United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment CO-110-2007-092

Case File Numbers: COC-71536/WYW-166141

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record

Overland Pass Pipeline Piceance Basin Lateral NGL Project

Location: Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties, Colorado and Sweetwater and 

Carbon Counties, Wyoming

Applicant/Address: Overland Pass Pipeline Company LLC, operated by ONEOK NGL 

Pipeline, L.L.C., 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, OK 74103

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

White River Field Office Little Snake Field Office Rawlins Field Office

220 East Market Street 455 Emerson Street 1300 North Third

Meeker, CO 81641 Craig, CO 81625 Rawlins, WY 82301

Phone: 970-878-3800 Phone: 970-826-5000 Phone: 307-328-4200

October 2008
1

Finding of No Significant Impact / Decision Record

INTRODUCTION:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has conducted an environmental analysis 

(EA No. CO-110-2007-092) for the Overland Pass Pipeline Piceance Basin Lateral 

Project. This assessment was completed in response to the proponent’s application to the 

BLM for a right-of-way grant (Attachment A) and associated temporary use permit

(Attachment B).

The Overland Pass Pipeline Company (OPPC), a subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. and 

Williams Field Service Company, LLC (Williams), is proposing to construct, own, and 

operate a 152-mile-long, 14-inch-diameter, buried steel, natural gas liquids (NGL) 

pipeline and related facilities that would connect NGL production from the Piceance 

Basin in Colorado to the OPPC Overland Pass Pipeline in southern Wyoming. The 

proposed pipeline would begin at the Willow Creek Gas Plant southwest of Meeker, 

Colorado, extend in a northerly direction through Rio Blanco and Moffat counties in 

Colorado and Sweetwater and Carbon counties in Wyoming, and terminate at the Echo 

Springs pump station southeast of Wamsutter, Wyoming.

The proposed pipeline would be capable of transporting a total of 100,000 barrels per day 

(bpd) of Y-grade NGL. Initially, 20,000 to 30,000 bpd would be transported; however, 

the pipe would be designed to handle more NGL as the need increases. Should volumes 

of NGL increase above approximately 70,000 bpd, a pump station would be constructed 

at the approximate midpoint of the pipeline route near milepost (MP) 82.4. With the 

pump station installed, the capacity of the pipeline would be 100,000 bpd.

Approximately 72.3 miles (47.5 percent) of the pipeline route would cross federal lands 

managed by the BLM. Except for areas restrained by topography or environmental 

restrictions, approximately 96 percent of the route would follow and be collocated with

existing pipeline or utility corridors in the area, approximately 90 percent of which 

includes the Wyoming Interstate Company, Limited (WIC) Piceance Basin Expansion 

Project and/or Encana’s Entrega Pipeline Project. Both of these projects recently 

completed full Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in 2005. As such, the BLM

determined that the area had been sufficiently studied for these projects and that this 

project would not require completion of an EIS to meet NEPA compliance

responsibilities. Information from these existing NEPA documents were used along with 

new resource information collected by OPPC to form the basis for the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) completed for the proposed project. 

The project would consist of the following facilities:

Piceance Basin NGL Lateral - 152.2 miles of 14-inch-diameter pipe;

Willow Creek Tie-in, Meter Station, and Pig Launcher at MP 0.0;
2

J.L. Davis Lateral - 2,000-foot, 6-inch-diameter pipe;

J.L. Davis Tie-in, Meter Station, and Pig Launcher and Receiver at MP 5.6;

Mainline Valve (MLV) #1 at MP 18.9;

MLV #2 at MP 19.6;

MLV #3 at MP 32.9;

MLV #4 at MP 46.3;

MLV #5 at MP 59.1;

MLV #6 at MP 59.7;

MLV #7 at MP 71.7;

Mid-point Pig Launcher and Receiver and Potential Future Pump Station at,

MP 82.4;

MLV #8 at MP 92.8;

MLV #9 at MP 93.9;

MLV #10 at MP 107.9;

MLV #11 at MP 124.6;

MLV #12 at MP 139.1; and

Echo Springs Tie-in and Pig Receiver at MP 152.2.

Construction would begin as soon as all permits are secured, including a Notice to 

Proceed from the BLM. OPPC’s proposed construction is scheduled to begin on or about 

October 20, 2008 and would take approximately 6 months to complete. The pipeline 

would be in service by late summer 2009. Construction activities would require a peak of 

approximately 450 employees working in three pipeline spreads: the first from MP 0-50, 

the second from MP 50-93, and the third from MP 93-152.

Purpose and Need:

NGL are hydrocarbon liquids associated with the production and processing of natural 

gas. When natural gas is removed from the ground it is compositionally different than 

what is transported through natural gas transmission systems and ultimately used by the 

public for such things as home heating and cooking. When removed from the ground, the 

mixture is predominately methane, but also includes heavier hydrocarbons and inert 

gases. Although the mixture can vary greatly, a typical stream may include 85 percent 

methane, 10 percent heavier hydrocarbons (NGL), and 5 percent inert gases. The NGL 

and inert gases must be removed to make the natural gas salable and transportable.

Once removed from the natural gas, the NGL must be transported under pressure by 

alternate pipelines to fractionators. The fractionators separate the NGL into purity 

products such as ethane, propane, and butane, which are used in the petrochemical, 
3

petroleum refining, and agricultural industries. Gas processing plants are much smaller, 

simpler facilities than fractionators and are more commonly located very near the natural 

gas drilling areas. Fractionators, on the other hand, are very complex facilities that are 

located in areas of the country with ready access to delivery markets and, typically, 

underground storage facilities. 

As natural gas production increases, typical NGL production also increases. Increased 

drilling activity and natural gas production in the Rocky Mountain region, and 

particularly in the Piceance Basin, are creating a corresponding increase in the amount of 

NGL that need to be carried out of the area to existing fractionators in the Midwest and 

Gulf Coast regions. An underground NGL pipeline located largely in existing pipeline 

rights-of-way would have considerable environmental and safety advantages over 

alternative means of transporting NGL out of the Piceance Basin, such as trucking or rail 

transport. Currently, existing NGL pipelines are operating at or near capacity. The 

proposed project would address the needs of producers in Colorado by providing 

additional NGL pipeline capacity out of the Piceance Basin to fractionation facilities in 

Bushton and Conway, Kansas. Downstream customers would thereby gain access to the 

Piceance Basin supply. In summary, approval of the project would meet the mutual needs 

of producers and downstream customers, and would further federal policy in regard to the 

development of pipeline infrastructure in the Rocky Mountain region.

In addition to being necessary, the removal of NGL from the natural gas stream also can 

enhance the value of the components removed. Although only 10 percent of the stream 

by weight, the NGL can contribute approximately 15 percent of the energy of the stream.

Since NGL must be removed up to a certain level and are often removed in greater 

quantities for economic purposes, regional NGL production quantities track with regional 

natural gas production quantities. Specifically in the Rocky Mountain region of the 

United States (U.S.), as natural gas production grows, NGL production also grows.

According to the EA for the Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC Western Expansion 

Project, the Rocky Mountain region is a significant contributor to the supply of natural 

gas in the U.S., producing approximately 25 percent of the U.S. natural gas. Natural gas 

production in the Rocky Mountains increased 56 percent between 1999 and 2003. Some 

experts predict that the Rocky Mountain region’s gas production could increase from 

3.3 trillion cubic feet per year (tcfy) in 2002 to 4.6 tcfy in 2010 and 6.3 tcfy in 2025. 

Notwithstanding the variance in supply predictions, industry experts agree that 

production from the Rocky Mountain region would be critical to serving the country’s 

increasing energy needs. Using typical average NGL content (2 gallons per thousand 

cubic feet) and an average NGL recovery factor (50 percent), this increase in natural gas 

production would produce a substantial increase in NGL that would need to be moved.

Agency Selected Alternative:

The decision is to authorize the proposed action as modified by the Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP) land re-route alternative. Authorization of the proposed action with or 

without the re-route alternative would be acceptable given the conditions of this decision 
4

record. This proposal incorporates modifications required by the BLM resource managers 

and other interested parties. The proposed action and alternatives are described in detail 

in the EA (CO-110-2007-092) available at the White River Field Office, Little Snake 

Field Office, and Rawlins Field Office. Three alternatives were considered in the 

preparation of the EA. The alternatives were the proposed action, the no action 

alternative, and the GRP land re-route alternative. Two other alternatives were originally 

proposed but were eliminated from consideration due to anticipated undesirable residual 

impacts. Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 of the EA discuss the proposed action in detail and the 

alternatives evaluated, including the two alternatives that were eliminated from 

consideration.

PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CONSISTENCY:

The proposed action and alternatives have been reviewed and found to be in conformance 

with the following BLM Land Use Plans and the associated decision(s):

White River Resource Management Plan (RMP) (1997);

Little Snake RMP (1989);

Oil and Gas Plan Amendment to the Little Snake RMP (1991); and

Rawlins RMP (2008).

The management goals for oil and gas minerals management and for lands and realty for 

the three BLM resource areas as stated in their respective RMPs include:

White River RMP – Chapter 2:

Oil and Gas Minerals: To make federal oil and gas resources available for 

leasing and development in a manner that provides reasonable protection for 

other resource values.

Land Use Authorizations: To make public lands available for the siting of 

public and private facilities through the issuance of applicable land use 

authorizations, in a manner that provides for reasonable protection of other 

resource values.

Little Snake RMP – Chapter 2:

Oil and Gas: To maximize the availability of the federal oil and gas estate for 

exploration and development, and to facilitate orderly, economic, and 

environmentally sound exploration and development of oil and gas resources 

using balanced multiple-use management.

Major Right-of-Way Management: To allow the most efficient right-of-way 

routes while identifying areas which would not be compatible with use as 

rights-of-way.
5

Rawlins RMP – Chapter 2:

Minerals: To manage mineral resources from available BLM-administered 

public lands and federal minerals while minimizing the impacts to the 

environment, public health and safety, and other resource values and uses.

Lands and Realty: To manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of 

public lands to meet the needs of internal and external customers (i.e., to 

respond to community needs for expansion and economic development and to 

preserve important resource values); to improve management efficiency in 

areas of scattered or intermingled land ownership patterns; and to review and 

evaluate the need and merits of current withdrawals.

Additionally, the White River RMP and Rawlins RMP identify existing right-of-way

corridors as the likely location for placement and development of new delivery pipelines 

for oil and gas. The proposed project generally follows these designated right-of-way

corridors. Therefore, development of the proposed project would be in conformance with 

the management directives identified in the RMPs for oil and gas minerals management 

and utility right-of-way development.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DETERMINATION:

Based upon a review of the EA and the supporting documents, we have determined that 

the selected alternative with or without the GRP land re-route is not a major federal 

action and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually 

or cumulatively with other actions in the general area. No environmental effects meet the 

definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and do not

exceed those effects described in the three BLM field office RMPs described above.

Therefore, an EIS is not needed. This finding is based on the context and intensity of the 

project as described below:

Context: The project is a site-specific action directly involving a total of approximately 

1,611 acres for 153 miles of temporary linear construction, of which approximately 

769 acres are lands administered by the BLM in Colorado and Wyoming. 

Comparatively, the BLM White River Field Office manages 1.5 million acres and the 

BLM Little Snake Field Office manages 1.3 million acres in Colorado, while the BLM 

Rawlins Field Office manages 3.5 million acres in Wyoming. The acreage impacts 

associated with the temporary construction of the project on BLM-administered lands 

account for approximately 0.01 percent of the overall management areas. While the area 

directly affected does not have international, national, regional, or state-wide importance,

these lands are part of a greater project region known for its wildlife characteristics. The 

project crosses two State Wildlife Areas, and designated habitat for greater sage-grouse

and big game. However, the agency-selected alternatives would follow existing pipeline 

and other utility corridors for approximately 96 percent of the route and be both limited 

in scope and duration; therefore, it would have limited impacts to these resources. When 
6

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the incremental 

impacts would be minimal. 

Intensity: The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria 

described in 40 CFR 1508.27, supplemental Instruction Memorandum, Acts, regulations,

and Executive Orders. The following have been considered in evaluating intensity for this 

proposal:

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. The selected alternatives would 

impact resources as described in the EA. Applicant-committed protection 

measures were incorporated into the design of the selected alternatives to avoid or 

minimize impacts to fish habitat, surface water quality, and bank stabilization;

threatened, endangered, and special status species and habitat; reclamation and 

revegetation success; land use; and local and regional infrastructure. None of the 

environmental effects discussed in detail in the EA and associated appendices are 

considered significant, nor do the effects exceed those described in the governing 

RMPs. The selected alternatives would allow for safe and efficient transportation 

of NGL to markets using the least environmentally impacting means.

2. The degree to which the selected alternatives will affect public health or 

safety. Based on the burial depth of the pipeline, the suppression of 

construction-related dust, the overall remoteness of the project footprint, 

implementation of safety rules during the construction and operation phases of the 

project, and the applicant-committed safety measures incorporated in the selected 

alternatives, it is reasonable to conclude the implementation of the selected 

alternatives would not significantly affect public health and safety.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or 

cultural resources, park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wilderness, wild 

and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The historic and cultural 

resources of the area have been inventoried and potential impacts mitigated in the 

design and treatment plan for the selected alternative. There are no national parks, 

national landmarks, state or municipal parks, or national wild and scenic rivers

present in the project area; therefore, they are not affected by the selected 

alternatives. The project does cross two State Wildlife Areas; however, the 

agency-selected alternatives would follow existing pipeline corridors through 

these areas and be both limited in scope and duration. Therefore, the project

would have limited impacts through these areas. In addition, the elements of the 

human environment and other resource issues were analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 

of the EA. None of these would be significantly impacted. OPPC would also 

follow the applicant-committed measures in its application, the EA, the right-ofway grant (Attachment A), temporary use permit, and supporting documents

(Attachment B). Examples of these mitigation measures include, but are not 

limited to, horizontal directional drilling under the major waterways, restricting or 

avoiding construction at certain periods to avoid wildlife habitat uses, and 

implementing a noxious weed management program to control the spread of 
7

noxious weeds. OPPC would also implement the avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures specific to these resources as outlined in the Plan of 

Development (POD) (Attachment C) and the attached Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) (Attachment D).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are 

likely to be highly controversial. It is understood by the BLM that the term 

“controversial” in 40 CFR 1508.27 refers to situations where a substantial dispute 

exists as to the size, nature, or effect of a project, rather than opposition by some 

parties to the project. In this case, the proposed project and, more particularly, the 

selected alternatives are not unique. Standard and accepted industry practices 

would be followed for pipeline construction and other project operations. The 

potential environmental effects of pipeline construction, road construction, and 

restoration are well understood and there is no scientific controversy over the 

nature of the impacts. There is no substantial dispute about the technology that 

would be utilized, the standard industrial practices that would be followed, or the 

size, nature, or effects of the selected alternatives.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are 

highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. No highly uncertain or 

unknown risks to the human environment were identified during analysis of the 

project and alternatives, including the proposed action. The BLM has experience 

implementing similar actions in similar areas. As mentioned above, standard and 

accepted industry practices would be followed in the project. The potential 

effects of the project were fully considered and analyzed in the EA and, based on 

that analysis, there are no known effects on the human environment considered to 

be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions 

with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future 

consideration. The actions considered in the selected alternatives were 

considered by the BLM within the context of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Significant cumulative effects are not predicted. The 

selected alternatives neither establish a precedent for future BLM actions with 

significant effects nor represent a decision in principle about a future 

consideration. Future pipeline proposals would be considered only through 

appropriate NEPA analysis, including adequate consideration of cumulative 

effects.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant 

but cumulatively significant impacts – which include connected actions 

regardless of land ownership. The selected alternatives are not related to other 

actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts, which 

include connected actions and non-federal actions. A complete analysis of the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the selected alternatives and all other 

alternatives are described in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA. The selected alternatives
8

were considered in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. No individually or cumulatively significant impacts were identified for 

the selected alternatives.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,

structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The project will not adversely affect 

districts, sites, highways, structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause loss or destruction of 

significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. A cultural inventory has 

been completed for the selected alternatives OPPC filed the project Class III 

Cultural Resource Inventory report with the BLM in April 2008, with addendum 

reports filed in June and July 2008. In accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the BLM has consulted with the 

Colorado and Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) on their 

determinations of eligibility and effect pursuant to the State Protocols, and the 

SHPOs have concurred with BLM’s determinations. The BLM has also consulted 

with Native American Tribes and with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. OPPC submitted a Cultural Resource Protection Plan with the POD

(Attachment C, Appendix 3) for approval in July 2008. OPPC has entered into a 

MOA (Attachment D) with the BLM, the Colorado SHPO, and the Wyoming 

SHPO regarding adverse effects to historic properties from construction of the 

selected alternatives. The MOA stipulates that OPPC will implement the 

following measures to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties:

1) preparation and implementation of an approved Treatment Plan that will 

describe the mitigation of adverse effects for each historic property, will identify 

the nature of the effects to each historic property and the treatment strategies for 

mitigating the adverse effects, and will incorporate a Monitoring and Cultural 

Resource Discovery Plan for dealing with inadvertent discoveries should they 

occur; 2) compensatory mitigation for the adverse effects to the visual setting of 

the Cherokee Trail, by means of OPPC funding of a historic assessment of the 

Trail near the undertaking area; and 3) public outreach, by means of funding the 

implementation of the existing Project Archaeology curricula (i.e., Ute Rock 

shelter and/or Basin House investigations) directly with students in fourth and 

fifth grade classrooms in northwestern Colorado and southwestern Wyoming.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or 

threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the degree to which the action may 

adversely affect: 1) a proposed to be listed endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat, or 2) a species on BLM’s sensitive species list. Mitigating 

measures to reduce impacts to wildlife and fisheries have been incorporated into 

the design of the selected alternatives. A total of 10 federally listed species, 

2 candidate species, 49 BLM sensitive species, 1 state listed species, and 1 state 

listed species of concern were initially considered of concern within the linear 
9

project area. Twelve of these species were eliminated from detailed analysis 

because it was determined that the project would have no effect on individuals. 

The remaining 51 species were analyzed in detail relative to direct, indirect, shortterm, long-term, and cumulative impacts. It was determined that by implementing

applicant-committed protection measures and pre-construction surveys, OPPC

would avoid impacts to or avoid adverse impacts to all species. A Biological 

Assessment under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was prepared and 

submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by BLM on 

July 11, 2008 and the USFWS provided a concurrence letter on August 7, 2008

(Attachment E). OPPC will comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the 

USFWS concurrence letter during construction and hydrostatic test water 

withdrawal at the White River, Little Snake, and Yampa river crossings to 

minimize impacts to endangered fish species. Additionally, withdrawal is 

authorized from these locations for the total water withdrawal of 46 acre-feet.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of a federal, state, local, or tribal 

law, regulation or policy imposed for the protection of the environment, 

where non-federal requirements are consistent with federal requirements. 

The project does not violate any known federal, state, local or tribal law or 

requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. State, local, and 

tribal interests were given the opportunity to participate in the EA process. 

Furthermore, letters were sent to six Native American tribes concerning 

consulting party status, and only one tribe, the Southern Ute, responded by 

requesting they be informed of any human remains that are found during project 

construction. Follow-up phone calls were initiated with the remaining five tribes. 

Only two tribes responded. The Eastern Shoshone requested additional 

information on the project and the Northern Arapahoe Tribe requested 

participation in any field visits to the project area. BLM has continued to contact 

all six tribes and provided information on cultural resource inventory findings on 

February 21, 2008. As of the published date of the EA, none of the tribes had 

responded to the cultural resource inventory findings with any information, 

concerns, or issues. The BLM will continue with efforts to consult with the tribes 

regarding the project. In addition, the project is consistent with applicable land 

management plans, policies, and programs.

DECISION:

Based on our review of the EA and supporting documents, it is our decision to select 

Alternative B. The BLM will issue a notice to proceed authorizing construction on 

federal lands, except for the area within the GRP land re-route as identified in Alternative

B.

The GRP land re-route would be implemented under the following conditions:
10

1. The BLM concludes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is unable to modify 

the easement allowing OPPC to construct the subject pipeline on private lands 

within the GRP, as identified in the proposed action.

2. Implementation of the GRP land re-route would occur no earlier than June 30, 

2009. Implementation could occur at an earlier date if the BLM determines that 

impacts to the active sage grouse lek located within 0.6 miles of the re-route can 

be mitigated or avoided.

3. The BLM issues a notice to proceed for the federal lands within the GRP land

re-route.

The GRP land re-route would not be implemented if OPPC is able to obtain an easement 

across the following described private lands, as defined in the proposed action:

6

th Principal Meridian, T. 11 N., R. 94 W.:

Sec. 21, N1⁄4 SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4.

The right-of-way grant COC-71536 and temporary use permit COC-71536-01 would then 

be amended to include those private lands described above and remove the following 

described federal lands, known as the GRP land re-route:

6

th Principal Meridian, T. 11 N., R. 94 W.:

Sec. 28- NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

Sec. 21- SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 

Sec. 17- SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

Sec. 20- SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4.

In order to implement the selected alternative, our decision is to:

1. Grant rights-of-way authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 

14-inch natural gas liquids pipeline. On federal lands the permanent right-of-way 

would be 383,744 feet in length (72.7 miles), 50 feet in width, and encompass 

446.4 acres more or less (includes 2,000 feet in length encompassing 

approximately 3.4 acres for permanent access to the J.L. Davis meter station). 

The pipeline right-of-way would be granted under the authority of the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 185). The legal description of the 

right-of-way is shown in the attached right-of-way grant exhibits (Attachment A). 

The term of the right-of-way would be 30 years with the right of renewal.

2. Issue a temporary use permit in association of the pipeline right-of-way 

authorizing the construction of a natural gas liquids pipeline. On federal lands, 

the temporary use permit would encompass an area that is 383,744 feet in length 

(72.7 miles), varies from 75 feet in width (nominal) to up to 200 feet in width in 

areas with rough terrain, side slopes, silty or sandy soils, or staging areas; and 

encompasses 766.3 acres more or less (includes 2,000 feet in length 

encompassing approximately 3.4 acres for permanent access to the J.L. Davis 
11

meter station). The temporary use permit would be granted under the authority of 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 185). The legal 

description for the temporary use areas is shown in attached temporary use permit 

exhibits (Attachment B). The term of the permit would be 3 years with the right 

of renewal.

3. Issue a temporary use permit authorizing the upgrade, use, and maintenance of 

existing access roads. The temporary use permit would be 912,128.5 feet in 

length, 18 feet in width, and encompass 377 acres, more or less. The temporary 

use permit would be granted under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 185). The legal descriptions for the temporary 

access roads are shown in Attachment B. The subject roads are also identified 

and discussed in the Transportation Plan which is part of the POD (Attachment C, 

Appendix 11). The term of the permit would be 1 year.

Authorities: The authorizations pursuant to the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 185 et seq.); the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S. C. 1701 et seq.); and implementing regulations found 

in 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880.

In accordance with 43 CFR 2800 and 2880, the BLM will issue a right-of-way grant to 

OPPC for the proposed 14-inch NGL pipeline located on federal lands. The BLM will

also issue temporary use permits for the temporary use of federal lands required for 

construction including staging areas and access roads. The decision will specifically 

affect federal lands as detailed in Attachments A and B and as described in the EA for the 

project.

Prior to any construction or other surface disturbance associated with the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permits, the authorized officer or delegated agency 

representative will issue written Notices to Proceed (NTPs). Any NTP shall authorize 

construction or use only as therein expressly stated and only for the particular location, 

segment, area, or use described. In accordance with 43 CFR 2800, OPPC provided the 

BLM with a POD (Attachment C) detailing how the pipeline and associated facilities 

would be constructed in compliance with the right-of-way and temporary use permit

terms, conditions, and stipulations. The POD would be approved by the BLM prior to the 

issuance of the NTPs for federal lands. The NTPs are subject to the condition that OPPC

complies with all required environmental protection measures outlined in the POD to the 

satisfaction of the BLM. These measures include the standard stipulations for the rightof-way grant and temporary use permits. The construction NTP will only apply to federal 

lands.

Agency Standards: The right-of-way grant and temporary use permits must comply 

with agency (BLM, USFWS, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) stipulations described 

and referenced in the attachments to this document. As part of these standards and 

stipulations, OPPC would be required to post a performance bond to ensure adherence to 
12

all terms and conditions attached to the right-of-way grants (Attachment A), temporary 

use permits (Attachment B), and MOA (Attachment D). 

State and Federal Legal Requirements: This decision also requires OPPC to meet the 

requirements of the other major authorizing agencies for this project concerning any 

necessary federal and state permits, licenses, and/or approval and consultation 

requirements as identified in Table 1.2-1 of the EA.

Compliance and Monitoring: The applicant has committed to provide a compliance 

environmental inspector/monitor for pipeline construction, construction of associated 

facilities, and access road upgrades. This monitor will report directly to the BLM and 

ensure compliance with all terms, conditions and stipulations of the right-of-way grant 

and temporary use permits. The environmental inspector/monitor shall follow the 

compliance and monitoring plan outlined in the Environmental Compliance Plan which is 

part of the POD (Attachment C, Appendix 4). OPPC will also be responsible for 

monitoring the reclamation and stabilization of the pipeline over the long term. Included 

in this requirement is the yearly monitoring of the right-of-way for noxious weeds and, if 

necessary, spraying.

Terms / Conditions / Stipulations: The decision is contingent on meeting all 

stipulations and monitoring requirements listed below:

1. OPPC shall follow the construction procedures and committed protection 

measures described in its application, as identified in the EA and as modified by 

the conditions of approval (BLM EA No. CO-110-2007-092). 

2. The right-of-way and temporary use permits are subject to the standard 

stipulations of the right-of-way and temporary use permits. 

3. OPPC shall construct, operate, and maintain the facilities, improvements, and 

structures within the right-of-way and temporary permit areas in strict conformity 

with the POD entitled the OPPC Piceance Basin Lateral Pipeline Project, 

August 2008 (Attachment C), which when approved will be made part of the 

grant. Any relocation, additional construction, or use that is not in accordance

with the approved POD, shall not be initiated without the prior written approval of 

the authorized officer. Appendix 4, Environmental Compliance Plan, is 

supplemented by Attachment H; Environmental Compliance Monitoring Plan 

dated October 2008. Appendix 13 of the POD is replaced in its entirety by the 

Attachment F; revised Appendix 13 dated October 13, 2008. 

4. The holder is subject to the terms and conditions of the concurrence letter written 

by the USFWS dated August 7, 2008 (Attachment E). 

5. The holder is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the attached MOA 

(Attachment D).

EA Availability: Copies of the EA (CO-110-2007-092) are available at the White River

Field Office, Little Snake Field Office, and Rawlins Field Office. The EA is 
13

incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact determination and 

decision record.

Alternatives Considered:

Three alternatives, the proposed action, the no action alternative, and the GRP land 

re-route were considered and analyzed in detail in the EA. Two additional route 

alternatives were also considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Chapter 2 of the 

EA discusses details of all alternatives considered.

Proposed Action. The proposed action is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the EA and 

impacts are analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5. The objective of this alternative was to site the 

pipeline such that it allowed the proponent to meet the purpose and need of the project 

with efforts to minimize environmental impacts. This objective was met.

No Action Alternative. If the BLM were to deny OPPC’s application, the 

environmental effects identified in the EA would be avoided, but OPPC would not be 

able to achieve its project objectives. Without the pipeline infrastructure that the 

proposed project creates, new NGL production in the Piceance Basin and adjacent natural 

gas production basins would be hindered by lack of pipeline take-away capacity. As 

natural gas production increases in the Piceance Basin and surrounding gas supply basins, 

the need for a new pipeline that provides a similar level of service as the proposed OPPC

system also would increase. If other NGL pipelines and associated facilities are 

constructed in the future instead of the proposed project, each future project would result 

in its own specific impacts that could be less, equal, or greater than the OPPC Project.

GRP Land Re-route. The GRP land re-route, like the proposed action, is described in 

detail in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 of the EA and impacts are analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

This re-route was developed to avoid a 0.8-mile section of the proposed pipeline route 

enrolled in the GRP through a conservation easement. This easement precludes 

construction of a pipeline through the subject lands. The purpose of this re-route is to 

avoid the GRP land in the event that resolution of the easement issue does not occur, 

allowing pipeline construction to proceed as proposed. The GRP is a voluntary program 

administered by the National Resources Conservation Service, 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 parallels the 

existing pipeline corridor containing three other pipelines; including the recently 

constructed WIC Piceance and Entrega pipelines.

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed. The EA also addressed but dropped from 

further consideration two route alternatives. These alternatives were considered to 

determine if there are other locations for the proposed facilities that would have less 

impact on environmental resources than the proposed action route. The two route 

alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail included a south connector route 

alternative and a north connector route alternative.
14

South Connector Route Alternative. While the proposed action follows the 

WIC Piceance pipeline along the southern-most part of the route, the south 

connector route alternative would parallel the Entrega pipeline route along 

Piceance Creek to the west for the first 42 miles of the route. This alternative is 

approximately 3 miles shorter, but includes five (5) additional crossings of 

Piceance Creek as well as 23 additional stream crossings. This alternative route 

would also cross 10.9 additional miles of mule deer severe winter range and 

0.7 additional miles of Visual Resource Management Class II areas when 

compared to the proposed action route. The terrain along the south connector 

route alternative is much steeper and additional width would be required for 

construction in these areas. Problems encountered during the construction of the 

Entrega pipeline were also taken into consideration.

North Connector Route Alternative. This alternative would follow the proposed 

action for the first 136.5 miles of the route at which point it turns and trends in a 

northeasterly direction for approximately 12.7 miles toward the Echo Springs 

pump station. While this alternative would be 3 miles shorter than the proposed 

action route, it would cross previously undisturbed land for the entirety of the 

12.7 miles, while the proposed action route would parallel existing utility 

corridors and previously disturbed land for all but 0.5 miles of the northernmost 

15.7 miles of the route. The north connector route alternative would cross an 

additional 2.2 miles of mountain plover habitat and increase habitat fragmentation 

for wildlife in the area.

Rationale for Decision:

The selected alternatives meet the project purpose and need and are consistent with 

Executive Order 13212 (May 18, 2001), which, among other things, states that 

increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound 

manner is essential to the well-being of the public.

The GRP land re-route, along with the proposed action, were fully analyzed in the 

EA. Table 2.2-1 compares key resources impacted by implementation of this 

alternative as compared to the proposed action. Approximately 2.7 miles of the

3.3-mile re-route are located on federal lands. An additional 11.8 acres of vegetation, 

soils, and sage grouse habitat would be affected by the GRP re-route as compared to 

the proposed action. 

Implementation of the GRP land re-route would place the disturbance within 0.6 

miles of an active sage grouse lek. However, seasonal timing restrictions would 

ensure that construction does not occur during critical nesting periods, thus, 

mitigating impacts to this lek. Section 4.7.1.3 of the EA discusses in detail sagegrouse protection measures OPPC has committed to in order to limit impacts to 

greater sage grouse.

The GRP land re-route would be constructed in an area the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife has designated as “core sage-grouse habitat” as did the original route through 
15

the private land. Implementation of the GRP land re-route would impact 30.3 acres 

of core sage-grouse habitat or an additional 11.8 acres as compared to the original 

pipeline route. Approximately 647,000 acres have been designated core habitat in the 

project vicinity. Although our goal is to limit impacts to sage grouse habitat, in 

particular “core sage-grouse habitat,” the selected re-route would impact 421, acres or 

0.07 percent, of designated “core habitat”. Direct impacts to this habitat would be 

mitigated through committed reclamation efforts as outlined in Section 3.8 of the 

POD including seeding with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs native to the area

as outlined in the Environmental Protection Plan (Attachment C, Appendix 12). 

According to the Department of Agriculture Office of General Counsel, the 

legislation authorizing the GRP does not allow modification of the easement to allow 

for any surface disturbance within the easement. As such, until this issue is resolved 

OPPC has no other option to complete construction of their pipeline other than 

through the re-route. Both the BLM as well as the proponent have thoroughly 

investigated the easement issue and at this juncture have found no resolution. There 

are ongoing efforts with the Colorado Congressional delegation to see if the Secretary 

of Agriculture would evaluate this issue and allow construction to occur within the 

GRP easement. If the Department of Agriculture was able to allow a modification of 

their easement to allow construction of the pipeline across the private land, the GRP 

land re-route would not be implemented.

Implementation of the GRP land re-route would not occur any earlier than June 30, 

2009 for two reasons. The first is that BLM is hopeful that in the ensuing months the 

Department of Agriculture will find an internal solution to the GRP easement issue 

that would allow construction to occur. If this effort fails, it is hoped that legislation 

would be enacted allowing for modification of GRP easements. Secondly, between 

March 1 and June 30 a seasonal restriction for the protection of sage-grouse is in 

effect.

The winter contingency plan was revised by the BLM to ensure adequate protection 

of environmental resources if construction were to occur during the winter

(Attachment F).

The selected alternatives are in conformance with the applicable RMPs; objectives of 

the guiding federal regulations; state, local, and tribal plans; and federal interagency 

agreements. 

The decision to implement the selected alternatives, coupled with the standard terms 

and conditions, applicant-committed environmental protection measures, stipulations 

attached to the right-of-way amendments and temporary use permits (including those 

listed in the POD, Attachment C), will not result in unnecessary or undue degradation 

of the environment and does not create significant cumulative effects.

There would be no significant impacts to geology and soils. OPPC would follow the 

applicant-committed measures in its application, EA, and POD as well as stipulations

attached to the right-of-way grant, temporary use permit, and supporting documents. 

Examples of these protection measures include, but are not limited to, planning of the 

route to overlap with previously disturbed areas and topsoil segregation during 
16

construction. Likewise, OPPC would implement the avoidance, minimization, and 

protection measures specific to these resources as outlined in the POD 

(Attachment C, Appendices 2, 7, 12, and 13).

There would be no significant impacts to groundwater, surface waters, wetlands, or

exceptional water resource areas. OPPC would follow the applicant-committed 

protection measures in its application, EA and POD as well as the stipulations 

attached to the right-of-way grant, temporary use permit, and supporting documents. 

Examples of these protection measures include, but are not limited to, horizontal 

directional drill crossing of major waterways including the White, Little Snake, and 

Yampa rivers. Likewise, OPPC would implement the avoidance, minimization, and 

protection measures specific to these resources as outlined in the POD 

(Attachment C, Appendices 1, 7, 8, 12, and 14).

There would be no significant impacts to vegetation. OPPC would follow the 

applicant-committed protection measures in its application, EA and POD as well as 

the stipulations attached to the right-of-way grant, temporary use permit, and 

supporting documents. Examples of these protection measures include, but are not 

limited to, route planning in order to overlap the construction corridor to the 

maximum extent practical with previously disturbed areas; pre-construction surveys 

and spraying for noxious and invasive weeds; restoration using native vegetation; and 

post-construction monitoring for reclamation success. Likewise, OPPC would 

implement the avoidance, minimization, and protection measures specific to these 

resources as outlined in the POD (Attachment C, Appendices 1, 6, 7, 9, and 12). The 

selected alternatives would require approximately 1,611 acres for construction, 

including lands administered by the BLM, lands managed by the States of Colorado 

and Wyoming, and private lands. However, once reclaimed, operation of the 

permanent right-of-way of the underground pipeline would not preclude pre-existing 

vegetation cover types important to wildlife, recreationalists, and grazing potential.

There would be no significant impacts to fisheries, wildlife, and special status plant 

and animal species. OPPC would follow the applicant-committed protection 

measures in its application, EA and POD as well as the stipulations attached to the 

right-of-way grant, temporary use permit, and supporting documents. Examples of 

these protection measures include, but are not limited to, pre-construction sensitive 

plant surveys and pre-construction nest surveys for migratory birds of importance, 

including raptors, in order to avoid impacts during construction to nesting individuals 

through implementation of “no construction” zones during the nesting periods. 

Likewise, OPPC would implement the avoidance, minimization, and protection

measures specific to these resources as outlined in the POD (Attachment C,

Appendices 1, 7, 8, 12, and 13).

OPPC would comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the USFWS 

concurrence letter (Attachment E) during water withdrawals for construction and 

hydrostatic testing at the three major extraction locations on the White, Little Snake,

and Yampa rivers to minimize impacts to endangered fish species. OPPC is

authorized for the total water withdrawal of 46 acre-feet. Implementation of the 

applicant-committed protection measures would minimize direct and indirect effects 
17

to the designated critical habitat and three federally listed fish species. The USFWS

determined that this level of anticipated temporary withdrawal is not likely to result in 

jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat when 

the reasonable and prudent alternative is implemented.

There would be no significant impacts to cultural and paleontological resources. 

Cultural and paleontological surveys have been completed for all areas where surface 

disturbance would occur and all known sites would be avoided, mitigated, and/or 

monitored during construction as outlined in the POD (Attachment C, Appendices 3 

and 15). Cultural and paleontological resources may be found during pipeline 

excavation; therefore, a monitoring and discovery plan would be implemented. 

Because the plans call for proper collection, curation, and study of presently 

undiscovered sites, there would be no adverse impact to cultural and paleontological 

resources.

There would be no significant impacts to land uses, recreation, or visual resources. 

OPPC would follow the applicant-committed protection measures in its application, 

EA and POD as well as the stipulations attached to the right-of-way grant, temporary 

use permit, and supporting documents. Examples of these protection measures 

include, but are not limited to, pre-construction routing of the route to include 

previously disturbed areas (i.e., overlap with existing utility windows; approximately 

96 percent of the route is co-located along existing utility corridors) and avoidance of 

sensitive areas. Likewise, OPPC would implement the avoidance, minimization, and 

protection measures specific to these resources as outlined in the POD 

(Attachment C, Appendix 12). The selected alternatives would require approximately 

1,611 acres for construction, including lands administered by the BLM, lands 

managed by the states of Colorado and Wyoming, and private lands. However, once 

reclaimed, operation of the permanent right-of-way would not preclude pre-existing

land uses, including the multiple use objectives described in the guiding RMPs.

There would be no significant impacts to socioeconomics. Little long-term impact 

would result from the operation of the pipeline because OPPC anticipates adding two 

permanent employees to its existing workforce as a result of project implementation. 

OPPC would follow best management practices in the Transportation Management 

Plan to minimize impacts during construction (Attachment C, Appendix 11). 

Furthermore, OPPC has been informed that construction personnel would not be

allowed to camp on public lands during the construction of the project except in 

designated campgrounds and OPPC would help to communicate this rule to 

construction personnel during the project training required for construction personnel.

There would be no significant impacts to air quality. OPPC would follow the 

applicant-committed protection measures in its application, EA and POD as well as 

the stipulations attached to the right-of-way grant, temporary use permit, and 

supporting documents. OPPC would implement dust suppression techniques, such as 

watering the right-of-way and access roads, thus, minimizing the impacts of fugitive 

dust (Attachment C, Appendix 6). OPPC would ensure proper maintenance of 

construction equipment. Given the limited scope of the project, emissions associated 

with the construction phase would be short term in nature.
18

Reliability and safety issues have been adequately addressed by the selected 

alternatives. OPPC would follow the applicant-committed protection measures in its 

application, EA and POD as well as the stipulations attached to the right-of-way

grant, temporary use permit, and supporting documents. OPPC intends to operate the 

pipeline in accordance with 49 CFR Part 192. Likewise, OPPC would implement 

emergency response plans during construction (Attachment C, Appendices 5 and 10).

There would be no significant cumulative impacts to resources in consideration of 

other projects in the vicinity which require a federal review process. 

OPPC would employ environmental inspectors/monitors who would be responsible 

for compliance with all environmental conditions during construction (Attachment C, 

Appendix 4). As noted, these inspectors would report directly to the BLM.

The No Action Alternative was not selected because it would deprive the applicant 

the opportunity to transport and market additional NGL resources and would not meet 

their purpose and need.

Public and Regulatory Agency Participation:

On June 20, 2007, OPPC filed an application with the BLM for construction of the 

proposed project. The BLM published a scoping notice on their website, issued a press 

release in three local newspapers, and mailed postcards to 700 potentially interested 

parties, announcing the project and comment period from February 22 through March 14, 

2008. Potentially interested parties included federal, state, and local officials and 

agencies; Native American tribal representatives; non-government conservation 

organizations; local libraries and newspapers; and property owners along the proposed 

pipeline route. 

An interagency meeting was held on February 27, 2008 in Craig, Colorado to solicit 

comments and concerns from agencies having jurisdiction over the project. Attendees 

included representatives from each of the three BLM field offices (White River, Little 

Snake, and Rawlins), the USFWS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colorado Division 

of Wildlife, and the Colorado State Land Board. The Wyoming Game and Fish was 

invited but did not attend.

The EA was available for a 30-day public review and comment period from July 14 

through August 13, 2008. The EA and draft POD were posted on the BLM website the 

day it was released, a press release was issued in three local newspapers and hard copies 

and/or compact discs containing the EA were distributed to interested parties or made 

available at the BLM field offices and local libraries. 

The EA was available for an additional 14-day comment period from September 25, 2008 

through October 9, 2008. The purpose for the additional comment period was to solicit 

comments on the GRP land re-route discussed above. The availability of the revised EA 

and POD was posted to the BLM website and a press release was issued in four local 

newspapers.
19

Seven scoping comment submittals (e.g., letter, e-mail) were received: two letters from 

private individuals, one from a state agency (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), one 

from an industry representative, and three from non-government conservation 

organizations. During the first public review of the EA, a total of four comment letters

were received; two from state agencies, one from a non-government conservation agency, 

and one from the applicant. During the additional 14-day comment period, the BLM 

received four additional comment letters: one from a federal agency, one from a state 

agency, one from a non-government conservation agency, and one from a private 

individual. All comments received are part of the public record for the project. Response 

to substantive public comments on the EA may be found in Attachment G.

Summary:

In summary, we conclude that the proposed project, including pipeline and associated 

facilities, is an appropriate and beneficial use of these lands. The BLM has independently 

reviewed all submitted data, and reviewed the alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed analysis (see Chapter 2 of the EA). The selected alternatives with all applicantcommitted environmental protection measures, agency mandated environmental 

protection measures, and state and federal laws and regulations, will ensure the protection 

of cultural and natural resources. Thus, the selected alternatives will not have significant 

impacts. Further, the incremental impact of the agency selected alternatives when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would be minimal; therefore, 

the cumulative impacts would not be significant.

Appeals Language:

This decision shall take effect immediately upon the date it is signed by the authorized 

officer (October 15, 2008). As stated in the regulations at 43 CFR 2804.1, and 2884.1, 

the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21(a) do not apply, and the decision shall remain effective 

pending appeal unless the Board determines otherwise. Within 30 days of the decision, a 

notice of appeal must be filed in the office of the authorized officer, Kent E. Walter at the

Bureau of Land Management, White River Field Office, 220 East Market Street, Meeker, 

Colorado 81641. If a statement of reasons for the appeal is not included with the notice, 

it must be filed with the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203

within 30 days after the notice of appeal is filed with the authorized officer. 

If you wish to file a petition for stay pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4.21(b), the petition for stay 

should accompany your notice of appeal and shall show sufficient justification based on 

the following standards:

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied;

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits;

3. The likelihood of irreparable harm to the appellant or resources if the stay is not 

granted; and
20

4. Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

If a petition for stay is submitted with the notice of appeal, a copy of the notice of appeal 

and petition for stay must be served on each party named in the decision from which the 

appeal is taken, and with the Board at the same time it is filed with the authorized officer.

A copy of the notice of appeal, any statement of reasons and all pertinent documents must 

be served on each adverse party named in the decision from which the appeal is taken and 

on the Office of the Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, not later than 

15 days after filing the document with the authorized officer and/or Board.

Kent E.Walter October 15, 2008

Authorized Officer Date

Attachments: 

A. Right-of-Way Grant and Exhibits

B. Temporary Use Permits and Exhibits 

C. Plan of Development for the OPPC Piceance Basin NGL Lateral Project Dated 

August 2008

D. Memorandum of Agreement Between the BLM and SHPO

E. USFWS Concurrence Letter Dated August 7, 2008

F. Revised Appendix 13 of POD, Winter Contingency Plan

G. Responses to Public Comments on the Environmental Assessment

H. Environmental Compliance Monitoring Plan, dated October 2008