Port Arthur epitomizes the type of community targeted by the environmental justice movement: The Texas city is home to chemical plants and oil refineries that have long polluted the air for a low-income, minority population.

The metropolis' plight is so well known that it is one of 10 cities EPA has slotted for funding to improve public health. But the city is hardly mentioned in the State Department's environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Canadian oil sands crude to refineries in Port Arthur and other U.S. hubs.

The reason: The agency concluded an in-depth review of the environmental justice impacts was unnecessary because studies showed the pipeline would not change the city's situation, neither increasing the influx of crude oil nor the number of jobs.

But EJ advocates argue that the potential effects go beyond statistical forecasts. The pipeline, they say, will further cement Port Arthur's role as an overburdened community that pays for the nation's energy with poor health.

"This pipeline represents a finality in terms of these communities," said Leslie Fields, director of the Sierra Club's environmental justice program. "They're just locked in now to a filthy, dirty environment."

Port Arthur is just one of dozens of low-income and minority communities that will be affected by the $7 billion pipeline. The extent of the disruption, however, depends on whom you ask.

State's environmental impact statement finds the negative impact negligible and cites the potential for economic benefits. Environmentalists say the pipeline's construction and operation threatens to poison aquifers, damage farm land, destroy cultural resources and pollute the air of some of the country's most vulnerable residents.

Juan Parras, founder of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, lamented the role of Port Arthur as the "end of the tailpipe," where residents will breathe in the emissions from a type of oil that releases more carbon emissions than that of traditional oil drilling.

"If this happens, I believe the message being sent to the entire country is when it comes to the oil industry and when it comes to prioritizing homeland security, that they will forget our communities," he said.

Adverse impacts

The environmental impact statement for the project estimates that about 13,000 acres of agricultural land will be unusable during periods of the 18-month construction schedule. The mainline will run through 14 communities with a minority population that is "meaningfully greater" than the state's; eight will be within a half-mile of the project. Twenty-eight communities along the mainline are classified as low-income.

But the EIS points out that Keystone will compensate farm owners for the temporary loss of land. It also includes an estimate that the construction project will create between 2,650 and 3,200 jobs, 10 to 15 percent of which would be hired locally. That would total 265 to 480 new local jobs along the 1,700-mile pipeline, bringing $28 million to $48 million in new local income, according to the EIS.

"In summary, the Keystone Project is not expected to result in any adverse environmental justice impacts to minority or low-income populations or Native American tribes in the region of influence," State officials conclude in the EIS. "These populations may benefit from the positive socioeconomic effects that the project is expected to generate."

The agency has said that the EIS is not a definitive document. State officials are currently reviewing the pipeline's effect on the national interest -- a determination will take into consideration how the pipeline fits into broader policies such as the Obama administration's focus on environmental justice.

The EIS also references studies finding that the refineries' supply of similar oil from Mexico and Venezuela will taper off as the pipeline increases the supply from Canada. The level of emissions would thus stay steady.

Even if the pipeline isn't built, the EIS concludes that Port Arthur will remain much the same. The city's refineries are already built to process the type of oil that would come through the pipeline, and that investment means they will find such oil whether the pipeline is built or not, it says.

Environmentalists disagree. Fields of the Sierra Club argues that the EIS lacks many of the common metrics of an EJ analysis, such as a community's resources, consumption patterns and proportion of children. Instead, State officials included lists of communities with high levels of minorities and low-income families, as well as a tally of medical facilities and emergency response teams.

"They did something an intern could do on Google," she said.

The promise of jobs

But in Port Arthur, at least, such views are in the minority.

At a recent public hearing held by the Labor Department, most attendees supported the project, encouraged by the promise of construction jobs and guaranteed business for the refinery industry. The district's congressman -- Republican Rep. Ted Poe -- has also been a staunch supporter, arguing that it will create thousands of jobs in southeast Texas.

"The facts are plain and simple: We should end our dependence on foreign dictators and get our oil from our stable neighbor, Canada," Poe said in June. "The country needs oil and it needs jobs. This project would provide both, including thousands of jobs in southeast Texas where the pipeline would end."

Even Hilton Kelley, a well-known environmental justice advocate in Port Arthur, believes it is a lost fight. Though he spoke out against the pipeline at the recent meeting, he said he would not be campaigning against it. Most people in his neighborhood, he said, need the jobs associated with the project.

"I just don't think there's a good balance there," said Kelley, who recently won the Goldman Environmental Prize for his environmental justice efforts. "If this pipeline would crack or break, would it be to our advantage to have a few jobs created temporarily and damage the land and water permanently?"