A/HRC/36/46/Add.1 impacts of development as well as spur tribally self-determined energy projects that operate within beneficial community standards. V. Emblematic case relating to the Dakota Access Pipeline30 63. The Special Rapporteur closely reviewed the situation around the Dakota Access Pipeline, which highlights the shortcomings in the United States’ policy on consultation. The 1,168-mile-long pipeline intersects the treaty reservation and traditional territories of the Great Sioux Nation, running near the Missouri River, upstream of the water supply of numerous tribal nations. A portion of the pipeline runs 100 feet under Lake Oahe, half a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and 70 miles north of the tribe’s water supply intake. 64. As prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Army Corps of Engineers drafted an environmental assessment of the project, which failed to identify or address the concerns of the Indian tribes located directly downstream of the pipeline. Maps in the draft assessment initially omitted the reservation or the fact that the pipeline would cross the historic treaty lands of a number of tribal nations. During its meeting with the Special Rapporteur, the Army Corps confirmed that it had held numerous consultations between October 2014 and July 2016 and between September 2016 and February 2017 but, despite attempts to contact affected Indian tribes, it was unable to hold the required consultations with them. On the other hand, affected Indian tribes, including the Standing Rock Sioux, explained that, in their view, the attempted contacts were not made sufficiently early in the process but rather after the decisions regarding various aspects of the pipeline had been made, including its route, with limited consideration for sacred sites or the potential impact to their drinking water. 65. It was claimed that the Army Corps did not respond to a request by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe for an archaeological survey to be carried out by tribal archaeologists. The Corps stated that, given the limits of its jurisdiction, it lacked the authority to require the project proponent to conduct an archaeological survey of the pipeline route. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had alerted the Army Corps to the reservations expressed by the affected tribes and requested that the Army Corps consider under its section 106 considerations not only the 209 various water crossings under its responsibility for licencing obligations, but the entire pipeline project. 66. In its consultation policy dated 1 November 2012, the Army Corps stated that, “to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consultation works toward mutual consensus and begins at the earliest planning stages before decisions are made and actions are taken”.31 The Army Corps explained to the Special Rapporteur that only 3 per cent of the pipeline route was under the jurisdiction of federal authority. It claimed that the impacts on the 200 wetlands and water crossings were temporary and insignificant therefore no environmental impact statement was needed to grant the easement. The Army Corps also pointed out that, following the Standing Rock Sioux’s request to Energy Transfer Partners, the company took steps to address the pipeline safety control concerns of the tribe by adding 36 additional terms and conditions to the project. This information, which is now public, was recently made available to the tribes. 67. While the issue galvanized many people across the globe in support of the affected tribes, including a proliferation of self-interested native and non-native groups, violence escalated as a result of clashes between local, private security forces and protestors. The Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, David Archambault II, noted blockades on the northbound highway 1806, hindering the passage of emergency vehicles to local hospitals and delaying medical care to injured people. The blockade also hindered access to the casino, which negatively impacted that source of income for the Standing Rock Sioux. 30 31 14 See A/HRC/34/75, communications sent: USA 14/2016 and USA 7/2016, available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx. See http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/tribal_program/USACE%20Native %20American%20Policy%20brochure%202013.pdf.