Standing Rock-What to do Now!

Write YOUR comment to the Army Corps of Engineers demanding a comprehensive environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Click: “Click to Open and Write Comments” to go to IEN page and follow instructions there. We have added 25 Reasons to Oppose this pipeline below. We’ve also provided links to more information if needed.

Stand alongside the indigenous leaders who brought over 500 tribes together to Protect the Water for millions downstream.

Stand with the hundreds and thousands of people who braved the cold in North Dakota and loudly proclaimed; MNI WICONI – WATER IS LIFE!

Stand with the millions of people supporting us from across the U.S. and around the world – SAY; “NO DAPL!”

From the first days in office Trump has made it no secret that he will do whatever he can to finish this and other pipelines. He cares nothing for the future of our nation or people as he pushes us ever-closer to becoming a resource colony for the world. He went another step further and ordered the US Army Corps of Engineers to stop their comprehensive environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline and grant the final permit.

WE are not going to stand by and allow this to happen…It’s up to us to deny that request. Please add your comments of opposition to DAPL TODAY!

A complete review is needed to assess the impacts on drinking water, tribal rights and the climate and we need your help to make it happen so, Please share this page with your social networks. Thank you!

IEN’s Dallas Goldtooth  asked Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe permission to share an outline (below) of issues discussed in our engineering report to assist in forming opinions and comments. You can read the  FULL REPORT and the COVER LETTER

At any time, construction, could resume – unless we flood the Army Corps with REASONS they MUST conduct the full environmental review that includes impacts to land, water, and people along the pipeline route, violations to long-standing tribal rights, and the future consequences to climate change if we continue down this path.

Illegally forcing this project through is an obvious example of corruption — AND a gross violation of Indigenous rights and the science of climate change. Trump and members of his administration stand to PROFIT personally from the completion of DAPL. He owns stock in the Dakota Access and has never proven otherwise. Another prime example of Big Oil’s influence on our government and the violation of our rights if we don’t stand up and say NO!

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, whose drinking water and sacred sites have been desecrated by this pipeline, already announced plans to sue to stop any action to expedite DAPL. Every comment we send bolsters their legal case that the federal government would be abandoning their own rules and procedures by illegally forcing the project through.

To help you compose an original comment to submit (very important, as canned comments are combined and counted as just ONE comment reducing the appearance of overwhelming opposition) we’ve provided a DAPL Environmental Assessment Explanation of Issues by Steve Martin a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota:

  1. The finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the crossing of Lake Oahe in a HDD tunnel 92’ below the surface of the lake is a wrong conclusion presented by the DAPL EA and initially supported by USACE.
  2. The DAPL EA was prepared with a pre-decisional intent and is a biased document that appears to have been prepared with the desired result known from the outset.
  3. The DAPL EA lacks engineering integrity. The FONSI can neither be supported by previous precedent nor generally accepted industry practice and should be vacated immediately.
  4. Not enough reasonable alternatives were seriously considered by DAPL to address the unresolved conflicts between stakeholders. In particular, routing alternatives.
  5. The DAPL solution is the perfect technical storm and relies on the worst of all potential technical factors, including: (1) crude oil product (2) in a large-diameter pipeline and (3) in a 1.5 mile-long HDD tunnel 92 feet below the surface of the lake.
  6. So much emphasis was placed on following the existing Northern Border gas pipeline routing completed in 1983 that an alternative route further north that would have resulted in no major or minor river or lake crossings was not even contemplated.
  7. It is inappropriate to authorize DAPL to cross Lake Oahe as contemplated in the EA without further analysis, more rigorous exploration and analysis of siting alternatives. Accordingly, the USACE did not grant easement to cross Lake Oahe as contemplated based on the current record.
  8. Preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement is the best and most responsible recommendation at this stage given the level of conflict between stakeholders and fatal flaws thus far discovered resulting in an inadequate EA.
  9. The USACE have clearly sided with the obvious need for the tribal government leaders and representatives or experts to be granted the ability to review and respond to the critical documents that had been previously kept secret from the tribe. These documents are
    • Lake Oahe Spill Model Discussion Report
    • Lake Oahe HDD Risk Analysis Report
    • DAPL Route Comparison.
  10. It is disappointing and troubling that these documents have still not been made available by DAPL to the tribes team of technical experts.
  11. The DAPL solution is the perfect technical storm and relies on the worst of all potential technical factors, including: (1) crude oil product (2) in a large-diameter pipeline and (3) in a 1.5 mile long HDD tunnel 92 feet below the surface of the lake.
  12. Without access to do a full technical review to evaluate further technical difficulties and based on what what was presented in the DAPL EA, there is no foundation that this is the least risk alternative or the finding of no significant environmental impact.
  13. The business interests of DAPL have compromised the integrity and responsibility of the engineers responsible for the DAPL project.
  14. The selection of the route was not based on the route posing the least risk alternative and that alone should be reason to support the need for a full review as contemplated by the USACE memo of December 4th.
  15. It has become well known that DAPL has negotiated commercial off-take agreements that required the pipelines commercial operation by January 1, 2017. It should be investigated further as to whether the routing recommended was premature and may have been the fallout of DAPL’s management desire to shorten the time to full commercial operation.
  16. The decision to recommend the routing under Lake Oahe appears to be the direct result of the heavy weighting DAPL applied to the requirement to follow the existing corridor in the questionable and subjective evaluation tables 2.1 and 2.2 in the EA. This was by far the dominating factor in the outcome of their analysis. Alternative objective routes should be evaluated.
  17. The results of the EA and the FONSI allowed USACE to prematurely issue the highly-contested Section 408 permit. Unfortunately, the result led to the requirement to place the crossing at Lake Oahe.
  18. What the EA failed to evaluate or even present was another alternative route even further North and East of the Missouri River that should have been evaluated. This alternative routing has no major or minor river or lake crossings and is actually shorter than the current DAPL proposed routing.
  19. The key factor we would like to emphasize that the EA fails to discuss objectively is the fact that no similar application of a crude oil large diameter pipeline exists that crosses a freshwater lake via a large-diameter HDD tunnel anywhere in the World.
  20. The DAPL solution is the perfect technical storm and relies on the worst of all potential technical factors, including: (1) crude oil product (2) in a large-diameter pipeline and (3) in a 1.5 mile long HDD tunnel 92 feet below the surface of the lake.
  21. This design solution culminates in such an extreme high level of potential environmental and safety risk that an EIS is required because The EA does not currently address a leak or spill in the HDD section and full remediation of a clean-up of contaminated soil around the tunnel. Actually, clean-up of a spill in the HDD tunnel outside the pipe is a technical impossibility to perform.
  22. Unfortunately, the worst in this case means that any leak or spill in the HDD section results in permanent and deep contamination to the surrounding soils 92’ below the surface of the lake. Those contaminated soils will inevitably seep and poison the Hell Creek and Fox Hills aquifers and waters of Lake Oahe. The Hell Creek and Fox Hills formations are the major aquifers in the state and many residents depend on these formations for the water usage. These are regional aquifers for not only North Dakota but also other surrounding states.
  23. It appears placement of the HDD tunnel could not be any lower than the 92’ section because it would have run into the Pierre Formation, a dark grey to black shale that has low strength and has the high risk potential for causing landslides. Concerns about landslides have been presented by various local stakeholders as a significant project risk, including the Accufacts report prepared on behalf of the Standing Rock tribe dated October 28, 2016. The EA seems to support that this risk does not exist and we don’t have enough information to credibly confirm or deny this at this time.
  24. It is a proven fact that significant pipeline leaks and spills do occur regularly cannot be credibly denied. Project sponsors involved with this project thus far have completely ignored that the HDD crossing at Lake Oahe would become one of the rare examples of a perfect pipeline that never leaks or ruptures if it were to avoid soil and water contamination.
  25. NEPA requires the best currently available technical data be used in impact assessment. There is no way to mitigate a leak or rupture from contaminating the soil and water if a leak should happen in the HDD tunnel 92’ below the surface of the Lake.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s