rWrQ-vweww i??ik -Greffier du Conseil priv? et Secr?taire du Cabinet 0ttawa,?Canada SECRET rivy Council and ry to the Cabinet Returned from DEC 2 2 2015 KIA Con?denCe of the Queen?s Privy Council Retoum? Idu PM DEC 5 2015 MEMORANDU OR THE PRIME MINISTER APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE (Information Only) SUMMARY 0 The Dakota Pipeline, which would transport crude oil more than 1,800 kilometers from North Dakota to Illinois, has been the subject of controversy and growing protest, follOwing concerns about its potential impacts on the Standing Rock lndian Reservation. Following an injunction in July 2016 by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Standing Rock), the U. 8. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decided, on December 2, 2016, to reject the permit that wduld allow the Dakota Pipeline to be constructed over the contested territory 0 Following the recent approval of the TransMountain Expansion Pipeline (TMX), a number of indigenous stakeholders have drawnparallels to Standing Rock, indicating that there ?would be similar protests if TMX goes ahead. Background 0 The Dakota Pipeline Is being proposed and built by Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas?based company that began 30 years ago as a pipeline operator and has become one of the largest diversi?ed oil and gas companies in the S. The Dakota Pipeline Would bring between 470,000 and 570,000 barrels per day of light sweet ?crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks prdduction areas in North Dakotato Patoka, Illinois (maps at Tab A). Thisv1,172 mile (1,886 kilometer) pipeline is expected, to reduce the current use of rail and truck transportation, while carrying roughly half of Bakken? 5 current daily produCtion. Roughly 90 per cent of the Dakota Pipeline has been constructed. 6 Energy Transfer Partners has emphasized the impedance of the Dakota Pipeline, which will help improveenergy independence; create between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs during construction; and generate tax revenues from increased income, sales and Canada" 000001 - 2 - SECRET Con?dence of the Queen?s Privy Council property taxes. The U. S. has over 3. 2 million kilometers of oil and gas pipelines which are seen as the safest and most ef?cient way of transporting energy resources across land Environmental Assessment Process 0 I in the U.S., oil pipeline approvals fall primarily within the state-level jurisdictions, unless they cross international borders. The Dakota Pipeline is being built wholly within the U.S., and state-level environmental assessments (EAs) have been completed in all four states through which the Dakota Pipeline passes. However, the US. Government has some limited responsibilities for this type of project, including: where pipeline projects cross interstate waterways, as well as for lands containing projects authorized by, or with easements managed by, the U. S. Government. The USACE did not conduct a full EA, but rather completed a review of the pipeline route and issued a finding of no signi?cant impact. ln March-April 2016, Citing concerns for impacts on (and lack of consultation with) Native American-tribes, the US. Environmental Protection Agency, the US. Department of Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requesited that the USAGE complete a fennel EA, in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Despite the request for a formal EA, on July 25, 2016, the USACE granted permission for water crossing easements, including the crossing of Lake Oahe, located 0.5 miles from the boundary of the Standing Rock Reservation. The USACE permissions were granted under a ?fast track? review option, socompanied by the EA undertakenlby the proponent; Construction of the disputed section of the Dakota Pipeline was therefore allowed to continue. Indigenous Concerns 0 On July 27, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Standing Rock) ?led an injunction against the USAGE to stop construction, which they claimed violated the National Historic Preservation Act (and other laws) and would impact sacred burial grounds as well as jeopardize the reservation' 5 water supplies. On September 9, 2016, a US. District Court denied the Standing Rock?s legal request for a temporary injunction against the Dakota Pipeline as a whole, but - ruled to halt construction for a small sect-ion. Immediately aftenivards, three . Federal Agencies halted construction on USAGE land near Lake Oahe, citing NEPA and other federal laws. On November 1, 2016, President Obama announced that his administration had contacted the USACE to examine the possibility of rerouting the pipeline to avoid sacred lands. The USACE subsequently released a statement indicating that, while all legal requirements had been followed, more time was. required to study the impact of the Dakota Pipeline. 000002 s.15(1) 4 3-- SECRET Con?dence of the Queen?s Privy Council On December 2, 2016, the USACE indicated that it would not grant the permit for the construction to proceed under the Missouri River in Lake Oahe, noting that there is a need to exolore alternate routes. PCO Comment 0 Despite this decision taken by the current US. administration, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven issued a statement that highlighted the President-elects support ?for the Dakota Pipeline and re-itering his own. The Standing Rock lawsuit against the USACE remains active. 0 the Canadian Government was fully involved in recent pipeline decisions, which were based on science, evidence and robust consultations with impacted stakeholders, including Indigenous . Groups. 0 i .O (Ar-44 Michael Wernick Attachment 000003 Blank Page II Page blanche 000004 on: Hemp/d dian Reservation . Dak?ta AcceSg :Pipeline__ a . 1172 miles} Patoka ?km. - ?5';le )3 vmeW5 Bismarck 1 . -. 9&1! f??w?_ri . - Tribal protest site 4.5.31 yr. i 5 so MILES LARIS WASHINGTON nsfer Partners . Source: Energy Tra ,7 POST 000005