Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps of Engineers produced?
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...
We changed the url from https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498, which points to this.
The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so please don't do that.
Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail in the story is editorializing, which is particularly bad. On HN, unlike some other social news sites, submitters have no special rights over the story and don't get to frame it for everyone else. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you've submitted, please do so by commenting in the thread. Then you're on a level field with everyone else.
Link without going to google.com:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498
Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
The review is pointless anyway, it's just useless stalling.
They already built 1,171 miles of it - do you think an environmental review is going to make a difference for the last 1 mile?
It doesn't matter if you are for or against this, the time to protest it was before they built it, not when it's basically done.
From looking at the map, it seems like the pipeline could have been built heading south-east directly from Stanley, avoiding crossing the river at all. Does anyone have any insight as to why it was built west first, then swing to the south-east?
The route is interesting. First it goes west apparently to get around a body of water. Then it goes under the water at this location anyway. It would have been shorter to go south-east so I wonder what prevented that.
Goofy politicized edited headline and link redirection through G to BBC? Try again, 'socialentp.
[EDIT:] Here is the original headline: "Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion"
I don't know Alex Zaitchik personally but I follow his work.
The Radio War Nerd podcast people interviewed him about his stay in the DAPL protest camp.
https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318...
The title seems incorrect; it doesn't match the article's title, the article mentions the environmental review once and not prominently, and the article doesn't say the review is required.
So now we're getting DAPL and DACA but not DAPA.
Well, Trump could withdraw support for DACA as he promised, but he's now signed off on thousands of new DACAs, so he's in no hurry to change the program.
> presidential-directed review
Welp.
At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates.
The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been.
1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/
2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land.
3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact
[edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]