Cohen, Welch, Blumenauer & Others Call for Environmental Impact Statement for New Keystone XL Pipeline Proposal
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) were joined by 19 other members of Congress in formally requesting that the State Department conduct a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the revised proposal of the Keystone XL pipeline.
In their letter to Kerri-Ann Jones -- the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs -- the members asserted that since the proposed pipeline is essentially a new project, it warrants a wholly new environmental review. Additionally, the letter outlines a number of issues that should be addressed in a new EIS that were either neglected or inaccurately analyzed in the Final EIS for the original Keystone XL pipeline project.
A PDF of the letter is attached. The text of the letter is pasted below:
July 31, 2012
Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C St., NW Rm 3880
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Jones:
We are writing to formally request that the State Department conduct a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The proposed pipeline will have significant environmental impacts, and we believe this project warrants a full and thorough environmental review.
We understand that in August of 2011 the State Department issued a final EIS for the first project application for the Keystone XL pipeline and that the Department simply plans to conduct a supplemental review of the final EIS. However, considering that the proposed pipeline is essentially a new project, we believe that the State Department should conduct an entirely new environmental review for the project. In light of the new route and a new termination point in Cushing, Oklahoma, the purpose and need for this project must be re-evaluated.
Additionally, the final EIS that was issued by the State Department was flawed and should not be used as a baseline for a supplemental review. A new review process offers an opportunity to rectify these outstanding issues and should include the following:
- A thorough assessment of a no action option, including clean energy alternatives – this analysis is especially important in light of the President’s approval of what was the southern section of the original Keystone XL pipeline plan;
- An analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions throughout the entire life of the project that does not presuppose the development of tar sands regardless of the construction of this project;
- An analysis of the transboundary impacts associated with tar sands development in Canada;
- An analysis of newly proposed alternative routes that would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer, Nebraska Sandhills, and other important natural resources;
- An analysis of expected spill frequency, severity, and emergency response plans in light of the Keystone I spills and the recent Corrective Action Order issued on that pipeline, as well as the line 6B rupture that has devastated the Kalamazoo River and surrounding communities in Michigan;
- An analysis of the project’s effect on U.S. petroleum markets;
- An analysis of the connected Bakken and Cushing Marketlink projects;
- An analysis of environmental justice issues associated with developing, transporting, and refining tar sands oil;
- An analysis of impacts on tribes; and
- An analysis of the project’s impacts to water resources and sensitive wildlife species.
Given the extensive environmental impact of this proposed pipeline and the number of critical questions that remain either unanswered or inadequately addressed, we believe the Department should proceed with an entirely new environmental review. However, if the State Department opts to proceed with solely a supplemental review, we respectfully request that the issues listed above be thoroughly addressed in this review.
Sincerely,
###