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)
KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY SEGMENT)
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
If no, please explain why:
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
If no, please explain why:
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
If no, please explain why:
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
If no, please explain why:
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)
KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY SEGMENT)
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
KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT - U.S. PHASE IV (STEELE CITY SEGMENT)
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-01370.000BRET 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-01420.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01360.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01435.000CLANTON, BRET A
ML-SD-HA-01320.000BRET A. CLANTON
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
ML-SD-HA-01470.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
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
SOUTH DAKOTAHardingCounty
MP325
MP320
MP315
MP310
MP300
UV20
UV20
797MP305
£¤85
797
122ND ST123RD AVE
MP-313MP-313
MP-312MP-312
MP-311MP-311
BLM
ML-SD-HA-01500.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01470.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01435.000CLANTON, BRET A
ML-SD-HA-01445.000CLANTON, BRET A
ML-SD-HA-11425.000BRET A. CLANTON
ML-SD-HA-01450.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01505.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMECTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01490.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
WILSON, FRED JR - JUDY
ML-SD-HA-01420.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
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
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:
$
002
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
SOUTH DAKOTAHardingCounty
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
ML-SD-HA-01500.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE
BLM
ML-SD-HA-01505.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01515.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01650.000RAYFORD J. ANDERSON
ML-SD-HA-01630.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE H
ML-SD-HA-01550.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01680.000RAYFORD J.& ILENE ANDERSON
ML-SD-HA-01640.000RAYFORD J. ANDERSON AND ILENE H. ANDERSON
ML-SD-HA-01490.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ML-SD-HA-01550.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE
ML-SD-HA-01552.0RDHWY 85 (SD DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION)
ANDERSON, RAYFORD J - ILENE
ML-SD-HA-01450.000NIEMI RANCH LP A SD DOMESTIC LP
SOUTH DAKOTA
SEC 18T19NR5E
SEC 7T19NR5E
SEC 12T19NR4E
SEC 17T19NR5E
SEC 13T19NR4E
SEC 19T19NR5E
SEC 8T19NR5E
SEC 20T19NR5E
SEC 1T19NR4E
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:
$
003
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