CONFIDENTIAL - DO NOT RELEASE

MEMORANDUM
To:__________ Brent Cossette. USAGE
Johnathan Shelman. USAGE
From:________Tom Siguaw. Dakota Access
Steve Rowe. HDR Engineering
Date:________ April 12. 2016
Subject:______ DAPL - Route Comparison and Environmental Justice Considerations

The su bject o f th is m e m o ra n d u m Is th e Dakota Access crossing a t Lake Oahe w ith respect to co m m en ts
raised by Standing Rock Sioux T rib e (SRST) re la tive to E n viro nm e nta l Justice (EJ). This e va lu a tio n
includes a com p arison o f d o w n stre a m w a te r Intakes a t th e proposed crossing and th e N o rth Bism arck
Crossing a lte rn a tiv e th a t was dism issed fro m fu rth e r analysis in th e EA. T he re fo re , th is a lte rn a tiv e was
n o t discussed o u tsid e o f th e a lte rn a tiv e section in th e EA w h e re It was dism issed fro m fu rth e r analysis.
H ow ever, th is m e m o ra n d u m provides a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n to s u p p o rt th e conclusion th a t th e EJ
issues o r claim s fro m th e SRST fo r th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing are a c tu a lly m o re d ire c t and m ore
d is p ro p o rtio n a te to m in o ritie s th a n th e p re fe rre d and c u rre n tly proposed rou te.
A d d itio n a lly , th e d etails as Included w ith in th is m e m o ra n d u m regarding th e w a te r Intakes d o w n stre a m
o f th e Lake Oahe a n d /o r th e M isso uri River crossings o f each a lte rn a tiv e o ffe r value fo r USACE review
and d o c u m e n ta tio n purposes to su b sta n tia te th e conclusion th a t th e Lake Oahe crossing Is th e p re fe rre d
crossing loca tion . The d etails o f th e w a te r lo ca tio n intake locations and th e e s tim a te d p lu m e tra v e l
tim e s to th ese Intakes are n o t in fo rm a tio n th a t Is m ade available to th e public. T h e re fo re , th is
d o c u m e n t Is n o t in te n d e d to be included w ith in th e EA b u t Instead Is su pp le m e n ta l in fo rm a tio n
p ro vid e d to th e USACE fo r th e record and could be re fe ren ced as a c o n fid e n tia l add en du m o r data
source In th e EA.

Routing Criteria and Avoidance of Sensitive Resources and Sensitive Lands
The p rim a ry focus o f p ip e lin e ro u tin g is to establish a ro u te th a t has th e least im p a ct to th e g re ate st
n u m b e r o f stakeholders, regardless o f race, e con om ic status, o r any o th e r fa c to r and balanced against
th e e n v iro n m e n ta l co n d itio n s along th e various a lte rn a tive s. DAPL e m p lo ye d a so ph istica te d and
p ro p rie ta ry G eographic In fo rm a tio n System (GlS)-based ro u tin g p rogram , u tilizin g co nside ratio ns fro m a
v a rie ty o f p ro p rie ty , pub lic and purchased datasets to establish a ro u te baseline, exceeding w id e ly
accepted In d u stry best practices as discussed In th e EA.
N o rth D akota, w h e n co m p ared to o th e r states in th e U.S., has a high p ro p o rtio n o f fe d e ra l and o th e r
p ub lic lands as w e ll as trib a l land. As p a rt o f th e ro u tin g c rite ria , sensitive resources coupled w ith
sensitive lands. Including fe d e ra l and o th e r pub lic lands, sovereign and trib a l lands, w e re screened fo r
avoidance o r exclusion in th e p re lim in a ry e va lu a tio n o f th e DAPL ro u te . As w ith any n a rro w and line ar
p ro je ct, th e d ire c t and in d ire c t Im pacts fro m a p ip e lin e p ro je c t are e x tre m e ly localized and are g en erally

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073033

 lim ite d to th e fo o tp r in t o f th e p ro je c t (co n s tru c tio n fo o tp r in t and p e rm a n e n t rig h t-o f-w a y fo o tp r in t - in
th is a 150 fo o t w id e c o rrid o r fo r th e len gth o f th e p ip eline ). As such, a conse rva tive 1 /2 m i b u ffe r was
im p le m e n te d fo r ce rta in lands avoidance c rite ria in th e ro u tin g to o l and analysis, such th a t trib a l or
p ub lic lands w e re avoided as a p rim a ry avoidance c rite ria w ith a hig he r w e ig h te d p rio rity th a n m ost
o th e r ro u tin g crite ria . The DAPL ro u te a t Lake Oahe is g re a te r th a n 0.5 m iles fro m SRST R eservation and
avoids im pacts to th e reservation.
For NEPA and p ro je c t assurance purposes, w h e n d e te rm in in g th e fe a s ib ility o f a ro u te and b e fo re any
open season is announced, co n tra cts o r m a te ria l fu n d in g fo r a p ro je c t are established, th e com pany
enlists a te a m o f professionals to p e rfo rm fe a s ib ility and fa ta l fla w analyses o f p o te n tia l p ro je c t ro u te ,
scope and schedule. It is d urin g th is phase o f th e p ro je c t th a t m a jo r ro u te a lte rn a tiv e s are evalua te d fo r
th e p ip e lin e ro u te as a w h o le . D uring th e DAPL p ro je c t fa ta l fla w analysis and e arly ro u tin g process,
datasets u tilize d included engin ee rin g co n stra in ts (e.g., existing pipelines, railroads, karst to p o g ra p h y ,
p ow erline s, etc.), e n v iro n m e n ta l concerns (e.g., critica l h a b ita t, fa u lt lines, state parks, n atio na l forests,
b ro w n fie ld s, n atio na l re g istry o f h isto ric places, etc.), and land issues (e.g., fe e o w n e d fe d e ra l lands,
fe d e ra l easem ents, dams, a irp o rts, cem eteries, schools, m ining, trib a l lands, and m ilita ry installatio ns,
etc.). A t th e conclusion o f th e ro u tin g analysis, th e re w e re m u ltip le rou tes th a t w e re considered.
H ow ever o n ly a ve ry select fe w m e t th e ro u tin g c rite ria w h ile balancing th e im pacts to th e pub lic as w ell
as th e e n v iro n m e n ta l co nside ratio ns along th e ro u te . For th e purposes o f th e EA, th e tw o ro u te
a lte rn a tive s th a t w e re considered as viab le included th e p rim a ry ro u te and th e n o rth Bism arck ro u te . A t
th e conclusion o f th e analysis and upon fu rth e r d e ta ile d re vie w o f equal w e ig h tin g c rite ria and
specifically fo r EJ issues, th e Lake Oahe ro u te p ro vid e d a less im pacting, m o re fe asib le a lte rn a tiv e th a n
th e N o rth Bism arck ro u te as d e ta ile d below .

Environmental Justice Comparison of the proposed Lake Oahe Crossing and the North Bismarck
Crossing
To address co m m e n ts m ade by SRST th a t th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing re la tive to EJ, Dakota Access
co nd ucte d an analysis u tilizin g th e same EJ approach as was co m p le te d fo r th e P referred Route. The
tw o census tra c ts th a t th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld cross (CT 111.05 and CT 2004)
w e re averaged as th e "a lte rn a tiv e im p acts", th e co un ties it w o u ld cross (M o rto n and Burleigh) w e re
averaged as th e "a lte rn a tiv e baseline", and th e n th e "a lte rn a tiv e im p a cts" w e re co m p ared to th e
"P roposed Crossing im p acts" data (fro m Table 3-14 o f th e EA).
As d e m o n stra te d in th e ta b le b e lo w th e p re fe rre d and proposed crossing o f Lake Oahe w o u ld im p a c t a
p o p u la tio n o f fe w e r m in o ritie s (2% fe w e r). The data does h o w e v e r suggest th a t m ore lo w -in c o m e (7%
m ore) p o p u la tio n s are located near th e p re fe rre d crossing lo ca tio n . H ow ever, th e ro u te does cross less
th a n th e overall state average o f 12% im p ove rish ed p o p u la tio n s conclud ing th a t th e ro u te does n o t
d is p ro p o rtio n a lly im p a ct lo w -in co m e o r im p rovised p op ulatio n s.
For th e m in o rity im pacts, th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing consists o f 1% m o re A m erican Indian and Alaska
N atives (2% in th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing opposed to 1% in th e proposed) th a n th e proposed ro u te .
This, as w e ll as th e o verall data, suggests th a t th e p re fe rre d ro u te is less im p a ctin g o r th e im pacts are
less p ro p o rtio n a te to N ative Am ericans as co m p ared to n o n -m in o rity o r o th e r m in o rity groups.
T h e re fo re th e th e re is no basis o r conclusion o f an EJ claim to N ative A m ericans re la te d to th e p re fe rre d
ro u te .

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073034

 Table A-1. Minority and Low Income Population Statistics for the North Bismarck Alternative
And Compared to the Proposed Action Area

Minority and Low Income Population Statistics for the North of Bismarck Alternative
Compared to the Proposed Action Area

Geographic
Area

Total
Population

White

Black
or
African
Am.

704,925

89

2

Am.
Indian
and
Alaska
Native

Asian

5

1

Percent
Native
Hawaiian
Some
and
Other
Other
Race
Pacific
Islander

Two
or
More
Races

Total
Minority
Population

Persons
Below
the
Poverty
Level

STATE
N o rth
Dakota

0

1

2

11

12

COUNTIES W THIN BASELINE ANALYS>15 (ALTERIMATIVE B/»lSELINE /\REA)
Burleigh

86,111

93

M o rto n

28,428

93

O liver

1,832

94

57,270

93

1

4

1

0

0

2

7

8

1

3

0

0

1

2

7

9

0

4

0

0

1

1

6

8

1

4

0

0

1

2

7

8

1

4

0

0

1

2

7

8

0

2

0

0

1

2

4

0

Burleigh
and M o rto n
Average

All 3
Counties
38,790
93
Average
ALTERNATIVE CENSUS TRACTS
CT111.05

4,167

96

CT204

3,143

96

0

1

0

0

1

1

4

4

0

2

0

0

1

1

4

2

-2

-4

-1

0

0

-1

-7

-10

-2

0

0

0

0

-3

-6

PROPOSED ACTION CENSUS TRACTS
3,317
1
Average
98
0
PROPOSED ACTION COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE

0

0

0

1

2

9

0

0

0

-1

-2

7

Average
3,655
96
STATE COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE
A lte rn a tiv e

-701,270

7

BASELINE COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE
A lte rn a tiv e

Proposed
A ctio n

-35,135

-338

3

2

-1

0

-1

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 th a t the value fo r the proposed action Is less than the value fo r the population th a t the proposed
action Is being compared to.

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073035

 Specific Concerns Related to T ribal W a te r Intakes
A n o th e r issue o f sig n ifica n t concern and c o m m e n t received fro m th e SRST is th a t trib a l w a te r intakes
w o u ld be d is p ro p o rtio n a te ly a ffe cte d in th e highly u n like ly e ve n t o f a p ip e lin e p ro d u c t release to Lake
Oahe. Given th e e ng ineering design, p roposed in s ta lla tio n m e th o d o lo g y , q u a lity o f m a te ria l selected,
o p e ra tio n s m easures and response plans, th e risk o f an in a d v e rte n t release in o r reaching Lake Oahe is
e x tre m e ly low . As a m a tte r o f practice, p ip e lin e o p e ra to rs and sp ecifically DAPL designed th e p ip e lin e to
n o t leak o r have a spoil and have im p le m e n te d all th e available and reasonable m easures to p re v e n t a
leak o r spill (see th e atta che d ta b le as file d in th e Iowa U tilitie s Board hearings fo r DAPL u n d e r D ocket
H LP-2014-0001 fo r th e m easures above and beyond th e 49 CFR Part 194 and 195 re q u ire m e n ts being
im p le m e n te d by DAPL w hich w o u ld all a pp ly to th e Lake Oahe crossing and p ip e lin e design). The n o tio n ,
as a rtic u la te d by th e SRST, th a t a spill is going to happen, is sim p ly n o t th e case. H ow ever, th e fo llo w in g
in fo rm a tio n was pre pa re d to p ro vid e evidence th a t th e re is n o t a d is p ro p o rtio n a te p ro je c t e ffe c t to low
o r m in o rity p o p u la tio n s fro m th e Lake Oahe crossing in regards to a spill. Table A-2 b e lo w provides a
com p arison o f surface w a te r intakes d o w n stre a m o f th e P referred A lte rn a tiv e across Lake Oahe and
d o w n stre a m o f th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing a lte rn a tiv e .

Table A-2. Downstream Water Intake Comparison Between Crossing at Lake Oahe
and Alternative Crossing North of Bismark
Water Intake Comparison at the Preferred and Alternate Crossings
North Bismarck Crossin y

Crossing at Lake Oahe
Intake O w n er/U se

M iles D o w n ­

Travel

stream

T im e (hrs)

Intake O w n er/U se

M iles D o w n ­

Travel Tim e

stream

(hrs)

Local Ag In ta ke *

4.2

6.7

City o f M andan * *

7.3

11.3

Tribal Ag In ta ke *

7.6

11.7

City o f Bism arck * *

11.6

18.2

SCRWD D rinking

11.1

17

City o f Bism arck

12.3

19.3

W a te r*

W e ll Intake * *

U nspecified

23.5

36.7

Fort Yates M un icip al

26.2

40.8

NA

* In fo rm a tio n supplied by Rick Harnois, USACE to Steve Rowe, HDR via em ail on 3 /2 1 /2 0 1 6 . M r.
H arnois ind icate d th a t th e firs t lo ca tio n was fo r a g ric u ltu ra l use, he believed th e 2nd lo ca tio n was a
SRST in ta ke fo r a g ricu ltu ra l use, and th a t th e th ird intake belongs to th e South C entral Regional W a te r
D istrict (SCRWD) and th a t th is intake provides w a te r to m o st o f Em m ons C ounty, N o rth Dakota.
* * Estim ated lo ca tio n and o w n e rsh ip In fo rm a tio n e stim a te d by HDR engineer, B rent Ericksen,
Bismarck, ND.
O w n ership and use in fo rm a tio n fo rm a lly requested o f th e USACE by DAPL. On 4 /7 /2 0 1 6 W illia m
H arlon, USACE, o ffic ia lly requested a d d itio n a l intake lo ca tio n and in fo rm a tio n fro m PHMSA.
NA - No in fo rm a tio n kn ow n re la tive to th e M isso uri River fa rth e r d o w n stre a m th a n th e City o f
Bism arck W e ll Intake

D ow n stre a m o f th e Lake Oahe crossing (p re fe rre d crossing loca tion ), th e riv e r separates p riv a te land to
th e east fro m trib a l land to th e w est. There are th re e w a te r supply intakes w ith in 15 m iles d o w n stre a m
o f th is crossing, w ith th e closest intake located 4.2 m iles d o w n s tre a m o f th e Lake crossing and is fo r

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073036

 n o n -p o ta b le co n su m p tio n . The closest p o ta b le Intake fo r c o n s u m p tio n is located 11.1 m iles. H ow ever,
fo r th e n o rth Bism arck crossing th e re are tw o w a te r intakes located w ith in th e firs t 15 m iles
d o w n stre a m o f th e crossing w ith th e closest w a te r Intake fo r c o n s u m p tio n located 7.3 m iles
d o w n stre a m o f th e a lte rn a tiv e crossing.
Specifically, th e firs t d o w n stre a m Intake fro m th e Lake Oahe crossing is a p p ro x im a te ly 4.2 m iles
d o w n stre a m , is believed to be fo r a g ricu ltu ra l use and is believed to be non-T ribal. The second intake is
a p p ro x im a te ly 7.6 m iles d o w n stre a m and is u n d e rsto o d to be an SRST Intake fo r a g ric u ltu ra l use. The
th ird Intake, a p p ro x im a te ly 11.1 m iles d o w n s tre a m . Is u n d e rs to o d to be th e firs t d rin k in g w a te r Intake,
w h ich belongs to th e South C entral Regional W a te r D istrict (SCRWD). The firs t SRST Intake fo r public
co n su m p tio n is located 26.2 m iles d o w n stre a m o f th e Lake Oahe crossing.
As ind icate d In Table A-2, th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing co nta ins tw o m un icip al d rin k in g w a te r Intakes
w ith in th e firs t 13 m iles d o w n stre a m o f th e M isso uri River crossing lo ca tio n . The City o f M andan
m un icip al Intake Is located a p p ro x im a te ly 7.3 m iles d o w n s tre a m and a C ity o f Bism arck m un icip al Intake
is located a p p ro x im a te ly 11.6 m iles d o w n s tre a m . The averaged census data fo r th ese tw o cities Is 2%
m in o rity (sim ilar to th e proposed w h ich Is also 2%) and 10 % lo w -in c o m e (sim ilar to th e proposed w hich

The to ta l p o p u la tio n served by th e Intake located a t th e SCRWD (11.1 m iles d o w n stre a m o f th e Lake
Oahe crossing) serves 3,491 people In Emmons C ounty, N o rth Dakota. The SRST trib e Intake th a t
p rovides w a te r fo r co n su m p tio n located 26.2 m iles south o f th e Lake Oahe crossing (F o rt Yates intake)
services 229 people In Fort Yates and p o te n tia lly up to 4,317 in Sioux C ounty, N orth D akota. W hen
co m p aring th is to th e tw o closest crossing o f th e n o rth Bism arck crossing, th e City o f M andan Intake
services 19,381 people and th e City o f Bism arck intake services 65,123 people. T he re fo re , th e
d is p ro p o rtio n a te Im pacts In th e e ve n t o f a spill are clearly w orse along th e n o rth Bism arck crossing.
W hich, w h e n co up lin g th is fa c t w ith th e d is p ro p o rtio n a te Im pact to m in o ritie s by p o p u la tio n , relying
upon th e p ip e lin e ro u te n o rth o f Bism arck as a viab le o r p re fe rre d a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld a ctu a lly lead to
m o re im pacts o r in fa c t a d is p ro p o rtio n a te Im pact to m in o ritie s fro m a spill o r th e ro u tin g .
Based solely on th e firs t p o ta b le w a te r Intakes to be e n co u n te re d by an unabated release, th e N orth
Bism arck Crossing a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld be less p re fe rre d as it co nta ins tw o m un icip al surface w a te r Intakes
co m p ared to one fo r th e P referred A lte rn a tiv e . From an EJ perspective, th e SCRWD service te rr ito ry is
Em m ons C ounty, w h ich has a p o p u la tio n th a t is 98% w h ite and Is n o t low incom e. The averaged census
data fo r th e C ity o f M andan and th e City o f Bism arck is 2% m in o rity (sim ilar to th e proposed w h ich Is
also 2%) and 10 % lo w -in co m e (sim ilar to th e proposed w h ich Is 9%).
The Fort Yates m un icip al d rin kin g w a te r Intake (the firs t kn ow n T rib a l-re la te d d rin k in g w a te r Intake
d o w n stre a m o f th e Lake Oahe crossing) Is o ve r 26 m iles d o w n s tre a m co m p ared to th e a p p ro x im a te ly 11
m ile distance to th e SCRWD Intake. The e s tim a te d tra v e l tim e to reach th e SCRWD Intake o f an
u nabated spill a t th e Lake Oahe crossing Is a p p ro x im a te ly 17 hours co m p ared w ith a tra v e l tim e o f
a p p ro x im a te ly 40 hours to reach th e Fort Yates intake. In th e u n like ly e v e n t th a t th e response te am
does n o t co n ta in th e spill w ith in th e PHMSA re q u ire d 6 hours and th e spill co ntin ue s una ba te d fo r some
tim e p eriod. It is likely th a t o n ly th e SCRWD Intake (serving th e n o n -m in o rity p o p u la tio n ) w o u ld be
im p acted b u t e x tre m e ly u n like ly like th e p lu m e w o u ld go u nabated fo r 40 hours to reach th e m in o rity
c o m m u n ity intake a t Fort Yates.

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073037

 Sim ilarly, th e p riva te a g ricu ltu ra l intake is closer to th e Lake Oahe crossing th a n trib a l a g ric u ltu ra l intake.
Given th a t b o th th a t b o th th e p riva te a g ric u ltu ra l and m un icip al intakes w o u ld be reached b e fo re th e ir
respective trib a l intakes, th e lo w p o te n tia l fo r an una ba te d release, and th e lim ite d risk o f an unabated
release to Lake Oahe, th e re are no EJ issues e v id e n t fro m p la ce m e n t o f th e Lake Oahe crossing based
solely on th e analysis o f d rin kin g w a te r intakes d o w n s tre a m o f th e Lake Oahe crossing alone.

Spill Frequency Considerations
The spill freq ue n cie s presented in th e analysis are n o t like ly to o ccur and are p ro vid e d o n ly as p a rt o f th e
conse rva tive fra m e w o rk to ensure agency decisions are based on kn ow led ge o f th e p o te n tia l range o f
effects.
In cid e n t fre q u e n cie s w e re e stim a te d fro m p u b licly available h istorica l data (PHMSA 2016). In 2002,
PHMSA in s titu te d a 5-gallon spill re p o rtin g lim it. Prior to th is change, o n ly spills o ve r 1,575 gallons o r 50
barrels (bbl) w e re re p o rte d . This change has resu lted in a su bsta ntia l increase in th e calculated baseline
in cid e n t fre q u e n cy. The calculated in c id e n t fre q u e n c y using all available data (fro m 1993 to 2011) is
0.000883 in cid e n ts /m ile -y e a r. The calculated in c id e n t fre q u e n c y using data o b ta in e d a fte r th e u pdated
re p o rtin g lim it (2002 to 2015) is 0.00211 in c id e n ts /m ile -y e a r, a su bsta ntia l increase in in c id e n t
fre q u e n cy. H ow ever, it should be n o te d th a t th is increase is a ttrib u ta b le to d iffe re n t re p o rtin g
re q u ire m e n ts, w h ich ca p tu re a larger n u m b e r o f spill types, and does n o t necessarily re fle c t an actual
increase in spills.
A spill fre q u e n c y e q u iva le n t o f 7.5 spills in 10 years was calculated using th e co nse rva tive in c id e n t
fre q u e n c y o f 0.00211 incid en ts per m ile per ye ar fo r th e e n tire 358 m iles o f DAPL P roject in N orth
D akota. For any 1 -m ile segm ent, th is p ro b a b ility is e q u iv a le n t to one spill every 474 years.
W h ile fu tu re events c a n n o t be kn ow n w ith a bso lu te c e rta in ty , in c id e n t freq ue n cie s can be used to
e stim a te th e n u m b e r o f events th a t m ig h t occur o ve r a p e rio d o f tim e . A ctual fre q u e n c y m ay d iffe r fro m
th e p re d icte d values o f th is analysis; actual n u m b e r o f incid en ts w ill likely be s u b s ta n tia lly lo w e r th a n
e stim a te d fo r th is re p o rt. PHMSA, in its role re g u la tin g oil and hazardous liqu id s pipelines, has decreased
th e risk o f spills by a b o u t 5 p e rce n t per year since 2002 and is a ctively w o rk in g to im p ro v e on th a t tre n d
(PHMSA, 2012). This decrease in spill risk has been o ccurrin g w h ile su bsta ntia l increases in m iles o f
pipelines have com e in to service (35% increase in pipelines fro m 2004 to 2014).
E xam ination o f th e PHMSA d a ta se t fro m 2002 to 2015 (PHMSA, 2016) indicates th a t th e m a jo rity o f
actual p ip e lin e spills are re la tive ly sm all. F ifty p e rce n t o f th e spills consist o f 4 bbis o r less. In 84 p ercen t
o f th e cases, th e spill vo lu m e was 100 bbIs o r less. In 95 p e rce n t o f th e incidents, spill vo lu m e s w e re less
th a n 1,000 bbis. Oil spills o f 10,000 bbis o r larger occurre d in 0.5 p e rce n t o f cases. These data
d e m o n s tra te th a t m o st p ip e lin e spills are sm all and th a t releases o f 10,000 bbis o r m o re are e x tre m e ly
u nco m m on . Table A-3 illu stra te s th e freq ue n cie s th a t oil spills o f d iffe re n t vo lu m e s are p re d icte d to
occur along th e 358-m iles o f th e DAPL P roject w ith in N o rth Dakota o ve r a 10-year in te rva l. The s h o rte r
sections o f th e DAPL Project w ith in th e fe d e ra l flo w a g e easem ents and crossing b e lo w Lake Oahe w o u ld
have even sm aller spill o ccurrence freq ue n cie s and like lih o o d o f h ig h -vo lu m e spills given th e ir s h o rte r
p ip e lin e lengths.

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073038

 Table A-3: Spill Occurrence Frequency by Volum e over 10 Years

Spill Occurrenc® Frequency by Volume over 10 years
Spill Volume

Conservative Number of Spills in 10 Years

Spill volume 4 bbl or less

3.8

Spill volume of 100 bbl

1.2

Spill volume of 1,000 bbl

0.4

Spill volume o f 10,000 bbl

0.04

The like lih o o d o f a release in to any single w a te rb o d y w o u ld be low , w ith a p re d icte d o ccurrence interval
o f no m o re th a n once every 1,430 to 476,642 years (Table A-4). If any release did occur, it is likely th a t
th e to ta l release vo lu m e o f a spill w o u ld be 4 bbis o r less based on h istorical spill volum es.
Table A-4: Spill Frequency
Spill Frequency
Product Released
Very Small Spill: 4 bbl
Streamflow

Stream
Flow Rate

Low

Small Spill: 50 bbl

Occurrence Interval (yrs) Occurrence Interval (yrs)

10

4,766

Moderate Spill: 1,000 bbl

Large Spill: 10,000 bbl

Occurrence Interval (yrs)

Occurrence Interval (yrs)

11,916

4 7 ,664

47 6,64 2

Lower Moderate

100

3,336

8,341

33,365

333,649

Upper Moderate

1,000

2,502

6,256

2 5 ,024

250,237

10,000

1,430

3,575

14,299

142,993

High
Notes:

- Adapted fro m Stantec, 2015
- Historical data indicate th a t th e most probable spiii volum e w ould be 4 bbl or less. However, analysis Is based on conservative
Incident frequencies and a range o f spill volumes, to provide a range o f th e m agnitude o f potential effects fo r th e NEPA analysis.
- Occurrence Intervals are based on th e overall predicted incident frequency o f 0.00211 lncldent/m lle*year, projected frequencies of each spill
volum e, and estim ated stream w idths. W idths o f h ig h e rflo w streams are g reate rtha n w idths o f low er flo w streams, w ith m ore distance
w here an incident might occur. This results In a greater predicted frequency fo r high flo w streams and a corresponding low er occurrence
interval.

Conclusion
The siting and c o n stru ctio n o f oil pipelines upstream o f d rin k in g w a te r intakes is n o t u nco m m on
th ro u g h o u t th e U nited States and by its e lf is n o t considered an E n viro nm e nta l Justice issue. Due to th e
lack o f d ire c t and in d ire c t e ffe cts fro m th e fe d e ra l a ction, no m in o rity o r lo w -in c o m e c o m m u n itie s w o u ld
be d ire c tly o r d is p ro p o rtio n a te ly im p acted by th e c o n s tru c tio n and o p e ra tio n o f th is pipeline.
Based on th e evidence in th is M e m o ra n d u m , th e re are no EJ issues o r concerns resu ltin g fro m th e
Proposed A ctio n a t Lake Oahe. As p ro vid e d fo r in th e EA, Section 2.1 and Table 2-1, th e N o rth Bism arck
Crossing a lte rn a tiv e was e lim in a te d because it was longer, w o u ld re q u ire im pacts to a d d itio n a l
e n v iro n m e n ta l resources, was m o re expensive and th e fa c t th a t th e N o rth Bism arck Crossing a ctua lly
w o u ld lead to o r could re su lt in a d is p ro p o rtio n a te im p a ct to m in o ritie s in th e e ve n t o f ro u tin g as w e ll as
a spill all lead to th e conclusion th a t th e p re fe rre d a lte rn a tiv e and c u rre n t crossing lo c a tio n o f Lake Oahe
is th e su p e rio r a lte rn a tive .

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073039

 References:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2016. PHMSA Pipeline Incident
Statistics Internet website: http://www.phmsa.dot.qov/pipeline/librarv/data-stats/pipelineincidenttrends.
2012. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Strategic Plan (2012-2016)
Stantec, 2015. BakkenLink Risk Assessm ent and E n viro nm e nta l Consequences Analysis. Prepared fo r
BakkenLink Pipeline LEG.

A tta ch m e n ts:

Alternatives Map from EA (Figures 13)
Water Intake Comparison Map
CFR 194 & 195 Above and Beyond Measures Table

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073040

 - .- iV

"

'■
■
i ■
. "Sr^ V
.
v ""

1

■

"
W

^
i

-1

“

>9
■

'

-

~m
% ^ -a -

•

t

J

■

_

o i^ r r V K k

North Dakota

Preferred Alternative
Route Alternarive
USACE Garrison Flowage Easements
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation
USAGE Lake Oafie Fee-Owned Land
Otfier Government Lands

DAKOTA ACCESS, LLC
Dakota Access Pipeline Project
Figure 13
Route Alternative
Lake Oahe Crossing
Emmons & Morton Counties. North Dakota
:650.000

Mies

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N

Date: April, 2016

Path: P :\G IS \C lie n t\E T C _ E n e rg yT ra n sfe r\D a ko ta A cce ss_ D A P L \M a p s\E N V \N D _ F lo w E a se m e n ts\1 3 N D _ L a ke _ O a h e _ X in g _ u p d a te 2 0 1 6 0 4 1 2 .m xd

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073041

 City of Bism arck

City of Mandan

BIsm arck

City of Bism arck W ell Intake

i18061

Local Ag Intake
0

Tribal Ag Intake

SCRW D Drinking W a te r—s

Linton

Unspecified
'83

Fort Yates Municipal

P referred R oute
R oute A lte rn a tive
<>

DAKOTA ACCESS, LLC

W a te r Intake

North Dakota

Dakota Access Pipeline Project
Water intake Locations
Lake Oahe Crossing

1:590,501
M iles

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N

Date: April, 2016

Path: P :\G IS \C lie n t\E T C _ E n e rg yT ran sfer\D ako taA ccess_ D A P L\M a p s\E N V \W a ter_in take s\20 1 60 41 3 \M X D \V \fete rln take .m xd

CONFIDENTIAL

USACE DAPL0073042

 FILED WITH
Executive Secretaiy
Comparison of DAPL Plans Specifications and Federal Code
—

imnmyiiLMiM, at i f t w n

.................

DAPL P tau & S^edffeatians

October 26, 2015

DOT CFR 195 Requiremems

H L P -2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 1

EXHIBIT CAF-5
Page 1 of 1

.
DOT Part 195 Rebrence

Pipdine C ovtr and S tp a n tion Dbtancc*
Providtng a m nimtim clearance of 24 inches (2 fe e t  between drain tile and OAPLpipeline as indicated in
the AcrkulturaHm pact M itigatian Plan

Minim um clearance required between pipe and drain tile is 2 inches

CFR 195.250

Providlns a minimum cover (from top o f pipe to ground level) of 48 inches (4 feet) in cultivated fields

Pipe must be buried so that it is below the ^evel of cultivation or to a depth of 50 inches o f cover, whichever
h. deeper

a R 195.248

Provtding a minimum cover (from top of pipe to ground level) o f 60 inches {5 feet] a t public road drainage
ditches

Minim um cover required for public road drainage ditch crossings b 36 inches (3 feet)

CFR 195 248

commercial, and resideniJal areas

Minim um cover required is 36 inches {3 feet]

CFR 195.248

Providing at least 60 inches

Mmimum cover required is 30 or 36 inches (3 feet]

CFR 195.248

Minimum cover required is only 48 inches (4 feet)

CFR 195.248

Providing a minimum cover (from top of pipe to ground leve^ of 48 Inches (4 feet) through industrial,

feet) of cover for w aterbody crossings

Hofixontaily D rectionally Drilling underneath w aterbody crossings wider than 1 00 feet In w idth to a
depth of ar least 20 feet under the bottom o f the waterbody

PfpeliM Strength
OAPLIine pipe is specified to API 5U PL5'2 standards which m andate additional metallurgical
requirements, factorv inspections and record retention. Longitudinal seam of aH Rne pipe has been IdDH
examined by non-destructnre testing INDT)

Uh

pipe must be fit-for*purpose

CFR 195.112

All pipe mi^lswere inspected for their quality assurance and quality testing programs pnor to being
allowed to bid to supply pipe for DAPL

No requirement

N /A

Inspectors for DAPL w ere placed in each pipe mill while OAPL pipe was being produced to ensure M
compliance w ith all quality control measures

Line pipe inspection only required a t the )ob site during Installation

CFR 195.206

0.50 Design factor will be used for all public road, w aterw ay and ralroad crossings, and for aL above*
ground sections of the DAPL system {mainline valve sites and pump stations). Line pipe w ith 0.625” wall
thickness )WT) will be installed through these areas.

■&72 Design Factor is permitted throughout the entire pipeline system - which equates to providing Ane pipe
w ith 0.429” W T

CFR 195 106

Piptffne Vifves
All mainline valves on DAPL will have m otorued actuators to provide for the capability to remotely close
all valves to isolate pipeline segments as needed. All mainline valves qualify as Emergency Flow

No requirement

Aestnction Devices (Ef AD).

PipeUns Constfwcttofi
lOOX of a^ m a rlin e girth welds will be have an NDT inspection, either by radiographic {x*ray] or
Need to perform an NDT for only 10% o f girth welds made by each w elder each day

CFR 195.234

Hydrotesting entire pipeline for 6 hours a t 125%

Hydrotest fo r4 hours a t 125% plus4 additional hours a t 1 1 0 %

CFR 195.304

Hydrotestlng a4 valves and above-ground equipm ent for 8 hours a t 125%

Manufacturing facilities only provide 1 fiour leak tests

CFR 195.305

An Internal Line Inspection deformation tool will be run through the entire pipeline prior to start-up

No requirement

Cathodic Protection System will be activated in stages along the right of way as the pipeline is backfilled
and completed.

Cathodic protection must be activated w ithin 1 year after the pipeline begins operation

The pipeline right of w ay will be inspected weekly, w eather permitting, by aerta: means

Right of way inspections are required 26 times per year, with intervals not to exceed three weeks

ultrasonic means

N /A

CFR 1 95 36 3

PIpetoie Opentfons
CFR 109.412