You are on page 1of 217
compressed air (see Equipment Cleaning Station Detail, Attachment D) as determined by the El. + The Contractor will implement revegetation activities as promptly as possible following construction and during the optimal seeding and planting window. An adequate vegetative cover greatly reduces the opportunity for invasion by noxious weeds. «The Contractor will only apply fertilizer to reclaimed areas as directed by the jurisdictional land management agency, El, or if requested by the landowner. Ferilizer is known to enhanos the growth of noxious weeds, = The Contractor must identify the source of straw/hay bales and mulch used for erosion control to verify that itis noxious weed-free. + All seed will be certified noxious weed-free, «Imported gravel and fil material will be source-identified by the Contractor and approved by Keystone to ensure that the originating site is noxious weed-free, 5.2 Treatment Methods Noxious weed treatment will be in accordance with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, County regulations, and jurisdictional land management agency or landowner agreements. Post-construction control measures may include one or more of the methods listed below. © Mechanical methods will include han¢-pulling, mowing or discing weeds. If these methods are used, subsequent seeding may be conducted to re-establish a desirable ‘vegetative cover that will stabilize soils and slow the potential re-invasion of noxious weeds. © County, State, and Faderally-approved herbicides will be utilized to control noxious weed populations at select sites, Applications will typically be controlled to minimize impacts ‘on surrounding vegetation (i., specific plants will be targeted). In areas of dense infestation, a broader application will be used and a follow-up seading program implemented if needed. The timing of subsequent revegetation efforts will be based on the life of the selacted herbicide and appropriate seeding windows. Herbicide application is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.0 «Inthe event an area is not seeded until the spring following construction because of weather or scheduling constraints, all annual weed species and undesirable vegetation that have become established may be mechanically removed (e.g. disking, harrowing) as part of the seedbed preparation. 5 WAESTECH Environmental Services, Inc ‘October 2010, evsed March 2033 Keystone XL Pipeline Project Nebraska Noxious Weed Monogernént Pla ‘+ Keystone will respond to landowner reports of post-construction noxious weeds on or adjacent to the right-of-way or above-ground facilties. Where it is determined that new populations have becom established, or weed density or extent exceeds that which ‘occurred in pre-construction circumstances, Keystone will either treat directly, treat via county or private contractor, or reimburse the landowner for reasonable costs associated with the treatment of documented weeds. Mechanical/cultural control methods or herbicide treatments will be considered. + Under certain circumstances it may be necessary or desirable to clear herbaceous and woody vegetation in advance of grading operations (i.e, pre-clearing). Depending on site conditions, pre-clearing could have the potential to cantribute to noxious weed dispersal due to soil disturbance and/or the spreading of plant parts. Keystone will implement the following measures to avoid or minimize the spread of weeds during pre~ clearing: © Allpre-clearing equipment will arrive on site clean and free of noxious weed seeds or parts; © Vegetation will be cut as close to the ground as possible without disturbing the soil surface; © Pre-clearing operations will be reassessed in the event that soils become muddy (via thawing or rain). Keystone may temporarily suspend pre-clearing until conditions improve ar use methods that reduce soll disturbance, e.g., hand- clearing in lieu of mechanized equipment; © Depending on site conditions, relevant practices outlined sisewhere in this Weed Management Pian will be implemented per Keystone direction, Treatment methods will be based on species-specific and site-specific conditions (e.g. plant phenology, proximity to water or riparian areas, agricultural activities, ime of year) and will be coordinated with landowners and local regulatory agencies. 5.3 Education Keystone and the Contractor will provide information to their employees regarding noxious weed Identification, reporting, and Impacts on agriculture, livestock, and wildlife. The eritical importance of preventing the spread of noxious weeds in uninfested areas, and controlling the proliferation of weeds already present will be explained, The importance of adhering to measures to prevent the spread of noxious weeds will be stressed, Keystone X Pipeline Project 6 WESTECH Environmental Services, In Nebraska Noxious Weed Management Pion (October 2010, Revised Morch 2013 6.0 HERBICIDE APPLICATION, HANDLING, SPILLS, and CLEANUP Herbicides will be utilized on a limited basis during the pre-construction phase and as the primary control method during the post-construction phase. Herbicides used on the Project will first be approved by the county weed supervisor in the county in which they would be used 6.1 Herbicide Application and Handling Prior to herbicide application, Keystone or the Contractor will obtain any required permits from the Project area counties. A contractor who is licensed in herbicide application will handle, store, and complete herbicide application in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) herbicide label instructions will be strictly followed. ‘Application of herbicides will be suspended when any of the follawing conditions exist: «Wind velocity exceeds 6 miles per hour for application of liquids or 15 miles per hour for application of granular herbicides; + Snow orice covers the foliage of noxious weeds; or «Precipitation is occurring or is Imminent. \Vehicle- mounted sprayers (e.g. handgun, boom, injecter) will be used primarily in open areas that are readily accessible by vehicle. Hand application methods (e.g. backpack spraying) that target individual plants will be used to treat small, scattered weed populations in rough terrain. Calibration checks of equipment will be conducted at the beginning of spraying and periodically to ensure that proper application rates are being achieved Herbicides will be transported to the Project site with the following provisions: ‘+ Concentrate will be transported only in approved containers and in @ manner that will prevent tipping or spilling, and in a compartment that is isolated from food, clothing, and safety equipment; and = Mixing will only be conducted on-site and only at a distance greater than 300 feet from open or flowing water, wetlands, or other sensitive resources. All herbicide equipment and containers will be inspected daily for leaks. 6.2 Herbicide Spills and Cleanup ‘Allreasonable precautions will be taken to avoid spilling herbicides. [n the event of an herbicide spill, cleanup requires immediate action. A spill kits required in contractor vehicles used for herbicide application and in herbicide storage areas, Items to be included in a spil kit include: Keystone Xt Pipeline Project 7 WESTECH Environmental Series, inc Nebraska Noxious Weed Menagertent Pon ‘October 2010, Revited Morch 2033 ‘= Protective clothing and gloves; * Adsorptive clay, ‘kitty litter,” or other commercial adsorbent; ‘= Plastic bags and bucket; = Shovel; » Fiber brush and screw-in handle; * Dust pan; © Caution tape; * Highway flares (use on established roads only); «Detergent; and «Plastic gerbage bags, Response to an herbicide spill will vary with the size and location of the s| procedures include: but general * Traffic control; Dressing the cleanup team with protective clothing; «Stopping the leaks; * Containing the spilled material; * Cleaning up and removing the spilled herbicide and contaminated adsorptive material and soll; and «Transporting the spilled pesticide and contaminated material to an authorized disposal site. 6.3 Worker Safety and Spill Reporting All herbicide contractors will obtain and have readily available copies of the appropriate Material and Sefety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the herbicides being used. Herbicide spills will be reported in accordance with all applicable laws and requitements, Herbicide contractors will adhere to protocols set forth in the Keystone XL Spill Prevention, Containment, Countermeasure and Cleanup Plan. 7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TREATMENT The foous of Keystone's weed management program is to protect weed-free perennial vegetation types by monitoring and treating new or expanded post-construction weed populations within the Project work area, Monitoring and management of pre-existing noxious weeds in agricultural areas will be conducted on a case-by-case basis in response to landowner reports. The distribution and density of noxious weeds will be monitored following Project construction in all native vegetation types. In cultivated fields and non-native pastures, monitoring surveys would occur in response to landowner reports. Surveys will be conducted as early in the year as feasible to identity and control noxious weeds before they produce seed. Noxious weeds, if Keystone Xt Ppetine Project 8 WESTEOH Eavronmantal Serves, ne Nebraska Novious Weed Management Plan ‘October 2010 Revises March 2012 present, will be documented on separate noxious weed inventory forms (Attachment E). Percent cover, phenology, infested area and density (stems/0.01-acre) of weed species will be oculariy estimeted, Estimates will be made for the entire problem area, comparing disturbed and adjacent areas, and may include a range of species cover and density values. Noxious weed populations within the Project will be located with a GPS unit. Weed monitoring will be conducted in conjunction with overall revegetation monitoring for two growing seasons in native uplands and three growing seasons in wetlands consistent with the CMRP. Treatment of noxious weeds would occur if one or more of the following three criteria are met: 1. Anew noxious weed population is confined fo the right-of-way; 2. Anoxious weed population is expanding via the right-of-way; and/or 3, Anoxious weed population is impeding revegetation establishment. Weed treatment will be discontinued if weeds are not present for two consecutive years or if ‘adjacent populations are so extensive that continued treatment and monitoring of the right-of- way would be ineffective 8,0 REPORTING ‘An annual repott will be prepared that details weed control activities during the pre-construction and construction periods. The report will describe baseline conditions (occurrence, distribution, and abundance) of noxious weed species located in the Project area, weed control activities accomplished to date, and anticipated activities for the following year. Subsequent annual reporis will: 1) detall the current status of noxious weed occurrence, distrioution, and abundance; 2) summarize activities conducted in the Project area during the previous year; and 43) oulline projected activities for the following year. Reported data will also include survey dates, herbicide treatments, amount and types of chemicals applied, and a list of participants and their activites. 9,0 REFERENCES NAC (Nebraska Administrative Code) Title 25, Chapter 10 — Noxious Weed Regulations, Noxious Weed Control Act. 2010. Intemet. August 2010. Available’ http:/Awww.agr.state.ne.usfregulete/opvacibb.him#957 Sheley, RL; M. Manoukin, and G, Marks, 1999. Preventing Noxious Weed Invasion, pages 69- "72 in, RL, Sheley and J.K. Petroff, editors, Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 9 WESTECH Environmental Series, Ine. Keystone Xt Pipstine Project (Gcrober 2010, Revised Morch 2013 Nebraska Noxlous Weed Manogement Pen United States Department of State. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Keystone XL Project. Avellable: htto://kevstonepipeline- alstate.gov/tinalseis/index.htm Keystone XL Pipeline Project 10 WESTECH Environmental Services, In. ‘ebrosko Noxious Weed Mancgement Plan (October 2020, Revised March 2013 ATTACHMENT A WESTECH Enviranmental Services, nc Ketone Xt Pipeline Project nr i ‘tober 2010, Revised Morch 2013 Nebraska Novious Weed Monagement Plan ‘Attachment A. Nebraska Designated Noxious Weeds State Noxious Weeds Common Name ‘Scientific Name Canada thistle Cirsium arvense ‘Common reed Phrogmites australis Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspitadum Musk thistle Carduus nutans Plumeless thistle Corduus acanthoides Purple loosestrife lythrum salicaria Saltcedar Tamarix ophyla,T. chinensis, 7 galica, parviflora end T. romosissima Serices lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa County-designated Noxious Weeds County Name Common Name Scientific Name ‘Antelope None Z Boone None = Fillmore Flodman thistle Cirsium fladmanii Tall thistle Cirsium oltissimum Garfield None 3 Greeley None 7 Hamilton ‘None = Holt None : Jefferson None : Keya Paha None z Merrick None : Nance None : Rock. Bull thistle Girsium vulgare Saline None e Wheeler None é York None 5 Keystone Xt Ppeline Project Attachment A WESTECH Environmental Services, In. Nebraska Noxious Weed Management Plan ‘Moreh 2012 ATTACHMENT B WESTECH Envronmental Services, Ine. Keystone Xt Ppeline Project (October 2010, Revised March 2013 Nebraska Noxious Weed Management Plon Attachment B Noxious Weed Pre-Construction Survey Keystone XL Pipeline Project tune 2018 SouNONRANE scermcTaN vmueostsTa | ror a ii Cons aa? as Ta ise Corba as ue Tas se ese as eis 4s sie ersten cas 508 rk se cedar aaa ss os Gris Citar ar war e573 Tas caf ai sora? 738 ussite cides aes eras eas Toe cae w199 e789 nus ie olan ine 80s oat nisi Cais os anes 076 Canad ile Grin ae 8 aa ea ee 96 Muskie cians 501 a8 rss Cres ea e520 Ts hie ea e875 e571 asia cabana cass eines Foro ina sta ie 636 Mase Cas tens e798 eas Sed raped Corres macs aI wn ase coda 839 528 ie ana 70 eas vac Geant tes e55 1.70 Tara ate ism ore shar as Sone repueed iota nas stat ease Sse repueed = 5865 ess Tete perio a7 5 Cetyinurae/Spored raped | _ PTB sl ero 838 28 saad oad Gitarss a ai ears iad apoeed Taina tl en es ite corsa am esas Sore apweed ara al 8 es See iepnced carer eas ei chad apie Centre ec eas ssa Attachment B Noxious Weed Pre-Construction Survey Keystone XL Pipeline Project tune 2018 Too RANE Scie NATE TmueposrsTanT | _MuEPOSTENO us hie cordon ses e207 Mak he corde nts e508 508 pated napueed Centers malea 5895 66897 Spotedknapuced enue monn 358 77360 Spotted Koapwees entre ina e716 o38 Spotted krapweed Centura massa 7109 30 Spoted napveed Centura moclna or e730 stile Conds tan Tass oo pSted vapbend nua tia? || eee ne 7900 7823 Trak le ore ton waa eas Mk hile Cords tan a8 ena Tey pu fuphota ela 2235 38 ten purge fuphoto eo ee es maskin cards uns 8.65 9.6 rhe cond nan 251 oa Canada ism orvenee on eet is tile conde ton 70088 708s ens Condon 7872 70578 Maik hale Cords ans 706.8 706.09 Tak hte /stysge| | Crs utr fuphorio ela 7337 79.82 nade hte sum aveie 7931 70932 uk ae conde ans 7956 7005 shite corde stan 728 Tia ask hse cords stn 710 maa? Tea pure Euphorbia 776 7388 ety sno Fuphotla ene 73¢ 71535 eye phar ee TSS 7851 tenure pari ela 7st 7182 skh ards son 730 ist Must condsraton Tas ait Muse hte ards ts Tat cm Tey pee opera ena aaa ras musthte ord tere 755 7656 TT Tt / Canes sie | Grd nvtand/ Gham anrse 7260 72558 Tush cords tas a7 788 ste ord ta or 7838 Attachment B Noxious Weed Pre-Construction Survey Keystone XL Pipeline Project June 2014 ‘COMMON NAME SCIENTIFICNAME MILEPOSTSTART | MILEPOST END ‘Canada thistle Grsium orvense 748.78 7878 Music thistle Corduus nutors 7 75187 Musk ttle Corduus nutans 75205) 721 Leafy spurae Euphorbia esulo 752.88 7528s Lesfysnuree Euphorbia esula 754s 75482 Muskthistle Carduus nutans 758.88 758.85 “Musk thistle /Canada thistle Carauus nutans/Grsm arvense 759.33 759.36 Musk thistle Cordvus nutors 755.55, 76002 Musk thistle Cordous nutors| 760.08 760.08 Musk thistle Cordivs nutors| 760.45 760.48) Musk thistle Cordaus nutons 761.28 761.30 Leafy spurae Euphorbia ela 761.68 77a Leafy spurge Euphorbia esulo 76182 75198 lestyspuree Euphorbia esula 76157 75188 Musk thistle Cordaus nutans 757.88 758.24 Musk thistle Cordaus tons 7.88 ed Musk title Corduus nutans 72.00 Tras Musk tristle ‘Corduusnutons 7502 7502 Musk thle | Corduus nutans Tat 77523 Canada thistle isto arvense: 832.80 23285 Muskthistle ‘Corduus nutans 346.86 5a Mosk thistle Cordis nutans 319.67 29.57 Musk thistle Corduus nutans 353.95 53.98 ATTACHMENT C WESTECH Emionmental Services, Ine keystone Xt Pipeline Project or ‘October 2010, Revised March 20:3 Nebrasko Nevious Weed Monagerent Pian ESSARY) SKID PADS. EXIT (CLEAN) = sen STABLE SURFACE PRESSURE WASHER: Pal === ll ENTRY (ORTY) pl COARSE GRANULAR FILL GP REQUIRED) ILTER FABRIC sK108" SECTION AA NOT TO SCALE WASH STATION NOTES: 4. Allequipment and vehicles ere required to be cleaned at wash station jocations shown on the Construction Drawings or as directed by the Environmental Inspector. Wash stations will be constructed by the contractor. Washings willbe carried out under the supervision and to satisfaction of the Environmental Inspector. Wash water used for cleaning will not be allowed to enter any waterbody, wetland, or irigation canalfdtch, Any scils contaminated by petroleum-based, or other undesirable materials from wash stations will be removed, The size of station will be adequate to accommodate the maximum size of equipment expected Equipment will consistently enter the "Dirty End’ and exit the ‘Clean End”. Stable drainage from the site willbe provided (If necessary). No discharge to streams or wetlands will be allowed. Wash stations willbe equipped with skid peds or wash racks to prevent sol form being carried on tracks cr tires as equipment and vehicles exit the wash station. Skids are to be cleaned each time a piece of equipment is cleaned. Gravel fil (f required) and fer febric will be removed and disposed of in an acceptable land fil ‘The depression will be backfiled with bermed material Cleaning sites wil be monitored during the post construction monitoring program and weeds will be controlled per the Noxious Weed Management Plan. ATTACHMENT C KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT EQUIPMENT WASH STATION DETAIL ATTACHMENT D. WASTECH Environmental Services ne. Keystone XL Pipeline Project vie i ‘October 2010, Revised March 2013 ‘Nebraska Naxious Weed Management lon NAT(S) OR EQUAL TOPSOIL SUBSOIL/SPOIL (IF ANY) NOTE THAT FILTER FABRIC OR ‘STRAW BARRIER 1S REQUIRED IF SUBSOL/SPOW IS TO BE PLACED ON TOPSOIL MAT(S) OR EQUAL TOPSOIL SUBSOIL/SPOIL (IF ANY) FILTER FABRIC_OR. ‘STRAW BARRIER (IF REQUIRED) NOT TO SCALE CLEANING STATION NOTES: ‘All equipment wil be required to be cleaned at equipment cleaning stations located as shown on the Construction Drawings or as directed by the Environmental nspecor. Stockpile topsoil/subsoll as shown or in any configuration approved by the Environmental Inspector. Shovels or other hand tools end/or compressed ait wil be used fo remove es much soll as practicable from tracked equipment, Effort willbe focused on tracks and blades, \fconditions are muddy, wheeled equipment wil also be cleaned using hand tools fo remove excess soll from tires and whee! wells. Cleaning will be conducted on construction mats or other raised surface to minimize reattachment of soil that has been previously removed. Mats wil be cleaned between each plece of equipment. Sol collected during the cleaning process willbe stockpiled at a convenient location near the cleaning station and disposed ofn an acceptable tan fl I the soll has a significant component of subsoil it wil be placed over the backfiled trench or inthe adjacent spol storage area, and subsequently covered with topsoil. Ifthe land owner does not approve af on-site disposal, he soil will be taken to an approved disposal st Soils contaminated with oll or grease will be removed and disposed of in accordance withthe Project SPCCC Pian, ATTACHMENT D KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT EQUIPMENT CLEANING STATION DETAIL ATTACHMENT E Keystone XL Ppeine Project WESTECH Environmental Senices, Ine. Nebraska Nexious Weed Management Plon ‘October 2010, Revised March 2023 NEBRASKA PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOXIOUS WEED INVENTORY FORM. KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT STATE: SPREAD: | GPS POINT: ‘STATION SEGMENT: Nebraska 7 8 9 10 SITE: eames lovmership: PRIVATE STATE FEDERAL Photos [PAE [Noxious Weed Species, Cover, Phenological Stage, and Estimated Density within Project Spec a oe ee) ‘Veg Flwr Seed <1 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-50* 50-100* >100* a rts sa wean 2050 SOI 00 ‘Veg Flwr Seed <1 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-50" 50-100* >100* ‘Veg Flwr Seed <1 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-50* 50-100* >100% Noxious Weed Species, Cover, Phenologlcal Stage, and Estimated Density Adjaceot to Project ‘Veg Fr Seed <1 15 5.10 1020 20480 50-100 >100 Veg Five Seed <1 14 5.10 1020 2050 $0-100 >100 Veg Flr Seed <1 15 10 1020 2050 $0-100 >100 Veg Fle Sood <1 15 510 100 20450 50-100 >109 Veg Fle Seed <1 1 510 1020 2050 $0-100 >100 Site Consitions (adjacent land us; existing disurbance including livestock wif, vehicula, burning, erosion) fo ‘Weed Origination, if known (adjacent, elsewhere ftom project, other) Comments/Recommendations No Action Mositor ‘General Guideline for Preventive Weed Control on ROW only! ‘infestation >20 stems/0.03 acre & extends ‘more than 100 fet in length, consider topsoil stripping. Record GPS poist above. Soil Swipring? YN © __(w)x__() Herbicife? YN Equipment Cleaning? YN. ‘Note: Flap/sign ste only if control recommended, Hand-puled weeds within project Guring inventory? YN \Westech, P.O, Box 6045, Helena, MT $9604, Fax; 406-442-9205, Cel: 406-459-9908 ‘Westech 2010 & ATTACHMENT F Keystone XL Pipeline Project WESTECH Environmental Sences, Ine Nebraska Noxious Weed Menegement Plan October 2040, Revised Morch 2013 [Aspen F. County and State Weed Superlsor Contacts In Nebrssa, Revised March, 2033 oamiow nae nooness [aw [sme] 7%] vasmione | au ea Tansey Lease aston Stara Tees | [er [res |_| faa recor [area Tee ee [aoa [raat narra — amt Tae [oar ve [eT eT EEE a Lecrietsestnme Taare [a —— a [a | RT Leama — oss ——— [Stas TRSTT | —-|aa Lenrwadnacneae —lermst [See aT ae eat ermeraran Toren ae —Terioel Tar ERT T [earworm meee Toa Toe [oe [ee] I bearwetieeranae poate [ae ee [oer T Jcoemeestnteanre crc escent | ein | ne | ss frarsoe APPENDIX F — Construction/Reclamation (Con/Rec) Units CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: CROP. aa KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY, ‘UNIT NAME: CROPLAND UNIT coDi CROP | Unrr DESCRIPTION: — | Farmed cropland inclodes areas of agcultora production thet are tiled elther annually or ‘ecaslonaly. Agricultural products include whest, 4 com, milo, oats, soybezns, and afl UNIT LOCATION: ‘Cropland occurs on alls Keystone XL Stele City Project. Primary areas include central Montana, central and su ta, and southern UNIT GOALS: 7 Maintain sl produetivy and prevent accelerated erosion, » Complete all work tostandards {pecifiedin the CMA Plan, contract documents and Detls, applicable permits, easement descriptions, and Keystone’ satisfaction. SPECIAL T.Agrleultual terraces may be presert within tis Cor/Ree Unit nd willbe reconstructed as rected CONSIDERATIONS: by keystone 2._sSeeing ul be completed by the tandower ules terse dete by Keystone, CONSTRUCTION ow work; | Tyla 420 : CLEARING 7s sectes inthe CUR Fa DDITIOHAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless ohare drectesby Keystone TOFGOILSALAGE | Bsspecies inthe CMR Plantomaitan the tops resource and relanation potential ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Salvage topsol horizon at deaths shown on Alignment Sheets or as drected by Keystone | _Thetypical topsoil salvage depth is ~ 12 inches. TRENCING: | Asselin the cin Pen, “ DDMIOWAL REQUIREMENTS: None unis ther decd by estore aor, | Respected inthe CMA Fan toavld suming ovr the enc, relve compaction, andimatch Decontpacriow ano | adjacent topeeaahy. AEGRADING: ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS: None uns others directed by Keystone TEMPOTAIYEROSON [ Arspelfe nthe CMI ian and avthrined by Keytora tom us, prevent ote seein CONTROL: tf ereion and accelerated erosion onthe ROW. RECLAMATION ‘SEEDBED ] Prepare seedbed as pectin the CMRP. PREPARATION: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Dirt clods should sypiealy be smaller than 3-4 ches élmeterto sid n wind and water erosion control, and ifnat being seeded by Keystone. | Siig wETHOD, Seeding willbe completed bythe Landowner unless etheruize decied by Keystone, Whe SEED MIXANO RATE: | pote or eroslan high an annusl cover erop may be seeded as directed by Keystone, | SEEDING DATE Not applcble = = ‘MULCHING AND Mulching anl mating wil type not be completed within this Con/fec Un. the poterl for MATTING: ‘reson high an annual cover cop or miching maybe requred as directed by Keystone. “SLOPEAND TRENCH | Slope breakers will picaly nat be constructed within tis Con/Rec Unit, Trench breakers willbe ‘BREAKERS: ‘constructed where directed by Keystone ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A Reconstruct agricultural terraces as described in the CMRP and as directed by Keystone, ‘MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Tr Provide for veriock and wildlife access neross the ranch at locations convenient to livestock and the landowner 1 necessary. 2. Construction and reclamation practices may be medified from those presented to sult ste conditions or permit requlrements with Keystone approval 3. Monitor sll tality post construction WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc Helena, MT CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: CRP KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY UNIT NAME: CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM, UNIT CODE: ‘CRP ONT DESCRIPTION: Tands envied in the Conservation Reserve Program (P| under contract withthe USDA Farm Service Agency, Landowners convert erocible or fenlronmentalysenstve acreage to native grasses for introduced grasses and forbs, widife plantings, ‘ees, oF riparian buffers per the terms ofa mult: year contact UNIT LOCATION: Zared troushout Projecs Refer to Aignment Sheets and/or Keyetone eld verifiation fr specie locations REGIAMATION GOALS: + Restore topography similar to adjacent conditions. «Insure that lands enalled inthe CRP program are Teseeded with appropriate seed mix and that lands remain elgble for enrolment inthe CRP program. ‘brevent erosion, « Adequately decompact soll,» Complete all work to standards speciid by CMB Plan, Contract documents and details, applicable permits, Keystone satisfaction, and per the FSM/landawner contract ‘CONSTRUCTION, ROW WIDTH: Typically 110 eet = ‘CLEARING: ‘As spacied’n the CMR Pla “ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Nane unlass otherwise directed by Keystone. TOPSOILSALVAGE! | As specified in the CMR Plan to maintain the topsll resource and reclamation potental. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUAEMENTS: | ‘A. Sevage tonsol horizon at depths shown on Alignment Sheets or as drected by Keys TRENCHING! ‘Ae specFiedin the CM Plan, ‘AODITIOHAL AEQUIREMENTS: None unless atherwlse directed by Keystone. BACKFIL, “Ae apecfied inthe CMR Plan to avoid slumplhg over the trench, relieve compaction, and matth adjacent DECOMPACTION AND | topography. REGRADING: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone. TENIPORARY EROSION | As spectied in the CMR Flan and authorized by Keystone to limit dust, prevent offske sedimentation or CONTROL: erosion, and accelerated erosion on the ROW. I RECLAMATION. ‘SEEDBED Te spenfied nthe CMA Pl. PREPARATION: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Dirt dads shoul typically be smaller than 23 Inches diameter. “Topsoil shoul be as frm as practicable prior to seeding ‘The seedbed should be firm enough so thatthe Let heel ofan average adult penetrates the soil to depth of approximately one-half inch. peep WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc. Helena, MT SEEDING METHOD, ‘SEED MIK AND RATE: ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: CRP sees KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY ‘As specfied inthe CMR Plan, See Detal 70for a deserption of seeding procedures and approved equipment ‘ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Seed wll be provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor will tore szed.a dry, secre location 8, The Contractor wil store any unused seed ina dry, secure location and notiy Keystone as tothe seed's disposition, Keystone may elect to change the storege location. Gover rag: To reduce erosion, an annual cover crop may be seeded per Keystone direction. 1D. Agproved Seed Mix: The seed mix for each CRP tract may vary depending on each CRP enntrect ith the Farm Serie Agency, The Contractor wil sed the mix provided by, or specified by, Keystone st each CAP tract. ‘NRCS RECOMMENDED | August to lune 15, depending on climatic conditions. These dates maybe altered at Keystone drecion. SEEDING DATES: ‘Seeding outside these dates may be allowed with Keystone approval. "MULCHING AND “As specfied in the CR Plan at locations shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Reyatone, Refer to MATTING: Detail 4 for eresion control mating and Detail 47 for straw mulch ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone SLOPE AND TRENCH | Az specified in the CMR Pian at locations shown on Algnment Sheets or as directed by Keystone, Refer to BREAKERS: Detail 3 for slope breakers and Detall? fr wench breakers, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None ures otherwise directed by Keystone "ADDITIONAL PRACTICES Provide forlivertack and wildlife access across the trench st lations convenient to livestock and the landowner es praccable per the CMR Plan. 9. Construction and reclamation practices may be maaified from those presented to sult site conditions or permit requirements with Keystone approval. Monitor revegetation and sll stability past constuction. ._Moritor and contro | noxious weeds 35 specified In the state Noxous Weed Management Pian. WESTECH Environmental Services, Ine. Holona, MT — [unit NAME: UNIT CODE: UNA DESCRIPTION: ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: FOR KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY Fore areas are dominated by native and introduced trees, Typical species include green ashy boxeler, plains cottonwced, elm, oak, mulberry, ang eastern red cedar. UNITTOCATION: [onions in northern areas this rit primarily located on floodslains, in deep draws, and on steeper slopes. In southem areas of the project the unit may also cceur on Fat topography and along roads and fencelines Prevent damage to vegetation adjacent to the ROW when removing trees. » Restore native grass linderstory, « Stable slopes to prevent erosion, « Adequately decompact sol. + Complete all work to Standards soecfed in the CMR Fan, contract dacuments and details, applicable permits, and Keystone's satisfaction. ‘SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Dispose of excess wood debris as Specified in the CMA Plan or as agreed to with local landowners per Keystone direction, ‘CONSTRUCTION, | ROW WIDTH: Tyatcally 110 fect in Montana and Nebraska. 85 feet in South Dakota = CLEARING: ‘As specified in the CMI Pan. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Salvage timber f directed by landowner. Fell and lear trees ina manner that avols injuring adjacent trees Tres stumps shall be removed for 5 fest ether sde ofthe trench line, where necessary f and level construction, and to allow feathering out spol 1D. Where necessary on living trees with overhanging branches, cut broken branches atthe fork; preserve the branch collar onthe standing tree £. Dispose of woody debris according to landowne hip and incorporate with subsoil famount not tohibit ev ‘ste approved by Keystone. cafe ection as approved by Keystone; otherwise rion) orremave ta designated TOPSOIL SALVAGE: renal “Re epeaiedin the CMR Plan to maintain the topsol resource and recrration pi "ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Salvage topsoil horizon ot depths shoum on Allgrmant Sheets or as directed by Keystone Te specified in the CMR Plan TRENCHING ODITIOWAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise dected by Keystone. BACKFIL, ‘especie in the CMR Plan ta avaid siumping over the trench, relieve eamnpaction, and match adjacent DECOMPACTIONAND | topography. REGRADING: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unles otherwise directed by Keystone. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: De speed in the CMR Plan and authorized by Keystone to limit Gust, pravant ofalte sedimentation or terosion, and accelerated erosion onthe ROW. RECLAMATION ‘SEEDBED ‘Re spesifed inthe CMA Pian, PREPARATION ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Dirt dds shoule typically he smaller than 2 inches darter. Bi. Toptoll should be as firm as practicable prior to seeding. WESTECH Environmental Services, Ins Helens, MT [ ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: FOR wma KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY. SEEDING METHOD, SEED MIX AND RATE: ‘As specified nthe CMR Plan, See Detall 70 for a description of seeding procedures and approved equioment ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Forested areas willbe seeded withthe native gras species that occur in forest openings and Understories unless otherwise requested by the landowner, The appropriate seed min foreach FOR Con/Rec Units shown in the Revegetation Band onthe Alignment Sheets. ‘The FOR Con/Rec Unit willbe dill seeded unles slopes are too step or soils are too rocky to safely operate seeding equipment, in which ease, broadcast seeding wil be conducted. Broadcast seed wll be applied at twice the dril seed PLS/ace rate. Seed wil be provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor wilstore ‘seed a dry, secure location, 1. The Contractor wil stare any unused seed in a dry, secur location and nati Keystone as to ‘he seeds dispostion. Keystone may lect to change the storage lcation. Cover eran: To reduce erosion, an annual cover crop may be seeded per Keystone dlrection NRCS RECOMMENDED SEEDING DATES: ‘As spproprate for the specified mix for example, Fseeding the To seed rik ute the Ta seeding dates MULCHING AND ‘Re spelled nthe CHIR Plan st locations shawn on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone, Rafer to ‘eta 4 for erosion control matting, Detall 47 for straw mulch, and Detal 6¢ for wood mule. MATTING: SLOPE AND TRENCH | As specified inthe CMI Plan at locations shown on Alignment Sheets or as erected by Keystone. Refer to BREAKERS: Detail 3 for slope beeakers and Detal 7 for trench breakers. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Wone unless otherwise drected by Keystone "MANAGEMENT PRACTICES T Provide forlvestock and wilde sezess across the trench at locations convenient tolivestoek and the landowner as praclceble per the CMR Plan. 2 Construction and reclamation practices may be modified from those presented to sult site conditions or permit requirements with keystone approval 3, Monitor revegetation and soll stebllty post construction, ‘4,_Monitor and control noxious weeds as specified in state Nowlous Weed Management Plans. WESTECH Environmental Services, ne Helona, MT" INSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: IPH ee cor KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY ‘UNIT NAME TMPROVED PASTURE AND HAVLAND ‘UNIT CODE: PH UNIT DESCRI proved pastures and haylands are managed | srassends that have typeally been planted with grasses fr livestock forage or hay production Improved pastures and haylands are often dominated by crested wheatgrass, sraoth brome and legumes i vatious combinations o set native tal grasses, depending on Project locaton. ‘UNIT LOCATION: Improved pastures and haylaids occur on spreads throughout the Keystone X. Steele Cty Project area TNT GOATS: "establish vegetation and prevent accelerated erosion. » Maintain Ivestock grating and hayand production. + Complete al work to standards specified In the CMR Pian, contract documents and Detals,spalicable permits, easement descritions, and Keystone's satisfaction. “SPECIAL None unless otherwise drected by Keystone. CONSIDERATIONS: ROW WIDTH: ‘CONSTRUCTION. "Typlealy 310 feet = CLEARING: ‘As specified Inthe CMRPan, ‘ADDITIONAL AEQUIREWENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone. TOPSOIL SALVAGE: 7 specified Inthe CMR Plan to maintain the topscil resource end reclamation potenti ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Salvage topsollhorlzon at depths shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone, TRENCHING: 7 speed inthe CMR Plan | "ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise crected by Keystone. BACKL, 7 specified In the CMR Plan to avald slumping over the trench, relieve compaction, and metch DECOMPACTION AND | adjazent topography. REGRADING: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone, TTEN{PORARY EROSION CONTROL: 7 spectied in the CMR Plan and authorized by Keystone to limit ust, prevent offsite sedimentation lor erosion, and accelerated erosion on the ROW. RECLAMATION SEEDBED ‘Ae epectied inthe CMR Plan. PREPARATION: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMEN ‘A. Dirt logs should typically be smaller than 23 nches clameter. B.Topsol should be as firm as practicable prior to seeding The seedbed should be fim enough so thatthe boot heel ofan average adult penetrates the soll o 3 death of approximately ane half Inch WESTECH Environmental Services, nc. Helena, MT CCONSTRUCTION/ RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: IPH ma KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY SEEDING METHOD, SEED MIX AND RATE: As pacified inthe CMi Plan, See Detail 70 fora daserption of seeding pracedutes and approved equipment, ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Seed wil be provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor wil Store seed » cy, secure locaton, 1B, The Contractor wl stare any unused seed in adr, secure locaton and ntify Keystone a: tothe sees disposition. Keystone may elect to change the storage location, © Cover crop: To reduce erosion, an annual cover crop may be seeded per Keystone direction, D._Theseed mix wil vary depending onthe pasture’s locaton. The aparopriate seed mix will be seeded et locations shown on the Alignment Sheets, unless otherwise rected by the landowner, ors directed by Keystone. One of four seed mixes will typically be dil seeded as shown below: mereved ature nd haland Seed re Trane) sememncnane coneMON NAME waster? hen Baa aa HE, Sea, agra, Manca uc: ron sath brome edison Reba baton Om, | 800.24 Sate UneshyCasentang be, io tte, hes SoA eT Sexson alacant of 24 Preven is) pe Suneloct, Where braces seeding snd, therete wb "othr apes aeeeted whey afl, jelow ect may bepreset nthe adeno te HOW sndererpectedtpersd ore Aon arate para NOTE: sclera be eed aed on camera avy respec onions, nproved Para andthe ure on Greve nent ed secon tere mst st soewmncnaMe coumon nae yesier? he Bh. ass Ta pn, Py paroprenerscon ——Gratedwneryrss Ac Aasrat Cougs) amos a bere, yet Toa = "anes dilledingrte o 52 ur ve Seed PS) prequiefoot. hare Bronstein tert ll dese *oahr seas sharon brome, afl or sneteovr ny be reat othe adcm othe ROM an oe pated speeatotne ROW ina eae shor pre. Nove: Sheds rroernaybe toed based on conmrdl vitor sep conion, WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc Helena, aT CONSTRUCTION/ RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: IPH ol KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY Irtodend arte) smn counon uate vaneret an away Raa, Pay NOS avon sricto Creates, aaa, Do) 20 ® yr yes res Taner, sya, etna a ‘gcpronvtrmeSim —temedstenbenres Cart She Che, she Rah wr, | 288, ‘ ‘reer Se okes AER rg Con, Winnie eae Semi atone Manca boat teasson] ogg ‘buna Baron, Byer, Srtag, rec, itoacod, Soo, ub, ly >a Daggers oars nosh Ny Potenas aren, aris | 025 z ‘estoy ata ves 30 H Tato Yalow svanver __anywnietix tas a ‘eusdonadilsetng at 2 rue Uve See pe sae fet, Wher onda ees ed tere wi ded IMpetta actors engl oer namedvaeestaby USOAWICS nota rd oath Dea at acetol astern ee portesy mtoga a esirasuinal atarie, dle for ae rar maybe ried taro commer wnesyo Ste sped codon. ngsned ature a Ha Ses Nite on "al raed Sead Neure seoneeart esl cena wencawnenas Rota wih Frio ona [a ——— a Seomden coow enor | gon = anes Sa fot IRTP, ys = Soe ae ES Lae tea “auedona secs rat? ve Sed PS) pe suas fot Where oaks sec the at wih ol "Silty tabs come ithe noes viedo USDA-WRE South Dal ane Mee aaa arma ede ed on comers ny ose pee earns. TIRCS RECOMMENDED | August to lune 15, depending an cimatic conditions. Thase dates may be altered at Keystone ‘SEEDING DATES: tirecion. Seeding outside these dates may be allowed with Keystone approval. MULCHING AND As specified inthe CMR Plana locations shown on Alignment Sheats or as directed by Keystone MATTING: Refer to Detal 4 for erosion control matting snd Detall 47 for straw mule. (DOITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone, SIOFEAND TRENCH | As specified n the CMIR Plan at locations shown on Algnment Sheets ores directed by Keystone. BREAKERS: Refer to Detall 3 for slope breakers and Detal for trench breaker. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone ‘MANAGEMENT PRACTICES —_| 2 ante anata Se ae le oe Weeder Ps | be medifid fram those presented to sult ste conltions or permit requirements WESTECH Environmental Services, In. Helena, MT UNIT NAM: UNIT CODE: CONSTRUCTION/ RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: MG KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY THIXED GRASSLANDS MG CUNT DESCRIPTION: ‘Mixed grassland ave dominated by native perennial frases such os western Wheatgrass, needle~and thread, blue grama, Sandberg bluegrass prairie Junegrs, ite Bluestem, prairie sandreed, green hneedlerast and bluetuneh wheatgrass. UNIT LOCATION: ‘Mined grasslands are the most extensive native vegetation type onthe Keystone XL Project and ‘occur primarily south ofthe Missouri River in Montana and throughout South Dakota | + Re-adabish native vegetation and prevent accelerated erosion. « Maintain wldifehabitst and lvestock CONSIDERATIONS UNIT GOALS: grazing production. + Complete all work to standards specified in the CMR Plan, contract documents and : Details, applicable permits, easement descriptions, ané Keystone’ satisfaction SPECIAL TNone unless otherwise directed by Keystone, ROW WIDTH: ‘CONSTRUCTION, Typically 210 fet CLEARING ‘As specified in the CMA Pan, “ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone TOPSOIL SALVAGE Ze specfied in the CM Plan to maintain the topsol resource and relametion potential “ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘Ac_ Salvage topsclhorion at degths shown on Allgnment Sheets oras directed by WESTECH Environmental Services, It He TRENCHING: Te pacified in the CMF Plan [ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None uness otherwise directed by Keystone, _ BACK, | ds specified In the CMR Planta avoid slumping over the trench relieve compaction, and mi DECOMPACTION AND | topograchy. REGRADING: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise diracted by Keystone, TEMPORARY EROSION | As specified in te CMA Plan and authorized by Keystone to limit dust, prevent offsite sedimentation or CONTROL: tecosion, and accelerated erosion onthe ROW. CL RECLAMATION SEEDBED 7s specfied nthe CMR Plan PREPARATION: @, MT ‘ADDITIONAL AZQUIREMENTS: a Dirt clos should typically be smaller than 23 Inches diameter Topsoll should be as frm as practesbe prior to seeding, C._ Theseedbed should be fim enough so thatthe boot hee of en average adult penetrates the sell toa depth of proximately one-half inch. [ SEEDING METHOD, SEED MDX AND RATE: ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: MiG aa KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY ‘sapecfied nthe (Mi Pan, See Detail 70 for’ deveaption ofseedng proved sgulpment. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Seed wil be provided by Keystone anc managed bythe Contractor, The Contractor wil store seed a dry, secure location B. The Contractor will store any unused seed Ina dry, secure location and notify Keystone as to the seea's disposition. Keystone may elect to change the storage location, G Oneof three 61 seed mixes wil be apalied a locations shown on the Alignment Sheets, unless otherwise gested by the landoumer, or as directed by Keystone. The MG seed mixuil be dil seeded unles slopes are too steep oF sols are too rocky t9 safely operate seeding equipment, Inwhich case, broadcast seeding will be conducted 1, Covereroa: To reduce ereson, an annual cover crop may be seeded per Keystone drction ved Gelind Sod ie pau sesoncne mish sy scwmrne naw coumonname vanere an sere Waren whesaris fama adn ia eran pets ‘esi waerigaee cos igs eroyon ses Seder wiemeaty Prior ios Betts rock Segre aaa oz lomo bi rare scieol Son, oe are Seco Suan ons a rt _Schborm spomam ie ear Badards, och a z Sion conots howled ws 200. = VS Vaated ‘aged ona ised rit of 45 sve aed (S| pertuirefoot. Were bond ces the atl edo Mamas sotbeaconglte te res vii fated by USDA NAC Martane we ee TE Spesr rts ny berevoed based commer alsa espace conn eee SraianaSeodtura MG ans ezonicnare| Poanes Pisf ry Sc1NTINCNAME omon NAME asin? dee srr Wass ohegant fern ati, Wah cr = Taxepres circa ede wei re 00 z Bote gros Suegrams ee 30 = chive bis alr semi, Simarbataipe | 3.00 r ional gS rae sonra Gast roxio ost a Bir pie ined sree a 035 terra | ie nest rm bags Bassoon a NS RE ‘eae Shc par Taal ‘a0 Sosconate Nass ne ed i 200 a Sipe we Giem nee ‘eden AE MaIa oe 75a is Va rancid ‘Weedon ait sestng ate of4S ire ve Sted PS)persvare fot. Whee bones ttn at i doled ‘his mayrat bes canes sre ots sey USDA NACSIn arena sso omits ar seen ester whens natal Dp whys Apron Scum or. Cit, ree, ibe mayb sorted at rte of 20S oun pee Sees rte mayb reed bred on Comoe also espe no, WESTECH Environmental Sorvices, Ina Holena, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION /RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: MG aoa KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY ad erste Seed ire MES oR sexaseare ays sommmniense commonnane vere josh ase sero Wear whens Rom Ri, Wa aa earn wa lessees Pr s00 dedeocoonorort seen Serrano asa 4 Tie arid Seem ite, Pea i ni ut gr suse cored a0 on 77 Pra sae Sater Fag 500 Teeter Fess ners is $30 5 Stacy sora Ueber Bea Grpendane sop 5 aaa Tene ‘oserm AEN | 00 z ‘ary ratio’ ‘Boston nt seeing act 4 ure Seo Fs per sper fot. Whereas sed usd tha ot wi be dob She my nat bes complet thames ates ite by USDAAACS in South nits an Netcare necptate western ener unvnaie, theese whens (seve asc ctara, Brno ee} maybe ats t arate of 20 peur oT. Soe sonny be eee end oncom oii ste specie codons. ‘NRCS RECOMMENDED ‘SEEDING DATES: “Rigust to lane 15, depending on dime eondhons. These dates may be altered at Keystone decton, Seacing outside these dates may be allowed with Keystone approval MULCHING AND MATTING: “SLOPE AND TRENGH BREAKERS: ‘As specified in the CMR Plan at locations shawn on Alignment Sheets Gras dected by Keystone, Relerta Detal 4 for erosion control mtting, Detail 47 for sta mulch, end Detall 64fr wood muleh. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone. ‘sspecifiedin the CMR Plan at locations shown on Alignment Sneets ras directed by Keystone. Refer to Detail 3 for slope breakers and Detall7 for trench breakers, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise nected by Keystone. "MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Provide forlivestock and wildlife potess arose the tench at locations convenient to livestock and the landowner ax practicable per the CMR Plan. 2. Construction and reclamation practices may be mosified from those presented to sult site conditions or permit requirements with Keystone approval 3, Monitar revegetation and soil stability post construction. ‘4 Monitor and control noxious weeds as specified inthe Montana and South Dakota Noxious Weed Management Plas, WESTECH Environmental Services, inc. Helena, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: RIP mes KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY UNIT NAME RIPARIAN UNIT CODE: 2 ‘UNIT DESCRIPTION: | Riparian woodlands incude forested and sub | dominated areas around streams ané rivers CCommion trees and shrubs Include plains cottanvicod, green ash, box eer, Russian olive, | sandbarwilow, Wood's rose, snowoerry, and sliver sngebruth, Herbaceous undestories are often dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, western wheatgrass, and redtop. Uni LOCATION: Primarily located on floodplelns and Terraces along streams and vers, This CorVRec Units relatively Tinted onthe Keystone X. Stele city Project. 7 Prevent damage to vegetation adjaeant to the ROW when removing ees. « Restore native grass nderstory «Stable slopes to prevent arasion, « Adequstely ecompact soll. « Complete all work to tandards specified in the CMB Plan, coniract decurants and detall, applicable permits, and Keystone's satisfaction, SPECT TL Note that iis type may be adjacent to or assocated with wellands and stream crossings. CONSIDERATIONS: | 2. Implement wetland and stream crossing procedures as shown on Alignment Sheets or directed by Keystone 3. Wetland orstream crossing procedures will tke precedent over this Con/Rec Unit should eiscrepancies CONSTRUCTION ————| ROW WIDTH: “ypcally 110 feet CLEARING: ‘As specified io the CMR Plan, i clear trees to avold injuring adjacent trees Tree stumps shall be removed for 5 feet ether ske ofthe trench ine and where necessary for safe and level construction Where nacessaryon living trees with overhanging branches, cut broken branches atte fork; preserve the branch callar on the standing tre. Dispose of woody debris according ta landowner direction as approved by Keystone; otherwise thip and incorporate with subsoil frnourt not to inhibit revegetation) or remove to designated site approved by Keystone F._ Mow shrubby vegetation to ground level and leave roctstockintactunless grading is necessary. "TOPSOIL SALVAGE: | As speaied in the CMR Plan to maintain the topsoil rescurce and reclamation potenti ‘A. Salvage topsoil horlon at depths shown on Alignment Sheets oras directed by Keys [Frencune: “Ae peated nthe CMA Plan, ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone [exon Ae specified in the CMA Plan to avoid slumping over the trench, relleve compaction, and match adjac DEcOMPACTION AND | topogrePhy. REGRADING! ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone ;PORARY EROSION | Ac specified in the CMR Plan and authorized by Keystone to Init dust, prevent off-site sedimentation or CconTROL: trosian, and acelerated erosion on the ROW. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ‘A. Insure adequate erosion contol sn place during construction to prevent sediment from ‘eaching any assocated streams or rivers. WESTECH Enviranmantal ervees, Helena, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION /RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: RIP KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY RECLAMATION. SEEDBED ‘Ac speaiiedin the CMA Plan. PREPARATION: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Dirt lods should typically be smaller than 2-3 inches diameter. B,_Topsol should be as frm as practicable prior to seeding “SEEDING METHOD, | Arspeciid in the CMI Plan. See Detal 70 fara description of seeding procedures and approved SEEDMIXAND ATE: | equipment. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Seed willbe provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor will store seed a dry, secur location, B. The Contractor vil store any unused seed in cry, secure leation and nay Keystone as to ‘the seeds dispastion. Keystone may elect to change the storage location, ©. The RIP seed mix wil be applied at locations shown on the Alignment Sheets oras directed by keystone, The RiP seed mix ull be drill seeded unless slopes are too steep or slls aretoo rocky to safely operate seeding equipment, in which cae, brosdeast seeding willbe conducted 1D. Cover erg: To reduce erosion, an annual cover crop may be seeded par Keystone direction. pan sed mare) soc TE sree NAME couwon ane ited ie (ae a Aaron Waierwhiga Renna Rain wan [$20.8 Aarpyon cha Sender west Pryor 3 ‘outta Bvegars ai er a ‘ia ra Grew neete tose 23 =a ( aA ie is Voie rotated sed ana ited rat of Pare Live Seed P5] pe cure fot Whee hsdens seedy se, het i ot, smay netbeans tte ame arta ede USDA NRCS n Menta ans bats rescata hein tg tester nso lbs he mu tthe teow our Pose tur ches res oer Neves 2, Paid, Serr, Tal 209 ouads sare fiopogen ged tse, (rete Sumy, zn dors Cams, ourres Roane 3.0 see Ptere OTE Scr ates aybe end btedon contr nelly ose percent NAGS RECOMMENDED | August tolune 15, depending on clmatic conditions. These dates may be altered at Keystone direction. SEEDING DATES: ‘Seeding outside these dates may be allawed with keystone angraval ‘MULCHING AND ‘As specified inthe CMR Plan at locations shawn on Alignment Sheots Oras Greced by Keystone. Refer to MATTING: Detail 4 for erosion control matting, Detall 47 for straw mulch, and Detail 6 fer wood muleh, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: AA, _Respread wood debris may negate the need for straw mulch per Keystone direction, “SLOPEAND TRENCH] As speatied in the CIR Pian t locations shown on Alignment Sheets as dracted by Keystone. Referta ‘BREAKERS: ‘etal 3 for slope breakers and Detal 7 for trench breakers AODITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise drected by Keystone. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Provide for ivestork and wildife access across the Wench at ovations convenient ta Ivestock and the landowner as practicable per ‘he CMR Plan, 12. Construction and reclamation practices may be modified fram those presented to sult site conditions or permit raqurements with Keystone approval Monitor revegetation and sol sablty post construction. Monitor and contol noxous weeds per the Noxious Wend Plan. WESTECH Envitonmental Services, ne. Helena, MT CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: = aaa KEYSTONE XL STEEL CITY TUNT NAME ‘UNIT CODE: UNIT DESCRIPTION: SHELTERSELT ara | $8 Fanted wee and shrub sharbels and windbreaks a e ‘Common northern species ae: plainscottonood, ‘Chinese ein, Amtican elm, Austrian pine, Siberian peashrub ad ae. Common southern species ae: a ‘Osage orenge, eastern red cedar, locust, and 4 4 hawthorn. RIT LOCATION: “yplealylocted at Feld argh, near roadsides or round residences. Refer o Algnment Sheets and/or Keystone fll varifcatian for speci location. REGAMATION GOALS: Prevent damage to vegetation adjacent To the ROW when remoulng tees. «Restore grass understory. * Provide non-vegtated windoreaks. » Adequstoly decompact sol, « Complete all workto stendards species by {i Plan, contact documents and detail, eppkcablepernits and Keystone’sstisfctlon - CONSTRUCTION = ROW WIDTH: Tio feet in Montane end Nebraska, 80 feet In South Dakota uness otherwise direc and/or Keystone edbby Algnrient Sheets CLEARING: ‘As specified inthe CMA Pan ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: A timber ifarected by landowner. B._ Folland dear treesina mamer that evois injuring adjacent tree Tree stumps shall be removed For feet either side ofthe trench ine, where necessary for safe and level construction, and ta allow feathering out spol 1D. Where necessery onliving trees with overhanging branches, cut broken branches atthe fork; preserve the branch collar on the standing tres E._Dispose of woody debris according to landowner direction as approved by Keystone; otherase chip and lacorporete with subsol (mount notte Inhibit revegetation) or remove to designated site approved by Keystone. TOPSOIL SALVAGE: Te sealed in the CMR Plan to maintain the topsoll resource and redamation potential. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Salvage topsoil horizon st depths shown on Alignment Shests or as directed by Keystone. TRENCHING: ‘As specified in the CMR Plan. "ADOITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise clrected by Keystone BACK, “Ae specedin the CMR Pian ta avoid slumping over the trench, relieve compaction, and match adjacent DECOMPACTION AND | topogrecty. REGRADING: 'ADDITIONALREQUIREMENTS: None unlass otherwise directed by Keystone. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: ite edimertaton or “especfedin the CMR Plan and authorized by Keystone to limit dust, prev terasion, and accelerated erosion on the ROW. REGAMATION SEEDBED PREPARATION: ‘As spaatiedin the CMA Pian, ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Dirtelods should typlaly be smaller than 2-3 inches dlameter. B,_Topsol should be as firm as practlcable prior to seed. WESTECH Environmental Services, Helena, MT ;— ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SB KEYSTONE XL STEEL CITY. SEEDING METHOD, ‘SEED NAIK AND RATE: 7 speafedin the CM Plan. See Detall 70 fora description ofseeding procedures and approved quipment. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Shelterbelts willbe seeded wlth seed mixes using n surrounding aress. The appropriate seed mix for each $8 Con/Ree Units shown in the Revegetation Band on the Alignment Sheets. B. TheS8 Con/Rec Uni wil be dll seeded unless impracticable due toz smal area, In which case, broadcast seeding willbe conducted. Brazdeast seed willbe applied st tice the dil seed PlS/ecre rite. Seed wil be provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor wil store seed a dy, secure location The Contractr wl store any unused seed in adr, secure location and notify Keystone as to the sned’s disposition. Keystone may elect to change the storage location, Cover erop: Ta reduce erosion, an annual cver erop may be seeded per Keystone direction. ‘NRCS RECOMMENDED ‘SEEDING DATES: PLANTING: PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL: “Re tppropriate forthe speciied rik for example, W seeding the TG seed mi utlae te Te seeding dates. epics wees os dvecied by Keystone Tnstal permenent slope and trench breaker mulching, and matng as vested by CH Pan, SWPPP, and keystone. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Tralall windlence across the ROW inarear where trees andjor shrubs Have been removed as directed by Keystone 2. Avoid ming tapeol and subs through euiting per the CMR Pla. 3._ Construction and redaation practices may be modified pet Keysone WESTECH Environmental Services, Ine Helena, a7 or CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SBP KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY UNIT NAME 'SUBIRRIGATED PASTURE UNIT CODE: | ONIT DESCRIPTION! UNIT LOCATION: Se “The Sublrigated Pasture ype ncudessubiigated plains and hay meadows. Sols are typicaly fine sands, with nartow day bands in some areas, Topography is typically fat. The water table within this Con/Rec Units often within sis feet ofthe surface. Native grasses include big bluestem, switchgrass, and tle bluestem; introduced grasses Include timothy, orchardgras, and Kentucky bluegrass. Wetlands may occur adjacent to, but not prtof this Con/Ree Uri | Subirrgated Pastures occur in southern South Dakota and portions of Nebraska, primarly in Tipp, Keya Paha, Rock, Holt, Antelope, and Nance counties, 7 Malatain sol structure and stailty tothe greatest extent practicable, « Restore native gras species. « CONSIDERATIONS: UNIT GOALS: ‘Maintain wildlife habitat and hay and livestock graulng production. « Complete ell wok to standards specified In the CMR Plan, contact documents and Details, apalcabl permits, easement descriptions, snd Keystone's satisfaction ‘SPECIAL ‘aticpate wench wall innabity ‘aticipate trench water management procedures to be employed throughout construction. ‘bo not decompact the ROW unless specifically rected by Keystone. Bechfling, fina cleanup, erosion control and reseeding must be conducted progressive withthe minimal time practicable between procedures, ‘The ROW wil not be utilized for access or project trafic following final cleanup within this Con/Rec Unit CONSTRUCTION ROW WioTH: Typically 110 feet CLEARING: TOPSOI SALVAGE: Bs speatiedin the CMRP ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: {8 Do not clear more than 110 feet of ROW unless directed by Keystone. B. Leave root crowns and root structures in place to the maximum extent practicable, . Minimize clearing eguloment onthe ROW. = 7 spediiedin the CMA Plan to maintain the topsoil resource snd reclamation potent ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Salvage topsol from the entire work area except under topsoil storege piles (Detail 53), Stable topsll salvage plas wth bio-egradable tckfier as directed by Keystone and maintain uti topsoil replacement. Cc. Salvage topscilharizon at depths as shown on Alignment Sheets or as ciected by Keystone. 1. Additional topsll sage may be necessary outside ofthe 110 foot Right-oFway, if adltional ‘workspace is needed o accommodates wide trench and additional spl. PP TRENCHING? 7s spaced in the OVI Pen ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Anticipate substantal trench nstabty B._ Insure that topsoll (salvaged or unsalvaged} isnot ost to trench caving. C._Trench dewatering or other construction procedures, such as floating te pipe, that are suitable for in saturated or fooded conditions may be necessary The actual methods used to construct the trench, and lay the pipe willbe approved by Keystone teench, dewate wes Helena, MT TECH Environmental Services, Inc ara ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SBP KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY ‘BACKFILL, Ts speaiica athe CMR Plan to avGld slumping over the Wench and match alacant topography. DECOMPACTION AN | ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: REGRADING: ‘A. Donot decompact the ROW (subsol or topsll) unless specifically directed by Keystone. 1B, Avoid scalping undisturbed topsoll when recitslbuting stockpiled topsoil © Backfling fine cleanup, erosion contro, and reseeding must be conducted progressively withthe ‘minima time practicable between procodures, TERAPORARY and 7s specied inthe CMA Pan to nit Gum, prevent offsite sedimentation or erosion, and accelerated erosion PERMANENT EROSION | on the ROW. conTROL: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Implement procedures to prevent anticipated sediment from ssturated spoil end topsll rom flowing outside the ROW boundaries. BROW stablzation measures must be carried out immediately following any topsol replacement activites. This wil consist of straw mulch appleation across the entire RoW, Installation of erosion ‘control matting on slopes as spectied by Keystone, use of NRCS recommended cover crops, and pplication of teks or hydrornulch In place of matting f approved by Keystone __Malntain and/or reinstall erasion control features to ensure proper function at al times. RECLAMATION SEEDBED Te speaedin the CM Plan PREPARATION: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Dirt clods should typeallybe smaller than 2-3 inches dlameter. 18, Topsol should be as firm as practicable prior to seeding, The seedbed shouldbe fm enaugh so thst the boot hae ofan average adult penetrates the sll to depth of approximately one-half inch, WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc. Helena, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SBP aay, KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY SEEDING METHOD, SEEDMIXANORATE: | ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Fe spediied nthe CMR Plan, See Datll70 for deserptions of seeding procedures and approved equipment ‘ue to seasonal constraint relative to successful re-establishment seeding must he conducted priar ‘to July 15% allow for adequate lenath of growing season to avold winter-kil. Any areas unable to be re seeded by this date all need to be deferred until after Oct 1to ensure seed germination does not eccur until after frst conditions to avold winter ‘A. Seed willbe provided by Keystone and managed by the Contractor. The Contractor wil store seed Ina dry, secure location, B, The Contractor willstore any unused seed in a dry, secure location and notify Keystone as to the seed'scisposiion. Keystone may elect to change the storage locaton Aseed mix of native species wil be used Inareas designated MA on the Revegetation Band ofthe ‘Alignment Sheets. The seed mix be dri seeded unless slopes are toa steep or sols are too rocky to safely operate seeding equipment In whch case, broadcast seeding wil be conducted, 1. Caver ctap: Toad in managing wind and Water erosion potential, an annual cover crop (perennial ryegrass (var, Lina), Keystone-approved annual grass/| fos fa ante poneum ist stess aor] g | anew | 520 [Prenat venous semen spor Le cten a} 2 | 98 | ao ao : sephora mone anaes ee ie ee von) so [|_| mo Ta ons aga oT Fre Te eed pe Haak Ware Tea esa ae Sper ors tay bene bead on cornercal sahil ore pecan TiRCS RECOMMENDED | October Io lly 15, depending on climatic conations. These dates may be altered at Keystone drcton ‘Seeding outside these dates may be allovod with Keystone approval SEEDING DATES: WESTECH Environmental Servioas, Inc. Hltena, MT CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SBP KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY MULCHING AND “as spectied nthe CMR Plan at locations shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone. Refer to MATTING: Detail 4 for erosion control mating, Detall 47 for weed Free native hayorsvaw mulch, Cornstalks may be used for muleh with Keystone approval ADDITIONAL NTS ‘A. Alportions ofthe Project within this Con/Ree Unit wil receive a companion erop for those areas ‘seeded prior to July 15°. No compasion crop wil be applied with those areas seeded on orafter Oct 1 B, _Allportion ofthe project within this Con/Rec Unit wil receive and ether straw mule, ernst ‘muleh, andor erosion esntrol mating a locatlons shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone. ‘C._RoW stabiltetion measures ofall topslls will consist of straw mulch application across the entire OW, instalation of eresion control matting on slones at specified by Keystone, and sppieation of tackifiers ar hydromuleh may be used In place of matting f approved by Keystone D, Erosion contol matting may be applied over native hay 9° straw muh as directed by Keystane. E, Blodegradsble pias approved by Keystone will be used In place of meta staples to anchor erasion control matting within this Con/Ree Unt ‘Areas where erosion control matting has bean installed wl be fenced to preventlivstock access as directed by Keystone. “SLOPEAND TRENCH | Slope breakers ere nat required in is Con/ec Unit unless specticalyairectea by Keystone, Trench Breakers BREAKERS: vil be installed as directed by Keystone. (MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TL Prowde for Ivestock and wild fe aczass across the trench at locations convenient to livestock and the landowner as practicable per the CMR Plan. 2. Construction and reclamation practices may be modified from those presented to suit ste conditions or permit requirements veth Keystone approval 3, Monitor revegetation and sol stability post construction. Areas of felled reclamation wil be repaired. ‘4,__Monitor and contral nosious weeds as specified in the Nebraska and South Dakota Novious Weed Management Pans WESTECH Environmental Services, Ine Hoiena, MT "CONSTRUCTION/ RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATION’ KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY UNIT NAME ‘UNIT CODE: UNIT DESCRIPTION: SANDY PRAIRIE warm season grasses suchas litte Bl bluestem, prairie sendreed, and switchgrass, “opagrazhy Is typically fat togertly ring ‘CONSIDERATIONS: ‘UNIT LOCATION: “The Sandy Prarie unit occurs in southern South Dakota and northern Nebraska, primatlyin Tripp, Rc, Keya Paha, and Holt counties. The units Interspersed with hay meadows and rop land, ‘Unit GOALS: 7 Maintain sol structore and wabiiy, «Restore native grass species. » Maintain wildlife habitat and livestock grazing production. * Complate all workto standards specie in the CMR Pian, contract = documents and Details, applicable permits, easement descriptions, and Koystone's satsfaton SPECIAL +L Incorporate supplementary construction and redlamation procedures that may be provided by Keystone, 2, Stablize topsoil stlvage piles with biodegradable tackifir. 3. Apply straw or native hay mulch for erosion control ater clean-up as directed hy Keystone. 4. (rstall erosion control mating aftr regrading as spectied by Keystone, install eoslon control matting ‘over rave hay mulch a specified by Keystone, In some areas, tackfier maybe used inplace of matting f approved by Keystone, Do not desomact the ROW unas specifically directed by Keystone, Seed mix willbe aplie in two procedures with a dll and broadcast seader in some locations as escrived under Seeding Method, Seed Mix ond Rete ‘CONSTRUCTION. ROW WOT Typically 120 fee. CLEARING: ‘As specified the CMA Flan ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 4L._Leave root erowns and root structures n place to the maximum extent practicable TOPSOIL SALVAGI Ts species in the CMR Plan fo maintain the topsol resource and reclamation potenti ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Usllze trench and working salvage (Detall ¢) on slopes less than 5% where shown o> Alignment ‘Sheets ora: directed by Keystone Where grading ie necessary, salvage topsol from entire area tobe graded (Detail 53), €.__Selvage tops harizon at depths as shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone. b. col salvoge ples with blo-degradabletackifier as rected by Keystone, TRENCHING: T in the CM Plan ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Anticipate tcenehuall instability. B,_ Insure that topcoll(selvaged or unsalvaged) isnot lost to trench caving AGRI, ‘a spaatiedin the CMR Plan to ad slumping aver the Wench and matsh adjacent toposraph. 7 DECOMPACTION AND | ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: REGRADING ‘A. Do not dacompact the ROW (subsol or topal unless specifically directed by Keystone, 18. Avoid scalping of uncliturbed tapenil on the ROW when becktling spel and redistributing stockledtopsal TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: 7s spaced inthe CMR Plan to lit Gust, prevent oftate sedimentation or erosion, end accelerated erosion on the ROW. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Stabilize topsll slvage piles with biodegradable tackfier as directed by Keystone, Install other erosin control to prevent erosion within the FOW, and of - ROW imp by Keystone, Maintain and/or reinstall erosion contro features to ensure proper function at ll times seaeirected WESTECH Environmental Services, inc. Hotens, ut ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SP aa KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY RECLAMATION SEEDBED 7s specified in the OMA Plan, PREPARATION: ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Additonal seedbed preparation may be necessary within this Con/Rec Unit at Keystone drection, 8, Cultipsek o rall ROW to fem topsoll prior to reseeding as authoriaad by Keystone. C Composted manure may be used where and as directed by Keystone. Fresh manure isnot acceptable SEEDING METHOD, | Avspaciiedin the OMI Plan, See Detall 70 for desciption of seeding procedures and approve SEEDMIXANDRATE: | equipment. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: |A. seed willbe eppled ia two applications. The fst application willbe completed with an approved drill seeder using hal the seed mix shown below the second application wil be completed with an approved broadcast seeder using the remaining half. B, Seed will be provided by Keystone and managed by the Contracter. The Contractor will store seed ina dry, secure location The Contractar wil stare any unused seed Ina dry, secure location and notify Keystane ast the seed's disposition, Keystone may elect to change the storege location, ©, The SP s2ed mix vil be applied st locations shown on the Alignment Sheets or as drcted by Keystone, Uses chain to cover broad-catt seeded areas. Da not use aherrow to cover broedcastseeded areas ‘nthe Sandhill unless directed by Keystone. Use of s harrow may bury seed 120 deeply, Cover croo: To ald in managing wind and water erosion potertial, an annual caver crop (pererial ryegrass (var. Linn, 2 Keystone-approved annual arass/crop, or QuickGuard may be seeded per Keystone direction, ny Pei) Sn a Panes Pwcnt | Pact ted ait Scunrite NAME cowmonnass |! Ae [risfente| nie | ge byPreteerce asroayon so weennviewses | aap | a | ™* | os [ikem 7) coe prceroor tl swnttvenen — | suo | at ronan |2.caraencauen, 5 came sours ete ue rar as | s a-at |aassnue Comat battle airasmndees | 32s | 20 ioas, [Lesa mis concen nase wre a ee eos vthaces sandlovearet ax | as | | seas [a newmaay nears a |e || es pan vgs | re Sh: T cry care sesso oor de Bete aso | asa [2 pr soot ts vedws | aso | ee dent sev i pinay 27 Pe ve Ed) pa Fae ot tl SN a aC wee Sea ee eames WESTECH Enviranmental Services, in. Hoiens, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION/ RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: SP aw KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY TIRCS RECOMMENDED TNoveriberi to une 30, depending on climatic condllons. These dates may be altered at Keystone SEEDING DATES: irection, Seeding outside these dates may be allowed with Keystone approval MULCHING AND ‘As specified in the CM Plana locations shown on Alignrvert Sheets or as directed by Keystone, Referto MATTING: Detal fr erosion control matting, Detall 7 for weed fee natve hay or straw mulch, Corstalks may be zed for muleh wlth Keystone approval. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A. Allportions of the Project within this Con/Rec Unit wl recelve a companion crop specified bythe NRCSand Keystone, and straw mulch, comnatalk mulch, and/or erosion contrl matting tlecatlons shown on Alignment Sheets oras directed by Keystone. 1B. Erosion contol matting may be applied aver native hay or straw mulch as directed by Keystone © Biodegradable pins approved by Keystone wll be used In place of metal staples ta. anchor erosion control matting within this Coryec Unit SLOPEAND TRENCH | Slope breakers are not anticipated In this Con/fec Unit unless specifically directed by Keystone snce most BREAKERS: erosion is caused by wind rather than water. Trench breakers wil be installed where directed by Keyst "MANAGEMENT PRACTICES the CMR Plan, Keystone approval Provide for Wvestoek and wildlife access across the Wench ot locstions convenient to ivestock and the landowner as practicable per 2. Construction sd reclamation practices may be modified from those presented to sul site conditions ar permit requirements with 3. Monitor revegetation and sol stability post construction. Areas of faled reclamation wil be repaired. 22, Monitor and controlnosious weeds 2s specified n the Nebraska and South Dakota Noslous Weed Management Plans. WESTECH Environmental Services, Ine Hone, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: TG KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY UNIT NAME: TAIL GRASSLANDS UNIT CODE: 1 16 UNIT DESCRIPTION: [Uni tocaTion; Tall grasslands are ominatedby tal warm-teasan 17955 species including big bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, and litle bluestem, and shorter warm season grosses sucn a: blue grama and sideoats a8 Tall grasslands occur in touthern South Dakota and ‘throughout Nebraska in areas thet are not fai fore part ofthe Sendhil. Many ofthe grass Within the Con/Rec Unit are the same as those occurring within the Sendhil and Marsh Pains CConfec Units, but topography sll type, and hydrology citfer between those types and this unt + Re-establsh native vegetation and prevent accelerated erason. « Malntain wildlife habit and Ivestodk CONSIDERATION: | unr Goats: rating production. + Compete all work to standards specified inthe CMR Plan, contract documents and Details applicable permits, easement descriptions, and Keystone’s satisfaction, SPEGAL None unless atherwise directed by Keystone ROW WIDTH: ‘CLEARING: —— ‘constaucnon SY Tiny nid feet | as soeciedin the CMR an |" RODMONAL aEQUIEMENTS: None 7 soecid inthe CUR Panto antl “ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘A._ Salvage topsci horizon at depts shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone. inless otherwise drected by Keystone. the topsoil resource and reclamation potent. TTHENCHING: ‘As specified In the CMB Plan = _| “xpomowa, REQUIREMENTS: None unless otherwise directed by Keystone BACKFILL, ‘Arspacifed In the CR Plan to avolé slumping over the trench, relieve eompactio DECOMPACTION AND | tapograpby. REGRAOING: TIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless othernise directed by Keystone "TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: 7s specified in the CMR Plan and authorized by Keystone to lit dust, prevent oftae sedimentation «erosion, and accelerated erosion on the ROW. RECLAMATION. 'SEEDBED PREPARATION: ‘A. Dirt elods should typicaly be smaller then 2.3 inches diameter B, Topsail shuld be a frm as practical WESTECH Eni Helena, MT ‘CONSTRUCTION/RECLAMATION UNIT SPECIFICATIONS: TG ps KEYSTONE XL STEELE CITY 'SEEDING METHOD, SEED MIX AND RATE: 7s specied nthe CMA Pan. See Detal 70 fore deseiption of seading pracedures end epproved: ecuipment, "ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ‘a. Seed wil be provided by Keystone and managed by the Cantractor. The Contractor wil store seeda dry, secure locetion. B, The Contractor will store any unused seed in a dry, secure location an tify Keystone as to the seed’ disposition. Keystone may electt change the storege location. GThe TG seed mix vl be applied at locations shown on the Alignment Sheets, unless otherwise directed by the landowner, or as directed by Keystone, The TS saed mix wl be drill seeded Lnless slopes are too steep or sols are too rocky to safely operate seeding equipment, in which ‘ate, broudcast seeding wil be conducted. 1. Covererop: f permanent seeding is delayed to the following growing season, perennial ryegrass (ar nn] or another annual crop may be seeded per Keystone cretion. ‘Te ersdand Sed Mie 0} morn) scenmncnae coon nant wane? ioe ‘Aaron sa Taam wheat Rote wah ck naees [ea a0 ‘Aotrpogon ert Diebiesen Sapien Siento Crest son as aca cried Seats rome Freee io onic vat Sorcha Fores Naas onde, | 2 Sichjne apo ——— i ast pe de Pa ios Soren nis ining Gel Tension Hak Nena] 300-12 Toi 35-7 "ana on ai seing te of Pie ve Sed OLS) sre fot exuhgprerl veg, Where ronda eg ‘feat dosed sree bee conics oer aad say SCAMS Suh sk nde acetal TE Suc as ay bute aed on commer vasbay ct #tsneoc condos. ‘NRCS RECORANENDED SEEDING DATES: THovariber to June 30, depending on climatic conditions, These dates maybe altered ot Keystone rection. Seeding outside these dates may be allowed with Keystone approval MULCHING AND ‘As specie in the CM Pian atlocations shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone. Referte MATTING: DDetal for erosion control matting, Oetall 47 for straw muleh, and Detail 68 for wood mule, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: None unless therwise dracte by Keystone SIOPEAND TRENCH | As spectied In the CMR Plan at locations shown on Alignment Sheets or as directed by Keystone, Referto Detail 3 fr slope breskers and Detail 7 for trench breakers. ‘ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Non unless otherwise directed by Keystone. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES “Zr Provide for lrantockand wildlife access across the tench at loctions convenient to livestock and the landowner es pracleable per the CMR Plan, 12. Construction and recamation practies may be modified fram thase presented to suit ste conditions or permit requirements with Keystone approval 7 [Monitor revegetation and soil stabity post construction. Monitor and eortolrenous weeds ax specified inte South Dakota and Nebraska Newous Weed Management Plans. WESTECH Environments! Services, Inc. Helena, MT APPENDIX G - Soil and Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey Since this report was campleted in 2014, the proposed pipeline centerline has been adjusted slighty with eight route refinements to further minimize environmental impacts, improve constructabilty and address agency and landowner requests. The route refinements total approximately 6.0 miles. Thus, the mis posts listed inthis report have shifted slightly as a result ‘Section 2.0 - Soll Permeability Study “The eight route refinements have not resulted In change ofthe soil association or sol'series sted for any given mile post. Section 3,0 - Distance to Grouncwater Survey Data from water wells within 1,600 feet of the centerline were evaluated to provide information representative of local hydrogeological characteristics. The eight route refinements range from 62 feet to a2 maximum of 238 feet avay from the enalyzed centerine. Thus, the route refinements Which have been incorporated into the Preferred Route all fall within the ,500-foot study area that was evalucted inthe 2014 study for local hydrogeological characteristics. In addition, the report concludes that areas where groundwater is present closest to the ground surface appear to correlate with waterbody crossings. None of the route refinements are adjavent to waterbody crossings. SOIL PERMEABILITY STUDY AND DISTANCE-TO-GROUNDWATER SURVEY KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT - NEBRASKA PREFERRED ROUTE Prepared for: exp Energy Services, Inc. 27100 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 400 Houston, TX 77056 P.O, No. TAL #WA000095-0314 Prepared by: PEI 1414 W. Sam Houston Pkwy., N., Suite 170 Houston, TX 77043 NE Board of Geology CAGOO12 April 2014 Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundweter Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 0 2.0 SOIL PERMEABILITY STUDY.. 3.0 DISTANCE-TO-GROUNDWATER SURVEY 4.0. REFERENCES. Figures and Tables Soil Permeability Study Tables Table SA-I Soil Permeabilities Figures SA-O1 Soil Associations - Mile Post 601-617 - Keya Paha County SA-02 Soil Associations - Mile Post 617-626 - Boyd County SA-03A _Soil Associations - Mile Post 626-676 - Holt County (North) SA-03B —_Soil Associations - Mile Post 676-681 - Holt County (South) SA-O4 Soil Associations - Mile Post 681-725 - Antelope County SA-05 Soil Associations - Mile Post 725-753 - Boone County SA-06 Soil Associations - Mile Post 753-768 - Nance County SA-07 Soil Associations - Mile Post 768-776 - Merrick County SA-O8 Soil Associations - Mile Post 776-789 - Polk County SA-09 Soil Associations - Mile Post 789-818 - York County SA-10 Soil Associations - Mile Post 818-833 - Fillmore County SACI Soil Associations - Mile Post 833-848 - Saline County SACI Soil Associations - Mile Post 848-876 - Jefferson County Distance-to-Groundwater Survey Figures GW-01 Depth to Groundwater - Milepost 601-660 Gw-02 Depth to Groundwater - Milepost 660-730 Gaw-03 Depth to Groundwater - Milepost 730-780 GW-04 Depth to Groundwater - Milepost 780-840 GW-05 Depth to Groundwater - Milepost 840-876 Tables Table GW-1 Depth to Groundwater Table GW-2 Water Well Summary Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Page | 1.0 INTRODUCTION ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) is proposing to construct and operate @ crude oil pipeline and related facilities from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska, United States. The project, known as the Keystone XL, Pipeline Project, consists of approximately 876 miles of pipeline from the Canadian Border to Steele City, of which approximately 275 miles of pipeline will traverse the State of Nebraska along a proposed route known as the preferred route. ‘This report presents the resulls of a soil permeability study and distance-to-groundwater survey along the proposed preferred route, ‘The work was performed by Portnoy Environmental, Inc. (PED, a company certified by the Nebraska Board of Geologists (Certificate of Authorization No, CAGO012), to satisfy selected requirements of Nebraska Administrative Code Title 291 ~ ‘Nebraska Public Service Commission, Chapter 9 - Natural Gas and Pipeline Rules and Regulations, Section 023.07 (Nebraska Public Service Commission, July 27, 2013): 023,07 Burden of Proof ...the Commission shall evaluate: 023.078 Evidence of the impact due to intrusion upon natural resources and not due 1 safety of the proposed route of the major oil pipeline to.the natural resources of Nebraska, including evidence regarding the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources and the depletion of beneficial uses of the natural resources. Such evidence may include but not be limited 10 the following: 0023.07B2 a comprehensive soil permeability study; 0023.07B3 a distance-to-groundwater survey. Section 2 of this report presents the Soil Permeability Study, while Section 3 presents the Distance-to-Groundwater Survey. Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route. Page 2 2.0 SOIL PERMEABILITY STUDY PEL used the following sources for data to determine soil permeabilities along the preferred route: © SSURGO (Soil Survey Geogrephic) database, + The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Netural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, «Digitized copies of published soil surveys available on the USDA NRCS website, and © The Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division (University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources). PEI initially reviewed the data provided in the SSURGO database and the USDA’s Web Soil Survey; however, soil permeabilities are not provided in either datz source. PEI subsequently ascertained that Soil descriptions and permeability data are provided in published county soil surveys; therefore, PEI downloaded available digitized published soil surveys from the USDA NRCS website, which contains published soil surveys for all counties through which the preferred route traverses except for Nance, Polk and Jefferson Counties. PEI contacted the University of Nebraska - Lincoln Schoo! of Natural Resources and obtained hard copies of the published soil surveys for the remaining counties. ‘The published soil surveys include descriptions of the soils and tables that provide attributes for ‘each soil series, which is defined as: a group of soils having horizons (a layer of soi! with distinct characteristics, including permeability) that are similar in all profile characteristics (Manbke, et.al, April 1978) The published soil surveys, with the excention of that for Nance County, also contain a figure depicting the major soil associations. Soil associations are defined as: a landscape that has a distinctive pattern of soils in defined proportions. It typically consists of one or more major soil and at least one minor soil (Manhke, et. al, April 1978), and A group of soils forming a pattern of soil types characteristic of a geographical region (Allaby, et. al, 1999), Soil associations are named for the major soil series present within the association (Manhke, ef al, April 1978). For example, the Labu-Sansarc Soil Association is named after the Labu Series and the Sansare Series; which make up the majority of the soils in the Association; however, itis Jikely that other soil series are present within the Association area. “Asa soil association figure was not available for Nance County, PEI, in coordination with Banks Information Solutions (Banks) of Austin Texas, utilized the SSURGO database and professional judgment to group the Nance County soil series into soil associations besed on similar soil associations for other counties in Nebraska. Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Page 3 In addition, the published soil surveys contain multiple figures that depict the individual soit series in the county, A review of these figures showed that individual soil series can change within 50 linear feet of each another; as such, there could be over 100 series changes along a line across the county. Thus, to provide a meaningful data set, soil permeabilities for the soil series within the named soil associations, rather than for all the individual soils within a specific area along the preferred route centerline, were considered to be sufficiently representative for the purposes of this study. Using all individual soil series would likely result in similar data but with a much more extensive data set, As previously noted, there are multiple horizons within each soil series, each of which has its ‘own permeability. In addition, permeabilities are measured in ranges (e-g., 0.2-0.6 inches/hout). As such, there is no specific soil permeability associated with any specific point along the prefered route centerline, However, to allow the user of this study to approximate soil permeabilities at 0.l-mile segments along the preferred route centerline, aveilable permeability data was compiled for each soil series that make up each soil association. The results of the compilation are provided on Table S4-1. The soil associations through which the preferred route traverses are provided on Figures SA-1 through SA-12; these figures also provide additional details regarding each soil association. . It should be noted that a given soil series in a specific county may be identified by a different name in a published soil survey of adjacent county. Such differences in names result from changes in the concepts of soil classification that occurred since publication. The characteristics of the soil series described in a specific county are considered ta be within the range defined for that series, In those instances where a soil series has one or more features outside the defined range, the differences are explained in each specific published soil survey. In regard to the figures, some soil bounderies may not match adjoining areas in adjacent counties, ‘These differences result from changes in slope groupings, in combinations of mapping units, or in correlation procedures that occur in soil classification and in mapping guidelines. Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebrasla Preferred Route Page 4 3.0 DISTANCE-TO-GROUNDWATER SURVEY To initiate the distance (depth) to groundwater survey, PEI contracted with Banks in March 2014 to perfore a water well search within a one-mile radius of the preferred route centerline (mileposts 601 through 876). Well deta for 2,649 registered water wells were provided by Banks, as follows: commercial/industrial (2), irrigation (2,167), livestock (134), domestic (182), injection (39), monitoring/observation (69), public water supply (3), and other (53). Based on the number of wells and extensive data provided, it was determined that the data would be sufficient to complete the depth to groundwater survey and a field survey was not warranted It should be noted that only the data for water wells reeistered with applicable state agencies was provided by Banks, It is possible that there are additional wells present vyithir the one-mile radius of the preferred route centerline; however; as these wells have not been registered, Banks and PET cannot make any warranties that all water wells within the defined radius have been identified. In addition, itis likely thet additional public water supply wells are present within a one-mile radius of the preferred route centerline; however, information regarding these wells was not available (an inquiry was made to the State of Nebraska for information regarding such wells; the State indicated that the information could not be disclosed for security reasons). ‘The Banks database included the following information for each well: State/USGS Well ID, Owner Name, Purpose, Date completed, Latitude and Longitude (as UTM Coordinates), Total well depth, and Static water level (SWL, reported as feet below grade), PEI performed the following tasks to determine the depth to groundwater along any individual portion of the preferred route centerline: «Reduced the Banks database to evaluate wells within 1,500 feet of the preferred route centerline (753 wells) to ensure that the depths to water are representative as local hydrogeological characteristics ean vary, «Determined the nearest pipeline mileage marker to each applicable well within a 1/10 of a mile along the preferred route centerline, + Divided the entice preferred route into one-mile segments (beginning with milepost 601), «Determined the minimum and average depth to groundwater using the given SWLs for each well located within 1,500 feet of the centerline for each one-mile segment, and * Calculated the standard deviation from the average for each one-mile segment. ‘The representative depth to groundwater for each mile segment was determined by PEI to be cither the minimum value for the mile segment or the lower limit of the first standard deviation from the average for the segment. For segments with minimal data, wells up to approximately Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Pape § Yemile (2,600 feet) from the preferred route centerline were added to the analysis for that segment, resulting in an additional 34 wells. For segments without available water well data, depths to groundwater were inferred (interpolated) from adjacent segments. The determination of «a representative depth to groundwater was made without regard to the actual elevation of either the preferred route centerline or the elevation of the wells included in the analysis. ‘The representative depth to groundwater reflects the depth from ground surface and is not corrected for the projected depth of the installed pipeline. The results of the depth-to-water survey are depicted on Figures GW-01 through GW-05 and provided in Table 2a. The wells and associated data used to perform the survey are provided in Table 2b. ‘The results of the study show that depths to water along the preferred route range from less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to greater than 175 feet bgs. Areas where depths to groundwater are closest to ground surface appear to correlate with water crossings that intersect the preferred route centerline. Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Page 6 4.0 REFERENCES Allaby, A. and Allaby, M., 4 Dictionary of Earth Sciences, 1999. Banks Information Solutions, Austin, Texas, March 2014. DaMoude, D, Haneman, R., Stecker, J., Ulrich, D., and Mortis, C., Soil Survey of Saline County, ‘Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraske, Conservation and Survey Division, October 1990, Hanimer, R., Pollock, R., Buechle, A., Reardon, M., and Husbands, J., Soi? Survey of Fillmore County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, July 1986. Hammond, C., Mantke, C., Brown, L., Schulte, R., and Russell, W., Soil Survey of Boone County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, January 1972. Indra, O., Soil Survey of Bayd County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soll Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, March 1979. Manhke, C., Hammer, R., Hammond, C,, and Schulte, R., Soil Survey of Antelope County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation ‘with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, April 1978. ‘Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Schoo! of Natural Resources, personal communications, April 2014 Nebraska Public Service Commission, Chapter 9 - Natural Gas and Pipeline Rules and Regulations, effective date July 27, 2013, available online at: wh state neus/rules/rules nateas.pdf, accessed April 2014. Plantz, M,, and Zink, R., Soil Survey of Keya Paha County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, October 1980. Pollock, R. and Davis, L., Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Nebraska, United States Department ‘of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, May 1975. Pollack, R., Knapton, 1, and Peterson, M., Soil Survey of Merrick County, Nebraska, United Slates Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of ‘Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, February 1981 Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL. Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Page 7 Ragon, L., Seevers, V., Indra, 0., Belohlavy, R., Lobaugh, §., Carlson, J., and Schultz, H., Soil Survey of Holt County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, March 1983. Seevers, V, and Pollock, R., Soil Survey of Polk County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, April 1974. Seevers, V., Soil Survey of York County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, August 1977. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database, available online at: http://www. dnr.ne.gov/nebraska-ssurgo-soils-index, accessed April 2014. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of ‘Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usds.gov/, accessed April 2014, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Published Soil Surveys for Nebraska, available online at: ll res.usda,gov/ Vnres/survevlist/soils/s /Pstateld=NE, accessed April 2014. Willard, J., Woods, J., Kollmorgen, H., Soil Survey of Nance County, Nebraska, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey Division, July, 1960. Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Soil Permeability Study ‘Tables Table SA-1 Soil Permeabilities Table $A-4 Soil Permeabilties Nobraska Prat od Route Keystone XI Pipeline Project, tomiy —] Fron] To ; Depth fom —] —Feraabiiy eaport Figure) | Miopost | atlopost |__S2t Association soiseres | surace in) | (nmhoun Tassimo rH 05-60 ‘nein oa 2080 coro | sors AveelneLabu ‘nel 2250 2080 abu Oz 7a507 Tab 70 5 Tabs 028 Tanz cars | eos Labu-Sanae aes on a Sane 1480 : Travel 38 aa200 Travale 324 60200 Taal 2480 55200 Gass 3:0 05.20 e108 | toe | tnevale-cassverde = a ae Cass 2080 E0200 Vardel a8 02.08) Vari i660 Oz aya Pabe ‘abs 025, 706-07 aon | estos | 615s LabuSansare ak En — Sense 1460 : Reliance ot 7525 Reliance 127 Relanoe 78 Relance 4880 ee 7 oiss | eres | RetanceReodansen Ree ra x ee 3480 2080 Tense 7 2080 vaneen ez 7620 “arsen 235 50200 “nse 350 a0 Taba ra 7697 Tab 28-60 sis | ors LabuSansare = a aa Sores 1480 = ‘rata oA 7080 irae 7628 30200 Trav 2550 60200 Gagson 346 7620 size | ere | navoi-cuigston-cass Gigsion E31 0620 Gagsen 3180 on20 Case oe 2080 Cass 7228 2080 Cass 2580 30200 ons, 7 oat 00892 Te 34-00 006-02 cise | ove Labu-Sansare =< ee ssa Sansare 7600 0607 Dunday os 7080 Dansey E80 20200 Vata cit 30200 sia | e200 | Dundayvaeninesimeon | —valenine ait soso Simeon os 30200 Siren 580 Boz00 Page 1 of 23, Table sas Soll Permosblitos Nebraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project County From | _To Depth rom | Ponneabily (Report Figure) | milepost | Nitopost eehitiees Souseries | surface co) {tovhour) Vaienine ont 60-200 Valentine 180 60:20.0 e200 | 6250 Valentine-Simeon a is soz00 Simeon 550 80-200 ‘Dunday 5 2050 ‘unday 15-60 20200 Boys Valentine Ot 60-200) (eann 625.0 | 6256 | Dunday-Vaientine-Simeon ae aa et ‘Simeon 5 6020.0 ‘Simeon 5.80 60-200 bu 034 00502, Labu 3480 006-02 cass | 0253 Labu-Sensare ae ue eta Sensare 1660 006-52 Lab Os 006-02 Lab 5.38 006-02 aber 3860 E Sencar 4 0520 626.3 | 6274 | Labu-Senserc-Valentne See a 9520 Sansere 12.60 : Watentne Os 60200 Velniine 50 6020.0 ‘One 0-12 206.0 ‘OW 72.28 2080 ‘ON 25.60 320 Aanselms 015 0880 - ‘Anselm 15:28 205.0 cara | 6290 | ONeliAnssimo-Piat — eae no Pivot 0.18 8020.0 Pivot 7621 60-200 Fivot 2128 60-20.0, Holt, Noth Fivot 2880) >20 (sA.034) Weweta Os 20-60 Weve 3-16 082.0 ‘Wowk 76:38 <2 Wewela 3550 5 e290 | 6301 | WenoleDundaySiemere ao 4 —s Duna 17-80 3020.0 lemere 8 60200 lamers 30 8.0200 ‘ONeit [=H 2060 ‘ONG! 12.26 2.069 ‘ONell 25.50 320 Anselm is 550 7 5s ‘Anselmo 75:20 2.08.0 630.1 | 6208 | ONeltAnseImo-Pit Seer Be 3080 Fivet 0-16 0200 Piet 16-21 6020.0 Piet 228) 6020.0 Pet 28-60, 320 Page 20123 Table SA Soll Permesblities Nobraska Preferrod Route Koystone XL Pipeline Project County | From | To xian sal'Sories | Deptntrom | —Permeabiiiy (Report Figure) | Milepost | Milepost forbes eel eat Surface (n) {intbour Wavela 08 2060 Wewela 6-18 0620 Wsla 1638 <2 Wevele 38.80 7 e208 | 6325 | Wewele-Dundayelemere Bee aS ee Dunda 1750 65200 Elsmere 08 60-200 Esmee 260 6-200 Lab Os 00602 abu 58 0602 abu 35.60 Bensere Ot Tao 6225 | 6331 | LabuSarsaroVelenine ——— = oa Sensare 7280 Veienine 05 e200 Valentine 550 60300 Veientine 08 50-300 Valentine E60 60-200 ‘Simeon 60-200 33.1 | 6255 | Valentine-Simeon-Dunday — as ‘Dundey 60200 ‘Dunday 50200 Nell 2060 ‘ON 2660 Nell 320 eacin 0620 Mesdin 6.020 Hot, Norn | OS | SBT Mesdin >a (GAA) sensen 0620 nean 06-20 ‘Jansen 30200 censen >a ‘Jansen 0520 Jansen 06-20 ‘ersen 69200 ex67 | eat Janser-O Neil Jenson 320, Nei 2060 Nel 20-60 Nei 320) ‘ON 20-50 ‘ON 2050 ‘ONel 320 Teac 0620 ‘Meadin 60.20 esr1 | 6x76 | ONeiRMeadinJensen a Jansen Jansen ansen Jansen, ‘onsen: ansen ears | sare Jansen-OWNell ‘dance ‘OWeil ‘ONeit ‘ONeil Page 3 of 23 Teble SA4 Soil Permeabilities Nebraska Proforred Route Keystona XL Pipoline Project ‘County From ]_To Tana alaron Depth from | Pormeabiiy (Roport Figure) | Milesost | milepost at ens sale ‘Surface (in) (frou) ‘ONall 0-12 2080 ‘ON 12:28 2080 ‘ON 25:60 320) Mesdin OF, 06.20 5 Meadin 718, 6.20 cas | 634 | ONeRMesdinJansen = ee = Jensen 05, Gozo Jansen 1525 0.620 Jansen 25:30) 3.0200 aner 30-60) 320 Jansen 0-16 520 ‘Jensen 15-28 0620 Jansen 25.30) 60200 ces | 388 Janson-O'Nell Jansen 3060) 320 ‘Nell 0-12 2080 Nell 12.26 2.050 Nell 2560) 320 ‘Nell [= 2060 ‘Nell 12-28 2080) ON 25-60 320 Mesain 7 620 Meadin 7-18 6.0.20 ease | 6909 | ONetMesdinvensen — — = Jansen 016 E20 Hot, Norn Jansen 15-25 0520 (84-034) Jensen 25-20 30200, ‘Jensen 30-80 220 Elsmere 9 50.205 Elemere 380 8.0200 page 08 5.0200 exe | sos Etemere-page-Loup iy = abt Loup O12 2080 Lowe. 260 50200, ONel O72 2080 ‘Orval 126 2080 ‘Oe 76-50 320 easin O7 Dead ‘Meadin 748 60-20 ioe | 6402 | ONetHMesdiniensen tee — — Jensen 0-46 3620 Jensen 75.25 0620 ‘Jensen 25-30 30200 Jansen 30-80 220) Janson 045 D620 angen 715-25 0.620 Jansen 25-80 30200 a2 | se8 Jansen ONe!l Janeen 30-60 320) ‘Onell Ota 2080 ‘ONE 2.28 2080 ‘ON 2580 320 Page 4ot23 Table saa Soll Permeabilities Nobrasks Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipaine Project Cour From Depth trom | Permeablily taaportrigue | mopot bol adie Sonseres | senacsin) | Gnnous ‘One o-2 2060 ‘ON! 1228 2060 ‘ONeil 2560 220) Meadin o7 0520 . ‘Meadin 76 5.020 e126 | 6490 | — ONeitMeadinJansen wea a = Jansen 045 0520) Jarsen 1525 ‘0620 arson 25.20 020.0 Jansen 30.50 320 ‘ON 0-12 2080 ‘ONelt 12.28 208.0 ‘Oe 2560 >20 Brunswick os 560 Brunswick 521 20.200 649.0 | 6550 | ONei-Srunswick-Paka Brunswick Brat 2020.0 Brunswick 34.60 320 Paks os 2080 Paka 325 06-20 Fake 2547 05:2.0 Paka. a8) 05:20 Jensen ‘05 05:20 Jesen 1525 0520 Jansen 25.30 50200 6550 | ess Jansen-O'Weit een 30.60 320 ‘ON 0-2 204.0 lai ‘One 1228 2060 ‘ONeil 26.00 20 Tea ‘Neil 0-12 2080 ‘ONEII 2.28 2080) ‘OWeil 726-60 520 Meadin or 3520 : ‘Mean 76 5020 e565 | 057.0 | ONelIMeadinJensen tate cS = Tense Os 0620 engen 1525 0520 Jansen 2530 8020.0 Jensen 30-60 320 ersen 06 0520 ‘ensen 1525 0520 “Tanean 25:30 6020.0 esr | 6586 Janeen. Oeil Janeen 3050 320 ‘ONelt om 2050 ‘ONell 12.25 2060 ‘ONell 2650 320 ‘Nel ote 2060 ‘OMA 12.05 2060 ‘ONeill 25.69 320 Meacin ‘OF 062.0 Mescin r6 8.0.20 e586 | os08 | ONelt-MesainJanson a aS oe danger O15 E20 Jansen 15.25 062.0 vansen 25.30 6.0200 neon 30.50 20 Page 5 of 28 ‘Table SA-t Soll Permosbilties Nobraska Preferred Route Koystone XL Pipaline Project County From | To CRIS a stiie Depth irom | Permeability “(Report Figure) | milepost | Milepost souseet Ser Surface (in) infhour) eaen O16 0820 Jansen 35:25 os20 Jansen: 75:30 3.0200 esos | se12 angen Ott ansen 300 320 ‘ONeill oz 2060 ‘ONeit 228 2080 ‘Neil 25.80 220 ‘ONel ot 2050 ‘Oneil 2.06 20-60 ‘ONei 25-60 320 Nesdin oO 0820 Meadin 76 6.020 est2 | 6643 | ONelLMeadin-lansen vets cae ae denser 0-5, t520 Jansen 15-25 062.0 Jonear 25-30 3020.0 Janson 30.80 320 Jansen 0-15 06.20 wansen 15-25 0620 Saneen 25.29 30206 esta | 044 angen ONall ‘ansen 30-60 320 ‘ON 0-12 2060 Nell 12.25 2080 ‘ONell 25-60 >20 Holt, Nort ‘ONell 02 2080 (Sh-034) ‘Onell 12.25 2080 ‘ON 25-60 =a) Messin oF 620 Meadin 7-16 6.020 est4 | 0559 | ONettMestin Jansen — =. = Jansen O15 3620 angen 15-25 0620 Jansen 25-30 6.0200 ansen 30-60 320 angen 0-18 3620 caneen 5-25 0620 Jansen: 75-30 50-200 esse | cer Jansen O'Neil ‘dansen 30-60 320 Nell Oe 2080 ‘ONe 72.26 2060 ON 26-60 =20) Dunday oar 50.200, ‘Bunday 17-80 60-200 Phot 048 5.0200 Pivot 716-71 50-200 cers | 9737 Dunday-Pivot- Dunn Piet 21.28 60200 Phat 28-60 320 Dunn O-2 0-200 Duo 128 60-200 Dunn 28-60 00602 Page 8 0123 Table saa Soll Perma! Nebraska Preferred Route Koystono XL Pipoline Projact County] From] Te iii Tousenss Depth From | Permeabligy Report Figura) | nilepost | Milepost Surface(in) | (ivhour, 1 eee Fata 08 2060 Paka 325 082.0 TER Paka 2541 0520 No oraz | orsa Paka-Ansema Pak 4-60 08-20 poy Arsaino ia 0550 asain 1529 2080 ‘sae 29.60 2050 Bale oft 0208 Bazi EH 20200 Baul 60 36 ors | oraz arle-Tet Beale a as “ent 24a 0820 Trent 40.80 0520 ONelr O72 2080 Nei 226 20-80 Nei 25.80 320 Brunewie 08 05.80 Brunswick B21 20200 672 | 6797 | — ONail Brunswick Paka Brunswie Zia 20200 Brurewiek S40 220 Paks os 20.80 Paks 328 05:20 Pai 25.at 06-20 Holt, South Paka 41-60 08:20 (68-038) Bale ott 0206 Basie 1 20.200 Bazie 380 35 evo | seo: Beale Tren, Bula 180 aon Tet BAO 7620 Trent 4080 0620 net O12 2060 Net es 20-60 Net 2580 >a Brnswick os 3680 Baunswiok Sat 2020.0 cot | 6811 | ONettSrnewick Poke Brunswick Zit 2020.0 Brunswick 3450 >a ka 08 Zsa Paka B25 6:20 Fake B51 06-20 Paka 41-60 06:20 Basie O14 8.20 Beale 1428 20-50 Bazi 2631 0520 ize Bari ata0 6000 wistope | gar1 | 6831 | Sazle-PakeThurman Fa O47 as-20 (6A) Paka 735 05.20 Paka 35:00 05-20 Thurman O78 50200 Thamar 76.60 60200 Page 7 023 Table SA Sol Permasbilltes Nobraska Preferred Route Koystons XL Pipotino Project oun From | Te Depth from | Permeatiity cnapet ur) | uioges | wigpone | Se Assocton sonseies | Stine ta) |" unhour Baunewick O4 208.0 Brunswick 47 20.0 Brunswick 1723 60200 Brunswick 2360 i 031 | 624s | Srunewick-PekevVelenine we ae aE Paka 17.35 0620) Paka 3550) 062.0 Valentine 0.60 0200 Bazle 4 062.0 Bazi 74:26 2.06.0 Bazi 2631 062.0 Bazle 3180) 50200 e015 | sass | Bazlie-Pats-Thurman Paka ‘a7 062.0 Paka. 17.38 0620 Paka. 35.60 0620 Thurman 0-16 5.0200 “Thaman 1680 6.0200 Trunswci 4 2080 ‘Brunswick a7 206.0 Brunswick 1728 6.0200 Brunswick 2580) = 6053 | 6558 | Brunswick-FekeVatentne vse ee at Paka i738 0820 Paka 3550) 052.0 Valentine 0.80 30200 abe Bazi 04 06:20 ci Bazi 428 2.06.0 ey Baal 2531 0520 Basle 31-80 60200 cose | sara Baile Paka-Thurmnan Paka ‘O17, 082.0 Paks 17.35 062.0 Poke 3560 082.0 Thames 015 6020.0 “Thame 1660 6020.0 "Thurman, 16 6020.0 “Tearman 1680 6.02000 Bodlus 010 6020.0 Boetus 10-28 6020.0 cero | 7014 | —Thurman-Boetus-Nera aoe =. — Nora O42 06-2.0 Nowa W221 052.0 Nora 2180 06-2.0 Valenine 000 6020.0 ria | 7029 Valenne-Thurman Thurman 016 6.020.0 Thurman 16-60 6,020.0 Thurman 046 3020.0 Thurman 1660 60200 Boekis 0-10 6020.0 Boss 1025 5.0-20.0 7o2s | 7082 | —Thurman-Boetus-Nero os — geet New 2 0520 Now 1221 0520 [Wess 21.60 062.0 Page 80123 Table SA Soil Permesblitios Nobraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipoline Project Coury From | To ~ oat Bivarea Dept from | Permeability (Report Figure) | Milepost | Milepost ssalncottla' ud Surface (In) (inthour) Nora 0-12 0620 Nora 72.2 05.20 Nora 2-80) 0.520 Brofiaa 0-80 0520 rosa | ri23 Nora-Crottan-Moody Taba oe eee Meo 334 0206 Moody 364) 06.2.0 Moody. 40-80 0820 Herd oa 0520 Hore 14-38 082.0 Hord 33.69 082.0 mea | nas Hord-Cozad as = — Cozad 14-25 082.0 Cozad 20-80 06-20 inavale ot 30200 Tnavale 17.80 0-200 a Elsmere 04 3.0.20.0 tele | ria1 | 7140 Inavale-Elemere-Ord Eleire 4660 6.0.20 ene ‘nd 0-10 082.0 OW. F927 208.0 ‘Ord 2160 e020 Hrd O14 062.0 Hore 1439 06:2.0 Hore 39.60 062.0 mo | 7149 Hord-Cozad oe OF eee Gazsd 714-20 0520 Cozed 20.80 082.0 Thuan 06 50-200 human, 16:80 80.200 Books. ‘O70 6020.0 Bale 1028 60-200 7i4a | 7182 | Thurman-Boelus-Nera fee — ee Nora O12 062.0 Nor 22 06:2.0 Nora 27-80 062.0 Nora or 0206 Nor 729 0206 Nora 2080, 0206 rie2 | 7252 Nore-Crottan-Moody Brston 080 06-20 = Moody (oa 0206 Moady 1248 0206 =| ead 45-60 0206 {Hobe O18 052.0 Boone 7208 | Mera Hobbs 718.69 0620 * (8A-05) Nora or 0206 Na 725 0206 No: 29.60 0206 rest | 7262 Nore-Crottan-Moody Trotter 080 0520 Moody 0-2 0206 aoa a8 206 Mo 280) 0206 Hobbs o-8 0.520 Tees TEE =e Hobos 76-80 0520 Page of23 Table SA Soll Permoabil Nebraska Proforred Route Koystone XL Pipeline Project ‘Gaunt From | _Te Death from] Permoabilty craport Fir) | Mlvost | wispost|__ So Aesovation sonseres | Sumscetin) | tous Tora oF 0205 No 723 o208 Nowa 25-60) 0208 mse | 7312 Nora-Crotan-Moody Croton 060 0620 aody 0-12 0208 Mood 12.48 0208, Mossy 4860) 0208 Hoots: 0-18 620 eee ee Hoots 78.60 0820 Nora 7, 0208 Nor 729 0206 Nora 25-60 0208 wiz | 7382 Nore-Croftan-Moody Grater 080 08:20 Meody 0-12 02.06 Mody — 12.48 02.06 Mody 4880) 0206 Hobbs. 0-18 0620 ysaz | rats Hobbs ee ae cae sud Now 07, 0206 ne Row 728 0206 ee Nor 2580 0206 via | 7236 Nora-Crotan-Moody Tratan (080 0520 Mood 0-2 0206 Mab 12.48, 02.08 Moody 28-80 oz06 Teshera ‘0-3, 0520 Teshara 1334 0520 Leshara 3450) 0520 Lamo 076 0208 mas | 7450 Leshare-Lame-Wann Tema 15:42 0208 Lame 4250) 0208 Wann 7 0550 wane 1722 2080) Wana 2280) 0-00) Hall 013 0820 Hall 13.44 0208, vaso | 7477 Halt Hord Hall 420) 0620 Hord ‘042 0620 How 280 0520 Nora 8 0208 Nora 630, 0205. Nora 35.80) 205) Groton 5 0620 7 7407 Nore-Crofor-Mosdy Grofion 520 0620 tance Grofion 7060 0520 Bape Hees 0:20 0205 Moody 29.38 0205 Moody 36-60) 0208 Hops 08 0620 yas | 7504 Hobbs —- = = Page 10 0128 Table SA Soll Permosbiltes Nebraska Proferred Route Koystone XL Pipeline Project County] Fram] To Ainaabeiion cl Sores) Devth irom | Formeabiiy (Report Figure) | miepost | wilepost ‘peitaseclat ‘soe Surface (in) (intnour) Now 08 02-08 Nowa 30 02.08 Neca 20-80 02.06 Croton 05 ‘0520 704 | 7580 Nora-Crofor-Mocdy ‘Groton 20 0620 Croton 2050 05-20 Moody 020 0206 Mood 2038 02.06 Moos 3550 02.06 Filner O14 0620 780 | 7582 Flinore Filmer Te54 0.05 lier 50 0206 No O8 0208 Nor 630 0206 Nora 30.60 0208 Groton 05 0520 7562 | 7563 Nora-Croten-Meody Grofion 520 0820 Groton 20.65 06-20 Moody 020 02.06 Moody. 20.58 02:06 Moody. 35-69 0206 Filmore O44 0820 reaa | 1554 Filmore Filmore 76.54 -<0.08 Nance Fimo. 480) oz08 (6406) ‘News 05 02.05 Nee 30 0206 Neva 3080) 02.08 Croter 05 06:20 ys34 | 7588 Nora-Crotton-Moody Crofton 520 0820 Cron 2050 06:20 Moody 020 0205 Moody 2038 0205 Moe 3680 0208 Filmore O18 0620 ress | 7589 Filmore Flimore 158 2.05 Flimore Bi-80 0208 Nor o8 0206 Nora 520 0205 Nora 20.66 0208 Gratton 05 0520 759 | 7589 Nora-Crofton-Meody Crafton 520 0620 ‘Groton 20-60 06:20 Mandy 020 0206 Maou 2036) 0205 Mao 36.60) 0205 Batre ost 0220 reas | 7530 Betfore Batre 7150 0205 Baars 5050 0205 Page 11 of23 Table S841 ‘Soil Pormeablitios Nebraska Proferred Routo Keystone XL Pipeline Projoct an Sanecaianh Gigerea | Denn om] Pormeabity (seport igure) | wtpost | migpost | _ Sat Aasorit sae surfcen)_| _tinour Tore 06 o2a6 Nowa 690 0208) Nora 30-60 0298 Croker Os 820 rs0 | 7695 | NowCrotontvacay Groton 520 Crehon 20-60 ooay 020) Woy 20-38 Moody 3580 Hal 6 reas | 735 Hat Hal 16-4 Hal 4-00 a 028 ra95 | 7538 ir al oa Ha 0-6 al 6-54 rsa8 | 1501 Hatobbe al sea0 Tobe 08 r Hobos 160) 0520 Nowa O58 0208 Now. 530 0208 Nora 3060 0206 Groton 5 0820 ze0.1 | 712 | Nora-croton-oody ret 520 0820 Cron zo 0520 093 O20 078 Hoos 20-38 0206 Nerca Hoody 3680 0208 (6A-0) al 0-18 0820 Hal 764 0208 wiz | rts wal-Hobbe Hal 5450 0620 Hobbs O48 0520 Hobbe 16.60 0620 Wenn ort 2080 Ween 118 2050 Wan 1880 2080 Cass 4 2080 yeis | 7618 | Wam-Cosednavie ass 1436 2080 Cass 25-00 50200 Thavale oF 60200 Thal 78 0200 hava 1560 30200 Gomnereuy 08 6020.0 yeta | 7024 Gothenburg Gonenbuy Bit 6020.0 Goto 160 720 ees | 7622 Valertine were 2 eae Vater 20, B00 Goherbg os 30300 reo2 | 7022 Gotrenbus Ganeroug Bi 6020.0 Goherbu 180 >a Cass. O74 2050 Cass 1636 205.0 re22 | 722s Cass-navale Cais ae ee Tea oF 30.200 7a 6020.0 1660 60-200 Page 12 023 Table SA Soll Permoabiitios Nebraska Praferrad Route Koystone XL Pipsline Project Boar From | _To opti from | Permoablty (gape ris} | went | mop | _S0Asoseton saissores | Surtaee n)_| tion) Thames o-t2 60-200 Thurman 72-16 60-200 7ezs | 7628 “Thurman-Valontine Tauren 1850 6.0-200 Valentine 04 6.0-200 Valentine 4-80 6.0-200 Oriel 0-12 20-60 yezs | 7032 Orie ‘Orolo 72-30 20-60 Orteo 300 6.0-200 ‘Wann Ot 2.0.60 yex2 | 7032 Ween Wann Ti6 20:80 ‘Wann 78:50 20:50 For 0-14 05:20 Hore 74-50 06-20 Fore 5050) 05-20 Hal 16 0520 Hall 76.54 02.06 7e2 | 7638 Hord-Hal-Gayile Hall 3480) 06-20 Gayla 02 06-20 Gayle 2.14 <8 Gayle 76-22 0206 Gayle 2328 0220 Gayile 2580) 0220 ‘Wann on 20-60 7exs | 7839 Wan Wann 11-18 20:60 Wisna 78-80 2.080 Detroit 0-14 082.0 Nance ese | 742 Detot Deira 4-46 06-20 (84-08) ato 4880) 06-20 Hors, 044 (06-20 ore 74-50 05:20 ow 3080) 082.0 al 046 0820 Hall 75.54 02.06 yoe2 | 7o45 Hord-HallLamo — — — Lame 048 08:20 amo 79.25 02.20 Teme 25.35) 0206 Lame 3580) 02-20 ‘oa 0-12 2080 ress | 7647 Oteto ‘Oreo 72:50 2080 ‘Orel 300 30-200 or O14 0620 rear | 7049 Hort Hoe! 76-50 05:20 Hor 5050) 0520 rial 042 2.080 zero | 7653 Oneio ‘alo 72:30 20-60 ‘One 30.60 30-2000 amo 0-18 06-20 Lame 7825 022.0 Tame 2538 02-06 vesa | 7657 Lamo-Hord Lame 35.80 022.0 Hor 0-14 06-20 Hor 14-50 06.2.0 Hor 50.60 3620 Page 19 of25 Table sA-t Nebraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project Taunty | Frew] To a Depinfrom | Pormeabiity Report Figure) | Milapost | wllepost SMLAcoonyaten SoitSeriee | _ surface (in) Ainfnour) Gober a 06-20 ‘Gbber 1436 06.20 77 | 7959 ‘@bbbon aa = at (@bbor 45-60 0.200 ‘One O12 20-60 vse | 7030 Ora ‘Oxslo 72:30 2060 ‘Oral, 30-60 50.200 (Gibber 044 05-20 (ibbon 74-38 0520 750 | 7364 Gibbon a — oeet ‘GEban 48-60 30200 Lama og 0620 Lama 19.25 022.0 emo 25.35 0206 7ee.1 | 7055 Lamo-Loup amo 35:60 02.2.0 Loup O72 20:60 Nance Loup 1248 2080 (6A-05) Lous 4860 50200) Cass 074 2060 yeas | 1657 cass Gass 1436 2080) Gass, 36-60 50200 Lou’ O12, 2.08.0 Low. 1248 2080) Loup 4650 3.0200 re7 | 7673 Loupavann — oa ae Viana 18 2060) Wann 1820 2080 Taro C9) “Larne 7025 Tao 25.35 mrs | 7675 Lamo-Warn ~ Lame 35.69 Wann) ort Yienn 1118 Wien "8.60 Teshara 12 Leshan 248 Leshara. 4660 Tex. 013 vers | 7600 Leshare-Lex-Janude Lox 1328 Lex 24.60 onus 030 Tanude 20-98 Morte danude 32-60 An) ‘ON! 028 ‘ON 73-30 ‘ON 30-60 Brocksourg 020 yoo | 7704 | ONsitirocksburg-Biendon | Brocksburg 2027 Brocksburg 2750 Blendon 36 Biendon 7160 Blendon 060 Page 14023 Table Sat Soll Prmeabilites Nobraska Proferred Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project Coun From ]_To Dopthirom —] Penneabiiy (Bepertigur) | wiepost | miegest| Se Astevation Soi'Setee | surface |_| trou Tame O19 0520 Tame 1625 022.0 Lame 25.35 0206 Lame 35-60 0220 Caruso 044 0620 ‘Caruso 14.53 022.0 7a | 7718 | Lamocaruso-Gayvie ae aes wan Geile oz 0520 ‘Gayle 24 <8 ‘Gayle 1422 0208) Geile 228 0220 ‘Gayle 2860) 0220 Fenner 020 2060 me | mz Fonner Fenner 2028 60200 Fonner 2680 320) Gathenburg os. 50-2000 Gothenburg 3a7 6.00.0 Gothenburg 11-80 320 Pats o7 0520 7727 | 7732 | GoreshupPlate-Bamey Plate Taz 2080 Merce Pita 12-60 320) (3.07) Barrey 08. 0520 Barre 348 2020.0 ‘Bamey 76-60 320 Teshere oe D520 Leshara 12:48 052.0 Leshara 4650 36 Tex O13 0520 rsa | 7154 Leshare-Lexemude Le 1324 025.0 Lee 2460 320) Tans 030 2080 anu 3038 2.08.0 nude 36.50 065.0 Gothenburg 03 3.0200 Gothenburg 31 60-200 ‘Gothenburg 71-60 320 Paatia or 0520 775.1 | 7758 | Gothenburp-Piete-Bamey Piatie 72 20-60 Prate 12.60 >a Barney oo 0620 ‘Bare 38 2.0200 76-60 220) 0-16 2680 76:65 0-200 (0.48 0820 758 | 7783 Platte-Leshera-Aida a8 sez0 028 2.080 tend 2080 5.0200 i. 0.50 0820 ($08) 73 | 778 Hou oe ii83 0.10 062.0 70-60 0620 ma | 793 oly Cozad 02 062.0 ea 0620 32-60 0620 Page 15 0f 23 Table SA Soil Pormoabilities Nebraska Proforrad Route Koystone XL Pipeline Projoct County] From Tinie Depth from | Permeabiliy (Report Figure) | Nllepost iets ene Surfaco (in) (inthoud alder 04 05:20 rea | 7268 Holder Folder 1437 0520 Polk Holder 31.69 0620 (6A-08) Tastings 0.2 0620 yess | 7394 Hastings Hastings 72.30 0208 Hastings 30-60 0620 Hastings 08. 620 Hastings 28 0208 Hastings 28.80 0620 vena | 7098 Filmore 0-13 06-20 Filion 184 0.08 Filmore 3440 0205) Flimors 4080 Holder 0-14 zoos | 7002 Holder Holger eat Holder 4120) 0620 Hasings Ds. 06-20 Hastings Baa 0206 Hastings 880) 082.0 vao2 | 7979 Hosting Filmore Fimo. 3 05:20 Flere 1334 <0.08 Flimore 3440 0208 Filmore 4069 0620 Hastings O8 05-20 vera | 7983 Hostings Hastings 68 0206 Hastings 4860 0520 Hard 0.18 0520 Hord 76:50 0520 zosa | 7988 Hord-Sity Atul Herd 50-80 0520 York SHiy Aluvial band - = (84-08) ity Aluviel Land) Z = Hastings 06, 520 roan | 7998 Hastings Hastings 6.48 0205 Hastings 2860 0520 Hastings 06 0620 Hastogs a8 O208 Hastogs 4660 052.0 reas | 8014 Hasting Flimore Faimore. 0-13 05.2.0 Filmore 13:36 0.08 Falmer. 2440 02.06 Filmore 4089 062.0 Hastings o8 06.2.0 eos | ante Hastings Hastings 6-48 0206 Hastings 4880 052.0 Hastings 6 06-20 Hastings — 6.48 0206 Hastings 48.69 062.0 sos | e027 Hosting Filmore Filmore 0-18 052.0 Filmore 1334 0.05 Filmore 3440 2206 Filmore 4080 062.0 Hastings 6 052.0 aoz7 | 03.9 Hastings Hastings 58 0206 Hastings 669 0520 Page 18 of 23 Table SA4 Soll Permeabiities Nobraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project a a ; ai an Para {Report Figure) | Milepost | Milepost Sotieeostiony sels ‘Surface (in) {inthour) a te asa a 1620 ozo sos | oon | Hosa ann Ha 3080 020 Sparc [| i Seinen | fasge 6 5 soiz | ose stings Tsing ea tae Tange 580 t20 Tae 38 0820 cm ea tte iste 780 0820 sous | anno | Hastog Fume Tair ci teat Ane 7334 “ae Finer sat a0 Aer wot oa28 taste 8 t320 soos | si01 stings ange eas a8 ase 30 820 Tastes te a0 Taste eae O08 Tosi 80 tea vor 810.4 e107 Heasting-Filmore Filmore 13 0620 (SA), Filmore 4334 <0.08 inte a0 08 Fine 50 to Taste os teat ior | ere estas Tas ea tsa Tatra 550 t820 Tid os ten Td iEz0 0820 ioe | siz | How'sny ana Td 3500 0520 Siar Se atattane | age os Tz iar | ers Hasogs Tasinge 3 t08 Tasinge 789 o20 Taste te teat 7 Ta ate rasta 580 oe20 aise | ier | Hasina tne fimo 33 o820 fino 1334 cr Fiore 340 a8 Fine 50 tea Taste oF 020 rast 735 ta has ‘ae 3550 ta Fares | ores | ores asia Crt sein Eon sees Gil 1238 doen Gi 380 oa Page 17 of 28 Table SA Soll Permeabiltios Nobraska Preferred Rout Koystone XL Pipatine Project County | From ]_To G Dopihirom | Permeability Report Figuro} | milepost | wilepost Soli Asseeioion bia Surface (in) (iwhour) Fangs oF, 06-20 Hastings 735 02-26 hastings 3560 06-20 iy 08 06-20 aves | e191 Hestings-Uy-Geary uy 9.5 0620 uN 75-80 05:20 Geary 08. 02-08 Gea 6.25 0520 Geary 36-80 0520 Hastings 07, 0520 Hastings 78 0225 ‘rastings 35.60 0620 siat | ater Hastings-Crete ing Se a Crate 1258 006-085 ‘Crate 3360 0220 Crate O12 02.06. Grete 1238 006.05 Crete 3360 0220 aie7 | 209 Crete-Butor Buller 0-18 05-20 Buller 1328 0602 Butler 2534 0208 Buller 3460 0520 Hisings 7 05:20 Hastings 735 0226 Fiore Hastings 3560 0520 oui | 8209 | eats Hastngs-Crete ue a — Crete 12.83 006-065 Crete 60) 0220 Grate O12 0208 Grete 12.85 006-05 Grete 3360) 0220 sais | aas1 cretesutler Butler O18 0820 Butler 13:28 aoe02 ‘Buen 29.34 0208 Buller 348 0820 ‘Out oF 05:20 ‘Out Taz 006.02 ‘Obut 23-40, 0206 ‘Obut 20°60 0520 erat | 255 but autor cS a oeee Buller 1525 Doe02 Buller 25-34 0208 Bulan 369 052.0 Crete O42 0208 Grete 1am Crete 3560 ass | e208 Crete-Butler Buller 0-8 Bullen “ig Bullen 26-34 Bullet 0) Page 18.0123 Table SA-4 Soll Parmeabiitins Nebraska Preferred Routo Keystone XL Pipeline Project Comnty [Fem] To ‘opi am | Farmesbiliy (Report Figure) | Wilepost | Milepost Eom Aseoaatony So tere Surface (in) (invhowr) Taainge oF 7620, asings 735, 0228 Fasting 3500 0620) Gries ot 2208 soon | 6217 | Hastings crete ear Grete 1255 ae608 Coie 2200 Seay 3 Geary 636 Fimore Geary 3600 (eatoh Muir 045 thi 580 Tonos os : Tahoe oan sor | eaes Mule toobe Ber bebe ma ona Tea Bul 23H Bul 360 Gris 75 Ser ee Cris ez Sete aa 5 Tiasings a3 sa | ea46 | crtetHastngs-Geary Ee a fasinae 70 Geary os Gee 7338 eany 360 Gite 08 Grete 68 Cite saz Grete wD oy Pi Butler O12 Bul 1225 Buiter 55 aan 37-60 seat O43 a7 180 30 sro | sa74 | Hastngsdongtoe-Burchot 7338 300 70 Surchard 1936 Buthard 2.60 Crete 75. Gree 0 Cris saz rie ra ears | sara crte Butler Cia i286 Baler 225 ‘Bur 537 Siler 37.60 190823 Table SA4 Soil Permeabiities Nobraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipolina Project, Coun From | _To Depthirem | Permeability imoport rior) | nilenost | wispose | __Séll Associaton souseries | Surttno)_| "hour Ftigs o-13 05:20 lasting 73.41 0208 Hastings 4120) 0520 Longford 0-10 0520 x74 | 379 | Hastngs-Lonefor!- Burchard [Longford 70-36 006-02 Longiore 3880 0208 Burchard 00 0206 Burchard 7036 0206 Burrard 35:60 0206 Greta 06 0820 Crete 69 0206 Crete 1942 006.02 Crete 42.80 0220 sero | 64 Ccret-Buter ass = wet Butter 12:18 106.02 Buler 25.37 02.08 fuer 37.60 08-20 Hestings 03, 0520 Hastings 13.41 02.06 Hastings 4760 06:20 Lengford 0-10 05:20 ese4 | e108 ings-Longfort- Burchard [Longford 7038 006-02 Longford 3860 0208 Buchard 0410 0208 ‘iawns ‘Burchard 10:36 0208 ony Burchard 3680 02.08 Crete 05 0520 Grete 618 0208, ‘Grete 19.42 006-02 ‘Crete 4250 0220 eras | ame Crete-Butler —_ 2) oe Buller 12:25 006-02 Buller 2537 0208 Butler 37-80 0520 Hastings 43 08.20 Hastings 1341 0208 Hestngs 4160 08.20 Lengfort 010 08.20 eeze | o4a8 | Hestings-Longforé-Buchard Lengfors 1038 00802, Tengfort 3680 02.08 Buchard 0 02.08 Burchard 10:36 02-08 Burchard 2660 02-06 ‘Grete 08. B20 rete ee 02-08 ‘fete 19.42 006.02, rete 4260 0220 pen NS cial ler ‘O72 0820 Butler 12.25 005.02 Butler 2537 0206 Butler 37.80 0520 Page 20 023 Table SA4 soi Permeabilties Nebraska Preferred Route Koystone XL Pipeline Project Saas Fam] 8 a creme) Bas Fa | Pay (Report Figuro) | Milepost | Milepost igo Arsociat ‘eos ‘Surface (in), (lnvhour Tage oa oE0 rate ai rer rigs ag 360 agi or 3520 tus | ese | rantwetondeuouced [taser a Bae aga aa reer aos on 328 sane oe oes eas Era O78 co of 3820 con ei OEE ai a wae02 cai ae tao use | ease cin ter se oe 220 Bar Te 3aE07 nar war vga ar aa bas Te oF ro ra i E08 ge aa aero Tog oa 3659 Gt | ee | cers | Heaters [te rose | ta a aap oma a 20 0238 sued 8 Oa5E ae 3520 298 ca oa oa Cut ea 0338 ea a on Cat aan ea wars | ears ce Bate Sie ea 326 ae Eas THES ear ast cae Br aa cao or ot 850 rasbge ra O28 Tage aad 0520 ae 5 DE vrs | cera | tsingetongoc-tucted [teed 7039 Uae aged ast Oza Buea on nT Bae 1035 oa aaa 2a a8 aay oF oa cay Taz oa =e cay aa baa8 are | cass | Gentes a a 2a Tags 7 58 ‘2 Tat 3a 320 iiareen, ‘Hobbs _ 0-26 0820 ‘ee, Hobbs. 26-60 06-20 a on OEE sas | eros | Hesoeninzcas = 7250 088 car oe ED as Es TEED = 320 [nemo Page2t of23 ebrabika Prefered Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project County From | To Depth From | Pormeabily (Report Figure) | Mlopost | Milepost Sol Association Soil Series | surface (i {infnous) Mori 0-42 0208 Meri 4289 0206 sees | e514 Mori-Burchard Burchard O14 0206 Burchard 1622 020.6 Burehara 3280 0206 Cre 06 062.0 ‘Cree 623 006-02 Crete 2329 0206 asia | ase Crete Maybory Crete 2850 0620 Maybary 048 0208 Mayberry 73.42 0.06.02 Maybery 2260 0206 Hobbs 026 062.0 Hobbs 25.80 0620 Hors 0-18 0620 asus |) 2600 Hobbs-Hord-cas Hos 7860 ‘0620 Gass. 0-16 0620 Gass. 78.33 208.0 ess. 3360 30200 Moral = 02.06 Mera 4250 0206 soo | 8609 Morriturchord Burchard 0-14 0206 Burchard 4632 0206 Burchard 3280) 0206 ‘Hobbs. 028 05.2.0 Hobbs: 2550 062.0 Hort 046 elieson | ase | e515 Hobbs Hord-Case Hord 716-60 (eat), Cass 056 Gass 75.83 Cass. 3550 Mera 042 Mera 280 ais | e519 Mor: Burchard Burchard ota Burchard 14:32 ‘Burchard 22.80 Cie 08 523 25.28 wis | sro Crete-Maybery Cree 23-50 Mayberry 078 Mayberry 13:42 Mayberry 42:60 Lancaster ‘o0 Lancaster 10:28 Lancaster 25.48 5 AD | APA: edule 8 0620 Hediile Ba 2050 Hedvile a-30 Gra 08. 3E20 Cre 23 00602 Grete 23.25 3205 ems | 8758 Crete-Maybery Grete 2850 (0620 Mayberry 1a 0208 Mayborry 1342 06-02 Mayberry 4260 0205 Page 2200123 Teble 68-4 Soll Permeabities [Nebraska Preferred Route Keystone XL Pipeline Project Canny] Flom] To Depth fom | Permwabiiy {Report Figure) | Milopost | tilepost Be ase aee prises Surface (in) {ievnour) tay ont 3208 Geary 7122 0205 Geary Heo 3208 ‘army | a758 | ores Geayslansen Jansen 0-10) 08-20 Tansen 15 as20 “erser ea 3520 carsen aa 22 sure: Pant, M., and Zhe R. Sol Suey of Koya Pahs County, Neva, Ud Sialve Deparment of Agcutue, Soll Cansanaton ‘Serves, eoosraon wih Unkerey of Nebraska, Cnsarain and Survey Dido, Ortober 1880 nea, ©, Sot Suney of Sey County, Nebasha, United Sti Deparment of Agua, Sal Conservation Sen, in cozpetten win Uieray ot Nebraska, Corearvcon ard Survey Dien, March 1978 anhie, C, Hamer, , Hanmond, Cand Schult, R, Sol Sunsy of Arle County, Nebraska United States Depermert of Apulre, Soi Coneeraton Seve, in caoperatn wih Universo Nebasks, Conservation ana Suvey DWsion, Apri 1978. Hammond, tanhke ., Bown, L. Scuie, R, ané Russe, W, Sell Suey of Boone County, Nebatk, Unted States Deparment Agu, Sl Concervaen Sera, in exoporaton wih Urivrey of Nebraska, Congenaton and Suey Divln, Jen 1272 alMouse 0, Hanenan,R, Scr, 1, Use, D. and Mors, G, Soll Suey f Saline Coun, Nerask, Unies Sistas Oapetnot Agel, St Conservation Serie, cogparaion wih Unvery of Nobraka, Caseraton and Suey DNsia, Otcber #80, ‘Ragon L, Seover, V, Inca, Belohow, Ry Labaug, 8, Carson, J, and Schutt H, Sl Survey of Holt Coun, Nebraska, Unites ‘Slater Daparmrrt of Agrestire, $07 Carasrvaton Src, h ceopraton with Unversy of Netra, Carsenaon and’ Suvey Dison, Mare 1588, lord, Jy Woods, J, Kolrgen, H, Soll Suvey of Nance Coury, Nebraska, Unted'Stsles Deparment of Agi, Sl Coneertion Seve, inenoperton wth Uriversy of Nebraska, Crsenaon and Suvey DN, Jy, 1860 Potoa, R., Knap, |, and Petersen, M, Soll Suny of Morick County, Nabratka, Unit States Department of Aarowur, Sol Corervatan Serve in ecopeaton wih Lvs of Nebraska, Consevation and Suvey Dison, February 188 eaves, Vand Poloek R, Sol Survey 8 Polk Coury, Nebrabha, Und Stats Deparment ot Agriculture, Sal Coearaen Serv, i cooreraon wih Unarey of Nebraska, Conservation and Suey Dilan, Api 87% ‘Severs, SollSuvey of Yor County, Nebraska, Und Stee Doprtrent of Agrcutee, Sli Conservation Sane, eaapraon wh Unrey of Nebrasia, Conseraton and Survey DMs, August 1877, Hemmer, R, Polack, R. Buecle, A, Reston, I. nd Husbends, J, Sol Survey of Fllmere County, Nebasin, Unies Stas Deparment of Agreuture, Sal Corse‘van Serve, n cooperation wth Universty ot Nebraska, Conservation and Eunay DWiSon, shy te, Foloek, R. and Devi, L, Sal! Surey of eterson County, Nera, United States Department et Aalto, Sail Conserysen Sorin operation wih Unarsy ef Nebraska, Coasarvaton an Survey ion, May 1878. Based oes" Soil Permeability Study and Distance-to-Groundwater Survey April 2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Nebraska Preferred Route Soil Permeability Study Figures SA-O1 Soil Associations - Mile Post 601-617 - Keya Paha County SA-02 Soil Associations ~ Mile Post 617-626 - Boyd County SA-03A _ Soil Associations - Mile Post 626-676 - Holt County (North) SA-03B Soil Associations - Mile Post 676-681 - Holt County (South) SA-04 Soil Associations - Mile Post 681-725 - Antelope County SA-05 Soil Associations - Mile Post 725-753 - Boone County SA-06 Soil Associations ~ Mile Post 753-768 - Nance County SA-07 Soil Associations - Mile Post 768-776 - Merrick County SA-08 Soil Associations - Mile Post 776-789 - Polk County SA-09 Soil Associations - Mile Post 789-818 - York County SA-10 Soil Associations - Mile Post 818-833 - Fillmore County SA-11 Soil Associations - Mile Post 833-848 - Saline County SALI Soil Associations - Mile Post 848-876 - Jefferson County Tab #3 Acquired Easements or Leases (Landowners) Refer to Master Copy — Originals; Binder #020 Nebraska Jublic Sersice Commission t preven Wate pena Cave RACES rom (0947316 vay coer Fue tae avast "arson NEBRASKA CONSUMER Hor vanesesco17 November 20, 2017 CERTIFICATION ‘To Whom Tt May Concer: I, Michael G. Hybl, Executive Director of the Nebraska Public Service Commission, heteby certify thatthe enclosed is a true and correct copy of the original order made and entered in the proceeding docketed ‘OP-0003 on the 20th day of November, 2017. The original order s filed and recorded in the official records of the Commission. Please direct any questions concerning this order to Nichole Muleahy, Netural Gas Director, at 402-471-3101, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the Nebraske Public Service Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska, this 20th day of November, 2017. Ms yO Michael G, Hybl Executive Director MGHida Enclosure co: See attached service list James G Powers MeGrath, North etal. First National Tower Ste 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 ipowers@megrathnorth.com Pattick D Pepper MoGrath, North etal. First National Tower Ste 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 ppepper@mcgrathnorth.com Jayne Antony 16064 Sprint St Omaha, NE 68130-2030 Jaynevevan@yahoo.com Jennifer § Baker Fredericks Peebles and Morgan LLP 1900 Plaza Drive Louisville, CO 80027 {jbaker@ndnlaw.com Wrexie Bardeglio 9748 Arden Road ‘Trumansburg, NY 14886 vwrexie.bardaglio@gmail.éom Leverne A Barrett 1909 CoRAE Cotesco, NE 68017 Vernbarrett@furucetk.com Mia Bergman 86424 514 Ave. Orchard, NE 68764 mbergman85@hotmail.com Ellen © Boardman O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP 4748 Wisconsin Avenuc, NW Washington, DC 20016 eboardman@odonoghuelaw.com OP-0003 SERVICE LIST Anna Friedlander O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP 4748 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 afriedlander@odonoghuelaw.com Robert O'Connor, Jr O'Connor Law Firm PO Box 45116 ‘Omaha, NE 68145 reolaw@aol.com James P Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Law Firm, PC LLO 6035 Binney Street Ste 100 Omaha, NE 68104 cavanaughlawfirm @eol.com Dara Illowsky 1650 38th Street Suite 102w Boulder, CO 80301 dara.illowsky@sierraclub.org Kimberly E Craven 33 King Canyon Road Chadron, NE 69337 Kimecraven@gmail.com Cathie (Kathryn) Genung 902 East 7th St Hastings, NE 68901 tg64152@windstream.net Louis (Tom) Genung 902 Fast 7th St Hastings, NE 68901 tg64152@windstream.net Andy Grier 916S. 181st St. Elkhorn, NE. 68022 erica @cox.net OP-0003 SERVICE LIST Christy JHargeshoimer Karen Jarecki 620 30th St 6112 Bedford Ave Lincoln, NE 68510 Omaha, NE 68104 chrispaz@neb.rr.com tenbuckstwo@yahoo.com Richard S Hargesheimer Brad § Jolly 620 South 30th St Brad S Jolly & Associates Lincoln, NE 68510 15355 Gadsen Dr rshargy@gmail.com Brighton, CO 80603 bsj@bsjlawfirm.com Robert J Henry Blake & Ublig.PA Brian F Jorde 753 State Avenue Ste 475 Domina Law Group PC LLO Kansas City, KS 66101 2425 S 144th Street Fih@blake-uhlig.com Omaha, NE 68144-3267 bjorde@dominalaw.com Michael 3 Stapp Blake & Uhlig,PA. Dave Domina 753 State Avenue Ste 475 Domina Law Group PC LLO Kansas City, KS 66101 2425 § 144th Street mjs@blake-uhlig.com ‘Omaha, NE 68144-3267 ddomina@dominalaw.com ichael EZ Amash Blake & Uhlig,PA Taylor RM Keen 753 State Avenue Ste 475 5022 Hamilton St Kansas City, KS 66101 ‘Omabe, NE 68132-1448 mea@blake-uhlig.com taylorkeen7@gmail.com Becky Hohnstein Judy King PO Box 272 1261 Fall Creek Rd Minatare,NE_ 69356 Lincoin, NE 68510 jimbohnstein@gmail.com Kingjud@gmail.com Marvin E Hughes Michelle C LaMere 714 W Sth St Ste 120 POBox 514 Hastings, NE 68901 Winnebago, NE 68071 bhughes@gtmenet iamere@rocketimail.com John Jarecki Pemele Luger 6112 Bedford Ave 8732 Granville Pkwy Omaha, NE 68104 LaVista, NE 68128 Johnjareckit 1 0@gmail.com pal 181@yshoo.com Kendall Maxey 350.0% 20 Jay Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 kendall @350.0rg Blizabeth (Liz) Mensinger 6509 Wirt St. Omaha, NE 68104 lizmensinger@gmail.com ‘Cindy Myers PO Box 104 Stuart, NE 68780 esmyers77@hotmail.com. Crystal Miller 7194 Greenleaf Drive LaVista, NE 68128 necemiller@juno.com Jenece Mollhott 2354 Buclid Street Ashland, NE 68003 ‘wimollhofi@windstream.net Greg Nelson 3700 Sumner St Lincoln, NE 68506 gnelson@jnetnebr.com Julie Nichols 1995 Park Ave Lincoin, NE 68502 willpower2@earthlink.net Jana Osbom 1112 Meadowlark Alliance, NE 69301 janajearyb@gmail.com James Douglas Osborn 43110 879th Ré Ainsworth, NE 69210 dosborn30@yshoo.com OP-0003 SERVICE LIST Christine Polson 4923 Valley St Omaha, NE 68106 snpolson(@jcox.net Dave Polson 4923 Valley Street Omaha, NE 68106 honk@cox.net Joseph Pomponio 551B Sand Creek Rd Albany, NY 12205 Tukaz@msn.com Collin A Rees 4721 Heather Lane Kearney, NE 68845 collin@priceofoil.org Donna Roller 2000 Twin Ridge Rd, Lincoln, NE 68506 rollerski@gmail.com Cecilia Rossiter 949 N 30th St Lincoln, NE 68503 punion@gmail.com Corey Runmann 2718 . 12th St Lincoln, NE 68502 rumanne@gmail.com Lois Schreur 2544 N. 61st Street PO Box 4376 Omaha, NE 68104 leschreur@centurylink net OP-0003 SERVICE LIST Tristan Scorpio Paul Theobald 208 § Burlington Ave Ste 103 85718 544th Avenue Box 325 Foster, NE 68765 Hrasting, NE 68901 ptheobald36@gmail.com linda@boldnebraska.org Jonathan H' Thomas Julie Shaffer 960 § Cotner Blvd 5405 Northern Hills Dr Lincoln, NE. 68510 Omaha, NE 68152 ‘thewild_things@yahoo.com ksjaffer59@pmail.com Elizabeth L Troshynski 87769 484th Ave Sandra Slaymaker Atkinson, NE 68713 102 B 3rd St #2 btroshyn@hotmail.com Atkinson, NE 68713 sandyslaymaker@gmail.com Christine Troshynski 1O1S. Ist St. Susan Soriente Emmet, NE 68734 1110 Rockhurst Drive ctroshynski@gmail.com Lincoln, NE 68510 ssoriente@gmail.com Julie Walker 2570 West Luther St. Lome Stockman Martell, NE, 68404 Oil Change International jw9095@yahoo.com 714 GSt,, SE Suite 202 Washington, DC 20003 Susan C Watson lome@priceofoil.org 2035 N 28th St Apt 213, Lincoln, NE 68503 Susan Straka-Heyden sewatson1965@gmail.com 46581 875th Rd Stuart, NE 68780 Susan J Weber suzie_sl@hotmail.com 2425 Folkways Blvd Apt 329 Lincoln, NE 68521 Kimberly L Stuhr susanjweber4@yahoo.com 19303 Buffalo Rd Springfield, NE 68059 Douglas Whitmore Kimberlystuhr13@yahoo.com 8856 N 83rd Ave Omaha, NE 68122 Jacques Tallichet douglas@whitmore4congress.com 2821 §. 79th St Lincoln, NE 68506 Kenneth © Winston jacques.tallichet@gmail.com 1327 H StSte 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 kwinston@inebraska.com ‘OP-0003 SERVICE LIST ‘Sandy Zdan 4817 Douglas Omaha, NE 68132 sandyw2@oox.net Sarah Zuckerman 1729 K St #7 Lincoln, NE 68508 sarahj1182@gmail.com Lisa May 1008 13th Avenue Kearney, NE 68845 Consumer Energy Alliance Michael Whatley 1666 K Street NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20006 Ports to Plains Alliance Michael Reeves 5401 N. MLK #395 Lubbock, TX 79403 South Dakota Oil & Gas Association Adam Martin: PO Box 3224 Rapid City, SD 57709 Association of Oil Pipe Lines Steven M. Kramer 900 17th Street, NW, Ste. 600 Washington, DC 20006 ‘Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry Ronald J. Sedlacek PO Box 95128 Lincoln, NE 68509 American Petroleum Institute Judith Thorman 216 West Jackson Bivd., Ste. 915 Chicago, IL 60606 National Association of Manufecturers Ross Bisenberg 733 10th Street, NW, Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20001 SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BEFORE THE NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of the Application ) Application No. OP-0003 of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, ) L.P., Calgary, Alberta, seeking approval for Route Approval of the ) ORDER Keystone XL Pipeline Project Pursuant to the Major Oil Pipeline ) siting Act. }) Entered: November 20, 2017 APPEARANCES: For the Applicant, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP: James G. Powers Patrick D. Pepper McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 (402) 341-3070 jpowers@mograthnorth.con ppepper@megrathnorth.com James P. white Associate General Counsel, Pipelines & Regulatory Affairs TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP 1250 Eye Street NW Suite 225 Washington, DC 20005 (703) 680-7774 Jim p white@transcanada.cam For Landowner Intervenors: David A. Domina Brian £. Jorde 2425 8, 144% Street Omaha, NE 68144 (402) 493-4100 ddomina@dominalaw.com bjorde@dominalaw.com For the Intervenors Bold Alliance, Sierra Club, Nebraska Chapter, and Janece Mollhoff: Kenneth C. Winston 1327 H Street Suite 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 212-3737 kwinston@inebraska.com Brinton SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 2 Nicole M. Frank 900 West 5% Avenue suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 334-4400 nicole. frank@alaska.gov Sara K. Houston Nebraska Coalition (402) 290-6544 sarakhouston@gmail.com For the Cultural Intervenors: The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska: Brad 8. Jolly Brad S$, Jolly & Associates 15355 Gadsen Drive Brighton, CO 80603 (720) 685-7105 baj@bsjlawfirm.com The Yankton Sioux Tribe: Jennifer S. Baker Fredericks Peebles and Morgan LLP 1900 Plaza Drive Louisville, CO 80027 (303) 673-9600 JBaker@ndnlaw. com For the Economic Intervenors: ‘The Midwest Regional Office of the Laborers International Union of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 265: Michael B. Amash Blake & Uhlig, BA 735 State Avenue Suite 475 Kansas City, KS 66101 (913) 321-8884 meaéblake-uhlig.com The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO: Ellen 0. Boardman O'Donoghue & 0! Donoghue LLP Ehret SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 3 4748 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 (202) 362-0041 eboardman@odonoghuelaw. com For the Commission: Nichole A. Mulcahy Matthew J. Bffken Nebraska Public Service Commission 1200 W Street Suite 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 471-3101 nichole.mulcahy@nebraska.gov matt.effken@nebraska.qov Donald G, Blankenau Blankenau Wilmoth Jarecke LLP 1023 Lincoln Mall Suite 201 Lincoln; NE 68508 (402) 475-7081 don@aqualawyers.com BY THE COMMISSION: BACKGROUND On February 16, 2017, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership with its primary business address in Houston, Texas, ("Keystone” or “Applicant”) filed an application with the Nebraska Public Service Commission (“Commission”) seeking approval of a route for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project pursuant to the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act? ("siting Act” or “MOPSA"). The application contained information on three (3) proposed routes, one of which was designated as the Preferred Route, and two (2) others designated as alternative routes. Notice of the application was published in The Daily Record, Omaha, Nebraska, on February 20, 2017. Petitions for formal and informal intervention were timely received by the Commission from various individuals and groups. On March 30, 2017, Keystone filed a Motion to Deny and Objections to Petitions of Intervention for certain petitioners. iNeb. Rev. Stat. $$ ST-1401 - 57-1413 (2016 cum. Supp.) Bone SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 4 On March 31, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order granting petitions for intervention ("Intervention Order”).? Formal Intervention was granted to 96 landowners along the proposed route of the pipeline, all represented by a single law firm (“Landowner Intervenors”).? One additional landowner appearing pro se, Mia Bergman, was also granted formal intervention.‘ The Hearing Officer also granted formal intervention to certain other individuals and groups, but, pursuant to authority granted under the Administrative Procedures Act? ("APA") and Commission rules and regulations, limited such interventions to the specific areas of interest asserted by such individuals and groups in their respective petitions for intervention.® The Fonca Tribe of Nebraska (“Ponca”) and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota ("¥sT”) (collectively “Cultural Intervenors”) petitioned for intervention citing cultural, spiritual, and historical interests in the land to be impacted by the proposed pipeline. Although such an interest might not survive a traditional standing analysis’, the Siting Act requires the 2 See Docket No. OP-0003, In the Matter of the Application of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.2., Calgary, Alberta, suuking approval for Koute Approval of the Keystone AL Pipeline Project Pursuant to the Major O11 Pipeline Siting Act, Order On Formal Intervention Petitions, (March 31, 2017). 3 usndowner Intervenors, all represented by The Domine Lay Group PC 110 include: Susan Dunavan and Willian Dunavan, Bartels fares, Inc., Jobniie Blalas and Maxine Bialss, Bonnie Brauer, James Carlson and Christine Carlson, Timothy Choat, Gary Choat Farm? LLC, apd Shirley Choat Farms, LUC, CRC, Tac., Daniel A. Graves and Joyce K. Graves, Patricia A, Grosserode a/k/a Patricia A. Knist, Terri Herrington, Donald C. Loseke snd Wanda G. Loseke, Arla Weber and Bryce Naber, Wary Jane Nyberg, Keoneth Prososki and Karen Prososki, Sdythe Sayer, Dan Shotkosk! and Clifford shotkoski, Leonard Skoglund ‘and Joyce Skoglund, Joh F, Small and Ginette M, Snall, Deborah Ann Stieren and Kary Lou Robak, Jim Tarnick, Terry J, Van Housen and Rebecca Lynn Van Housen, Donald D. Widga, Byron Terry "Stix" Steskal and Diana Steskal, Alipress Brothers, LLC, Germaine G. Berry, Karen G. Berry, Cheri G, Blocher and Michael J, Blocher, L.A. Breiner and Sandra K, Breiner, Jerry Carpenter and Charlayne Carpenter, CHP é’Farms, LLC, Lerry D. Cleary, Jeanne Ceumy and Ronald C. Cruply, Ken Dittrich, Lloyd 2. Hipke and Vencille NHipke, R, Wynn Hipke and Jill Hipke, Richard Kilnurry, Bonnie Kilmrry, Rosemary xilmurry, Beverly Keute and Robert Kratz, 10M Farm, LIC, Carol Manganaro, Frankie Maughan and Sandra Maughan, Beverly Miller and Gari Miller, Edna Miller and Glen Miller, wiliiron Ranch, LLC, Frank C. Morrison and Lymn H. Morrison, Larry 0, Modlofe, J.D. Madloff, and Lori’ mudioff, Constance Myers a/k/a Constance Randld, Nicholas Family Linited Partnership, ann A. Pongratz and Richard J. Fongratz, Donald fech Schultz Brothers Farms, Inc., Connie Smith and Verdon Snith, Joshua'R. Stelling, Richard Stelling and Darlene Stelling, Todd Stelling and Lisa Stelling, Arthur Re ‘Tanderup snd Helen J. Tanderup, THAG Ranch, ULC, Tree Corners Farr, LLC, Dave Teoester and Shatya Tesester, and Gregory Walnar and doanne Walmer, “on duno 12, 2017, ‘The Domina Law Group PC, LLO filed a Notice of Appearance on behalé of Nia Bergnan. 3 Neb. Rav. Stat. § 84-901 ~ § 84-920 {Reissue of 2014). © See Ned, Rev. Stat. § 8E-912.02(3) and 251 AC 1 § 015.01 (May 4, 1992). 7 Before one is entitled to invoke a tribunal's jurisdiction, one aust have standing to sue, which involves having sone xeal intexest in the cause of action? in other words, to have standing to sue, one mist have some Legal or equitable right, title, or erro in SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 5 Commission to consider evidence of the social impacts of the proposed pipeline route.* Therefore, the Hearing Officer granted the Cultural Intervenors formal intervention, limited in scopa to social and cultural concerns as expressed in their respective petitions. Bold Alliance (“Bold”), the Sierra Club, Nebraska Chapter (“Sierra Club”) and 36 other individuals and groups (collectively, “Natural Resources Intervenors”) petitioned for intervention citing concerns for the environment and natural resources of Nebraska. Although such an interest might not survive a traditional standing analysis’, the Siting Act requires the Commission to consider evidence of the intrusion of the pipeline route on the natural resources of Nebraska, the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources, and the depletion of beneficial uses of natural resources." In addition, the Siting Act requires that the Commission consider methods to minimize or mitigate potential impacts to natural resources." Therefore, the Hearing Officer granted the Natural Resources Intervenors formal intervention, limited in scope to the environmental and resource concerns expressed in their respective petitions. Three labor unions, the Midwest Regional Office of the Laborers International Union of America (“LUNA”), the Interna~ tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") Local Union No. 265, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“UA”) (collectively, “Economic Intervenors”), petitioned for intervention citing their members’ potential economic interest in the construction and operation of the pipeline. Although such an expectancy interest might not survive a traditional standing analysis'?, the Siting Act requires the Commission to consider evidence of the economic impacts of the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, the Hearing Officer granted interest in the subject matter of the controversy, Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299 (1996); S10 No. 57 v, Clty of Elkhorn, 248 Neb. 486, (1995); City of Ralston v. Beika, 267 Web, 773, (1995). See also, Frenchaan-Cambricge Ir, Dist. V. Dept. of Natural Resources, 201 Neb. 992(2011); In re Application A-18503, Water Division 2-D., 206 Web, 611 (2013). "nab. Rev. Stab. $ 57-1407 (4) (4) (2016 Cum. Supp.) 3 See EN 7 above. 10 Web, Rov, Stat. § 57-1407 (4) (b) {2016 Cum. Supp.) M1 Web. Rev, Stat. § §7-1407(4) (e) (2016 Cun. Supp.) 12 See EN 7 above. 1B Web. Roy. Stat. § 57-1407(4) (d) (2016 Cum. Supp.) rv vii in SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — Application No. OF-0003 Page 6 | the Economic Intervenors formal intervention, limited in scope to the economic concerns expressed in their respective petitions. The Hearing Officer directed each of the Cultural Intervenors, Natural Resources Intervenors and the Sconomic Intervenors, (collectively, “Specific Issue Intervenors”) to work together within their designated groups and collaborate on their respective presentations of evidence and cross-examination for the proceeding. The Intervention Order also permitted each group of Specific Issue Intervenors to present the testimony of one (1) witness,!§ with the option to present an additional witness to address the Mainline Alternative Route proposed by the Applicant. Finally, the Hearing Officer also granted petitions seeking informal intervention from Wrexie Bardaglio and Cindy Myers.” On April 5, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order adopting a case management plan (“CME”) and giving notice of the public hearing, which was scheduled to begin on Monday, August 7, 2017. In keeping with standard Commission procedure, the CMP provided that all parties would be required to submit written pre- filed direct testimony for all witnesses they intended to present at the evidentiary hearing. A planning conference was held on April 10, 2017, with representatives of the parties and the Commission. On April 10, 11, and 12, 2017, Motions to Reconsider the Hearing Officer's March 31, 2017, Order on Interventions were filed by Bold, Sierra Club, YST, Kimberly Craven, and Ponca, respectively. Bold’s April 10, 2017, Motion for Reconsideration also contained a Motion to Continue the April 10, 2017, planning conference. On April 13, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order denying those motions. On April 25, 2017, Bold and Sierra Club filed Motions for Further Reconsideration of the March 31, 2017, Order on Inter- ventions. On April 27, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order denying those motions. The Commission held public meetings in York, 0/Neill, Norfolk, and Ralston, Nebraska, on May 3, June 7, June 28, and M4 ngb. Rov. Stat. § 57-2407 (4) (d) (2016 Cum. Supp.) 35 see March 31, 2017, Hearing Officer Order, supra. M Later revised to provide for two witnesses per Specific Issuer Intervenor Group. See Fu 19, r 37 Ta, end See Order Fntering Case Management Plan, Scheduling Telephonic Planning Conference, and Notice of Hearing, (april 5, 2017) einen SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, 0P-0003 Page 7 July 26, 2017, respectively, for the purpose of receiving public input as permitted under the Siting Act.1® The Conmission received over 450 oral and written comments during the four (4) days of public meetings.19 Oh May 10, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order clarifying some dates within the CMP and granting each group of Specific Issue Intervenors the opportunity to provide the testimony of one additional witness in the proceeding. On May 22, 2017, Bold, Sierra Club, the Landowner Intervenors, and the Cultural Intervenors filed 2 Joint Motion requesting an extension of time for Intervenors to file the direct testimony of witnesses from May 30, 2017, to June 7, 2017. On May 23, 2017, Keystone filed a response to the Joint Motion for an extension that did not oppose the extension, but requested additional modifications of discovery and other filing dates in the CNP to correspond with the requested extension of the Intervenors. On May 24, 2017, the Hearing Officer granted the Motions and modified the filing deadlines contained within the CMP as requested. On May 30, 2017, Landowner Intervenors filed Motions to Compel responses to certain discovery requests from Keystone. oral arguments on the Motions to Compel were held on June 9, 2017. On June 14, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motions to Compel, On June 27, 2017, Landowner Intervenors filed a Second Amended Petition for Formal Intervention. The amendment did not seek to add petitioners to, or remove petitioners from, formal intervention in the proceeding, but only supplemented legal arguments. contained within the Landowner Intervenors’ initial Petition and First Amended Petition for Formal Intervention. On June 30, 2017, Keystone filed a Motion to Strike and Objections to the Landowner’s Second Amended Petition. On July 6, 2017, the Hearing Officer granted Keystone’s Motion to Strike. 1 Neb, Rey. Stat. § 57-1407(2) {2016 Cum. Supp.) \ the Commission also received hundreds of thousands of emails and letters from the public regaxding tha proceeding, ALl such coments received prior to end of business August 11, 2017, wore made a part of the record, See Exhibits PSC-11 & PSC-12. 20 Sep Docket No. 02-0003, In the Matter of the Application of TransCanada xeystone Pipeline, 1.P., Calgary, Alberta, seeking approval for Route Approval of the Keystone Xb Pipeline Project Purovant to the Major O11 Pipeline Siting Act, Order Grenting Votion To Withdray, and Modifying Case Management Plan And Intervention Ozder, (May 40, 2037). 4 Landowmar Intervenors initially filed the Motion to Conpel on May 22, 2017, they subsequently amended the Motion and refiled on May 30, 2017. roi ee nye esi SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, 08-0003 Page 8 On duly 2, 2017, the Landowner Intervenors invoked their statutory right to require that the formal rules of evidence apply to the proceeding.” On guly 6, 2017, Bold, Sierra Club, and the Cultural Inter- venors filed a Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking to know the impact of a Legislative bill enacted on April 24, 2017,2 and the “evidentiary weight” the Commission intended to give public comment made 2 part of the record pursuant to the Siting Act.? On Suly 12, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order declining to issue a declaratory order, on the grounds that the legislative bill had no effect on the proceeding, because Keystone’s application was filed before the legislation took effect. The Order also stated that the Commission would determine the relative weight to be assigned to matters on the record as part of its eventual deliberative process? On July 12, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Appoint- ment of retired Lancaster County District Judge Karen B. Flowers to act as Hearing Officer, to rule on procedural and evidentiary matters and preside at the evidentiary hearing. However, Judge Flowers was not assigned any responsibility for ‘the issuance of an advisory opinion or other participation in the final determination of the Commission in this proceeding. on July 24, 2017, prehearing motions regarding pre-filed direct testimony and other evidentiary matters were filed by Keystone and Landowner Intervenors. Landowner Intervenors also filed a Motion for Specific Findings of Facts. Various parties filed written Responses to the prehearing motions. On July 24, 2017, petitions for informal intervention were timely received from, the Consumer Energy Alliance, the Port to Plains Alliance, the South Dakota Oil & Gas Association, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Asso- ciation of Manufacturers, and Lisa May.?* Also on duly 24, 2017, Landowner Intervenors filed a Motion to Strike and Disallow Late Petitions for Intervention. On July 26, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered an order granting the petitions for informal intervention and denying the Landowner Intervenor’s Motion, Three (3) of the 2 see Nob. Rev. Stat, § 84-914 and Neb. Rev. Stat, § 27-1101(4) (c). # up 263, 105! Leg., 1 Sess. (Neb, 2017) « H heb. Rev. Stat, § 57-1407 (2) (Z016 Cum. Supp.) % See Docket No. OP-0003, Order Denying Request for Declaratory Ruling, July 12, 20171. * See 291 WAC 1 § 015,02A (lay 4, 1992). Commission rules reguire that petitions ror informal intervention be filed no later than fifteen (15) days before the hearing in the proceeding conmences oat Breen SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 - Page ¢ petitioners included a written statement, the Hearing Officer also gave the other parties to the proceeding until August 2, 2017, to file any objections to the written statements filed by the informal intervenors, No objections were received. A Prehearing Conference was held on July 31, 2017, during which arguments were made to the Hearing Officer on all the outstanding motions. On August 2, the Hearing Officer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Objections and Prehearing Motions.?7 On August 4 and 5, 2017, Bold, Sierra Club, and the Cultural Intervenors filed motions and objections to preserve certain objections to decisions of the Hearing Officer regarding testimony, All the Motions were overruled by the Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing on this matter was held August 7-10, 2017, at the Cornhusker Marrictt Hotel in Lincoln, Nebraska. EVIDENCE All direct testimony dn this proceeding was pre-Filed according to the CMP. Only those witnesses that otter parties desired to cross-examine wexe called to’ testify orally at the hearing. Keystone Witnesses Keystone filed direct and/or rebuttal testimony of ten (10) witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross~examination and testified orally at the hearing. Mr. Tony Palmer, the President of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP, LLC, and TransCanada Keystone, LLC, filed direct testimony in thie matter. Mr. Palmer’s testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit KXL-2. Mr. Palmer testified TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GE, LLC, is the managing partner of the Applicant, and TransCanada Keystone, LLC, is the majority owner of the Applicant. Both entities together own 100% of the Applicant.# Mr, Palmer stated the general partner is responsible to oversee the development and implementation of the Keystone XL Project.?? See Docket No. OP-0003, Order Granting In Part, Denying In Part, Objections and Motions to Strike Direct Testimony, (August 2, 2017). 2 application OF-0003 Transcript, 61:4-21, 87:4-7, and 106120 - 18 ‘pe page number:line mumber"). 2% Exhibit KXL-2, at p. 1. (Hereinafter SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 10 { Mr. Palmer testified he is not a director or an employee of the Applicant. Mr. Palmer further testified that the Applicant would be primarily responsible for all reclamation costs associated with the Keystone XL project and in the event any other party has any responsibility, may seek compensation from that party.% Mr. Palmer further testified that neither Keystone nor any of its affiliates will apply for, or seek, any tax deductions, exemptions, credits, refunds, or rebates under the Nebraska Advantage Act in relation to the Keystone XL project.) Finally, Mr. Palmer stated that Keystone does not consider selling the route, if approved, to be an option, Mr. Palmer further discussed the methodology utilized by Keystone to determine the Preferred Route, which was to draw the “shortest footprint” from Hardesty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, akin to the “hypotenuse on an equilateral triangle.” Keystone next called Mr. Paul Fuhrer, a Project Manager for TransCanada Corporation. Mr. Fuhrer’s direct testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit KXL-3. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Fuhrer testified his degree was in construction management and while has been exposed to many different disciplines in his work for TransCanada he was not an engineer, geologist, hydrologist, or biologist.3! Mr. Fuhrer stated the pipeline general elevation will be four feet below the surface of the land to top of pipe.* Mr. Fuhrer confirmed the Preferred Route would cross five waterbodies utilizing horizontal directional drilling (*HDD"), consisting of the Keya Paha, Niobrara, Elkhorn, Loup, and Platte Rivers. He further testified that for each HDD crossing the top of the pipe would be a minimum of 25 feet below the river bed.36 Mr. Fuhrer stated he was knowledgeable and responsible for the construction of both the pipeline and the five pumping stations along the proposed route. He testified that each pumping station would utilize approximately eight to ten acres of land.3? Additionally, he testified that shut-off valves would be placed along the pipeline, with the location and frequency of valves varying based upon hydraulics of the pipeline and other factors.7 30H 143:14-19) Bxbiblt AE-2, p. 4. oR 19 and 157:22 ~ 15815. st 9m 188: 3-3, HOR 102:24 - 184:6, MTR 190:19 and 192:4-11. 38 TR 202:18-23, M6 -R 235:10 ~ 287213. 7 R “an 20 - 21735. 12-20 aia SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 11 Upon questioning from Commissioners, Mr. Fuhrer stated that during installation the pipeline would be bent to follow the contour of the land, including up and down hillsides.#? He testified the weight of the pipeline when filled would keep it in place in more fragile soils. He further stated the Applicant will continuously monitor the entire length of thé pipeline and will be responsible to provide recontouring as necessary to re-cover any portion of the pipeline that may be exposed when the land shifts due to reasons such as wind or water erosion.“ Mr. Fuhrer testified he has little experience dealing with fragile soils, although he stated he has had some experience on projects in locations with small amounts of top soil. Dr. Ernie Goss, Professor of Economics at Creighton Univer- sity and principal of the Goss Institute, testified on behalf of Keystone. Dr. Goss filed direct and rebuttal testimony in this matter, with his testimony being accepted into the record as Exhibits KXL-4 and KXL-10 respectively. Dr. Goss had prepared a xeport called a “socio-economic analysis” of the impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline on the State of Nebraska and the counties through which the Preferred Route crossed. Dr. Goss’s analysis was contained within his pre-filed direct testimony and his report was filed as Appendix H to Keystone’s application, Dr. Goss concluded the pipeline project would constitute an economic benefit to Nebraska and the counties along the Preferred Route and contribute to both state and local Nebraska taxes. ‘? Upon cross-exemination, Dr. Goss testified that his report was prepared initially for the Consumer Energy Alliance ("CEA”) in January of 2013 and later used by Keystone in its application.© Dr. Goss testified he brought the dates and figures forward from the 2013 report to the 2017 report, but the methodologies of both reports were the same.“ In the report, Dr. Goss testified he used IMPLAN software to forecast the number of jobs and economic impact of the project.’ When questioned about the limitations of IMPLAN-specifically advisories regarding IMPLAN not having the ability to determine whether jobs or output are new or already existing-Dr. Goss agreed that in cases where that was an issue, it is a limitation.‘® Dr. Goss recalled being paid by CEA for his 29 mR 26618 - 26 «0 mR 269) © mR 267 2 ae exhibit KXL-4 and Exhibit KXL-L, Appendix , pp. 340-343, © mR 276: “8 oR 298: 4s mR 291 «oR 293 asset SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 12 report, but could not recall billing Keystone for the report, or how much he was compensated for the report.‘ Dr. Goss testified the report was not peer-reviewed, Prepared for a general, non- economist, audience.'® Dr. Goss also confirmed that the pipeline would be considered a fixed asset and would depreciate out after 15 years and not be a taxable asset after that timo. He did qualify that replacements such as pump stations, additions, or other maintenance on the pipeline would potentially add taxable value that would also depreciate.# The Applicant next called Ms. Sandra Barnett, an Environ- mental Specialist for TransCanada Corporation, to testify on behalf of Keystone. Ms, Barnett filed direct testimony in this matter, with her testimony being accepted into the record as Exhibit KXL-5. Ms, Barnett testified she works on environmental issues for TransCanada Corporation's liquid pipeline facilities, including the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.” Ms. Barnett’s pre- filed direct testimony stated she was responsible for the portions of the application that dealt with compliance with Nebraska's Oil Pipeline Reclamation Act, minimizing and mitigating potential environmental impacts and impacts to natural resources and general mitigation and reclamation plans.5! Ms. Barnett testified regarding the commitment of Keystone to return the land to equivalent capability after construction, by working with the affected landowners 5? Ms. Barnett confirmed the construction right-of-way will be 110 feet wide and the post-construction permanent easement will be 50 feet wide.®? Ms. Barnett further testified that Keystone will reclaim and revegetate the right-of-way to return it “as close as we can make it” to pre-construction condition.*# Ms. Barnett stated that if there is a dispute between Keystone and the landowner on the post-construction condition of the land, the parties will typically consult with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”), a division of the U.S, Department of Agriculture, or other agency and include them in the discussion in an attempt to reach resolution.5> St See Exhibit XXI~4, at p. 1. 3 Td. at pp, 2-4. Gira soccer SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Applicetion No. OP-0003 Page 13 Ms. Barnett also discussed the landowner database which is kept by the Applicant to memorialize agreements and commitments made with and to landowners for post~construction remedial mea- sures.3 Ms, Barnett addressed potential temporary and long term impacts to land, soil, and water.%? Ms. Barnett also answered some questions regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion included in the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FETS”) and when the assessments were conducted.®? Upon questioning by Commissioners, Ms. Barnett stated that any plans for micro and macro nutrient application after construction will be determined after discussions with the affected landowner and the NRCS and will be dependent upon a variety of soil conditions and issues. Ms. Barnett also confirmed that the wetland delineation in Nebraska had been completed and is available. Mr. John Beaver, a Project Manager, Ecologist and Reclamation Specialist with Westech Environmental Services, Inc., offered tes- timony on behalf of Keystone. Mr. Beaver filed direct and rebuttal testimony in this matter, with his. testimony being accepted into the record as Exhibits KXL-6 and KXL-11, respectively. Mr. Beaver testified that he has been the Senior Reclamation Specialist and Special-Status Species Biologist for the Keystone XL project since 2009. Mr. Beaver stated he oversaw the design of the reclamation and revegetation plan for the project in Nebraska. He testified in his direct testimony that he oversaw the formation of the noxious weed management plan and prepared assessments of the impacts of the project on the northern long-eared bat, rufa red knot, the western prairie fringed orchid, and migratory birds. He also stated that he conducted additional surveys of animals and plante that may be impacted by the pipeline. Mr. Beaver testified in response to questioning that when the term, “The Sandhills” is used in the application it refers to a defined ecological region identified by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality ("NDEQ”), as opposed to sandy soil, which can occur in many places.*! Mr. Beaver confirmed that during construction, topsoil will be segregated from subsoil along the entirety of the project where trenching will -be utilized. Mr. Beaver also confirmed that Keystone will be responsible for policing its contractors to ensure the Construction Mitigation and S© oR 387224 - 388117. #7 mR 360:3 - 37:21. BTR 38221 - 384:11. 88 mR 387:2 ~ 38:11. "0 Seo exhibit KKL-6, at pp. 1-2 8 OR 393:3-9. Gomes mm ram SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 14 Reclamation Plan (CMRP) provision are adhered to and followed. ®% Mr. Beaver further testified that Keystone will monitor the condition of the right-of-way for reclamation purposes during the entire operational life of the right-of-way. Mr. Beaver also stated in response to questioning that although the application states the Applicant will monitor the crop yield of cultivated land post-construction, no studies of pre-construction crop yield were included with the application. Upon questions from Commissioners, Mr. Beaver testified regarding the application of fertilizers that in agricultural production, typically fertilizer will not be applied as the farmer will apply any fertilizers along with other areas being farmed when the field is put back into production. In other areas it is not usually applied as previous projects have shown it encourages the growth of nuisance species. Mr, Beaver admitted soil fertility can be affected by construction, but that those effects are minimized because the topsoil is replaced in a relatively brief time. Mr. Beaver testified that ripping will be utilized to compacted soil prior to replacing topsoil after construction. He stated regrading may be necessary if settling occurs. Mr. Beaver testified that the heat generated from the operational pipe would have no impact on native grasses and plants. Mr. Michael Portnoy, the President and CEO of PEI, a full service environmental consulting and engineering firm, testified at the hearing on behalf of Keystone. PEI is a subcontractor of Keystone. Mr. Portnoy’s direct and rebuttal testimony were accepted into the record as Exhibits KXL-7 and KXL-12 respectively. Mr. Portnoy testified he has academic degrees in geology, geochemistry, hydrology, and business administration. He further testified he is a licensed, professional geologist in Nebraska. Mr. Portnoy testified his specific area of expertise is soil permeability and distance-to-ground water analysis. Mr. Portnoy stated he is the lead hydrologist and project manager for the surveys conducted in connection with the Keystone XL project in these disciplines. Upon cross-examination Mr. Portnoy discussed the soil permeability surveys conducted in connection with the project that HOR 436014 ~ 437; SS mR 449121 ~ 460219, Ke TR 458:2¢ ~ 46916. 7 See Sxhipit KXLn7, at ps 2 rd. at 9.2. vi SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 15 were included in the application as Exhibit ¢.“ Mr. Portnoy testified that his role in preparing Exhibit G at the request of Keystone included gathering soil data, compiling the data collected, and providing a list of soil permeabilities along the proposed route.?? Mr. Portnoy testified that in general he found a wide diversification of soil permeabilities along the route and from soil layer to soil layer in specific locations along the route.” Mr. Portnoy further clarified that his report was based entirely upon data obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), NRCS, and the University of Nebraska's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Mr. Portnoy did not personally conduct any soil surveys in the field.” Mr. Portnoy also discussed the portion of the report in Exhibit G to the application that dealt with the surface-to- groundwater survey.’ The survey contains the registration of wells and data included in well registration, including ownership, location, the perpendicular distance from the pipeline center line to the wellhead, the type of well, depth of the well to terminus, and the static water level of the well.” Mr. Portnoy clarified that the information included with the well registration is added at the time the well is drilled and submitted by the well drillers. In response to questions from Commissioners, he stated that a well’s static water level is subject to seasonal fluctuations and will vary depending on the time of year that it is measured. He stated the values in the survey represent the water table at the time of drilling, rather than being an average of the water table over a period of time.” Dr. Jon Schmidt, Vice President of exp Energy Services, Inc., the management contractor for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, testified on behalf of Keystone. Dr, Schmidt filed direct and rebuttal testimony in this matter, with his testimony being accepted into the record as Exhibits KXL-8 and KXL-13, respectively. Dr. Schmidt testified he is responsible for the environmental and regulatory management of the Keystone XL Project and assisted in the preparation of the application in front of the Commission.76 & sea Exhibit KXL-1, Appendix 6, Soll Permeability Study and Distance-To-Groundw Survey, Table SA-1, Figures $A-Ol ~ SA-1L WoaR 477:13-17. 9g 478:16-25. 22 mR 4B4:14 ~ 485227, % See Exhibit KXL-2, Appendix G Soll Permeability Study and Distance-To~ceouncwater Survey, Figures Gf-01 - GW-05 and Tables Gi-1 and GH-2, 3 mR $00:21 — 505210. 95 mR 524325 - 52:18 18 See Bxhibit KXi-8, at pp. 1-2 renter goer SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 16 ( Dr. Schmidt testified he participated in the analysis of the preferred and alternative routes. Dr. Schmidt stated that the analyses done in the 2011 FEIS and the 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS”) of the Preferred Route and alternative routes were used in reaching the conclusions contained within the application regarding the routes.” Dr. Schmidt detailed, in response to cross-examination questions, the different areas considered when comparing routes, including, number of acres disturbed, federally listed threatened and endangered species, amount of highly erodible soils, ecologically sensitive areas, and the number of crossing of perennial streams, railroads and roads.”® Dr. Schmidt confirmed he was not retained by Keystone to conduct an environmental analysis of a route that would co-locate the entire length the KXL Pipeline with the existing Keystone I oil pipeline. The Keystone I pipeline is another pipeline owned and operated by TransCanada that runs north to south in eastern Nebraska.” Dr. Schmidt was also questioned regarding whooping cranes in Nebraska. Dr. Schmidt testified that approximately 250 miles of the Preferred Route was in the whooping crane range, which is a historical area a species covered, but is not necessarily synonymous with the migration corridor for the whooping crane today. Dr, Schmidt stated the analysis was conducted by the U.3. Fish and Wildlife Service and the results were included in the Biological Opinion contained in the FBIS.# In response to questions from Commissioners, Dr. Schmidt stated that additional field work, engineering and survey work would need to be done if the Mainline Alternative Route was utilized over the Preferred Route. He elaborated that an additional 40 new landowners would need to be accommodated on the Mainline Alternative Route as well." Dr. Schmidt further stated it appeared both the Preferred and Mainline Alternative Routes would cross the Ponca Removal Trail, the historical path used by the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska when they were forcibly removed from Nebraska in 1877, two (2) times.% However, he also testified that route changes have already been made to accommodate cultural sites.% mR 530:19 ~ $31, MR 556:16 - 557 1 oR ~ 334 we oR 577:5 — 571 8 DR 625125 ~ 626224 "2 9B 620:7-11, 7m 623:19 ~ 622:1, SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 17 Ms. Meera Kothari, a Professional Engineer for TransCanada testified on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Kothari’s direct testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit KXL-9. Ms. Kothari stated she is the Manager of US Liquids Projects for TransCanada Corporation and. has degrees in mechanical and manufacturing engineering.** Ms. Kothari, in response to questioning on cross-examination, stated that the Mainline Alternative Route could be feasibly and beneficially used in Nebraska, but Keystone preferred the route they designated as the Preferred Route over the Mainline Alternative Route." Ms. Kothari also testified that after the pipeline is constructed, Keystone will seek the appropriate permits and approvals for maintenance or yeclamation work prior te beginning any such activities. She further stated Keystone would consult their records to determine if any cultural issues would be impacted by proposed maintenance activity. T£ so, she stated Keystone would make appropriate notifications and consultations prior to conducting maintenance activities anywhere along the pipeline route.% In response to questioning by Commissioners, Ms. Kothari testified that although the major river crossing designs call for horizontal directional drilling at 2 minimum depth of 25 feet below riverbed, the depth of the pipeline for the rivers in Nebraska will be 35 to 60 feet. The entry and exit points would be set back from the bank of the river and with the location to begin and exit boring determined through a scour analysis based on the floodplain and other modeling. Ms. Kothari further clarified that the river crossing design requires, in compliance with federal requirements, check valves and backflow valves be located in proximity of either side of a riverbank.®? Ms. Kothari added that for purposes of calculating and developing mitigation, reclamation and construction plans, 100-year flood plans were utilized.** Landowner Intervenor Witnesses Landowner Intervenors offered the pre-filed direct testimony of 61 Nebraska Landowners, all of which were accepted into the record subject to specific objections and evidentiary rulings of the Hearing Officer. As stated before, only those landowner witnesses that other parties desired to cross-examine were called to testify orally at the hearing. Ten (10) Landowner Intervenors were called to testify and were subject to cross-examination. Landowner Intervenors also offered the testimony of two (2) other See Exhibit KXL-9*at p. 1. Geen inn SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 18 non-landowner witnesses, only one of which was subject to cross~ examination at the hearing. Mz. Arthur Tanderup, an owner of farmland in Antelope County, testified at the hearing. Mr. Tanderup’s direct testimony in this matter, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit LO-149. Mr. Tanderup testified that he and his wife conduct no-till, irrigated farming raising corn, soybeans, rye, certain other cover crops, and native corn.# Mr. Tanderup testified about his concerns related to the proposed pipeline construction on his land as it relates to compaction of his soil, topsoil loss, wind and water erosion, and the source of any additional soil that will be brought in to fill the trench, during and after construction of the pipe.®? Mr. Tanderup also testified he was concerned about the increased post-construction temperature of soil near the pipeline adversely affecting his crops by potentially damaging roots and causing increased insect activity. Additionally, Mr. Tanderup discussed his irrigation and domestic wells and his concerns regarding ground water. Mr. Tanderup also testified regarding his concerns about additional liability insurance, decreased value of the land, property tax issues, and the inconvenience of maintenance activities conducted on his land during the life of the pipeline.® Mr. Tanderup confirmed a portion of the Ponca Removal Trail crosses his land.% Ms. Jeanne Crumly, a Holt County landowner, testified at the hearing. Ms. Crumly’s direct testimony in this matter, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit LO- 44. Ms. Crumly testified that she and her husband conduct no-till, irrigated farming raising corn, soybeans, hay, and potatoes.% Ms. Crumly discussed her concerns about the pipeline proposed to be built across her land and its impact on the erodible and permeable soils of their farm and their irrigation systems.% Ms. Crumly also expressed concern about topsoil loss, wind and water erosion, and protecting the farm's domestic and irrigation wells.%” Landowner Intervenors also called Susan Dunavan, a York County landowner to testify. Ms. Dunavan’s direct testimony in 7-16 and 723:7-18. 4-40; 725:3-25) 72822-6r 730:8-17. 14 - 140:7 5-25. 32 = 748:12 4-3 and 155:6-7 12-20, 17-25 and 768:21 ~ 769: SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 19 this matter, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit 10-52, Ms. Dunavan testified that she and her husband own 80 acres of dryland pasture over which the Preferred Route of the pipeline would cross. Ms. Dunavan stated they are attempting to restore the land back to native prairie.* Ms. Dunavan testified that she is concerned about the increased temperature around the pipeline negatively affecting prairie plants and making the soil drier. She further expressed concern about the use of subcontractors by Keystone to construct the pipeline, the decommissioning of the pipeline, and the potential impacts on their domestic well also used to water cattle.% Ms. Bonny Kilmurry, a Holt County landowner, offered testimony at the proceeding. Ms. Kilmurry’s pre-filed direct testimony in this matter, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit 10-71. Ms. Kilmurry testified she and her husband use the land, through which the pipeline is proposed to pass, to support a cow-calf operation and as pastureland and for haying. Ms. Kilmurry expressed concern about the pipeline running through the sub-irrigated meadows located on her property that have water very close to the surface of the ground and the highly erodible hills that are susceptible to blowouts and erosion. Ms. Kilmurry also discussed her concerns with wells on the property that are near the proposed route and have a high water table. Ms. Diana Steskal, a Holt County landowner, offered testimony at the proceeding. Ms. Steskal’s pre-filed direct testimony in this matter, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit 10-145. Ms. Steskal testified that her land is worked by a tenant who conducts no-till, irrigated, farming on the land raising wheat, corn, soybeans, edible beans, and popcorn.10 Ms. Steskal testified that the route of the pipeline crosses her property and expressed general concern about the natural resources of her farm, the sandy porous soil, her pivot irrigation, the pipeline remaining underground after its useful life, and the ground not freezing around the pipeline. 10 Landowner Intervenors also called Mr. Robert Allpress, a Keya Paha County landowner, to testify on their behalf, Mr. Allpress’s pre-filed direct testimony, subject to certain objections, was be TR 7849-23, § oR 791218 ~ 72:9; 794:2 - 795:21- 100 oR 803:25 ~ BO4:17 and B10:11-19. Mel TR 813:22 ~ 816217. te2 OR 967: 0-16. 303 oR @70:25 - 974322 Gresser meena SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 20 accepted into the record as Exhibit LO-1. Mr. Allpress testified he owns approximately 900 acres of ranch land on the eastern border of Keya Paha County through which the routes of the pipeline is proposed to run.l¢ Mr, Allpress testified he had observed a bald eagle nest in the area of the proposed route of the pipeline near his property and has observed whooping cranes in the area. Mr. Allpress testified he is concerned many plants and animals will be endangered if the pipeline is built in that area of Keya Paha County.15 Mr, Allpress expressed concern about the fragile sandy soil that is susceptible to blow-outs and slides.!° In response to Commissioner questioning, Mr. Allpress described hill slides that can occur from heavy rains exposing bare dirt and roots that take years to recover.) Mr. Allpress also testified that members of both the Yankton Sioux and the Ponca Tribe have been on his property and identified culturally significant sites, including remains of encampments and a burial site. Mr. Andy Grier, a Holt County landowner, also offered testimony on behalf of the Landowner Intervenors. ‘The pre-filed direct testimony of Mr. Grier, subject to certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit LO-155. Mr. Grier is a member o£ TMAG Ranch, LLC with management decision authority. The proposed route of the KXL pipeline will cross the Holt County ranch. 0% Mri Grier testified the ranch is directly bordered by the Niobrara River and expressed concerns regarding the proposed river crossing, the high bluffs that run along the river in the area where the pipeline is proposed to cross and soil erosion from land clearing that will also occur with construction. Mr. Grier further expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the pipeline to his wells that supply his house and other water needs on the ranch. 10 Landowner Intervenors called Mr. Frank Morrison, an Antelope County landowner, to testify at the hearing. Mr. Morrison filed direct testimony in this matter that was accepted, subject to certain objections, into the record as Exhibit LO-100. Mr. Morrison and his wife farm, producing popcorn, edible beans and peanuts on the land that the proposed Preferred Route of the pipeline would cross.!41 Mr. Morrison expressed concern about the 65 irrigation wells located on his property, stating the static water level in 20 OR B73:17-23. 105 TR Beda ~ BRL:ZI. 06 TR 108 oR, 09 See Exhibit 10-155 at pp. 1-2 su 7a 906213 ~ 908217. 3 OR 916:17-21. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 21 the wells is 15 fest below the surface of the ground."? Mr. Morrison stated water from the wells was used in processing popcorn and dry, edible beans. He stated the proposed pipeline route runs approximately a mile and a half from his processing facility, bisecting Mr. Morrison's property almost in half. Mr. Robert Krutz, @ landowner in Antelope County, also offered testimony on behalf of Landowner Intervenors. Mr. Krutz’s pre~ filed direct testimony, subject to, certain objections, was accepted into the record as Exhibit LO-73. The proposed route of the pipeline lies across Mr. Krutz’s property where he and his wife operate a natural beef operation and raise corn and soy beans. Mr. Krutz testified that he was concerned the pipeline construction on his property could put his natural beef classification at risk.4 Me. Krutz expressed additional concerns about his water supply, potential soil erosion, and revegetating the construction site to support his cattle.™5 Landowner Intervenors called Mr. Rick Hammond, a tenant farmer of land located in York County, to testify. Mr. Hammond pre-filed direct testimony in this matter that was accepted into the record, subject to certein objections, as 10-60, The proposed pipeline would cross the land that Mr. Hammond farms. Mr. Hammond testified that he raises seed corn on the land and is concerned about the impact of the pipeline construction on the productivity of his crop and was concerned that the land could not be returned to pre-construction condition. ue Dr. Michael Of Hara, a College of Business Administration professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, also offered testimony on behalf of Landowner Intervenors. Dr. O’Hara pre-filed direct testimony in this matter that was accepted into the record as Exhibit LO-189. Dr. O'Hare teaches in the areas of law and economics and has particular expertise in estimating damages in a litigation context, called forensic economics. Dr. O'Hara was retained by the Landowner Intervenors to do an analysis of the economic impact of the proposed pipeline in Nebraska and to review Dr. Goss‘s socioeconomic report. Dr. O’Hara disagreed with the conclusions of Dr. Goss regarding sales taxes, noting that the pipeline would depreciate out after fifteen (15) years, meaning property taxes realized by counties after that time would be zero. hia gq 913:22 ~ 24:4. 1 mR g2L:d - 922113. 24 eR 92514 - 826517 us qR 927911 - 928:26, M6 TR 940:17 - 950:23, UT TR @25:23 ~ 826:4. rnin son oe SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 22 Dr. O'Hara also discussed income and sales/use taxes and other economic consequences to Nebraska, concluding mostly negative economic impacts to Nebraska from the construction and presence of the pipeline in the State.W® pr. O’Hara testified that in his opinion the mere presence of a pipeline would decrease the value of property by approximately 15 percent.1!? Dr. O'Hara stated that his analysis included a review of the “hedonic value” of the affected real estate, concluding that the pipeline would “reduce the emotional attitude of property owners towards their property.” In response to cross-examination questions, Dr. O'Hara confirmed that he did not evaluate or analyze the reports of other government agencies, including the DOS or the NDEQ regarding the economic benefits to Nebraska and the U.S. from the pipeline. Upon questioning by Commissioners, Dr. O'Hara confirmed he did an analysis of the property taxes received from the project on a county by county basis, and estimated it was around $100,000 per county per year.12 pr, O'Hara stated pipelines can act as both economic barriers, by steering potential development away from the pipeline since landowners can’t build on top of the pipeline, and a magnet in some areas increasing employment around things like a pumping station.129 Cultural Intervenors Witnesses The Cultural Intervenors offered the pre-filed direct testimony of two (2) witnesses, both of which were accepted into the record with specific objections and evidentiary rulings of the Hearing Officer. Both Cultural Intervenor witnesses were called for purposes of cross~examination at the hearing, Mr. Jason Cooke, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe Business| and Claims Committee, the executive body of the Yankton Sioux Tribe (YST") testified on behalf of the Cultural Intervenors. Mr. Cooke’s pre-filed direct testimony was accepted onto the record! aj Exhibit CUL-25. Mr. Cooke testified that the proposed route of tthe pipeline in Nebraska runs through territory recognized by the ¥ST as traditional territory of the YST.1% Mz. Cooke testified that his tribe’s sacred cultural resources would be irreparably harmed Le Exhibit LO. 49 Id. and 18 62 BOR B49:24 ~ B51. sm mm #3612 ~ @36:10. U2 TR ead:l4 - 94522. 23 OR 857:23 ~ 858211. See Exhibit CUL-25 at pp, 1-2, 8, Attachaent 2 16-18, nari SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 23 by construction of the pipeline. He asserted that cultural resources are disturbed by digging under a site, whether or not a cultural resource sustains physical damage. Mr. Cooke also argued that injury to, or loss of, such resources would mean psychological and cultural harm to tribal members.127 Mr. Shannon Wright, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, offered testimony on behalf of the Cultural Intervenors. Mr. Wright's pre-filed direct testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit CUL-19. Mr. Wright testified about the historical and cultural significance of the Ponca Removal Trail, observing that the Ponca Removal Trail is also important non-Tribal Nebraskans, as evidenced by official efforts to formally recognize the Trail.12* Mr. Wright noted that both the Preferred Route and the Mainline Alternative Route would cross the Ponca Removal Trail and opined that construction of the proposed pipeline would damage or destroy parts of the Trail and cultural resources located along the trail.™2? Mr, Wright also testified regarding the cultural sites on the Allpress land, that he had personally observed. Mr. Wright conducts cultural surveys on behalf of the Ponca Tribe and surveyed the Allpress land. Mr. Wright testified that the artifacts found on the Allpress land show that the tribes once inhabited the area and the earth lodge depressions observed indicate longer-term habitation areas. Artifacts found were stone presses, spearheads, arrowheads, and other stone tools. Mr. Wright testified that the depressions were located in an area overlooking a bluff toward a river, consistent with the standard practice of the tribes in that area.40 He also expressed concern about the fact that Keystone had not completed required cultural surveys along many miles of the Preferred Route and the Mainline Alternative Route.!3!. He stated his belief that additional cultural resources would be found if the Ponca Tribe was able to complete surveys of entire Preferred Route and Mainline Alternative Route.1? On cross-examination, Mr, Wright agreed that his concerns regarding the Ponca Removal Trail would be alleviated if the Applicant conducted the cultural surveys identified in the Id. at p. &. 46 Id. at ps 2 u7 Ta, at pp. 6-8 and TR 982:4-19. M0 Exhibit’ CUL-19 pp. 9-11 Id. at pp. 12-16 189 gR 1050817 - 1053:20. U1 Behibit CULR1S p. 9. a Td rennin ro rn SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 24 Programmatic Agreement ("PA") correctly.) He also agreed that Keystone has time to complete cultural surveys prior to construction of the proposed pipeline. !‘ Mr. Wright confirmed that the Ponca had been invited by DOS to consult on the Keystone XL Froject, but no consultation had occurred since the FSEIS was released,!5 Mr, Wright further testified that the, is not contained on a state or federal list of historical sites, however, the Ponca Tribe has made DOS and Keystone aware of the Trail and provided information on its location. Mr. Wright further stated that sites not included on state and federal lists of historical sites can still be important sites with spiritual meaning and in the public interest to protect.” Mr, Wright testified that nine (9) members of the Ponca Tribe died along the Trail of Tears in 1877 during the journey from Nebraska to Oklahoma. He stated thet five (5) of those remains have not been discovered and it is possible that those remains might be unearthed during construction of the pipeline. Natural Resources Intervenors Witnesses The Natural Resources Intervenors offered the pre-filed direct testimony of three (3) witnesses, all of which were accepted into the record with specific objections and evidentiary rulings of the Hearing Officer. Only one (1) Natural Resources Intervenor witness was called for purposes of cross-examination at the hearing. The deposition testimony of the remaining witnesses was offered into the record for purposes of cross-examination and re- direct examination pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the Natural Resources Intervenors and the Applicant.¥? Dr. Paul Johnsgard, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor of biological sciences emeritus, offered testimony on behalf of the Natural Resources Intervenors. Dr. Johnsgard’s testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit NR-1, with specific objections and evidentiary rulings of the Hearing Officer.0 Dr. Johnsgard testified he concentrated his research on the comparative biology of several major bird groups, with special emphasis in his research on the migratory birds of the Great 3 mR 1055:24 — 1057:6; 10Bd:19 ~ 1085:20. 336 gR 1056: 13-20; 1058:1-20. 337 R 1076: 7-22. 38 oR 1979:12 ~ 1081:10. 39 see Exhibits KXL-61 and RXL-62 M0 Natural Resources Intervenors also filed 2 correction to Dr. Johnsgard’s direct testinoay that was accepted into the record as Exhibit NR-2. orvitcoran ss tre te SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 25 Plains, including whooping cranes.! Dr. Johnsgard stated whooping cranes are one of the rarest groups of birds with only approximately 400 remaining in the wild.‘ pr. Johnsgard testified that his main area of concern related to the KXL pipeline project is the additional overhead electric transmission lines that will need to be constructed for operation of the pipeline. He explained that transmission lines are especially dangerous to whooping cranes as they fly about 30 to 40 feet off the ground and due to poor forward-looking vision, collide with powerlines, killing the crane.‘ Dr. Johngard further testified that the proposed route of the pipeline would be within the primary migration corridor of the whooping crane and any additional transmission lines would pose a potential threat, He stated the risk to the cranes from the transmission lines for the pipeline project is small.1 pr. Johnsgard recommended that devices be placed on the transmission lines to get the attention of the cranes to assist in avoiding collisions.45 Economic Intervenor Witnesses The Economic Intervenors offered the pre-filed direct testimony of two (2) witnesses, both of which were accepted into the record. Only one (1) of the witnesses was called for purposes of cross~examination at the hearing. Mr. David L, Barnett, an International Representative assigned to the Pipeline and Gas Distribution Department for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL- cIo (“UA”), offered testimony on behalf of the Economic Intervenors. Mr. Barnett’s testimony was accepted into the record as Exhibit ECO-1. Mr. Barnett’s testified about the positive economic impacts of using union labor on the Keystone XL Project.16 He stated UA has worked with TransCanada on several recent projects and he estimated UA could expect 564 jobs for its members on the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.™ On cross- examination, Mr. Barnett testified that there was no contract between UA and Keystone for the Keystone XL Project.1# Mi see exhibit NR-1 at pp. 1-7 22 TR 998:4-10 and TR 1012:2-14. 16 TR 1001 M4 R 3001 448 TR 10a M6 See Exhibit 200-25 at p. 1. wid, at pp. 10-11, nae mR’ 1092211-13. and TR 1028:3-8, SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 26 Keystone Rebuttal Witnesses Keystone pre-filed the rebuttal testimony of six (6) witnesses. Four of the six (6) also filed direct testimony, the remaining two (2) only filed rebuttal testimony in this matter, Of the six (6) rebuttal witnesses only two (2) were cross-examined at the hearing. Ms. Erin Salisbury, one of the Environmental Project Managers for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, offered rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Salisbury’s rebuttal testimony was accepted into the record as KXL-14. Ms. Salisbury testified she has responsibility to menage the Applicant’s cultural resource efforts in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Ms. Salisbury generally testified regarding the PA for the Keystone XL Project found in the FSEIS, including the Record of Consultation and the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan.™9 Ms. Salisbury attached a copy of the PA to her rebuttal testimony. Ms. Salisbury testified that every eligible cultural site encountered thus far in Nebraska had been addressed by avoidance.1 Ms, Salisbury confirmed that Keystone had not completed cultural surveys along the Mainline Alternative route submitted with the application,“? Ms. Salisbury also testified that Keystone proposed to conduct traditional cultural surveys of 100 percent of the route, even though such surveys are not required by federal regulations.!? She further testified that the only areas that have not already been surveyed are those where the survey team had not been permitted access.%* She stated field survey crews that surveyed the pipeline routes were typically composed of the three to six qualified archeologists and a tribal monitor.8 Ms. Salisbury testified that although the Ponca Removal Trail was not officially recorded as an archeological resource in Nebraska, however, Keystone was able to complete a field survey, accompanied by a tribal monitor, at one location where the Preferred Route crosses the Trail. Ms, Salisbury stated that no historic properties were identified during that survey.157 Upon cross-examination, Ms. Salisbury testified that Keystone was not a part of the consultation between the DOS and the identified tribes with historic interest along the Preferred M9 See Exhibit KKIr14 at pp. 2-5. 330 7a., See Exhibit 1 attached to Exhibit WL-14, sR T1zas12-14, 150 a 1087-18. M3 EXL-14, p. 3: 6-50. 1 ra, at! ar 70-75 id, a6 Ga, eae ‘Ghent voce once SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 27 Route. She stated she was not familiar with the details of which tribes were consulted, when and how they were consulted, and which tribes had participated in any cultural surveys.‘%° Ms. Salisbury stated that the DOS would have talked with any members of the Ponca Tribe and hired any tribal monitors, Keystone was not responsible for that and did not directly contact the Ponca Tribe.™ Mr. Rick Perkins, a Keystone XL Pipeline Project Manager in charge of logistics and services for the project, testified on behalf of Keystone. Mr. Perkin’s rebuttal testimony was accepted into the record as KXL-15. Mr. Perkins’s testimony dealt exclusively with workforce camps, with Mr. Perkins stating that to the extent Keystone determines workforce camps are necessary for the construction of the project, he would be responsible for the construction and oversight of those camps, Mr. Perkins testified that a contractor, Target Logistics Management, LLC, has been hired by Keystone to operate any workforce camps.#®@ Upon cross- examination, Mr. Perkins stated that the contractor, not Keystone, would employ the pipeline workers and be responsible for conducting drug screening and testing of workers.16 Mr. Perkins further stated that the Applicant intended to meet with local law enforcement, but had not yet done so in Nebraska.1 Mr. Perkins testified that the Department of Transportation requires pre-employment drug testing of all pipeline workers.! OPINION AND FINDINGS In 2011, the Nebraska Legislature enacted the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act!, giving the Commission authority to review the route of a proposed major oil pipeline and determine if the route is in the public interest. First and foremost, we must emphasize the limited scope and the narrowness of the authority given to the Commission by the Legislature in the Siting Act, The Commission is limited to a review of the proposed route only, The Commission is not to determine whether or not the pipeline project, or the pipeline itself, should be built. Neither is the Commission free to consider the energy security of the U.S., the character of the owner/operator of the pipeline, the Applicant's ownership structure, the origin and destination of the product to be shipped through the pipeline, or the legislative wisdom of eminent domain. DR 1114:16 - 1115; TR 1178:4-17. MO Byhibit KXL-18 at pp, 1-2 1 TR 1186:12-23. ts oR 1187224 - 118035. se 7m 1281:17-25, Se Neb. Rev, Stat. §§ 57-1401 ~ $7-1413 (2016 Cum, Supe). oat SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC. SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 28 The Legislature alzeady determined and stated in the Siting Act that, “the construction of major oil pipelines in Nebraska is in the public interest of Nebraska and the nation to meet the increasing need for energy.” Additionally, the fegislature further narrowed the Commission’s review of the proposed routes by expressly prohibiting the Commission from evaluating safety considerations, including the risk or impact of spills or leaks from the major oil pipeline, when making its determination on the routes. Many inside and outside of this proceeding have urged the Commission to broaden our review to include spills and advised us that our authority under the Siting Act should not be so limited regarding safety. However, while we understand the passion and concerns surrounding this project, in an analysis of the Siting act provisions, we can draw no other conclusion than that the Commission is not permitted to weigh such potential spills, leaks, or similar risks for any purpose in its analysis. The Legislature made the decision that safety considerations in connection with interstate pipeline projects are federally preempted and, therefore, prohibited the Commission from considering such issues in making its decision.’ In the Siting Act, the Legislature has given the Commission the limited responsibility of determining whether the route of the pipeline is in the public interest. Public Interest The Commission must first consider what is meant by the “public interest”. The Siting Act gives little to no direction or interpretation on what standard is to be used by the Commission to determine if the public interest requirement included in the Siting Act is satisfied by an applicant. Therefore, without clear direction, it is up to the Commission to determine what the public interest analysis should be under the Siting Act. The responsibility for determining the public interest is not foreign to the Commission. Many Nebraska Supreme Court cases discuss the public interest standard in the context of the Commission. In In re Application No, 30466 the Supreme Court stated, “All the powers and jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission must be found within the constitutional provision creating it, This provision should not be construed so narrowly as to defeat its purpose. Rather, it should be liberally construed to 16 ab, Rav. Stat. § 37-1403 (3). ME Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-1407 (4). 19 Neb. Rev. Stat, § 57-1402 (2). wee ni SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 29 effectuate the purpose for which the commission'was created, wnich is primarily to serve the public interest.” More specific to construction of “public interest”, the Nebraska Supreme Court has also stated, “determination of what is consistent with public interest or public convenience and necessity, is one peculiarly for determination of the [Public Service Commission] .”26 The idea of the public interest determination being unique to the Commission is repeated consistently throughout case law regarding interpretation of public interest, In Robinson v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., the Court stated, “this determination [of public interest] by the Commission is a matter peculiarly within its expertise.”) In Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc., “The public interest is one that is peculiarly for the determination of the commission,” And again, “The determination of what is consistent with the public interest, or public convenience and necessity, is one that is peculiarly for the determination of the Public Service Commission. "17? The Legislature has frequently tasked the Commission with conducting public interest determinations within specific statutory framework. When determining whether to issue certificates of authority to intrastate motor carriers, the Commission is directed to determine the public interest by considering if the proposed services are, “designed to meet the distinct need of each individual customer or a specifically designated class of customers.” When determining whether two or more regulated motor carriers may consolidate, we are directed, “If . . . the commission finds that the transaction proposed (will be consistent with the public interest and does not whduly restrict competition and that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to properly perform the proposed service, it may enter an order approving and authorizing such consolidation. 2% Pursuant to the Telecommunications Regulation Acti, the Commission must weigh the public interest in making a decision on 460 tn xe Application No. 30466, 194 Neb. 53, 230 N,W#.2a 190 (1975) M69 Application of £ & B Rigging & Transfer Inc., 191 Neb. 714, 217 N.W.2d 613 (1974). 190 Robinson v. National Trailer Convay, Inc., 188 Neb. 474, 197 N.W.2d 633 (1972), In xe Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 223 Neb. 415, 390 N.W.2d 495 (1986). ¥1 Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 209 Nob, 430, 308 N,W.24 336 (1981). W2 ATS Mobile Tel., Inc. v. MW. Bell Tel, Co., 213 Neb. 403, 330 N.W,2d 123 (1983). 19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-311 (2). 174 ob. Rev. Star. § 75-318. 138 Mab. Rev. Stat, §§ 86-101 - 86-165. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 30 disputed terms of railroad/telecommunications carrier crossing agreements. We are directed to consider safety, engineering, and access requirements of the railroad carrier as such requirements are prescribed by the Federal Railroad Administration and established rail industry standards.17© In Section 86-165, in determining whether to approve or reject an application to sell a telephone exchange, the Commission, “shall consider the protection of the public interest,” and other factors including the adequacy of the telephone service, the reasonableness of telephone rates, the provision of public safety services, taxes paid by the company, and the company’s ability to provide modern services. The Commission is even given authority to impose conditions on the approval of an application that the Commission, “deems necessary to ensure protection of the public interest pursuant to the criteria set forth in this subsection. "!7? In the State Netural Gas Regulation Act, the Commission is given authority to determine if proposals submitted by jurisdictional utilities or metropolitan utilities districts to enlarge or extend its service territory is in the public interest. The Commission must determine public interest by considering the economic feasibility of the extension or enlargement, the impact the enlargement will have on the existing and future natural gas ratepayers, whether the extension or enlargement contributes to the orderly development of natural gas utility infrastructure, whether the extension or enlargement will result in duplicative or redundant natural gas utility infrastructure, and whether the extension or enlargement is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner .178 Tt would seem reasonable based on these statutes, that any public interest analysis depends much on the context of the statutory scheme in which is resides. This is borne out by the Supreme Court. In discussing the Commission’s interpretation of the public interest in Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. of Neb. v. Bankers Dispatch Corp., the Court held, “Consistent with the public interest’ within a statute governing contract carrier permit applications means that the proposed contract carrier service does not conflict with the legislative policy of the state in dealing with transportation by motor vehicles.”27? The Nebraska Supreme Court finding was consistent with a similar findings by the U.S. Supreme Court, thet the words “public interest” in a 26 Nab, Rev, Stat. § 86-164(2) (a). 27) Neb, Rev, Stat. § 86-165(2). 1 Nob. Rey. Stat. § 66-1863 and Nob. Rov. Stat. § 66-1860. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. of Neb. v. Bankers Dlapstch Coxp., 186 Nob. 261, 182 Wow2d 648 (1373). sii mo pc SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 31 federel regulatory statute take meaning from the purpose of the regulatory legislation. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that a public interest determination is uniquely within the Commission’s expertise making the Commission especially suited to establish the standard for the public interest review under the Siting Act. However, we must do so within the context of the statutory framework established by the Legislature and in such a way that does not conflict with the legislative policy and intent behind the Act. The Legislature specifically lays out the purposes of the siting Act, (1)The purposes of the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act are to: (a) Ensure the welfare of Nebraskans, including protection of property rights, aesthetic values, and economic interests; (b) Consider the lawful protection of Nebraska's natural xesources in determining the location of routes of major oil pipelines within Nebraska; (c) Ensure that a major oil pipeline is not constructed within Nebraska without receiving the approval of the comission under section 57-1408; (a) Ensure that the location of routes for major oil pipelines is in compliance with Nebraska law; and (e) Ensure that a coordinated and efficient methed for the authorization of such construction is provided, 11 Therefore, keeping these stated purposes firmly in mind, the Commission turns to its evaluation of the public interest of the proposed routes. While the Siting Act places the burden on an applicant to establish a proposed route will serve the public interest, it also mandates the Commission in making such a determination, to evaluate eight specific issues, again not to include safety considerations. The eight (8) areas the Commission is directed to evaluate are: (e) Whether the pipeline carrier has demonstrated compliance with all applicable state statutes, rules, and regulations and local ordinances; 36 wat") Aga'n for Advancenent of Colored People v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 425 U.S. 662, 96.8, Ct. 1806, 48 L. Ed. 24 204 (1976). AM Neb, Rev. Seat, § 57-1402. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 32 (b) Evidence of the impact due to intrusion upon natural resources and not due to safety of the proposed route of the major oil pipeline to the natural resources of Nebraska, including evidence regarding the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources and the depletion of beneficial uses of the natural resources; (c) Evidence of methods to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of the major oil pipeline to natural resources; (4) Evidence regarding the economic and social impacts of the major oil pipeline; (e) Whether any other utility corridor exists that could feasibly and beneficially be used for the route of the major of] pipeline; and (£) The impact of the major oil pipeline on the orderly development of the area around the proposed route of the major oil pipeline. (9) The reports of the agencies filed pursuant to subsection (3) of this section; and (h) The views of the governing bodies of the counties and municipalities in the area around the proposed route of the major oil pipeline.1e Views of the Counties and Municipalities The Commission shall evaluate, “the views of the governing bodies of the counties and municipalities in the area around the proposed route of the major oil pipeline.”'8 The Commission sent letters soliciting input on the proposed routes to 18 counties!# and 32 cities! along both the Preferred Route and the Mainline Alternative Route. Six counties responded, with Boone, Nance, aa. Neb. Rev. Stat, § 57-1407(4) {h). 4 Letters were sent to the counties of Antelope, Boone, Boyd, Butler, Colfax, Fillmore, Holt, Jefferson, Keya Palla, Madison, Merrick, Nance, Platte, Polk, Saline, Seward, Stanton, and York, M3 Letters were sent to the cities of Albion, Atkinon, Butte, Central city, Clesrwater-wing, Columbus, Crete, David city, Elgin, Fairbury, Friend, Aullecton, Geneva, Genoe, Henderson, Madison, Neligh, Newman Grove, Norfolk, O'Neil, Orchard, Schuyler, Seward, Spencer, Springview, St. Edward, Stanton, Stronsburg, Sutton, Wisner, and York, enn SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 33 Saline, and Seward counties expressing support for the project and Boyd and Holt counties expressing opposition to the project. Two cities responded, Seward and Steele City, both were favorable toward the project. 1 State Agency Reports The Commission shall evaluate, “the reports of the agencies filed. pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.”!8? The Siting Act gives the Commission the ability to request reports from the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Transportation, the Game and Parks Commission, the Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Nebraska State Historical Society, the State Fire Marshal, and the Board of Educational Lands and Funds, for information within the respective agency’s area of expertise relating the impact of the proposed pipelines. The information could include the opinions of the agency on the advisability of approving, denying, or modifying the location of the route of the pipeline. The Commission specifically requested opinions and information regarding both the Preferred Route and the Mainline Alternative Route from all nine (9) agencies listed in the statute. All nine (9) agencies responded to the Commission and no agency expressed any concerns or opinion regarding approval, denial, or relocating of either the Preferred or Mainline Alternative Routes.™ Compliance with Applicable State Statutes, Rules and Regulations and Local Ordinances The Commission shall evaluate, “whether the pipeline carrier has demonstrated compliance with all applicable state statutes, rules, and regulations and local ordinances.”#° In its application, Keystone stated it has complied with all currently applicable state statutes, rules and regulations, and local ordinances. The Applicant noted that at this stage of the process, some requirements are not yet applicable and it is premature to comply with certain requirements. Keystone committed to obtain all required permits and comply with all state laws, regulations, and local ordinances, and zoning requirements, when appropriate within M85 see Exhibit PSC-5. 187 Nab, Rev. Stat. § S7-1407(4) (9) We Soo Exhibit PSC-E, M3 ad. Rev. Stat. § 51-1407(4) (a). Besse nce SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 34 the project.!° Tt further provided a plan for compliance with the Nebraska Oil and Pipeline Reclamation Act, as required by Commission Rules.? All the commitments of Keystone in its application were affirmed by Mr. Tony Palmer at the hearing.3? Intervenors argue Keystone failed to provide ovidence of compliance will all statutes, rules, regulations, and local ordinances. Landowner Intervenors point out that Keystone has no fully executed road haul agreements with the counties.1™ Dr. O'Hara expressed concerns about no commitment from the Applicant to comply with private setbacks and/or covenants, as these are not necessarily a statue, rule, regulation, or local ordinance, 195 To expect an applicant to list each and every law, rule, regulation, or ordinance they have, or may have to comply with during a construction project of this magnitude seems impractical. We note the inclusion in this provision of the Siting Act of the word “applicable”, which is defined as, “fit, suitable, pertinent, related to, or appropriate; capable of being applied. ”%° Arguably, some provisions of state, county and local law are unable to be complied with by the Applicant prior to construction. This seems even more the case in relation to required permits at all different levels. Indeed, it would be impossible in many cases for an applicant to determine which permits to obtain prior to knowing what route, if any, may be approved by the Commission. The Applicant has promised it will comply, absent any reason to doubt the commitments of the Applicant, the Commission is satisfied they have demonstrated compliance with applicable state and local provisions. : Evidence of Impact upon Natural Resources The Commission shall evaluate, "evidence of the impact due to intrusion upon natural resources and not due to safety of the proposed route of the major oil pipeline to the natural resources of Nebraska, including evidence regarding the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources and the depletion’ of beneficial uses of the natural 10 exhibit KXL-1, $9.8, p. 35 & 612.0, p.38. 39 Nod. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-3301 ~ 76-3308 4m 291 ac 9, § 23.02R8. 195 penibit w-2, at pp. 4-57 TR 162:20 - 163:3; 186215 ~ 187221. 19 Exhibit LO-2E8 at pp. 6-8 195 9R B41:2-23, 6 Black's Law Dictionary 65 (The Publisher/s Editorial Staff ed., Abr. 60 od,, West Gzoup 1993) SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 35 resources,” The Applicant states that it has taken significant steps to minimize intrusions on natural resources. The Preferred and Mainline Alternative Routes were both routed to avoid the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (*NDEQ”) defined area of the Nebraska Sandhills. During this proceeding there was significant dispute and discussion about what constitutes the “Sandhills”, how they are both defined and delineated. Landowner Intervenors maintain both routes still cross fragile, sandy soils that are part of the Sandhills.1%? However, the geographic area defined as Sandhills by NDEQ has been avoided by both routes. The Applicant states the Preferred Route was specifically designed after surveys and refinement from input from different agencies including NDEQ and DOS to avoid major water bodies, fragile soil areas, recreation areas, and special interest areas such as Wetland Reserve Program land and Nebraska Land Trust tracts.200 The Preferred Route avoids most areas of native prairie and avoids Nebraska state-managed wildlife management areas which provide protected habitat.? The Applicant testimony emphasized most of the impacts are temporary in nature and not major. Keystone points out that a large percentage of the land crossed is agricultural in nature making impacts on vegetation short term.%2 TransCanada witness, Mr. Beaver, opined that the construction of the pipeline would not significantly increase the impermeability of the soil.23 The Applicant further testified that through the federal review process conducted by DOS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), in consultation with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the Preferred Route was designed to minimize impacts to wildlife.? only one federally-listed species, the American burying beetle was listed by DOS and USFWS as likely to be adversely affected by the proposed project, and the effects were stated to not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the burying beetle.25 The DOS Biological Assessment found other federally-listed species would not be adversely affected by the project. This includes the whooping crane.7€ 7 web, Rev. Stat. § 57-1407(4)). 190 See ERAIBIE KX, $3, ped 198 TR 766:16-25; #70:21-25) 908:5-15. 200 See EXRIDLt: KML, § 9.13, pp. 36-37; Exhibit KXL~20, pp.8-9, 71-72, 301 See Bxnibit OG~11, p.5; Bxnibit KKL-29, p. 723. 202 Gee Exhibit, KXL-1, S§ 13-8), pp. 38-637 Exhibit KXI~S, pp. 1-3; Exhibit Kea, pp. 1-4; exibir KXD-7, Mp. 2-Oy Exhibit KKL-B, pp. 1-47 Exhibit KKL-11 through Kxt-13) ans Exhibit KKLe1U, pp. 1-2. 20¢ See Exhibit WUA21 and KXG-22. 10 See Exnibit WXU-ZZ, p. 70s EKnibit KKi~21, pp. 170-171, 206 Soo Exhipde! KXL-21; Exhibit: KKL-22 Granda renin SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 36 ‘The Landowner Intervenors focused on the negative impacts of the proposed constriction to the soil, water, habitat, and the aquifer, and the difficulties in returning the land to pre- construction state. Regarding soil they point out the potential negative impacts of soil erosion, loss of topsoil, soil compaction, an increase in large rocks in the topsoil, and soil contamination from construction of the project.20” Regarding water they discuss increased sedimentation in surface water, degraded aquatic habitat, changes in channel morphology and stability, decreases in river bank stability, and erosion of river banks.2° Landowner Intervenors also point out there are 2,398 wells within one mile of the Preferred Route, in comparison to 105 wells within one mile along the pipeline route through South Dakota.?0) Landowner Intervenors also cite to Keystone’s application regarding the project’s impact on wetland habitats and causing changes in wetland hydrology.#9 In regards to the aquifer under the State of Nebraska, they state there may be a temporary draw down on the aquifer during construction.#1 The Landowner Intervenors also point out that Keystone doesn’t quantify what it means by “significant” when it states that it docs not anticipate any significant overall effects to crops and vegetation from the heat generated by the pipeline underground during normal operations.?!? Additionally, Landowner Intervenors express concern over Keystone’s statement that it takes upwards of fifty (50) years for new trees to mature and no trees will be able to be replanted over where the pipeline is buried.213 Natural Resources Intervenors also expressed concerns on the impacts to natural resources of the pipeline project, specifically citing to landowner testimony regarding the impact of the heat generated underground by the operation of the pipeline and the fear there will be irreparable damage to the lend and soil from the heat.# Other landowner expressed concern noted by Natural Resources Intervenors about irreparable harm from the Applicant's failure to restore their land to pre-construction condition, 20 Exbibit KXL-1, ps 42. 2 op 372:13-20. 2 WR 562:15 - 563:9, 73 uxhibit KAL-L, p, 42. 261 TR 756:21 ~ 75735; 8747-19. 23 TR 708:5~22; 928:10 ~ 329113, Goria wehaet nai SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 37 Natural Resources Intervenors point to the testimony of Nr. Allpress, a landowner in Keya Paha County, regarding the fragile nature of his soil and the significant risks of hills slides causing damage to plants and risk to wildlife in the area, and his belief that Keystone has chosen a route with significant issues that could cause irreparable harm by building through Keya Paha County. 236 Experts for the Natural Resources Intervenors testified that due to the soil characteristics along the route, in their opinion, the proposed pipeline construction will decrease soil permeability and increase soil compaction post construction, and present very real challenges in restoring the soil, causing a decrease in agricultural productivity both during construction and after.2!7 They further testified that placing a pipe in the ground with a shallow aguifer could alter flow paths of groundwater and irreversibly and irreparable impact local springs and subsurface flows.7® Finally, Natural Resources Intervenors spent significant time discussing the impact of the additional powerlines necessary to supply the operation of the pipeline to the endangered whooping cranes. The migratory path of the whooping cranes passes through Nebraska and besides researchers and conservationists, thousands of people visit Nebraska each year to view the migrating Sandhill cranes and catch a glimpse of the rare whooping cranes.%}? While they admit the impact will be small on the whooping cranes, they maintain one bird killed on such a small population is a high price to pay. 70 The Commission is very cognizant of the fact that opening a trench that entirely bisects the State of Nebraska from North to South to insert a 36-inch pipe will have impacts to the natural resources of the state, including soil, water, and wildlife. It is impossible to complete such a project without impacts. There is no utopian option where we reap the benefits of an infrastructure project without some effects. We are tasked with weighing those impacts against the potential benefits. We do not take lightly the concerns of the landowners, other Nebraskans, and our fellow Commissioners. We share many of the concerns expressed regarding the soils in Keya Paha, Holt, Boyd, and Antelope Counties. However, we also are very cognizant of the benefits to Nebraska, especially to the counties along the route. With economic concerns abounding, tax revenues from a project such as this can help ease burdened landowners, counties, school districts, and subdivisions by 235 mR 963:19 - 885:1. 231 Exhibit NR-3, pp. 5-6, 8, 13. ns exhibit MRA, p. 9. 28 gyhible te. WR-1, p-L0. 220 TR 1001:14 ~ 1002:3 and TR 1028:3-8. ‘Greet aiiaed SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, 0P-0003 Page 38 raising the potential of future property tax relief via expansion of the local tax base. Regardless of the infrastructure project proposed, weighing the concerns with the benefits is a difficult analysis. Evidence of Methods to Minimize or Mitigate Potential Impacts The Commission shall evaluate, “evidence of methods to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of the major oil pipeline to natural resources.’?! The Commission heard significant amounts of testimony regarding Keystone’s Construction Mitigation and Reclamation Plan??? (“CRP”), Keystone testified the CMRP measures are based upon best practices within the pipeline construction industry.?? The CMRP contains plans that outline multiple procedures developed by the Applicant in consultation with NRCS and University of Nebraska experts.2 The plans include procedures for soil protection, water-crossing methods, vegetation reclamation, and aquatic resources protection to lessen the impacts on natural resources and return the land disturbed to pre- construction conditions as close as reasonably possible.?) The Applicant also provided Construction Reclamation (“Con/Rec”) Units for the Keystone XL Project and a Noxious Weed Management Plan that are intended to work in conjunction with the CMRP. Keystone also committed to developing and implementing a Construction Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, which will be finalized when construction contractors are engaged for the project #6 The CMRP also contains provisions for daily monitoring by an Environmental Inspector to review the construction for compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. Pursuant to the plan, inspectors will have the authority to stop the work on the pipeline if appropriate.” The Applicant testimony also addressed additional measures to mitigate and reclaim the areas along the construction including deep ripping to relieve compaction from construction traffic, and placing the pipeline so it crosses surface water in the direction of the flow of groundwater to minimize impacts on groundwater flows.228 #21 mab. Rav. Stat. $ $7-1407(4) (ce). 22 Byhibit Kiel, Appendix D. 72 exhibit KXL-1L, p. 3, 2 TR 465:22 ~ 467:6. 25 See Exhibit KXI-1, $8, pp. 22-30 and Appendix D. 26 Soo Exhibit KAL-24 through KKL-26, KKL-S, pp, 2-3 and KAie1, § 9.21, p.36, 27 pyhibit WH-1, Appendix D, § 2.2, p.96. 2m exhibit KKC-L1, pp./1-3i Exhibit HXL-12, pp. 2-3. Braemar SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 39 Landowner Intervenors noted that the CMRP offered by Keystone has not been updated since 2012.%? Further, they emphasized that while Keystone offered its plan for mitigation and reclamation, it can deviate from the plan at its own discretion. Further, Landowner Intervenors argue that many of the statements offered by Keystone in the application are not defined or measured. for example, there is no definition of “to the extent possible” when describing mitigation and reclamation processes, and no specificity on how and who would determine if reclamation had occurred to the extent possible after construction.™ Keystone admitted under cross-examination that they did not study the soil on the property owned by the Landowner Intervenors and it is more challenging to control erosion in fine, sandy soils.22 Landowner Intervenors testified that the soil in Keya Paha, Holt & Antelope counties is often sandy and fine soil.?% The success or failure of mitigation and reclamation efforts can often be in the eye of the beholder and enter into a realm where reasonable mind may differ on the best course, the successfulness of the process, and whether further steps may or may not be in order. It appears the procedures put: forth by the Applicant conform to industry standards and are reasonable. However, we also are very aware that there are unique challenges in many areas of Nebraska. Therefore, we find that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1s an excellent resource for the Applicant and landowners, and in the event a dispute arises regarding reclamation and mitigation efforts in connection with the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, that NRCS be consulted and their advice followed. Therefore, while we stop short of ordering ‘consultation and compliance with NROS opinion and advice, we strongly urge that NRCS be consulted regarding reclamation and mitigation disputes and their advised’ course of action be undertaken by the Applicant and affected landowner, as circumstances may dictate. Evidence Regarding Economic and Social Impacts The Commission shall evaluate, “evidence regarding the economic and social impacts of the major oil pipeline.”?# Both economic and social impacts were discussed extensively by all parties to the proceeding, We will discuss each area distinctly 22) TR 403: 20 TR 401 2 me 41g) 22 TR 350:20-25. 233 R 766:16-25; §70:21-25; and 909:8-15. 2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 57-1407 (4) Id) 15 - 400225. S24. 18 - 420123. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 40 below, however, we are aware there is overlap between the two areas. Economic Impact Keystone offered evidence of the socio-economic impacts of the project. Keystone cited positive tax effects, estimating the tax benefits would exceed $200 million during construction and the first 15 years of operation of the pipeline.#* Keystone also cited to the findings of both NDEQ and DOS that there would be significant, positive tax effects for Nebraska and the U.S.2° Additionally, Keystone confirmed through Tony Palmer, that it would not make any claims for deductions, exemptions, credits, refunds, or rebates under the Nebraska Advantage Act in connection with the Keystone XL project.2"7 Keystone also provided testimony that concluded the project would increase employment in Nebraske, estimating 127.6 jobs supported per year from 2018 to 2034, resulting in §.7 billion in labor income during the same period.## The DOS also found that the entire project, not just in Nebraska, would support around 42,100 jobs and contribute approximately $34 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product .29? Keystone highlighted the finding in the FSEIS that the operation of the project was not expected to have an impact on residential or agricultural property values and the findings of NDEQ, of hundreds of millions of dollars of new economic activity, millions of dollars in annual property tax revenue, and hundreds of jobs for Nebraskans.240 The Landowner Intervenor expert disputed the findings and numbers provided by Keystone. Dr. O’ Hara estimated that fewer than ten (10) jobs would be created by the project and Landowner Intervenors included evidence that as of May 19, 2017, Keystone had created 34 permanent jobs and one temporary job. Dr, O/Hara pointed out Keystone would only pay property taxes for fifteen (15) year and zero property taxes after 2034. Dr. O/Hara testified that in his opinion net decreases in property taxes over the lifetime of the pipeline and losses of state income tax revenues 2 Bxnibit Wiel, Appendix H, Table 3.8, p. 358. 2 exhibit ¥KL-19, pp, 25-26 and KKL-20, pp.8-9, 26-27. 21 oR 187322 ~ 15825, 28 Exhibit KiL-L, Appendix H. 2 exnibit KX-19, p. 25. 2 ra, at p. 26 and Exhibit KKL+20, pp. 8-8, 26-27. 20 Exhibit Lo-244, pp. 9-10. si lh SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 41 would offset any temporary sales tax increases. He estimated counties would have other increased operating expenses due to the project and the pipeline would potentially limit future economic development. He additionally estimated a 15% decrease in land value with the pipeline on the property.’ Landowner Intervenors noted that Keystone did not rebut their assertions that their land would suffer from decreased productivity and pointed out that Keystone had not conducted any studies on topsoil and the effects of replacement on productivity and crop yields along the route,?#? The Economic Intervenors testified that UA has ‘approximately 1,500 Nebraska members, LiUNA has around 600 Nebraska members, and IBEW represents~ around 371 members in Nebraska.2¢ The Economic Intervenors testified that the socio-economic well-being of their members depends on projects like the Keystone XL project. They went on to testify that the Keystone XL Project will create benefits for union members as well as Nebraska localities and residents. Economic Intervenor witness David Barnett estimated the Project would create about $30 million in wages and $20 million in fringe benefit contributions in Nebraska, employing approximately 564 UA members.#5 Witness Gerhard testified that the project would create approximately 100 jobs for LiUNA members and approximately 80 jobs for IBEW members for the pumping stations alone. All employed members would receive wages end contributions to retirement and health care benefits for themselves and their families.? Economic Intervenors testified that construction jobs like those created by the Keystone XL Project are vital to Nebraska families who depend on construction jobs for their livelihood.#47 Mr. Gerhard further estimated that while some of the created jobs are for the period of construction, other permanent jobs would also be created for IBEW members as a result of transmission/distribution demands for the operation of the pipeline.?# Mr. Gerhard testified the jobs will be permanent in nature due to the increase in electrical capacity and demand requiring more service to transmission lines and additional generation stations.749 Finally, Mr. Gerhard discussed the increased economic activity brought into the State of Nebraska due to increased demand for food, lodging, recreation, and other daily 2 Exniblt LO-189, pp. 22-35. 30 R 34426-21; 949222 — 950:25; 766:16 - 76822; 920:9-22; 402:25 ~ a0di14. 24 gxnibit ECO-1, pp. 1-2; Exhibit ECO-2, p. 1. 28 Bxiblt ECO-1, pp. 11-12. 28 Exhibit ECO-2, B. 5. 2 Td at pe 6. " Id. 9 7a, Bivins ax orc SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 42 needs of workers on the pipeline, spurring local business and creating positive economic activity and tax revenue,?50 While much of the economic testimony was conflicting, what wasn't disputed was that Nebraska will accrue economic benefit from the Keystone XI, Project. The exact nature of those benefits and how to quantify those benefits was strongly disputed. It is clear Nebraska will reap some level of benefit from the investment and activity that is associated with the pipeline construction and operation. The counties where the pipeline is situated will benefit from increased property tax revenues. This is especially true as the Applicant has committed to not utilize the tax benefits it may be entitled to under the Nebraska Advantage Act. We find the Applicant shall comply with its commitment to not use the Nebraska Advantage Act in any form in connection with the Keystone XL Project. Finally, the fact that the property tax revenues may only be for a certain number of years, and there may be other costs offsetting the revenues somewhat, does not eliminate the economic benefits that will be realized by Nebraska families, communities, counties, and the state as a whole from the pipeline project. Social Impact The discussion in the proceeding regarding social impacts of the proposed pipeline project focused primarily on two (2) areas, the preservation of cultural resources and impacts from the temporary construction camp that may be established in Holt County. The public interest with respect to the preservation of cultural resources%* along the pipeline route is a matter of federal law, and governed by the National Historic Preservation Act (*NHPA”).2? The DOS is the lead federal agency for review of the proposed pipeline and tribal consultation under NHPA,?> Pursuant to Section 106 of NAPA, the DOS, the Nebraska State Historical Preservation Officer, Keystone, and various other state and federal agencies entered into an amended PA in December, 2023,254 38 Id, at pp. 6-7. #8 ype defined cultural resources as, “physical evidence of culturally and historically valued aspects of the human and natural environment on the landscape,” KXL-020, p. 28. 2 56 U.S.C, 300101 et seq. 2 wxt-015, p. 271. 251 NXE=O14) pp. 7-160 and See Exhibit B9C-6, Nebrasks state Historical Society Letter, March 5, 2017. Sire wn SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 43 Among other things, the PA requires Keystone to avoid, whenever feasible, adverse effects on known cultural resources.#* Adverse effects that cannot be avoided must be minimized and mitigated.#€ In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, all construction activities in the vicinity of the discovery must cease.?? Construction may only resume after such resources are evaluated and are protected to the extent required by the PA and NHPA.?5° the PA also includes 2 Tribal Monitoring Plan, the objective of which is to minimize the potential for adverse effects from the Project activities on previously unidentified historic properties,28? The Tribal Monitoring Plan calls for tribal monitors with experience in the identification of cultural resources to monitor construction along the pipeline route. Under the PA, tribal monitors are to be selected by the individual tribes, with construction activities in a given location observed by tribal monitors who are representatives of tribes claiming historical use of that land? The Cultural Intervenors provided testimony highlighting both YS? and Ponca concerns regarding sacred cultural resources that would be irreparably harmed by construction of the pipeline and the resulting psychological and cultural harm to tribal members. Mr. Wright testified specifically about the Ponca concerns about the project impacts to the Ponca Removal Trail.?® Mr, Wright also testified that his concerns about cultural surveys would be alleviated if such surveys were conducted properly under the PA. He also agreed that Keystone has time to complete cultural surveys prior to construction of the proposed pipeline.#® ‘he DOS invited a total of 84 Indian tribes to consult on the proposed pipeline project on a government-to-government basis, pursuant to Section 106 of NKPA.?° .Both the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota are listed in the PA as consulting parties.’ The record shows numerous contacts between the Ponea and the DOS, including numerous telephone calls, letters, emails and six consultation meetings, prior to execution 35 wexu-023, p13, 16-29 56 KKL-O23, P- 12, 52. 357 KXL-023, p 13, 16-19. RXL-023, Pp, 18. 29 KXL~023, p. 92. 269 KXL-023, p. 16-17, 92, 97-104, 36 1d. 26 Exhibit CUL-25 pp. a Bxhiblt CUL-18 pp. 26 TR 1084:23-1085:3, 26 TR 1085:4-7 366 KXE-O4, p. 218. 367 XXL-O14, p. 120721, Greavinaitainnreinr SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 44 of the PA.?® Likewise, the record shows the YST also participated in six consultation meetings, with a greater number of letters, telephone calls and emails.%? However, the record is unclear on the Cultural Intervenors’ participation in the consultative process after the execution of the amended PA by various parties in December 2013,270 The Applitant’s CMRP contains an express commitment by Keystone to comply with any PA in order to minimize the impact on cultural sites along the route and address any unanticipated cultural discoveries during construction.?" The application states that Keystone intends to avoid historical properties or culturally significant sites by rerouting the pipeline “to the extent practicable.”2"? Moreover, the CMRP states that if an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources occurs, all construction activities will be halted within a 100-foot radius of the discovery.?”} The site will be protected and work will not resume until ail mitigation measures are complete under the PA and approval is received from the relevant agencies.?" Moreover, the record reflects that Keystone has already made changes to the Preferred Route in order to accommodate cultural sites and that every eligible cultural site encountered thus far in Nebraska has been addressed by avoidance." Taken as @ whole, the record demonstrates Keystone has complied with federal law and made alterations of the route to accommodate culturally important sites and it is reasonable to expect that Keystone will continue to do so. Further, DOS will continue to require compliance with the PA and NHPA. Therefore, we think it fair to conclude that the Applicant's compliance with the PA and NHPA will help to assure that the route of the pipeline will be in the public interest. The Cultural Intervenors also expressed concern regarding the potential negative social impacts from the temporary construction camp that may be established in Holt County. Mr. Cooke testified that a pipeline construction camp in proximity to the YST reservation and casino in South Dakota would raise the threat of harm to tribal members due to violence or other criminal 248 HexL=023, p. 145. mo Td, at p. 149 270 7@ 1056:13 ~ 105725; 208418 - 2085220, 1 RXled, Appendix b, p. 105. a a, Th a rg, 2 TR 1124212-1 IR e2i:9 — 62, rein emt SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 45 activity.27 However, the information in the record regarding construction camps states that Keystone would require camp residents to comply with a written code of conduct, the violation of which would potentially result in expulsion.?!” The construction camps will be fenced, with a quardhouse manned 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week, an additional roving security guard, supplemented by off-duty law enforcement personnel, and video surveillance.?® Only authorized personnel will be granted access to the work camp and no visitors will be allowed.?7? AlL construction camps would be permitted, constructed, and operated consistent with applicable county, state, and federal regulations. 280 In addition, information included in the record states that the social ills that impact communities due to an influx of large numbers of workers are generally associated with “boom towns, longer-term operations such as cil drilling operations where a largely male workforce may be residing for months or years.” Construction camps on the Keystone project would be temporary, expected to exist for approximately six to eight months, and located away from communities. 2? Based on the foregoing, we do not believe that a temporary construction camp in a location with insufficient lodging to accommodate the number of workers necessary to build the pipeline would be contrary to the public interest. z Impact of the Pipeline on Orderly Development of the Area The Commission is directed to evaluate, “the impact of the major oil pipeline on the orderly development of the area around the proposed route of the major oil pipeline.”#? The Applicant states the land along the routes is primarily agricultural and located in rural areas, and the land will remain agricultural after construction is complete. The presence of the pipeline after construction is completed, will not interfere with nozmal agricultural operations.% Landowner Intervenors raised concerns regarding the impact of the pipeline on irrigation and drain tiles after construction. The Applicant responded that Keystone’s CMRP 176 xhiblt CUL-25 pp. 8-10. PT eXLe19 p. 1321. md. #9 Td, at pp. 2205-2206. 30 Td, at p. 343. 2 Td. at p. 2205. 1d, 2 Nob. Rav. Stat. § 57-1407(4) (f). 2M Gxnibie KAL-L, S21, pp, 69-70; Exhibit KXL-: Brmenm sr onsen dem SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 46 addresses the mitigation measures that will be utilized to address impacts on irrigations systems. The CMRP, Keystone points out, also includes specific plans for repair of underground drainage tiles and methods to resolve with the landowner any repair costs.7 Landowner Intervenors argue that Keystone did not conduct a study on the impact of the pipeline on development. They argue electricity demands for the pipeline pumping stations could affect irrigators in the area, but offered no evidence in this regard. #6 Dr. O'Hara testified that the presence of the pipeline could act as a physical barrier and steer potential development away from the location of the pipeline, as no building can occur over the buried pipeline.?87 The land along the proposed route is primarily agricultural in use, and will most likely remain primarily agricultural after any construction is completed. Any future development, such as erecting buildings or other structures, would need to avoid the direct pipeline path. However, similar restrictions on development occur in areas near other infrastructure, i.e., roads, bridges, dams, power lines, etc. The impact on development of the area along the location of the pipeline seems minimal. Existence of Other Utility Corridors The Commission is also directed to evaluate, “whether any other utility corridor exists that could feasibly and beneficially be used for the route of the major oil pipeline.” The term “utility corridor” is not defined in the Siting Act, nor could we find the term used elsewhere in Nebraska statutes. For purposes of a plain meaning analysis, corridor is defined as, “a passageway” ,2#9 and utility is defined as, “equipment or piece of equipment to provide service to the public’.2” So it seems reasonable that the plain meaning of a utility corridor is a passageway for facilities providing public services. It does not appear the Siting Act limits other utility corridors to those containing crude oil pipelines. The Applicant discussed consideration of other utility corridors that included a Nebraska Public Fower District high voltage electric transmission line in Knox and Antelope counties and the Exhibit 1Ln24, $8 4.1, 5, 5.3. See Landoymer Intervencre’ Closing Argument, p.7. TR BST:16 ~ 85: Web, Rev. St Webster's rd at 878, $ 57-1407(4) (e). cath New Collegiate Dictionary at 187 SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 47 Cowboy Trail,?! a former railroad line, in Rock, Holt, and Antelope counties. The Applicant discarded these routes for various reasons laid out in the application, with which we agree.2 The Applicant's proposed Mainline Alternative Route would run near the existing Keystone I pipeline for approximately 95 miles and by the Applicant's own statement, “was developed to maximize the length of co-location with the existing Keystone Mainline pipeline”, otherwise referred to as Keystone I, in eastern Nebraska.?3 While it does not 100% co-locate the Keystone I line, the Alternative Mainline Route does utilize an existing utility corridor, the Keystone I Pipeline, for epproximately two-thirds of the route through Nebraska. Therefore, the opportunity to utilize at least a portion of an alternative utility corridor does exist. However, the most frequently discussed alternative utility corridor in this proceeding was one utilizing a route co-locating the entire existing Keystone I Mainline oil pipeline in eastern Nebraska.%* Such a route would require the entry point from South Dakota be in Cedar County, or over 100 miles east from the current entry point in Keya Paha County, Some in the proceeding dubbed this complete parallel route the “I-90 Route”, as it would in theory route the Keystone XL Pipeline further east in South Dakota along Interstate 90 and then parallel Keystone I south through Nebraska. During the DOS Environmental Impact review, the I-90 Route was reviewed for comparison purposes to the route preferred by Keystone.25 In 2010, @ year before the passage of the Siting Act in Nebraska, South Dakota issued a construction permit to Keystone which allows for the crossing between Nebraska and South Dakota to occur in Keya Paha County.#® This is the point of entry into Nebraska used by Keystone for all three (3) routes proposed in this proceeding. Many, including our dissenting colleagues, advocate for us to not approve any of the proposed routes before us in this application and instead urge the Applicant to move the entry point out of Keya Paha County, They suggest the idea of co~ locating the entire Keystone XL Pipeline with the Keystone I line #1 the Conboy Trail 4s 2 former railroad line that was gifted to the State of Nebraska pursuant to the National Trails System Act, 16 USC §§ 1241-1251. 22 exhibit xXL-1, $20.2, pp. 65-66. 39 pxhiblt 1-1, $20.3, pp. 66-67. 28 See Sxhibit KXL-1, $20, pp. 64-70, TR 182:5 ~ 193:6; TR 545: Exhibit WR-4, pp. 6-9. 89 exhibit KuL~19, pp. 1965-2000, 298 Seo Docket No. HPO3-D01, In the Matter of the Application ay Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP for # permit Under the South Dakota Enecgy Conversion and Transmission Facilities Act to construct the Keystone Xb Project, amended Final Decision and Ordary Wotice of entry, (June 29, 2010). AZ; TR 9462710; SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 48 in Nebraska. We have serious concerns about dismissing the decision of our South Dakota neighbors. We are well aware that South Dakota's process is different from the routing approval process utilized by the Nebraska Legislature in the Siting Act. However, to disregard the decision of South Dakota that was made before Nebraska had even enacted the Siting Act, is at best awkward and at least highly questionable. While we understand that our primary focus is clearly the interests of Nebraska, we do not believe it to be in Nebraska’s best interest to demand an approach that would result in direct conflict with our northern neighbor. Nebraska shares common goals and interests with other states’ in the union and we cannot frivolously dismiss the national aspect of this project before us and the decisions of our counterparts in neighboring states. Ultimately, regardless of the amount of time the| 1-90 Route was discussed, the discussion is speculative. A route completely paralleling the Keystone I pipeline is not before us in this proceeding. Further, even if we rejected the three (3) routes in front of us, we have no evidence to even make a recommendation that the Applicant pursue the 1-90 Route, as we aré unable with this evidentiary record to determine whether the I-90 Route is either a feasible or beneficial alternative to what is proposed by the Applicant. Finally, we are unconvinced that this Commission is endowed with the authority under the Siting Act to approve a route that requires the entry point, previously reviewed by other state and federal regulatory bodies, to be moved. The idea of the 1-90 Route may sound good in theory, but we do not have the authority to approve it. Proposed Routes What we do have in front of us is information on three (3) routes from the Applicant, the Preferred Route, the Sandhills Alternative Route and the Mainline Alternative Route. The Applicant selected the route that it preferred, but also included two other alternative routes. All three (3) routes enter Nebraska in Keya Paha County and end at Steele City in Jefferson County.#7 The Sandhills Alternative Route is the most westerly of the three (3) routes. The Sandhills Alternative Route was the original proposed route of the Keystone XL Pipeline through Nebraska. The route was subsequently modified in consultation with NDEQ after concerns regarding the Sandhills region were raised by Nebraskans.?? The Sandhills Alternative Route would require 254.9 27 exhibit Wet-1, $2, pp. B14, BP Exhibse KKL-20, SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 49 miles of pipe to be built in Nebraska. This route was previously rejected by the State of Nebraska and therefore we also reject this alternative. The Preferred Route is the route previously reviewed by NDEQ and approved by the Governor. The Preferred Route is located to the east of the Sandhills Alternative Route, having been moved to the east to avoid the NDEQ-identified region of the Sandhills? Based on the NDEQ Final Evaluation Report and the subsequent Governor approval of the Preferred Route, Keystone incorporated the Preferred Route into its 2012 Presidential Permit application.2®9 The Preferred Route would extend 275.2 miles from its entry in Keya Paha County to its exit from Nebraska in Steele City. However, Keystone admitted the route was determined by simply drawing a direct line from Hardesty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, constituting the shortest route between the origin and the destination of the pipeline.9! However, when concerns were expressed by Nebraskans about a particularly fragile ecological area, the NDEQ-defined Sandhills, the route was moved from the original shortest route, adding approximately 20 miles to the pipeline’s length and diverting it away from the Sandhills. But, ultimately, the Preferred Route fails to take advantage of any opportunity to co-locate with the existing utility corridor represented by Keystone I, and therefore we are unable to conclude that the Preferred Route is in the public interest. The Mainline Alternative Route follows the same route as the Preferred Route for the portion in Northern Nebraska before it diverts further east through Madison County to meet up with the Keystone I Pipeline in Stanton County. It then turns south, co- locating with Keystone I for the remainder of the route to Steele City. With the Alternative Mainline Route, the Keystone XL pipeline would co-locate near the Keystone I Mainline Route for approximately 100 miles for a total route’ length of 280.5 miles long, which is only 5 miles longer than the Preferred Route. TransCanada’s engineer, Ms. Kothari, was clear that the Alternative Mainline Route was a viable and beneficial route, it just wasn’t the route Keystone preferred.% Further, as noted above, the Mainline Alternative Route was developed by the Applicant to maximize the length of co-location with the existing Keystone I Pipeline.303 Additionally, in response to the Commission's request, NDEQ completed an analysis of the Mainline 299 Exhibit Wth-l, Appendix B. si Ta, at $3, pp. 18-20. of TR 62:24 ~ 183:67 TR 679:11 - 60026. oR 638:8-22. 3 exhibit WaL-1, 620.3, pp. 66-67. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 50 Alternative Route, finding the route would have minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska. NDEQ’s findings were supported by the mitigation commitments and reclamation procedures included in Keystone’s application. 2 We see many benefits to maximizing the co-location of the Keystone XL Pipeline with Keystone I. It is in the public interest for the pipelines to be in closer proximity to each other, so as to maximize monitoring resources and increase the efficiency of response times. This would also assist emergency responders and others that may be called upon to assist with any issues that may arise with either pipeline. Additionally, the Alternative Mainline Route impacts fewer miles of the ranges of threatened and endangered species, including the interior least tern, whooping crane, piping plover, Massasauga rattlesnake, river otter, and small white lady’s slipper. We particularly note the Alternative Mainline Route would impact 84.6 fewer niles of whooping crane migratory path as compared to the Preferred Route.# Other benefits of the Alternative Mainline Route include, but are not limited to, one fewer river crossing, fewer wells within 500 feet of the pipeline, fewer acres of pivot irrigated crop land crossed, fewer crossing of intermittent and perennial streams and rivers, fewer miles of pipeline placed in areas with shallow groundwater, and fewer state highways and natural gas facilities to be crossed.7¢ Keystone cites the additional five (5) miles in length and one (1) additional pumping station as negatives against the Mainline Alternative Route. However, we feel the benefits of maximizing co-location opportunities and utilizing the existing utility corridor that is the Keystone I Mainline Route, outweighs these concerns. The additional twenty (20) miles added to the Preferred Route weighed against avoiding the Sandhills region made the additional miles a beneficial tradeoff. We see a similar situation here, the benefits of the Alternative Mainline Alternative Route outweigh the additional five (5) miles added to the length of the pipeline and a pumping station. Conclusion After careful evaluation and consideration of all the evidence adduced, and the careful weighing of all the issues, factors, and aspects of the proposed routes of the Keystone XL Dot See Exhibit PSC~4, Keystone XL Anslysis, Report to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, July 2017. M5 exntbir MAL-L, Table 2-1, p. 15. ME 7d, at pp. 16-18, SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 51 Pipeline, we find that the Alternative Mainline Route is in the public interest and shall be approved. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERAD by the Nebraska Public Service Commission that findings and conclusions contained above, be, and are hereby, adopted. ENTERED AND MADE EFFECTIVE at Lincoln, Nebraska, this 20% day of November, 2017. NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS CONCURRING: CE Ea cHairman APTEST: /(3//rank-®. Landis //3//Tim Schram MALLS, A, Qo Executive Director COMMISSIONERS DISSENTIN Bul tocad SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. 0P-0003 Page 52 Commissioner Johnson, concurring: Although I join the Majority in concluding that the Mainline Alternative Route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is in the public interest, I also write separately to emphasize additional matters of critical importance. Keystone has made quite a few promises to Nebraskans, both in their application and during the course of this proceeding. There should be no doubt that this Commission and the citizens of this State expect TransCanada to keep those promises, and we will be watching to make sure that they do 50. Of greatest importance is Keystone’s promise to fully restore the land that will be impacted by construction of the pipeline. Landowner testimony made clear that a successful reclamation process, particularly in Keya Paha, Boyd, and Holt counties, will not be a matter of simply scattering some seed and walking away. Several landowners provided compelling testimony about their own efforts to reestablish vegetation in fragile sandy soils after blowouts, hill slides, or other injuries to the land. The upshot of this testimony is that successful’ restoration’can be a very difficult process, requiring a great deal of time, care, and attention. TransCanada’s project manager testified the company has made a “commitment” to properly restore the land so that, “there is no impact.”! The company must honor that commitment. The project manager also testified that during construction the pipe will, “be bent to follow the contour of the ground.’? In future years, however, the shifting Sandhills terrain will be significantly altered by wind, rain and the passage of time. Therefore, even with a minimum initial cover of four feet, parts of the pipeline may become exposed, either slowly due to erosion or suddenly due to blowouts and hill slides, In the event that the pipeline becomes exposed to the elements, Keystone must immediately respond to re-bury the pipe to the required depth and restore the affected land. Keystone's project manager promised that the company will, “continuously monitor this pipeline for its entire length. So any point where you gee any erosion or we see any erosion, . . . we can mitigate that and then reseed it, whatever it requires.”? The company must keep that promise. sR 205:16-25 2 TR 267:10-31. 2 TR 27122 (gnphasis added.) SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 53 Keystone’s project manager further promised that the company would be accountable for production losses and other costs resulting from pipeline maintenance and damage to the land throughout the useful life of the pipeline. He stated, “even if it's years after construction, then that's our responsibility.”* The company must abide by that responsibility. Finally, I fully understand that MOPSA forbids this Commission from considering issues related to pipeline safety. Nonetheless, it is obvious that safety issues are of prime concern to the public regarding to this pipeline. Safety was the number one issue raised at the Conmission’s four public meetings and in the many thousands of written comments we have received during this process, TransCanada and project advocates have often said that the Keystone XL pipeline will be the safest in history. Nebraskans are counting on that promise, too. Commissionér, District 4 «mm 271:19-22. Borst ey enn SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. 0P-0003 Page 54 Commissioner Rhoades, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Under the Major 011 Pipeline Siting Act (“MOPSA"), the burden of proof of public good resides with the Applicant. In this case, the Applicant did not meet its burden in many areas, and the Majority should not have approved the Mainline Alternative. Route. Moreover,’ the Commission failed to protect the due process rights of groups affected by this proceeding. In particular, I am concerned that approval of the Mainline Alternative Route violates the due process rights of the landowners along that route where it deviates from the Preferred Route. These landowners will now have their land taken by the Applicant and they may not even be aware that they were in the path of the approved route, as landowners along the Alternate Mainline Route were never notified by Keystone or the Commission. The Applicant was required under MOPSA and Rules and Regulations of the Commission to publish notice of the application ina local paper of general circulation for each county along the routes and provide proof of publication to the Conmission.? No such documentation was received by the Commission and no evidence was presented that would indicate that the additional forty landowners the Applicant said would be impacted along the Mainline Alternative Route are aware they are in the’ path of the route approved by the Majority.3 This would violate their due process rights in this proceeding and again demonstrates a failure of the Applicant to meet the requirements of MOPSA and meet the burden of proof. In addition, I want it noted that I disagreed vigorously with some of the decisions made by the Hearing Officer in this proceeding. Particularly the decisions regarding the limitations placed on the participation of some of the Formal Intervenors. Commission Rule 015.01C states, "A formal intervenor shall be entitled to participate in the proceeting to the extent of his/her express interest in the matter. Such participation shall include, without limitation, presentation of evidence and argument, cross~ examination of witnesses and submission of rebuttal evidence.”* iveb. Rav. Stat, § 57-14071¢). tyeb. Rov. Stat. § 37-1405(3) and 291 NAC 9 § 023.0282. FoR 625:25 ~ 626:24 “291 wac 1 § 015.01C. Seren eros SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 55 While Commission rules do permit consolidation of intervenors, the rules and regulations are clear that this is only to be done if it does not harm the intervenors ability to put forward their case.* Forcing the consolidation of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska-who have different language, history, culture, religion and tradition-was inappropriate and in my view a violation of their due process rights. One would not conclude that Germans and Italians are both European and therefore have the same concerns, and such a conclusion should not have been drawn for the Yankton Sioux end Ponca Tribes. Further, the decision to limit the Tribes and environmental groups to one witness each was also inappropriate and a violation of their due process rights. Commission rules clearly state these Intervenors should have had the ability to fully present their case. The Natural Resources and Cultural Intervenors should have had the same standing to fully present their position as the Applicant and Landowners. These decisions were solely those of Kearing Officer Schram and T urged my fellow Commissioners to reconsider the decisions made by the Hearing Officer, to no avail. The Commission failed to consider the rights of the Intervenors in refusing to correct the Hearing Officer. With regard to the merits of the Commission’s decision to select the Mainline Alternative Route, the Applicant provided no evidence to support a finding that this route is in the public interest. The application provides only one page of substantive information about the Mainline Alternative Route and the Applicant concludes the Route will: 1. Result in greater total number of acres disturbed due to increase in route length; 2, Increase the crossing of the ranges of federally listed and endangered species; 3. Increase the ctossing of highly erodible soils; 4. Increase the crossing of ecological unusually sensitive areas; and 5. Increase the number of crossing of perennial streams, railroads and total road crossings. 6. Will result in the need for an additional pumping station.? Tt is clear that the Applicant discarded the Mainline Alternative Route and never intended it to be considered. The focus SNeb. Rev. Stat. § 84-812.02, #291 NAC 1 § 015.01¢. Vexnibst KKL-L, pod ibe sry ene SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 56 of the federal and state reports was on the Preferred Route. The studies on the impacts of the pipeline conducted by federal and state agencies were done on the Preferred Route and drew no conclusions on the Mainline Alternative Route, even though state agencies were asked to review both the Preferred and Mainline Alternative Routes. MOPSA requires the location of routes for the major oil pipelines be in compliance with Nebraska law. However, the application lacks sufficient substance to prove that the Applicant has complied with all applicable state statutes, rules, and regulations and local ordinances.* No outline, affidavit, or certification was submitted providing proof the Applicant made an effort to ensure it was in compliance. The Applicant and the Intervenors presented evidence that the pipeline project will cause intrusion upon natural resources during construction, including irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources.® Also, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality ("NDEQ”) found in its 2013 Final Report that there would be impacts, including disturbance of topography, loss of access to underlying mineral resources, disturbance of paleontological resources, and potential damage to the pipeline attributable to geological hazards like flooding and landslides.1° The NDEQ Final Report found a high risk of landslides in the fragile sandy soils of the northern counties. As the Preferred and Mainline Alternative Routes both would enter in Keya Paha County and run through the same northern counties before diverging, the concerns expressed regarding the impacts on these soils is not mitigated by approving the Mainline Alternative Route. I would also note here that NDEQ in preparing its Final Report stated that the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS”) analyzed a different route than the reroute, which is now called the Preferred Route. Therefore, the FEIS resource impact analysis is not applicable to the Preferred Route or the Mainline Alternative Route. NDEQ also requested additional information from Keystone in several areas, but the requests were dismissed with Keystone stating there was no material difference from the FEIS See Neb, Rev, Stat, § 37-1402(1) (al. * see Nob. Rov. Stat. § 57-1407(4) (b). eenibie 20-20, 9.19. Hg. at pp. 19-20. rms snare SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 57 analyzed route and the Preferred Route.!2 Since the Applicant refused to provide this evidence, it failed to fulfill its burden of proof, We know the Mainline Alternative Route contains areas of more highly erodible soils which were not previously reviewed, located in Madison County and north and south of the Platte River Crossing.!3 The =NDEQ report also concludes the Mainline Alternative Route directly intersects with the Ogallala Group and crosses the aquifer in Madison, Saline, and Jefferson Counties.™4 The Mainline Alternative Route also increases the number of stream crossings from 25 (along the Preferred Route) to 34.19 NDEQ also states, given the Mainline Alternative Route is longer and reauires an additional pumping station, it will require additional eneroy inputs and that additional production and consumption will cause additional emissions. While Nebraska is currently in statewide attainment status for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (*NAAQS”), additional modeling may be required depending on the size of engines required for Keystone's power needs.! Finally, NDSQ’'s determination that the Mainline Alternative Route would have minimal permanent environmental impacts in Nebraska was based on a xeview of the mitigation commitments and reclamation procedures identified in the application. This determination is consistent with the 2013 NDEQ Report analysis and the U.S. Department of State's (“DOS”) 2014 Fina! Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (*PSEIS”).!7 Accepting NDEQ’s 2017 conclusions is problematic because the conclusions relied on two previous reports, neither of which evaluated the’ Mainline Alternative Route. Further, because the easements Keystone is seeking with landowners are granted in perpetuity, there is no way for the Commission to conclude that there will not be irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land area and connected natural resources and depletion of beneficial uses. All human-made infrastructure degrades and fails over time. No infrastructure ever designed has lasted for eternity and there is no reason to believe this pipeline will be an exception. Additionally, the Applicant will not provide any specific Material Safety Data Sheet (°Msps") data until there is an actual spill. Therefore, it is impossible to prepare beforehand for environmental impacts and it 7a, at p, 1524, Mexniblt PSC-4, See Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality Keystone XL Analysis, Report to the Nebraska Public Service Commission (July 2017) at p. 6: 4a, at pp. 7-9. ra. at p. 10. M14, at pe 12, Y sea exhibit PSC-4, Letter from NOEQ, ApL1 20, 2017. —— | SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 58 will expose first responders, with limited resources, to unknown chemical compounds they may not have the necessary equipment to contain.1® The Applicant is required under MOPSA to disclose the contents of the chemicals and product to be transported in the pipeline.!9 They have not fulfilled this obligation according to responses received by NDEQ and therefore again have not met their burden of proof. I am aware the risks and impacts of spills are not to be weighed in the Commission’s decision, the information was reviewed by NDEQ, as mandated in MOPSA, and is a part of the record, and therefore worth noting as a potential impact from this pipeline. No evidence was presented to substantiate thet the Applicant will minimize or mitigate potential impacts on natural resources.?° The Preferred and Mainline Alternative Routes still run through several miles of fragile sandy soil that is difficult to restore and will substantially interfere with regular farming activities of the impacted landowners.2! The Applicant also provided insufficient evidence to substantiate any positive economic or social impacts for Nebraska from the project.# No project labor agreements or contracts have been enter into by Keystone or TransCanada with any Nebraska labor union or contractor. There was no evidence provided that any jobs created by the construction of this project would be given to Nebraska residents.?? Additionally, the Applicant didn’t provide any evidence that construction of this pipeline would not adversely impact common carriers currently transporting similar products.# No information was provided to prove that there will not be loss of railroad revenue or jobs resulting from the construction of this pipeline. In other areas of Commission jurisdiction, we consider the impact on other carriers offering similar service when making a determination if a specific application is in the public interest. I feel it should be a part of our public interest analysis in this proceeding as well. The short-term increases in property taxes collected will not offset the losses to the overall “axbibit. KXL-20 at p. 1765, “eb. Rev. Stat. § 57-1405(2) {e) and 291 NAC 9 § 023.0225. ® See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 57-1407(4) (c). % mR 766:16-257 670:21-25; 909:5-15 and Exhibit NR-3, pp. 5-6, 8, 13 % see Nob. Rev. Stat. § 57-1407 (4) (a) M rR 1092:11-13. Mon 333:2-13, % see Robinson v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., 188 Nob. 474, 197 N.W.24 633 (1972), In re ipplicstion of Northwestern Gell Tel. Co., 223 Web, 415, 390 N.W.24 495 (1986), Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 203 Neb. ¢30, 308 N.W.2d 336 (1981). prem eyon manor SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 59 value of the land through which the major oil pipeline runs. Further, the limitations in the orderly development and operations on the affected land will result in a loss of land value from the limitations. 27 ‘The Nebraska Department of Revenue (“NDR”) also weighed in on the project, stating in its letter to the Commission that it is difficult to gauge the impact of the project on property taxes collected by counties because the distributed value will be taxed based on the local levy rate for each subdivision and depreciation for personal property will depend on the year the assets are placed into service.2® NDR goes on to say sales and use taxes would be collected during construction, but what those liabilities will be is unknown and cannot be determined accurately by NDR. With regard to income taxes, there may be some increased tax revenue from workers coming from outside of Nebraska to work on the pipeline construction, because they would be new taxpayers.?? Presumably, if the jobs were given to Nebraskens, income taxes would remain flat because those Nebraskans are already paying income taxes. NDR was silent on the potential lost income taxes of those currently working in Nebraska’s rail, industry who may be harmed if construction proceeds. NDR admits the tax liability related to the income of migrant workers is utknown and cannot be determined. Finally, NDR notes that the Applicant is a qualified business under the Nebraska Advantage Act and would be eligible for tax incentives available under the Advantage Act. The tax incentives could include a refund of sales taxes paid and investment and employment credits against income tax. However, it is unknown and unknowable at this time whether TransCanada will apply for benefits for which it is qualified.30 While the Applicant denies any intention to apply for Nebraska Advantage Act credits, once again the people of Nebraska are being asked to take this on faith without any legal basis for enforcement should the Applicant change its mind. In the event Keystone does apply for said credits, the construction is likely to have a negative economic impact on the state because the gains in tax revenue would be negated by the refunds and credits given to the Applicant. The Applicant admitted it had not spoken with the Nebraska Native American Tribes.3! The Applicant only reported DOS had exhibit 10-188, pp, 22-35 Pop gagize — 52:15, see exhibit PSC-4, Latter from Nebraska Department of Revenue, March 2, 2017. Bra. 1a, Nan 1atas4-26 enemies SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 60 worked with the Southern Ponca Tribe, who reside in Oklahoma.% This is the equivalent of asking a distant relative for permission to do major construction in your backyard. This is as inadequate as it is unreasonable. Additionally, no evidence was presented by the Applicant to negate allegations that work camps established by Keystone to house construction workers will not create a strain on local resources as it relates to fire, police, sanitation, demands for power, and public safety. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented by the Applicant indicating where the work camps would be located and therefore no conclusions can be drawn about the impact they will have on the local economy or resources. The FETS notes that the Nebraska portion of the pipeline route could impact the Oregon, California, and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails, as well as the Pony Express National Historic Trail. Once again, the Majority has no information from the Applicant about any potential impacts to these historic trails in Nebraska in relation to the Mainline Alternative Route, but it proceeded to approve the route for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Another utility corridor exists that could feasibly and beneficially be used for the route.3! The Applicant did not prove that twinning or co-locating the Keystone XL Pipeline with the Keystone I Pipeline in eastern Nebraska was not feasible and beneficial. Rather, Keystone stated it was not their preference to use that corridor.%* The Applicant did not refute the landowners’ argument that using the existing Keystone I corridor would avoid fragile soils, reduce impacts to endangered species, and avoid widespread controversy and opposition to the project.3 The application clearly states that the pipeline will impact orderly development of the area around the proposed route of the major oil pipeline.3’ The soils will be difficult to restore and the easements will be maintained in perpetuity. That will place a substantial burden on the landowners who will not be able to build a fence, shed, irrigation pivot, plant a tree, modify grading, and any other number of activities usually granted to property owners along the pipeline route. All development will be prohibited in the easement for infinity, therefore, it will certainly impact orderly development of the land adjacent to the easement. aR 11d:16 - 1115:24. Meynibie KRL-20, p. 1762. ¥ 300 Neb, Rev. Stat, § 57-1402(e). 83 TR 630:9-25. SR 54:8 ~ 553:15. ” see Nob. Rov, Seat, § 57-1402(E], Grin oh eo SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 61 Many of the same concerns and issues that I have just raised are also true of the Mainline Alternative Route approved by the Majority. Approving the Mainline Alternative Route did fot alleviate or reduce the concerns in any of the areas I discussed above. There was insufficient information provided in this proceeding to substantiate that the Mainline Alternative Route is preferable or in the public interest. The 2013 NDEQ Report reviewed the Preferred Route and did not contain an analysis of the Mainline Alternative Route.¥ While several state agencies were asked by the Commission to provide evaluations of both routes, The Board of Educational Lands and Funds, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Revenue, Department of Roads, Department of Transportation, State Fire Narshall, and The Oil and Gas Commission explicitly or implicitly state that they have reviewed the proposed or Preferred Route with no mention of a review of the Mainline Alternative Route. Nebraska Game and Parks and The State Historical Society sent letters outlining the process for approval, but never directly offered an opinion about approving or disapproving any route. Indeed, all the agencies sited previous reviews of the original Sandhills route and the Preferred Route (as negotiated by the Legislature) but none of them addressed the Mainline Alternative Route.9? This is likely because the Applicant emphasized it had discarded the Mainline Alternative Route and it was not to be considered. For all the forgoing reasons, I would not have approved any of the proposed routes contained within Keystene’s application and therefore, I dissent. Commissioner, District 2 Moga Exhibit «1-20. 8 ces Exhibit PsC-4. SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OF-0003 Page 62 Commissioner Ridder, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act ("MOPSA”) directs the Commission to determine if an application for a route through our state is in the public interest. MOPSA also states that the Applicant has the burden of establishing that the proposed route is in the public interest. The Applicant failed to meet this burden in at least three of the eight areas which the Commission was charged with evaluating under Section 57-1407. Inipact_on Natural Resources and Mitigation Efforts ‘The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality ("NDEQ") press release dated December 29, 2011 states that the NDEQ “announced the areas that it considers to be “Nebraska Sandhills” and did so as “relating to the development of an alternative route that avoids the Nebraska Sandhills”.! The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) also states inits Executive Summary, “The proposed route differs from the route analyzed in the 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement in that it would avoid the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)-identified Sand Hills Region”.? The Applicant addressed what would be done during and following construction to try to mitigate issues caused by their route passing through various soils, yet the unrebutted testimony by landowners is that the route actually does pass through porous, fragile, erodible, sandy soil types which were to be avoided due to several factors, including erosion, long-term difficulty in reestablishing pasture grasses, and when saturated, slide-prone hills. Several Intervenor Landowners stated during the public hearing that the proposed route is in sandy, fragile soil. Bob Allpress testified, “when we have periods of high rain, the water permeates down to the clay base and provides a liguefying source for the hills to rest on. Just take a piece of the hill here, and it will just break off. And it will slide 50, 60, 100 feet down the hill, depending on how high the hill is.“? And again, “It takes S exhibit KXL-1, Appendix B. 2 Exhibit HXL-19, 92. # oR 901:4-11 a SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 63 years to recover. Some of those are still bare dirt after 5 to 10 years.” Mr. Robert Krutz discussed a heavy rain event in 2012 which produced a flood of water washing throuch a cut, or draw, on his property, producing a washout, This occurred in the area through which the pipeline is proposed to cross. In response to a question about revegetating the washed out area, Mr. Krutz stated, “No. I mean, with the sandy soil, there’s no .. there’s no vegetation. Maybe a sparse of a .. well, there’s been some leafy spurge come up, which is a noxious weed. But there is very little. And I’d say very little weeds. There’s no grass or nothing there, no.”* The concerns expressed by these landowners speak to a natural resource intrusion which Nebraska landowners have learned time and again must not occur, The act of reclaiming or repairing damage to these soil types and their accompanying pasture grasses is not nearly as simple a matter as reseeding, nor does reclamation succeed in a matter of a few years. Such an intrusion, over the course of many miles, will deplete the beneficial use of these natural resources. A table included in the application, which was later amended in the applicant’s rebuttal testimony, states that the Preferred Route would pass through 47.1 miles of highly wind erodible soils, approximately 17% of the route, and 57.4 miles of highly water erodible soils which is around 20,9% of the 275.2 mile Preferred Route. Commission Exhibit PSC-6 included USDA NRCS Soil maps which indicate that 33.9% of the Preferred Route passes through highly erodible soils.” The FSEIS lists highly wind erodible miles as 48.1 and highly water erodible miles as 178 along the Preferred Route.® Continuing, the FSEIS states, “In northern Nebraska, the proposed Project route from approximately (mile post] 619 to [mile post] 707 in Boyd, Holt, and Antelope counties would enter an area where the soils tend to be highly susceptible to erosion by wind and often exhibit characteristics of the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region.”? Mile post 619 to mile post 707 is 68 miles. TR 902116-18) Sm 928:12-13. Saxnibit Ku-1, Table 2.1, p. 9. Texhibit PSC-6, See Soils Characterization Along Keystone KL Routes. Suxhibit 10-19, p. 582 Prd, at p. 593. tasamenen tor SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No. OP-0003 Page 64 All of the testimony and the exhibits referred to above, unrebutted, indicate that neither the Preferred Route nor the Mainline Alternate Route is in the public interest because neither route achieves the avoidance of a sensitive Nebraska region containing porous, fragile, highly erodible, sandy soils. Thus both routes impact the beneficial uses of Nebraska’s natural resources, and the Applicant failed to meet its burden to prove it is in the public interest. Alternative Utility Corridor The Applicant admits it considered the I-90 Route that was reviewed in the FEIS and FSEIS, however the I-90 Route was not offered to the Commission as an alternative. The I-90 Route was considered, according to the FSEIS, for comparison purposes to the Preferred Route, however, contrary to the claims of the Applicant, it was never discarded by the Department of State (DOS) in the FSEIS.!° Instead, the DOS never took a position or expressed any opinion on the I-90 Route. In fact, when the final recommendations were made in the FSEIS, DOS made no mention of the I-90 Route, but stated there were only two options before the decision-maker, approving or denying the proposed pipeline project, The actual routes, Preferred or I-90, were not approved or rejected by the Dos. In every single major area of comparison reviewed in the FSEIS, the I-90 Route had either very similar or fewer potential environmental impacts than the Preferred Route. The critical areas examined in the FSEIS included: Geology, Soils, Groundwater, Surface Water, Wetlands, Terrestrial Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources, Air Quality and Noise, and Climate Change.}? Ultimately, in this proceeding, the Applicant simply dismissed the 1-90 Route stating, “it is not possible because the Mainline’s point of entry into Nebraska is situated over 100 miles to the east of, and for practical purposes too far removed from, the existing fixed starting point of the Project”.¥ © see applicant’ s Post-Hearing Brief, filed Septenber 15, 2017, at p. 9, Meynibit KKL-19, p, 2008. Syynibit KXL-18, Soxhibit KXL-1, § 20.1, SECRETARY'S RECORD, NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Application No, OP-0003 Page 65 While the Applicent considers the exit point from South Dakota a “fixed starting point” in Nebraska, that is a phrase coined by the Applicant. The entry point is actually not fixed in Nebraska but is located there as a result of a construction permit issued to the Applicant by South Dakota. The proceedings in Nebraska and South Dakota ere very different regardless of what each may trigger. The Commission's duty is to find whether a proposed route through Nebraska is in the public interest. There is an existing Keystone Pipeline running through Nebraska which is an existing utility corridor and which was approved by all necessary federal end state agencies prior to its construction, That utility corridor continues north out of Nebraska and, according to the FSBIS, would follow other existing utility corridors as it joins 1-90. Yes, the I-90 Route would be longer than the proposed route, adding an additional 52 miles to an already 927 mile project, and yes, the I-90 Route was not offered to the Commission as an alternative. The t-90 Route, however, is a viable utility corridor that would avoid the Nebraska Sandhills soils, which all three (3) alternatives routes offered by the Applicant, the Proposed, Sandhills, and Mainline Alternative Routes, would not. An existing utility corridor that is both feasible and beneficial does exist but was discarded as a route because the Applicant chose a 52-mile shortcut through Nebraska's Sandhills. I believe that none of the three (3) routes offered to us by the Applicant are in the public interest of Nebraska, and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I must dissent. = e mary Rldade District 5 Meshibit wa-18, pp. 1965-1966. Brom one 13101 ederal Register Vol. 83, No, 68 Wadnsctoy, Ape a, 2019 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Presidential Permit of March 29, 2019 Authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P,, To Con- struct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada By vintue of the authority vestad in me as Prosidont of the United Stats ‘of America, I hereby grent permission, subject to the conditions herein sot forth, to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, (hereinafter referred to as the "permittee", to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities at tho international border of the United States and Canada at Phillips County, Montana, for the import of oil from Canada to the United States, Tho permittee is = limited partnorship organized under the laws af the Stats of Delaware, owned by affiliates of TransCanada Corporation, Canadian public company organized under the laws of Canada, This permit supersedes the Presidential permit issmed to the permittee, dated March 23, 2017, For the avoidence of doubt, I hereby revoke that March 23, 2017, permit. Furthermore, this permit grants the permission described in the previous paragraph and revokes the March 23, 2017, permit notwithstanding Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Grossings on the International Boundaries of the United States) and the Presidential Memorandum of January 24, 2017 (Presidential Memorandum Rogarding Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline). The term “Facilities,” es used in this permit, means the portion in the ‘United States of the intemational pipeline project associated with the permit- ter's application for « Presidential pormit filed on May 4, 2012, and resub- mitted on January 26, 2017, and any land, structures, installations, or equip- ‘ment appurtenant thereto, The torm “Border facilities," as used in this permit, means those parts of the Facilities consisting of e 38-inch diamater pipsline extending from the international barder between the United Staies and Canada at @ point in Phillips County, Montana, to end including the first mainline shutoff valve in the Unitad States located approximately 1.2 miles from the inte national border, and any land, structures, installations, or equipment eppur- tenant thereto, ‘This permit is subjct to the following conditions: Article 1, (1) The Border facilities herein described, and all aspects of their operation, shall be subject to all the conditions, provisions, and require- ments of this permit and any subsequent Presidential amendment to it This permit may be terminated, revoked, or amended al any time at the sole discretion of the President of the United States (the “President”), with or without advice provided by any executive department or agency (agency). The permittee shall make no substantial change in the Border facilities, in the location of the Bordor facilities, or in the operation authorized by this pormit until the permittee has notified the President or his designee of such change and the President has approved the change, (2) The construction, connection, operation, end maintenance of the Facil tes (not including the route) shall be, in all meterinl respects and as con- jent with applicable law, as described in the permittee's application for 13102 Federal Register / Val 201a/ idential Documents April a Prosidential pormit filed on Mey 4, 2012, and resubmitted on January 26, 2017. ( ‘Article 2. The standards for, and the manner of, construction, connection, dperation, and maintenance of the Border facilities shall be subjeot to inspec tion by the representatives of appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. Oilficors and employees of such agencies who are duly authorized and per- forming their official duties shall be granted free and unrestricted access to the Border facilities by the permittee. Consistent with Article 10, this permit shell remain in effect until terminated, revoked, or amended by the President, Article 3. Upon the terminstion, revocation, of surrender of this permit unless otherwise dacided by the President, the pecraitton, al its own expense, Shall romove the Border facilities within such time as the Prosident may specify, If the permittee fails to comply with an order to remove, ot (0 take such other appropriate action with respect to, the Border facilities, the President may direct that possession of such Bordar facilities be taken— or that they be removed or that other action be tekon—at the expense of the parmitiee, The permittee shall have no claim for damages caused by any such possession, removal, or other action. ‘Article 4. When, in the judgment of the President, ensuring the national ‘security of tho United States requires entering upon and taking possession of any of the Border facilities or parts thereof, and retaining possession, Management, or control thereof for such a length of time as the President my doom necessary, tha United States shall have the right to do s0, provided that the President or his designee has given due notice to the permittes, ‘The United States shall also have the tight thereafter to restore possession aad contol to the pote, tn the event tha ie United States shall exercise the rights described in this article, it shall pay to the permiltee just and fair componsation for the use of such Border facilities, upon the vie of a reasonable profit in normal conditions, and shall bear the cost of restoring Border facilities to their previous condition, less the reasonable Value of any improvements that may have been made by the United States Article 5, Any transfer of ownership or control of the Border facilities, or any part thereof, shall be immodistely communicated in writing to the President or his dosignoo, and shall includa information identifying the transferee, Notwithstanding any transler of cwnership or control of the Border facilities, or any part thereof, this permit shall temain in force subject toll of its conditions, permissions, and requirements, and any amendments Shecoo, unless subsequently tecminated, revoked, or amended by the Presi- let, ‘Article 6, (1) The permittee is responsible for acquiring any right-of-way grunts ot easements, permits, and other authorizations as may become nec- essary or appropriate. (2) Tho permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States from any claimed or adjudged liability arising out of construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the Facilities, including environmental contami ation fom the release, threatened release, or discharge of hazardous sub- stances or hazardous waste {a} To ensure the safe operation of the Border facilities, the pormittes shall maintain them and every part of them in a condition of good repair and in compliance with applicable law. ‘Axticle 7, Tha pormittoo shall file with tho President or his designee, and with appropriate agencies, such sworn sitements or raports with respect to the Border facilities, or the permittea's activities and operations in connec: tion therewith, as are now, or may hereafter, be required under any law br regulation of the United States Government ar its agencies, These roporting Cbligations do not alter the intent that this permit be operative as a directive issued by the President elone. Federal Register/Vol, 84, No. 64/Wednwsday, Ay [PR Doe. 2m-o0nse fled 2-10; 1228 am lg code 3205-P9- il §, 2019/Presidential Documents 13103 Article 8, Upon request, the permittee shall provide appropriate information to the President oF his designoo with Toga to the Border flies, Such requests could include, for exemple, informstion concerning curvent condi- tions or anticipated changes in ownership or control, construction, connec- tion, operation, or maintenance of the Border facilities. Article 9. The permittee shall provide written notice to the President or his dosignge at the time that the construction authorized by this permit bbogina, at such time as such construction is completed, interrupted, ot Giscontinued, and at other times as may be requested by the President. Article 10, This permit shell expire 5 yeers from the date of its issuance if the permittee has not commenced construction of the Border facilities by that date, Article 11. This permit is not intonded to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procediiral, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United Sintes, its departmonts, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1, DONALD J. TRUMP, Prosident of the United States of America, have hereunto set my band this twenty-ninth day of March, 2019, in the City of Weshington, District of Columbia, Holt County - KeystoneXt Road Crosssings and Driveways 20192012 192d Name wad Condition [sec Ty pester ordinates ection | TERE | perm, 0s Road Road contton | sec] wp: ne | S62" | Gis Corda Direc ont | Perm. orveway Holt County Roads oa Teno a as Tw] asin natiigen | meme a= corn aba [3a [as | ne | so a epeet_[ Ws at TL oo 7 ET x Bt eet [a [a $s | wr] seam ent grees | ho x co ‘caiet far | ae fas | nw] a5 ogres | — Wet x asa Damped — [a2 [an | nao en 8 bees | —Wstto r ave Waingever —[ 32 [ar [ae [ne | abun i0beees [None Sa a Tae meat [58 [aa [ae | | a gees | Ws Ea z an ra x ive Beate [3 -[ [ae | ww s2 pt bres West x Te a[ a [ae | sw [55 nest bess | Went a Et x aad [at [ae || ae bess | — rt Sth x re ae [at | a | sw] sin aa sper] — West x are as | a1 [a | nv | 501 apes] — Ror Sut © Ha Ae [at [is || ates | — Wet Et % ore ae ae a reas.obafes | Wattouae x atta ae [ [3 | ww _|suaniagamt egies | Koro x a wa sw Westot x ‘aa aes | eno So x ate a A x ais Ae ‘poet [a | a0 [as | 6] aes aaa Deen | — Wet a x ae Gael [| - | —a —] se ee srs oepest | — Watt tt x Bi sy a ST x ve Gieed | 36[ ap_[-a9 | — st | ae rapanere sepeer_| — Wate bak x 9H. Fr x 78 ‘Sioet [a [at ar | mw | our anseseges | — Wario a 1 hive ‘Sant [| st ar | sw] sear easss cope | — Werte x Sve ‘Gavel [a0 | [at | sw | se an53 epee | — Werte x oo eave [a0 [an [at | — sw] a ar oer | — Ror toah H tien Geant [a ae [at | ow | ae anseebepet | — Wart ta x ‘ese Teemecved [| ae] at | aw | ana ao nep ee [ Waste Et x coe a ET x Se ‘sient [re fan st | tons: epee | — West tt x Tne Tairgoad [8 [9-[ a0 | aw | atsisaaseopres [patho oe x sone ‘cos [- ar [a a0 | ne | connate bape | — Weta x Sone Dairstves [a [as ab | $e | sas at eerees Westie z aa Daieeved [ar [5 [aw | nw | sea 40 eyes | Sethe aaa Sr he Gee | wo | se | am nari bape [Wein x ESERIES a i a a She. a x Sti ‘cava [-as [a [aa | 5] Sean epee West x aL ‘ve [0 [a [8 | aw sete ast eyes | Ror Sth x 5 oe ‘cove [a fe [8 | ae | a Wes x won eve ar | | se sia Tekh e 56 a i oT x S070 a ee CC TT x roa ‘cet [ao fas [6 | ww] 93594209 ager | — Not St x Ss sist fur [ae 9 [aw] aie oapess | — Wests x 6 ‘Get [a [as [6 | S| pe nos bape [West x = ais. Give [is | a6 || 9248 agrees [rts x Sis Waiszoved [ar | az 1a | sw | pata seers | — Wet tas x 4 ae oid ban Shae ‘i | 2ita| Aol a ore ‘(araosa = ‘aomon| sere ws (oe eee i ee = =e | etal © F= te = "| choy ees | PPR Q) ins eee = | STFA alon r ail a] “I SSNOISHGR rw DIVA ON 00 “NURIA GoD meen ars 300 on = ‘SNOISUSR WR 34H LON 00 sONMMNAG aCNA ‘Doe DOIDy—LI-IN—In % OD|OGOOR—AnH—aH—IM “ON OVAL "pavalish “AINO) LO nS eet Be Nougas (29 vowwara SSWOISICRI WRIA YW ON 0 ZONA GOV (|e bE 8 ele i i Feo a Zana WANN AYA LON 00 :oNNO GVO women ues [awe [on | = | | oo =|? peta | al RS co a0 |) | woo reve rout) mea TTT TTT =e i re. - woe i SNOISIGR TWH DIV LON 0a “ONIN BAND) 00 ee 5 en una ao oa 7 sche |) ros sj aoacse| = sewn] sere ws on nous ‘OOO DFLR—LH-AN—N 3 OOTURLOELii—aN—W “ON LOVE penuest Noo Lok VEN Negi be NOUS SNoIGUcAL Wren IMM LOW ,00 ZONE Gov San | aes fou ar \— ‘O09 L00—LH-SN—IN 9 (WON Lov "pevagan ‘ANS LI Peseta ts want eae (4 alow say wus swoisuaas TwMNWn Pvt LON od ONIN GOV ttt oe oe mee nen un a0 [ow (Dea ae co ae a dxag eS ma ane, | ==s “waaay 36 Fania See SI | “Hare AT wrod 40 BOND SS ot xsd eb ew ea o SSNOISISA WNW SD ON 00 “OMINVEC| aC¥O enon nn aaa orm 4 5 i i u is Le i su mt 9 or esiOR-LH-aN— ¥ oop OsIo—— "hewai AINNDS Loi crew eigen NOUDIS iota ‘we ‘G0 Nowos phe "wi "20, NOUDAS SERSVSN Brews o epee es ‘Wri WEL", NOOR seas Tien Sa 4ONjoa ON anew omen a 08 \ “main es | oan ra]? NOR ae (a) A T+ a 8 SSNOISAGRI Wnty INH LON 00 waz, nw ane fava | aT fess allel ee = = [| epeuezsuen ()) = a oan aie Aa Ge SOE . ar | TU WiGL Es NOLES =i # CoH ORIOENLI- NW ON LVL "SINGER SNDD 108 nope Noite 2e NODES SHAS THON HY JON 00 OHA KD IC maim [anu [or g]8 [Ble ikl Ble Ip ey i as | epavedauen ©) == ——— =a “waian =a Fan 15%, ome sekanains bm St oma, say niu "wig ‘04 NoUDas WEE WEL Boor GazaE-IN-SNN @ OOFSEIOENIN—aN=w “ON LVL "pave AiNhoo Lok SNORSHERL Wr DIN LON, 00 *DNUNAG Aa¥A Sow wes aa faces NCIS IHRM AVAL JON joa uN KD op OIZOELA-aN=WW ‘ON LOA Sting 1108 wRee ice oe NOUDES a os epourzsueu () _——— Se a Sea a Sarria aa = Sana < = == = = oe = wi ‘SNOISISR RNY DM ON Od “DNUNVG. GOYS Nauaas Vind YT GE SND x 2 | chs ete | HO ele SNOISH TnI Dw LON jo sONUNNIG GOD Helamha| tas) a. noe SI ae i RS ene = cs a = (en mous ‘onuvesa Ovo, 'SNOISHCH “WHE SV LON 0 | | ele WL 9F ROUTE SSNOISIAGAL Trt DWH LON 0 ‘ONURI GO¥ to nrc aa wes ele] weve Woe % NUDES Lessee) 6 ew ses Wasi umsieses Mn INeR bv uu RR eS uo i ns ea 0 nS A Tor y ryt Ta ESeaE LINE opoUZOEAH ANA “OW 16¥aL ‘paek uNigo asia Neopet RAS SNOIGIA Wome DIM ON 0 ‘SNUMVIO_ GOV, el 5 ea | 8 i Ble soena] aay dw 5 Ba) BIEN epeuegsuen () | WEIN "WoEl 6 zl‘, 8 NODS SNOISiAza wrne SH LON 00 “ONGC Ew =e a ety : L - Seale a Sl is tv | a © = aneases aaa ‘wate wos “61 NOOBS oti votes BO AOUDES co Noe “8 NODS vcs yasa wotnn aNSEOID saa fe ote oe “HVA! <2 ais0.0N0 eecedehacl oe i fase | 2 ; ; UXO 9 epaieasiest Cy | aoa a aS { | i - = | owoe t | wu Yiew eosm Lot NOUDES. kz Nook ‘SI NODS ate | Vb Hy, el: sezptapee (lel TTT i eT: é é lg | = aL Ly HW: 8 > E aA EE orate segee! Ths (EE 5 Ei eA asl raula r é = was el He ‘bin es i a|° | ey bn mM fe 8 5 z 6 i. 8, iB | 3 EH fi Z a le i ir Bll Peete eeea aly en rosa al i a NOIR TwnnwMt DN LON Oa “NH a¥ ss saver penn ures a [ow Bah | | = ame |e) maw pS | ane va e epeueasuear ()) [ar Ta aa omar eau oa na: aspen "wae Tae SR ‘DOGORSOE-2F-SN—IM Gop oeEOE-LHaN=T “ON LOVE ‘oman “Anno Loi ction HNrom=L 22 NOSES “SNOESIR WON SN LN 0a cONUMNAA OOYO, eee : | epeueSsuen () = Moe Pe ee = i ELS Se Sa ae 3a E bate ow fe ome soeeeGe we owe oor Pagar a qe £2 Samos ‘ite "NOR “SL NOUNS eeitataed ev et a - ‘QM LER a0 oa | ttl Ee Se peer Ma) ae | ee ae Sa ~ i 2 & 2 i i e 3 SSNOISINRS Why BAM LON oa “OMNIA. CONS, 9g] 02880 POLE was] ar nad ie mt oe smi AneDD Da aaa oe ap w |e] we | | saves ‘eusmeas no waaaneree [| 7 me eletedeslet me ea — | ae meal) a.) eee i des, seoa SE | PPEUESSUEAL () a — | (ioe “AG vou 40 SNTWALNGD ; 7 ; bahay a) pos ‘OGU 0FOF=IH-IN—I Gop OsEOE—IRRSHI—W “ON LOVE acres SaNoo Lok notiee Neos. We NOUS NOISIER! TWNNeN DOM LOW OM “ANH CO¥D (ca oxy op seni SNOISUG Twrnvn Sh oN)ca aN aaa wed v0, co T (a diy ia ie) a pee: a = a = aca ea Ze = ‘Sona Set — levees aemaverey| ET eerie ae LE SSNOISIASH WRNVA SDV JON 00 “SHaNWC. Cova ase imate aie Trew one 1 it Sabet le] io] Sata pon ane |) eka ae Td =| Puc ee a eos See OTT et re reel E opieeae|| Y i i [LL can ww voy 29 | T wow Nazi *® NoWo=S PiEEEE x vows “SNOISIASAETWnHWYH DY LON 00 ‘UNNG OGD ‘ole We 91 NOLES (OOSEPOE-L-ANIN 3 ODDTDVOE—IH-H—N “ON Lava, Waavveah “AINAOS L0H opie eset sounas eSB gdh 58a Ra c= oe (3) i — : Tamer a ss | ara ers Tamer eae “Ri [exoararmmrenal| LTT OTT] i Se 7 - 0 NOS Wry SDI 10800 “OND COVA, sof acca] nowses Tene Ge Rad ISL cdkey Sais B86 Bi Be le ls epeuessuen () Iwona ‘N6ZL "Ze NOUS GOO OGFOR-IN-BN=W OOOERREE RII >, COPSCOELH-=W “ON Lava Inno L398 ete [SMOISASA WemWA 39VM LON 0A TONIC. GOV SNOKSIR WnA DINNON/O0 SNC Oxo nose may [ane Tor n-Bew weegst Re NUDES SSNOSIAR Wome DIV 108 On :oNUIEC CO¥D ROEM WN SDM JON) O0 NMG Ca¥ al mal Samm aena [a0 Poe x ohn ono am [eo om oa aera [are | ff a a] vei wo | Tosaxal ‘somme] ofa cine TEND GE EAH SUE —— | mmemanmne aa re ETF =a pant O ame | a Ses St wepeapere) LT TTT ones |_| ae — east " ork. = — eet om a ~ 8 “ oo: load on E uc) aaa es. { SSNOISUC WONHY DN LON 00 “ONwIRAT Cava SOT ORE anN une a6, fon ss eleeele as. oa = [ay S| cweenees gh be neon = | epeuedeuen @) | [arena am oo [Oa eet aa aces ee Se aad a y ants Set Le ae SR wt a ol a er a aN ALND 170K Neon Oe NOUS SNOISICRL WTA DH ION) OM “AAU Gov (oy jouw SNOISI WN BA LON 00 SOMMNNAC CaNA, maz) peer ae Pa F awnee | a ‘some esiy ova a oe — ae eae | || aeeneen Bx fae — = | iepattecel = larceny = ckag ania | “One @ Trea Sa Taeaa | ume wom Dame eam Boje — [wie ol" t et “x a ost, G on SET ans 8 ju coe § 4 g g a 8 = ‘ 3 : : 2 =< g nea “OM LOMA a) Meow ‘Nez, 'S0 NOUD3S g tg (cua) 8 sw mas asic SSNOISISH Whim “DW LON od “BNUNVC OO¥D en ener 359-C0-WEO- Cnn] AR sao aes | am Po = pela = |e = a =~ la =a cpanel, © [= = =e en ss — arr “a ] =e | (go Jona Se soe i = a ‘icou ‘naz ‘C0 NOUOS 80H "Newena “60 NOUDSS 11) 8 faNv 5 Bue NOIGASM WHA vA LON 0 SaNIWAIC GO¥) 50 LF a] rime [ae [a a { ‘ara Ra oe | (As ached 2a al is Noa rau | aay PT 5 mac mn ae SanETT Wan = epauegaueas, = ———— a aa "aa oa as [ere eos J eo a ES _ Se | AQNGOY ONULLIMGSA HL. ~ om ‘ ap caaodat St Siang 3 ony [OSS ota sis t : 09 1 95} a om 2 x OT “| ae bes 3 rae sf ore ane {ae ‘woz {Keer aio ove wue— f Soci i) seo en Sep as _purwerey a 3 3 % 2 = B 4 q 2 5 3 te sivany Hine 090 = 4 30d] vou si40= = Sees \SSHELM avon Sea WOU GIANSSY GVOX % IONS 9P+0- X 0 ci5-iN-OR= SRPREOEI-BM— NIBH paves hates Lor ace iG has SSNOISwa WnHWn “DW LON oR ZONAL. GO¥D, Zn) come [ae = [ema es ym 4 ano seunra “SNOISINR WONYH DMN LON 00 “NWI GOW Shite .9€ Castes we = saws] user nous Tae (AH ILE = hp anckssk | erate ©) [= | tea east } ; g ‘oo%2908—LH-SN— IM OORZSO—tH—IN—A “ON LOYAL "psa AINRDD LO BON eat at NOUS So) BAN JON 00 “NAO 02D a taewoss sonnes] erp wi = — 5 ci ene Ea oe =| epeue3ewen ©) | resent ae a = aoe eI noes wafTITT TIT] 3 8 (emp www PEEERES aos Weal BI WOLDS Tab #5 Public Road Crossing & Driveway Permits For Executed Permits See; Master Copy — Original Binder #020 Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP. requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a crude oil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Holt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: $020 T033N ROISW - Road 896 Reason for the utility request: To construct e 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County rods and to constru driveways on either side of the same county road right-of-way crossings for the purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction Owner; ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Signature ‘Denis Cumings—Tand anager Signature ‘Reber ater ~ Sr Taad Re. 1, Line, pipe or conduit less than 4" Address: 13710 FNB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 ‘Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: diameter, $100.00. 2. Line, pipe or conduit 4" in diameter or more but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00, 3. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. 4, Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. ‘Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be required to pay a $250.00 damage fee 6|5/4| 3] 2 1 7| 8| 9/10)11)12 18) 17/ 16 15/14 13 19] 20) 21) 22] 23 | 24 30|29| 28| 27) 2625 31] 32/33) 34/35) 36 Apwowdt palemd{i— Trebwy Sopartondent Approved [] Rejected [] (craman) ‘Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or across County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors. Water tnd gas lines buried in the ROW or under the roadbed proper must be a minimum of 48" deep and be of steel, copper, or. approved PVC pipe. All electric service that is buried mast be buried to the following depths, primary 48°, secondary 36" ll telephone communications minimum of 30”. in case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or. put out of service the County will not be liable in any way. Permission must be granted by the Holt County Board. of Supervisors before any installation of ities. An approved sign shall be erected on a post 5! above ground level designating the route and the location cof the utility Date Date Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission ftom the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a crude oil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Holt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: $029 T033N ROISW —469 Ave. Reason for the utility request: To construct # 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County roads ‘and to construct temporary driveways on either side of the same county road rieht-of-way crossings for the purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction. ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Owne Signature ‘Dna Cummings Land Manager Signature aber Cater Se Land Rep |. Line, pipe or conduit less than 4” in ‘Address: 13710 FNB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 ‘Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: meter, $100.00, 2. Line, pipe of conduit 4" in diameter or more but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00. 3. Line, pipe or conduit 8” in diameter or more, $1,000.00 4, Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be required to pay a $150.00 damage fee 6/5] 4) 3] 2] 1 7\ 8} 9|10)11}12 18| 17] 16| 15| 14} 13 19|20|21|22|23|24 30| 83 28|27| 26125 31/32] 33) 34/35) 36 Approved [] Rejected [ ] (Wipiway Supeinendent) Approved [] Rejected (] {Craieman} Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or across County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors. Water ‘nd gas Tines buried in the ROW or under the roadbed proper must be a minimum of 48” deep and be of steel, ‘copper, or. spproved PVC pipe. All electric service that is buried must be buried fo the following depths, primary 48", secondary 36”. Al telephone communications minimum of 30", In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or put out of service the County will not be liable in any way. Permission must be granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors before any installation of | Utilities. An approved sign shall be erected on a post 3! above ground level designating the route and the location cof the utility Date Date Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a crude oil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Holt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: $033 T033N RO1SW ~ Road 895 Reason for the utility request: To construct a 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt and to construct tempor iveways on either side of road right. 1e county ay crossings for the purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction, Owner: ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Signature ‘Beis Comings Land Manse Signature Ra Caer Cand Ra ‘Address: 13710 ENB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 ‘Telephone: 832-520-5000 Date: 1, Line, pipe or conduit less than 4" in diameter, $100.00. 2, Line, pipe or conduit 4" jeter or more but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00, 3. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. 4, Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee, ‘Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing constriction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be required to pay a $250.00 damage fee. 6|5| 4 718.9 18| 17/16 1920/21 /30| 29| 28 B- 31|32| 33 3/2) 1 10/11) 12 15) 14] 13 22|23|24 27|26)25 34| 35 | 36) Approved [] Rejected [] ‘Wihway Superintendent) Approved [] Rejected [] (chaierman) Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or across County right-of-way must have permission, granted by the Holt County Bosrd of Supervisors. Water and gas lines buried in the ROW or under the roadbed proper must be a minimum of 48" deep and be of steel, ‘copper, or.epproved PVC pipe. All electric service that is ‘buried must be buried tothe following depths, primary 48", ‘secondary 36". All telephone communications minimum of 30°, In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or. put out of service the County will not be liable in any way. Permission must be granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors before any installation of Utilities. An approved sign shall be erected on a post 5° ‘above ground level designating the route and the location of the utility. Date Date Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities Tn or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a crude oil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Flt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: S004 T032N ROISW ~ Road 894 Reason for the utility request: To construct a 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County roads and to construct temporary driveways on either side of the same county road right-of-way crossings for the purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction. Owner: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Address; 13710 FNB Parkway Suite 300. Omaha NE 68154 Signature ‘Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: Denia Comming Land Maer Signature ‘Rate Latina Sr and Rep Line, pipe or conduit less than 4" in diameter, $100.00. Line, pige or conduit 4" in diameter or mote but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00, 4. Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. ‘Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be required to pay a $250.00 damage fee 6|5|4/3| 2/1 ‘Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or aeross County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors. Water | copper, or approved PVC pipe All elects sevice he is bured must be busied tthe allowing depts, primary 48", 181 17| 16 15| 14, 13 ust be busied tothe allowing depts, primary damaged, or put out of service the County wil ot be 19) 20] 21| 22] 23 | 24 fates ny ay. Person mist be granted ty te Hot hove ground level designating the rote and the location ofthe iy. id gas lines buried in the ROW ot under the roadbed 7| 8| 9 {10} 11)12 so ee nim of 4" dep ano ah secondary 36", Alltelephone communications minimus of 30". In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, County Board of Supervisors before any installation of 30|29|28127|26|25 Uiilities, An approved sign shall be erected on a post 5° 31| 32) 33 | 34) 35 | 36 Date Approved [] Rejected [] (Wighway Superintendent) Approved [] Rejected [] Date (coairmany Holt County Road Department ‘Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or Oi) County Right-of Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a/cruide-sil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Hott Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: S011 T032N ROISW ~ 472 Ave Reason for the uility request: To construct a 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County roads and to construct temporary driveways on either side of the same county road right-of-way crossings for the ‘purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction. Owner: ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Signature ‘eviha Comings = Cand Manager Signature Faber Cainer Cand Rep ‘Address: 13710 ENB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: 1. Line, pipe or conduit less than 4" in diameter, $100.00. 2. Line, 3. Line, pipe or 4, Telephone uti Any person who fails to apply for and re shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and required to pay a $250.00 damage fee. 6] 5] 4/ 3/2] 1 7 8| 9/1011) 12 18 17/161 15) 14/ 13 19) 20|21/ 22/23/24 30 |29|28| 27|26|25 31/32/33) 34|35| 36 Approved [] Rejected] [Wiahway Superintendent) Approved (] Rejected [ ] (Chairman) pe or conduit 4” in diameter or more but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00. nduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. are exempt from application fee. .ceive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction in addition shall be ‘Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or across County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors. Water ‘and gas lines buried in the ROW or under the roadbed proper must be a minimum of 48" deep and be of steel, ‘copper, or approved PVC pipe. All electric service that is buried must be buried tothe following depths, primary 48", secondary 36". All telephone communications minimum of 30, In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or put out of service the County will not be liable in any way. Permission must be granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors before any installation of Utilities. An approved sign shall be erected on a post S' above ground level designating the route end the location of the utility, Date Date Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP. requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a il pipeline, in or on the right-of-way of the County of Holt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Description: $029 T032N RD14W ~ 475 Ave. Reason for the utility request: To construct a 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County roads ‘and to construct temporary driveways on either side of the same county road right-of-way crossings for the purpose of moving personnel and equipment from one side to the other during construction Owner: TransCanada Kevstone Pipeline, LP Address: 13710 ENB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 20-5000 Date: Signature ‘Telephone; 83 ‘Dens Carnage Cand Manager Signature Robart Later Si Cand Rep 1. Line, pipe or conduit less than 4” in diameter, $100.00. 2. Line, pipe or conduit 4” in diameter or more but less than 8° i 3. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. 4, Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. ‘Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be required to pay a $250,00 damage fee. diameter, $500.00. 6| 5} 4|3] 2] 1 Fe apencnay mnt ate pal te ee et Coeny baat af Sapertare Wate | ee ie RDW or eit toa 7) 8| 9/10)11)12 i tang af" ap nob ose, : Soe ep Vp. Al etic ie a So he owt ttn, tony #8, 18| 17] 16) 15) 14) 13 te al indies epmamcetre loinc Se Ei teing avis ws dow 19} 20) 21|22|23|24 ‘ae oe Eantelan mist bo gente by tis Hl ‘ay Boer Repaid ay sip 30829|28 27/26/25) owen’ tit ess ssn ; hey (31 32) 33|34) 35|36 Approved [] Rejected [] Date ‘Tigay Superintendent Date Approved [|] Rejected [] (cisitman) Holt County Road Department “Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission Right-of Way from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a crude oil pipeline, in or on the right of- way of the County of Holt. Length of Project: One Year Legal Desori iption: $032 TO32N RO14W ~ Road 889 Reason for the utility request: To construct a 36” crude oil pipeline crossing under Holt County roads ‘nd to construct temporary driveways on either side of the same county road right-of-way crossings for the wurpose of moving personnel.and equipment from one Owner: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline. LP Address: Signature ‘Datta Cumiings Land Manager Signature ‘Rober Later Sr Land Rep, Line, pipe or conduit 4" in ‘Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: other during com O.FNB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 Line, pipe or conduit less than 4" in diameter, $100.00. iameter or more but less then 8" in diameter, $500.00. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. 4. ‘Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. ‘Any person who fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction shall be required to pay the above fee appropriate for the required to pay a $250.00 damage fee. 6| 5) 4{| 3) 2) 1 7) 8| 9}10)11)12 18 16) 15) 14} 13 19 21) 22|23 | 24 30 28) 27) 26) 25 31 33] 34/35/36 Approved [] Rejected (] ‘WighwoySuperirendent Approved [] Rejected [1 (Chatman) size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be ‘Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas tine in or across County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors. Water fand gas lines buried in the ROW or under the rosdted proper must be a minimum of 48" deep and be of steel, copper, ot approved PVC pipe, All electric service that is buried imust be buried to the following depths, primary 48°, secondary 36”. All telephone communications minirmm of 30". In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or. put out of service the County will not be liable in any way, Permission must be granted by the Holt County Board of Supervisors before any installation of Utilities. An approved sign shall be erected on # post 5) above ground level designating the route and the location of the utility Date Date Holt County Road Department Application Requesting Permission to Bury Utilities In or On County Right-of-Way ‘TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP requests permission from the Holt County Board of Supervisors to bury or locate a enade oil pipeline, in or on the right-of-way ofthe County of Hott Length of Project: One Year Legal Description; $033 T032N RO14W —476 Ave. Reason for the utility request: and to construet temporary driveways on either si vane) and equipment from one side to the other during construction purpose of movi ‘Owner: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Signature ‘Daria Cunning and Manager Signature Bobet Tater Se Cand Rep construct a 36” crude ‘the same county road right-of-way crossings for: jpeline crossing under Holt County roads “Address: 13710 FNB Parkway Suite 300, Omaha NE 68154 ‘Telephone: 832-320-5000 Date: Line, pipe or conduit less than 4” in diameter, $100.00. Line, pipe or conduit 4" in diameter or more but less than 8" in diameter, $500.00. Line, pipe or conduit 8" in diameter or more, $1,000.00. 4. Telephone utilities are exempt from application fee. fails to apply for and receive permission from Holt County prior to commencing construction Any person who shall be required to pay the above fee app: required to pay a $250,00 damage fee. 6| 5 4/3] 2/1 7/8 9}10)11/12 18) 17 16| 15] 14) 13 19} 20 21) 22) 23 |24 30|29 28) 27 | 26 | 25 31| 32833 | 34/35/36 Approved [] Rejected [] Approved [] Rejected [] #3 (WiahwaySuperatendent) (chairman) ropriate for the size of line, pipe or conduit and in addition shall be ‘Owners and renters desiring to place waterline or gas line in or across County right-of-way must have permission granted by the Holt County Boerd of Supervisors. Water fand gas lines buried in the ROW or under the roadbed proper must be a minimum of 48" deep and be of steel copper, or, approved PVC pipe. All electric service that is ‘buried must be buried to the following depths, primary 43", secondary 36". All telephone communications minimum of 30", In case any of the foregoing services are disrupted, damaged, or. put out of service the County will not be liable in any way. Permission must be granted by the Holt ‘County Board of Supervisors before any installation of Utilities. An approved sign shell be erected on a post S' above ground level designating the route and the location of the utility Date Date