Points to address in your comment:

• A full Environmental Impact Statement analysis is needed: Due to the gaps in the BLM’s analysis and potential impacts to wildlife, habitat, public land, and water quality, a deeper environmental analysis is needed. If the BLM does not choose the No Action Alternative, they must conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement before making a decision.
  
• Need for further cumulative impacts analysis: The BLM acknowledges that the pipeline will “accommodate” drilling of up to 47 new wells in the area but has not fully analyzed for the impacts of the wells on air quality, wildlife fragmentation, and climate. The BLM must complete an in-depth cumulative impacts analysis that takes the full potential of the project into account.
  
• The proposed pipeline will impact wildlife and habitat: The BLM acknowledged that this development could further fragment critical wildlife habitat and disturbing big-game in the area such as elk, deer, and beaver. The BLM has also found the presence of the Harrington beardtongue, which is a BLM and Forest Service sensitive plant species. The No Action Alternative is the only action that will not impact wildlife and wildlife habitat.
  
• This proposed pipeline will impact the multi-use nature of public land: The BLM claims this project proposes minimal impacts to recreation and use of the public lands around the area by the public. West Mamm creek is a unique watershed valued for its recreational resources including but not limited to hunting, fishing, hiking and more. Much of the surrounding area has been disturbed by oil and gas activities, and community members want to keep this area intact and as undisturbed as possible to protect the values. BLM must prioritize a balanced use of public land management in the Mamm Creek area. 
  
• Need to protect water quality and streams: The proposed pipeline has 11 stream crossings, and the BLM does not analyze the long-term impacts to these waterways. Nor does the EA provide information on potential leaks and spills from the proposed pipeline. The No Action Alternative is the only action that will not cause potential harm to water quality in the area.
  
• A full Environmental Impact Statement analysis is needed: Due to the gaps in the BLM’s analysis and potential impacts to wildlife, habitat, public land, and water quality, a deeper environmental analysis is needed. If the BLM does not choose the No Action Alternative, they must conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement before making a decision.

Submit your comments here:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2025023/570/8020879/comment