120 Day Comment Period and Field Hearings Critical for Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Yesterday, NRDC and over thirty other groups wrote to the State Department calling for the comment period on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to be extended from 45 days to 120 days, and requesting that hearings be scheduled near the pipeline right-of-way.

The State Department announced last month that they would be publishing an SEIS mid-April; we have stressed that this timeline should be flexible. As my colleague Liz Barratt-Brown wrote in her blog, “We trust that the State Department will allow the draft SEIS to dictate next steps, rather than impose artificial deadlines that might short change the very issues that  convinced the State Department more analysis was needed.”          

In addition to taking the time necessary to produce a thoughtful, comprehensive document that answers the questions posed by the public, Members of Congress and Agencies, once it has been published, organizations and individuals need enough time to be able to carefully review and comment on it. Letter signers ranged from national environmental organizations including NRDC, Sierra Club, NWF and Friends of the Earth to local organizations along the pipeline right-of-way including the Nebraska Farmers Union, Public Citizen Texas, and Dakota Rural Action. 

Why so much concern? The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Keystone XL failed to adequately analyze numerous critical issues including:

• The very need for the project
• The project’s impacts on climate change
• The increased risk of spills associated with pumping thick, corrosive, acidic diluted bitumen (as opposed to conventional oil) at high pressures and temperatures through pipelines
• Alternative routes for the pipeline, including ones that avoid running hundreds of miles through sensitive lands and critical water resources such as the Ogallala Aquifer and Nebraska Sandhills, as called for by Senators Johanns and Nelson

The original draft was so deficient that the EPA labeled the DEIS “Category 3: Inadequate” and asked State to publish a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement with time for public comment prior to publishing the Final EIS.

While we commend the State Department for their decision to publish an SEIS, we are at the same time concerned that, “A 45-day schedule will not provide sufficient time for a meaningful public review.”

NRDC, Sierra Club, and other organizations wrote detailed comments on the Draft EIS, and a detailed letter about what should be included in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We hope that the State Department will heed our requests, as well as those from Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and landowners and produce a detailed, thorough SEIS – and then provide the proper opportunity for review and comment on it. For that, we need 120 days and field hearings. Regarding field hearings, we write:

… it would not be in the spirit of NEPA or in the spirit of the Administration’s commitment to transparency and public engagement to move ahead without allowing these communities the opportunity to provide their comments to, and ask questions of the officials conducting the permitting review in a public forum.

A thorough environmental review in the form of an SEIS with adequate opportunities for public participation is important not only for complying with the spirit of NEPA but also in leading up to the State Department’s decision about whether or not the pipeline is in the national interest. We believe that, if a thorough review is undertaken, the State Department will come to a conclusion similar to this past weekend’s New York Times editorial regarding permitting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline: “Moving ahead would be a huge error. From all of the evidence, Keystone XL is not only environmentally risky, it is unnecessary.”