The Dakota Access Pipeline: Lessons Learned from the Standing Rock Protests for Future Pipeline Installation, Mason Miller
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,671 views
The document summarizes lessons learned from the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It discusses the pipeline project itself and the key events in the protests from the perspectives of the tribe, USACE, and North Dakota. Some key takeaways are to engage tribes early in cultural resource issues, recognize tribal sovereignty, be transparent while protecting sensitive information, and realize larger historical and social contexts are involved in controversial infrastructure projects. Social media's influence on spreading information is also noted.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (13)
Similar to The Dakota Access Pipeline: Lessons Learned from the Standing Rock Protests for Future Pipeline Installation, Mason Miller
Similar to The Dakota Access Pipeline: Lessons Learned from the Standing Rock Protests for Future Pipeline Installation, Mason Miller (20)
More from TWCA
More from TWCA (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Dakota Access Pipeline: Lessons Learned from the Standing Rock Protests for Future Pipeline Installation, Mason Miller
- 1. Dakota Access Pipeline Lessons Learned from the Standing Rock Sioux Protests for Future Pipeline Installation Presented to the 2017 Annual Conference of the Texas Water Conservation Association (March 3, 2017) by Mason D. Miller, M.A. Archaeological Principal Investigator AmaTerra Environmental, Inc., 4009 Banister Lane, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78750 (Dallas and Las Cruces, NM Offices)
- 3. Disclaimer Alert! The Dakota Access Pipeline is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. What I am presenting here is the result of my own research into the topic from publicly available sources (published environmental documents, agency statements, newspaper reports, social media, informal survey). Neither I, nor my company - AmaTerra Environmental, Inc., have worked on the project nor do we have any indirect involvement in it in any way. The summary presented here is my interpretation of my findings and not intended to be any official statement.
- 4. We’ve all seen the headlines... What is the Dakota Access Pipeline?
- 5. The Dakota Access Pipeline • Product of Energy Transfer Partners out of Texas • 1,100 mile long crude oil pipeline • 12-20-24-30-inch pipeline (increasing in size downstream) • 50-foot permanent easement and 100-foot temporary easement • 470,000-570,000 barrels per day • Equivalent of 15-24 MGD Water Project • Permitted through the USACE • Nationwide #12 for 202 Jurisdictional crossings • Section 409 for easement for directional drilling beneath Lake Oahe. Stanley, ND Patoka, IL
- 6. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Originally from the Great Lakes Region Dakota and Lakota nations Part of the Great Sioux Reservation from the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851, 1868) Act of 1889 opened tribal lands to private ownership. Act as a sovereign in dealings with State and Federal governments. Dave Archambault, II is the active SRST Chairman
- 7. Archeology Prehistoric Catahoula Arrow Point Paleoindian Site at Zilker Park, Austin World War I Cargo Vessel Wreck Texas Governor’s Mansion, Austin Trinity Parkway Bridge, Dallas Spirit Mountain, Nevada: Center of Creation for Yuman Cultures History Traditional Cultural Property What are “Cultural Resources”?
- 8. What Cultural Resource Laws Apply? Federal CR Law ● Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ● National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ● Others… ○ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) ○ Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA)
- 9. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Funding Permitting ● Bureau of Reclamation grant for water infrastructure improvements. ● Bank stabilization grant issued through the US Fish and Wildlife Service Direct Action ● Construction of new runway at Randolph Air Force Base ● Construction of a reservoir facility on BLM-managed land. ● 404 Permit for pipeline issued through the US Army Corps of Engineers ● Endangered Species Incidental Take Permit issued through US Fish and Wildlife Service ● Decision document issued through NEPA Federal Agency “If I do this, what is this going to do to significant resources?” - Federal Agency Through Section 106, agencies ONLY account for impacts to significant resources. ● Significant = “Historic Property” = Resources considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. ● Determine significance through consultation with local parties ○ State Historic Preservation Offices ○ Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
- 10. For Section 106 Compliance Cultural resource survey was conducted within USACE jurisdiction. ● High-Density GIS probability model for route selection ● Background studies ● Archeological Survey with Shovel Testing ● Cultural Monitoring where needed.
- 12. What happened? The Standing Rock Sioux’s POV ● Legal complaints ○ This is their land by 1851 treaty but that land was illegally ceded in subsequent actions ● Environmental complaints ○ Water intake downstream at Lake Oahe ● Economic complaints ○ They will see nearly no benefit from the project ● Cultural ○ Crossing is beneath a known village site ○ It is the site of a historic escape crossing following the “Massacre” of White Stone Hill (1863) ○ THPO discovery of burial and prayer sites on 9/3/16
- 13. What happened? USACE only manages 3 % of the pipeline Energy Transfer Partners provided a full assessment of environmental impacts to jurisdictional crossings. Energy Transfer Partners avoided impacts to significant cultural resources within their jurisdiction. The Federal Point of View
- 14. What happened? • 99% of the pipeline was subject to N.D. Century Code oversight • 500 Sites Recorded and 140 Reroutes Developed • Standing Rock Sioux were invited to attend any of the 30 hours of public meetings but did not. • Inadvertent discovery was handled properly* • Bones observed were not human • Rumors of other burials disturbed are inaccurate (USACE removed them in 1962) The North Dakota Point of View
- 15. What was the result?
- 16. A Demonstration of the Power Cultural Resources in Social Media ● Social Media was cited by the protesters as their primary means of getting their message out to the public. ● Energy Transfer Partners was practically non- existent ● Social media is unfiltered and unverified ● It spreads RAPIDLY
- 17. How do the events at DAPL affect water projects here? What aspects are relevant for water infrastructure projects? 1. Environmental? 2. Eminent domain? 3. Cultural resource finds? 4. Tribal?
- 18. Some key take-aways to try to avoid this in the future... • Energy Transfer Partners followed the ‘letter’ of the law. • Remember the ‘spirit’ of the law’s intent as well. On potentially controversial projects, lean on the side of the intent. • Did the tribes follow the ‘spirit’? • Be actively engaged early with interested parties on cultural resource issues. • Tribes are sovereign and are afforded the dignity of government to government consultation. • Realize that there is a bigger picture at play and a longer story unfolding. • This is a contentious time with access to millions of voices at our fingertips. • Social media can dictate the story. • Be as transparent and accessible as social media with issues like this. • But don’t disclose cultural resource location information
- 19. Thank You! Contact me, Mason Miller, at mmiller (at) amaterra.com or 512-329-0031 This will also be available online. Copy down the URL. Thank You! https://goo.gl/6zV14C
Editor's Notes
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-really-about-1481071218 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO5bD30qHSAhWJ0YMKHfdvAaYQjhwIBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2016%2F11%2F05%2Fdakota-access-pipeline-builder-ignored-obama-admin-request-halt-construction&psig=AFQjCNEACUNA0TY2p_vqhleohvEKDFZgLw&ust=1487782048991327
- I am a senior archaeologist at AmaTerra Environmental, Inc., based here in Austin. Our website is www.amaterra.com. We have offices in Las Cruces, New Mexico and in the DFW metroplex. We cover a broad range of environmental compliance needs for public and private development across the country. From terrestrial and marin archaeology to historic resources, to wetlands, to endangered species, to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we have you covered. Drop us a line at 512-329-0031 or info@amaterra.com.
- Cultural resources fall into three main categories and are loosely described as elements of the human environment created by humans or human activity and/or are significant to human cultures. Archaeological Resources Artifacts, features, other elements made by humans generally in the ground. National Park Service guidelines call for sites to be at least 50 years of age. This is not a hard and fast rule as some resources may be younger than that and be considered archaeological sites, but these are rare (I’ve actually never dealt with it, personally). Historic Resources Buildings, objects, other elements made by humans generally above ground surface. The same National Park Service guidelines apply here as well (50 years of age). Traditional Cultural Properties/TCPs Natural or artificial components of an area that carry particular cultural significance to a group or groups. These cultural resources are one component of the larger human environment that is generally considered in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal decision-making system. Generally 50 years of age or older as defined by the National Parks Service and most often found in the ground. Includes prehistoric sites and artifacts such as this Arrow Point, and shipwrecks such as this sector scan sonar image of a World War I cargo vessel near an I-10 Bridge in Beaumont. Additionally, there are historic resources that are usually defined as those resources older than 50 years in age that stand above the ground. These may include houses, neighborhoods, districts, or architectural features like this bridge. Additionally, there are significant resources like the Texas Governor’s mansion. TCPs are those cultural resources that don’t fit into the other categories. They are generally considered places or features on the landscape that carry cultural and/or religious significance to a group such as these mountains in Nevada that are considered to be the center of creation to Yuman cultures.
- So, when a project comes across your desk, what cultural resource laws might apply? At the federal level, the main one is Section 106 of the NHPA. This link provides an excellent overview of the Section 106 process, the rules, and other information. It’s provided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) which is the federal agency overseeing Section 106. Other laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but even that one simply requires that agencies complete Section 106. Here’s a link to a handy NEPA integration handbook recently issued by the White House and the ACHP. Other laws, including NAGPRA and ARPA may come into play but those really are relatively rare occurrences on standard civil engineering projects. There actually are many more federal laws in place as well, but those too rarely come into play. If you run into these situations, it’s best to get a cultural resource specialist involved. At the state level, the main law is the Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT).
- Section 106 involves agencies accounting for the the impacts their actions cause on significant cultural resources. Actions (or “undertakings” as they’re defined). Actions include direct action like construction on a military base, funding such as grants or construction funding, or permits such as a Clean Water Act permit through the USACE. In every case it is important to note that Section 106 does not prohibit impacts to significant cultural resources; it only requires agencies account for those impacts in one way or another. Federal agencies consult with local groups as part of the Section 106 process. The most important of those local consulting parties are the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) for which there is one for every state. Others include Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and local consulting parties (if applicable). And overseeing it all from the perspective of the federal government is the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. They make sure that the Section 106 process is followed and serve as an intermediary if there’s a disagreement along the consultation process.
- https://news.vice.com/article/standing-rock-sioux-dance-in-rain-as-feds-pause-pipeline
- Thor
- http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2197813-dakota-access-pipeline-behind-the-standoff-at-standing-rock-2/
- Thank you very much!!!