DAPL - Route Comparison and Environmental Justice Considerations | Pipe (Fluid Conveyance)

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 8 | Pages: 11

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
Memo regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing at Lake Oahe with respect to comments raised by Standing Rock Sioux Tribe relative to Environmental Justice.
Transcript
  CONFIDENTIAL - DO NOT RELEASE MEMORANDUMTo:  __________  Brent Cossette. USAGEJohnathan Shelman. USAGEFrom:  ________  Tom Siguaw. Dakota AccessSteve Rowe. HDR Engineering   Date:  ________  April 12. 2016Subject:  ______  DAPL - Route Comparison and Environmental Justice Considerations The subject of this memorandum Is the Dakota Access crossing at Lake Oahe with respect to comments raised by Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) relative to Environmental Justice (EJ). This evaluation includes a comparison of downstream water Intakes at the proposed crossing and the North Bismarck Crossing alternative that was dismissed from further analysis in the EA. Therefore, this alternative was not discussed outside of the alternative section in the EA where It was dismissed from further analysis. However, this memorandum provides additional Information to support the conclusion that the EJ issues or claims from the SRST for the North Bismarck Crossing are actually more direct and more disproportionate to minorities than the preferred and currently proposed route. Additionally, the details as Included within this memorandum regarding the water Intakes downstream of the Lake Oahe and/or the Missouri River crossings of each alternative offer value for USACE review and documentation purposes to substantiate the conclusion that the Lake Oahe crossing Is the preferred crossing location. The details of the water location intake locations and the estimated plume travel times to these Intakes are not information that Is made available to the public. Therefore, this document Is not intended to be included within the EA but Instead Is supplemental information provided to the USACE for the record and could be referenced as a confidential addendum or data source In the EA. Routing Criteria and Avoidance of Sensitive Resources and Sensitive Lands The primary focus of pipeline routing is to establish a route that has the least impact to the greatest number of stakeholders, regardless of race, economic status, or any other factor and balanced against the environmental conditions along the various alternatives. DAPL employed a sophisticated and proprietary Geographic Information System (GlS)-based routing program, utilizing considerations from a variety of propriety, public and purchased datasets to establish a route baseline, exceeding widely accepted Industry best practices as discussed In the EA.North Dakota, when compared to other states in the U.S., has a high proportion of federal and other public lands as well as tribal land. As part of the routing criteria, sensitive resources coupled with sensitive lands. Including federal and other public lands, sovereign and tribal lands, were screened for avoidance or exclusion in the preliminary evaluation of the DAPL route. As with any narrow and linear project, the direct and indirect Impacts from a pipeline project are extremely localized and are generally CONFIDENTIAL USACE DAPL0073033  limited to the footprint of the project (construction footprint and permanent right-of-way footprint - in this a 150 foot wide corridor for the length of the pipeline). As such, a conservative 1/2 mi buffer was implemented for certain lands avoidance criteria in the routing tool and analysis, such that tribal or public lands were avoided as a primary avoidance criteria with a higher weighted priority than most other routing criteria. The DAPL route at Lake Oahe is greater than 0.5 miles from SRST Reservation and avoids impacts to the reservation.For NEPA and project assurance purposes, when determining the feasibility of a route and before any open season is announced, contracts or material funding for a project are established, the company enlists a team of professionals to perform feasibility and fatal flaw analyses of potential project route, scope and schedule. It is during this phase of the project that major route alternatives are evaluated for the pipeline route as a whole. During the DAPL project fatal flaw analysis and early routing process, datasets utilized included engineering constraints (e.g., existing pipelines, railroads, karst topography, powerlines, etc.), environmental concerns (e.g., critical habitat, fault lines, state parks, national forests, brownfields, national registry of historic places, etc.), and land issues (e.g., fee owned federal lands, federal easements, dams, airports, cemeteries, schools, mining, tribal lands, and military installations, etc.). At the conclusion of the routing analysis, there were multiple routes that were considered. However only a very select few met the routing criteria while balancing the impacts to the public as well as the environmental considerations along the route. For the purposes of the EA, the two route alternatives that were considered as viable included the primary route and the north Bismarck route. At the conclusion of the analysis and upon further detailed review of equal weighting criteria and specifically for EJ issues, the Lake Oahe route provided a less impacting, more feasible alternative than the North Bismarck route as detailed below. Environmental Justice Comparison of the proposed Lake Oahe Crossing and the North Bismarck   Crossing To address comments made by SRST that the North Bismarck Crossing relative to EJ, Dakota Access conducted an analysis utilizing the same EJ approach as was completed for the Preferred Route. The two census tracts that the North Bismarck Crossing alternative would cross (CT 111.05 and CT 2004) were averaged as the alternative impacts , the counties it would cross (Morton and Burleigh) were averaged as the alternative baseline , and then the alternative impacts were compared to the Proposed Crossing impacts data (from Table 3-14 of the EA). As demonstrated in the table below the preferred and proposed crossing of Lake Oahe would impact a population of fewer minorities (2%  fewer). The data does however suggest that more low-income (7% more) populations are located near the preferred crossing location. However, the route does cross less than the overall state average of 12% impoverished populations concluding that the route does not disproportionally impact low-income or improvised populations.For the minority impacts, the North Bismarck Crossing consists of 1% more American Indian and Alaska Natives (2% in the North Bismarck Crossing opposed to 1% in the proposed) than the proposed route. This, as well as the overall data, suggests that the preferred route is less impacting or the impacts are less proportionate to Native Americans as compared to non-minority or other minority groups. Therefore the there is no basis or conclusion of an EJ claim to Native Americans related to the preferred route. CONFIDENTIAL USACE DAPL0073034  Table A-1. Minority and Low Income Population Statistics for the North Bismarck Alternative   And Compared to the Proposed Action AreaMinority and Low Income Population Statistics for the North of Bismarck AlternativeCompared to the Proposed Action AreaGeographicAreaTotalPopulationPercentWhiteBlackor AfricanAm.Am.IndianandAlaskaNativeAsianNativeHawaiianandOther PacificIslander SomeOther RaceTwoor MoreRacesTotalMinorityPopulationPersonsBelowthePovertyLevelSTATE NorthDakota704,925892510121112 COUNTIES WTHIN BASELINEANALYS>15(ALTERIMATIVE B/» l SELINE /  \REA) Burleigh86,1119314100278Morton28,4289313001279Oliver1,8329404001168Burleigh and Morton  Average57,2709314001278 All 3   Counties   Average38,7909314001278ALTERNATIVE CENSUS TRACTS CT111.054,1679602001240CT2043,1439601001144 Average3,6559602001142STATE COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE  Alternative-701,2707-2-4-100-1-7-10 BASELINE COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE  Alternative-35,1353-1-20000-3-6 PROPOSED ACTION CENSUS TRACTSAverage3,3179801000129PROPOSED ACTION COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE Proposed Action-33820-1000-1-27 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010-2014 5-year estimates).Note: totals may not sum across the table due to rounding used In data collection.* A negative number Indicates that the value for the proposed action Is less than the value for the population that the proposed action Is being compared to. CONFIDENTIALUSACE DAPL0073035  Specific Concerns Related to Tribal Water Intakes Another issue of significant concern and comment received from the SRST is that tribal water intakes would be disproportionately affected in the highly unlikely event of a pipeline product release to Lake Oahe. Given the engineering design, proposed installation methodology, quality of material selected, operations measures and response plans, the risk of an inadvertent release in or reaching Lake Oahe is extremely low. As a matter of practice, pipeline operators and specifically DAPL designed the pipeline to not leak or have a spoil and have implemented all the available and reasonable measures to prevent a leak or spill (see the attached table as filed in the Iowa Utilities Board hearings for DAPL under Docket HLP-2014-0001 for the measures above and beyond the 49 CFR Part 194 and 195 requirements being implemented by DAPL which would all apply to the Lake Oahe crossing and pipeline design). The notion, as articulated by the SRST, that a spill is going to happen, is simply not the case. However, the following information was prepared to provide evidence that there is not a disproportionate project effect to low or minority populations from the Lake Oahe crossing in regards to a spill. Table A-2 below provides a comparison of surface water intakes downstream of the Preferred Alternative across Lake Oahe and downstream of the North Bismarck Crossing alternative. Table A-2. Downstream Water Intake Comparison Between Crossing at Lake Oahe   and Alternative Crossing North of BismarkWater Intake Comparison at the Preferred and Alternate CrossingsCrossing at Lake OaheNorth Bismarck Crossin yIntake Owner/UseMiles DownstreamTravel Time (hrs)Intake Owner/UseMiles DownstreamTravel Time (hrs)Local Ag Intake*4.26.7City of Mandan **7.311.3Tribal Ag Intake*7.611.7City of Bismarck **11.618.2SCRWD Drinking Water*11.117City of Bismarck Well Intake **12.319.3Unspecified23.536.7NAFort Yates Municipal26.240.8* Information supplied by Rick Harnois, USACE to Steve Rowe, HDR via email on 3/21/2016. Mr. Harnois indicated that the first location was for agricultural use, he believed the 2nd location was a SRST intake for agricultural use, and that the third intake belongs to the South Central Regional Water District (SCRWD) and that this intake provides water to most of Emmons County, North Dakota.** Estimated location and ownership Information estimated by HDR engineer, Brent Ericksen, Bismarck, ND.Ownership and use information formally requested of the USACE by DAPL. On 4/7/2016 William Harlon, USACE, officially requested additional intake location and information from PHMSA.NA - No information known relative to the Missouri River farther downstream than the City of Bismarck Well IntakeDownstream of the Lake Oahe crossing (preferred crossing location), the river separates private land to the east from tribal land to the west. There are three water supply intakes within 15 miles downstream of this crossing, with the closest intake located 4.2 miles downstream of the Lake crossing and is for  CONFIDENTIALUSACE DAPL0073036
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks