Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of State

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientic Aairs

for the

Keystone XL Project

Executive Summary

January 2014

Applicant for Presidential Permit: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP

Front cover photo sources in order of appearance top to bottom:

Whooping crane

Hagerty, Ryan. 2012. Endangered Whooping Crane (Grus Americana). Photograph. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

23 February 2012. Website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq/6777481034/

Black-footed ferret

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012. Black-footed ferret. Photograph. USFWS Headquarters. 3 July 2012. Website:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq/7013874797/in/photolist-9Z7MXd-bFMWBP-bsoAvk-9DoXKC-bZh2uu/

Sage grouse

Rush, Kenneth. No Date. Male Greater Sage Grouse Strutting at Hat Six Lek near Casper, Wyoming. Photograph.

Shutterstock, Image ID: 52631191. Website:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52631191/stock-photo-male-greater-

sage-grouse-strutting-at-hat-six-lek-near-casper-wyoming.html.

American burying beetle

Backlund, Doug. No date. Untitled [American Burying Beetle]. Photograph. U.S Fish & Wildlife Service – South

Dakota Field Office. Website: http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/BEETLE.HTM

United States Department of State

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

For the

KEYSTONE XL PROJECT

Applicant for Presidential Permit:

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP

Executive Summary

Genevieve Walker

Project Manager

United States Department of State

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental

and Scientific Affairs

2201 C Street NW, Room 2726

Washington, DC 20520

Cooperating Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

U.S. Department of Agriculture—Farm Service Agency (FSA)

U.S. Department of Agriculture—Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture—Rural Utilities Service (RUS)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

U.S. Department of Interior—National Park Service (NPS)

U.S. Department of Interior—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Department of Transportation—Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,

Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Assisting Agencies

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)

Various State and Local Agencies in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas

January 2014

Volume I

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Description of the Proposed Project and Alternatives

Volume II

3.0 Affected Environment

Volume III

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Volume IV

5.0 Alternatives

6.0 List of Preparers

7.0 Distribution List—Final Supplemental EIS or Executive Summary

8.0 Index

Volume V

Comments and Responses (Part 1)

Volume VI

Comments and Responses (Part 2)

Volume VII

Appendix A Governor Approval of the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska

Appendix B Potential Releases and Pipeline Safety

Appendix C Supplemental Information to Market Analysis

Appendix D Waterbody Crossing Tables and Required Crossing Criteria for Reclamation Facilities

Appendix E Amended Programmatic Agreement and Record of Consultation

Appendix F Scoping Summary Report

Appendix G Construction, Mitigation, and Reclamation Plan

Volume VIII

Appendix H 2012 Biological Assessment, 2013 USFWS Biological Opinion, and Associated Documents

Volume IX

Appendix I Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; and Emergency Response Plan

Appendix J Basin Electric Big Bend to Witten 230-kV Transmission Project Routing Report

Appendix K Historical Pipeline Incident Analysis

Appendix L Oil and Gas Wells within 1,320 ft of Proposed Right-of-Way

Appendix M Soil Summary for Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska

Volume X

Appendix N Supplemental Information for Compliance with MEPA

Appendix O Socioeconomics

Appendix P Risk Assessment

Volume XI

Appendix Q Crude Oil Material Safety Data Sheets

Appendix R Construction/Reclamation Plans and Documentation

Appendix S Pipeline Temperature Effects Study

Appendix T Screening Level Oil Spill Modeling

Appendix U Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum Products from WCSB Oil Sands Crudes

Compared with Reference Crudes

Appendix V Literature Review

Appendix W Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Project Descriptions

Appendix X Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Canadian Regulatory Review of Keystone XL

Appendix Y Estimated Criteria Pollutants, Noise, and GHG Emissions

Appendix Z Compiled Mitigation Measures

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project Table of Contents

.....................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................

............................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

ES-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1.0 Overview of Review Process 1

ES.1.1

Presidential Permit Process 1

ES.1.2

Background 1

ES.1.3

Public Comments Received Regarding the Draft Supplemental EIS 6

ES.1.4

About the Final Supplemental EIS 6

ES.2.0

Overview of Proposed Project 6

ES.2.1

Proposed Project Purpose and Need 6

ES.2.2

Proposed Project Description 7

ES.3.0

Overview of Petroleum Markets 9

ES.3.1

Summary of Market Analysis 9

ES.4.0

Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project 14

ES.4.1

Climate Change 14

ES.4.2

Potential Releases 17

ES.4.3

Socioeconomics 19

ES.4.4

Environmental Justice 20

ES.4.5

Water Resources 21

ES.4.6

Wetlands 22

ES.4.7

Threatened and Endangered Species 23

ES.4.8

Geology and Soils 24

ES.4.9

Terrestrial Vegetation 24

ES.4.10

Wildlife 24

ES.4.11

Fisheries 25

ES.4.12

Land Use 25

ES.4.13

Air Quality and Noise 25

ES.4.14

Cultural Resources 25

ES.4.15

Cumulative Effects 26

ES.4.16

Environmental Impacts in Canada 27

ES.5.0

Alternatives 28

ES.5.1

No Action Alternative 28

ES.5.2

Major Pipeline Route Alternatives 29

ES.5.3

Other Alternatives Considered 32

ES.5.4

Comparison of Alternatives 32

ES.6.0

Guide to Reading the Supplemental EIS . 37

ES.7.0

Supplemental EIS Contents 37

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project Table of Contents

.........................................

..............................................................................

.......................................................................................

.............................................................................

..................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

...............................................................

...................................................................

...............................................................................................................

..........................................................

...

.............................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

............................................

.........................................................

................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

............................................................................

.........................................................................................

LIST OF TABLES

ES-ii

Table ES-1 Summary of PHMSA Database Incidents (January 2002 to July 2012) 18

Table ES-2

Spill Scenarios Evaluated in Supplemental EIS 18

Table ES-3

Effects of Potential Releases on Aquifers 23

Table ES-4

Summary of Major Pipeline Route Alternatives 30

Table ES-5

Physical Disturbance Impacts Associated with New Construction and Operations for the

Proposed Project and Alternatives 33

Table ES-6

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crude Transport (from Hardisty/Lloydminster,

Alberta, to the Gulf Coast Area) Associated with the Proposed Project and Alternatives

(per 100,000 bpd) 34

Table ES-7

Potential Releases Impacts (Full Pathway) Associated with the Proposed Project

and Alternatives 36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Proposed Keystone XL Project Route 2

Figure ES-2

Gulf Coast Project Route 4

Figure ES-3

Comparison of Proposed Project to 2011 Final EIS Route 5

Figure ES-4

Keystone XL, Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 7

Figure ES-5

Proposed Project Overview 8

Figure ES-6

Estimated Crude Oil Transported by Rail from WCSB, bpd 10

Figure ES-7

Crude by Train Loading and Off-Loading Facilities in 2010 (top map) and 2013 (bottom map) 11

Figure ES-8

Oil Sands Supply Costs (West Texas Intermediate-Equivalent Dollars per Barrel), Project

Capacity, and Production Projections 13

Figure ES-9

The Greenhouse Effect 14

Figure ES-10

Incremental Well-to-Wheels GHG Emissions from WCSB Oil Sands Crudes Compared to

Well-to-Wheels GHG Emissions from Displacing Reference Crudes 16

Figure ES-11

Cross Section of the Horizontal Directional Drilling Method 22

Figure ES-12

American Burying Beetle 24

Figure ES-13

Indian Tribes Consulted 27

Figure ES-14

Representative No Action Alternative Scenarios 29

Figure ES-15

Preliminary Pipeline Route Alternatives 31

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-1

ES.1.0 OVERVIEW OF REVIEW

PROCESS

The Keystone XL Pipeline (the proposed Project) is a

proposed 875-mile pipeline project that would extend

from Morgan, Montana, to Steele City, Nebraska. The

pipeline would allow delivery of up to 830,000 barrels

per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Western Canadian

Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) in Canada and the Bakken

Shale Formation in the United States to Steele City,

Nebraska, for onward delivery to refineries in the Gulf

Coast area (see Figure ES-1). TransCanada Keystone

Pipeline, LP (Keystone) has applied for a Presidential

Permit that, if granted, would authorize the proposed

pipeline to cross the United States-Canadian border at

Morgan, Montana.

The proposed route differs from the route analyzed in

the 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement

(2011 Final EIS) in that it would avoid the

environmentally sensitive Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality (NDEQ)-identified Sand Hills

Region and no longer includes a southern segment from

Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast area.

The U.S. Department of State (the Department)

prepared this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (the Supplemental EIS) to assess the

potential impacts associated with the proposed Project

and its alternatives. The Supplemental EIS takes into

consideration over 400,000 comments received during

the scoping period and 1.5 million comments received

on the Draft Supplemental EIS issued in March 2013.

Notable changes since the Draft Supplemental EIS

include:

• Expanded analysis of potential oil releases;

• Expanded climate change analysis;

• Updated oil market analysis incorporating new

economic modeling; and

• Expanded analysis of rail transport as part of the

No Action Alternative scenarios.

ES.1.1 Presidential Permit Process

For proposed petroleum pipelines that cross

international borders of the United States, the President,

through Executive Order (EO) 13337, directs the

Secretary of State to decide whether a project serves the

national interest before granting a Presidential Permit.

To make this decision (i.e., the National Interest

Determination), the Secretary of State, through the

Department, considers many factors, including energy

security; environmental, cultural, and economic

impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant

state and federal regulations. This Supplemental EIS

was produced consistent with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will help inform

that determination. Before making such a decision, the

Department also asks for the views of eight federal

agencies identified in EO 13337: the Departments of

Energy, Defense, Transportation, Homeland Security,

Justice, Interior, and Commerce, as well as the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

If the proposed Project is determined to serve the

national interest, it will be granted a Presidential Permit

that authorizes the construction, connection, operation,

and maintenance of the facilities at the border between

the United States and Canada. The applicant would be

required to abide by certain conditions listed in this

Supplemental EIS and the Presidential Permit. The

Department’s primary role is to make a National

Interest Determination. Its jurisdiction does not include

selection of specific pipeline routes within the

United States.

In addition, the Department acts consistent with the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) as part of its

comprehensive NEPA consistent review.

ES.1.2 Background

Keystone’s first application for the Keystone XL

pipeline was submitted on September 19, 2008, and a

Final EIS was published on August 26, 2011. The route

proposed included the same U.S.-Canada border

crossing as the currently proposed Project but a

different pipeline route in the United States. The 2011

Final EIS route traversed a substantial portion of the

Sand Hills Region of Nebraska, as identified by the

NDEQ. Moreover, the 2011 Final EIS route went from

Montana to Steele City, Nebraska, and then from

Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast area.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-2

Figure ES-1 Proposed Keystone XL Project Route

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-3

In November 2011, the Department determined that

additional information was needed to fully evaluate the

application—in particular, information about alternative

routes within Nebraska that would avoid the NDEQ-

identified Sand Hills Region. In late December 2011,

Congress adopted a provision of the Temporary Payroll

Tax Cut Continuation Act that sought to require the

President to make a decision on the Presidential Permit

for the 2011 Final EIS route within 60 days. That

deadline did not allow sufficient time to prepare a

rigorous, transparent, and objective review of an

alternative route through Nebraska. As such, the

Presidential Permit was denied.

In February 2012, Keystone informed the Department

that it considered the Gulf Coast portion of the

originally proposed pipeline project (from Cushing,

Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast area) to have independent

economic utility, and indicated that it intended to

proceed with construction of that pipeline as a separate

project, the Gulf Coast Project (see Figure ES-2). The

Gulf Coast Project did not require a Presidential Permit

because it does not cross an international border.

Construction on the Gulf Coast Project was recently

completed.

On May 4, 2012, Keystone filed a new Presidential

Permit application for the Keystone XL Project. The

proposed Project has a new route and a new stated

purpose and need. The new proposed route differs from

the 2011 Final EIS Route in two significant ways: 1) it

would avoid the environmentally sensitive NDEQ-

identified Sand Hills Region and 2) it would terminate

at Steele City, Nebraska. From Steele City, existing

pipelines would transport the crude oil to the Gulf

Coast area. In other words, the proposed Project no

longer includes a southern segment and instead runs

from Montana to Steele City, Nebraska.

In addition to the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region,

the proposed Project route would avoid other areas in

Nebraska (including portions of Keya Paha County)

that have been identified by the NDEQ as having soil

and topographic characteristics similar to the Sand Hills

Region. The proposed Project route would also avoid or

move further away from water wellhead protection

areas for the villages of Clarks and Western, Nebraska.

Figure ES-3 compares the 2011 Final EIS route and the

proposed Project route.

The proposed route in Montana and South Dakota is

largely unchanged from the route analyzed in the 2011

Final EIS except for minor modifications that Keystone

made to improve constructability and in response to

landowner requests (see Figure ES-3).

The Department, after discussions with the USEPA and

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),

determined consistent with NEPA that issuance of the

new Presidential Permit would constitute a major

federal action that may have significant environmental

impact, and that it would prepare a supplement to the

2011 Final EIS for the new application. This

Supplemental EIS provides a thorough analysis of the

environmental impacts from the proposed Project; it has

been revised, expanded, and updated to include a

comprehensive review of the new route in Nebraska as

well as any significant new circumstances or

information that is now available and relevant to the

overall proposed Project.

To assist in preparing this Supplemental EIS, the

Department retained an environmental consulting firm,

Environmental Resources Management (ERM). ERM

was selected pursuant to the Department’s interim

guidance on the selection of independent third-party

contractors. This guidance is designed to ensure that no

conflicts of interest exist between the contractor and the

applicant and that any perceived conflicts that would

impair the public’s confidence in the integrity of the

work are mitigated or removed. ERM works at the sole

and exclusive instruction of the Department and is not

permitted to communicate with Keystone unless

specifically directed to do so by Department officials.

On June 15, 2012, through a Notice of Intent, the

Department solicited public comments for

consideration in establishing the scope and content of

this Supplemental EIS. The scoping period extended

from June 15 to July 30, 2012. In total, an estimated

406,712 letters, cards, emails, e-comments, or

telephone conversation records (henceforth referred to

as submissions) were received from the public,

agencies, and other interested groups and stakeholders

during the scoping period. In March 2013, the

Department issued a Draft Supplemental EIS that

included new analysis and analysis built upon the work

completed in the 2011 Final EIS, as well as the

estimated 406,712 submissions mentioned above that

were received during the 2012 scoping process.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-4

Figure ES-2 Gulf Coast Project Route

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

Note: The 2011 Final EIS route is also referred to in this Final Supplemental EIS as the 2011 Steele City Segment Alternative.

Figure ES-3 Comparison of Proposed Project to 2011 Final EIS Route

ES-5

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-6

ES.1.3 Public Comments Received

Regarding the Draft

Supplemental EIS

Following publication of the 2013 Draft Supplemental

EIS, the Department invited the public to comment on

the document. Electronic versions were made available

for download, and hard copies were made available in

public libraries along the proposed pipeline route. Hard

and electronic copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS

were sent to interested Indian tribes, agencies, elected

and appointed officials, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), and other parties. The

Department also solicited input at a public meeting held

on April 18, 2013 in Grand Island, Nebraska. In total,

the Department received an estimated 1,513,249

submissions during the public comment period for the

Draft Supplemental EIS. Submissions were made by

federal, state, and local representatives, members of the

public, government agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and

other interested groups and stakeholders. Submissions

made by the public on the Draft Supplemental EIS were

posted on www.regulations.gov.

Of this total number of submissions, an estimated

1,496,396 submissions (99 percent of the total) were

form letters sponsored by NGOs. The remaining 16,853

submissions were identified as unique submissions. All

submissions were evaluated and addressed, as

appropriate, in this Supplemental EIS. Some of the

most frequent comment topics included:

• Concerns that the 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS did

not adequately address the greenhouse gas (GHG)

and climate change effects of the extraction,

processing, and use of the crude oil that the

proposed Project would carry;

• Concerns that potential releases from the proposed

Project (i.e., spills) could pollute major

groundwater resources such as the Ogallala

Aquifer;

• Concerns that the 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS did

not adequately address the impacts of bitumen

extraction in Canada;

• Concerns about the contractor and subcontractor

selection process for preparing this Supplemental

EIS;

• Concerns that the crude oil transportation market

was not adequately analyzed;

• Suggestions that the existing Keystone Pipeline

right-of-way (ROW) be considered in lieu of the

currently proposed pipeline route; and

• Questions about the accuracy of job creation

estimates for construction and operation of the

proposed Project, as well as the types, locations,

and hiring preferences of those jobs.

ES.1.4 About the Final Supplemental EIS

This Supplemental EIS for the proposed Keystone XL

pipeline project builds on the analysis provided in the

2011 Final EIS and the 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS

and is now available for download by the public.

Moreover, this Supplemental EIS has been distributed

to participating federal and state agencies, elected

officials, media organizations, Indian tribes, private

landowners, and other interested parties. Printed copies

have also been distributed to public libraries along the

proposed pipeline route.

In completing this Supplemental EIS, the Department

took into consideration the over 1.5 million submissions

received. In response to these comments, the

Department has revised the text from the 2013 Draft

Supplemental EIS for the proposed Project. This Final

Supplemental EIS includes the latest available

information on the proposed Project resulting from

ongoing discussions with federal, state, and local

agencies. It also describes updated analysis of the

potential effects (including direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects) of the proposed Project and

alternatives on various resources. The analysis reflects

inputs from other U.S. government agencies and was

reviewed through an interagency process.

ES.2.0 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED

PROJECT

ES.2.1 Proposed Project Purpose and Need

According to the application submitted by Keystone,

the primary purpose of the proposed Project is to

provide the infrastructure to transport crude oil from the

border with Canada to delivery points in the United

States (primarily to the Gulf Coast area) by connecting

to existing pipeline facilities near Steele City,

Nebraska. The proposed Project is meant to respond to

the market demand of refineries for crude oil of the

kind found in Western Canada (often called heavy

crude oil). The proposed Project would also provide

transportation for the kind of crude oil found within the

Bakken formation of North Dakota and Montana (often

called light crude oil).

The proposed Project would have the capacity to

deliver up to 830,000 bpd, of which 730,000 bpd of

capacity has been set aside for WCSB crude oil and the

remaining 100,000 bpd of capacity set aside for

Williston Basin (Bakken) crude oil. Keystone has

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

represented that it has firm commitments to transport

approximately 555,000 bpd of heavy crude oil from

producers in the WCSB, as well as 65,000 bpd of crude

oil from the Bakken. The ultimate mixture and quantity

of crude oils transported by the proposed Project over

its lifetime would be determined by market demand.

There is existing demand for crude oil—particularly

heavy crude oil—at refiners in the Gulf Coast area, but

the ultimate disposition of crude oil that would be

transported by the proposed Project, as well as any

refined products produced from that crude oil, would

also be determined by market demand and applicable

law.

ES.2.2 Proposed Project Description

The proposed Project would consist of approximately

875 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline and related

facilities for transport of WCSB and Bakken crude oil,

the latter from an oil terminal near Baker, Montana.

Crude oil carried in the proposed Project would be

delivered to existing pipeline facilities near Steele City,

Nebraska, for onward delivery to refineries in the Gulf

Coast area. The proposed Project would also include

two pump stations (one new and one expanded) along

the existing Keystone Pipeline in Kansas

(see Figure ES-5).

Construction of the proposed Project would include the

pipeline itself plus various aboveground ancillary

facilities (e.g., access roads, pump stations, and

construction camps) and connected actions. Figure

ES-4 illustrates the construction sequence that would be

followed for the proposed Project.

Construction of the proposed Project would generally

require a 110-foot-wide temporary ROW and is

expected to last 1 to 2 years. After construction, the

proposed Project would generally maintain a 50-foot-

wide permanent ROW easement over the pipeline in

Montana (approximately 285 miles), South Dakota

(approximately 316 miles), and Nebraska

(approximately 274 miles).

Keystone would have access to property within the

easement, but property owners would retain the ability

to farm and conduct other limited activities within the

easement. The permanent aboveground ancillary

facilities would include electrically operated pump

stations, mainline valves, and permanent access roads.

Figure ES-4 Keystone XL, Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

ES-7

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

Figure ES-5 Proposed Project Overview

ES-8

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-9

The U.S. portion of the proposed Project is estimated to

cost approximately $3.3 billion, and would be paid for

by Keystone. If permitted, the pipeline would begin

operation approximately 2 years after final approvals

were received, with the actual in-service date dependent

on construction as well as obtaining any additional

permits, approvals, and authorizations necessary before

operations can commence.

ES.2.2.1 The Bakken Marketlink Project

Keystone Marketlink, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary

of TransCanada Pipelines Limited, would construct and

operate the Bakken Marketlink Project. This project

would include a 5-mile pipeline, pumps, meters, and

storage tanks to supply Bakken crude oil to the

proposed pipeline from the Bakken Marketlink pipeline

system in North Dakota and Montana. Two crude oil

storage tanks would be built near Baker, Montana, as

part of this project. This project would be able to

deliver up to 100,000 bpd of crude oil, and has

commitments for approximately 65,000 bpd.

ES.2.2.2 Big Bend to Witten 230-kV

Electrical Transmission Line

The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has

determined that providing reliable electricity for

operation of the proposed Project requires the

construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission

line originating at the Fort Thompson/Big Bend Dam

area in South Dakota and extending south to the

existing Witten Substation, near Pump Stations 20 and

21. To meet these demands, Western would repurpose

existing transmission infrastructure and construct new

infrastructure between the Big Bend Dam and a

proposed Big Bend Substation. The Basin Electric

Power Cooperative would construct a new 76-mile,

230-kV transmission line from the Big Bend Substation

to the existing Witten Substation, and would operate

both the transmission line and the Big Bend Substation.

ES.2.2.3 Electrical Distribution Lines and

Substations

Electrical power for the proposed Project would be

obtained from local power providers. These power

providers would construct the necessary substations and

transformers, and would either use existing service lines

or construct new service lines to deliver electrical

power to the specified point of use (e.g., pump stations

and mainline valves), which would be located at

intervals along the proposed Project route.

ES.3.0 OVERVIEW OF PETROLEUM

MARKETS

The scope and content of the market analysis in this

Supplemental EIS were informed by public and

interagency comments as well as new information that

was not previously available. Among the notable

updates to this analysis are revised modeling to

incorporate evolving market conditions, more extensive

information on the logistics and economics of crude by

rail, and a more detailed analysis of supply costs to

inform conclusions about production implications.

The updated market analysis in this Supplemental

EIS—similar to the market analysis sections in the 2011

Final EIS and 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS—

concludes that the proposed Project is unlikely to

significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands

areas (based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply

costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios).

The Department conducted this analysis, drawing on a

wide variety of data and leveraging external expertise.

ES.3.1 Summary of Market Analysis

The 2011 Final EIS was developed contemporaneously

with the start of strong growth in domestic light crude

oil supply from so-called tight oil formations, such as

those formations found in North Dakota’s Bakken

region. Domestic production of crude oil has increased

significantly, from approximately 5.5 million bpd in

2010 to 6.5 million bpd in 2012 and 7.5 million bpd by

mid-2013. Rising domestic crude production is

predominantly light crude, and it has replaced foreign

imports of light crude oil. However, demand persists for

imported heavy crude by U.S. refineries that are

optimized to process that kind of oil. Meanwhile,

Canadian production of bitumen from the oil sands

continues to grow, the vast majority of which is

currently exported to the United States to be processed

by U.S. refineries that want heavy crude oil. North

American production growth and logistics constraints

have contributed to significant discounts on the price of

landlocked crude and have led to growing volumes of

crude shipped by rail in the United States and, more

recently, Canada.

Both the 2011 Final EIS and the Draft Supplemental

EIS published in March 2013 discussed the

transportation of Canadian crude by rail as a possibility.

Due to market developments since then, this

Supplemental EIS notes that the transportation of

Canadian crude by rail is already occurring in

substantial volumes. It is estimated that approximately

180,000 bpd of Canadian crude oil is already traveling

by rail (see Figure ES-6).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-10

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Barrels per Day

Figure ES-6 Estimated Crude Oil Transported by Rail from WCSB, bpd

The industry has been making significant investments

in increasing rail transport capacity for crude oil out of

the WCSB. Figure ES-7 illustrates the increase in rail

loading and unloading terminals between 2010 and

2013. Rail loading facilities in the WCSB are estimated

to have a capacity of approximately 700,000 bpd of

crude oil, and by the end of 2014 this will likely

increase to more than 1.1 million bpd. Most of this

capacity (approximately 900,000 to 1 million bpd) is in

areas that produce primarily heavy crude oil (both

conventional and oil sands), or is being connected by

pipelines to those oil production areas.

Various uncertainties underlie the projections upon

which this Supplemental EIS partially relies. In

recognition of the uncertainty of future market

conditions, the analysis included updated modeling

about the sensitivity of the market to some of

these elements.

Updated information on rail transportation and oil

market trends, particularly rising U.S. oil production,

was incorporated in oil market modeling. This

modeling was developed in response to comments

received on the Draft Supplemental EIS. To help

account for key uncertainties about oil production,

consumption, and transportation, the modeling

examined 16 different scenarios that combine various

supply-demand assumptions and pipeline constraints.

Modeled cases test supply and demand projections

based on the official energy forecasts of independent

U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2013

Annual Energy Outlook that correspond to uncertainties

raised in public comments, including potential higher-

than-expected U.S. supply, lower-than-expected U.S.

demand, and higher-than-expected oil production in

Latin America.

December

2013

December

2010

ES-11

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

Note: These estimates do not include a facility being constructed in Edmonton, Canada, with a design capacity of 250,000 bpd

(100,000 bpd expected to be operational by the end of 2014) that was announced shortly before this Supplemental EIS was

completed. In addition, Altex Energy has plans for a 55,000 bpd loading facility in Vermillion, Alberta.

Figure ES-7 Crude by Train Loading and Off-Loading Facilities in 2010 (top map) and 2013

(bottom map)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-12

The supply-demand cases were paired with four

pipeline configuration scenarios: an unconstrained

scenario that allows pipelines to be built without

restrictions; a scenario in which no new cross-border

pipeline capacity to U.S. markets is permitted, but

pipelines from the WSCB to Canada’s east and west

coasts are built; a scenario where new cross-border

capacity between the United States and Canada is

permitted, but Canadian authorities do not permit new

east-west pipelines; and a constrained scenario that

assumes no new or expanded pipelines carrying WCSB

crude are built in any direction.

Updated model results indicated that cross-border

pipeline constraints have a limited impact on crude

flows and prices. If additional east-west pipelines were

built to the Canadian coasts, such pipelines would be

heavily utilized to export oil sands crude due to

relatively low shipping costs to reach growing Asian

markets. If new east-west and cross-border pipelines

were both completely constrained, oil sands crude could

reach U.S. and Canadian refineries by rail.

Varying pipeline availability has little impact on the

prices that U.S. consumers pay for refined products

such as gasoline or for heavy crude demand in the Gulf

Coast. When this demand is not met by heavy Canadian

supplies in the model results, it is met by heavy crude

from Latin America and the Middle East.

Conclusions about the potential effects of pipeline

constraints on production levels were informed by

comparing modeled oil prices to the prices that would

be required to support expected levels of oil sands

capacity growth. Figure ES-8 illustrates existing oil

sands capacity, the estimated supply costs of announced

capacity, and the capacity growth that will be required

to meet EIA and Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers production projections. Projected prices

generally exceed supply costs for the projects

responsible for future oil sands production growth.

Modeling results indicate that severe pipeline

constraints reduce the prices received by bitumen

producers by up to $8/bbl, but not enough to curtail

most oil sands growth plans or to shut-in existing

production (based on expected oil prices, oil-sands

supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand

scenarios). These conclusions are based on conservative

assumptions about rail costs, which likely overstate the

cost penalty producers pay for shipping by rail if more

economic methods currently under consideration to ship

bitumen by rail are utilized.

Several analysts and financial institutions have stated

that denying the proposed Project would have

significant impacts on oil sands production. To the

extent that other assessments appear to differ from the

analysis in this report, they typically do so because they

have different focuses, near-term time scales, or

production expectations, and/or include less detailed

data and analysis about rail than this report. While

short-term physical transportation constraints introduce

uncertainty to industry outlooks over the next decade,

new data and analysis in Section 1.4, Market Analysis,

indicate that rail will likely be able to accommodate

new production if new pipelines are delayed or not

constructed.

Over the long term, lower-than-expected oil prices

could affect the outlook for oil sands production, and in

certain scenarios higher transportation costs resulting

from pipeline constraints could exacerbate the impacts

of low prices. The primary assumptions required to

create conditions under which production growth would

slow due to transportation constraints include: 1) that

prices persist below current or most projected levels in

the long run; and 2) that all new and expanded

Canadian and cross-border pipeline capacity, beyond

just the proposed Project, is not constructed.

Above approximately $75 per barrel for West Texas

Intermediate (WTI)-equivalent oil, revenues to oil

sands producers are likely to remain above the long-run

supply costs of most projects responsible for expected

levels of oil sands production growth. Transport

penalties could reduce the returns to producers and, as

with any increase in supply costs, potentially affect

investment decisions about individual projects on the

margins. However, at these prices, enough relatively

low-cost in situ projects are under development that

baseline production projections would likely be met

even with constraints on new pipeline capacity. Oil

sands production is expected to be most sensitive to

increased transport costs in a range of prices around

$65 to $75 per barrel. Assuming prices fell in this

range, higher transportation costs could have a

substantial impact on oil sands production levels—

possibly in excess of the capacity of the proposed

Project—because many in situ projects are estimated to

break even around these levels. Prices below this range

would challenge the supply costs of many projects,

regardless of pipeline constraints, but higher transport

costs could further curtail production.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-13

Note: The green shaded areas in the Current and Announced Project Peak Capacity represent the capacity of projects that are

operating or already under construction, which are expected to continue producing and/or remain under development as long as

oil prices are above operating costs. The purple shaded areas represent the capacity of potential projects that would likely only go

forward with oil prices above the stated ranges.

Figure ES-8 Oil Sands Supply Costs (West Texas Intermediate-Equivalent Dollars per Barrel),

Project Capacity, and Production Projections

Oil prices are volatile, particularly over the short-term.

In addition, long-term trends, which drive investment

decisions, are difficult to predict. Specific supply cost

thresholds, Canadian production growth forecasts, and

the amount of new capacity needed to meet them are

uncertain. As a result, the price threshold above which

pipeline constraints are likely to have a limited impact

on future production levels could change if supply costs

or production expectations prove different than

estimated in this analysis.

The dominant drivers of oil sands development are

more global than any single infrastructure project. Oil

sands production and investment could slow or

accelerate depending on oil price trends, regulations,

and technological developments, but the potential

effects of those factors on the industry’s rate of

expansion should not be conflated with the more

limited effects of individual pipelines.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-14

ES.4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

ANALYSIS OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT

The Department evaluated the potential construction

and operational impacts of the proposed Project and

alternatives across a wide range of environmental

resources. The analysis discusses public and agency

interests and concerns as reflected in the submissions

received during the scoping period and on the 2013

Draft Supplemental EIS, and includes:

• Climate change, including lifecycle (well-to-

wheels [WTW]) GHG emissions associated with

oil sands development, refining, and consumption;

• Potential releases or spills of oil;

• Socioeconomics, including the potential job and

revenue benefits of the proposed Project, as well as

concerns about environmental justice;

• Water resources, including potential effects on

groundwater aquifers (e.g., Ogallala Aquifer) and

surface waters;

• Wetlands;

• Threatened and endangered species;

• Potential effects on geology, soils, other biological

resources (e.g., vegetation, fish, and wildlife), air

quality, noise, land use, recreation, and visual

resources; and

• Cultural resources, including tribal consultation.

ES.4.1 Climate Change

Changes to the Earth’s climate have been observed over

the past century with a global temperature increase of

1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. This

warming has coincided with increased levels of GHGs

in the atmosphere. In order for the Earth’s heat and

energy to remain at a steady state, the solar energy that

is incoming must equal the energy that is radiated into

space (see Figure ES-9). GHGs contribute to trapping

outbound radiation within the troposphere (the layer of

the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface), and this

is called the greenhouse effect.

Figure ES-9 The Greenhouse Effect

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-15

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the

rate and amount of GHGs have increased as a result of

human activity. The additional GHGs intensify the

greenhouse effect, resulting in a greater amount of heat

being trapped within the atmosphere. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of

1,300 independent scientific experts from countries

around the world, in its Fifth Assessment Report

concludes that global warming in the climate system is

unequivocal based on measured increases in

temperature, decrease in snow cover, and higher sea

levels.

This Supplemental EIS evaluates the relationship

between the proposed Project with respect to GHG

emissions and climate change from the following

perspectives:

• The GHG emissions associated with the

construction and operation of the proposed Project

and its connected actions;

• The potential increase in indirect lifecycle (wells-

to-wheels) GHG emissions associated with the

WCSB crude oil that would be transported by the

proposed Project;

• How the GHG emissions associated with the

proposed Project cumulatively contribute to

climate change; and

• An assessment of the effects that future projected

climate change could have in the proposed Project

area and on the proposed Project.

ES.4.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the

Proposed Project

The proposed Project would emit approximately

0.24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO

)

equivalents (MMTCO

e) per year during the

construction period. These emissions would be emitted

directly through fuel use in construction vehicles and

equipment, as well as, land clearing activities including

open burning, and indirectly from electricity usage.

During operations, approximately 1.44 MMTCO

would be emitted per year, largely attributable to

electricity use for pump station power, fuel for vehicles

and aircraft for maintenance and inspections, and

fugitive methane emissions at connections. The

1.44 MMTCO

e emissions would be equivalent to

GHG emissions from approximately 300,000 passenger

vehicles operating for 1 year, or 71,928 homes using

electricity for 1 year.

ES.4.1.2 Lifecycle Analysis

To enable a more comprehensive understanding of the

potential indirect GHG impact of the proposed Project,

it is important to also consider the wider GHG

emissions associated with the crude oil being

transported by the proposed Project. A lifecycle

approach was used to evaluate the GHG implications of

the WCSB crudes that would be transported by the

proposed Project compared to other crude oils that

would likely be replaced or displaced by those WCSB

crudes in U.S. refineries. A lifecycle analysis is a

technique used to evaluate the environmental aspects

and impacts (in this case GHGs) that are associated

with a product, process, or service from raw materials

acquisition through production, use, and end-of-life.

The lifecycle analysis considered wells-to-wheels GHG

emissions, including extraction, processing,

transportation, refining, and refined product use (such

as combustion of gasoline in cars) of WCSB crudes

compared to other reference heavy crudes. The lifecycle

analysis also considered the implications associated

with other generated products during the lifecycle

stages (so-called co-products) such as petroleum coke.

WCSB crudes are generally more GHG intensive than

other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in

U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more

GHGs on a lifecycle basis than the average barrel of

crude oil refined in the United States in 2005. The

largest single source of GHG emissions in the lifecycle

analysis is the finished-fuel combustion of refined

petroleum fuel products, which is consistent for

different crude oils, as shown in Figure ES-10.

The total lifecycle emissions associated with

production, refining, and combustion of 830,000 bpd of

oil sands crude oil transported through the proposed

Project is approximately 147 to 168 MMTCO

e per

year. The annual lifecycle GHG emissions from

830,000 bpd of the four reference crudes examined in

this Supplemental EIS are estimated to be 124 to

159 MMTCO

e. The range of incremental GHG

emissions for crude oil that would be transported by the

proposed Project is estimated to be 1.3 to 27.4

MMTCO

e annually. The estimated range of potential

emissions is large because there are many variables

such as which reference crude is used for the

comparison and which study is used for the

comparison.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-16

100

120

140

160

180

2013 Current Baseline, 830,000 bpd of

reference crude(s)

Incremental Emissions (excluding

consideration of Market Analysis)

830,000 bpd oil sands production

GHG emissions (MMTCO2e/yr)

Incremental GHG

Emissions **

Coproducts & net

petroleum coke

emissions

Extraction and mining

Refining

Combustion and

transportation

* Note: The orange bar represents incremental emissions. The bar itself is for a single crude (Mexican Maya) from the TIAX study. The range bar

is representative of all studies and reflects the 1.3 to 27.4 MMTCO2e annual incremental emissions presented in the Final Supplemental EIS.

** Incremental Emissions: This represents the difference between the 2013 Current Baseline and the 830,000 bpd Oil Sands Production, and

excludes consideration of the Market Analysis. These Incremental Emissions represent the potential increase in emissions attributable to the

proposed Project if one assumed that approval or denial of the proposed Project would directly result in a change in production of 830,000 bpd

of oil sands crudes in Canada. However, as set forth in Section 1.4, Market Analysis, such a change is not likely to occur.

Note: See Figure 4.14.3-7 in Section 4.14.3.5, Incremental GHG Emissions, for a full description of the information presented in

this figure.

Figure ES-10 Incremental Well-to-Wheels GHG Emissions from WCSB Oil Sands Crudes

Compared to Well-to-Wheels GHG Emissions from Displacing Reference Crudes

The above estimates represent the total incremental

emissions associated with production and consumption

of 830,000 bpd of oil sands crude compared to the

reference crudes. These estimates represent the

potential increase in emissions attributable to the

proposed Project if one assumed that approval or denial

of the proposed Project would directly result in a

change in production of 830,000 bpd of oil sands crudes

in Canada (See Section 4.14.4.2, Emissions and

Impacts in Context, for additional information on

emissions associated with increases in oil sands

production). However, as set forth in Section 1.4,

Market Analysis, such a change is not likely to occur

under expected market conditions. Section 1.4 notes

that approval or denial of any one crude oil transport

project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to

significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil

sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at

refineries in the United States based on expected oil

prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and

supply-demand scenarios.

The 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS estimated how oil

sands production would be affected by long-term

constraints on pipeline capacity (if such constraints

resulted in higher transportation costs) if long-term

WTI-equivalent oil prices were less than $100 per

barrel. The Draft Supplemental EIS also estimated a

change in GHG emissions associated with such changes

in production. The additional data and analysis included

in this Supplemental EIS provide greater insights into

supply costs and the range of prices in which pipeline

constraints would be most likely to impact production.

If WTI-equivalent prices fell to around approximately

$65 to $75 per barrel, if there were long-term

constraints on any new pipeline capacity, and if such

constraints resulted in higher transportation costs, then

there could be a substantial impact on oil sands

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-17

production levels. As noted in E.S.3.1, Summary of

Market Analysis, this estimated price threshold could

change if supply costs or production expectations prove

different than estimated in this analysis. This is

discussed in Section 1.4.5.4, Implications for

Production.

ES.4.1.3 Climate Change Effects

The total direct and indirect emissions associated with

the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative

global GHG emissions. However, emissions associated

with the proposed Project are only one source of

relevant GHG emissions. In that way, GHG emissions

differ from other impact categories discussed in this

Supplemental EIS in that all GHG emissions of the

same magnitude contribute to global climate change

equally, regardless of the source or geographic location

where they are emitted.

As part of this Supplemental EIS, future climate change

scenarios and projections developed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and peer-

reviewed downscaled models were used to evaluate the

effects that climate change could have on the proposed

Project, as well as the environmental consequences

from the proposed Project.

Assuming construction of the proposed Project were to

occur in the next few years, climate conditions during

the construction period would not differ substantially

from current conditions. However, during the

subsequent operational time period, the following

climate changes are anticipated to occur regardless of

any potential effects from the proposed Project:

• Warmer winter temperatures;

• A shorter cool season;

• A longer duration of frost-free periods;

• More freeze-thaw cycles per year (which could

lead to an increased number of episodes of soil

contraction and expansion);

• Warmer summer temperatures;

• Increased number of hot days and consecutive hot

days; and

• Longer summers (which could lead to impacts

associated with heat stress and wildfire risks).

This Supplemental EIS assessed whether the projected

changes in the climate could further influence the

impacts and effects attributable to the proposed Project.

Elevated effects due to projected climate change could

occur to water resources, wetlands, terrestrial

vegetation, fisheries, and endangered species, and could

also contribute to air quality impacts. In addition, the

statistical risk of a pipeline spill could be increased by

secondary effects brought on by climatic change such

as increased flooding and drought. However, this

increased risk would still be much less than the risk of

spills from other causes (such as third-party damage).

Climate change could have an effect on the severity of a

spill such that it could be reduced in drought conditions

but increased during periods of increased precipitation

and flooding.

ES.4.2 Potential Releases

The proposed Project would include processes,

procedures, and systems to prevent, detect, and mitigate

potential oil spills.

Many commenters raised concerns regarding the

potential environmental effects of a pipeline release,

leak, and/or spill. Impacts from potential releases from

the proposed Project were evaluated by analyzing

historical spill data. The analysis identified the types of

pipeline system components that historically have been

the source of spills, the sizes of those spills, and the

distances those spills would likely travel. The resulting

potential impacts to natural resources, such as surface

waters and groundwater, were also evaluated as well as

planned mitigation measures designed to prevent,

minimize, and respond to spills.

ES.4.2.1 Historical Pipeline Performance

In response to numerous comments regarding pipeline

performance, the Department analyzed historical

incident data within the PHMSA and National

Response Center incident databases to understand what

has occurred with respect to crude oil pipelines and the

existing Keystone Pipeline system.

Table ES-1 summarizes hazardous liquid pipeline

incidents reported to the PHMSA across the United

States from January 2002 through July 2012 and shows

the breakdown of incidents by pipeline component. A

total of 1,692 incidents occurred, of which 321 were

pipe incidents and 1,027 were involving different

equipment components such as tanks, valves, or pumps.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-18

Table ES-1 Summary of PHMSA Database Incidents

(January 2002 to July 2012)

Incident Category Incidents Incident Sub-Category Incidents

Crude oil pipeline 1,692

Crude oil mainline pipe incidents 321

Crude oil pipeline, equipment incidents (not mainline pipe) 1,027

Crude oil pipeline system, unspecified elements 344

Crude oil mainline

pipe

321

16-inch or greater diameter 71

8-inch or 15-inch diameter 154

Less than 8-inch diameter 52

Diameter not provided 44

Crude oil pipeline,

equipment (not

mainline pipe)

1,027

Tanks 93

Valves 25

Other discrete elements (pumps, fittings, etc.) 909

Incident as used in the Final Supplemental EIS is in reference to a PHMSA and/or a National Response Center record of a

reportable spill or accident found within their respective databases.

To assess the likelihood of releases from the proposed

Project, risk assessments were conducted addressing

both the potential frequency of releases and the

potential crude oil spill volumes associated with the

releases. The assessments used three hypothetical spill

volumes (small, medium, and large scenarios) to

represent the range of reported spills in the PHMSA’s

spills database. Table ES-2 shows these spill volumes

and the probabilities of such volumes.

Most spills are small. Of the 1,692 incidents between

2002 and 2012 (shown in Table ES-1), 79 percent of

the incidents were in the small (zero to 50 bbl) range,

equivalent to a spill of up to 2,100 gallons (see Table

ES-2). Four percent of the incidents were in the large

(greater than 1,000 bbl) range.

ES.4.2.1.1

Small and Medium Spills

The potential impacts from small spills of oil would

typically be confined to soil immediately surrounding

the spill, and would have little effect on nearby natural

resources. These types of spills would generally be

detected by maintenance or operations personnel and

addressed through repair of the leak and remediation of

the impacted area by removal of impacted soil and

cleaning of stained concrete or containment areas.

With medium spills, a release could occur as a

subsurface or surface event depending upon the cause.

Similar to a small spill, a slow subsurface leak could

potentially reach a groundwater resource and, if the

leak is faster than the soil can absorb the oil, could seep

to the ground surface. Once the migrating oil leaves the

release site, impacts to soil, vegetation, wildlife, and

surface water along the flow path would occur.

Depending on how quickly it is remediated, some of the

oil might tend to pool in low areas and potentially

infiltrate back into the soil and to groundwater

depending on the depth to groundwater.

ES.4.2.1.2

Large Spills

With a large spill, the majority of the spill volume

would migrate away from the release site. The potential

impacts from a large spill would be similar to the

impacts from the medium-sized spill, but on a much

larger scale. More oil would seep into the soil over a

larger area and could infiltrate deeper into the soil.

Once the spill reaches the surface, the oil would flow

following topographic gradient or lows (e.g., gullies,

roadside drainage ditches, culverts, or storm sewers)

and eventually to surface water features.

Table ES-2 Spill Scenarios Evaluated in Supplemental EIS

Spill Volume Scenario Frequency

Small: Less than 50 bbl (2,100 gallons) 79%

Medium: 50–1,000 bbl (2,100–42,000 gallons) 17%

Large: >1,000 bbl (>42,000 gallons) 4%

Indicates the share of all releases reported in the PHMSA database that fit each spill volume scenario.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-19

If the release enters flowing water or other surface

water features, the extent of the release could become

very large, potentially affecting soil, wildlife, and

vegetation along miles of river and shoreline. As has

been seen in recent large spills, sinking oil can be

deposited in river or stream bottoms and become a

continual source of oil release over time.

ES.4.2.2 Prevention and Mitigation

In order to reduce the risk of spills, if permitted

Keystone has agreed to incorporate additional

mitigation measures in the design, construction, and

operation of the proposed Keystone XL Project, in

some instances above what is normally required,

including:

• 59 Special Conditions recommended by PHMSA;

• 25 mitigation measures recommended in the

Battelle and E

ponent risk reports; and

• 11 additional mitigation measures.

Many of these mitigation measures relate to reductions

in the likelihood of a release occurring. Other measures

provide mitigation that reduces the consequences and

impact of a spill should such an event occur. Mitigation

measures are compiled in Appendix Z, Compiled

Mitigation Measures, of this Supplemental EIS.

Mitigation measures are actions that, if the proposed

Project is determined to be in the national interest,

Keystone would comply with as conditions of a

Presidential Permit.

If a spill occurred, the degree of impact to water,

people, livestock, soil, and other natural resources

would depend on the distance from the spill source. A

large spill of 20,000 bbl, for example, could have a

combined overland and groundwater spreading of up to

2,264 feet (or 0.42 miles) from a release point. Oil

could spread on flat ground up to 1,214 feet from the

proposed pipeline, depending on the volume spilled. If

oil reached groundwater, components in the oil, such as

benzene, could spread in groundwater up to an

additional 1,050 feet downgradient (essentially,

downhill underground and on land) of the spill point.

The proposed Project would, if permitted, include

processes, procedures, and systems to prevent, detect,

and mitigate potential oil spills that could occur during

construction and operation of the pipeline. These would

include a Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure Plan as well as a Construction,

Mitigation, and Reclamation Plan (CMRP). In the event

of a large leak, Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition sensors would automatically detect

noticeable changes in pipeline pressure and flow rates.

Leaks and spills could also be identified during routine

aerial surveillance along the pipeline ROW. In addition,

Keystone would be required, if permitted, to prepare an

Emergency Response Plan that would contain further

detail on response procedures and would be reviewed

by the PHMSA prior to granting permission to operate

the proposed pipeline. Keystone would incorporate into

these plans lessons learned from past spills such as the

pipeline rupture in 2010 that affected the Kalamazoo

River (Marshall, Michigan). For example, Keystone

would, if permitted, procure equipment required to

respond to sunken and submerged oil and ensure

personnel are appropriately trained.

ES.4.3 Socioeconomics

ES.4.3.1 Economic Activity Overview

During construction, proposed Project spending would

support approximately 42,100 jobs (direct, indirect, and

induced), and approximately $2 billion in earnings

throughout the United States. Of these jobs,

approximately 3,900 would be direct construction jobs

in the proposed Project area in Montana, South Dakota,

Nebraska, and Kansas (3,900 over 1 year of

construction, or 1,950 per year if construction took

2 years). Construction of the proposed Project would

contribute approximately $3.4 billion (or 0.02 percent)

to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The

proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs

during operations. Property tax revenue during

operations would be substantial for many counties, with

an increase of 10 percent or more in 17 of the

27 counties with proposed Project facilities.

The jobs and earnings analysis recognizes three distinct

components of economic activity and job creation:

direct, indirect, and induced.

• Direct economic activity associated with

construction includes all jobs and earnings at firms

that are awarded contracts for goods and services,

including construction, directly by Keystone.

• Indirect economic activity includes all goods and

services purchased by these construction

contractors in the conduct of their services to the

proposed Project. Examples of these types of

activities related to pipeline construction include

the goods and services purchased to produce inputs

such as concrete, fuel, surveying, welding

materials, and earth-moving equipment.

• Induced economic activity includes the spending of

earnings received by employees working for either

the construction contractor or for any supplier of

goods and services required in the construction

process. Examples of induced activities include

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-20

spending by access road construction crews,

welders, employees of pipe manufacturers, and

ranchers providing beef for restaurants and

construction camps.

ES.4.3.2 Pipeline Geography, Population

Of the land area near the proposed pipeline route,

approximately 17 percent intersects areas with low-

income or minority populations, including Indian tribes.

Such populations could potentially be

disproportionately affected by the proposed Project.

The proposed pipeline route would go through 27

counties: six in Montana, nine in South Dakota, and 12

in Nebraska. These counties are referred to as the

pipeline corridor counties and would be expected to

experience most of the direct socioeconomic effects of

the proposed Project.

The 27 pipeline corridor counties are predominantly

rural and sparsely populated, with a total population of

approximately 263,300 (2010 Census). Population

density (number of persons per square mile) is low.

ES.4.3.3 Economic Activity During

Construction

Construction contracts, materials, and support

purchased in the United States would total

approximately $3.1 billion. Another approximately

$233 million would be spent on construction camps for

workers in remote locations of Montana, South Dakota,

and northern Nebraska.

Construction of the proposed Project would contribute

approximately $3.4 billion to the U.S. GDP. This figure

includes not only earnings by workers, but all other

income earned by businesses and individuals engaged

in the production of goods and services demanded by

the proposed Project, such as profits, rent, interest, and

dividends. When compared with the GDP in 2012, the

proposed Project’s contribution represents

approximately 0.02 percent of annual economic activity

across the nation.

Construction spending would support a combined total

of approximately 42,100 jobs throughout the United

States for the up to 2-year construction period. A job

consists of one position that is filled for one year. The

term support means jobs ranging from new jobs

(i.e., not previously existing) to the continuity of

existing jobs in current or new locations. The specific

number of jobs at any location would result from the

individual decisions of employers across the country

affected by the proposed Project based on their labor

needs, work backlog, and local hiring conditions. Of

these jobs, approximately 16,100 would be direct jobs

at firms that are awarded contracts for goods and

services, including construction, by Keystone. The

other approximately 26,000 jobs would result from

indirect and induced spending; this would consist of

goods and services purchased by the construction

contractors and spending by employees working for

either the construction contractor or for any supplier of

goods and services required in the construction process.

About 12,000 jobs, or 29 percent of the total 42,100

jobs, would be supported in Montana, South Dakota,

Nebraska, and Kansas. Also, of the 42,100 jobs,

approximately 3,900 (or 1,950 per year if construction

took 2 years) would comprise a direct, temporary,

construction workforce in the proposed Project area.

Employment supported by construction of the proposed

Project would translate to approximately $2.05 billion

in employee earnings. Of this, approximately

20 percent ($405 million in earnings) would be

allocated to workers in the proposed Project area states.

The remaining 80 percent, or $1.6 billion, would occur

in other locations around the country.

ES.4.3.4 Economic Activity During

Operations

Once the proposed Project enters service, operations

would require approximately 50 total employees in the

United States: 35 permanent employees and 15

temporary contractors. This small number would result

in negligible impacts on population, housing, and

public services in the proposed Project area.

The total estimated property tax from the proposed

Project in the first full year of operations would be

approximately $55.6 million spread across 27 counties

in three states. This impact to local property tax revenue

receipts would be substantial for many counties,

constituting a property tax revenue benefit of 10 percent

or more in 17 of these 27 counties. Operation of the

proposed Project is not expected to have an impact on

residential or agricultural property values.

ES.4.4 Environmental Justice

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and

adverse health or environmental effects of their

programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income populations.

Environmental justice refers to the “fair treatment and

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to

the development, implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (USEPA

2007). The CEQ has provided guidance for addressing

environmental justice.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-21

Within the socioeconomic analysis area identified for

the proposed Project, 16 census groupings contain

minority populations that are meaningfully greater

(equal or greater than 120 percent) than the share in the

surrounding state, and five census tracts have larger

shares of low-income populations. Four of these areas

contain meaningfully greater populations of both

minority and low income residents. Two minority

populations are located on Indian lands: the Cheyenne

River Indian Reservation and the Rosebud Indian

Reservation.

Impacts during construction could include exposure to

construction dust and noise, disruption to traffic

patterns, and increased competition for medical or

health services. Typical proposed Project operations are

unlikely to disproportionately adversely impact the

environmental justice populations present. Because the

risk of a potential release is roughly equal at all points

along the pipeline, the risks associated with such

releases would not be disproportionately borne by

minority or low-income populations. However, such

populations could be more vulnerable should a release

occur.

If permitted, Keystone has agreed to avoidance and

mitigation measures to minimize negative impacts to all

populations in the proposed Project area. Specific

mitigation for environmental justice communities

during construction would involve ensuring that

adequate communication in the form of public

awareness materials regarding the construction

schedule and construction activities is provided.

ES.4.5 Water Resources

The proposed Project route would avoid surface water

whenever possible, but would cross approximately

1,073 surface waterbodies including 56 perennial rivers

and streams as well as approximately 24 miles of

mapped floodplains. If permitted, Keystone would drill

underneath major rivers to mitigate construction

impacts as described below and in Section 4.3, Water

Resources.

The proposed pipeline would cross important aquifers

such as the Northern High Plains Aquifer (NHPAQ)

(which includes the Ogallala Aquifer) and the Great

Plains Aquifer (GPA). Modeling indicates that aquifer

characteristics would inhibit the spread of released oil,

and impacts from a release on water quality would be

limited.

Nevertheless, within 1 mile of the proposed Project

route are 2,537 wells, including 39 public water supply

wells. Wells that are in the vicinity could be affected by

a release from the proposed Project.

ES.4.5.1 Surface Water

ES.4.5.1.1

Construction

Construction of the proposed Project could result in

temporary and permanent impacts such as:

• Stream sedimentation;

• Changes in stream channel morphology (shape)

and stability;

• Temporary reduction in stream flow; and

• Potential for hazardous material spills.

Open-cut methods would be used at most waterbody

crossings

. However, impacts to surface waterbodies

would be mitigated through various means. Horizontal

directional drill (HDD) methods would be used at 14

major and sensitive waterbody crossings (see Figure

ES-11). Waterbody banks would be restored to

preconstruction contours or to a stable slope. Seeding,

erosion control fabric, and other erosion control

measures would be installed, as specified in the CMRP

and permit documents.

ES.4.5.1.2

Operations

Surface water impacts associated with potential releases

of crude oil and other hazardous liquid spills are

addressed in detail in the Potential Releases section.

Other potential impacts during the operations phase

would include:

• Channel migration or streambed degradation that

exposes the pipeline;

• Channel incision that increases bank heights to the

point where slopes are destabilized, ultimately

widening the stream; and

• Sedimentation within a channel that triggers lateral

bank erosion.

Mitigation measures to address these impacts would

include those specified in the CMRP. The proposed

pipeline would be at least 5 feet below the bottom of

waterbodies and at least 3 to 4 feet below the bottom of

waterbodies in rocky areas, and that depth would be

maintained at least 15 feet from either waterbody edge.

Where an HDD method is used, the crossing depth

would be up to 55 feet below the stream bed. Potential

bank protection measures could include installing rock,

wood, or other materials keyed into the bank to provide

protection from further erosion or regrading the banks

to reduce the bank slope.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-22

Figure ES-11 Cross Section of the Horizontal Directional Drilling Method

ES.4.5.2 Floodplains

The proposed pipeline would cross mapped and

unmapped floodplains in Montana, South Dakota, and

Nebraska. In floodplain areas adjacent to waterbody

crossings, contours would be restored to as close to

previously existing contours as practical, and the

disturbed area would be revegetated during construction

of the ROW in accordance with the CMRP. After

construction, the proposed pipeline would not obstruct

flows over designated floodplains, and any changes to

topography would be minimal and thus would not affect

local flood elevations.

ES.4.5.3 Groundwater

The primary source of groundwater impacts from the

proposed Project would be potential releases of

petroleum during pipeline operation and, to a lesser

extent, from fuel spills from equipment. Any petroleum

releases from construction or operation could

potentially impact groundwater where the overlying

soils are permeable and/or the depth to groundwater is

shallow. Table ES-3 summarizes the anticipated effects

of potential releases from the proposed Project on

aquifers along the proposed Project route.

ES.4.6 Wetlands

The proposed Project would affect approximately

383 acres of wetlands. Potential impacts include:

• Impacts to wetland functions and values;

• Conversion from one wetland type to another; and

• Permanent loss of wetlands due to fill for

permanent project-related facilities.

An estimated 2 acres of permanent wetland loss is

anticipated. Remaining wetlands affected by the

proposed Project would remain as functioning

wetlands, provided that impact minimization and

restoration efforts described in the CMRP are

successful.

Wetlands are regulated primarily by Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act, but other regulations could apply if,

for example, a wetland area provides important habitat

for federally listed species and species protected by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act. Section 404 requires that wetland

impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the

greatest practicable extent possible. Keystone has made

route modifications to avoid wetland areas (such as the

NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region) and has prepared

a CMRP that summarizes the proposed wetland

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. In

addition, various agencies, such as U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, could require additional mitigation in

accordance with American Indian tribal, local, state,

and federal permits and regulations.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-23

Table ES-3 Effects of Potential Releases on Aquifers

Aquifer Effects

Alluvial Aquifers

and Northern

High Plains

Aquifer

(NHPAQ),

including the

Ogallala Aquifer

Aquifer conditions in the NHPAQ in the proposed Project area indicate that shallow

groundwater generally discharges to local surface waterbodies, and typically does not flow

downward in significant amounts or flow horizontally over long distances. Analysis of

historic spills and groundwater modeling indicate that contaminant plumes from a large-scale

release that reaches groundwater in the NHPAQ and alluvial aquifers could be expected to

affect groundwater quality up to approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the source. This

localized effect indicates that petroleum releases from the proposed Project is unlikely to

extensively affect water quality in this aquifer group.

Great Plains

Aquifer (GPA)

Across most of the proposed pipeline area where the GPA is present, it is very unlikely that

any releases from the proposed pipeline would affect groundwater quality in the aquifer

because the aquifer is typically deeply buried beneath younger, water-bearing sediments

and/or aquitard units. The exception is in southern Nebraska, where the aquifer is closer to

the surface. Water quality in the GPA could be affected by releases in this area, but

groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of the proposed Project route make such effects

unlikely. Overall, it is very unlikely that the proposed pipeline area would affect water

quality in the GPA due to weak downward gradients (downward groundwater flows) in the

aquifers overlying the GPA.

Northern Great

Plains Aquifer

System

(NGPAS)

As with the GPA, petroleum releases from the proposed Project would only affect water

quality in portions of the NGPAS near the ground surface. In the case of a large-scale release,

these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the source, and

would not affect groundwater within areas that provide groundwater recharge to large

portions of the NGPAS.

Western Interior

Plains Aquifer

The depth to this aquifer is several hundred feet below the ground surface in the proposed

Project area; therefore, there is an extremely low probability that a petroleum release from

the proposed Project would affect water quality in this aquifer.

Shallow

Groundwater and

Water Wells

There are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed Project, including 39 public water supply

wells and 20 private wells within 100 feet of the pipeline ROW. The majority of these wells

are in Nebraska. Those wells that are in the vicinity of a petroleum release from the proposed

Project may be affected.

ES.4.7 Threatened and Endangered

Species

Consultation and coordination with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified 14 federally

protected, proposed, and candidate species that could be

affected by the proposed Project: 11 federally-listed

threatened or endangered species, as defined under the

ESA, one proposed species for listing as endangered,

and two candidate species for listing as threatened or

endangered. Of the federally listed, proposed, and

candidate species, the endangered American buying

beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) is the only species

that is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed

Project (see Figure ES-12). Other species could

potentially be affected by the proposed Project; among

these are whooping cranes (Grus americana), greater

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and Western

prairie fringed orchids (Platanthera praeclara).

In consultation with the USFWS, the Department

prepared a Biological Assessment to evaluate the

proposed Project’s potential impacts to federally listed

and candidate species and designated critical habitat. In

addition, USFWS has developed a Biological Opinion

for the proposed Project, which includes recommended

conservation measures and compensatory mitigation for

unavoidable impacts that were assessed during the

formal consultation process. The Biological Opinion is

attached in Appendix H, 2012 Biological Assessment,

2013 USFWS Biological Opinion, and Associated

Documents.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-24

Figure ES-12 American Burying Beetle

Approximately 83 miles of the proposed Project Route

in South Dakota and Nebraska would affect suitable

American burying beetle habitat. Consultation between

the Department and USFWS resulted in development of

conservation measures and compensatory mitigation,

such as trapping and relocating beetles, special lighting

restrictions (the beetles are attracted to light), and

establishment of a habitat conservation trust.

Even with these measures, the proposed Project would

be likely to adversely affect the American burying

beetle, resulting in incidental take (such as unintended

death or harm of individual beetles) during construction

or operation. The combination of Keystone’s American

burying beetle monitoring program and Reclamation

Performance Bond would provide assurances that the

acres disturbed by the proposed Project would be

restored appropriately. The USFWS concluded in the

2013 USFWS Biological Opinion that the proposed

Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the American burying beetle.

ES.4.8 Geology and Soils

The proposed route extends through relatively flat and

stable areas, and the potential for seismic hazards

(earthquakes), landslides, or subsidence (sink holes), is

low. The pipeline would not cross any known active

faults. During construction, land clearing could increase

the risk of landslides and erosion. Keystone would, if

permitted, construct temporary erosion control systems

and restore the ROW after construction.

The proposed Project route would avoid the NDEQ-

identified Sand Hills Region, where soils are

particularly susceptible to damage from pipeline

construction. Potential impacts to soils resources in

other areas associated with construction or operation of

the proposed Project and connected actions could

include soil erosion, loss of topsoil, soil compaction, an

increase in the proportion of large rocks in the topsoil,

soil mixing, soil contamination, and related reductions

in the productivity of desirable vegetation or crops.

Construction also could result in damage to existing tile

drainage systems (an agriculture practice that removes

excess water from soil subsurface), irrigation systems,

and shelterbelts.

To mitigate and minimize these impacts, Keystone

would, if permitted, put in place procedures for

construction and operation that are designed to reduce

the likelihood and severity of proposed Project impacts

to soils and sediments, including topsoil segregation

methods, and to mitigate impacts to the extent

practicable. After construction, areas of erosion or

settling would be monitored.

ES.4.9 Terrestrial Vegetation

Potential construction- and operations-related impacts

to general terrestrial vegetation resources associated

with the proposed Project include impacts to cultivated

crops, developed land, grassland/pasture, upland forest,

open water, forested wetlands, emergent herbaceous

wetlands, and shrub-scrub communities. In addition, the

proposed Project route would result in impacts to

biologically unique landscapes and vegetation

communities of conservation concern.

Keystone would, if permitted, restore topsoil, slopes,

contours, and drainage patterns to preconstruction

conditions as practicable and to reseed disturbed areas

to restore vegetation cover, prevent erosion, and control

noxious weeds. Because disturbed prairie areas are

difficult to restore to existing (pre-disturbance)

conditions, Keystone would, if permitted, use specific

best management practices and procedures to minimize

and mitigate the potential impacts to native prairie areas

and coordinate with appropriate agencies as necessary

to monitor progress.

ES.4.10 Wildlife

Potential impacts to wildlife associated with

construction of the proposed Project could include

habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation; direct

mortality during construction and operation (e.g.,

vehicle collisions, power line/power pole collisions,

etc.); indirect mortality because of stress or avoidance

of feeding due to exposure to construction and

operations noise, low-level helicopter or airplane

monitoring overflights, and from increased human

activity; reduced breeding success from exposure to

construction and operations noise and from increased

human activity; reduced survival or reproduction due to

decreased availability of edible plants, reduced cover,

and increased exotics and invasives; and increased

predation (i.e., nest parasitism, creation of predator

travel corridors, and poaching).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-25

To reduce potential construction- and operations-related

effects where habitat is crossed, Keystone would, if

permitted, implement measures to minimize adverse

effects to wildlife habitats, including shelterbelts,

windbreaks, and living snow fences. Pipeline

construction would be conducted in accordance with

required permits.

ES.4.11 Fisheries

The proposed route would cross rivers and streams,

including perennial streams that support recreational or

commercial fisheries. Most potential impacts to

fisheries resources would occur during construction and

would be temporary or short term. Potential impacts

from construction of stream crossings include siltation,

sedimentation, bank erosion, sediment deposition,

short-term delays in movements of fish, and transport

and spread of aquatic invasive animals and plants.

Keystone would, if permitted, minimize vehicle contact

with surface waters and clean equipment to prevent

transportation of aquatic invasive animals and plants.

Impacts associated with potential releases of oil are

described in Section 4.13, Potential Releases.

Most streams would be crossed using one of several

open-cut (trenching) methods. Most stream crossings

would be completed in less than 2 days, grading and

disturbance to waterbody banks would be minimized,

and crossings would be timed to avoid sensitive

spawning periods, such that resulting steam bed

disturbance and sediment impacts would be temporary

and minimized.

Most large rivers would be crossed using HDD

methods, which would install the pipeline well below

the active river bed. As a result, direct disturbance to

the river bed, fish, aquatic animals and plants, and river

banks would be avoided. If permitted, Keystone has

agreed to develop site-specific contingency plans to

address unintended releases of drilling fluids that

include preventative measures and a spill response plan.

ES.4.12 Land Use

Construction of the proposed Project would disturb

approximately 15,427 acres of land. Approximately

90 percent of that land is privately owned while the

remaining is owned by federal, state, or local

governments. Rangeland (approximately 9,695 acres)

and agriculture (approximately 4,975 acres) comprise

the vast majority of land use types that would be

affected by construction.

After construction, approximately 5,569 acres would be

retained within permanent easements or acquired for

operation of the proposed Project; this includes the

pipeline ROW and aboveground facilities. Nearly all

agricultural land and rangeland along the ROW would

be allowed to return to production with little impact on

production levels in the long term. However, there

would be restrictions on growing woody vegetation and

installing structures within the 50-foot-wide permanent

ROW. Keystone has agreed to compensate landowners

for crop losses on a case-by-case basis.

Keystone would if permitted use construction measures

designed to reduce impacts to existing land uses such as

topsoil protection, avoiding interference with irrigation

systems, repairing or restoring drain tiles, assisting with

livestock access and safety, and restoring disturbed

areas with custom native seed mixes.

ES.4.13 Air Quality and Noise

Dust and emissions from construction equipment would

impact air quality. Construction emissions typically

would be localized, intermittent, and temporary since

proposed pipeline construction would move through an

area relatively quickly. Mitigation measures would be

employed and enforced by an environmental inspector

assigned to each construction spread.

All pump stations would be electrically powered by

local utility providers. As a result, during normal

operation there would be only minor emissions from

valves and pumping equipment at the pump stations.

The proposed Project would not be expected to cause or

contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local

air quality standards, and it would not require a Clean

Air Act Title V operating permit.

Construction activities would result in intermittent,

temporary, and localized increases in noise levels. To

reduce construction noise impacts, Keystone would, if

permitted, limit the hours during which activities with

high-decibel noise levels are conducted in residential

areas, require noise mitigation procedures, monitor

sound levels, and develop site-specific mitigation plans

to comply with regulations.

ES.4.14 Cultural Resources

The proposed Project route would cross various private,

state, and federal lands in Montana, South Dakota, and

Nebraska where cultural resources would be

encountered. Literature searches were conducted to

locate previously identified cultural resources within

the designated area of potential effects. Field studies

were conducted between 2008 and 2013 to identify

cultural resources and assess archaeological resources

(i.e., sites), historic resources (i.e., buildings, structures,

objects, and districts), and properties of religious and

cultural significance, including traditional cultural

properties.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-26

As of December 2013, most of the proposed Project

area has been surveyed for cultural resources. The

proposed Project area of potential effects is

approximately 39,500 acres, of which approximately

1,038 acres remain unsurveyed and are the subject of

ongoing field studies. As part of this Supplemental EIS

route evaluation process, consistent with the National

Historic Preservation Act, the Programmatic Agreement

(PA) that was signed in 2011 has been amended,

finalized, and re-signed. Signatory parties to this

agreement were the Department, Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, National Park Service, Western, Rural

Utilities Service, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Farm Service Agency, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, and the State Historic Preservation Offices of

Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. Invited

signatories included the Montana Department of

Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana

Department of Environmental Quality, and Keystone.

Indian tribes that participated in consultation were

asked in 2013 to sign as Concurring Parties, consistent

with 36 Code of Federal Regulations §§ 800.2(c)(2) and

800.6(c)(3).

Pursuant to the stipulations outlined in the PA,

Keystone is required to complete cultural resources

surveys on all areas that would be potentially impacted

by the proposed Project, make recommendations on

National Register of Historic Places eligibility, provide

information on potential effects of the proposed Project,

and provide adequate mitigation in consultation with

the Department, state and federal agencies, and Indian

tribes. Construction would not be allowed to commence

on any areas of the proposed Project until these

stipulations are met. The PA, therefore, would ensure

that appropriate consultation procedures are followed

and that cultural resources surveys would be completed

prior to construction. If unanticipated cultural materials

or human remains were encountered during the

construction phase of the proposed Project, Keystone

would implement Unanticipated Discovery Plans

pursuant to the PA.

ES.4.14.1 Tribal Consultation

Upon receiving a new application, the Department

reached out directly to 84 Indian tribes throughout the

United States with potential interest in the cultural

resources potentially affected by the proposed Project

(see Figure ES-13). Of the 84 Indian tribes, 67 tribes

notified the Department that they would like to consult

or were undecided as to whether they would become

consulting parties. All Indian tribes that participated in

consultation were asked in 2013 to sign the

amended PA.

The Department has conducted a broad range of tribal

consultations, ranging from group meetings involving

many Indian tribes and discussion topics to individual

discussions on specific topics via letter, phone, and

email. In addition to communication by phone, email,

and letter, high-level Department officials travelled to

areas near the proposed Project route to hold four face-

to-face consultations, to which all Indian tribes were

invited and whose participation was funded by

Keystone, and one teleconference. Tribal meetings were

held in October 2012 (three meetings), May 2013 (one

meeting), and July 2013 (teleconference). Face-to-face

meetings were held in four locations: Billings,

Montana; Pierre, South Dakota; Rapid City, South

Dakota; and Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Department engaged in discussions with the tribes

and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers on issues

relating to cultural resources. Consultations included

discussions of cultural resources, in general, as well as

cultural resources surveys, Traditional Cultural

Properties surveys, effects to cultural resources, and

mitigation. The Department has continued government-

to-government consultations to build on previous work,

to ensure that tribal issues of concern are addressed in

the consultation process, and to amend and incorporate

comments and modifications to the PA, as appropriate,

in consultation with the tribes to conclude the Section

106 consistent process for the proposed Project.

Additionally, tribes were provided proposed Project

cultural resources survey reports and opportunities to

conduct Traditional Cultural Property surveys funded

by Keystone.

ES.4.15 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the way that

the proposed Project’s impacts interact with the impact

of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future

actions or projects. The goal of the cumulative impacts

analysis is to identify situations where sets of

comparatively small individual impacts, taken together,

constitute a larger collective impact.

Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed

Project and connected actions vary among individual

environmental resources and locations. Generally,

where long-term or permanent impacts from the

proposed Project are absent, the potential for additive

cumulative effects with other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future projects is negligible.

Keystone’s CMRP and planned mitigation measures,

individual federal and state agency permitting

conditions, and/or existing laws and regulations would,

if permitted, work to control potential impacts and

reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to

cumulative effects.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-27

Figure ES-13 Indian Tribes Consulted

ES.4.16

Environmental Impacts in Canada

While the proposed Project analyzed in this

Supplemental EIS begins at the international boundary

where the pipeline would exit at Saskatchewan,

Canada, and enter the United States through Montana,

the origination point of the pipeline system would be in

Alberta, Canada. In addition to the environmental

analysis of the proposed Project in the United States,

the Department monitored and obtained information

from the environmental analysis of the Canadian

portion of the proposed Project. The Canadian

government, not the Department, conducted an

environmental review of the portion of the proposed

Project within Canada. However, the Department has

included information from the Canadian government’s

assessment in this Supplemental EIS and has continued

to monitor information from Canada as it becomes

available.

On March 11, 2010, the Canadian National Energy

Board issued its 168-page Reasons for Decision

granting Keystone’s application to build the Canadian

portion of the proposed Project. This document

provided a rationale for the approval of the pipeline by

Canadian regulatory authorities and a description of the

National Energy Board’s analysis of the following

topics: economic feasibility, commercial impacts, tolls

and tariffs, engineering, land matters, public

consultation, aboriginal consultation, and

environmental and socioeconomic matters.

Moreover, analysis and mitigation of environmental

impacts in Canada more generally are ongoing by

Canadian officials. For example, on September 1, 2012,

the Government of Alberta’s development plan for the

Lower Athabascan oil sands region became effective.

The plan requires cancellation of about 10 oil sands

leases, sets aside nearly 20,000 square kilometers

(7,700 square miles) for conservation, and sets new

environmental standards for the region in an effort to

protect sensitive habitat, wildlife, and forest land.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-28

ES.5.0 ALTERNATIVES

Detailed analysis was conducted on three broad

categories of alternatives to the proposed Project,

consistent with NEPA:

• No Action Alternative—which addresses potential

market responses that could result if the

Presidential Permit is denied or the proposed

Project is not otherwise implemented;

• Major Route Alternatives—which includes other

potential pipeline routes for transporting WCSB

and Bakken crude oil to Steele City, Nebraska; and

• Other Alternatives—which include minor route

variations, alternative pipeline designs, and

alternative sites for aboveground facilities.

Several alternatives exist for the transport of WCSB

and Bakken crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries, including

many that were not carried forward for detailed

analysis. This Supplemental EIS provides a detailed

description of the categories of alternatives, the

alternative screening process, and the detailed

alternatives identified for further evaluation.

ES.5.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative analysis considers what

would likely happen if the Presidential Permit is denied

or the proposed Project is not otherwise implemented. It

includes the Status Quo Baseline, which serves as a

benchmark against which other alternatives are

evaluated. Under the Status Quo Baseline, the proposed

Project would not be constructed and the resulting

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that are

described in this Supplemental EIS would not occur.

The Status Quo Baseline is a snapshot of the crude oil

production and delivery systems at current levels – in

other words, no change at all – irrespective of likely

alternative transport scenarios to transport WCSB and

Bakken crude.

The No Action Alternative includes analysis of three

alternative transport scenarios that, based on the

findings of the market analysis, are believed to meet the

proposed Project’s purpose (i.e., providing WCSB and

Bakken crude oil to meet refinery demand in the Gulf

Coast area) if the Presidential Permit for the proposed

Project were denied, or if the pipeline were otherwise

not constructed. Under the alternative transport

scenarios, other environmental impacts would occur in

lieu of the proposed Project. This Supplemental EIS

includes analysis of various combinations of

transportation modes for oil, including truck, barge,

tanker, and rail. These scenarios are considered

representative of the crude oil transport alternatives

with which the market would respond in absence of the

Keystone XL pipeline. These three alternative transport

scenarios (i.e., the Rail and Pipeline Scenario, Rail and

Tanker Scenario, and Rail Direct to the Gulf Coast

Scenario) are described below and illustrated on Figure

ES-14.

ES.5.1.1 Rail and Pipeline Scenario

Under this scenario, WCSB and Bakken crude oil (in

the form of dilbit or synbit) would be shipped via rail

from Lloydminster, Saskatchewan (the nearest rail

terminal served by two Class I rail companies), to

Stroud, Oklahoma, where it would be temporarily

stored and then transported via existing and expanded

pipelines approximately 17 miles to Cushing,

Oklahoma, where the crude oil would interconnect with

the interstate oil pipeline system.

This scenario would require the construction of two

new or expanded rail loading terminals in

Lloydminster, Saskatchewan (the possible loading point

for WCSB crude oil), one new terminal in Epping,

North Dakota (the representative loading point for

Bakken crude oil), seven new terminals in Stroud, and

up to 14 unit trains (consisting of approximately

100 cars carrying the same material and destined for the

same delivery location) per day (12 from Lloydminster

and two from Epping) to transport the equivalent

volume of crude oil as would be transported by the

proposed Project.

ES.5.1.2 Rail and Tanker Scenario

The second transportation scenario assumes crude oil

(as dilbit or synbit) would be transported by rail from

Lloydminster to a western Canada port (assumed to be

Prince Rupert, British Columbia), where it would be

loaded onto Suezmax tankers (capable of carrying

approximately 986,000 barrels of WCSB crude oil) for

transport to the U.S. Gulf Coast (Houston and/or Port

Arthur) via the Panama Canal. Bakken crude would be

shipped from Epping to Stroud via BNSF Railway or

Union Pacific rail lines, similar to the method described

under the Rail and Pipeline Scenario. This scenario

would require up to 12 unit trains per day between

Lloydminster and Prince Rupert, and up to two unit

trains per day between Epping and Stroud. This

scenario would require the construction of two new or

expanded rail loading facilities in Lloydminster with

other existing terminals in the area handling the

majority of the WCSB for shipping to Prince Rupert.

Facilities in Prince Rupert would include a new rail

unloading and storage facility and a new marine

terminal encompassing approximately 4,200 acres and

capable of accommodating two Suezmax tankers. For

the Bakken crude portion of this Scenario, one new rail

terminal would be necessary in both Epping, North

Dakota, and Stroud, Nebraska.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-29

Figure ES-14 Representative No Action Alternative Scenarios

ES.5.1.3 Rail Direct to the Gulf Coast

Scenario

The third transportation scenario assumes that WCSB

and Bakken crude oil (as dilbit) would be shipped by

rail from Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, and Epping,

North Dakota, directly to existing rail facilities in the

Gulf Coast region capable of off-loading up to 14 unit

trains per day. These existing facilities would then

either ship the crude oil by pipeline or barge the short

distance to nearby refineries. It would largely rely on

existing rail terminals in Lloydminster, but would likely

require construction of up to two new or expanded

terminals to accommodate the additional WCSB

shipments out of Canada. One new rail loading terminal

would be needed in Epping to ship Bakken crude oil.

Sufficient off-loading rail facilities currently exist or

are proposed in the Gulf Coast area such that no new

terminals would need to be built under this scenario.

ES.5.2 Major Pipeline Route Alternatives

The Department considered potential alternative

pipeline routes to assess whether or not route

alternatives could avoid or reduce impacts to

environmentally sensitive resources while also meeting

the proposed Project’s purpose. Consistent with NEPA,

a two-phase screening process was used to evaluate

prospective alternatives using a set of criteria to

determine their technical, environmental, and economic

viability. Alternatives that failed to meet the screening

criteria were not brought forward for detailed analysis

in this Supplemental EIS. The initial (Phase I)

screening of other major route alternatives considered

the following criteria:

• Meeting the proposed Project’s purpose and need,

including whether the alternative would require

additional infrastructure such as a pipeline to

access Bakken crude oil;

• Availability;

• Reliability;

• Length within the United States;

• Total length of the pipeline, including both the

United States and Canada;

• Estimated number of aboveground facilities;

• Length co-located within an existing corridor;

• Acres of land directly affected during construction;

and

• Acres of land directly affected permanently.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-30

Pipeline length was used as an important screening

criterion because it has a relatively direct relationship

with:

• System reliability, in that the longer the pipeline

the greater risk that some portion may become

inoperable at some point, thereby delaying

shipments.

• Environmental impacts, including:

− Risk of spills and leaks, which represent the

greatest potential threat to water and aquatic

resources;

− Temporary construction-related disturbance to

natural habitat (e.g., wetlands, forests, native

prairie); and

− Permanent habitat fragmentation.

• Construction and operational costs, which

generally increase in proportion to overall pipeline

length.

All other factors being equal, longer pipelines are less

desirable because they represent greater risks to system

reliability, environmental impacts, and project costs.

As a result of this Phase I screening process, the

following alternatives were eliminated because they

would not meet the project purpose and/or were

significantly longer than other viable options (see

Figure ES-15):

• Western Alternative (to Cushing);

• Express Platte Alternative; and

• Existing Keystone Corridor

− Option 1: Proposed Border Crossing (near

Morgan, Montana)

− Option 2: Existing Keystone Pipeline Border

Crossing (at Pembina, North Dakota).

Several commenters recommended that the proposed

Project parallel the existing Keystone Pipeline rather

than the proposed route. The Department considered

these comments, but ultimately concluded that the

existing Keystone Pipeline Route was not a reasonable

alternative because it would not meet the proposed

Project’s purpose and need (i.e., would not meet

Keystone’s contractual obligations to transport

100,000 bpd of Bakken crude oil). Further, the existing

Keystone Pipeline Corridor would be longer (taking

into consideration pipeline length in both Canada and

the United States), which represents an increased spill

risk. The 2011 Steele City Segment, the I-90 Corridor,

and the Steele City Segment A1A alternatives,

however, were retained for further screening.

The Phase II screening used a desktop data review of

key environmental and other features (e.g., wetlands

and waterbodies crossed, total acreage affected). After

this Phase II screening, the Steele City Segment A1A

Alternative was eliminated because this route would be

longer with an associated increased risk for spills and

leaks, would cross more miles of principal aquifer and

wetlands, and would require a second major crossing of

the Missouri River, relative to the proposed Project. For

these reasons, the Steele City A1A Alternative would

not offer any offsetting environmental advantages

relative to the proposed Project to warrant further

consideration. However, both the 2011 Steele City

Segment and I-90 Corridor alternatives were considered

reasonable alternatives and were retained for full

evaluation in this Supplemental EIS. These two route

alternatives are described below and depicted in Figure

ES-15. Table ES-4 summarizes key aspects of the

major pipeline route alternatives.

Table ES-4 Summary of Major Pipeline Route Alternatives

Proposed

Project

2011 Steele City

Segment Alternative

I-90 Corridor

Alternative

New Pipeline Length (miles) 875 854 927

Number of Aboveground Facilities

73 71 77

Length Co-Located with Existing Keystone Pipeline (miles) 0 0 254

NDEQ-Identified Sand Hills Region Crossed (miles) 0 89 0

Highly Erodible Soil (Wind) Crossed (miles) 73 116 36

Perennial Waterbody Crossings 56 53 61

Wetlands Affected during Construction (acres) 262 544 223

Average Annual Employment During Construction 3,900 3,900 4,100

Property Tax Revenues (millions) $55.6 $53.7 $59.3

Construction Land Area Affected (acres) 11,593 11,387 12,360

Operations (Permanent) Land Area Required (acres) 5,569 5,176 4,818

Does not include 2 pump stations for the Cushing Extension in Kansas

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-31

Figure ES-15 Preliminary Pipeline Route Alternatives

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-32

ES.5.2.1 Keystone XL 2011 Steele City

Segment Alternative

The Keystone XL 2011 Steele City Segment

Alternative evaluates the impacts of constructing the

route proposed in the 2011 Final EIS as a comparison

against which other route alternatives, including the

proposed Project, can be made. This alternative would

follow Keystone’s proposed Project route from the

Canadian border, designated Milepost (MP) 0, south to

approximately MP 204, where it would connect with

the Bakken Marketlink Project onramp at the same

location as the proposed Project and continue to

approximately MP 615 in northern Nebraska near the

South Dakota state line. At that location, the Keystone

XL 2011 Steele City Segment Alternative would divert

from the current proposed Project and would continue

southeasterly for another 240 miles to the southern

terminus at Steele City, Nebraska. For approximately

89 miles, the Keystone XL 2011 Steele City Segment

Alternative would cross the NDEQ-identified Sand

Hills Region.

ES.5.2.2 I-90 Corridor Alternative

Keystone’s proposed Project route starts at the

Canadian Border (MP 0) and stretches south through

Montana and into South Dakota to approximately MP

516, where the proposed pipeline route intersects

Interstate 90 (I-90). From this point, this alternative

pipeline route would diverge from the proposed Project

route, following the ROW of I-90 and State Highway

262 for 157 miles, where it would then intersect and

follow the ROW of the existing Keystone pipeline to

Steele City, Nebraska.

The I-90 Corridor would avoid crossing the NDEQ-

identified Sand Hills Region, and would reduce the

length of pipeline crossing the NHPAQ system, which

includes the Ogallala Aquifer.

ES.5.3 Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the major route alternatives, the

Department reviewed proposed variations—relatively

short deviations—to the proposed route that were

designed to avoid or minimize construction impacts to

specific resources (e.g., cultural resource sites,

wetlands, recreational lands, residences) or that

minimize constructability issues (e.g., shallow bedrock,

difficult waterbody crossings, steep terrain).

The Department also considered two alternative

pipeline designs in response to public comments: an

aboveground pipeline and an alternative using a

smaller-diameter pipe. The Department determined that

both alternative designs were not reasonable

alternatives for the proposed Project because they

would not meet the proposed Project purpose and need

and/or because of safety and security reasons; therefore,

they were not considered further in this

Supplemental EIS.

This Supplemental EIS considered renewable energy

sources and energy conservation as alternatives to the

proposed Project. As noted in Section 1.4, Market

Analysis, the crude oil would be used largely for

transportation fuels and, therefore, any alternatives to

the crude oil would need to fulfill the same purpose.

The analysis found that even with renewable energy

and conservation, there would still be a demand for oil

sands-derived crude oil. Based on this evaluation, these

alternatives were not carried forward for further

analysis as alternatives to the proposed Project.

ES.5.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Consistent with NEPA and the CEQ regulations, the

Department compared the proposed Project with the

alternatives that met the proposed Project’s purpose and

need, and that were carried forward for detailed

analysis in this Supplemental EIS. The alternatives

carried forward for detailed analysis were: the 2011

Steele City Segment Alternative, the I-90 Corridor

Alternative, and the three identified No Action

Alternative scenarios (i.e., the Rail and Pipeline

Scenario, the Rail and Tanker Scenario, and the Rail

Direct to the Gulf Coast Scenario).

The two pipeline alternatives compare different routes

that meet the purpose and need of the proposed Project,

and the No Action Alternative scenarios describe the

likely potential impacts associated with transport of

crude oil from the WCSB and the Bakken formations if

the Presidential Permit is denied or if the proposed

Project is not otherwise implemented. The comparison

focuses on three categories of impacts: physical

disturbance, GHG emissions, and potential releases.

ES.5.4.1 Physical Disturbance Impacts

Alternatives Comparison

The primary differences between the proposed Project

and the alternatives related to physical disturbance are

summarized in Table ES-5.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-33

Table ES-5 Physical Disturbance Impacts Associated with New Construction and Operations for the Proposed Project and Alternatives

Status Quo

Baseline

Proposed

Project

2011 Steele City

Segment

Alternative

I-90

Corridor

Alternative

No Action

Rail/Pipeline

Scenario

No Action

Rail/Tanker

Scenario

No Action

Rail Direct

to the Gulf

Coast

Scenario

New Pipeline Length (miles) 0 875 854 927 17 32 0

Number of New Aboveground Facilities 0 73 71 77 33 33 19

Length Co-located with Existing Keystone

Pipeline (miles) 0 0 0 254 NA NA NA

NDEQ-Identified Sand Hills Region Crossed

(miles) 0 0 89 0 0 0 0

New Highly Erodible Soil (Wind) Crossed

(miles) 0 73 116 36 0 0 0

Perennial Waterbody Crossings 0 56 53 61 1,216 330 711

Major Water Crossings

0 62 60 61 42 14 40

Number of Shallow Wells in Proximity

0 113 97 42 NA NA NA

New NHPAQ Crossed (miles) 0 294 247 145 NA NA NA

Wetland Affected during Construction (acres) 0 262 544 223 193 351 NQ

Communities within 2 Miles 0 17 16 37 350 182 669

Construction (Temporary) Land Area Affected

(acres) 0 11,599 11,387 12,360 5,227 6,427 1,500

Operations (Permanent) Land Area Required

(acres) 0 5,309 5,176 4,818 5,103 6,303 1,500

Notes: This table does not include Canadian impacts for pipeline alternatives.

NA = not applicable

NQ = not quantified; insufficient design data

NDEQ = Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

NHPAQ = Northern High Plains Aquifer

This is defined as channel crossings of waterbodies that delineate U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset Level 4 (HUC4) Hydrologic Unit watershed basins.

A shallow well is defined as a well with a depth of 50 feet or less, but does not include wells with zero depth; proximity is defined as within ¼ mile of the centerline.

Specific facility footprints for this scenario are not known at this time. However, impacts would be generally similar to the other rail scenarios.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-34

ES.5.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Alternatives Comparison

To facilitate comparison of GHG emissions across all

alternatives for operational GHG emissions, an

assessment was made for all alternatives along the

entire route from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Gulf Coast

(including pipelines in Canada and from Steele City to

the Gulf Coast). GHG emissions from the two pipeline

route alternatives would be similar in scale to those of

the proposed Project. The direct emissions during the

operation phase of the 2011 Steele City Segment

Alternative would be essentially the same as those

generated by the proposed Project because they would

have the same number of pump stations (20). The I-90

Corridor Alternative is expected to have similar but

slightly higher GHG emissions because it would have

one more pump station than the proposed Project and

could generate slightly higher amounts of indirect GHG

emissions from electricity consumption.

During operation of all No Action rail scenarios, the

increased number of unit trains along the scenario

routes would result in GHG emissions from both diesel

fuel combustion and electricity generation to support

rail terminal operations (as well as for pump station

operations for the Rail/Pipeline Scenario). The total

annual GHG emissions (direct and indirect) attributed

to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent

greater than for the proposed Project (see Table ES-6).

The indirect GHG emissions over the lifecycle of oil

sands crude oil production, transportation, refining, and

product use are compared between the proposed Project

and the evaluated alternatives in Section ES.4.1.2,

Lifecycle Analysis.

Table ES-6 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crude Transport (from Hardisty/Lloydminster,

Alberta, to the Gulf Coast Area) Associated with the Proposed Project and Alternatives

(per 100,000 bpd)

Overall

Proposed

Project

Route

Overall 2011

Steele City

Segment

Alternative

Route

Overall I-90

Corridor

Alternative Route

No Action

Rail/Pipeline

Scenario

No Action

Rail/Tanker

Scenario

Action

Rail

Direct to

the Gulf

Coast

Scenario

Operation (direct and indirect)—Transportation, Not Extraction

MTCO

e/Year

per 830,000 bpd 3,123,859 3,123,844 3,211,946 4,428,902 4,364,611 3,991,472

MTCO

e/Year

per 100,000 bpd 376,369 376,367 386,981 533,603 525,857 480,900

% Difference

from Proposed

Project NA 0.0% 2.8% 41.8% 39.7% 27.8%

Canadian, Proposed Project, and Gulf Coast

Canadian, Steele City Segment, and Gulf Coast

Canadian, I-90, and Gulf Coast

Notes: The emissions shown for the overall proposed Project differ from those shown for the proposed Project in Section

ES.4.1.1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Project, in order to present a full comparison of the overall proposed

Project route to the other alternatives. All data include train emissions for return trips as well.

MTCO

e = metric tons of CO

equivalents

NA = not applicable

bpd = barrels per day

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-35

ES.5.4.3 Potential Spill Risk Alternatives

Comparison

Similar to the GHG emissions comparison, potential

spill risk was evaluated for alternatives along the entire

route from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Gulf Coast

(including portions of the route in Canada and including

existing pipelines from Steele City to the Gulf Coast).

Table ES-7 provides a summary of calculated potential

release impacts for the various alternatives analyzed in

terms of the number of potential releases per year and

the potential volume of oil released per year.

Both of the major route alternatives would begin at the

same border crossing as the proposed Project (near

Morgan, Montana) and end at the same location as the

proposed Project (near Steele City, Nebraska); as such,

the pipelines in Canada north of the border crossing and

the pipelines south of Steele City down to the Gulf

Coast would be identical for all three overall pipeline

routes. Compared to the proposed Project, the two

major pipeline route alternatives would have similar

potential spill risks (see Table ES-7). In addition, both

of these major route alternatives would require

aboveground facilities that are similar to those for the

proposed Project; therefore, potential releases impact

areas would be similar. Because the I-90 Corridor

Alternative is slightly longer than the proposed Project,

it would carry a slightly higher spill risk (with an

estimated 533 bbl released per year compared to 518

annual bbl released for the proposed Project).

The three No Action Alternative scenarios differ from

the proposed Project in that they would use alternative

modes of transportation to deliver crude oil to refinery

markets in the Gulf Coast rather than just a pipeline

(although one of the three scenarios includes a pipeline

as a significant part of its delivery system). Potential

spill risks for these alternative modes differ from the

proposed Project in terms of both average spill

frequency and average spill size.

Volume of crude oil transportation by rail in the No

Action Alternative scenarios would generally be limited

to the volume contained within individual railcars. This

volume constrains the total volume of crude oil that

could potentially impact groundwater relative to the

proposed Project in the event of a release. This

constraint is offset by the increased statistical likelihood

of spills associated with these alternative modes of

crude oil transport relative to pipelines.

Historical rail incident data were analyzed to evaluate

potential releases associated with rail transport in the

United States. The results help provide insight into

what could potentially occur with respect to spill

volume, incident cause, and incident frequency for the

No Action Alternative scenarios that involve rail

transport. In addition, rail incident frequencies were

compared to frequencies for other modes of transport

(i.e., pipeline, marine tanker). Although the product to

be transported by the proposed Project is crude oil,

incidents for petroleum products were also analyzed to

provide a comparison to a larger dataset. In order to

make comparisons between the modes of

transportation, the statistics regarding releases are

expressed in terms of ton-miles (1 ton-mile is

transporting 1 ton of product 1 mile; to calculate total

ton-miles in a given year, one multiplies the total tons

transported by the total number of miles transported).

The rates of releases and average size of releases vary

between modes of transportation. For instance, rail

transport has more reported releases of crude oil per

ton-mile than pipeline or marine transport but, overall,

pipeline transport has the highest number of barrels

released per ton-mile. Comprehensive data from 2010

to 2013 are not yet available and therefore this analysis

does not include incidents subsequent to 2009 such as

the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail tragedy or the Tesoro

Logistics pipeline incident. The number of barrels

released per year for the No Action scenarios is higher

than what is projected for the proposed Project or the

other pipeline alternatives (as detailed in Table ES-7)

because of the alternate modes of transport in the No

Action scenarios.

There is also a greater potential for injuries and

fatalities associated with rail transport relative to

pipelines. Adding 830,000 bpd to the yearly transport

mode volume would result in an estimated 49 additional

injuries and six additional fatalities for the No Action

rail scenarios compared to one additional injury and no

fatalities for the proposed Project on an annual basis.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-36

Table ES-7 Potential Releases Impacts (Full Pathway) Associated with the Proposed Project and Alternatives

Overall

Proposed Project

Route

Overall 2011

Steele City

Segment

Alternative

Route

Overall I-90

Corridor

Alternative

Route

No Action

Rail/Pipeline

Scenario

No Action

Rail/Tanker

Scenario

No Action Rail Direct

to the Gulf Coast

Scenario

Option 1

Option 2

Miles for Transport

(Overall Route) 1,938 1,917 1,990 3,902 14,014 4,624 5,375

Releases per

Year

d,e

0.46 0.46 0.48 294 276 383 455

Barrels Released

per Year

518 513 533 1,227 4,633 1,335 1,606

Canadian, Proposed Project, and Gulf Coast

Canadian, Steele City Segment, and Gulf Coast

Canadian, I-90, and Gulf Coast

Releases per year frequency was calculated using databases from the U.S. Department of Transportation covering U.S. transportation in the years 2002 to 2009. The pipeline spill

frequency was based on a 16-inch diameter crude oil pipeline.

Releases per Year = (16-inch U.S. crude pipeline spill frequency * total pipeline ton-miles) + (U.S. rail spill frequency * total rail ton-miles) + (U.S. marine spill frequency * total

rail ton-miles) + (U.S. truck spill frequency * total truck ton-miles).

Barrels Released per Year = (average 16-inch U.S. crude pipeline barrels (bbl) released * total pipeline ton-miles) + (average rail bbl released * total rail ton-miles) + (average

marine bbl) released * total rail ton-miles) + (average truck bbl released * total truck ton-miles).

The Option 1 route goes through Lloydminster while Option 2 routes through Fort McMurray.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-37

ES.6.0 GUIDE TO READING THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIS

The Supplemental EIS consists of 11 volumes and is

available electronically for viewing or download at

www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov. Various sections of

this document contain bibliographies with full lists of

references and citations. A list of where to find printed

copies of the complete Supplemental EIS can be found

at www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov or by mail

inquiry to:

U.S. Department of State

Attn: Mary Hassell, NEPA Coordinator

2201 C Street NW

Room 2726

Washington D.C. 20520

ES.7.0 SUPPLEMENTAL EIS

CONTENTS

The location of information within this Supplemental

EIS is provided below.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1: Background

1.2: Overview of Proposed Project

1.3: Purpose and Need

1.4: Market Analysis

1.5: Agency Participation

1.6: Tribal and SHPO Consultation

1.7: Environmental Review of the Canadian

Portion of the Keystone XL Project

1.8: Preparation of Publication

1.9: Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory

Requirements

Chapter 2: Description of the Proposed Project and

Alternatives

2.1: Overview of the Proposed Project

2.2: Description of Alternatives

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3.1: Geology

3.2: Soils

3.3: Water Resources

3.4: Wetlands

3.5: Terrestrial Vegetation

3.6: Wildlife

3.7: Fisheries

3.8: Threatened and Endangered Species and

Species of Conservation Concern

3.9: Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources

3.10: Socioeconomics

3.11: Cultural Resources

3.12: Air Quality and Noise

3.13: Potential Releases

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1: Geology

4.2: Soils

4.3: Water Resources

4.4: Wetlands

4.5: Terrestrial Vegetation

4.6: Wildlife

4.7: Fisheries

4.8: Threatened and Endangered Species and

Species of Conservation Concern

4.9: Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources

4.10: Socioeconomics

4.11: Cultural Resources

4.12: Air Quality and Noise

4.13: Potential Releases

4.14: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

4.15: Cumulative Effects Assessment

4.16: Summary of Impacts

Chapter 5: Alternatives

5.1: No Action Alternative

5.2: Route Alternatives

5.3: Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 6: List of Preparers

Chapter 7: Distribution List—Supplemental EIS or

Executive Summary

Chapter 8: Index

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-38

Appendices

A: Governor Approval of the Keystone XL

Project in Nebraska

B: PHMSA Special Conditions and Mitigation

Measures

C: Supplemental Information to Market Analysis

D: Waterbody Crossing Tables and Required

Crossing Criteria for Reclamation Facilities

E: Record of Consultation

F: Scoping Summary Report

G: Construction, Mitigation, and Reclamation

Plan (CMRP)

H: 2012 Biological Assessment, 2013 USFWS

Biological Opinion, and Associated

Documents

I: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

Plan; and Emergency Response Plan Sections

J: Basin Electric Big Bend to Witten 230-kV

Transmission Project Routing Report

K: Historical Pipeline Incident Analysis

L: Oil and Gas Wells within 1,320 ft of Proposed

Right-of-Way

M: Soil Summary for Montana, South Dakota, and

Nebraska

N: Supplemental Information for Compliance

with Montana Environmental Policy Act

O: Socioeconomics

P: Risk Assessments

Q: Crude Oil Material Safety Data Sheets

R: Construction/Reclamation Plans and

Documentation

S: Pipeline Temperature Effects Study

T: Screening Level Oil Spill Modeling

U: Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of

Petroleum Products from WCSB Oil Sands

Crudes Compared with Reference Crudes

V: Literature Review

W: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Project Descriptions

X: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and

Canadian Regulatory Review of Keystone XL

Y: Estimated Criteria Pollutants, Noise, and GHG

Emissions

Z: Compiled Mitigation Measures