Attachment G 

Responses to Public Comments on the Environmental Assessment 

Public Comment Letter Summary 

Overland Pass Piceance Lateral Environmental Assessment 

Letter 

Number Commenter 

Date 

Received 

Comment 

Period 

Response 

Prepared? Comment Type 

-- Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

February 

26, 2008 

Scoping No Scoping – comments considered 

in EA preparation 

-- Heath Land and 

Energy, LLP 

February 

25, 2008 

Scoping No Scoping – opinion for project 

-- Alliance for Historic 

Wyoming 

March 13, 

2008 

Scoping No Scoping – comments considered 

in EA preparation 

-- Colorado 

Environmental 

Coalition 

March 14, 

2008 

Scoping Sent to 

commenter 

October 8, 

2008 

Scoping – comments considered 

in EA preparation 

-- Williams Midstream 

Gas and Liquids 

March 14, 

2008 

Scoping No Scoping – opinion in favor of 

project 

-- North American 

Grouse Partnership 

March 13, 

2008 

Scoping No Scoping – comments considered 

in EA preparation 

-- Mark Greenwood 

(x2) 

Unknown 

and 

July 10, 

2008 

Scoping No Scoping – opinion against project 

and oil and gas development in 

general 

-- Benchmark 

Polymers, LLC 

May 1, 2008 NA No Scoping/out of review period - 

Inquiry on status of project 

F1 U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

October 7, 

2008 

September 

EA 

Yes Substantive Comments – no 

changes to EA 

S1 Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

August 11, 

2008 

July EA Yes General Comments – no 

changes to EA 

S2 Colorado Division of 

Water Resources 

August 13, 

2008 

July EA Yes Substantive Comments – no 

changes to EA 

S3 Colorado Division of 

Wildlife 

October 7, 

2008 

September 

EA 

Yes Substantive Comments – no 

changes to EA 

N1 Colorado 

Environmental 

Coalition 

August 13, 

2008 

July EA Yes Substantive Comments – one 

change to EA (sentence deleted) 

N2 Alliance for Historic 

Wyoming 

September 

30, 2008 

September 

EA 

Yes Substantive Comments – no 

changes to EA 

P1 Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company 

August 4, 

2008 

July EA Yes Errata – changes to EA 

P2 Kent Neilson September 

26, 2008 

September 

EA 

No Opinion in favor of project 

Public comment letters received during the public review periods for the Environmental Assessment (EA) 

were assigned a coded comment number indicating commenter type (F = federal agency, S = state 

agency, N = non-government organization, and P = private individual or company). These letters and 

their responses are provided on the following pages. Responses to letters received during the scoping 

period are not provided because these comments were evaluated and addressed in the EA as 

appropriate.

G-1 

Letter F1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 7, 2008 

Collin_Ewing@fws.gov 10/07/2008 07:48 AM 

To Mark_Mackiewicz@blm.gov 

cc 

Subject Re: Fw: Overland Pipeline Environmental Assessment-Supplemental Analysis 

 

Hi Mark, 

We are drafting a letter that will contain the following: 

Dear Mark, 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Western Colorado Ecological Service Field Office received 

your September 25, 2008, email, requesting further comments on the Piceance Lateral Pipeline Project. 

You requested comments regarding a proposed reroute of the pipeline that may affect the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). We have reviewed the supplemental analysis in the EA and our 

comments follow. 

The Service is currently reviewing the species and expected to determine whether it warrants listing by 

December. Regarding species such as the greater sage-grouse and Federal candidates for official listing 

as threatened or endangered, these species presently have no legal protection under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, but it is within the spirit of the Act to consider project impacts to these 

potentially sensitive species. One of the factors that will be analyzed in the decision whether the sage 

grouse warrants federal listing is the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Selection of the 

proposed reroute alternative would cause further fragmentation to an already disturbed sage grouse core 

area. Decisions such as this one by BLM, that potentially effect the sage grouse, will be examined during 

the preparation of the listing decision. 

As stated in the EA, the proposed reroute would result in disturbance to an additional 11.8 acres of sagegrouse core habitat, and crosses within 0.6 miles of an active lek. We recommend that the proposed 

action be the chosen alternative so that all impacts are limited to the currently disturbed existing pipeline 

corridor. However if the proposed reroute is chosen, we recommend that you add the following additional 

protection measures at a minimum. 

• No permanent aboveground facilities should be allowed within a 0.6-mile radius of all active leks, 

regardless of land ownership. 

• No surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile of an active lek from March 1 to July 31, regardless of 

land ownership. 

• No surface disturbing activities within a 4-mile radius of an active lek (regardless of habitat type) 

between March 1 and July 31 regardless of land ownership. If seasonal habitats have been mapped 

along the pipeline ROW the buffer area could increase or decrease. 

• For the life of the pipeline, no maintenance of the pipeline or facilities should be allowed (except in 

emergencies), within a 4-mile radius of an active lek (regardless of habitat type) between March 1 

and July 31 regardless of land ownership. 

Collin J Ewing 

Fish and Wildlife Biologist 

USFWS Western Colorado Ecological Services 

970-243-2778 ext.18 

G-2 
Response to Letter F1

OPPC and BLM are actively pursuing a variance for the GRP land easement to avoid construction of the 

proposed re-route. Should BLM issue a ROW grant for the proposed re-route, OPPC has committed to 

withholding construction of the pipeline through the re-route area as long as feasible, including waiting 

until after the June 30, 2008 sage-grouse timing limitation window, to give every opportunity for BLM and 

OPPC to obtain a variance to the GRP land easement from NRCS and avoid the re-route. At this time, 

BLM does not recognize the proposed re-route as a pipeline corridor. Any future pipeline ROWs proposed 

in this area would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the outcome of negotiations with 

NRCS regarding the GRP easement. 

Should the re-route be constructed, BLM has determined that the appropriate mitigation measures for this 

area (in Colorado) would include the following: 

• No permanent surface structures would be constructed within 0.6 miles of the lek; 

• No surface disturbing activities on state or federal lands would be allowed within the re-route March 1 

to June 30; 

• OPPC would be required to restore the ROW with BLM-specific seed mixes and monitor that 

restoration success; and 

• No maintenance activities except for emergencies would be allowed within the re-route ROW from 

March 1 to June 30. 

G-3 
Letter S1: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, August 11, 2008 

G-4 
G-5 
G-6 
Response to Letter S1

Comment # Comment within Letter Response

S1-1 We recommend avoiding construction activities 

on big game crucial winter ranges from 

November 15-April 30. The construction plan 

outlines construction during winter stipulation 

periods (page 3-127). If possible, construction 

should be completed on winter ranges before 

the stipulation period. 

As stated in the EA on Table 4.7-1, OPPC 

would not construct through Wyoming's big 

game crucial winter ranges from November 15 

through April 30. 

S1-2 ...we recommend avoiding disturbance to sagegrouse nesting/early brood rearing habitat from 

March 15 until July 15. 

As stated in the EA on Table 4.7-1, OPPC 

would not construct through Wyoming's greater 

sage grouse nesting habitat (within 2 miles of an 

occupied lek) from March 1 through July 15. 

S1-3 To increase human safety, we suggest that 

workers on foot away from the major 

construction areas wear blaze-orange vests or 

shirts from September 20 to November 30 in 

Wyoming, which is during big game rifle 

seasons. 

As stated on page 2 of the Safety Plan (an 

appendix to the POD), "The Contractor shall 

ensure that the following measures are 

implemented:"... "Use specified and required 

personal safety equipment in performance of 

duties." 

S1-4 While working, workers should not carry or 

possess firearms at the worksite or in camps. 

As stated on page 2 of the Safety Plan (an 

appendix to the POD), "The Contractor shall 

ensure that the following measures are 

implemented:"... "Prohibit firearms, hunting, 

alcohol, and drugs on OPPC property, the 

construction right-of-way, temporary use areas, 

access roads, and off-right-of-way project 

facilities." 

S1-5 Workers should not “camp out” along or near 

the project area. 

As stated in Section 3.10 of the POD, "OPPC’s 

Construction Inspectors will ensure that the 

Contractor implements the following health and 

safety measures:"... "Prohibit camping on the 

right-of-way." 

S1-6 Increased work traffic could result in a slight 

increase in big game-vehicle accidents on 

roads between construction and living areas. 

Measures should be implemented to decrease 

the chance of accidents (e.g., speed limits, 

bussing workers). 

As stated in Section 4.3 of the Transportation 

Management Plan (an appendix to the POD), 

"Posted speed limits will be observed on 

highways, county roads, BLM roads, and posted 

private roads." 

G-7 
Comment # Comment within Letter Response

S1-7 Contactors should keep all trash picked up 

along the route during and after construction. 

As stated in Section 3.11 of the POD, "OPPC 

Construction Inspectors will ensure that the 

Contractor implements the following waste 

disposal measures:"... "No littering will be 

allowed on the right-of-way. Construction and 

operations sites will be maintained in a sanitary 

condition at all times and waste materials at 

these sites will be disposed of promptly at an 

appropriate waste disposal site. Waste is 

defined as discarded matter including, but not 

limited to, human waste, discarded food, trash, 

garbage, refuse, oil drums, petroleum products, 

blasting boxes, and equipment." 

S1-8 We recommend a thorough Cumulative Impacts 

Analysis be completed, as there are additional 

gas field impacts in the Continental 

Divide/Wamsutter II, Mulligan Draw, South 

Baggs, Desolation Flats, and other natural gas 

projects between I-80 and the Colorado state 

line. These projects are cumulatively significant 

and should be included in the impacts analysis. 

As discussed in Chapter 5 of the EA, the 

cumulative impacts analysis was completed 

taking into consideration the multiple 

development projects currently proposed in the 

project vicinity, including, but not limited to, the 

areas mentioned. The Proposed Plan for the 

BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP and Final EIS 

was used as the basis for this assessment for 

the Wyoming portion of the project. 

S1-9 Open trenches are a wildlife hazard if left open 

for too long, and usually do not contain enough 

gaps for wildlife to escape. The longer a section 

is open, the greater the risk of animals falling in, 

especially during seasons when weather might 

influence movements. 

As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1 of the EA, 

Sections 3.3.1 and 3.9.1 of the POD, and 

Section 3.7 of the Biological Resources 

Protection Plan (an appendix to the POD), 

OPPC has committed to placing earthen trench 

plugs, with ramps on either side, at a maximum 

of 1-mile intervals along the trench as well as at 

well-defined livestock and wildlife trails 

intersected by the trench to minimize potential 

impacts to wildlife, horses, and livestock. OPPC 

would consult with the BLM regarding specific 

placement of trench plugs and ramps on lands 

managed by the BLM. 

S1-10 We are concerned that reclamation continues to 

be a problem with pipeline projects. If 

vegetation is not established soon enough, 

weed problems develop that impact the future 

productivity of the site. Protocols to control 

weeds should be in place during reclamation 

efforts sufficient to prevent undesirable plants 

from going to seed. We recommend 

reclamation efforts include forb species that are 

beneficial to sage-grouse and/or big game. 

In cooperation with the BLM, state agencies, 

and counties, OPPC has developed and will 

implement the project-specific Weed 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Protection Plan (which contains the seed mixes 

to be used for reclamation). These plans are 

provided as appendices to the POD. 

S1-11 It is unclear if the project will strip new 

vegetation, or try to locate within the same 

disturbance corridor. If this project removes 

another strip of sagebrush adjacent to the other 

2 existing pipeline projects, then the impact to 

wildlife populations through the loss of more 

surface habitat is another cumulative impact to 

the region that needs to be analyzed. 

In an effort to minimize impacts to vegetation 

and wildlife, the proposed project has been 

routed to parallel existing utility ROWs (pipelines 

and/or electrical lines) for approximately 96 

percent of the project length. Potential 

cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife 

have been analyzed and are discussed in 

Chapter 5 of the EA. 

G-8 
Comment # Comment within Letter Response

S1-12 If possible, the proponent should locate this 

pipeline next to the other existing pipeline in the 

previously reclaimed area and not disturb a new 

corridor. 

Please refer to the response to comment S1-11. 

S1-13 The disturbance should not be considered 

reclaimed until it returns to persistent native 

vegetation, and efforts should continue on a 

yearly basis for areas that have not reached 

that result. 

Please refer to the response to comment S1-10. 

Section 7.3 of the Environmental Protection 

Plan specifically discusses evaluation of 

successful reclamation. 

Also, Appendix A to the BLM Rawlins Field 

Office RMP and Final EIS (Reclamation Plan) 

discusses criteria for reclamation success.

S1-14 When possible, we recommend using native 

seed adapted to the region to increase 

reclamation success. 

Please refer to the response to comment S1-10. 

S1-15 Riparian areas and flood plains should not be 

used as staging or refueling areas. All 

chemicals, solvents and fuels should be kept at 

least 150 feet away from streams and riparian 

areas. 

As discussed in Section 3.3 of the Hazardous 

Materials Management and Spill Prevention, 

Containment and Countermeasure Plan (an 

appendix to the POD), "Construction vehicles 

and stationary equipment will be fueled and 

serviced in upland areas at least 100 feet from 

waterbodies and wetlands. Within the Rawlins 

Resource Area, the set back will be 500 feet 

from all permanent waters, wells, springs, 

wetlands, and riparian areas, as well as 100 feet 

from the inner gorge of ephemeral stream 

channels." 

S1-16 ...the direct discharge of hydrostatic test waters 

to streams should be avoided. Discharge 

should occur into a temporary sedimentation 

basin if total suspended solids concentrations 

are significantly higher in the test water than in 

the receiving water. Dewatering of temporary 

sedimentation basins should then be done in a 

manner that precludes erosion. 

As discussed in Section 3.6 of the POD as well 

as in the project-specific Hydrostatic Test Plan

(an appendix to the POD), "OPPC’s 

Construction Inspectors will ensure that the 

Contractor implements the following mitigation 

measures during hydrostatic testing 

operations:"... "Dewatering will be performed in 

accordance with the measures defined in the 

Hydrostatic Testing Plan (Appendix 8) and 

project permits. Install energy-dissipating 

devices and/or filter bags to prevent scour, 

erosion, suspension of sediment, and damage 

to vegetation. Monitor discharge rates to ensure 

effectiveness of the energy dissipating device." 

S1-17 ...release of water into drainages other than the 

source drainage can result in an unacceptable 

risk of introducing aquatic nuisance species 

(New Zealand mud snail, European ear snail, 

whirling disease spores, etc.). 

Please refer to the response to comment S1-16. 

G-9 
Comment # Comment within Letter Response

S1-18 Instead of requiring a temporary sedimentation 

basin, the following recommendation can be 

used: 

• If the discharge point is more than 0.5 miles 

from a perennial stream and the discharge flow 

is less than 0.5 cfs, the use of a series of hay 

bales instead of a temporary sedimentation 

basin. 

• If the discharge point is more than 0.5 miles 

from a perennial stream and the discharge flow 

is greater than 0.5 cfs, we recommend the use 

of temporary sedimentation basin. 

• If the discharge point is lass than 0.5 miles 

from a perennial stream, we recommend the 

use of a temporary sedimentation basin. 

Please refer to the response to comment S1-16. 

S1-19 Right-of-way widths should be minimized where 

the pipeline crosses riparian areas and 

streams. 

The nominal ROW width for the proposed 

project is 75 feet, which is the minimum typically 

required for construction of this diameter 

pipeline. The request for additional workspace 

beyond this 75-foot construction ROW through 

riparian areas and wetlands/waterbodies has 

been avoided to the extent practical. 

G-10 

Letter S2: Colorado Division of Water Resources, August 13, 2008 

"Light, Erin" <Erin.Light@state.co.us> 08/13/2008 03:05 PM 

To <Overland_comments@blm.gov> 

cc 

Subject Overland Pass Lateral 

To Whom it May Concern: 

I offer one small comment pertaining to the Water Resources, Proposed Action, Surface Water section 

(4.5.1.1) of the EA. In particular as to the section “Withdrawals and Discharges for Hydrostatic Testing 

and Dust Control”: 

Any water right put to beneficial use must be put to it decreed use, otherwise it is not at all using the water 

right but rather unadjudicated water. The EA states that existing surface water rights would be used for 

obtaining water needed for construction. Are these water rights decreed for construction and/or industrial 

use? If they are not the water being used for this purpose is unadjudicated water. Also, as the applicant 

is not the owner of these water rights they may be exceeding the contemplated use of these water rights 

even if they are decreed for construction and/or industrial use. 

Finally, the EA mentions “temporary appropriation procedures through the Colorado Division of Water 

Resources.” There are no such temporary appropriation procedures. Within the State of Colorado, a 

water user may divert water from a stream without a water right so long as the water is put to beneficial 

use without waste and the stream system is not under administration. Piceance Creek upstream of it 

confluence with Dry Fork is subject to administration yearly. The mainstem of the Yampa River and the 

White River downstream of Meeker have never been subject to administration. The Little Snake River 

upstream of the Trowel Ditch has been subject to administration, but has not been administered since the 

construction and operation of High Savery Dam. 

Erin Light, P.E. 

Division 6 Engineer (Yampa, White and North Platte River basins) 

Colorado Division of Water Resources 

Response to Letter S2

OPPC currently plans to obtain water only from the White, Yampa and Little Snake Rivers. At the 

proposed withdrawal locations, these rivers are not currently under administration. Prior to withdrawal, 

OPPC would contact the State Engineer’s office to make sure there are no calls on the rivers. Any 

withdrawal would be put to beneficial use. Any use of waters through existing water rights would conform 

to the decreed use. 

G-11 

Letter S3: Colorado Division of Wildlife, October 7, 2008 

G-12 
G-13 
Response to Letter S3

OPPC and the BLM are actively pursuing a variance for the GRP easement to avoid construction of the 

proposed re-route. Should the BLM issue a ROW grant for the proposed re-route, OPPC has committed 

to withholding construction of the pipeline through the re-route area as long as feasible, including waiting 

until after the June 30 sage-grouse timing limitation window, to give every opportunity for the BLM and 

OPPC to obtain a variance to the GRP land easement from NRCS and avoid the re-route. At this time, 

the BLM does not recognize the proposed re-route as a pipeline corridor. Any future pipeline ROWs 

proposed in this area would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the outcome of 

negotiations with the NRCS regarding the GRP easement. 

Should the re-route be constructed, there would be no permanent surface structures constructed in this 

area. Furthermore, because of the proximity to the lek, OPPC would be required to not construct or 

perform maintenance activities within the seasonal timing limitations as set forth by the BLM in the EA. 

Mitigation for any impacts would consist of restoration of the ROW with the BLM-specific seed mixes and 

monitoring of that restoration success as stipulated in the EA. 

The EA adequately addresses the additional disturbance along the proposed re-route compared to the 

disturbance along the proposed action. Section 4.7.3 of the EA analyzes the disturbance on a percentage 

basis compared to the avoided section of the proposed action (62 percent greater) as well as in the 

context of the entire project and specifically to total project disturbance within designated greater sagegrouse “core habitat.” 

G-14 

Letter N1: Colorado Environmental Coalition, August 13, 2008 

G-15 
G-16 
G-17 
G-18 
G-19 
G-20 
G-21 
G-22 
G-23 
G-24 
G-25 
G-26 
Response to Letter N1

Legal Support: 

Regulatory Guidance: 

The controlling guidance and source documents for preparation of the EA included, but were not 

limited to, the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the BLM NEPA 

Handbook H-1790-1 (January 2008), and the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for the three 

regional BLM field offices that would be crossed by the proposed project (White River, Little Snake, 

and Rawlins). Direct and indirect impacts are discussed in Chapter 4, and cumulative actions (past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future) are discussed in Chapter 5. 

Connected Actions: 

No connected actions were identified for this project. Pipeline construction is driven by demand in 

order to meet the mutual needs of producers as well as downstream customers. In other words, 

pipeline construction does not occur until there is a sufficient supply to fill the pipeline. Pipeline 

development is a result of well-field development and drilling and does not cause additional 

development or drilling activities. Additionally, the proposed pipeline project is intended to carry 

natural gas liquids (NGL), which are a by-product of natural gas production. The capacity to fill this 

pipeline already exists; NGLs are currently being transported out of the region by trucks. Without the 

additional NGL pipeline capacity provided by the proposed Piceance Basin Lateral, NGLs produced in 

the area would have to utilize higher and higher levels of over-the-road truck traffic to haul NGLs to 

terminal points where they can be injected into distant NGL pipelines. 

Cumulative Impacts: 

Please note that the comments contained in this section of the letter (beginning on page 3 of 12) refer to 

statements made in the EA regarding Purpose and Need (Section 1.1), not to the Cumulative Impacts 

analysis. Cumulative impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. The following specific responses 

pertain directly to comments made in the letter: 

• The following sentence has been deleted: “The proposed Project is in the national interest in that 

it is a major energy facility that would provide significant and much needed NGL transmission 

capacity out of the Piceance Basin to the Overland Pass Pipeline.” 

• The need for the project is presented from the perspective of the Applicant, which is consistent 

with NEPA case law. “It should be noted at the outset that no provision of NEPA mandates an 

independent evaluation by the agency involved of the need for a project. In fact, the only place 

where need is mentioned is ... 40 CFR 1502.13 ... [which] provides that the [EIS] ... shall specify 

the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives 

including the proposed action. ... Such provisions cannot be interpreted as requiring that the 

agency, make a de novo determination of need, but only that the agency include such statement 

of purpose and need so as to put into context what the EIS is addressing.” Anson v. Eastburn

• Please note that the proposed project does not cross land managed by the Glenwood Springs 

Field Office. 

Given the amount of oil and gas activity in the project vicinity, detailed information regarding the most 

pertinent projects in the area (e.g., in terms of timing and geography) is provided in Chapter 5. Detail 

regarding pertinent reasonably foreseeable future projects was provided to the extent known at the time 

the EA was written. To account for other smaller and/or non-federal projects in the area, general 

discussions regarding such activity and projections for the reasonably foreseeable future development 

(RFD) within each of the three BLM field office management areas were included in this analysis in 

Chapter 5. Source documents for the RFD analysis included the RMPs for the three regional BLM field 

offices as listed above as well as the most recently updated information available regarding RFD for each 

field office (i.e., September 2007 RFD Scenario for the White River Field Office; January 2007 Draft RMP 

for the Little Snake Field Office; and January 2008 Final RMP for the Rawlins Field Office). 

G-27 
Preparation of an EIS: 

Significant Impacts: 

The determination of significance will be made by the BLM based on the analyses contained 

within the EA and the definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR 

1508.27, supplemental Instruction Memorandum, Acts, regulations, and Executive Orders. The 

Ten Significance Criteria described in 40 CFR 1508.27 will be considered in detail in evaluating 

intensity for this proposal. 

RMP Revisions: 

The proposed action is consistent with the existing RMPs and approved amendments for each 

BLM field office that would be crossed. Although revisions to the White River and Little Snake 

RMPs are currently under development, the BLM cannot manage to RMP revisions that have not 

completed the NEPA process and have not yet been approved. However, every effort was made 

to take into consideration the most recent information available when analyzing impacts 

associated with the proposed action so as not to preclude the BLM from choosing any known 

reasonable alternatives that are being considered for their RMP revisions. 

Socioeconomic Analysis and Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation: 

Direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts are analyzed and discussed in Chapter 4. Additionally, 

Chapter 5 discusses the cumulative impact this project may have in conjunction with other development 

in the project vicinity. Impacts to the “environmental amenities provided by public lands” have been 

greatly minimized by routing 96 percent of this pipeline parallel to existing utility rights-of-way (pipeline 

and/or electrical line), thus greatly reducing the impacts associated with habitat fragmentation, loss of 

quality of life, and loss of quality recreation that a pipeline might have on tourism, recreation, and hunting 

and fishing. 

Locations where the pipeline is not co-located with existing utilities and a full discussion on land 

requirements are provided in Chapter 2 (Section 2.1.4). It should be noted that the original estimate that 

the proposed pipeline right-of-way would deviate from other existing utility rights-of-way for approximately 

15 to 20 miles was only an estimate. OPPC has made every effort to co-locate the proposed pipeline 

with existing utility rights-of-way, and once the route was finalized, only a total of 6.7 miles of the 153-mile 

pipeline route deviated from existing rights-of-way; the greatest deviation being approximately 2.3 miles at 

the south end of the pipeline route where it ties into the Willow Creek Gas Plant. By co-locating the 

majority of the proposed pipeline with existing rights-of-way, the effects of habitat fragmentation would be 

minimized and are not believed to represent a significant increase above the existing situation in the 

project area. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): 

As part of their Plan of Development (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 nonfederally managed lands. The BMPs were considered to be part of the proposed action, and their 

effectiveness in minimizing or eliminating impacts was included in the analysis presented in the EA. A 

copy of the entire POD was posted to the BLM website together with the EA during public scoping and 

would remain available on that website during construction should the project be approved. Copies of 

both the final EA and POD would also be available at the three BLM field offices crossed by the proposed 

pipeline project. 

G-28 
Letter N2: Alliance for Historic Wyoming, September 30, 2008

Lesley Wischmann <lesleywisch@wyoming.com> 09/30/2008 04:05 PM 

To Overland_comments@blm.gov 

cc 

Subject EA comments 

Mr. Mark A. Mackiewicz, PMP, National Project Manager 

125 South 600 West 

Price, UT 84501 

Dear Mr. Mackiewicz: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Overland Pass Pipeline environmental assessment. 

Please consider these to be the formal comments of the Alliance for Historic Wyoming (AHW). As you 

may know, AHW is a statewide voice for issues related to historic preservation and cultural resources. We 

work with citizens across the state of Wyoming and, indeed, across the country, concerned about 

ensuring that the irreplaceable historic and cultural resources we enjoy in this state are preserved for 

future generations to enjoy. In the future, we would ask that the AHW be considered an interested party 

for all Section 106 consultations related to this document. You may contact us at the below listed address 

and phone number. 

At this point, our primary concern regarding the Overland Pass Pipeline project centers on ensuring that 

the historic trails in the project area are properly protected. Since the existing proposal calls for utilizing 

existing pipeline corridors wherever possible, the potential for additional damage to these historic trails 

should be minimized. Nonetheless, we would encourage you to work with the recognized experts on the 

Cherokee and Overland Trails to ensure that decisions are being made using the most accurate 

information available. In addition, should this project offer opportunities to extend the marking and 

interpretation of these historic trails, we would very much support such efforts. 

We would also like to express our deep conviction regarding the pressing need for improved in-house 

training for heavy equipment field operators. In the last few years, we have witnessed several instances 

where field operators have failed to recognize existing remnants of the historic emigrant trails and, as a 

result, sections of those irreplaceable historic trails have been lost forever. At that point, the BLM offices 

have stepped in and tried to come up with appropriate mitigation for the loss that has already occurred. 

This, of course, is never really possible and does nothing to appease those who prize these historic 

remnants and feel their loss acutely. Therefore, the Alliance for Historic Wyoming has become convinced 

that it is simply not sufficient for the BLM offices to continue to work only with those in management 

positions with these companies. It is all well and good to make these corporate officers aware of the 

historical treasures that are scattered across the landscape but if the people who will be working in the 

field do not understand the nature of these resources and have not received complete and adequate 

training on how to identify these resources, they place these resources at great risk. Additionally, under 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, these operators could be held criminally liable for damage 

done to these resources. Yet they seem to know nothing about this possibility, having not received any 

intensive training regarding their obligations in the field to avoid doing any damage to cultural resources. 

Therefore, AHW believes that all BLM offices must immediately begin some sort of training program for 

field equipment operators. 

We would suggest that you consider implementing a comprehensive monitoring and cultural resource 

discovery plan similar to that which has already been proposed by the Meeker, Colorado BLM for 

handling the Piceance Lateral of the Overland Pass Pipeline. This document presents a comprehensive 

plan for training operators, for ensuring on-site archaeological review and for handling any unexpected 

discoveries during the course of this project. It also contains comprehensive guidelines for handling any 

discoveries of human remains, an issue that is always of concern when you are working in areas close to 

the old emigrant historical trails and those areas that clearly enjoyed prehistoric habitation. Having such a 

G-29 
G-30 

plan in place to handle the potential discovery of human remains is essential to ensure compliance with 

NAGPRA and since Wyoming currently lacks adequate state statutes regarding the discovery of human 

remains. 

In addition, we are becoming increasingly concerned that the limitations placed on cultural resource 

mitigation, i.e., that they occur in the project area, is having a tremendously negative impact on 

Wyoming’s ability to protect its resources over the long run. While it is commonplace for companies to pay 

millions of dollars in mitigation for environmental and wildlife impacts, what we routinely see with cultural 

resource mitigation is a few thousand dollars thrown at putting up signs or markers to tell people about 

what used to be there and is no longer present. This seems entirely insufficient when it comes to 

addressing permanent adverse impacts to irreplaceable cultural resources such as the historic emigrant 

trails. If mitigation beyond siting that reduces the visual impacts of these projects is to be considered, we 

would strongly urge you to consider mitigation that is appropriate to the resources that are being lost. This 

could include purchase of conservation easements to ensure long-term protection of the trails and their 

settings, funding for projects to restore damaged trails and settings or significant financial contributions to 

the newly established Wyoming cultural trust fund. All of these efforts could go a long way to ensuring 

that today’s adverse impacts are transformed into preservation for the future. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this alternative route proposal. We look forward to working 

with you as this project goes forward. 

Lesley Wischmann 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

712 South Second Street 

Laramie, WY 82070 

lesleywisch@wyoming.com 

307.742.5449 

Response to Letter N2

The MOA for the proposed project has been signed by all signatories and copies of the Treatment Plan 

were distributed the week of September 27, 2008 to the BLM lead archaeologist, all three BLM field 

offices, the Colorado and Wyoming SHPOs, the Alliance for Historic Wyoming, and the Oregon-California 

Trails Association. 

The SHPO and BLM have determined that there would be no adverse effect to the Overland Trail; 

however, special construction conditions are being implemented to minimize the impacts in the area of 

the Trail. Every effort has been made to work with Western Wyoming College, who are recognized as 

experts on the Cherokee Trail. Western Wyoming College has agreed to complete research on the Trail 

in the project area and have complete similar work on other historic trails. 

A comprehensive monitoring and cultural resources discovery plan has been developed for the proposed 

project and was included as part of the MOA. This plan is also Appendix 3 of the Plan of Development 

(POD) available on the BLM website and at the three BLM field offices.
Letter P1 and Responses: Overland Pass Pipeline Company, August 4, 2008

Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

2.1.5.4 2-16 3 MLVs would be installed at 

spacing required by the USDOT 

The USDOT does not explicitly stipulate valve spacing. OPPC would install them at locations that are operationally prudent and responsible. 

Sentence has be

2.1.5.5 2-16 1 Noxious Weed Management 

Plan 

At the request of BLM RFO, the title was changed to Weed Management Plan. This needs to be a global change. 

A global search changes made a

3.2.3.3 3.2-7 1 5 perennial streams There are only 3 perennial streams 

(Piceance, Willow and Sand). If you include the rivers, then there are 6. 

Perennial stream Appendix A were information, USGquadrangles, anphotographs. Text remains un

3.2.3.3 3.2-7 1 50 ephemeral drainages Not consistent with pg 3.4-3 The discussion o

count; it includes ephemeral drainText remains un

3.4.3 3.4-6 2 Field surveys for wetlands 

were not conducted in Wyoming 

Field surveys for wetlands in WY were conducted in both 2007 and 2008. 

Text has been d

3.6.1.2 3.6-3 1 Raptor surveys in July and 

August 2007 

Surveys were also conducted in April and May 2008. 

Text has been msurveys. 

3.6.2 3.6-3 Table 3.6-1 Dry Fork is not perennial at the point where 

we are crossing. 

Perennial has beDeemed not nec

4.2.1 4.2-2 5 

(“Analysis) 

Pipeline blowdowns would not be required for routine maintenance 

Periodic (monthly) maintenance pigging is anticipated during operation of this line. Each will require a blow down. 

Text has been d

G-31 
Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

4.4.1 4.4-4 4 OPPC, with the help of a Soil 

Scientist...... 

Still waiting on a final determination of soil depth from Mark M. 

BLM will have thtopsoil depth recThis could be incDecision Recordunchanged. 

4.6.1.1 4.6-1 4 Timely stabilizations of the 

construction ROW....... 

Due to recommendations from CDOW, CSLB and BLM, seeding will only be done between 10/25 and 12/1. For those areas where seeding can not be completed by this time, the ROW will be left unseeded until the following year during the seeding window. During this period, reclamation emphasis will be placed on controlling weeds. 

Comment noted

4.6.1.3 4.6-6 3 OPPC did not observe any 

Piceance Bladderpod 

Habitat for the plant was identified in 2007 and 2 populations were identified along the ROW in 2008. 

Text has been mupdated 2007 an

4.6.1.3 4.6-6 4 Transplanting sensitive plants Based upon consultation with the BLM, no 

transplanting of sensitive plants will be conducted. 

Reference to trahas been delete

4.7.1.1 4.7-2 3 No construction activities 

would be allowed during the seasonal timing restrictions within each buffer. 

Paragraph 7 (last paragraph) on page 4.7-2 allows for modification of certain wildlife restriction dates with approval from the appropriate agency(ies). This is somewhat inconsistent with the blanket statement in paragraph 3 of the same page, which should recognize provisions for exceptions with approval of appropriate agency(ies). 

Text modified. Wparagraph 3, "wiCDOW and BLM

G-32 
Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

4.7.1.1 4.7-2 7 ...without approval from the 

CDOW and BLM. 

The wording here is ok, but is made to apply only to winter range for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. As discussed, OPPC would like explicit clarification here in the document, or elsewhere, that, in fact, a variance process does exist for essentially every stipulation defined. 

Text modified to statement after a

4.7.1.1 4.7-6 3 OPPC does not currently 

propose to construct the proposed Project during the raptor nesting season 

This statement may lead readers to make a too broad misinterpretation of Project construction schedule. Because of other restriction periods, OPPC will likely have to construct portions of the proposed Project during the mid-February through mid-August time period as otherwise allowed. OPPC agreed to limit construction within those buffer areas identified for active nests and mitigated as outlined in the remainder of this paragraph and section, but construction activities will likely occur in other areas during this period. 

Text modified to prescribed for ra

4.7.1.1 4.7-6 3 OPPC does not currently 

propose to construct the proposed Project during the raptor nesting season... 

In fact, we will be constructing along the pipeline during Spring/Summer 2009. Reword to: OPPC does not currently propose to construct the proposed Project within the buffer zones prescribed for raptors

during the raptor nesting season... 

Text modified as 

4.7.1.1 4.7-7 3 ...the use of trench plugs on 

all lands at 1-mile intervals... 

OPPC has not made this commitment Please refer to th

the POD and assof text, Section 3

Section 3.9.1 (paResources Protepage 4. 

G-33 
Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

4.7.1.2 4.7-9 2 OPPC would prohibit “in the 

water” construction activities....... 

This statement also need to address that water withdrawals will be allowed during these seasonal restriction for HDD, dust control and wash stations. 

Text has been m

4.7.1.2 4.7-9 3 OPPC would prohibit “in the 

water” construction activities at all coldwater fisheries... 

Section 4.7.1.2 doesn’t specifically clarify this, but the “construction” prohibition was not intended to include those water withdrawal activities described in Paragraph 3, Page 4.7-10 so long as those activities received the required approvals from the appropriate regulating entities. 

Text has been mresponse to TM 

4.7.1.2 4.7-9 4 The Dry Fork of Piceance 

Creek would be crossed using a dry crossing technique.... 

This technique would only be used if the creek is dry. Should flowing water be present, the flumed crossing method would be used. 

Text has been m

4.7.1.2 4.7-10 2 Complete open cut crossings 

within 24 hours..... 

This is the goal, not a definite time restriction. Other places in the EA mention 48 hrs (pg 4.7-9 para 5) or 3 days (pg 4.7-11 para 3) 

Text has been mthroughout Secti

4.7.1.2 4.7-11 3 OPPC has committed to 

avoiding construction at crossings during state agency designated coldwater and warmwater fisheries spawning periods... 

See Above Comment - Section 4.7.1.2 doesn’t specifically clarify this, but the “construction” prohibition was not intended to include those water withdrawal activities described in Paragraph 3, Page 4.7-10 so long as those activities received the required approvals from the appropriate regulating entities. 

Text has been mresponse to TM 

4.7.1.3 4.7-16 2 BLM has adopted grouse 

seasonal time closures from the CO GSG Plan 

Both the WRFO and LSFO opted to use their own timing restriction instead of following the agreed upon Plan, thus the dates presented in the POD and EA are those of the FOs 

Text has been msources of timing Timing restrctionand the buffers aPlan. 

G-34 
Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

4.7.1.3 4.7-17 10 For the BLM WRRMA 

sagebrush seed would be collected on site....... 

OPPC has never agreed to collecting seed from off of the ROW. In the POD, OPPC commits to obtaining sagebrush seed from local sources. 

Text has been d

4.7.1.3 4.7-19 3 Burrowing owl nesting 

season (2/1 to 8/15) 

What is the difference between nesting season and breeding season? This paragraph should refer to Table 4.7-3. 

Text has been m"nesting" to "bre

4.8.1.1 4.8-3 2 Install at 1-mile maximum 

intervals.... 

This spacing is correct. On pg 4.7-2 para 2 and on pg 4.7-7 para 3, the spacing is different or non-descript. 

Text has been mspacing in every section 4.7. 

4.11.1.1 4.11-1 3 Table 4.1-1 and reference to 

two spreads 

There will be 3 spreads: MP 0-50, MP 50-93, and MP 93-152 

Text has been mand text based oprovided by ONE

4.11.1.1 4.11-2 3 ...75 percent of the 

construction workforce would be hired locally... 

Realistically, OPPC cannot commit to a percentage on this as the contractors control their hiring practices. However, OPPC has selected several contractors with an existing, significant local presence to participate in the bid cycle. 

The term "an estto the beginning 

APPX A A-1 Dry Fork Piceance Creek The creek is not perennial at our crossing. Perennial stream 

Appendix A were information, USGquadrangles, anphotographs. Text remains un

G-35 
G-36 

Section Page Para. Existing Text in EA Overland Pass Comment Response

General Various stipulations 

referenced throughout document 

The need for, and impact of, variances are most often dependent upon weather, wildlife and other varying conditions that cannot always be fully anticipated or quantified until they occur. Because of this, OPPC requests that all representations of commitments by OPPC be available for variance consideration by the appropriate angency(ies) or entity(ies) in order to seek mitigation measures to allow the project to be completed in a timely manner to further limit impacts. 

Comment noted
Letter P2: Kent Neilson, September 26, 2008

"Kent Nielson" <unitedsupplykent@qwestoffice.net> 09/26/2008 06:51 AM 

To <overland_comments@blm.gov> 

cc 

 Subject PUBLIC COMMENT 

 

I AM IN FAVOR OF THE NEW ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR THE OVERLAND PASS PIPELINE 

PICEANCE LATERAL PROJECT. 

THANK YOU, 

W. KENT NIELSON 

839 LEDFORD 

CRAIG, CO 81625 

MOFFAT COUNTY 

LONG TIME RESIDENT 

G-37