Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality NEBRASKA'S KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE EVALUATION FEEDBACK REPORT Prepared by: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 1200 "N" Street, Suite 400 PO Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 July 2012 Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Purpose of Feedback Report ..................................................................................................... 1 Basis of Requirement ................................................................................................................... 2 Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Project History ............................................................................................................................... 3 Reconfigured Keystone XL Pipeline .......................................................................................... 4 Facilities.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Construction ................................................................................................................................... 5 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Mitigation....................................................................................................................................... 8 Relationship with Department of State .................................................................................... 8 Press Releases ............................................................................................................................. 11 Website ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Project Information Line ............................................................................................................. 11 Public Information Meetings ..................................................................................................... 12 Meeting Format and Materials ................................................................................................ 12 Participation ................................................................................................................................ 13 Map Book Availability .............................................................................................................. 14 Online Public Information Meeting .......................................................................................... 15 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................. 17 NDEQ Meetings with Landowners ........................................................................................... 17 Field Activities ............................................................................................................................. 17 Review of Keystone and Other Published Materials ........................................................... 18 Economic Benefits and Concerns .............................................................................................. 19 Alternative Corridors ................................................................................................................. 19 Sand Hills ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Ogallala Aquifer and Water Quality ................................................................................... 20 Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance ........................................................... 21 Waterbodies............................................................................................................................... 21 July 2012 | Page i CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS ............................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 4 NDEQ's ACTIONS TO GATHER INFORMATION................................................... 17 CHAPTER 5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY NEBRASKANS .................................................................. 19 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Table of Contents Feedback Report 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.4.6 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 Corrosion ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Spills, Contamination, and Cleanup ........................................................................................ 22 Leak Detection ............................................................................................................................ 22 Product Characteristics and Health Effects ............................................................................ 23 Temperature ................................................................................................................................ 23 Soils and Erosion ......................................................................................................................... 23 Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Property Values .......................................................................................................................... 24 Easements .................................................................................................................................... 24 Farm or Ranch Operations and Associated Infrastructure .................................................. 24 Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 25 Special Land Designations ........................................................................................................ 25 Native American and Cultural Resources............................................................................... 26 Other Issues ................................................................................................................................. 26 Corridor Selection Process ........................................................................................................ 27 Proposed Corridor ..................................................................................................................... 28 Fragile Soils ................................................................................................................................. 28 Aquifer Protection ...................................................................................................................... 28 Field Activities ............................................................................................................................. 28 Facilities........................................................................................................................................ 31 Construction Methods ................................................................................................................. 32 Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................... 35 Sand-Hills-Type Conditions ...................................................................................................... 35 Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................................ 35 Agricultural Areas ...................................................................................................................... 36 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 36 Spills.............................................................................................................................................. 36 Environmental Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 37 Additional Information Needs Arising from Public Comments ........................................... 37 Keystone's Environmental Report............................................................................................. 39 NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report ............................................................................................. 39 Governor's Decision ................................................................................................................... 40 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation CHAPTER 6 NDEQ COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 7 INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM KEYSTONE ................................................... 31 CHAPTER 8 FUTURE STEPS ...................................................................................................... 39 Page ii | July 2012 Feedback Report Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Public Information Meetings .................................................................................................... 12 Table 3-2. Media Affiliates Attending Public Information Meetings ................................................... 13 Table 3-3. Organizations Attending Public Information Meetings....................................................... 14 Table 3-4. Area Libraries with Map Books .............................................................................................. 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Proposed Corridor for Keystone XL Pipeline ........................................................................ 6 Figure 2-2. Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ................................................................................. 7 APPENDIX MAP COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page iii Table of Contents Feedback Report This page intentionally left blank Page iv | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a crude oil pipeline and ancillary facilities from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, referred to as the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The Nebraska Legislature directed the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to evaluate the portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline project that has been rerouted to avoid the Sand Hills in the State of Nebraska (referred to in this document as the Nebraska Reroute or the Project). NDEQ has the authority and general jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in the State of Nebraska pursuant to Nebraska Revised Statutes 81-1504. NDEQ held public information meetings along the proposed corridor and received feedback from the public. NDEQ compiled the comments to identify the issues important to Nebraskans. Those issues are presented in this Feedback Report. 1.1 PURPOSE OF FEEDBACK REPORT Legislative Bill (LB) 4 states that "[t]he economic benefits of oil pipeline construction projects are important to the state, including the creation of jobs. Nevertheless, the benefits of any proposed oil pipeline project must be weighed against any concerns brought by the residents of Nebraska." To identify those concerns, NDEQ has held public meetings along the proposed corridor and has reviewed additional information provided in Keystone's Initial Report Identifying Alternative and Preferred Corridors for Nebraska Reroute (Reroute Report) to gain further understanding about how the Keystone XL Pipeline would impact Nebraska's resources. The purposes of this Feedback Report are threefold: ? ? ? First, to summarize NDEQ's review efforts accomplished to date, and to identify the issues that Nebraskans are concerned about regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Second, to provide Keystone a full disclosure of NDEQ's concerns so that Keystone may address these concerns in its routing decisions, as appropriate. Third, to provide Nebraskans with an interim status report on NDEQ's progress in meeting the directives of the Nebraska Legislature. NDEQ understands that many of the issues identified in this Feedback Report are addressed in previous documents, such as the U.S. Department of State's (DOS's) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Final EIS and Keystone's Reroute Report. NDEQ also understands that some of these issues are beyond the scope of NDEQ's evaluation. However, all issues are included here to provide Keystone a full understanding of the public sentiment about the Project and the issues to be addressed in NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report. Keystone is anticipated to submit an Environmental Report on the Nebraska Reroute to NDEQ in August 2012. NDEQ expects that Keystone's report will describe the proposed route and the environmental conditions along that route. After that report has been submitted, NDEQ will Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 1 Chapter 1, Introduction Feedback Report review Keystone's Environmental Report and prepare a Draft Evaluation Report that describes the potential impacts of the Project. The questions identified by the public and described in this Feedback Report will be addressed in NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report. 1.2 BASIS OF REQUIREMENT LB 1161 directs NDEQ to evaluate Keystone's proposed Nebraska Reroute. Specifically, the required Draft Evaluation Report should "provide opportunities for public review and comment, and include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the environmental, economic, social, and other impacts associated with the proposed route and route alternatives in Nebraska." This Feedback Report is provided to Keystone consistent with the intent of the Nebraska Legislature as defined in LB 1161 and LB 4. 1.3 CONTENTS This Feedback Report presents background information on the Keystone XL Pipeline project and the Nebraska Reroute (see Chapter 2). This report describes the actions taken by NDEQ to gather input from the public, including conducting public meetings and establishing a Project website with an electronic comment form (see Chapter 3). It also describes efforts to gather other information on the Project, including reviewing Keystone's Reroute Report and meeting with individual landowners, interest groups, and agencies (see Chapter 4). This Feedback Report also identifies the key issues that NDEQ will analyze in its Evaluation Report to the Governor (see Chapter 5) and describes NDEQ's comments regarding Keystone's corridor selection process, the proposed corridor identified in the Reroute Report, and field activities (see Chapter 6). Finally, this Feedback Report lists the additional information that NDEQ will request from Keystone to complete its analyses (see Chapter 7) and describes the activities NDEQ will undertake to complete the evaluation following Keystone's submittal of site-specific environmental data obtained in field surveys during May through July 2012 (see Chapter 8). Page 2 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND The original Keystone XL Pipeline was proposed to go through the northeastern corner of the Sand Hills, an environmentally sensitive region in north-central Nebraska. The original alignment was evaluated by DOS in an EIS that was published on August 26, 2011. Based on concerns expressed by Nebraska citizens, the Nebraska Legislature, and the Nebraska Governor, a new alignment was proposed. Keystone has submitted a new proposal that avoids the Sand Hills. This chapter summarizes the project's history, describes Keystone's reroute proposal, and discusses NDEQ's relationship with DOS. 2.1 PROJECT HISTORY In September 2008, Keystone filed an application with the DOS for a Presidential Permit. The Presidential Permit would authorize the construction and operation of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project at the U.S.-Canada border crossing in Montana. At that time, the proposed project consisted of a 2,232-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Nederland/Port Arthur, Texas. Upon receipt of Keystone's application, DOS led a comprehensive environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. DOS's environmental review culminated in the publication of its Final EIS for the project on August 26, 2011. Based on the concerns about the pipeline passing through the Sand Hills in Nebraska, LB 4 was enacted on November 22, 2011. The bill directed NDEQ to analyze the Keystone XL Pipeline within the State of Nebraska and to "ensure adequate information gathering, full and careful agency and public review, objective preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement, adherence to a defined schedule and an appropriate role for a pipeline carrier which avoids the appearance of conflicts of interests." Based on this review, the Governor would indicate "whether he or she approves any of the routes reviewed in the supplemental environmental impact statement." Keystone agreed to reroute the Nebraska portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline to avoid the Sand Hills and requested that the State of Nebraska define the limits of the Sand Hills for that purpose. On December 29, 2011, NDEQ provided Keystone with a Sand Hills definition based on the map titled "Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas." This map had been completed in 2001 as a 7-year collaboration of multiple state and federal agencies, including, but not limited to, NDEQ, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas. On January 25, 2012, Keystone's Presidential Permit application was denied without prejudice, and NDEQ halted active review of the pipeline in Nebraska. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 3 Chapter 2, Background Feedback Report In response to Keystone's expressed intent to reapply for a Presidential Permit and to affirm the Legislature's desire to have NDEQ continue its evaluation of certain pipeline projects, the Nebraska Legislature in April 2012 passed LB 1161, which the Governor signed on April 17, 2012. LB 1161 modified LB 4 and directed NDEQ to evaluate Keystone's proposed reroute of the Keystone XL Pipeline in Nebraska, to provide "an analysis of the environmental, economic, social and other impacts," and to "collaborate with a federal agency or agencies and set forth the responsibilities and schedules that will lead to an effective and timely evaluation." On April 18, 2012, Keystone submitted a report titled Initial Report Identifying Alternative and Preferred Corridors for Nebraska Reroute (Reroute Report) to NDEQ. The Reroute Report provided an analysis of six alternative 2,000-foot-wide pipeline corridors that avoid the areas of the Sand Hills as illustrated on the 2001 map and identified a proposed corridor. On May 4, 2012, Keystone filed a new application for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline project, reconfigured as the portion of the original project extending from the U.S.-Canada border east of Morgan, Montana, to an existing tank farm near Steele City, Nebraska. 1 2.2 RECONFIGURED KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE The currently proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project would consist of an approximately 854-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska. At Steele City, the project would connect with the Keystone Pipeline Cushing Extension. At the terminus of the Cushing Extension, the oil would be delivered into a new 36-inch-diameter pipeline to be constructed as the Gulf Coast Project for transportation to refinery markets in the Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have an initial nominal throughput capacity of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) and could be expanded to an ultimate nominal capacity of 830,000 bpd through the installation of additional pumping capacity. The proposed project would transport crude oil extracted from the Athabasca oil sands2 areas in Alberta, Canada, and crude oil from the oil shale taken from the Bakken Formation in Montana and North Dakota. The types of Canadian crude oil to be transported by the proposed project would consist of synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen. Diluted bitumen, often termed dilbit, consists of bitumen mixed with a light hydrocarbon liquid such as natural gas condensate or refinery naphtha. The bitumen is diluted to improve its viscosity,3 making it a more liquid form that can be transported via pipeline. According to Keystone, the dilbit is not heated prior to transportation through the pipeline.4 Both synthetic crude oil and dilbit are similar in composition and quality to the crude oils currently transported in pipelines in the U.S. and refined in the Gulf Coast refineries. 1 2 3 4 On January 31, 2012, Keystone informed DOS that the portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast would be developed as the stand-alone "Gulf Coast Project." Oil sands (which are also referred to as tar sands) are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, which is a material similar to soft asphalt. Only the crude oil extracted from the oil sands would be transported. Viscosity is a fluid's resistance to flow. A viscous fluid, such as crude oil, is thick and syrupy. The normal operating temperature of the pipeline is between 120 and 150 ?F. As the oil moves through the pipeline, friction occurs, which generates heat. According to DOS's Final EIS, Section 3.5-30, pipeline operations would result in increased soil temperatures: a 4 to 8 ?F increase at the soil surface, a 10 to 15 ?F increase 6 inches below the surface, and up to a 40 ?F increase near the pipe. Page 4 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 2, Background Details about the proposed Nebraska Reroute portion of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project are provided below. These details are preliminary and based on information in Keystone's Reroute Report and DOS's EIS documents. 2.2.1 Facilities Keystone's Reroute Report identified a proposed corridor that starts about 1 mile south of the Nebraska-South Dakota border in Keya Paha County, Nebraska, and terminates near Central City in Merrick County, Nebraska. The Reroute Report defined a corridor that is 2,000 feet wide, is about 174 miles long, and passes through Keya Paha, Holt, Antelope, Boone, Nance, and Merrick counties (see Figure 2-1). Keystone will select the specific pipeline route from within or near that corridor5 based on the results of field surveys that began in May 2012 and are anticipated to be completed in July 2012. The maximum operating pressure for the pipeline will be 1,440 pounds per square inch gauge6 (psig).7 The pipeline will be made of high-strength steel pipe that will be tested to American Petroleum Institute specifications. Cathodic protection measures will be used to protect the pipeline against corrosion. In addition, Keystone will apply an external coating of fusion-bonded epoxy to the pipeline to help prevent corrosion. Pumping stations will be required approximately every 50 miles along the pipeline, with the specific locations determined in part through hydraulic analysis. At least three pumping stations are anticipated along the Nebraska Reroute. Each pumping station will require an electrical substation and power line with voltage of 69 kilovolts (kV) or 115 kV. Mainline valves will be installed a minimum of every 20 miles, at pumping stations, and at environmentally sensitive locations such as certain waterbody crossings. Mainline valves can be electronically closed when a leak is detected in order to limit the volume of the oil leak. The pumping stations would include launchers and receivers for in-line inspection tools, which are used for pipeline evaluation and maintenance operations. Additional components of the proposed Project would include temporary access roads for construction, permanent access roads for operation, pipe storage sites, contractor yards, and railroad sidings. 2.2.2 Construction The construction right-of-way (ROW) will be 110 feet wide in most areas. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural or historic sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW will be reduced to 85 feet. Additional temporary workspace will be needed for some construction staging areas and where special construction techniques are used, such as at waterbody crossings. Pipeline construction will generally proceed as a moving assembly line composed of specific activities, including surveying and staking of ROW, clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing, bending, welding, installing, backfilling, testing, and cleaning up. The typical construction sequence is shown in Figure 2-2. Keystone proposes dividing the Project into three manageable segments that separate crews can work on at the same time. 5 6 7 In some cases, the pipeline may be outside of that corridor to avoid specific physical or environmental constraints. According to DOS's Final EIS, Appendix V, Keystone Response to PHMSA Comments. Psig (pounds per square inch gauge) is a unit of pressure relative to atmospheric pressure at sea level and is the pressure of a system measured by a gauge above atmospheric pressure. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 5 Chapter 2, Background Feedback Report Figure 2-1. Proposed Corridor for Keystone XL Pipeline Page 6 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 2, Background Figure 2-2. Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 7 Chapter 2, Background Feedback Report The pipeline will have a minimum of 5 feet of cover at waterbodies and drainage ditches adjacent to roadways, a minimum of 3 feet of cover in areas of consolidated bedrock, and a minimum of 4 feet of cover in other areas. During trenching, topsoil (up to 12 inches) will be segregated and stockpiled for subsequent reclamation. At areas of shallow groundwater, the pipeline would be weighted (such as by a concrete coating) to counteract buoyancy effects. Waterbodies that are dry at the time of construction will be crossed using dry open-cut trench methods. In general, major waterbodies and environmentally sensitive waterbodies will be crossed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), dry-flume, or dam and pump methods. The remaining waterbodies will be crossed using the flowing open-cut method. The pipeline will be pressure tested for integrity after construction work is completed. Water will be used for this testing; however, the sources of this water are yet to be determined. This hydrostatic test water typically would be discharged to surface waters under a temporary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit issued by NDEQ. After construction, the temporary ROW will be restored consistent with applicable federal and state regulations and permits, the easement agreements negotiated between Keystone and individual landowners, and Keystone's Construction, Mitigation, and Reclamation (CMR) Plan (which was provided in DOS's Final EIS as Appendix B). 2.2.3 Operation A 50-foot-wide permanent ROW will be maintained along the proposed route during operation of the pipeline. Most agricultural crops could be grown within this permanent ROW, but structures, trees, and certain other deep-rooted vegetation will not be allowed. Periodic in-line inspections and aerial and ground surveillance will be conducted to monitor pipeline conditions and integrity. A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will also be used to remotely control and monitor the pipeline system. Keystone will develop an Emergency Response Plan to address potential pipeline leaks or spills. 2.2.4 Mitigation Keystone will be required to implement mitigation designed to avoid or reduce impacts. Keystone has indicated that it will incorporate the 57 project-specific Special Conditions developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). NDEQ will require Keystone to provide a CMR Plan and a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan similar to those plans provided in DOS's Final EIS (August 26, 2011). Further, NDEQ may develop additional mitigation measures applicable to the Nebraska Reroute during its environmental evaluation. 2.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Nebraska Legislature enacted LB 4 in November 2011 and amended it through LB 1161 in April 2012. These bills authorized NDEQ to collaborate with DOS on the Project and to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOS that sets forth the responsibilities and schedules that will lead to an effective and timely review of the environmental document under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NDEQ and DOS finalized an MOU on May 24, 2012. The MOU established NDEQ as a cooperating agency in the environmental review Page 8 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 2, Background process and DOS's commitment to fully consider the views of the State of Nebraska in conducting its environmental review consistent with NEPA. DOS has jurisdiction for authorizing Presidential Permits for the crossing of the U.S. international border pursuant to Executive Order 11423 (33 Federal Register [FR] 11741), as amended, and Executive Order 13337 (69 FR 25299), as amended. As part of the permitting process, DOS will conduct an environmental review of the reconfigured Keystone XL Pipeline project consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other relevant statutes. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 9 Chapter 2, Background Feedback Report This page intentionally left blank Page 10 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS LB 4 calls for a "full and careful agency and public review," and LB 1161 directs NDEQ to "provide opportunities for public review and comment." This chapter summarizes the public outreach efforts NDEQ has taken to gather public input on the Project. As of June 15, 2012, NDEQ's outreach program has received over 900 comments from the public. 3.1 PRESS RELEASES NDEQ issued three press releases about the Nebraska Reroute between April 19 and June 4, 2012. The information covered in these press releases included: ? ? ? April 19, 2012: PIPELINE ROUTE CORRIDOR REPORT FROM TRANSCANADA. This press release announced that NDEQ had received the Reroute Report from TransCanada. It described NDEQ's public involvement process and the process for developing a Final Evaluation Report that will be presented to the Governor. The press release also explained that information regarding the evaluation process would be made available to the public on NDEQ's website. April 26, 2012: FOUR PIPELINE INFORMATION SESSIONS TO BE HELD. This press release announced that public information open-house meetings would be held in May 2012. The press release described the purpose of the meetings and reiterated the process of the corridor evaluation. June 4, 2012: PIPELINE CORRIDOR MAP BOOKS LOCATED AT SIX LIBRARIES. This press release informed the public that map books of the proposed pipeline corridor were placed in six libraries located along the proposed corridor. The press release also announced the opening of the online public information meeting. 3.2 WEBSITE NDEQ established a Project website titled "Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation" at https://ecmp.nebraska.gov/deq-seis. The website includes the following pages--Welcome, Frequently Asked Questions, Public Documents Search, Meeting Documents Search, and Press Releases--and features a searchable comment function. NDEQ has also posted a file that can display geographic information using Google Earth(TM), the MOU between NDEQ and DOS, and a link to the Online Public Information Meeting. As of June 15, 2012, the website has been accessed on over 5,450 occasions. These visits have resulted in 120 comments. An additional 25 comments have been submitted through NDEQ's email address. 3.3 PROJECT INFORMATION LINE A project information line (800-295-8912) was created and made available to the public on April 24, 2012. As of June 15, 2012, the project information line has received 687 telephone comments. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 11 Chapter 3, Public Outreach Efforts Feedback Report 3.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS NDEQ held four public information meetings over the course of two weeks during May 2012 to provide information to the public about NDEQ's review process and to gather public input. As a result of these meetings, NDEQ received 78 letters or written comments. Locations for each meeting were determined by their proximity to the proposed corridor and access to community facilities capable of hosting a large gathering of citizens. Table 3-1 lists the dates, times, and locations for these meetings as well as the estimated attendance. Table 3-1. Public Information Meetings Date and Time May 9, 2012 4:00-7:00 p.m. Venue Name and Address O'Neill Community Center 501 South 4th Street O'Neill, Nebraska Neligh-Oakdale High School 600 J Street Neligh, Nebraska Boone County Fairgrounds, Casey's Building 11th & Fairview Avenue Albion, Nebraska Central City Community Room (at City Hall) 1515 17th Street Central City, Nebraska Estimated Attendance* 215 May 10, 2012 4:00-7:00 p.m. 121 May 16, 2012 4:00-7:00 p.m. 173 May 17, 2012 4:00-7:00 p.m. 161 Note: * Attendance estimates include only those who registered at the sign-in table. Some attendees chose not to register and therefore are not included in the estimated attendance. 3.4.1 Meeting Format and Materials The meetings were conducted in the format of an open house; no formal presentations were given. The meetings provided an opportunity for the public to review Project information, speak with NDEQ officials, and submit written comments. Representatives from NDEQ and two representatives from DOS were available to answer questions and receive comments from participants. In addition, several representatives from Keystone were available during the meetings to answer questions on subjects such as ROW acquisition. A variety of communication tools were used at each meeting, including the following: ? Informational display boards - Display boards were presented that explained NDEQ's objectives and process. Information was also presented that explained NDEQ's identification of the Sand Hills. Page 12 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report ? Chapter 3, Public Outreach Efforts ? ? ? ? ? Informational handouts - Informational handouts were made available to all participants. The handout included general information about the evaluation process, a list of methods available for submitting comments, a map showing the proposed corridor, and a timeline of the evaluation process. Scroll maps - NDEQ representatives worked with members of the public to receive input regarding specific locations on the corridor maps. Large scroll maps were laid across tables and were used to plot comments that were later recorded using geographic information system (GIS) coordinates. Each dot marked on the map was associated with a specific comment. This information was recorded and is presented in the Appendix to this Feedback Report. Two map books - Maps of the proposed corridor were presented at a very large scale, enabling individuals to clearly identify property features. Map request cards - At the Albion and Central City public information meetings, map request cards were made available to participants who expressed interest in having a map of a specified location sent directly to them. These requests cards were made available at only the final two meetings based on feedback received at the first two meetings that some participants were experiencing difficulty locating and acquiring the maps on their own. Seven map requests were received at the Albion meeting, and seven map requests were received at the Central City meeting. iPad Stations (2 to 4 units) - These stations were provided to allow people to submit a comment electronically during the meeting. Paper comment forms - Paper comment forms were made available to all participants and could be submitted during the meeting or mailed to NDEQ at a later date. 3.4.2 Participation The public meetings were advertised in area newspapers and on NDEQ's website. As shown in Table 3-1, over 670 persons attended the four public meetings. Representatives from the media were also invited, and many attended the meetings. Table 3-2 lists the media affiliates that attended each meeting. Table 3-2. Media Affiliates Attending Public Information Meetings O'Neill DTN/The Progressive Farmer Frontier and Holt County Independent Lincoln Journal Star Norfolk Daily News Neligh KOLN/KGIN-Channel 10/11 (Lincoln/Grand Island) Nebraska Public Radio Network Albion Albion News Columbus Telegram NTV News Central City Aurora News-Register Central City Republican Nonpareil Hastings Tribune KHAS-TV KRGI-AM NU Press Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 13 Chapter 3, Public Outreach Efforts Feedback Report Representatives of several organizations were also present at all of the public information meetings. These groups were allowed by NDEQ to place copies of one handout at a table provided in the entryway at each meeting location. Table 3-3 lists organizations that attended the public information meetings. Table 3-3. Organizations Attending Public Information Meetings Organization Name Americans for Prosperity-Nebraska BOLD Nebraska Energy Citizens National Wildlife Federation Nebraska Watchdog Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence Pipeline Safety Trust 3.4.3 Map Book Availability After the close of the public informational meetings, map books were placed in six local libraries along the proposed pipeline corridor, as listed from north to south in Table 3-4. Table 3-4. Area Libraries with Map Books Community Springview Library Address Keya Paha County Library 118 South Main Street Springview, NE O'Neill Public Library 601 East Douglas Street O'Neill, NE Neligh Public Library 710 Main Street Neligh, NE Albion Public Library 437 South 3rd Street Albion, NE Fullerton Public Library 903 Broadway Street Fullerton, NE Central City Public Library 1604 15th Avenue Central City, NE O'Neill Neligh Albion Fullerton Central City Page 14 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 3, Public Outreach Efforts NDEQ representatives met with library staff members and instructed staff how to help the public use the map books and website and provided each library with map request cards (similar to what was distributed at the final two public meetings). 3.5 ONLINE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING A self-guided online public information meeting has been established to provide electronic versions of the information available at the traditional public information meetings held during May 2012. The online public information meeting can be accessed through NDEQ's Project website at https://ecmp.nebraska.gov/deq-seis. The virtual forum includes a welcome and introductory comments from NDEQ Director Mike Linder, meeting boards, maps that can be enlarged to show detailed areas for easier viewing, methods for public comment, and an electronic comment form that can be completed while viewing the meeting materials and submitted at any time during the session. As of June 15, 2012, the site has been accessed on 198 occasions, with 165 unique visits. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 15 Chapter 3, Public Outreach Efforts Feedback Report This page intentionally left blank Page 16 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 4 NDEQ'S ACTIONS TO GATHER INFORMATION In addition to holding public information meetings, NDEQ met with agencies and landowners, observed Keystone's field activities, and independently reviewed information provided by Keystone so that a complete understanding of the Project can be established. This chapter summarizes the activities undertaken thus far during NDEQ's independent review. 4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION NDEQ has coordinated with state and federal agencies. Coordination letters were sent to seven state agencies, nine local Natural Resources Districts (NRDs), and four federal agencies. To help facilitate coordination with the NRDs, NDEQ also invited comments from the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts (NARD). NARD is the professional association for Nebraska's 23 NRDs. NDEQ met with seven of the nine NRDs crossed by Keystone's proposed corridor. At this meeting, held in early May 2012, NDEQ gathered information from NRD managers about the potential concerns and impacts of the Project. Following the public information meetings described in Chapter 3, NDEQ met with representatives from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office, the Lower Niobrara NRD, and USDA NRCS. NDEQ anticipates meeting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the near future. NDEQ would provide any relevant information from that meeting to Keystone for consideration in its Environmental Report. 4.2 NDEQ MEETINGS WITH LANDOWNERS During the public information meetings, six landowners met with or wrote to NDEQ and asked to meet with NDEQ representatives on their properties so that NDEQ could gain first-hand knowledge of the site conditions and understand the individual landowner's concerns. Two of the meetings were at properties in Keya Paha County and four were in Holt County. These meetings provided information regarding the proposed corridor that could not be obtained from aerial photography or observations from county road ROW. Concerns expressed during the landowner meetings are reflected in NDEQ's comments presented in Chapter 6 and in NDEQ's requests for additional information listed in Section 7.5. 4.3 FIELD ACTIVITIES NDEQ viewed portions of the proposed corridor in early May 2012 and during the period when the public information meetings were held. These inspections were conducted from county road ROW; no private property was entered. Additional visual inspection was conducted during the on-site meetings with individual landowners. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 17 Chapter 4, NDEQ's Actions to Gather Information Feedback Report Keystone has been collecting environmental and other resource data since late May 2012 from landowners who allowed access to their properties. Data collection by Keystone was accomplished using survey teams experienced in several disciplines. These disciplines and survey objectives are the following: ? ? ? ? ? ? Construction Reclamation - Collecting data on areas where reclamation may be challenging, on noxious weed locations, on threatened and endangered plant species locations, and on soil characteristics to determine restoration limitations/revegetation potential Biology - Collecting data on wetlands and other waterbodies, on noxious weed locations, and on man-made features Cultural Resources - Conducting pedestrian survey for archaeological and paleontological features Civil Survey - Surveying man-made features, such as roadways and bridges Geotechnical - Detailing geological evaluation at select locations American Burying Beetle - Conducting surveys for presence of American burying beetle Keystone determined that a 500-foot-wide corridor would be used for the Study Area for data collection. In addition, roads that would serve as construction access roads were examined to determine if roadway improvements would be needed. NDEQ participated in Keystone's safety training for the field activities, and NDEQ's contractor observed a representative sample of Keystone's data collection. NDEQ's comments on these observations are presented in Chapter 6 of this Feedback Report. 4.4 REVIEW OF KEYSTONE AND OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS NDEQ has reviewed Keystone's Reroute Report and DOS's Draft Supplemental EIS and Final EIS. In addition, NDEQ has reviewed relevant information available from the Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, and USDA NRCS as well as data available from NDEQ databases. These data have included registered well data, soil surveys, water table elevation data, and aquifer data. The purpose of this review was to determine if the conclusions stated by Keystone in its Reroute Report were adequately supported, and if the Reroute Report provided sufficient information for NDEQ to complete its Draft Evaluation Report in a timely and cost-effective manner. Results of this review are presented in Chapters 6 and 7 of this Feedback Report. Page 18 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY NEBRASKANS NDEQ has initiated a comprehensive effort to gather public input regarding the Project. This effort has revealed that Nebraskans are divided about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. Some Nebraskans said they were in support of the project and to "get it done," adding that the jobs it could create are important to Nebraska's economy. Others expressed the opinion that the pipeline should not be built at all or should be built "somewhere else" because of concerns about sandy soils or the Ogallala Aquifer. The full range of comments that identify the various issues of importance to Nebraskans will be addressed in NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report. NDEQ understands that some of these issues are addressed in previous documents, such as DOS's Draft Supplemental EIS and Final EIS, and Keystone's Reroute Report. NDEQ also understands that some of these issues may be beyond the scope of NDEQ's evaluation. However, all issues are included here to provide Keystone and the public with a full narrative of the public's concerns as of June 15, 2012. NDEQ categorized approximately 19 topics and 67 unique issues. These topics and issues are described below. 5.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND CONCERNS The potential impacts on Nebraska's economy were one of the issues raised. Some commenters argued that the pipeline would bring economic benefits to Nebraska while others argued that any short-term benefits would be outweighed by potential environmental damages. Specific concerns focused on how Keystone will work with landowners to ensure that they do not experience any economic hardships as a result of the pipeline. Other concerns included the potential effects on existing irrigation systems, wells, and crops; tax implications to individuals as well as counties; and short- and long-term employment opportunities. Questions commonly asked by the public included: ? ? ? ? ? How many short-term and long-term jobs will the Project create? Will farmers be compensated for loss of income that may occur as a result of a leak? What tax benefits will befall county and local governments? Will loss of income to area landowners during construction result in tax hardships? What are the rights of the landowners if Keystone transfers pipeline ownership to another company? If Keystone defaults on construction loans or sells the pipeline to others, what instruments would be in place to hold the landowners and State of Nebraska harmless from any financial obligations resulting from such default? 5.2 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS Many commenters questioned why the Keystone XL Pipeline cannot be located parallel to the existing Keystone Oil Pipeline, which became operational in June 2010 and runs through eastern Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 19 Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans Feedback Report Nebraska, or other existing utility corridors instead of on a new alignment. Commenters also expressed the belief that there are other, safer alternatives than crossing the Ogallala Aquifer, such as through Boyd County, where the soils have a greater percentage of clay and where the Sand Hills can be more easily avoided. 5.3 SAND HILLS Commenters expressed concern about how the Sand Hills were defined, especially because attributes of the Sand Hills, including fragile soils, can be found in areas beyond that defined as the Sand Hills by NDEQ in December 2011. Many of these areas were identified by commenters during the public information meetings. NDEQ will address these concerns further in Section 6.2. Questions frequently asked by the public included: ? ? ? What process did NDEQ use to define the Sand Hills? How will Keystone ensure that sandy soils are stabilized and restored to a condition that will enable vegetation to quickly re-establish? How will Keystone deal with wetlands, wet meadows, and sub-irrigated meadows? 5.4 OGALLALA AQUIFER AND WATER QUALITY Concerns for the Ogallala Aquifer were paramount to Nebraskans. Damage to this "precious resource" would be "devastating" (in the words of some commenters) to Nebraska's economy and livelihood. Commenters were also very apprehensive that a spill above the Ogallala Aquifer could not be fully remediated and that the quality of drinking water for humans and livestock would be substantially impacted for this and future generations. NDEQ is well aware of the importance of groundwater quality and will address this concern further in Section 6.2. Concerns commonly expressed by the public included: ? ? ? ? Will portions of the pipeline that are constructed in the Ogallala Aquifer receive special protection, such as a double wall or a heavy thickness pipe, to protect this "precious resource" against leaks and potential groundwater contamination? If a leak occurs into the Ogallala Aquifer, how will it be cleaned up? Can it be fully cleaned up? Who will pay for the cleanup? Will farmers be compensated for long-term damages if the leak results in loss of crops? Will Keystone monitor the water quality of wells that are in the Ogallala Aquifer and within the Project corridor? How long will Keystone monitor water quality? If Keystone does not propose to monitor water quality, will NDEQ conduct this monitoring? Keystone has stated that it will avoid wellhead protection areas. Is there a minimum horizontal distance that will separate the pipeline from domestic or irrigation wells? Is there a distance that will separate the pipeline from municipal well fields? Page 20 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report ? Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans In the areas where the pipeline intersects groundwater, will the pipeline and associated trench alter groundwater flow? How will the pipeline and trench intersecting groundwater-fed springs affect their flow? If groundwater flow is affected, how will that be mitigated? 5.5 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE Construction impacts of the proposed pipeline were of major concern to many commenters. For example, commenters were concerned about the area's water supply during construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline. Questions frequently asked by the public included: ? ? ? ? ? ? How will the pipeline be constructed through areas of hilly terrain, wetlands, and shallow water tables? How much water will be needed during construction to ensure proper compaction? What will be the source of that water? How will construction materials be delivered to the construction site? How will yard sites for materials storage be identified? Will landowners be compensated for allowing materials storage? Will these areas be restored to their previous use following construction? How many pumping stations will be needed, and where will they be located? What security measures will be taken to prevent vandalism at these stations? What measures will Keystone take to ensure that stream channel degradation does not result in exposure of or damage to the pipe? How much water will be needed at pumping stations? How much noise would occur from pumping station operation, and will this noise be mitigated? 5.6 WATERBODIES Commenters expressed concern about damage to waterbodies during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline, and asked how crossings would be constructed and rehabilitated. Commonly asked questions from the public included: ? ? ? How will Keystone cross important rivers such as the Niobrara, Elkhorn, Loup, and Platte? How will river, stream, and other waterbody crossings be restored after construction? Will Keystone monitor this restoration for long-term success? In streams where Keystone proposes to cross using an open cut, what measures will be taken to prevent damage from flash flooding? What measures will be taken to restore stream bed and banks? At waterbody crossings where Keystone proposes to use HDD techniques, how much water will be needed and what will be the source of that water? Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 21 Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans Feedback Report 5.7 CORROSION Many commenters are concerned about the integrity of the pipe because of the shallow water tables and prolific farming operations. Commenters cited the pipeline ruptures in the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone Rivers, specifically. Questions asked by the public included: ? ? How will Keystone prevent corrosion of a steel pipe when it is immersed in water? Farmers will use chemicals extensively during the growing season. Will these chemicals accelerate corrosion? Will run-off or seepage from feedlots accelerate corrosion? 5.8 SPILLS, CONTAMINATION, AND CLEANUP The proposed pipeline would pass through some of Nebraska's most valuable resources, and commenters were concerned about the consequences of a minor leak or an even more serious event that could impact those resources. Commenters wanted to know what safeguards will be in place to prevent or detect leaks, the historical effectiveness of these safeguards, and how the industry incorporates "lessons learned" from spills. Commenters asked about response protocols and the level of training needed for emergency responders. Frequently asked questions from the public included: ? ? ? ? Who will conduct and pay for emergency responder training? Will Keystone provide the necessary equipment to emergency responders and to nearby hospitals who may have to treat victims of exposure to product spills? How will spills be cleaned up? Who will pay for cleanup and the damages that may result? Will the landowner bear any liability or responsibility for cleanup? What provisions are included to prevent pipeline rupture in the event of a sudden, unexpected valve closure? What methods does the industry use to ensure incorporation of lessons learned? For example, the spills into the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone Rivers made national headlines. What lessons did Keystone take from these accidents, and how are they incorporated into the proposed design of the pipeline and in its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan? 5.9 LEAK DETECTION Several commenters expressed concern that pipeline leaks are inevitable. Many cited the leaks that occurred on the existing Keystone Oil Pipeline. Questions commonly asked by the public included: ? ? ? How quickly can leaks be detected? How much product might be lost during the time between breach and response? How quickly and to what extent would such a leak contaminate an aquifer or waterbody given the site conditions in the proposed corridor? What safeguards are present to detect and prevent leaks? What is the history of the effectiveness of these safeguards? How often have these safeguards failed? What was the response time for leaks that occurred on the Keystone Oil Pipeline? Do any cleanup or remediation activities remain to be completed? Page 22 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans 5.10 PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS AND HEALTH EFFECTS Commenters expressed concern that it is not only the oil itself, but also the dilutants and other constituents in the oil that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Of further concern was the potential for water soluble chemicals (such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) to contaminate the water supply in the event of a spill or undetected leak. Concerns expressed by the public included: ? ? ? ? What are the characteristics of the products being transported? What chemicals will be added to facilitate movement through the pipeline? How toxic are the products being moved through the pipeline? What are the health risks from exposure? Will emergency responders receive specific training to diagnose and treat exposures to dilutants and other chemicals in the oil? Are any of the dilutants that are added to the crude oil water-soluble? How would these chemicals be removed from groundwater in the event of a spill or leak? Will Keystone or NDEQ regularly monitor rural water wells for the chemicals that may enter the water supply as a result of an undetected leak? 5.11 TEMPERATURE Crop production is a dynamic activity that is dependent on a number of factors, including rainfall and temperature. Area farmers expressed concern about high temperatures in the pipeline affecting the productivity of their farms and ranches. Also, the corridor crosses a stream that is known for its trout habitat, and commenters were concerned that increased temperatures from the pipeline could affect fish productivity. Questions asked by the public included: ? ? ? What will the temperature of the product be? Will a higher temperature affect the freezethaw cycle? How will a higher temperature affect seed germination, crop growth, and water evaporation? Will the higher temperature of the ground surrounding the pipeline translate to increased temperatures of streams and other waterbodies? If yes, could these temperatures result in degraded fisheries? 5.12 SOILS AND EROSION Commenters expressed concern that the proposed corridor still crosses areas of sandy and highly erodible soils. Commenters also asked about impacts to shelter belts and how those impacts would be mitigated and remediated. Commenters were uncertain of Keystone's ability to remediate the natural vegetation that protects sandy, erodible soils in a timely and effective manner. Commonly asked questions from the public in this category included: ? ? How will the pipeline be constructed through loose and sandy soils? How will trench cave-ins be avoided? How will construction be accomplished when these soil conditions occur in areas of shallow water table (that is, 2 feet or less)? How will construction affect shelterbelts and the effectiveness of these areas in reducing wind erosion? Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 23 Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans ? ? Feedback Report ? How will Keystone ensure the success of soil stabilization and vegetation reclamation following construction? Will Keystone monitor the post-construction area for obvious signs of wind and water erosion? If so, for how long? What remedies will be available to the landowner where erosion has occurred outside of the ROW but is nevertheless a direct result of the pipeline construction? If an area has to be fenced off to allow for revegetation, how will erosion due to increased cattle movement along the fence line be addressed? 5.13 GEOLOGY Commenters expressed concerns that the pipeline could be affected by seismic activity or unusual geologic phenomenon. Specific questions from the public included: ? ? How could earthquakes affect pipeline integrity? The area north of the Niobrara River has experienced earthquakes in recent memory. What special measures will be taken to prevent earthquakes from damaging the pipeline? Will the pipeline be constructed in areas of karst topography? If yes, what measures will be taken to ensure safe construction and operation? 5.14 PROPERTY VALUES A common concern was that the pipeline would decrease property values. Some commenters questioned whether potentially diminished property values would make future generations reluctant to invest in farming in the area. 5.15 EASEMENTS Uncertainty exists surrounding the easements needed for pipeline construction and operation. Commonly asked questions included: ? ? ? ? Who is responsible for maintaining the easement? For example, who would remove trees? Can the landowner irrigate over the pipeline construction area? What is the width and depth of the easement? Does the landowner relinquish his or her mineral rights? Is it appropriate to give the power of eminent domain to a foreign company? 5.16 FARM OR RANCH OPERATIONS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE Many farmers and ranchers expressed concerns about how the pipeline would limit or impact their farming operations during construction and operation. Frequently asked questions included: ? Where the pipeline crosses through existing farmland, how will Keystone work with landowners during the growing season? How will Keystone avoid impacting irrigation systems, particularly pivot and gravity-fed systems, and their supporting infrastructure? Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Page 24 | July 2012 Feedback Report ? ? ? ? ? Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans ? How will construction be performed to avoid or minimize impacts on existing irrigation infrastructure, such as electrical power? Will Keystone compensate farmers for loss of income when their fields cannot be farmed, such as during construction? Will a permanent access road be needed? If so, who will maintain that road, and who will pay for the maintenance? How will construction affect drain tiles? Will Keystone restore the drainage where it is impacted? What provisions will be taken to prevent impacts on livestock during construction? For example, will Keystone ensure that construction crews close gates or that damaged fences are repaired or that activities are done at times that would avoid sudden or disturbing noises? What measures will Keystone take to ensure that topsoil that is removed for trench construction is replaced in the correct order? How will Keystone ensure the success of soil stabilization following construction and that the construction site is restored to a condition that will enable pasture or crops to quickly re-establish? 5.17 PUBLIC SERVICES Some commenters expressed concern about impacts on rural, farm-to-market roads as a result of heavy construction traffic. Concerns frequently expressed by the public included: ? ? Will roads be improved prior to construction? How will Keystone compensate local governments for damages done to roads during construction? Will roads be improved prior to construction? What special measures will Keystone use to avoid underground electrical cables, telephone lines, and fiber optic cables? 5.18 SPECIAL LAND DESIGNATIONS Specific concerns were raised about lands that are registered in federal programs for wetlands, grasslands, or other conservation reserve programs. Commenters asked if the pipeline would avoid these areas and, if not, how Keystone will compensate landowners for leaving the programs. Commenters also asked about properties that are now administered by the Nebraska Land Trust. Additional concerns of the public included: ? ? ? ? Will lands that are currently registered with USDA NRCS under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program, or the Grassland Reserve Program be avoided? Will lands under similar programs with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission be avoided? If not, how will the landowners be compensated for the loss of revenue from these programs? Will the landowners also be compensated for any penalties for leaving these programs? Will lands that are held in permanent easement for other uses, such as wetland mitigation, be avoided? If not, what provisions will be taken to compensate for the loss of use? Will lands administered by the Nebraska Land Trust be avoided? Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 25 Chapter 5, Issues Identified by Nebraskans Feedback Report 5.19 NATIVE AMERICAN AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Some commenters indicated that sensitive cultural and Native American sites are located within the corridor. Specific questions asked by the public included: ? ? Will the pipeline avoid areas of Native American burials, traditional cultural properties, and other archaeological sites? How will accidental discoveries of paleontological or archaeological sites during construction be handled? What procedures or mitigation measures will be in place to ensure the integrity of such discoveries? 5.20 OTHER ISSUES Several commenters raised questions about the mining of tar sands and the effects of this activity on global climate change. Others asked about the ultimate market for the oil, questioning why Nebraskans should bear the environmental burden of a product "just so they can sell it to China." While these issues may be important, they will not be discussed in NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report. In LB 1161, the Legislature directed NDEQ to evaluate the impacts on Nebraska of any route for an oil pipeline within, through, or across the state. The questions about tar sands, the end use of the oil, and the future use of the pipeline are beyond the scope of NDEQ's authority and legislative charge. Page 26 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 6 NDEQ COMMENTS In addition to public comments received, NDEQ has reviewed pertinent environmental data that is publically available as well as information provided by Keystone. This chapter describes NDEQ's comments regarding Keystone's corridor selection process, the proposed corridor identified in the Reroute Report, and field activities conducted between May and July 2012. 6.1 CORRIDOR SELECTION PROCESS NDEQ has reviewed Keystone's Reroute Report, which describes the route identification process and the criteria used during the corridor selection. From this review, NDEQ has found several items requiring clarification, as follows: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? In Section 2.9.4.1, Avoidance Areas - Large Scale, the conservation easements administered by the Nebraska Land Trust along the route appear to have been omitted. Keystone should explain how conservation easements were treated in its routing evaluations. Section 3.3, Geology, states that the geology beneath the Nebraska Reroute study area is detailed in Table 2; however, Table 2 is titled Constraints Analysis for Corridor Segments. Where is the corridor geology detailed? Section 3.7, Groundwater, mentions a 10-mile portion of the pipeline corridor where "no identified aquifer exists." However, there are a number of registered wells within and immediately adjacent to the corridor. How will aquifers not identified on reference material be identified by Keystone? In Table 2, Constraints Analysis for Corridor Segments, Option G is shown to be over 72 miles long but crossing only 0.1 mile of "Land use, Herbaceous/River/open water wetlands." Keystone should clarify this conclusion and provide the methodology used to determine this and other data in that table. What criteria, such as National Hydrologic Data criteria, were used to calculate the open water miles crossed? What criteria and methodologies were used to differentiate between pasture/hay, a forage crop, and the grassland/herbaceous group? The estimates for grasslands appear to be excessively high when compared to pasture. Regulatory criteria are offered as a factor in the selection of the preferred option; however, these criteria do not appear to be addressed in Section 5.0, Recommendation. What criteria were considered, and how were they used in the selection process? Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 27 Chapter 6, NDEQ Comments Feedback Report 6.2 PROPOSED CORRIDOR NDEQ finds that the proposed corridor as shown in the Reroute Report meets the intent of the Nebraska Legislature in avoiding the Sand Hills as defined by NDEQ in its press release dated December 29, 2011. However, there are areas along the proposed corridor where fragile soils and aquifer protection are concerns, as detailed below. 6.2.1 Fragile Soils NDEQ notes that the proposed corridor still crosses areas of fragile, sandy soils that are outside of the Sand Hills ecoregion but that have surface features very similar to the Sand Hills. These soils are identified as USDA NRCS Soil Survey wind erodibility groups 1 and 2, having wind erosion potential of greater than 134 tons per acre per year. Because of the erodibility of these soils, Keystone should carefully consider route variations that will avoid these areas. Keystone should also document and describe these considerations for NDEQ. Where avoidance is not possible, Keystone should document why avoidance is not possible and describe for NDEQ the measures that it will take to minimize disturbance to these areas. For unavoidable impacts, Keystone should describe the measures it intends to use to restore these areas to their original condition. This request is further discussed in Section 7.4.1 of this Feedback Report. 6.2.2 Aquifer Protection There are areas along the corridor in which only thin unconfined aquifers exist and contain no developed cropland (mainly north and west of Stuart, Nebraska). These aquifers often provide the only source of drinking water for local residents and livestock. Several of these areas approach the definition of Unusually Sensitive Areas as provided in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 195.6 regarding Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline. The Clarks Wellhead Protection Area, which is downgradient of the proposed corridor, also exists in a thin, unconfined aquifer. Keystone should carefully consider route variations that will avoid these thin, unconfined aquifers. Keystone should also document and describe these considerations for NDEQ. Where avoidance is not possible, Keystone should document why avoidance is not possible and describe for NDEQ the measures that it will take to protect groundwater quality in these areas. Where avoidance is not possible, Keystone should describe the measures it intends to use during and after construction to minimize impacts on groundwater supplies for human and livestock consumption. This request is further discussed in Section 7.4.2 of this Feedback Report. In areas adjacent to perennial streams (for example, Beaver Creek and the Elkhorn River), there are alluvial aquifers consisting of sandy soils and shallow depth to groundwater that provide the primary source of drinking water for livestock as well as for private drinking water wells. Keystone should describe the measures it intends to use during and after construction to protect these alluvial aquifers. 6.3 FIELD ACTIVITIES Keystone is conducting surveys of the proposed corridor to collect environmental resource data that will be used to determine the final route alignment. NDEQ conducted periodic observations of these field activities to determine that proper data collection and reporting techniques were used. Page 28 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 6, NDEQ Comments NDEQ finds that Keystone has conducted its field data collection efforts in a manner consistent with the standards of the industry. The environmental data collected and reported to date appear to be reliable and of acceptable quality. In addition, NDEQ noted that Keystone's field crews appeared sensitive to the public regarding access onto private property. For example, NDEQ observed that Keystone's crews verified through a land agent that access was granted prior to entering onto a tract of land. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 29 Chapter 6, NDEQ Comments Feedback Report This page intentionally left blank Page 30 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 7 INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM KEYSTONE Keystone's Reroute Report identified a 2,000-foot-wide proposed corridor that avoids the Sand Hills. This corridor has been refined to a 500-foot-wide corridor and is now being studied through field surveys for construction reclamation constraints, cultural resources, and biological resources (including wetlands). The results of these field surveys and related additional studies will be presented by Keystone in an Environmental Report that defines a proposed pipeline route. NDEQ anticipates that the information provided in Keystone's Environmental Report will, at a minimum, be similar in content to the information provided in its Reroute Report but will provide greater detail. NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report will focus on resources and issues of concern to the State of Nebraska and its residents, especially affected landowners. To that end, NDEQ has identified the following information that will be needed for its evaluation. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list, but rather a specific list of items that are of particular interest at this time. NDEQ expects to have further requests following Keystone's submittal of its Environmental Report in August 2012. 7.1 FACILITIES In its Draft Evaluation Report, NDEQ will describe the pipeline, including its configuration, construction methods, and related facilities. NDEQ requests the following information to prepare this description: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Mapping of the proposed alignment that shows preliminary mileposts (MPs), construction ROW, and additional temporary workspaces A table listing the additional temporary workspaces by preliminary MP and the reason why each is necessary A table indicating by preliminary MP where Keystone deviated from the corridor presented in the Reroute Report and the rationale for each deviation Preliminary locations and sizes of pipe storage yards, contractor yards, and railroad siding locations superimposed on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps Preliminary locations of construction work camps, if any, and the associated infrastructure that would be required for operation of these camps Electronic submittal of shapefiles with pipeline centerline and preliminary MP as well as construction ROW, additional temporary workspaces, and pipe storage yards A table indicating the land requirements for construction, including pipeline construction ROW, pipe storage yards, contractor yards, railroad sidings, and additional temporary work spaces Identification of existing roads used for construction access that would require modification, and what modifications are required Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 31 Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone ? ? ? ? ? Feedback Report Preliminary locations of pumping station facilities, including access roads, and power supplies Preliminary locations of new temporary and permanent access roads not associated with pumping stations, if any Preliminary locations of main line valves and in-line inspection facilities Approximate start and end points of construction spreads by preliminary MP Preliminary plan and profile drawings for each of the pumping stations illustrating noise attenuation and visual screening plans 7.2 CONSTRUCTION METHODS The Final EIS, published by DOS on August 26, 2011, contains information on standard construction methods. NDEQ requests that any changes to these methods pertaining to the Nebraska Reroute be identified and described in Keystone's Environmental Report along with an updated construction schedule. Additionally, NDEQ requests the following information associated with special construction methods: ? ? Provide a table indicating those areas (by preliminary MP) that Keystone anticipates will be marked for special construction techniques, such as wetland crossings or steep terrain. In Keystone's CMR Plan (which was provided in DOS's Final EIS as Appendix B), Section 4.3 states, "The objective of topsoil handling is to maintain topsoil capability by conserving topsoil for future replacement and reclamation and to minimize the degradation of topsoil from compaction, rutting, loss of organic matter, or soil mixing so that successful reclamation of the right-of-way can occur." Additionally, Keystone states, "In the process of constructing a pipeline, TransCanada takes great care to maintain the productive capability of all lands disturbed by construction by implementing topsoil conservation procedures. This activity supports reclamation and helps to maintain the land's productive capability." Confirm that Keystone will conserve topsoil in the following situations or provide environmental reasoning why topsoil will not be preserved: ? Actively row-cropped agricultural fields ? Non-active agricultural lands enrolled in CRP ? Alfalfa fields, hayfields, orchards, tree farms, and silvicultural areas ? Pasture, grassland, and prairie ? Sand-Hills-like areas outside the defined Sand Hills area ? Non-inundated wetlands and riparian areas ? Prior to grading ? Where necessary for weed control ? Developed areas with lawn or landscaping ? Where requested by landowner, tenant, or land-managing agency Page 32 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report ? ? Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone ? Provide a copy of each type of Construction Reclamation sheet. Address waterbody crossings as follows: ? List waterbodies crossed by preliminary MP, including crossing method, waterbody type, water quality information, and whether the waterbody is fishbearing. ? Provide preliminary site-specific crossing plans for perennial streams. ? Indicate whether riparian topsoil will be conserved, as noted in the CMR Plan (which was provided in DOS's Final EIS as Appendix B), Detail 11, at all stream crossings or only at drainages that have no flow at the time of the crossing. Provide environmental reasoning if topsoil will not be preserved above the Ordinary High Water Mark. ? The following statement is found on the Keystone website in the Environmental Responsibility section: "TransCanada is committed to minimizing its environmental impact along the proposed route." Provide justification for crossing flowing waterbodies by wet-trenching methods when flume or pumparound methods are feasible and would minimize environmental impacts associated with interruption of water flow and increased sediment-loading. Address HDD crossings as follows ? Provide an HDD plan for HDD crossings in Nebraska, including a frac-out contingency plan. ? The CMR Plan (which was provided in DOS's Final EIS as Appendix B), Detail 15, shows a typical drawing of an HDD river crossing. It shows "access for fresh water collection" paths on each side of the river, extending from the HDD workspace to the water's edge. Provide the following information about these paths: - Establish the proposed footprint for each water access location on plan sheets defining the corridor width, dimensions and location, relative to water's edge, of any workspace needed at the river. - For access locations that cannot be defined by the time of submittal, describe the criteria that will be used to establish these paths in the field. - Describe clearing and grading that might be necessary to establish these access routes, and how clearing and soil disturbance will be avoided or minimized. - Describe the impacts and acres of disturbance at each HDD crossing. - At each HDD crossing, list the amount of river water that will be used for purposes other than mixing bentonite and hydrostatic testing. - Describe any fuel tanks that will be positioned at the river and how long they will be deployed. - Describe the measures to be implemented to prevent and respond to spills. ? Provide an HDD Mitigation Plan that outlines steps that Keystone would implement if an HDD crossing failed. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 33 Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone ? Feedback Report Clarify the depth of cover that will be used. DOS's Final EIS, Appendix V, Item 19 indicated that 42 inches would be used at times. Other statements indicated that 48 inches would be the minimum in non-consolidated bedrock situations. 7.3 RESOURCES Keystone's Environmental Report should describe existing conditions and impacts for all resources that could potentially be affected by the Project. Items of specific interest to NDEQ include the following: ? ? ? ? ? ? Land use categories, including number of miles crossed, acres affected by construction, and acres affected by operation Location, by preliminary MP, of the following: ? Churches, residences, schools, daycare facilities, and other high consequence areas within 500 feet of the construction ROW ? Residences within 0.5 mile of HDD locations ? Water supply wells within 500 feet of the construction ROW (to the extent such information is made available by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services or from civil survey or landowner negotiations) ? Springs that are used as a water source within 500 feet of the construction ROW ? Wellhead protection areas, sole source aquifers, or other sensitive groundwater areas crossed ? Major roadway and rail crossings Site-specific construction plans for residences within 50 feet of the construction ROW Water well plan describing methods to protect wells and monitor impacts, and a contingency plan in the event that a well is damaged or water quality is affected by the Project Identification of recreation or special interest areas crossed or within 0.25 mile of construction ROW Preliminary hydrostatic test plan to include the following: ? Each test water source ? The specific discharge location for each intake ? Measures that Keystone will implement to prevent intake or impingement of fish during intake, and to prevent erosion and scour during discharge ? A description of how the pipeline is cleaned by the manufacturer and if any cleaning will take place in the field prior to hydrostatic testing ? A description of any additives (such as antifreeze) that might be introduced into test water ? Specific measures that Keystone will implement to prevent the spread of potential aquatic-borne invasive species, to the Project and within the Project, via construction equipment, including pumps, hoses, piping, splash pups, and other water-conveyance equipment Page 34 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone 7.4 MITIGATION NDEQ expects that Keystone's Environmental Report will clearly demonstrate that Keystone has followed the process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. Specifically, NDEQ requests mitigation measures as discussed in the following sections. 7.4.1 Sand-Hills-Type Conditions Chapter 6 of this Feedback Report notes that although the rerouted pipeline would not be in the formally designated Sand Hills ecoregion, certain characteristics of the Sand Hills may be present along some portions of the proposed pipeline alignment. These include the presence of a drinking water aquifer near the surface, very sandy soils, and poor revegetation potential. As such, Keystone should provide a detailed description of the measures that will be taken to ensure stabilization and restoration of these areas, as follows: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Keystone should clearly demonstrate the process for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating impacts in areas comprised of fragile soils or other features similar to the Sand Hills. Keystone should document the locations where variations have been made to the corridor submitted in its Reroute Report. Keystone should document why avoidance of these conditions is not possible and take every measure to minimize impacts and to monitor and continue to maintain reclamation areas until soil stability is returned to pre-construction conditions. These measures should be described in Keystone's Environmental Report. Keystone should describe the type and sourcing of seed mixes and soil amendments that will be applied annually to provide interim stabilization. Descriptions should include the frequency and methods of application and the criteria that will be used to measure success. Where the construction corridor crosses areas of native prairie, Keystone should describe seed mixes that will restore native grasses and forbs. The description should include the frequency and method of application, the criteria that will be used to measure success, and the methods that will be used to capture native seeds from the disturbed area. The sandy soils, coupled with high groundwater tables, suggest that trench instability could be challenging. Keystone should describe the construction measures to be taken to ensure trench stability. Keystone should describe its plans to control access in sensitive areas and to train construction personnel on the measures necessary to minimize impacts. Keystone should describe Best Management Practices that will be used for construction in the Sand Hills. Keystone should provide a fire management plan for construction in the Sand Hills. 7.4.2 Groundwater Quality Chapter 6 of this Feedback Report notes that the pipeline will cross areas having a thin, unconfined aquifer, or an aquifer that has sandy soils and a shallow depth to groundwater. In areas adjacent to perennial streams (for example, Beaver Creek and the Elkhorn River), there are alluvial aquifers consisting of sandy soils and shallow depth to groundwater that provide the Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 35 Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone Feedback Report primary source of drinking water for livestock as well as for private drinking water wells. As such, Keystone should provide a detailed description of the measures that will be taken to ensure groundwater protection in these areas. In addition: ? ? ? Keystone should carefully consider route alterations that will avoid these thin, unconfined aquifers. Keystone should also document and describe these considerations for NDEQ. Where avoidance is not possible, Keystone should document why avoidance is not possible. Where avoidance is not possible, Keystone should describe in its Environmental Report the measures it intends to use during and after construction to minimize impacts on groundwater supplies for human and livestock consumption. Keystone should describe the measures it intends to protect the Clarks Wellhead Protection Area. 7.4.3 Agricultural Areas Keystone should describe measures it will implement to mitigate impacts on agricultural facilities specific to Nebraska, including windbreaks, irrigation systems, electrical power, and drain tile. 7.4.4 Cultural Resources Keystone should provide a plan for the unanticipated discovery of cultural and paleontological resources during construction. Keystone should also indicate whether it intends to provide tribal monitors when construction occurs on traditional tribal lands. 7.4.5 Spills The potential for spills from the pipeline is a major concern expressed by the public. To better assess spill risk and potential impacts, NDEQ requests the following: ? ? ? ? ? ? Details regarding frequency and types of inspections to monitor pipeline integrity and conditions Spill risk assessment, including a worst case spill scenario (for example, the likely maximum volume of material that would be spilled and the distance it would spread on the surface and in the subsurface) and cleanup measures Description of the impacts (such as toxicity, difficulty in cleanup, and persistence in the environment) of a dilbit or synthetic crude spill compared to a spill of crude oil from sources other than oil sands Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the materials to be transported through the pipeline, including diluents Keystone's record for construction mitigation, environmental compliance, and incident reporting on the existing Keystone Oil Pipeline in eastern Nebraska Description of a spill response plan to include staging areas and how Keystone will interface with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and local firstresponders. Page 36 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone 7.4.6 Environmental Monitoring NDEQ anticipates two major elements that will require monitoring following construction. The first of these is the success of Keystone's reclamation efforts on fragile soils, wetlands, stream bed and banks, and areas of steep terrain. The second is to determine if there are any postconstruction effects on local and regional groundwater. Keystone's Environmental Report should include a preliminary plan for monitoring the corridor following construction. The plan should identify the following: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Resources to be monitored Analytical methodology Quality control requirements The minimum number of years monitoring will occur The frequency of monitoring A definition of success of restoration for the types of agricultural areas encountered along the alignment A definition of success in natural areas, especially in wetlands, areas of fragile soils, and in shelterbelts A commitment to achieve the stated definitions of success prior to termination of continued restoration and monitoring activities 7.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ARISING FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS To satisfactorily address concerns expressed by the public, NDEQ requests that Keystone provide the following additional information in its Environmental Report: ? ? ? ? ? Perhaps the most frequently asked question was: why didn't Keystone follow the same corridor as its first Keystone Oil Pipeline? Keystone should provide a clear and concise explanation of why this alternative was rejected. Keystone should avoid sensitive areas at perennial streams and stream banks wherever possible. Keystone should provide a summary of the construction mitigation and environmental compliance records for the first Keystone Oil Pipeline in eastern Nebraska. Keystone should describe the effects that the first Keystone Oil Pipeline may have had on property values along or adjacent to the pipeline. If such information is not readily available, Keystone should provide references of studies that speak to the effect of utility pipelines on adjacent land values. Keystone should describe the Incident Command System (ICS) used for its emergency response activity and should fully describe response times associated with personnel and caches of equipment along the proposed corridor. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 37 Chapter 7, Information Requested from Keystone Feedback Report This page intentionally left blank Page 38 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality CHAPTER 8 FUTURE STEPS This Feedback Report provides Keystone with a synopsis of issues that Nebraskans have shared with NDEQ about the Keystone XL Pipeline to consider as it plans its final proposed route. This Feedback Report also identifies issues that NDEQ will consider in its Draft Evaluation Report. A number of steps remain before NDEQ can present the Governor with an appropriate recommendation, as discussed in the following sections. 8.1 KEYSTONE'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Keystone is currently conducting field surveys to determine existing environmental conditions, such as the location of wetlands, types of vegetation cover, and existing land use (see Section 4.3 of this Feedback Report for a more comprehensive list of types of data gathered). Keystone will use these baseline data to inform its route selection process. Keystone's Environmental Report will identify the proposed route and the potential environmental effects of the Project. Additionally, Keystone should use the information provided in this Feedback Report to enhance its understanding of the public's concerns about the pipeline and, where appropriate, incorporate those concerns in its discussion of the proposed route of the pipeline. NDEQ has asked Keystone to avoid sensitive resources as it plans its proposed route. Where this is not possible, Keystone should document why avoidance is not possible and should specifically outline measures to minimize harm and/or provide appropriate mitigation. Keystone is expected to provide its Environmental Report to NDEQ in August 2012. Once Keystone provides this information, NDEQ will make it available to the public by posting it on the Project website. 8.2 NDEQ'S DRAFT EVALUATION REPORT NDEQ will review the information contained in Keystone's Environmental Report and will ultimately conduct an independent evaluation of the proposed route. This evaluation will be presented to the public as NDEQ's Draft Evaluation Report. The Draft Evaluation Report will assess the environmental, economic, social, and other impacts of the proposed Nebraska Reroute as prescribed by LB 4 and LB 1161. The report will also address concerns expressed by the public during the public information meetings held in May 2012. After the Draft Evaluation Report is published, NDEQ will conduct a public open house, followed by a public hearing, to solicit formal testimony regarding the Project. All comments received on the Draft Evaluation Report will be evaluated for consideration in NDEQ's Final Evaluation Report. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page 39 Chapter 8, Future Steps Feedback Report 8.3 GOVERNOR'S DECISION The Final Evaluation Report along with NDEQ's recommendation on the proposed pipeline reroute will be submitted to the Governor and will serve as the foundation of his recommendation to DOS regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline in Nebraska. DOS will use NDEQ's Final Evaluation Report as one of its resources in preparing its environmental documentation and will consider the Governor's recommendation in its decision to issue or deny Keystone's application for a Presidential Permit. Page 40 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Appendix Map Commenis from Public Meeiings Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Map Comments from Public Meetings During the public meetings, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) representatives received input regarding specific locations shown on the corridor maps that were provided for public review. Large scroll maps were laid across tables and were used to plot comments that were later recorded using geographic information system (GIS) coordinates. During the individual conversations, NDEQ representatives marked the location associated with a specific comment. The scroll maps are provided in 8.5 x 11 inch format in this appendix. The 174-mile reroute of the Keystone XL Pipeline through Nebraska is divided into a 10-map series. The first map (page 1 of 10) is located at the most northerly part of the reroute and the last map (page 10 of 10) the most southerly. The locations pointed out on the maps by the public are numbered. Each number correlates to an accompanying table that contains the comments. Comment numbers are not necessarily in numeric order on the maps because members of the public were able to comment on any part of the reroute during the public information meetings, and comments were numbered in the order in which they were received. Additionally, a CD containing a Google Earth file of the reroute and the related comments is included in the appendix for those who would prefer the flexibility to zoom and pan across the corridor. Please note that the photos that come up on Google Earth are not associated in any way with this project. Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-1 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Page A-2 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-3 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Page A-4 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-5 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Page A-6 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-7 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Page A-8 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-9 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Page A-10 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-11 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Table A-1. Map Comments Comment ID # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Comment House at this location; unnamed creek is 75 feet deep; TransCanada said they would go around the creek Cattle spring here; main water source Why can't it be next to the existing pipeline? Infrastructure is already there Eroded bank Erosion Wind Tower Location Tildon/Antelope/Madison how will they miss the abandonment? Have sandy soils whether or not they are in the Sand Hills. Have to manage soil the same as in the Sand Hills. Concerned with not classifying all sandy areas as the Sand Hills makes it easier for TransCanada. Water at surface Pivot well noted on map How full is pipe? How much would in a 20 mile stretch? High water table area Residence Residence Cattle yards and facilities Pivot well to east and north Land slides along the creek All Sand Hills are along here; saturate ground; can't clean up spill if it is 25 feet under the river; wrong place for a pipeline; there is a game and refuge to the south (Boyd County Game Refuge or similar name). Does not want in property Pivot Pond Well Pivot As facilities wells Dam for stock water Unique spring features at these locations; from PT10 to PT12 are erodible soils, all sand Many springs along the creeks in this area every 100 feet; highly erodible soils; steep terrain; also springs to south in Section 34, T33N, R16W Page A-12 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Comment ID # 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Comment Earthquake crack foundation of cabins. How does pipeline stand against? Springs from PT1 to PT10 are used to irrigate; Otter Canyon is saturated with springs Earthquake Boyd County. Four county area. Fault line runs East to West. Cracked basement walls NRD water monitoring well Domestic well that feeds ranch house. Unique spring features at these locations; from PT10 to PT12 are erodible soils, all sand Drilled dozen of wells around the place but only one well in the location produces water. Well is used for domestic and livestock. Domestic well at this location; lot of underground pipes for irrigation in this area Dam for stock water Dam for stock water Pivot with supply line beneath corridor Irrigation dam Water flow/drainage/well at each pivot/ 80 125' flow to North Drinking H2O well @ 66 ft deep, on shale, 3' diameter casing Domestic well at this location; very wet Dam for stock water Dam for stock water Windmill Dam for stock water Earthquake crack foundation of cabins. How does pipeline stand against? Cattle working facilities Dam for stock water Mobile home wellfield Domestic well; Richard Miles Francis Denray local well driller out of Atkinson Well for livestock Sensitive soils/Sand Hills boundary is off does not allow boundary shown on map Dam for stock water Well 80 foot deep ravine Beaver Creek Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-13 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Comment ID # 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Spring, domestic well at this location Lonnie Breiner livestock well Spring fed pond Stock well with windmill Windmill stock well Irrigation well Spring fed streams Comment Sec 8 Sec 15 T32 R15W very swampy and sandy; clay is underlying this area 5 30 ft deep, Breiner Ranch All sand and springs in this area Extremely wet ground/ Pristine wetland/ High water table Concern with pipeline leaks, native grasses, and protection of native birds. Direction of stream flow would bring contaminated water to property. Concern with pipeline leaks, native grasses, and protection of native birds. Direction of stream flow would bring contaminated water to property. Ground water contamination would ruin livelihood. Sandy soils and shallow water table means oil leak would contaminate the groundwater; wetlands nearby could be impacted by a spill. Six irrigation wells in the area hard time finding H2O This is a spring fed pond Concerned with impacts to wetlands; water table is very shallow, water ponds concerned with contamination Concern over tar sands water quality What's the second pipe for, is that to pump groundwater? Well Fertilizer Plant How can wildlife not be impacted by pipeline construction? Sandy soils and shallow groundwater. How will the pipeline affect water movement? Concerned with leak potential and pipeline devaluing property. Several springs around land owners 5 parcels, therefore concern with ground and surface water contamination. Unique landscape sand soil changes in close proximity/ wetlands throughout corridor very shallow water table/ natural springs/ aquifer cover entire area Truck and machinery will erode solid. Small deer trail can erode soil Concern with contamination because of soils. Boyd county where soils are clay. Concern with contamination because of soils. Boyd county where soils are clay. Page A-14 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Comment ID # 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Comment Pipeline WILL leak. Water flows southwest to northeast; will ruin us. Needs containment. Farms may be unaware of an oil leak until harvest. Pump stations for oil will drive up the price of power. Irrigation well Irrigation well Irrigation well (not in use) Gravel pit. Infiltration of water. Number of center pivots puts water table at risk. Monitoring of nitrates and solvents. This is where North Branch Eagle Creek starts with springs Domestic well Irrigation well Stop the pipeline in South Dakota and build a refinery there. All gravel soils versus coarse. Drains rapidly and quickly. Wells are 100 ft or less deep. Water supply is based on location. Cabin of earthquake comments/ NDOR bridge on brush creek/ land shifting Border of corridor on top of house Concern with government being pro oil and not considering needs of Nebraska. Concern with info saying if there is a leak, landowners are liable. Concern with pipeline leaking, rendering farms worthless for years. Existing route. Concern with government being pro oil and not considering needs of Nebraska. Concern with info saying if there is a leak, landowners are liable. Concern with pipeline leaking, rendering farms worthless for years. Existing route. Will cut across driveway, also across pivot. Want to negotiate with TransCanada for rent/royalties. Wonder why TC has not contacted yet. Windmill Six inches of top soil on property then gravel Erosion Lower Niobrara NRD opposed since beginning of XL pipeline/Do not cross Sand Hills and Aquifer why take risk when there are other alternatives? Research why TransCanada cannot put pipeline parallel to existing in NE Center pivot operation concern over long and short term crop yields (requested map) Well New tiling installed last week at this location Three sections affected by corridor North of Page. Shallow water 40 foot. Concerns with drinking water 50-55 feet. Wells is 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-15 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Comment ID # draining water from. 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Comment How full is pipe? How much would in a 20 mile stretch? Three sections affected by corridor Two pivots with wells at this location; also electrical wires and water pipes at 3 4 foot depth; if the pipeline were routed to the south of the main pivot, it would avoid wires and pipes Wells pivot has caved in twice because of the sand What is Cronk Reservoir (Saltz Lake?) Underground water building in trees/ fencing around property/ how will this be addressed? Concern of ground water in entire aquifer/ concern of taking groundwater from aquifer John Dietrich/ ponds/ 40 acre parcel/ Big Springs creek/ runs into Verdigre Creek Underground electric line at drawn dotted line Center pivots property within corridor Underground pipe at drawn dotted line Build refinery in Canada. Why is there a need to take it through US. Concern with pivot operation, tree removal, and destruction of wetlands. Wonder about potential benefits of the oil from the pipeline to Nebraska and the US. Fish hatchery/ trout hatch property/ Cold water hatchery/ 66 degrees year round/ great recreation area Pivot farming operation Areas of property are under water. Soil is greasy, peat moss like, making it difficult to mow. Concern with TransCanada ruining soil forever. Amazed state is avoiding Sand Hills, but not the Aquifer. Gravel pit/ homes/ fishing resort Diamond Trout Resort. Very large natural cold water spring Concern over containment of oil/ how long will corrosion measure last Center pivot well/ stockwell Irrigation well/ windmill Northwest corner/ underground Concern over Grove Lake in proximity and habitat; work creek (also requested hard copy map) Cows at this location. Landowner has concerns about people being on property for surveys and construction. Concern with backfilling the trench with different soils. Changing the route to the west would avoid creeks in area. Neutral on pipeline installation. What happens if there are problems down the road? Wonder how rivers and streams will be crossed. What does Nebraska get in return for the pipeline? How much money? 130 131 Page A-16 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Comment ID # 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Wet ground; cannot farm or cut hay Comment Build refinery in Canada. Why is there a need to take it through US. Concern with pivot operation, tree removal, and destruction of wetlands. Don't want pipeline on land. Snow could melt over pipeline due to eat. Concern with spill risk cannot clean it efficiently. Landowner is responsible for cleanup. Wet ground; cannot farm or cut hay Build refinery in Canada. Why is there a need to take it through US. Concern with pivot operation, tree removal, and destruction of wetlands. Dairy farm denied due to large natural spring affect/ fish hatchery Sharp bend in angle of May be more appropriate for erosion/ How long between maintenance/ stability with pipeline Wetlands at this location; pipeline will transect East Verdigre Creek watershed lengthwise Concern about fertilizer facility Headwaters of Verdigre Creek and trout rearing station Live near Russell Lake where spring fed gravel pit is 20 70 ft deep. Project is fine as long as there are no disasters. Corridor is not far enough away from Sand Hills. Positives for the US? Really sandy at this location; spills will go right through; also concerned about new shelter belts and irrigation Just planted new trees 2 years ago; 4 5' high Build refinery in Canada. Why is there a need to take it through US. Concern with pivot operation, tree removal, and destruction of wetlands. All blow sand at this location; aquifer present; concerned about spills and who would clean up Most of this quarter has never been broke (native grass short prairie) Dugout Got to be careful of irrigation well and pivot at this location; who maintains the permanent right of way (keeping trees from growing) Pasture could be planted. Concerned about spotback relation to a pipe. Trees adjacent. Trees within proximity need maintained. Plan for new fence and pasture well. Sensitive ground to machinery Livestock well I don't want the pipeline on my land. I wish my property was opposite the flow of water (steams) Highly erodible land. Farmers who follow Conservation Reserve Program and no tilling. Took years to prep ground for no till farming. Only beginning to see the benefits currently. Concerned about underground utilities electric and telephone 150 151 152 153 154 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-17 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Comment ID # 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Comment Concern over what measures pollution of and concern over mitigation safety/ secure land owner rights Very wet. Could not farm Concern with shallow water table and impacts on water quality. The heat of oil will dry out soil. Concerned with solvents and detergents in oil; once they are in soil, can't be cleaned. Concerned with combustibility of oil Very high water table/ livestock Well Concern with shallow water table and impacts on water quality. The heat of oil will dry out soil. Concerned with solvents and detergents in oil; once they are in soil, can't be cleaned. Concerned with combustibility of oil See comment form from John Dittrich Want information on the timing of construction when will it be happening at this location Live near Russell Lake where spring fed gravel pit is 20 70 ft deep. Project is fine as long as there are no disasters. Corridor is not far enough away from Sand Hills. Positives for the US? Map request springs/ Electricity who pays for power upgrades? Noise level on pump stations Center pivot Registered well (irrigation) Pivot farming operation Structure with corridor Pipeline is okay as long as it stays off my land Building site Wind Tower Location Tildon/ Antelope/ Madison how will they miss the abandonment? Wondering if electric line for pump station will go through this location; substation is already located to east Homestead: parents of Robert Homestead Homestead: Robert Kroaen Natural gas line E W (1950 install) 2 sets Tree line; CRP how does pipeline go through reestablish. How are CRP contracts broken? What about compliance to make sure things are restored Pivot well noted on map Pivot well to east and north Pivot underground electrical 440V 3 phase well Page A-18 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation Feedback Report Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Comment ID # 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 Comment Pivot gas along dot 2/3 well on 80 between pivots Pivot well Center Pivot Concern over all water crossings/ small or large well water House/ Barn/ Homestead Conservation Easement NW1/4 Sec. 8 T19N R5W, Native American Village Site Very swampy ground on both sides of Beaver Creek by Boone The town of Boone, Nebraska Building and farm facilities Very swampy ground Not actual location/ research on naturally occurring tar pits in general facility Homestead Hog lined lagoon/ PST high nitrogen in soil Very sandy soil 4 buried irrigation pipelines run across this property, 3 registered irrigation wells Subsurface drip irrigation Loup River bank restoration High GW table Wind break right through the middle Irrigation well concerned about timing This area floods Concern with shallow water table and contamination. Can see water fill in hole when digging. Disapprove with foreign company imposing eminent domain. Wonder why an existing N/S pipeline be used or put the new one next to it. Irrigation well Drinking water wells to cattle Owner is very ill and cousins are worried about him being taken advantage of. Lateral pipe for irrigation; 4 wells in corridor in this location Feed lot: 2 3 miles NW of line concern is well contamination Kalamazoo spill Artifacts archaeological/ Ancient artifacts found As facilities wells Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation July 2012 | Page A-19 Appendix, Map Comments from Public Meetings Feedback Report Comment ID # 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 Location of church and cemetery Church and cemetery Comment Concerned with impacts to wetlands; water table is very shallow, water ponds concerned with contamination Homestead Natural springs Groundwater 4 5 feet below surface, shale approximately 30 feet deep Substation property is already purchased Ground for pumping station already purchased by TransCanada for lots of money Location of domestic well, very sandy, groundwater standing in ditches Residence close to proposed pumping station. Concerned about noise and shallow groundwater Residence with domestic well, concerned about noise from proposed pumping station, safety of kids and impact to groundwater. Domestic well High water level during a dry season, water standing in ditches Shallow to groundwater and sandy, worried about spills destroying soil. Has a domestic and irrigation well Page A-20 | July 2012 Nebraska's Keystone XL Pipeline Evaluation