Sunday, November 18, 2012

Local people on the ground are experts, too


Local people on the ground are experts, too

November 18, 2012 2:00 am  •  


The economic boom North Dakota is experiencing comes at a cost.
Dollars are flowing within communities as well as out of state. The monetary impact has been well documented, but we need to give as much consideration to the negative impact.
We recently protested the proposed drilling on Killdeer Mountain — referring to Case # 18618, Section 36 T.146 R.97W. When meeting with the state Industrial Commission, there are dramatic aerial photos of well sites in North Dakota. This global view brought to mind the task of bomber pilots looking over the horizon, dropping their bombs without full knowledge of the destruction that takes place on the ground.
Our contributions to the hearing on Oct. 24 were limited due to our lack of expert witnesses in the areas of topography, transportation, archeology, fire services and wildlife management. As local residents, we experienced a sense of helplessness.
John Morrison, legal representative for Hess Oil Corporation, termed letters from the Killdeer school superintendent and area residents and testimony my husband and son as hearsay. He asked that it be removed from the record.
Expert witnesses for the Hess Corporation noted that the oil pad location was selected due to serious topographic issues and the selected placement would maximize economic recovery, prevent waste, prevent unnecessary drilling of wells and preserve the pristine environment. These statements, although noble, are reiterated verbatim at the close of each proposal put before the board. Due to the repetition, one could consider this lip service rather than due concern.
Morrison was able to provide expert witnesses by phone that were unable to answer direct questions from the oil and gas commission members.
We, as non-experts, can address all of the issues promised by the oil field expert. The local school superintendent, Gary Wilz, my husband and son were able to identify serious topographic issues that dealt with the already hazardous mountain road, multiplied by the dramatic increase in traffic drilling would bring. The concern is for all the individuals driving on the roads, and especially for the safety of the children waiting at that intersection for the school bus.
As an adjacent landowner, my husband has leased the proposed property for his ranching operation and is well aware of the topography. He has valid concerns as to how fire would be managed because the staked sites eliminate ready access from the south over the rocky terrain.
As local hunters, my husband and son realize that the wildlife travel pattern from Game and Fish Department land to school land, both which are open to the public, would be disrupted. This directly impacts wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities for North Dakota hunters.
With the location of the proposed well sites, it would be impossible to maintain the pristine environment that is home to eagles, deer, and other Western wildlife. This area, now open to photographers, hikers, and bird watchers would be irreparably altered. Economic recovery was duly noted, but we ask that the Industrial Commission consider local industries — farming, ranching, tourism and hunting — as well as the oil recovery as economic gain for North Dakota.
With alternative sites reviewed, our question for the Industrial Board would be: “Who looks out for the interest of North Dakotans?”
The Game and Fish Department would like to minimize wildlife fragmentation. State archaeology and historical societies strive to preserve important parts of American heritage. Politicians set policy to prevent the destruction of our land and our way of life. They must preserve a state that we want to live in.
County commissioners struggle to maintain passable road conditions. Local fire and ambulance volunteers are stretched to the limit responding to increasing emergencies. The list is endless.
It is our hope that this protest creates a collaborative decision-making policy and that this area would, too, be considered worthy of further attention.
(Lori Jepson is a ranch wife, local health care provider and Dunn County resident.)

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Parts of North Dakota can be saved


Published November 17, 2012, 12:00 AM

Letter: Parts of North Dakota can be saved

The economic boom that North Dakota is experiencing is at a cost.
We recently protested drilling on the Killdeer Mountains in front of the Industrial Commission.
The global view depicted in the dramatic aerial rig photos in the hearing room does not represent what takes place on the ground.

Our contributions to the hearing in October were limited due to lack of expert witnesses in the areas of topography, transportation, archeology, fire services and wildlife management. As local residents, we experienced a sense of fatigued frustration.

A lawyer for Hess Corp. asked that letters of support and testimony be disregarded as hearsay.
Expert witnesses from Hess Corp. were unable to answer basic questions brought forth by the Industrial Commission. They noted that the oil pad locations were selected due to serious topography issues and the selected placement would maximize the economic recovery, prevent waste, prevent unnecessary drilling and preserve the pristine environment.

These statements, however noble, are reiterated verbatim at the close of each proposal leading me to think they are lip service rather than real concern.

As non-experts, we can address the statement promised by the experts.

School Superintendent Gary Wilz, my husband and son identified serious topographic issues with the road.

The intersection is partially blind and the grade steep. The hazard would be multiplied by the dramatic increase in traffic with the proposed well sites for all travelers and especially for children waiting at this intersection for the bus.

Currently, staked sites would prevent easy access for fire control. The number and proposed sites would affect wildlife habitat. This school land is open to the public and would be irreparably altered.
Economic recovery was noted, but we asked the commission to consider local industry: ranching, farming, tourism, hunting as well as oil recovery as economic gain for North Dakota.

With alternate sites reviewed, our question to the board would be — who looks out for the interest of North Dakotans.

Conversations with Game and Fish, the Historical Society and legislators lead me to believe that we can save parts of North Dakota. Hopefully this protest creates a more collaborative decision-making policy and that this area would be considered worthy of further attention.


Lori Jepson, Killdeer

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Examination of state agency roles in review of historic area by proposed 1280-acre well unit


Published November 15, 2012, 02:01 PM

THE DRILL: Examination of state agency roles in review of historic area by proposed 1280-acre well unit

When it comes to historical preservation concerns over proposed drilling at a 1,280-acre Little Knife leasing unit near the Killdeer Mountains, oil development trumps cultural and archaeological interests, because the state follows an 1988 Attorney General precedent.
By: Sid Pranke, The Drill

When it comes to historical preservation concerns over proposed drilling at a 1,280-acre Little Knife leasing unit near the Killdeer Mountains, oil development trumps cultural and archaeological interests, because the state follows an 1988 Attorney General precedent.

Issued on Oct. 3, 1988, by North Dakota Attorney General Nicholas J. Spaeth, the precedent known as “Attorney General’s Opinion 88-23” can be viewed online at ag.state.nd.us/Opinions/1988/Formal/88-23.pdf.
The opinion was given at the request of James E. Sperry, who was then superintendent of the N.D. State Historical Society.

An excerpt of the opinion reads: “It is my further opinion that the Board of University and School Lands may deal with historical, archeological, paleontological artifacts and sites without supervision of the State Historical Board, when such supervision would conflict with the Land Board’s fiduciary responsibilities to trust property.”
A more commonly-used name for the “Board of University of School Lands” used today is the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands.

The opinion ends with the following statement: “This opinion ... governs the actions of public officials until such time as the question presented is decided by the courts.”
Rancher Loren Jepson, who opposes drilling near his property, as well as lease operator Hess Corp., have both hired attorneys to represent their interests in the matter, but it’s too soon to tell if the precedent will be tested in court over this case.

A recommendation by the state is expected at a Monday, Nov. 19 Industrial Commission meeting in Bismarck.

Attorney Chuck Peterson of Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm in Dickinson, who represents Jepson, said the protection of cultural interests in the area are a concern, since many Native American artifacts have been found in the area.

At the initial Oct. 24 IC Oil and Gas Division hearing, Hess Corp. legal counsel John Morrison of Crowley Fleck objected to Jepson’s claims of artifacts in the area, saying Jepson wasn’t an archaeologist or paleontologist.

In a Nov. 6 interview, North Dakota Director of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Fern Swenson said a thorough review of the 1,280-acre site has not been done, and that it would take her department at least a month to do that, given current staffing levels at the agency.
In addition, Swenson said in the past, the state has used federal grant money from the National Park Service to fund a survey of state fands such as the Killdeer area land. To receive the grant money, her department “would come up with a scope of work. We would identify some areas that needed to be surveyed,” Swenson said.

According to North Dakota State Land Commissioner at the N.D. Department of Trust Lands Lance Gaebe, neither what Swenson describes as a “thorough review” or a federally-funded survey of the land are remotely likely to take place.

When asked to comment on the information Swenson provided during an interview, Gaebe stated that it appears that he and Swenson are not on the same page.

“I guess that there’s a whole new threshold they’d (the State Historical Society) like to put in place is something that I have to evaluate,” Gaebe said. “I guess I believe that we (his department) have made those allowances based on the correspondence and the recommendations we’ve already gotten (from the Historical Society).”

Gaebe said if the State Historical Society were to make a formal request that the department needs more time to look at the Killdeer-area site, “I would say we would sure try to facilitate that review. We do site inspections and they can sure join us in those reviews. I don’t have the luxury of time in a lot of cases.”

Given the rapid pace of drilling in the state, Gaebe said he has “pressure every day from (oil) operators that want this done yesterday. Because they’ve leased these things on time frames and if they don’t have drilling activity by the end of leases, the leases go away.”

Though he dismisses the possibility of a more lengthy or federally-funded review for the Little Knife leasing unit, Gaebe defends what his department has recommended.

“We’re away from the known battlefield as far as we’re able to be and still be on the spacing unit. We’re as far away from those sites that the Historical Society identified and we’re on some of the flattest ground on that particular spacing unit,” he said. “Not to say there couldn’t be a week’s long inspection, but my point is we’ve taken great pains to avoid all the areas that we are aware of.”
Jepson’s attorney, Chuck Peterson, said his client is asking Hess Corp. to move its planned wells to a different location that is less disruptive and safer, citing traffic and dust concerns along with historical and cultural ones. Peterson said Hess Corp. needs to “address more factors than ‘this is just the easiest place’ to drill their wells. They need to consider the impact their plans have on all the people that live in the area, as well as the public who use these last remaining public lands in this area.”

Hess Corp. officials provided a comment regarding the proposed well controversy, but then retracted its statement after learning The Drill’s policy of providing specific attribution to comments. Hess Corp. wanted to attribute its comments to a “company spokesperson.”

According to Gas Business Briefing, New York-based Hess reported estimated third quarter profits of $557 million, up 87 percent from $298 million during the same period in 2011. The increase was credited to resumed operations in Libya and growing production from the Bakken. Production from the Bakken oil shale play in North Dakota increased to 62,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, up from 32,000 in the third quarter of 2011.

http://www.bakkentoday.com/event/article/id/34406/
http://freshmojo.areavoices.com/2012/11/

North Dakota Historical Society can only ‘recommend’ not to drill on land near Killdeer Mountains


Published November 15, 2012, 01:54 PM

THE DRILL: North Dakota Historical Society can only ‘recommend’ not to drill on land near Killdeer Mountains

FARGO, N.D. – Archeologists found scattered stone fragments in two areas, and a possible burial site on a section of land eyed for an oil well. The archeological sites near the Killdeer Mountains in Dunn County are located on a section of land owned by the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands. Ironically, because the sites are on state land, state historic preservation officials can only recommend that archeological or historic sites not be disturbed.
By: Patrick Springer, The Drill

FARGO, N.D. – Archeologists found scattered stone fragments in two areas, and a possible burial site on a section of land eyed for an oil well.

The archeological sites near the Killdeer Mountains in Dunn County are located on a section of land owned by the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands.

Ironically, because the sites are on state land, state historic preservation officials can only recommend that archeological or historic sites not be disturbed.

On federal land, the law requires surveys to determine whether archeological or historical artifacts are at risk from development, said Susan Quinnell, a state historic preservation coordinator.
The proximity of the stone “scatters” ignited protests from American Indians and nearby ranchers who argue that archeological and historical artifacts and sacred sites will be disturbed by oil drilling.
The archeological areas were identified in 1999 and 2007, before cable and pipeline projects were constructed, but have not been excavated, Quinnell said.

No formal archeological or historical artifact surveys have been made of the remaining areas on the two sections, or on 1,280 acres of state lands proposed for drilling.

Because of that, historic preservation officials cannot say whether other artifacts are located on other portions of state land, Quinnell said.

“It’s a concern to have well pads going into that general area,” she said.

But state historic preservation officials can only recommend that land officials steer mineral developers away from artifact sites.

Thus, when contacted last summer by state public lands officials about the drilling proposal, state historic preservation officials responded with an advisory that the two archeological sites were “to be avoided.”

Lynn Helms, the state’s Oil and Gas Division director, said at a Oct. 24 hearing that he had no doubts the proposed drilling area has no artifacts. On. Nov. 6, public information officer for the Department of Mineral Resources Alison Ritter said Helms expressed those views because he had not received any notification of any historical artifacts at the site from either the N.D. Department of Trust Lands or the State Historical Society.

Representatives of Hess Corp., the company that wants to drill, said it will concentrate in areas away from the two archeological sites.

“It would be away from the known sites,” Quinnell said. “But still we don’t know what may be out there.”

The Killdeer Mountain Battlefield, a state historic site, is 2½ miles east of the proposed drilling site and is not threatened by the project, she said. Dakota, Nakota and Lakota Sioux fought the U.S. Army at the historic site in 1864.

State laws are limited in the protection they afford to historical and archeological sites located on state lands – a conflict likely to surface more often as intensive oil and gas drilling continues.
By law, state lands officials have what is called a “fiduciary duty” to manage the lands for the benefit of public schools and other public land owners. That can mean allowing mineral development, since the state often owns the mineral rights along with the land.

On state lands, when state laws protecting archeological and historical artifacts are in conflict with land officials’ “fiduciary duty,” the duty to maximize the financial benefit to the schools overrides the historical preservation mandate, according to a 1988 attorney general’s opinion.

The effect is one that “ties the hands” of state historic preservation officials, Quinnell said.

But, she added, public lands officials so far have gone along with recommendations to spare known artifact sites from development.

“They’ve been cooperative,” she said. However, she added, historic preservation officials cannot request a survey for artifacts before an area is leased for mineral development.

“Our concern is that when we can’t ask for surveys, that archeological resources may be lost,” Quinnell said. “And once they’re lost, they’re gone forever. They can’t be replaced.”

Lance Gaebe, North Dakota’s commissioner of public lands, said his department works with mineral developers to avoid areas where there are concerns about artifacts or wildlife habitat.

“That doesn’t work in all cases,” he said, but it works in most cases. Also, he said, horizontal drilling techniques give flexibility to place wells to minimize adverse impacts.

The law’s preference of maximizing returns on state lands over protecting artifacts handicaps historic preservation, said Fern Swenson, the state’s deputy historic preservation director.
“What this is basically saying is we already have to know about the sites and know their significance,” she said.

Ideally, given the rapid pace of petroleum drilling, the state will be able to obtain grant funds to survey “high probability” historic or archeological sites so they can be protected, Swenson said.
Before developing an area, Swenson said, “It’s always better to know what’s out there, so there’s no surprises.”

Caption for hiking trail photo: Hikers ascend the trail leading to Medicine Hole in the Killdeer Mountains on Nov. 4. Photo by Sid Pranke/The Drill http://www.bakkentoday.com/event/image/id/494/headline/Hikers%20on%20trail%20leading%20to%20Medicine%20Hole/
http://www.bakkentoday.com/event/article/id/34405/

Friday, November 2, 2012

In North Dakota The Law Favors Drilling

In North Dakota The Law Favors Drilling

In North Dakota The Law Favors Drilling

by John Pendleton  |   Friday, November 02, 2012

In North Dakota, Hess Corporation is looking to drill for oil on four 1,280-acre spacing units near the Killdeer Mountains. They have their eye on a patch of public school land owned by the state in Dunn County and want to drill as many as 8 wells.

Loren Jepson, who owns nearby land, and another man who is a member of the Three Affiliated Tribes are trying to stop Hess from drilling by claiming that increased road traffic will be dangerous for local residents and that Native American artifacts might be lost.

It seems that in 1997 and 2008 stone fragments and a possible burial site were found at two locations on the state land. Hess Corp. says it has no plans to drill near either site, but that hasn't stopped the rancher and the Native American activist from raising objections. Although there is no evidence that there are any "historical artifacts" on the four lands parcels.

Ironically, the oilmen have the upper hand in this battle because state law is on their side this time. In several other states, like California, the mere suggestion that an American Indian had even cooked a meal at a particular spot would be enough to get a court order to halt drilling. In contrast, North Dakota's laws specifically state that the state has a “fiduciary duty” to manage the lands for the benefit of public schools and other public land owners. That means the law gives preference to maximizing financial returns on state lands.

However, according to Susan Quinnell, a state historic preservation coordinator, "It [the drilling] would be away from the known sites, but still we don’t know what may be out there."

By law, state historic preservation officials can only "recommend" that land officials steer mineral developers away from artifact sites, and that recommendation does not have the force of law. It's kind of like a traffic cop who can only ask you to slow down because he isn't allowed to write you a ticket.

State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms is likely to make a recommendation on Hess's plans to state regulators next month.

http://www.righands.com/news/news-detail/in-north-dakota-the-law-favors-drilling-214

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Some Things Never Change


Some Things Never Change

The stories of the selling out of the North Dakota Bad Lands to the oil industry by our state’s leaders continue unabated. Almost daily now, there are more and more stories of shoddy management of cultural and natural resources in the name of greed. Readers ofThe Bismarck Tribune aren’t getting good coverage of the things going on out west. They are being covered by reporters for Forum Communications and The Dickinson Press in particular—much the same as in the coal boom years of the 1970’s. Some enterprising journalism is taking place at The Forum’s papers, but the Tribune runs only capsules of the stories provided by the Associated Press in abbreviated rewrites of The Forum stories. This week, for example, The Forum and Grand Forks Herald carried a Patrick Springer-bylined story about the Hess Corporation wanting to drill wells on a section of state school land which contains significant archeological sites. The section is near the Killdeer Mountains.
The state Historical Society is recommending that the sites not be disturbed by oil wells. Here are three telling paragraphs from Springer’s story:
            The proximity of the stone “scatters” ignited protests from American Indians and nearby ranchers who argue that archeological and historical artifacts and sacred sites will be disturbed by oil drilling.
            Thus, when contacted last summer by state public lands officials about the drilling proposal, state historic preservation officials responded with an advisory that the two archeological sites were “to be avoided.”
            Lynn Helms, the state’s Oil and Gas Division director, said at a hearing last week that he had no doubts the proposed drilling area has no artifacts.
The Historical Society has had neither the time nor the resources to do a complete archeological survey. Earlier archeological work in 1999 and 2007 identified areas on the section with archeological value, but no formal archeological or historical artifact surveys have been completed. Sue Quinnell with the Historical Society says historic preservation officials cannot say whether other artifacts are located there.
            “It’s a concern to have well pads going into that general area,” she said.
            Not a concern to Helms, the state’s official cheerleading team captain for the oil industry, though. He has “no doubts” there are no artifacts there. Sheesh.
Footnote: If the land in question was owned by the federal government, a complete archeological survey would be required before drilling began. But it is state-owned land and there is no such requirement in state law. So far, neither the governor nor any of his appointed officials have announced they will introduce a bill in the next session of the North Dakota Legislature to enact such a requirement.  Even if they do that, (yeah, right) by the time it is enacted, the bones will be over in a pile in a corner of the well pad.
Meanwhile, residents of Dunn County are taking matters into their own hands. Using a little known law, which my lawyer friend David Thompson says hasn’t been used since the 1920’s, they collected enough signatures on a petition to summon a grand jury to investigate bribery charges against Jack Dalrymple. Thompson prepared a report connecting more than $80,000 worth of campaign contributions to approval of an oil industry proposal to drill for oil in Little Missouri State Park, located in Dunn County. You can read NorthDecoder.com’s detailed story and the full report by going here. The report so enraged Dunn County residents that they are now calling for a grand jury investigation. It won’t play out until after next week’s election, which Dalrymple is certain to win. But North Dakota also has a recall law on its books, which, coincidentally, hasn’t been used since the 1920’s. It was used once, though. Successfully. Who knows?
Meanwhile, week after week, the rape of the Bad Lands marches inexorably forward. Legitimate rape. No “morning after” pill will erase the problems facing the land, the people and the animals of the Bad Lands.
I think I’m beginning to understand the feeling of the Plains Indians in the 19th century, as they watched the march of progress across the prairie, a civilization completely foreign to them squeezing out their cultural heritage little by little, until by the 20th century they were relegated to tiny patches of the vast landscape that once was theirs to roam free. At least they fought back, often to the death. We seem to be going down with nothing more than a whimper.
We’ve arrived at almost a hopeless point in the Bad Lands now. We’re waging an effort to save a few small pieces of undeveloped Bad Lands with what is known as the Prairie Legacy Wilderness proposal, but that is now being threatened by the lawsuit filed by the State of North Dakota which, if successful, will destroy the last few remnants of land that remains pristine (you can read about that here).
I read the lawsuit complaint filed against the Forest Service by Wayne Stenehjem and Jack Dalrymple to open up all the remaining “suitable for wilderness” lands in the Bad Lands to oil development this week. In it they cite several examples of where the Forest Service has refused to cooperate with the state in granting access to oil developers. The very first example cited is a refusal to let Whiting Oil Company put a new road across a piece of Forest Service land to get to a state-owned school section where they want to drill a well.  It doesn’t say exactly why the Forest Service doesn’t want a road there, but it is just possible it is because the site is less than half a mile from the boundary of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Do ya suppose, Jack and Wayne, you could just let one go once in a while, when it encroaches on the most important place in North Dakota, our NATIONAL PARK?
I also revisited this week the book Coyote Warrior, Paul VanDevelder’s magnificent telling of the tragic story of the taking of the Missouri River Valley by the United States government from the Three Affiliated Tribes to hold the waters backed up by the Garrison Dam.
VanDevelder writes of tribal life in North Dakota’s Missour River bottoms up through the 1940’s:
            They farmed the rich bottomlands, hunted game and gathered food that grew wild in the hills and along the river. And just as it had been for their ancestors on the Knife and Heart Rivers, the village was still the social hub for the people of the three tribes. Forty generations of their ancestors had lived in villages in this valley. They still owned half a million acres of land straddling the river—land they possessed in perpetuity by virtue of aboriginal title that was formally recognized by the government at the Treaty of Horse Creek in 1851.
But by 1948, members of the Three Affiliated Tribes were being told they must move out of the river valley to make way for the waters of the lake the government was going to create behind massive Garrison Dam. Congress was offering them five million dollars in relocation costs to leave their ancestral homes. A hostile United States Congress put a “take it or leave it” offer on the table. The dam was going to be built. Period. The tribal lands along the Missouri were going to be sacrificed for flood control, irrigation and power generation. Period. VanDevelder writes:
The tribe was face to face with a “prisoner’s dilemma.” (Tribal Chairman George) Gillette felt he had little choice but to argue in favor of accepting the offer. At the very least, he could argue that the contract guaranteed the tribes’ grazing rights, and hunting and fishing rights, in the taking area. It also protected the tribe’s subsurface mineral rights and promised that if the $5 million proved insufficient for “relocation” costs, Congress would cover the overruns. The official signing ceremony was held in Secretary Julius Krug’s office on Washington, D.C., on May 20, 1948. As Krug fixed his signature to the contract, flashbulbs popped at the moment emotion overwhelmed Chairman Gillette. He buried his face in his hands and wept. The picture ran on the front page of newspapers across the country.
            “As everyone knows,” Gillette told the press following the ceremony, “our treaty of 1851, and our tribal constitution, are being torn into shreds by this contract. My heart is very heavy. What will become of our people?”
            I can’t help but wonder what George Gillette would think of what we are doing to what little we have left of North Dakota now. I think he’d be dismayed. But probably not surprised.

Antelope Valley Station to Neset Transmission Project: Draft EIS Volume I and Volume 2

This environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA),Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides information about the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Antelope Valley Station (AVS) to Neset Transmission Project. This
project, proposed by Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric), would include a new
345-kilovolt (kV)transmission line connecting the existing AVS, Charlie Creek, Williston, and
Neset substations and the newly proposed Judson and Tande 345-kV substations. In addition to
the approximately 190 miles of new 345-kV transmission line, the project would also construct
two new 345 kV substations (Judson Substation west of Williston and Tande Substation
southeast of Tioga), and several miles of 230-kV transmission line to connect the 345-kV
transmission line into the existing area system.
In addition to complying with all applicable federal regulations, several permits and approvals
must be granted by the state of North Dakota prior to construction. The North Dakota Public
Service Commission (NDPSC) must grant a Certificate of Corridor Compatibility and a Route
Permit in accordance with North Dakota Century Code.
Basin Electric has requested financial assistance from RUS to construct the project. RUS has
determined that its decision about whether to finance the project would constitute a major federal
action that may have a significant impact on the environment, within the context of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). RUS serves as the lead federal agency for the
NEPA environmental review of the project.
Basin Electric, RUS, and Western held public scoping meetings on November 15 and 16, 2011.
These meetings were held in Williston and Killdeer, North Dakota.
Basin Electric and RUS will hold public hearings on the Draft EIS. These meetings will occur in
Killdeer and Williston, North Dakota on January 15 and 16, 2013. The public is encouraged to
provide oral comments at the public meetings and to submit written comments to RUS by
January 21, 2013. This Draft EIS evaluates the environmental consequences that may result
from the proposed action along two route alternatives. In addition, the EIS also analyzes the noaction alternative, under which RUS would not approve financial assistance for the project.

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/uwpdraftEISVol1.pdf

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/uwpdraftEISVol2.pdf