KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY ...puc.sd.gov/.../2014/HP14-001/draexhibits/418.pdf · j. whitney driscoll, et al ml-sd-ha-01330.000 state of south dakota ml-sd-ha-01385.000

KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY SEGMENT)

1

VARIATION TYPE: Refinement: Reroute: X

Centerline: X Valve Site: Pump Station:

2

LOCATION: Sketch: Pictures: See attached.

State: SD County: Harding Quad Map:

Township: 20N, 19N Range: 4E, 5E Aerial Map:

Section: Centerline: 3/26/2010 MP: 308.76 to 315.32

3

REASON FOR ROUTE VARIATION (Please include reason for route variation):

DETAIL ROUTE VARIATION (Please describe route variation in detail):

ADDITIONAL IMPACTS (Please include any additional impacts which may affect cost; crossings, induction bends, etc.):

Is there an increase/decrease in the number of crossings? Yes No X

If yes, please list:

COST ANALYSIS (costs incurred or saved from the route variation)

Additional length of route realignment: 2,430 ft. 874,800.00$ $ 360/ft

Additional length of side-hill construction: ft. -$ $ 19/ft

Additional length of wetland construction: 290 ft. 56,550.00$ $ 195/ft

Additional bore length (Road, RR): ft. -$ $ 540/ft

Additional foreign line/pipeline crossings: EA -$ $ 30,000/EA

Additional water body crossing (streams, ponds, etc.):

35 - 65' + EA -$ $ 185,000/EA

10' - 19' EA -$ $ 77,250/EA

Less than 10' -1 EA (32,500.00)$ $ 32,500/EA

Additional survey required:

Civil: 7.02 mile 35,100.00$ $ 5,000/mile

Cultural: 7.02 mile 17,550.00$ $ 2,500/mile

Biological: 7.02 mile 19,656.00$ $ 2,800/mile

Miscellaneous costs saved or added due to route variation from ADDITIONAL IMPACTS listed above:

Overall estimated costs of the route variation: (See "Additional Impacts" above)

01

90

-SD

-P2

-30

8.8

-31

5.3

-S

Attached

N/A

See attached map sheet

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT - STEELE CITY SEGMENT

PIPELINE ROUTE VARIATION FORM

This reroute is proposed to avoid paleontological features on the landowner's tracts on the current centerline near the MP 310.5 (David Niemi and

Bret Clanton ML-SD-HA-01390, ML-SD-HA-01410, ML-SD-HA-01420, ML-SD-HA-11425).

This reroute has been proposed based on field reconnaissance by a field engineer and through consultation with landowners David Niemi and Bret

Clanton.

The proposed reroute is also surveyed biologically, culturally and paleontologically and has been cleared for construction.

33, 4, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 17

1,001,156$

The proposed reroute starts at ~ MP 308.8 and deviates (~22°) away from the centerline towards the south. It continues in this direction for 4,460 ft to

have a better creek crossing location and to avoid any construction impacts to what is referred to as an ancient shoreline with ongoing paleontological

excavations to the east in Sections 33 & 34, T20N-R4E and Section 3, T19N-R4E. From here, the proposed reroute turns towards the southeast,

crosses a drainage feature and continues in this direction for 16,340 ft. This location is selected by the landowner to avoid any construction impacts to

paleontological resources on this property. Along its path the proposed reroute accommodates the landowner's request and avoids the landowner's

hay fields and waterlines in Section 10 & 11, T19N-R4E. It then turns towards the east and continues for 14,060 ft before turning towards the

southeast to rejoin the current centerline at ~MP 315.32. Along its path, it passes through some drainage features in Section 11 & 12, T19N-R4E and

crosses US Highway 85 approximately 1,640 ft south of its current crossing location.

The proposed reroute is ~2,430 ft longer than the original route and it adds an additional fitting to the centerline. The cost of material and installation of

a single fitting is estimated to be $30,000.

The cost savings associated with avoiding the current paleontological excavations is very significant, a minimum length HDD to avoid a site would

cost roughly $1,000,000.

30,000$

* Evaluation Criteria is located in Route Refinement and Reroute Process, Section 3 FORM 1Document Control Number:

KXL10-00006-01-AA-180 (Form 1)


4

LAND / UNIVERSAL FIELD Doug Reichley

a) Is a new landowner affected by the proposed variation? Yes No X

b) Is proposed realignment outside the easement/workspace? Yes X No

c) Is realignment proposed to satisfy landowner request? Yes X No

-If yes, name of landowner(s)/track number(s):

d) Has all the evaluation criteria been examined/provided for this specific discipline? Yes X No

If no, please explain why:

5

ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION / STATE PM David Guien

a) Maximum deviation perpendicular to proposed alignment: 6,010 ft.

b) Has the centerline been staked for construction? Yes No X

c) Does route variation affect HDD crossing alignment? Yes No X

d) Is realignment proposed for engineering/construction reasons? Yes No X

e) Will the route variation require the relocation of a pump station? Yes No X

f) Has all the evaluation criteria been examined/provided for this specific discipline? Yes No


6

ENVIRONMENTAL / TROW Jonathan Minton

a) Has the corridor been environmentally surveyed? Yes X No

b) Has the proposed variation been environmentally surveyed? Yes X No

c) Was variation proposed to satisfy environmental issues? Yes No

d) Was realignment proposed to satisfy agency request? Yes No

-If yes, name of agency(s):

e) Environmental features:

Added (+): Subtracted (-):

Wetland ID # for newly impacted wetlands:

f) Has all the evaluation criteria been examined/provided for this specific discipline? Yes X No


7

ENGINEERING / FACILITIES AND HYDRAULICS Sandra Gigovic

a) Will the route variation require the relocation of a pump station? Yes No X

b) Will route variation impact hydraulics? Yes No X

c) Are additional valves required at HCA's or water crossing? N/A to PS Engineering Yes No

d) Has all the evaluation criteria been examined/provided for this specific discipline? Yes No


8

STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS / TCPL Bud Andersen

a) Does the variation result in any new stakeholders? Yes No X

b) Does the variation require follow-up with specific stakeholder groups? Yes No X

c) Was the variation proposed to satisfy stakeholder request? Yes No X

-If yes, please specify issue type (as it aligns to stakeholder database):

d) Has all the evaluation criteria been examined/provided for this specific discipline? Yes X No


9 10

Originator: Received by:

Date: Date:

Fax to: ?

11 12

Assigned Tracking Number: Filed by:

Date:

Fax to: ?

W500HA002, W500HA003, W500HA004, W500HA005, W500HA006

S500HA010, S500HA011, W500HA002,

W500HA003, W500HA004, W500HA005,

W500HA006

S_UTM13_04674, S_UTM13_07059,

S_UTM13_07060, S0353, W_UTM13_04737

David Niemi and Bret Clanton

01

90

-SD

-P2

-30

8.8

-31

5.3

-S

11/15/2010 11/15/2010

0190-SD-P2-308.8-315.3-S

Land

* Evaluation Criteria is located in Route Refinement and Reroute Process, Section 3 FORM 1Document Control Number:

KXL10-00006-01-AA-180 (Form 1)


Date: Tracking Number:

Description: MP: 308.8 to 315.3

Originated By:

Variation Form Attached: Yes X No

Universal Field - Land Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

State PM - Construction / Eng. Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

Trow - Environmental Jonathan Minton Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

AECOM -Risk Assesment Heidi Tillquist Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

Project Management Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

Stakeholder Relations Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

Facilities: Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

TransCanada: Variation: Approved X Rejected

Comments: Date:

Forward to: Butch Wallace X Jonathan Minton X Heidi Tillquist XDavid Guien X Bud Andersen X Alan Lietz XDoug Reichley X Sandra Gigovic X

Dispute Resolution, if Required: Yes No

Comments: Teleconference Required: Yes No

Decision:

Database - Database -

Filed By: Filed By:

Date: Date:Fax to: ? Fax to: ?

This reroute increases the risk to a populated HCA and decreases the distance to groundwater HCAs. This reroute has a viable transport route to Buffalo. While not highly recommended, the route is permissible.

Heidi Tillquist 11/15/2010

If RejectedWhy?

Sandra Gigovic

11/15/2010

If RejectedWhy?

Bud Andersen

If RejectedWhy?

If RejectedWhy?

Alan Lietz

Butch Wallace

Bud Andersen

Same landowners as original centerline

There are three paleo localities within the survey corridor of the Niemi reroute. All three are isolated finds that will require collection but do not warrant a route shift.

Sandra Gigovic

11/16/2010

If RejectedWhy?

11/15/2010

11/15/2010

Alan Lietz

11/15/2010

David Niemi reroute to paleo resource features.

11/15/2010

Doug Reichley

David Guien

R.E. Wallace

Jonathan Minton

If RejectedWhy?

01

90

-SD

-P2

-30

8.8

-31

5.3

-S

0190-SD-P2-308.8-315.3-S

Doug Reichley


Land

If RejectedWhy?

ROUTE VARIATION AUTHORIZATION FORM

11/15/2010

If RejectedWhy?

11/15/2010David Guien

FORM 2Document Control Number:

KXL10-00006-01-AA-180 (Form 2)

SOUTH DAKOTAHardingCounty

MP325

MP320

MP315

MP310

MP300

UV20

UV20

797MP305

£¤85

797

121ST ST

MP-311MP-311

MP-310MP-310

MP-309MP-309

BLM

ML-SD-HA-01375.000CLANTON, BRET A

ML-SD-HA-11425.000BRET A. CLANTON


ML-SD-HA-01350.000STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

BLM

ML-SD-HA-01390.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP

CLANTON, BRET A





ML-SD-HA-01410.000J. WHITNEY DRISCOLL, ET AL

ML-SD-HA-01330.000STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

ML-SD-HA-01385.000 DRISCOLL, J - DOUGHERTY, J - HAIG, M - HALEY, N - HAGEN, D - S - EVANS, E - ETAL

ML-SD-HA-01380.000J. WHITNEY DRISCOLL, ET AL

CLANTON, BRET A


SOUTH DAKOTASEC 3T19NR4E

SEC 33T20NR4E

SEC 4T19NR4E

SEC 34T20NR4E

SEC 32T20NR4E

SEC 5T19NR4E

SEC 10T19NR4E

SEC 28T20NR4E

SEC 2T19NR4E

Harding County

SHEET REV.ROUTE VARIATION NUMBER

PROJECT

KEYSTONE US - PHASE IV PIPELINE PROJECT

MAP PARAMETERSPROJECTION: UTM 13, NAD83, US FT

WSF 0190-SD-P2-308.8-315.3-S 0

SCALE:

$

001

DRAWN BY

ACB

CHECKED BY

CPAPath: G:\2000DraftingandGIS\WorkingMaps\RouteVariations\RV0190_MP310\RV_0190_MP310_pict.mxd

PROPOSED ROUTE VARIATION 0190Legend

MilepostCenterline(2010-03-26)ProposedRoute Variation300ft CorridorCultural Feature

WaterbodyWetlandParcel BoundarySection LineCounty BoundaryState Boundary

0 1,250 2,500625 Feet

50388X

DATE

Nov 12, 2010

APPROVED BY

µ

1 " = 1,250 ', 1:15,000

1 " = 6 mi

HARDING COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA


MP325

MP320

MP315

MP310

MP300

UV20

UV20

797MP305

£¤85

797

122ND ST123RD AVE

MP-313MP-313

MP-312MP-312

MP-311MP-311

BLM








NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMECTIC LP


WILSON, FRED JR - JUDY


NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP

ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE

ML-SD-HA-01510.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LPML-SD-HA-01390.000

NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP

SOUTH DAKOTA

SEC 11T19NR4E

SEC 2T19NR4E

SEC 12T19NR4E

SEC 3T19NR4E

SEC 10T19NR4E

SEC 13T19NR4E

SEC 1T19NR4E

SEC 14T19NR4E

Harding County


PROJECT



WSF 0190-SD-P2-308.8-315.3-S 0

SCALE:

$

002

DRAWN BY

ACB

CHECKED BY





0 1,250 2,500625 Feet

50388X

DATE

Nov 12, 2010

APPROVED BY

µ

1 " = 1,250 ', 1:15,000

1 " = 6 mi



MP325

MP320

MP315

MP310

MP300

UV20

UV20

797MP305

£¤85

797

US 85

124TH AVE

123RD STHWY 8

5

122ND ST

124TH STCR 797

CR 797 MP-315MP-315MP-314MP-314

MP-313MP-313 ML-SD-HA-01510.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP



BLM



ML-SD-HA-01650.000RAYFORD J. ANDERSON


ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE H


ML-SD-HA-01680.000RAYFORD J.& ILENE ANDERSON

ML-SD-HA-01640.000RAYFORD J. ANDERSON AND ILENE H. ANDERSON




ML-SD-HA-01552.0RDHWY 85 (SD DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION)



SOUTH DAKOTA

SEC 18T19NR5E

SEC 7T19NR5E

SEC 12T19NR4E

SEC 17T19NR5E

SEC 13T19NR4E

SEC 19T19NR5E

SEC 8T19NR5E

SEC 20T19NR5E

SEC 1T19NR4E

Harding County


PROJECT



WSF 0190-SD-P2-308.8-315.3-S 0

SCALE:

$

003

DRAWN BY

ACB

CHECKED BY





0 1,250 2,500625 Feet

50388X

DATE

Nov 12, 2010

APPROVED BY

µ

1 " = 1,250 ', 1:15,000

1 " = 6 mi


Documents

KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY ...puc.sd.gov/.../2014/HP14-001/draexhibits/418.pdf · j. whitney driscoll, et al ml-sd-ha-01330.000 state of south dakota ml-sd-ha-01385.000