May30,2014

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
EnvironmentalManager
MinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce
857thPlaceEast,Suite500
St.Paul,MN551012198

RE: EnbridgeSandpiperPipelineProjectNorthDakotaPipelineCompanyLLC

PipelineRoutingPermitApplication,MPUCDocketNo.PL6668/PPL13474

DearMr.Hartman:

OnApril14,2014,theMinnesotaPublicUtilitiesCommission(PUC)extendedthecommentperiodinthe
matteroftheApplicationofNorthDakotaPipelineCompanyLLCforaPipelineRoutingPermitforthe
SandpiperPipelineProject(Sandpiper)inMinnesota.ThisletterappendstheMinnesotaPollution
ControlAgency(MPCA)letteronthissubject,whichwassubmittedtoyouonApril4,2014.

Weunderstandthetopicsopenforcommentincludealternateroutes,humanandenvironmental
impactstobestudiedintheComparativeEnvironmentalAnalysis(CEA),andwhetheranyspecific
methodsormitigationexisttoaddresstheseimpactsthatshouldbestudiedintheCEA.MPCAs
additionalcommentsonthesetopicsinclude:
Inspectionandmonitoring;
AdditionalitemsforevaluationintheCEA;
WatershedRestorationandProtectionStrategy;
Carbonfootprint;
Environmentaljustice;
Alternaterouteanalysis;and
Cumulativeimpacts.

InspectionandMonitoring

OnApril16,2014,Enbridge,doingbusinessasNorthDakotaPipelineCompanyLLC,submitteda
proposaltotheMPCAregardingindependent/thirdpartyenvironmentalmonitorsfortheproposed
Sandpiperproject.MPCAdoesnotagreethatEnbridgeshouldbehiringanddirectingthese
inspectors/monitors,butratherthattheyreportdirectlytoastateagencywithjurisdictionoverthe
project.TheMPCArequeststhatthePUCrequirethatanotheragencydirectlyhireindependent
inspectionandmonitoringcontractorsand/ortemporarystafftoconductthisworkunderMPCA
oversighttobefundedbyEnbridge.

Thestructure,workplanandcostofamonitoringandinspectionplanshouldbedeterminedwhilethe
CEAisbeingprepared.TheMPCAandMinnesotaDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)staff,who
havebeenworkingcollaborativelyontheSandpiperproject,arewillingtoparticipatewithEnbridgeand
participatingagenciestodeveloptheappropriateinformationandmechanism.Themechanismsforthis
wouldbeworkedoutamongtheparties.Thepaymentofthestatesreasonablecostsshouldbea
provisionofthePUCsroutepermitissuedtoEnbridge.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page2

AdditionalItemsforEvaluationintheCEA

TheMPCArequeststhatEnbridgecompleteaPhaseIEnvironmentalAssessment(PhaseI)ofthe
selectedpipelineconstructioncorridorinaccordancewiththeAllAppropriateInquiry(AAI)standardas
pertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),Title40,CodeofFederalRegulationsPart312.The
PhaseIisconductedtoresearchandreviewpotentiallocationsofexisting/historicdumps,hazardous
wastesitesandotherenvironmentalconcerns.Ifareasofenvironmentalconcernareidentifiedin
associationwithconstructionofthepipeline,Enbridgeshouldberequiredtoprepareworkplansto
describehowsolid/hazardouswaste/contaminatedsoilandgroundwaterwillbeinvestigatedpriorto
constructionandhowimpactedareaswillbedealtwithinaccordancewithstateandlocalregulations.

MPCArequeststhattheCEAincludeadetailedriskassessmentregardingthepotentialforleaksto
occur,howmuchoilmightbereleased,andhowthiscouldaffectgroundwater,surfacewater,aquatic
life,andothers.Thehydrogeologyofthepipelinecorridorareashouldbestudiedtodeterminepotential
fateandtransportofarelease,andpotentialvaporintrusionissuesifareleaseoccursincloseproximity
tohumanhabitation.

WatershedRestorationandProtectionStrategy

In2006,theMinnesotaLegislaturepassedtheCleanWaterLegacyAct,whichrequiredtheMPCAto
developanapproachtocomprehensivelymonitorandassessthewatersofthestateevery10yearsand
providedonetimefundingforthateffort.Inordertoprovidelongterm,consistentfundingfor
Minnesotascleanwaterefforts,onNovember4,2008,Minnesota'svoterspassedtheCleanWater,
LandandLegacyAmendment(LegacyAmendment)totheMinnesotaConstitutionto,inpart,protect
andrestorelakes,rivers,streamsandgroundwater.TheAmendmentimposedthreeeighthsofone
percentsalestaxtofundtheeffortfor25years.Subsequently,in2013,theCleanWaterAccountability
ActwaspassedbytheMinnesotaLegislature.ThisnewlawrequirestheMPCAtodevelopwatershed
restorationandprotectionstrategies(WRAPS)foreachofthestates81majorwatershedunits,which
correspondtothe8digithydrologicunitcodes(HUCs).WRAPSincludethemonitoringandassessment
information,aswellaslandusebasedmodelsthatdemonstratethesourceofthehighestcontributors
ofpollutantsineachwatershed.Thisinformationisthenusedtodevelopstrategiestoeitherprotect
watersthatmeetwaterqualitystandardsorrestorewatersthatdonotmeetstandards.

TheWRAPSisacollaborativeeffortthatinvolvestheMPCA,theDNR,theBoardofWaterandSoil
Resources,theDepartmentofHealth,theDepartmentofAgriculture,localsoilandwaterconservation
districts,watersheddistricts,theUniversityofMinnesota,industryandbusinessorganizations,andthe
privatecitizensofMinnesota.WRAPScomponentsare:monitoringandassessmentofhydrologyandthe
chemicalandbiologicalconstituentsofwaterquality,astressoridentificationprocess,TMDLsand
restorationplansforimpairedwaters,protectionstrategiesforwatersthatcurrentlymeetstandards,
andacivicengagementprocesstoassiststakeholderswithimplementingprotectionandrestoration
strategies.

Whilenotyetcompleted,WRAPSareinprocessinthefollowingmajorwatershedsthattheSandpiper
proposalwillcross,alsoidentifiedbythecorrespondingeightdigitHUCs:
GrandMaraisCreek

HUC09020306
RedLakeRiver

HUC09020303
ClearwaterRiver

HUC09020305

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page3

MississippiHeadwaters
HUC07010101
CrowWingRiver

HUC07010106
PineRiver

HUC07010105
MississippiGrandRapids
HUC07010103
KettleRiver

HUC07030003
St.LouisRiver

HUC04010201
NemadjiRiver

HUC04010301

Oneofthefirsttenetsofanyprotectionstrategyistoavoidimpactswherepossible.TheSandpiper
proposalisnotconsistentwiththeprotectionstrategiesthatarecurrentlyindevelopmentforthese
WRAPS,duetothelargenumberofhighqualitysurfacewatersthatliealongthepathoftheproposed
route.EnbridgeshouldparticipateinstakeholdergroupsfortheseWRAPS.Stakeholdergroupsprovidea
forumforengagedcitizensandinterestedgroupstodevelopimplementationstrategiestorestoreand
protecteachwatershed.TheCEAshouldreviewandconsiderhowtointegratethestrategiesintothe
proposal,orfindalternateroutesthathavelesspotentialforimpactingsurfaceandgroundwater.

CarbonFootprintGreenhouseGasEmissions

TheMPCAisconcernedaboutthecarbonfootprintofaproject.TheMinnesotaLegislatureestablished
greenhousegas(GHG)reductiongoalsintheNextGenerationEnergyAct(Minn.Stat.216H.02).The
goalsoftheNextGenerationEnergyActaretoreducegreenhousegasemissionsby15percentbelow
2005levelsby2015,and80percentby2050.Greenhousegases,uponreleasetotheatmosphere,warm
theatmosphereandsurfaceoftheplanet,andleadtoalterationsintheearthsclimate.TheGHG
emissionsmeasuredandreportedinMinnesotaincludecarbondioxide(CO2),nitrousoxide(N2O),
methane(CH4),sulfurhexafluoride(SF6),andtwoclassesofcompoundsknowncollectivelyas
hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs)andperfluorocarbons(PFCs).TheseGHGemissionsresultfromfuel
combustion,thecalcinationoflimestone,thedegradationoforganic(peats)andmineralsoils,
permanentlandclearingandforestharvesting,andavarietyofothersources.Pertainingtothisproject,
sourcetypesincludestationaryandmobilesourcecombustionfromconstructionequipment,emissions
fromventing,andwetlandandforestdisruptions.

TotrackprogresswiththeNextGenerationEnergyActreductiongoals,theCEAshouldevaluatethe
GHGemissionsfromtheprojectandtheimpacttheseemissionsmayhaveontheattainmentofthe
StatesGHGreductiongoals.AlternativesandoptionstoreduceGHGemissionsortooffset/mitigate
GHGemissionsshouldalsobeidentifiedintheCEA.Inaddition,theCEAshouldevaluatetheGHG
impactsifthisprojectisnotbuiltspecifically,ifoilistransportedbyrailortruckinsteadofbypipeline.

EnvironmentalJustice

TheMPCAworkstoincorporateenvironmentaljusticeprinciplesintoitsprojects.EnvironmentalJustice
(EJ)involvesassuringthefairtreatmentandmeaningfulinvolvementofallpersons,regardlessofraceor
incomewhenmakingenvironmentaldecisions.Fairtreatmentmeansthatnogroupofpeopleshould
bearadisproportionateshareofthenegativeenvironmentalconsequencesresultingfromindustrial,
governmentalandcommercialoperationsorpolicies.Meaningfulinvolvementmeans:peoplehavean
opportunitytoparticipateindecisionsaboutactivitiesthatmayaffecttheirhealthandtheenvironment

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page4

inwhichtheylive;thepublicscontributioncaninfluencetheregulatoryagencysdecision;their
concernswillbeconsideredinthedecisionmakingprocess;and,decisionmakersseekoutandfacilitate
theinvolvementofthosepotentiallyaffected.

TheproposedrouteoftheSandpiperPipelineandotheralternateroutesmaydirectlyaffectlowincome
andminoritypopulations.Ifapipelineleakorbreakoccurs,adverseimpactscouldoccurinbothsurface
andsubsurfacedrinkingwatersupplies,areaswithstandsofwildriceimportanttolocalTribesandtribal
members,croplandareas,impairedwaters,andwildlifemanagementareasamongothertypesof
environmental,socialandeconomicimpacts.IftheNorthernrouteorotheralternateroutesare
chosen,theSandpiperPipelinemayaffecttriballands.

TheCEAshouldincludeconsiderationofEJissues.TheCEAshouldlookathowpipelineconstructionand
operation,andpotentialproblemsduringeachofthesephases,maycausedisproportionateimpactson
lowincomeorminoritypopulations.Inaddition,local,stateandfederalagenciesshouldengage
residentstoassurethattheyareawareofopportunitiestoparticipateintheprocessandunderstand
howtheircommentsandconcernsareincorporatedintothefinaldraftCEA.

AlternateRouteAnalysis

TheMPCAstaffsanalysisoftheproposedSandpiperrouteshowsmanywaterbodycrossingsforwhich
therewouldbeverydifficultornoaccessdownstreamofthecrossingtocleanupspillsintheeventofa
crudeoilrelease.Thelackofpossibleaccesstotheseareasbypeopleandequipmentnecessarytoclean
upspillsincreasesthelikelihoodthatanincidentcouldresultinsignificantlongtermenvironmental
damage.Afailuretoaccountforthesepossibilitiesisconsideredtobeasubstantialflawwiththe
currentlyproposedSandpiperroute.

Therearemanyvariablesthatcouldbeexaminedwhenconsideringthepotentialforenvironmental
damageintheeventofarelease.Theseinclude:soiltypes,wetlandtypes,sensitiveorendangered
species,proximitytoaquifers,hydrology,foresttypes,stateparkboundaries,proximitytohuman
populations,proximitytowildricewaters,connectivityofsurfacewaters,andothers.However,for
purposesofprovidingasimplerandeffectivecomparisonbetweenalternativerouteproposalsthatis
bothvisualandquantifiable(withincertainlimitationsthatwillbediscussedinthisletter),MPCAstaff
haselectedtocomparetheroutesbasedonaccesstopotentialleaksitesforpurposesofcontainment
ofspillsandpossiblecleanup.

Tominimizevariablesandsubjectivityforthisanalysis,MPCAstaffoptedtoidentify,usingArcGIS
technology,waterbodycrossingsthathadneitherroadortraversableuplandfeatureswithin250feetof
flowagesofwater(heavilyforestedareasarenotconsideredforthispurposetobetraversable,astrees
wouldhavetoberemovedbeforeequipmentcouldbebroughtin),orportionsoflargerwetland
complexesthatfellwithina2000footbufferofthepointwheretheproposedpipelineroutewasto
crossastream,lake,orwetland.The250footdistancefromaccesspointtoflowageissomewhat
arbitrary.MPCAstaffconferredwithcontractorsandengineerswhospecializeinroadconstruction,and
mostfeltthatinabestcasescenario,withaggregateandequipmentavailable,a250footroadintoa
bogorwetlandwouldbeconstructedwithin24hours.Thus,forpurposesofthisanalysisMPCAstaff
assumedthatitispossibletobuildanaccessroadtoreachareaswherecontainmentofaspillmightbe
accomplishedbeforethespilledproductcoversanarealargeenoughthatcleanupwouldbehighly
destructivetoasensitiveenvironment,orimpossible.Similarly,thereisnoregulatorybasisforchoosing

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page5

the2000footbufferdistance,otherthanitisasignificantdistanceforoilimpactstooccuroverany
surfacewaterandeasytoapplyconsistentlystatewide.Itisadistancethatformostpeoplewouldbe
easytovisualize,yetsmallenoughtocreateafaircomparisonbetweenroutes.Thesenumbersprovide
abasisforcomparisonsbetweenroutesandhavelittlesignificancebeyondthat.However,ifthese
criteriaareusedconsistentlyforallproposedroutes,itdoesprovideabasistocomparethepotentialfor
eachroutetocauseconsiderableenvironmentaldamageintheeventofarelease.

Therearesomefactorstoconsiderthatfallbeyondthescopeofthiscomparison.Forexample,the
watercrossingsproposedfortheSandpiperroutearefrequentlystreamsorflowageswithconnectivity
tootherwaterbodiesdownstream.Bycontrast,waterbodycrossingsontheNorthernroute,including
theAlbertaClipperpipeline,frequentlyinvolveverylargewetlandcomplexesratherthansmaller,faster
movingflowages.Theareaneededtoaccessmightbemuchgreater,buttheoilmaymovemoreslowly
insuchareas.Countingbecomesabitmoredifficulthereaswell,becauseitisdifficulttoestablish
criteriaforcountingcrossingsthatiscomparabletothedifferentfeaturesobservedintheSandpiper
route.Inmostcases,DNRcatchmentflowlineswereusedtodistinguishonecrossingpointfrom
another.

Inanycase,themethodusedasabasisforcomparisonbyMPCAstaffdoesprovidequantifiabledatato
analyzetheproposedroutesfromameaningfulperspective:Whichrouteproposalsposethegreatest
risktocreatedestructiveandexpensivecontainmentandcleanupoperationsintheeventofaspill?

MPCAstaffcomparedfourproposedroutesintheirentirety(FigureA).Thefourproposedroutesthat
werecomparedwere1)ThecurrentlyproposedSandpiperroute;2)TheNorthernroute,which
includestheAlbertaClipperpipeline,whichhasbeensuggestedasanalternativebyotherentities;3)
TheViking/Magellan/SandpipergaslineroutewhichwasidentifiedasapossiblealternativebyMPCA
staff;and(4)ThesouthernAlliance/KinderMorganroutewhichexitsthestateattheIowaborderand
wouldberequiredtotieintotheEnbridgeinfrastructureeitherinanotherstate,ortocirclearound
outsideofMinnesotatoendattheSuperiorTerminal.Thefourthroutewassuggestedasanalternative
bythecitizengroupFriendsoftheHeadwaters.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page6

Northern Route

Sandpiper proposal

Viking/Magellan route

Kinder Morgan/Allance route

FigureAComparisonofalternativerouteproposals.Greencirclesmarkpointswhereaccessconcerns
wereidentified.Lightbluelinesareexistingpipelinecorridors.

Anywaterbodycrossing,especiallystreams,rivers,orflowagesofanykindthatcancarryoil
downstream,posetheriskofcreatinglargescaleenvironmentaldamageintheeventofarelease.If
possible,itisbesttoavoidcrossingsurfacewatersaltogetherwithoilpipelinesinordertominimizethis
risk.However,ifawaterbody,bogorotherwisesensitiveareaistobecrossed,thenserious
considerationshouldbegiventowhetherthesitecanbeaccessedquicklyintheeventofareleaseto
containtheproduct,minimizemigrationofproductintosurfacewaters,soilsandgroundwater,and
performcleanupoperations.Insituationswhereroadshavetobeconstructedtoaccessaspill,theact
ofconstructingtheroad,excavatingandclearingvegetationcanallexacerbatethedamagethatthespill
itselfcreated.Additionally,placementofflowcontrolvalvesinstrategiclocationsalong/nearsensitive
areasmayhelptominimizebackflowofproductoutofafracturedlineintothoseareas.MPCAis
providingseparatelyaninteractivemapontheArcGISOnlinesitefortheSandpiperprojectthat
identifiesareasalongthefourexaminedrouteswherenopracticalaccesswasobservedwithin2000
linearfeetdownstream,orinsomecases,within2000feetdiameter,ofthewaterbodycrossingpoint
andpotentialleaksite.Forpurposesofthisletter,hardcopyphotosshowingexamplesofnoaccess
sitesandanoverallviewofthealternativerouteproposalsareincluded.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page7

Adifficultywithaerialphotographanalysisasopposedtofieldsurveyingofwatercrossingsisthatitis
difficulttodeterminewhetherastreamorwetlandispermanently,seasonally,orintermittently
flooded.MPCAstaffreliedonNationalWetlandInventorymapstoidentifywetlandtypes,whichwillto
someextenthelptodeterminethelikelihoodofthewetlandhavingopenwateratthetimeofaleak,
whichwouldallowtransportofreleasedoiltooccurmorequickly,ormerelybeinastateofsaturated
soil,whichwouldresultineasierandfastercontainmentandcleanupofaspill.

TheresultsoftheMPCAstaffanalysisareasfollows:

SandpiperRoute

TheproposedSandpiperroutecrosses28waterbodiesforwhichthereisnoaccessforpossible
containmentwithin2000linearfeetdownstreamoftheproposedpipecrossing.Ofthese28waterbody
crossings,oneisastreamtolakesystem,12arewetlandcomplexes,10arestreamsthatflowto
wetlandsystems,andfivearestreamsthatflowtowildriceareas.(ExampleFiguresBandC)

Stream flowing south

Wetland

Wild rice lake (Uper Twin Lake)

FigureBThisfigureshowsanexampleofaproposedcrossingpointoversurfacewaterthatflows
south(seearrowsondarkblueflowageline)throughawetlandcomplexandintoawildricelake(the
TwinLakesnearMenahgaandParkRapids,Minnesota).However,todetermineaccessibility,the
wetlandidentificationlayermustbeturnedoffsothatlandfeaturescanbeexaminedasinFigureC
below.ThepurplelineistheproposedSandpiperroute.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page8

FigureCHere,thewetlandlayeristurnedoffsothatthelandscapecanbeexaminedforaccessibility.
Inthisinstance,therearenoroadsoropenfarmlandtobringcontainmentorcleanupequipment
within1,500feetoftheflowagethatwouldpotentiallydeliverleakedcrudeoilintotheuppermostof
theTwinLakes.Thecurvyblacklinebetweenthelakesisaroad,andthefirstgoodpointofaccess.
Thisroadis6,700feetfromthepipelinecrossing,althoughitispossiblethatboatsorbargescould
accessthelakefromthefarmfieldstotheright(east)ortheroad(blackline)totheleftandcontaina
spillwithinthelake.

HillRoute

TheHillroutealternative,suggestedbytheDNRasawaytoavoidfeaturesofconcern,wouldnot
differfromtheproposedSandpiperroutebasedonthecriteriadiscussedhere.

NorthernRoute

TheNorthernroute,whichfollowsthepathoftheAlbertaClipperprojectcrosses22waterbodiesfor
whichthereisnoaccesswithin2000feetdownstreamofthelocationwherecrossingswouldoccurifthe
routewerefollowed.AlongtheNorthernroute,waterbodieswithoutaccesstopotentialleaksites
within2000feetincludeonestreamthatflowstoalake,14wetlandcomplexes,fivestream/wetland
systems,andtwostreamsorwetlandsthatflowtowildriceproductionareasorwetlands(seeexample
oftheNorthernRoutecrossinginFiguresD&Ebelow).

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page9

"Northern" route (including Alberta Clipper

Wetland-Bog and Wooded Swamp

2000 foot buffer

FigureDWithNWIwetlandlayerturnedon,onecanseewetlandextendingwellbeyondthe2,000
footbufferatthiscrossingalongtheNorthernroute.Thepurpleisbog,thegreenisforested
wetland.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page10

"Northern" route (including Alberta Clipper

Wetland-Bog and Wooded Swamp

2000 foot buffer

Access road (well outside of 2000 foot buffer

FigureEWiththewetlandidentifyinglayersturnedoff,itcanbeseenthattherearenoroadsor
uplandareasfromwhichtoaccesspotentialleaksitesatthiscrossing.Theclosestroadissouthwest
ofthe2,000footbuffer;tothenortheastisbogandforestedswampforseveralthousandfeet.

Viking/MagellanRoute

TheViking/Magellanroutecorridor,whichwasreferencedearlierintheletter,beginsatthesame
westernpointthatboththeSandpiperandNorthernroutesdo;however,roughly20mileswestofthe
NorthDakotaborderitveerssouthandfollowstheVikingGasTransmissionCo.pipelinesouthandthen
southwesttoroughlyfivemileswestofNorthBranch,Minnesota,whereitthenfollowstheMagellan
PipelineCompany,LPlinenorth,whereiteventuallyintersectswiththeproposedSandpiperroutejust
westofSuperior,Wisconsin.Thisroutehassevenwaterbodycrossingswithnoaccesswithin2000feet
downstreamofthepipecrossing;however,thesewaterbodiesareoftensmallerwetlandcomplexes
thanareseenoneithertheSandpiperrouteortheNorthernroute.Thesecrossingswithoutaccess
within2000feetincludetwowetlandcomplexes,fourstream/wetlandsystems,andonewildrice
productionarea(seeFiguresFandGforcrossingexamplesforthisrouteproposal).

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page11

Viking /Magellan route

Possible access, but over 2,000 feet from center of flowage

FigureFWetlandlayeridentifiesanopenwaterwetlandsouthofthepipecrossingthatwouldlikely
receiveoilfromaleak.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page12

Viking /Magellan route

Possible access, but over 2,000 feet from center of flowage

FigureGWiththewetlandlayerturnedoff,thenearestaccesstothemainstemoftheflowageisseen
toberoughly2,000feettothewest.Ifthewetlandistraversablebyboatorbarge,whichispossible
giventhewetlandtype(Type3/5shallowmarshandopenwater),thenitispossiblethataccessto
materialcouldbegainedwithinthe2,000footbufferhere.

KinderMorganCochinLLCandAlliancePipelineLTDRoute

TheKinderMorganCochinLLCandAlliancePipelineLTD(KinderMorgan/Alliance)linecorridorenters
thestateinTraverseCountyjustwestofWheaton,Minnesota,andrunstoasoutheastbearinguntilit
exitsthestatesouthofAustin,MN.Apipelinealongthisroutewouldcrossnowaterbodieslacking
accesswithin2000feetofapotentialleaksiteinsurfacewater.Thereareveryfewwaterbodiescrossed
bythisrouteingeneralovertheproposedroute.

NationalHydrographyDataset

Evenifaccessissuesaretakenoutoftheequation,theproposedSandpiperroutedoesnotfarewellin
comparisonswithalternativeproposalsbasedonexaminationoftheNationalHydrographyDataset
(NHD)layer.UsingtheNHDlayer,theproposedSandpiperroutewouldcross20waterbodies,the
Northernroutewouldcross10,theViking/Magellanalternativewouldcross12,andtheKinder
Morgan/AllianceroutewouldcrossonewaterbodywithinthestateofMinnesota.TheNHDlayer

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page13

obviouslydoesnotidentifyallwaterbodiesthatarebeingcrossed;however,itdoesidentifywater
bodiesthatarepartofaconnectednetworkofsurfacewaterswhichmayalsobeagoodgaugeof
potentialenvironmentalimpactifanincidentweretooccur.

Notably,thetworoutesinthisanalysisthatcrossedthefewestwaterbodiesandputwaterresourcesat
thelowestriskforenvironmentaldamagebothalignedawayfromtheClearbrookterminal.Perhapsthe
mostproblematicaspectofthedesignofthisproposedrouteisthecontinuedexpansionofterminal
capacityattheClearbrooklocation.Anypipelinesthatarebuilttotransportmaterialoutofthe
Clearbrookterminalareforcedtoenterthelargestconcentrationoflakes,streams,andopenwater
wetlandsinthestate.AnyrouteproposedoutofClearbrook,eithersouthoreastwillcrossdense
expansesofopenwaters.AnortherntoeasternroutefromClearbrookwouldcrossmassivewetland
complexesandwildriceareas.Iffuture,newterminals,weretobeconstructedinwesternPolk(could
collectfromCanadaorNorthDakota),Kittson(couldcollectfromCanadaorNorthDakota)orevenClay
counties(NorthDakota)thecreationarouteproposalthatavoidsthegreatestconcentrationofsurface
watersbecomesfeasible.

SummaryofRouteAnalysis

TherearenumerouspipelinecorridorsthatcurrentlyexistinMinnesota.Ofthose,thereareseveralthat
crossfarfewerwaterbodiesandhavebetterpotentialforaccessintheeventofareleasethanthe
currentSandpiperproposal.MPCAstaffexaminedthreeexistingcorridorsinadditiontotheproposed
Sandpiperroute.Whileperformingriskassessment,thecurrentuseofthecorridorsinquestionshould
alsobeconsidered,asmuchoftheproposedSandpiperroutefollowsacorridorinwhichthreeotheroil
pipelinescurrentlyexist.Thus,notjustonepipelinewouldbecrossingsensitivewaterbodieswith
limitedaccess,butfour.Thelikelihoodofanincidentinwhichcrudeoilproductisreleasedisthus
greaterthanwhatasinglepipelinewouldentail.ThisisalsotrueoftheNorthernroute,inwhich
numerouspipelinescarryingcrudeoilexist.Whathashappenedinthepastwithregardtolocationof
pipelineroutesisfromthisperspectiveunfortunate;MPCAstaffbelievesthatpastrouteshavecrossed
toomanywaterbodiesininaccessibleareas,andtheriskoflargescaleimpactasaresultofarelease
incidentissignificantandongoing.Asthisanalysisshows,optionsposingalesserrisktosurfacewaters
maybeavailable.

OfthefourpossibleroutesthatMPCAstaffhasexamined,theproposedSandpiperrouteandthe
previouslyfollowedNorthernrouteshowasignificantlyhigherpotentialforenvironmentaldamagethan
eithertheViking/MagellancorridorortheKinderMorgan/Allianceroute.Itisalsopossiblethatanasyet
unexploredroutecouldalsoscorewellrelativetotheSandpiperproposal.TheanalysisoftheKinder
MorganrouteisincompleteinthatpossibleimpactsoutsideoftheMinnesotaStateboundarieswere
notlookedat,sothesurfacewatersavoidedorprotectedbythisrouteareonlylocatedinMinnesota
perthisanalysis.ItisalsoacknowledgedthattheMPCAstaffanalysisfocusedonthepotentialwater
qualityandnaturalresourceaspectsoftheprojectandnotonothertypesofresourcesorlanduses.
Nevertheless,thecriteriaadoptedforthisanalysisshowacleardifferenceinpotentialrisktosurface
watersbetweentheSandpiperproposalandotherpossibleroutes,andthatintheeventofasignificant
oilrelease,theSandpiperrouteproposalhasasignificantlygreaterpotentialforlargescale
environmentaldamagethanotherrouteproposals.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page14

Itisimportanttonotethattheconstructionofaccessesthroughsensitivenoaccessareasasa
preventativemeasurecanalsocreateenvironmentalhazardsanddamagesandcannotbeassumedto
beanacceptableremedy.Rather,routeproposalsputforthnowandinthefutureshouldtakethese
factorsintoconsiderationandavoidcontinuingtocrosssurfacewatersattheselocations.The
minimizationofsurfacewatercrossingsinanylocationshouldbecomeapriorityforconsiderationwhen
planningaroutetoconstructapipeline.

CumulativeImpacts

TheNEPA,Title40,C.F.R.1508.7,definescumulativeimpactastheimpactontheenvironmentwhich
resultsfromtheincrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonably
foreseeablefutureactionsregardlessofwhatagency(FederalornonFederal)orpersonundertakes
suchotheractions.Cumulativeimpactscanresultfromindividuallyminorbutcollectivelysignificant
actionstakingplaceoveraperiodoftime.

ThecumulativeimpactsreviewintheCEAshouldincludecurrentandproposedtransmissionline
corridors,highwayconstruction,waterdeliverysystems,landfills,railroads,powergenerationsplants,
feedlots,andmineandmineralextractionsiteswhichhavethepotentialtointeractwiththeproposed
project.TheCEAshouldalsoreviewthepotentialforsignificantcumulativeeffectsrelatedtopast,
presentandfutureprojectsintheDuluth/Superiorareainvolvingincreasedtransmission,storage,
processingorrefiningactivities,includingtheexpansionoftheCalumetSuperiorRefiningfacilityin
Superior,Wisconsin,ortransportationofoil,fuelsorproductsrefinedormanufacturedfromoil.Areas
inwhichsuchimpactscouldoccurincludeairqualityinDuluthandthesurroundingareainMinnesota,
waterqualityasrelatedtoneworincreaseddischargesorshippingactivities,andtransportation
whetherbytruck,railorships.

TheCEAshouldidentifytheimpactsofpastincidentsassociatedwithpipelineconstructionand
operation,pastincidentsinvolvingtwoormoreassociatedutilitylines,accidentsoremergencieswhich
mayariseduetoanunforeseenchainofeventsduringtheoperationallifeofthepipeline,andeffects
withintheprojectlimits,andlocalandregionaleffects.Cumulativeimpactsmayoccurto:
Humanactivities,suchasrecreation,agricultureandlossofprimefarmland;
Wildlifeincludingmigratorybirdsandaquaticspecies;
Habitatandalterationstoterrestrialvegetation;
Endangeredspecies;
Airquality,includingdust(particulatematter)andvisualimpacts;
Landvalues;
Watersheds;and
Localandstatesocioeconomics.

AccordingtodataprovidedbythePipelineandHazardousMaterialsSafetyAdministration(PHMSA),to
date,thereare2,408milesofcrudeoilpipelineintheStateofMinnesota.Moreareplannedwithinthe
nextfewyears.Muchofthisinfrastructureexistsincorridorssharedbyseveralotherpipelinescarrying
liquefiedpetroleumgas,naturalgas,diluentfortarsandsoil,refinedpetroleumproductandother
hazardousmaterials.Intotal,thereare10,475milesofpipelinethroughthestate.AccordingtoPHMSA,
overthelast20years,therehasbeenanaverageof14spillsfrompipelinesperyearinMinnesota,an

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page15

averageof1,812barrelsofhazardousliquidsspilledperyearinMinnesota,anaverageof1,093net
barrelslostperyearinMinnesota,andanaverageof$3,135,572ofpropertydamageannuallyin
Minnesota.Fiveliveshavebeenlostasaresultofpipelineincidents.

TheMPCAhasnumerousconcernsaboutthenumberofpipelinesplannedtousethesamecorridors.
Witheachwaterbodycrossedbyapipelinecarryingcrudeoil,theriskofamajorincidentincreases.A
cursoryreviewofthePHMSAwebsiteidentifiesapparentcausesofpipelinefailuretoinclude:incorrect
operation,equipmentfailure,internalandexternalcorrosion,thirdpartydamage(excavation),
constructiondamage,materialfailure(pipe,fitting,weld),weldleak,andotherunknowncauses.For
example,atthesiteoftheEnbridgepipelinereleaseinMarshall,Michigan,theNationalTransportation
SafetyBoardfoundthatdeficienciesinEnbridgesintegritymanagement(IM)programcontributedto
thereleaseofhazardousliquid(FederalRegister,Volume79,No.87,Tuesday,May6,2014(25990
25994).SeealsoEnbridgeIncorporatedHazardousLiquidPipelineRuptureandRelease,Marshall,
Michigan,July25,2010(NTSB/PAR12/01,PB2012916501).Ultimately,theperspectiveshouldnotbeif
apipelinefails,buthowwillareleasebemitigatedwhenafailureoccursandatanygivenlocation(and
theenvironmentalsusceptibilityofthatareatoarelease).

Asexplainedabove,MPCAexaminationoftheproposedSandpiperrouteandthepreviouslyused
Northernroute(AlbertaClipper)showsthatsignificantlymoreopenwaterbodiesarecrossedbythe
pipelinesinthesecorridorsthanalternativeroutes.Farmoreofthesecrossingshavenoavailableaccess
withina2,000footbuffer,meaningthatreleaseincidentsaremorelikelytoimpactsurfacewaters
withinthat2,000buffer.BoththeSandpiperandAlbertaClipperroutesarecorridorsfornumerous
crudeoilpipelines;consequently,theseroutesaremorevulnerableandlessabletoproperlymitigate
damagetoaquaticenvironments.Whereasoildoestravelthroughsoilsandoverland,ittravels
significantlyfartherinaquaticenvironments.

Pipelineconstructionwillinvolvesoilexcavation,vegetationremoval,thecrossingofwaterbodies,and
thealterationorlossofwildlifehabitat.Theseactivitiesandthecreationofnewcorridorscanresultin
forestfragmentationaffectingnumerousspeciesofwildlifethatrequireexpansesofundisturbedforest.
Wetlandperchesmaybebrokencausingalterationofnaturalhydrologyinwetlandareas,andstream
geomorphologycanbealteredbydamagingbanksorstirringupstreambottoms.Herbicidesusedto
controlvegetationinpipelinecorridorsmayadverselyaffectpollinators,particularlyhoneybees,
resultinginhiddenimpactsthataredifficulttotrace,butnonethelessexist.

Theconstruction,operation,maintenance,incidentsandrepairsassociatedwithcrudeoilpipelineshave
beenaccompaniedbysignificantenvironmentalimpacts.Withmoreproposalsintheworks,more
cumulativeimpactscanbeexpectedtooccur.Therefore,concertedeffortisneededtotakeacloselook
atandcarefullyanalyzethecreationofcommonroutesandcorridorsforpipelineprojectswherethe
risksofimpactstotheenvironmentalandhumanhealthcanbeminimized.Theroutesthathavebeen
usedinthepastposesubstantialrisksasnotedabove.Continuingtoopenmorecorridorswillincrease
theserisksandimpacts.TheMPCAwouldsupportandparticipateinajointeffortbystateagenciesto
beginexaminingthefeasibilityofsuchacorridor,bothforthepurposeofexpeditingapprovaloffuture
proposalsandminimizingthepotentialforenvironmentalimpacts.Afreshlookattheroutingofenergy
transportationprojectsfromalargerandmorecomprehensiveperspectivehasthepotentialtomakea
significantcontributiontostreamliningthereviewandpermittingprocessesaswellaspreventingand
minimizingcumulativeimpacts.

Mr.LarryB.Hartman
May30,2014
Page16

Conclusion

ItisrequestedthatthecommentsprovidedinthisletterandMPCAsletterdatedApril4,2014,be
enteredintotherecordtobeaddressedintheDraftCEA.Wecontinuetolookforwardtoassistingthe
DepartmentofCommerce,asdesired,duringthepreparationoftheCEAforthisprojectandits
subsequentreviewuponitsrelease.Throughthisprocess,theMPCAseekstoobtainfurtheradditional
informationtofacilitatetheMPCAstaffreviewoftheProject,wellinadvanceofthetimeadecisionson
therequiredMPCAauthorizationsareneededtocommenceconstruction.Ultimately,itisthe
responsibilityofNorthDakotaPipelineCompanyLLCtosecureanyrequiredpermitsandtocomplywith
anyrequisitepermitconditions.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactmeat6517572465.

Sincerely,

PatriceJensen
PlannerPrincipal
EnvironmentalReview
ResourceManagementandAssistanceDivision

PJ:mbo

cc: JamieSchrenzel,DNR

DesireeMorningstar,U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers

SaraPloetz,Enbridge

ReedLarson,MPCA

BillSierks,MPCA

LaurelMezner,MPCA

JimCourneya,MPCA

BrianLivingston,MPCA

JeffUdd,MPCA

SteveLee,MPCA

DoreenFierTucker,MPCA

PatCarey,MPCA

CatherineNeuschler,MPCA

CraigAffeldt,MPCA