, would be installed 

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

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

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

protection system. Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current. Before being put into 

service, pumps, controls, and safety devices would be checked and tested to ensure proper system operation 

and activation of safety mechanisms. 

After the completion of startup and testing, the pump station site would be graded and landscaped, and a 

permanent security fence would be installed around the pump station. The station buildings would be designed 

to be as consistent as possible with the character of the surrounding land uses. The pump stations would be 

painted a color to enable the structures to blend into the surrounding landscape, native vegetation would be 

used for landscaping, and the minimum lighting necessary for safe operation of the facilities would be installed. 

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

stations and MLVs. These facilities would all be constructed within the permanent ROW. Activities such as 

clearing, grading, trenching, clean-up, and restoration would occur simultaneously with construction activities 

associated with the pipeline. Where practical, MLVs typically would be located near public roads to allow yearround access. Permanent access roads or approaches may be constructed within the permanent ROW to 

some MLV sites. 

2.1.5.5 Reclamation 

Once the construction ROW and temporary access roads have been restored to approximate pre-construction 

grades and contours, to the extent possible, these areas of disturbance would be reclaimed in accordance with 

the Environmental Protection Plan. The plan identifies the seed mixes that have been developed in 

coordination with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies and describes the techniques that would be used for 

revegetation of disturbed lands resulting from construction of the proposed Project. In addition, the 

Environmental Protection Plan describes the subsequent monitoring and remediation that would be 

implemented during the operational phase of the Project to ensure long-term reclamation success and erosion 

control. The Weed Management Plan would be implemented in conjunction with the Environmental Protection 

Plan to control the spread of noxious weed species within the permanent ROW and ancillary facilities following 

construction. The plan identifies target species, determined in conjunction with the jurisdictional agencies; 

treatment methods; procedures for controlling the spread of weed species during construction; and postconstruction monitoring and treatment methods. The use of pesticides for the treatment of noxious weed 

species would be in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Prior to use of pesticides on 

the ROW or within the ancillary facilities, OPPC would obtain any necessary approvals for use from the 

appropriate jurisdictional agency, if required. 

2.1.5.6 Operation and Maintenance 

OPPC would maintain the ROW in accordance with methods outlined in the POD and stipulations contained in 

the ROW Grant. Inspections of the ROW would be conducted as defined in 49 CFR Part 195. Subsequent 

inspection and maintenance of the ROW would include, but would not be limited to, soil stabilization, 

reseeding, and noxious weed control. Inspections for vegetation, weeds, and erosion control would be 

conducted annually until the success criteria have been achieved, at which time it would be inspected every 

5 years for the life of the Project. The life of the Project would be a minimum of 50 years. 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not issue a ROW grant for the proposed Project. Without a 

ROW grant across federal lands, the proposed pipeline could not be constructed due to the federal land 

ownership patterns in the region. 
2-17 September 2008

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

continue due to the nationwide demand for these products. Since the amount of NGL being produced in the 

region is expected to exceed the existing pipeline transportation capacity and given the market values of NGL, 

alternative proposals to transport or store the NGL likely would be developed under this alternative. ONEOK, 

Williams, OPPC, or other companies could submit a new ROW grant application to the BLM for a different 

pipeline route. This would initiate a new and separate NEPA process. To date, the BLM has not received any 

new NGL transmission pipeline applications in this region. 

2.3 GRP Land Re-route Alternative 

A 0.8-mile section of the proposed pipeline route from approximate MP 86.7 to 87.5 was recently designated 

as Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) land in August 2007. The 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 and providing assistance for rehabilitating grasslands. This 

portion of the Proposed Action route is at a location where it would parallel the existing pipeline corridor 

containing three other pipelines; including the recently constructed WIC Piceance and Entrega pipelines. 

However, lands that have been designated under the GRP cannot have any new easements overlying their 

existing easement even though there are other previously existing ROW easements. According to the NRCS, 

there are no regulatory variances to this policy allowed under the GRP. The purpose of this re-route alternative 

is to avoid the GRP land in the event that OPPC and NRCS are not able to come to a resolution that would 

allow the pipeline route to remain as proposed. 

No aboveground facilities would be constructed along the GRP Land Re-route Alternative; it would consist of a 

pipeline re-route only. Approximately 2.7 miles of this 3.3-mile long alternative would cross BLM-managed land 

and 0.6 miles would cross State-managed land. The GRP Land Re-route Alternative would diverge from the 

Proposed Action route for approximately 2.0 miles in order to avoid crossing this 0.8-mile portion of GRP land. 

As shown in Figure 2.3-1, the GRP Land Re-route Alternative would leave the proposed route at approximate 

MP 86.4. It would traverse west for approximately 1.1 miles, then north for approximately 1.1 miles, and finally 

northeast for approximately 1.1 miles. It would rejoin the proposed route at approximate MP 88.4 adding 

approximately 1.3 miles to the total length of the project. Should the GRP Land Re-route Alternative be 

constructed, this additional 1.3 miles would represent an increase of less than 1 percent to the total 

152.2 miles of the Proposed Action. 

The primary differences between impacts under the GRP Land Re-route Alternative and the Proposed Action 

would be in the amount and type of lands and resources crossed. The key resources impacted would include 

those associated with surface disturbance such as soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. A summary 

comparison of the key resources that would result in a change in impacts under the GRP Land Re-route 

Alternative compared to the Proposed Action is presented in Table 2.3-1 and the text below. Further detail 

regarding the affected environment and impacts associated with the GRP Land Re-route Alternative for each 

resource is presented in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. 

Construction of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative would increase the total amount of land disturbed during 

construction by approximately 11.8 acres from 1,599 acres to 1,611 acres. The entire length of the GRP Land 

Re-route Alternative would cross greenfields (i.e. previously undisturbed lands), increasing the amount of noncollocated ROW from 6.7 miles to 10.0 miles for the length of the project and potentially initiating a new 

corridor for pipelines and other utilities along this 3.3 mile alternative route. Additionally, construction activities 

involving vegetation removal and soil disturbance through previously undisturbed areas often contribute to the 

spread of noxious weeds by creating optimal conditions for the establishment and growth of such plant 

species. Construction along the Proposed Action route would avoid these impacts associated with opening a 

new corridor by following previously disturbed existing pipeline ROWs through the area. 

Construction of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative would increase the total temporary disturbance of highly 

wind erodible soils by 13.4 acres (project total from 212.9 acres to 226.3 acres), highly water erodible soils by 
7

4

MP 85

MP 90

CO UT

WY

0 0.25 0.5 1

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

GRP Reroute

Proposed Pipeline

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

BLM Lands

State Lands

Private Lands

Figure 2.3-1

GRP Land Re-route

2-18
2-19 September 2008

Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Key Resources Impacted by the GRP Land Re-route Alternative and 

the Proposed Action (MP 86.4 to MP 88.4) 

Resource Analysis Parameter 

Proposed 

Action 

GRP Land 

Re-route 

Alternative 

Miles Crossed 

Project Total 152.2 153.5 

Per Route Alternative 2.0 3.3 

BLM Managed Lands 0.3 2.7 

State Managed Lands 0.9 0.6 

Private Lands 0.8 0.0 

Co-location Adjacent to Existing Utilities 

(e.g. pipelines, transmission lines) 

2.0 0.0 

Acres of Impact (during construction) 

Project Total 1,599 1,611 

Colorado Total 1,007 1,019 

Re-route Segment Total 19.0 30.8 

Soils (Route Alt. only) Wind Erodible 5.4 18.8 

 Water Erodible 12.7 23.6 

 Droughty 10.4 23.5 

Wildlife Sage-grouse habitat 19.0 30.8 

Vegetation Shrubland 19.0 30.8 

Number of Occurrences 

Oil and Gas Wells Wells within 400 feet of centerline 0 1 

Wildlife Active sage-grouse leks within 0.6 miles 0 1 

Surface Water Crossings Ephemeral Unnamed Tributaries to 

Bighole Gulch 

1 6 

10.9 acres (project total from 807.0 acres to 817.9 acres), and droughty soils by 13.1 acres (project total from 

445.5 acres to 458.6 acres). These soils also support shrubland vegetation which provides habitat for greater 

sage-grouse. 

The GRP Land Re-route Alternative would pass 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 

original pipeline route travels through core habitat as well, but this previously disturbed habitat has already 

impacted local wildlife populations. The total area of two CDOW-designated sage-grouse core habitats that 

would be crossed in the proposed Project vicinity is approximately 647,900 acres. The Proposed Action 

construction would impact a total of approximately 421 acres (less than 0.07 percent) of that core habitat. The 

proposed re-route would impact an additional 11.8 acres of that core habitat. 
2-20 September 2008 

Other resources impacted by construction of the GRP Land Re-route Alternative include the presence of one 

oil and gas well within 400 feet of the alternative route and the crossing of five additional ephemeral unnamed 

tributaries. The well is an exploratory well that was plugged and abandoned in 1995 (COGCC 2008) and the 

tributaries are small headwater tributaries to Bighole Gulch. 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

To minimize impacts across greenfields, OPPC identified pipeline routes that parallel existing utility ROWs. 

The Willow Creek Gas Plant, which is the starting point of the proposed Project, is located near two existing 

pipeline routes: the WIC Piceance pipeline and the Entrega pipeline. The Proposed Action Alternative follows 

the WIC Piceance pipeline route along the southern-most part of the route. The South Connector Route 

Alternative would parallel the Entrega pipeline route along Piceance Creek and around the west side of 

Colorow Mountain until it would join with the WIC Piceance pipeline corridor and the Proposed Action route at 

approximately MP 42.0 (Figure 2.4-1). The North Connector Route Alternative would follow the Proposed 

Action Alternative route to approximately MP 136.5, at which point it would turn and trend in a northeasterly 

direction toward the Echo Springs pump station (Figure 2.4-1). The following sections discuss the issues with 

each alternative and why they were eliminated from consideration. 

2.4.1 South Connector Route Alternative 

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

The pump station, meter station, and pigging facility configurations would be the same. The total number of 

MLVs would remain the same, but the locations between MP 0.0 and MP 42.0 would change. The primary 

differences between this alternative and the Proposed Action would be the amount and type of land and 

resources crossed. A summary comparison of the key resources that would be impacted by the South 

Connector Route Alternative compared to the Proposed Action is presented in Table 2.4-1. 

The South Connector Route Alternative would be approximately 3 miles shorter than the Proposed Action. 

However, it is unlikely that this alternative would result in a significant reduction in total acreage impact due to 

the steep slopes and side slope construction that would be required, as well as multiple waterbody crossings 

that would require additional TWAs for construction. In addition, the corridor around Colorow Mountain is 

extremely crowded with existing pipelines and there is limited room for an additional pipeline. It is anticipated 

that construction along this route would require additional ROW associated with the increase in side-slope 

construction. 

Under this alternative, the ROW would parallel Piceance Creek for approximately 20 miles. Due to meanders 

in the creek, the creek itself would be crossed numerous times. A number of tributaries also would be crossed 

near their confluences with Piceance Creek. This would increase the number of stream crossings by 32 

beyond those of the Proposed Action within the first 42 miles. Many of the additional crossings would involve 

open cuts near the Piceance Creek mainstem. In spite of BMPs to control erosion, sedimentation, and spills, 

adverse water quality impacts during construction likely would be more significant than the potential impacts 

from the Proposed Action. Additionally, the proximity of this alternative to a long segment of Piceance Creek 

increases the potential risks for adverse water quality impacts from pipeline rupture, leaks, or maintenance 

activities during operations. 

Due to the proximity to Piceance Creek, the South Connector Route Alternative would impact more 

wetland/riparian habitat and hydric soils than the Proposed Action route. Hydric soils are generally an indicator 

of the presence of wetlands, which are sensitive to disturbance and typically prone to compaction and 

displacement by heavy equipment. The increased presence of wetlands and waterbodies and the associated 

crossing locations along the South Connector Route Alternative increases the overall likelihood of adverse 

impacts to surface water quality, wetlands, and aquatic and riparian-associated plant and wildlife species over 

those associated with the Proposed Action. 
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

0 4 8 16

Scale in Miles

Overland Pass Pipeline 

Piceance Basin Lateral EA

City or Town

Milepost

Proposed Pipeline

Southern Alternate Route

Northern Alternate Route

Named Streams and Rivers

Interstate Highway

Other Highways

Other Roads

County Boundary

State Boundary

Figure 2.4-1

Route Alternatives

2-21
2-22 September 2008 

Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Key Resources Impacted by the South Connector Route Alternative 

and the Proposed Action (MP 0.0 to MP 42.0) 

Resource Analysis Parameter 

Proposed 

Action 

South 

Connector 

Route 

Alternative 

Miles Crossed 

 Project Total 152.2 149.2 

 Per Route Alternative 42.0 39.0 

 Co-location Parallel to Existing Utilities 

(e.g., pipelines, transmission lines) 

36.3 36.0 

 Wildlife Mule Deer Severe Winter Range 13.6 24.5 

 Visual Visual Resource Management (VRM) II 0.1 0.8 

Acres of Impact 

 Project Total 1,599 1,553 

 Colorado Total 1,007 955 

 Soils (Colorado only) Topsoil Depth >18 inches 95 134 

Hydric Soils 2 58 

Number of Occurrences 

 Oil and Gas Wells Wells within 400 feet of centerline 8 15 

Perennial Stream Crossings 3 7 

Stream Crossings 20 43 

Piceance Creek Crossings 1 6 

Dry Fork Piceance Creek 1 1 

 Surface Water Crossings 

White River 1 1 

The primary land uses crossed by the South Connector Route Alternative would be rangeland and forest. This 

alternative would impact previously undisturbed forested and shrubland communities as well as critical habitat 

(i.e., Severe Winter Range) for big game species such as mule deer. More than half the length of this 

Alternative would be within Mule Deer Severe Winter Range habitat, compared to less than a third of the 

length of the comparable section of the Proposed Action. 

There are 15 oil and gas wells within 400 feet of the pipeline centerline of the South Connector Route 

Alternative while between MP 0.0 and MP 42.0 along the Proposed Action route there are only eight oil and 

gas wells. The increased number of oil and gas wells in close proximity presents a greater safety concern and 

increases the potential that the pipeline would need to be re-routed to avoid these wells. 

The landscape that would be crossed by the South Connector Route Alternative consists of gently rolling 

landforms with vegetation limited to shrubs or grasses, diverse riparian landscape, and steeply sided 
2-23 September 2008

landforms with shrubs and coniferous vegetation. View distances range from foreground, to middleground, and 

background (more than 5 miles). Compared to the Proposed Action, approximately 0.7 additional miles of 

VRM Class II and 1.1 fewer miles of VRM Class III would be dedicated to operational pipeline ROW for the 

Project life. 

Considering the anticipated undesirable residual impacts associated with this route as noted above, as well as 

the problems encountered during construction of the recent Entrega pipeline along that route, the South 

Connector Route Alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis. 

2.4.2 North Connector Route Alternative 

Like the South Connector Route Alternative, the proposed facilities needed for this alternative would not 

change substantially from the Proposed Action. The pump and meter station configurations would be the same 

as would the pigging facilities. The total number of MLVs and their locations would remain the same. The 

primary concern with this alternative is that it would open a new corridor for pipelines and other utilities. The 

Proposed Action avoids impacts associated with opening a new corridor by following an existing utility ROW as 

the route turns northeast south of Wamsutter toward the Echo Springs Pump Station. A summary comparison 

of the key resources that would be impacted by the North Connector Route Alternative compared to the 

Proposed Action is presented in Table 2.4-2. 

This alternative would shorten the overall length of the pipeline by approximately 3 miles, resulting in less total 

surface disturbance; however, the entire 13-mile length of the alternative route would be across greenfields 

rather than running parallel to existing previously disturbed areas. 

Construction activities through previously undisturbed areas often contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. 

Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the 

establishment of noxious weeds. Constructing through previously disturbed areas would limit the potential 

spread of noxious weeds to previously undisturbed areas. 

The North Connector Route Alternative would be located immediately adjacent to Echo Spring, and excavation 

in the vicinity is likely to have adverse impacts on the duration or timing of flows from this feature. Given that 

surface water resources are sparse in the area, any such effect would be an adverse impact to the available 

resource. 

During operations, any spills or leaks that occurred would be isolated in the enclosed basins nearby. Although 

such events are unlikely, they may adversely impact temporary habitats associated with dry or seasonal lakes 

in the area. Due to the isolated and intermittent or ephemeral nature of ponding in these features, a spill or 

leak would have minimal effect on surface water resources in the dry lakes. However, if an operational event 

were to reduce flow or water quality at Echo Spring, it would result in adverse impacts. 

Although this alternative would impact previously undisturbed forested and shrubland communities, no 

additional big game critical winter habitat would be crossed. Total miles crossed and acreages impacted for big 

game critical winter habitat would be the same as the Proposed Action. However, this alternative would cross 

60 percent more previously undisturbed habitat for the mountain plover, a BLM sensitive species. 

There are 15 oil and gas wells within 400 feet of the pipeline centerline of the North Connector Route 

Alternative while between MP 136.5 and MP 152.2, along the Proposed Action route, there are only 2 oil and 

gas wells. 

When compared to the Proposed Action, the North Connector Route Alternative would disturb less land; 

however, it would generally have a greater impact on resources. Considering the anticipated undesirable 

residual impacts associated with this route as noted above, the North Connector Route Alternative was 

eliminated from detailed analysis. 
2-24 September 2008 

Table 2.4-2 Comparison of Key Resources Impacted by the North Connector Route Alternative 

and the Proposed Action (MP 136.5 to MP 152.2) 

Resource Analysis Parameter 

Proposed 

Action 

North 

Connector 

Route 

Alternative 

Miles Crossed 

 Project Total 152.2 149.2 

 Per Route Alternative 15.7 12.7 

 Co-location Parallel to Existing Utilities 

(e.g., pipelines, transmission lines). 

15.2 0.0 

 Wildlife Mountain Plover Habitat 3.5 5.7 

Acres of Impact 

 Project Total 1,599 1,562 

 Wyoming Total 592 574 

Number of Occurrences 

 Oil and Gas Wells Wells within 400 feet of centerline 2 15 

 Surface Water Crossings Stream Crossings 5 8 

Echo Springs Draw 0 2