Published October 26, 2013, 11:20 PM

Stenehjem says he'll release list of 'extraordinary places' for protection from energy development soon

BISMARCK – North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has been meeting with people behind the scenes to compile a list of what he calls “extraordinary places” that deserve protection from energy development and other impacts, drawing criticism from a former Democratic Party leader who believes the discussions should be held publicly. By: Mike Nowatzki, INFORUM

• Killdeer Mountains

An oil pump works near Killdeer, N.D., with the Killdeer Mountains in the background. The Killdeer Mountain battlefield and wildlife management area is one of the places Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he’d consider for protection from energy development. John Steiner / Forum News Service

BISMARCK – North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has been meeting with people behind the scenes to compile a list of what he calls “extraordinary places” that deserve protection from energy development and other impacts, drawing criticism from a former Democratic Party leader who believes the discussions should be held publicly.
Stenehjem said he has sought input from a variety of people and hopes to have the list ready for the state Industrial Commission, which grants oil drilling permits, for consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting.
“I think there’s a view that we need to do more to assure the public that we’re protecting some of those pristine areas,” said Stenehjem, who sits on the commission with Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. “And we do a lot of that now, but it’s not on a formal basis.”
Stenehjem first proposed such a list at a commission meeting in January. The idea gained steam after a public uproar in March when news broke that an oil company had staked out a site near the entrance to the historic Elkhorn Ranch in Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
The company, XTO Energy, withdrew its permit application, and on Tuesday the Industrial Commission approved a new permit for XTO that will keep drilling activity about two miles away from the Elkhorn Ranch entrance.
Stenehjem said an oil rig right next to Elkhorn Ranch “was never going to happen,” and he hopes the new list will assure the public that such places will be protected. While the list isn’t finalized, some of the places Stenehjem said he’d like to consider for protection are Bullion Butte, Killdeer Mountain battlefield and wildlife management area, Elkhorn Ranch, White Butte and Little Missouri River State Park.
All of those places were included in a list of about 40 areas of historical, cultural or biological interest that was compiled from various sources earlier this year. It didn’t receive any official designation from the Industrial Commission, but it provided a list of places for commissioners to tour, which they decided to do individually because of their schedules.
To help him compile his own list, Stenehjem has held two meetings in his conference room with what he describes as “kind of an informal grouping,” adding, “I’ve had lots of other meetings just with other individuals.”
Jim Fuglie, a former executive director of the state Democratic-NPL Party who now writes “The Prairie Blog,” has criticized Stenehjem in recent blog posts, referring to the group as a “secret task force” holding “secret meetings.” He questioned whether the state’s open meetings laws are being followed. Fuglie did not return a phone message left at his home Thursday.
Stenehjem said he organized the group and meetings by himself, and the Industrial Commission didn’t delegate authority to him to do so.
“If it were delegated by the Industrial Commission, then of course it would likely be an open meeting,” he said. “But this is just me using people whose judgment and knowledge I respect to offer suggestions.”
Jack McDonald, a lawyer for the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said there must be direction given or an act of creation by the governing body to make it a task force subject to open meetings.
“Of anybody in state government, (Stenehjem) has been so hyper about open meetings and stuff and so vigilant … I just can’t imagine that he’s deliberately violating the law,” McDonald said.
Stenehjem said that after his list is compiled and presented to the Industrial Commission, the idea is to develop a policy and rulemaking process for protecting the extraordinary places.
He said the rules to be considered for development in those areas might include requiring an impact mitigation plan; prohibiting the flaring of natural gas or requiring that pipelines for capturing it already be in place before drilling begins; setback requirements; or painting oil pumps to camouflage them.
While the commission wants to protect the state’s special places, Stenehjem said he’s not talking about an outright ban on energy development.
“Private people own those minerals, and they have a legal right, a constitutional right, to have them developed, and so we have to respect that,” he said. “But at the same time, we also have an obligation to the citizens of North Dakota and the future to make sure that everybody is comfortable that we’re doing what we can to protect these areas as much as possible.”
The concept also will entail a process for public comment on proposed developments “at a meaningful time,” he said.

---

Readers can reach Forum News Service reporter Mike Nowatzki at (701) 255-5607 or by email at mnowatzki@forumcomm.com.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/416557/group/News/

Published October 27, 2013, 03:20 PM

N.D. Attorney General says list of 'extraordinary places' for protection coming soon

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has been meeting with people behind the scenes to compile a list of what he calls “extraordinary places” that deserve protection from energy development and other impacts, drawing criticism from a former Democratic Party leader who believes the discussions should be held publicly. By: Mike Nowatzki, Forum News Service

• Elkhorn Ranch site in the badlands of North Dakota

In this May 4, 2012 file photo provided by the National Park Service shows the Elkhorn Ranch site in the badlands of North Dakota, where Theodore Roosevelt retreated to raise cattle following the deaths of his wife and mother in 1884. A Montana businessman who signed an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to work out an exchange for other federal land or mineral rights at a different location, said Friday, Sept. 13, 2013, that nothing has been done so he's moving forward with his original plan to mine gravel hear the Roosevelt site. (AP Photo/National Park Service, Valerie J. Naylor, File)

BISMARCK – North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has been meeting with people behind the scenes to compile a list of what he calls “extraordinary places” that deserve protection from energy development and other impacts, drawing criticism from a former Democratic Party leader who believes the discussions should be held publicly.
Stenehjem said he has sought input from a variety of people and hopes to have the list ready for the state’s Industrial Commission, which grants oil drilling permits, for consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting.
“I think there’s a view that we need to do more to assure the public that we’re protecting some of those pristine areas,” said Stenehjem, who sits on the commission with Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. “And we do a lot of that now, but it’s not on a formal basis.”
Stenehjem first proposed such as list at a commission meeting in January. The idea gained steam after a public uproar in March when news broke that an oil company had staked out a site near the entrance to the historic Elkhorn Ranch in Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
The company, XTO Energy, withdrew its permit application, and on Tuesday the Industrial Commission approved a new permit for XTO that will keep drilling activity about two miles away from the Elkhorn Ranch entrance.
Stenehjem said an oil rig right next to Elkhorn Ranch “was never going to happen,” and he hopes the new list will assure the public that such places will be protected. While the list isn’t finalized, some of the places Stenehjem said he’d like to consider for protection are Bullion Butte, Killdeer Mountain battlefield and wildlife management area, Elkhorn Ranch, White Butte and Little Missouri River State Park.
All of those places were included in a list of about 40 areas of historical, cultural or biological interest that was compiled from various sources earlier this year. It didn’t receive any official designation from the Industrial Commission, but it provided a list of places for commissioners to tour, which they decided to do individually because of their schedules.
To help him compile his own list, Stenehjem has held two meetings in his conference room with what he describes as “kind of an informal grouping,” adding, “I’ve had lots of other meetings just with other individuals.”
Jim Fuglie, a former executive director of the state Democratic-NPL Party who now writes “The Prairie Blog,” has criticized Stenehjem in recent blog posts, referring to the group as a “secret task force” holding “secret meetings” and questioning whether the state’s open meetings laws are being followed. Fuglie did not return a phone message left at his home Thursday.
Stenehjem said he organized the group and meetings by himself, and the Industrial Commission didn’t delegate authority to him to do so.
“If it were delegated by the Industrial Commission, then of course it would likely be an open meeting,” he said. “But this is just me using people whose judgment and knowledge I respect to offer suggestions.”
Jack McDonald, a lawyer for the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said there must be direction given or an act of creation by the governing body to make it a task force subject to open meetings.
“Of anybody in state government, (Stenehjem) has been so hyper about open meetings and stuff and so vigilant … I just can’t imagine that he’s deliberately violating the law,” McDonald said.
Stenehjem said that after his list is compiled and presented to the Industrial Commission, the idea is to develop a policy and rulemaking process for protecting the extraordinary places.
He said the rules to be considered for development in those areas might include requiring an impact mitigation plan; prohibiting the flaring of natural gas or requiring that pipelines for capturing it already be in place before drilling begins; setback requirements; or painting oil pumps to camouflage them.
While the commission wants to protect the state’s special places, Stenehjem said he’s not talking about an outright ban on energy development.
“Private people own those minerals, and they have a legal right, a constitutional right, to have them developed, and so we have to respect that,” he said. “But at the same time, we also have an obligation to the citizens of North Dakota and the future to make sure that everybody is comfortable that we’re doing what we can to protect these areas as much as possible.”
The concept also will entail a process for public comment on proposed developments “at a meaningful time,” he said.
Among those who have participated in meetings with Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to provide input for a list of “extraordinary places” are:
• Ron Anderson, chairman of the McKenzie County Commission
• Scott Davis, executive director of the state’s Indian Affairs Commission
• Daryl Dukart, a Dunn County commissioner
• Assistant Attorney General Hope Hogan
• Gene Jackson, a Dickinson City commissioner and president of Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson
• Clay Jenkinson, an author and humanities scholar
• Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council
• Assistant Attorney General Matthew Sagsveen
• Murray Sagsveen, a Bismarck attorney and former assistant attorney general
• Keith Trego, executive director of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust

---

Readers can reach Forum News Service reporter Mike Nowatzki at (701) 255-5607 or by email at mnowatzki@forumcomm.com.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/276743/

More transmission comes to the Williston Basin

Kathleen Wolf Davis | Oct 27, 2013

 

By Mary Miller

Distribution success stories are everywhere in industry magazines these days. Transmission stories are harder to come by because they are fewer and farther between.
Basin Electric, however, is working to change that with a new proposed 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission project in North Dakota. The proposed line will run approximately 200 miles from Antelope Valley Station (AVS) near Beulah, ND to the Neset 345-kV Substation near Tioga, ND.
Basin Electric has identified the need for additional electric transmission capacity in northwestern North Dakota as a result of increased demand and to meet reliability and system stability requirements for the region. Investigations and analyses conducted for the overall power delivery systems found that without improvements, the flow of power along existing lines may result in local line overloads, especially in the vicinity of Williston, ND.The proposed line (and associated supporting infrastructure) should solve this issue.
The entire project will consist of constructing approximately 200 miles of new single circuit 345-kV and double circuit 345/115-kV transmission lines, the construction of two new substations, modifications to three existing substations, river crossings, temporary construction staging sites, and other facilities. The project would connect to the Integrated System at several locations, including Western Area Power Administration's Williston Substation. The proposed project would be located in portions of Dunn, McKenzie, Mercer, Mountrail, and Williams counties in western North Dakota.
The AVS-to-Neset 345-kV Transmission Project includes three major components: approximately 200 miles of 345-kV transmission line, new substations near Williston and Tioga as well as additions to Basin Electric’s Charlie Creek Substation and Antelope Valley Station Switchyard. The major elements required for transmission lines to be constructed include regulatory approvals, surveying, line design, and right of way.
Both the Rural Utilities Service, acting as the Lead Agency, and Western Area Power Administration, as a Cooperating Agency, are evaluating the 345-kV project through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Approval from the North Dakota Public Service Commission is required to site the project. Both the federal and state processes require public notification and public meetings to gather input into their decision-making processes. Formal notices of the public meetings will be given through newspapers and radio advertisements in the future.
The right of way width will be 150 feet, which is approximately 18.18 acres per mile. The line will consist of mainly single-pole steel structures. Terrain will determine how many structures there will be in a mile, but will likely be five to seven per mile. H-frame structures may be used in areas of high relief. After land values are determined, landowners will be contacted to start the easement acquisition process. Basin Electric staff  are giving landowners ample time to review and comment on the easement location. Payment for the easement will be made as soon as possible or at a later time, if requested by the landowner.
Finally, there has been a lot of discussion in the media and public surrounding a recently announced opportunity for North Dakota State University to study the Killdeer Mountain battlefield and surrounding area and Basin Electric's proposed 345-kV transmission line.
Basin Electric does not wish to take sides in the issue, but does need to move forward with delivering power to member-owners.
Following is information about the transmission line in relation to the battlefield area.

Responsible.
The proposed line does NOT run through the designated historic site. See the map of the proposed study area. Additionally, the land sited in the study area is private property and the landowners are very concerned about the study proposal. They've been very respectful of the area, donating artifacts to local museums.

Careful.
Siting a power line is a tedious, careful process. There are many considerations that must be taken into account. This process takes years to complete as is evident in the timeline.

Respectful.
Basin Electric is very respectful of all interests when it comes to siting this power line in the Killdeer Mountain area. Basin Electric has shown itself to be good citizens in that regard through our past work with other projects. It is possible to develop needed infrastructure while protecting the land, and Basin Electric stands by a long record of responsible development.

Click this link to visit an infographic with more information or read more here.

Miller is Basin Electric’s manager of communications. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) is one of the largest electric generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives in the United States serving 2.8 million customers. Basin Electric is the parent company of eight subsidiaries and is consumer-owned by 137 member cooperative systems. Members' service territories comprise 540,000 square miles in nine states. Basin Electric owns 2,165 miles and maintains 2,250 miles of high-voltage transmission, and owns and maintains equipment in 70 switchyards and 149 telecommunication sites.

Got a utility T&D project you'd like to outline for our e-newsletter audience?  Contact editor-in-chief Kathleen Wolf Davis at kdavis@energycentral.com.

http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/13/10/more-transmission-comes-williston-basin

Of Lists And Secret Meetings

Of Lists And Secret Meetings

Posted on October 15, 2013 by Jim Fuglie

I’m not sure how long Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem intended to keep his secret task force on “places not to put oil wells” a secret, but North Dakota is still a pretty small state, and the North Dakota Capitol is a relatively small building, and it’s pretty hard to keep anything that goes on there a secret.

Stenehjem has appointed a committee of about ten people, including three state employees and two county commissioners, to deal with the issue of “special places” in the Oil Patch, places where he and his fellow Industrial Commission members should give some special consideration as they grant drilling permits to oil companies.

I’ve written about this before. There have been applications for drilling permits beside national parks, inside wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges, near Indian sacred sites, inside state parks, and in sensitive roadless areas. Some have been granted, some have been withdrawn, but I can’t remember the Industrial Commission ever denying one. To his credit, Wayne has been nervous about all this, and has suggested that a list of “special places” be developed for Industrial Commission members to keep their eyes on.

A couple months ago, the Industrial Commission released a list of nearly 40 places that had been submitted by people who wanted those places protected. The list has shown up in print, but hasn’t been widely discussed. And there has been nothing forthcoming from the Industrial Commission about how they want to use it. Like a lot of government lists, it’s in danger of gathering dust on a shelf and never being heard from again.

Wayne wants to take it further, I guess, so he appointed his own “private task force” to look into the matter. The group had its second meeting yesterday, in the conference room at the Attorney General’s office in the State Capitol building (not a very “private” place). You didn’t read about it in the paper or hear it on the radio or see it on TV, because no one in the media knew about it. That’s the way the Attorney General wanted it. He says the meetings of the group are not subject to the state’s open meetings law. He should know. He’s the top law enforcement officer in North Dakota, and he and his predecessors have been asked hundreds of times to interpret it. Still . . .

Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution says:

Unless otherwise provided by law, all meetings of public or governmental bodies, boards, bureaus, commissions, or agencies of the state or any political subdivision of the state, or organizations or agencies supported in whole or in part by public funds, or expending public funds, shall be open to the public.

            The question of who this law applies to has been asked so many times that the Attorney General has published a “North Dakota Open Meetings Manual.” On page 2 of the manual, the Attorney General answers the question “Who is subject to the open meetings law?” The answer:

“Public or governmental bodies, boards, bureaus, commissions or agencies of the state, including any entity created or recognized by the Constitution of North Dakota, state statute, or executive order of the governor or any task force or working group created by the individual in charge of a state agency or institution, to exercise public authority or perform a governmental function . . .” (emphasis mine)

“’Task force or working group’ means a group of individuals who have been formally appointed and delegated to meet as a group to assist, advise, or act on behalf of the individual in charge of a state agency or institution when a majority of the members of the group are not employees of the agency or institution.” N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(16).” (emphasis mine)

Okay, let’s see now, Wayne has appointed a task force whose members are mostly private citizens, not state employees, to advise him. Does that fit anywhere in that definition, from that manual, do you think?

Well, never mind that. That’s for the real North Dakota media to figure out. They and their lawyer, Jack McDonald can go there if they want to. That’s THEIR job. I’m more concerned about the substance of what Wayne is doing.

No one has told me yet exactly what this group is supposed to do, beyond identifying a list of places where Wayne and his fellow Industrial Commission members should exercise caution. Apparently the list provided earlier isn’t good enough. Perhaps it is too big. Aha, now we might be getting to the heart of things.

First, let’s look at who’s on this task force. I mentioned three state employees earlier, remember? I suppose we might expect the North Dakota Game and Fish Commissioner, the State Parks Director, and the Director of the State Historical Society of North Dakota would be a good place to start then, eh?  Well, we’d be expecting wrong. Because none of them are on it, nor is any one from their agencies. The three agencies in charge of the most important public lands and cultural and natural resources in the state aren’t represented.

Instead, it has an engineer whose firm is one of the biggest players in the Oil Patch, a couple of county commissioners from the Oil Patch, a newspaper columnist and scholar who writes frequently about the energy industry, one natural resources professional, the President of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, and three lawyers, two of whom work for Stenehjem and one who’s retired but spent much of his career as an assistant attorney general. Oh, and the head of the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission, recognizing that much of the oil industry development is going on in what used to be, or still is, Indian Country. These are the people who are going to compile a list of places chosen for special consideration when drilling permits are requested.

Task force members I talked to today told me that Wayne has assured all of them that they are not in violation of the Open Meetings Law, and they were satisfied with that, including the county commissioners, who are generally very, very careful about that law. They weren’t very clear about what the outcome of all this is going to be though.

What’s most disappointing, I learned, is that they have already been presented a list that is much shorter than the one the Industrial Commission released earlier, and pretty much been told to stick to that list. In my opinion, the earlier list was still too short.

I’m going to give the Attorney General some credit here for taking the lead on this whole issue of “special places.” But his suggestion is starting to ring hollow. It was made way back in May, and now, five months later, it appears a new effort is just getting started, and a shallow effort at that. And this new list is being developed by a group which does not include anyone from the state agencies most concerned with what is going on. I wonder how those agency heads feel about that. Or if they even knew about it before they read this (actually, they didn’t—I called to find out—but they’re scrambling right now to see what is going on).

There is already a list. The State Historical Society, for example, submitted sites to be included. That list has been reviewed by, but not adopted by, the Commission which issues all the drilling permits. In the absence of any formal structure to carefully check on where all these new wells are going to be, the Commission is issuing hundreds of drilling permits every month. It would be so easy to take the list compiled earlier, update it to include all the state and federal wildlife areas, have the three state agency heads review it, adopt it, and then develop a database of legal descriptions of all those places and run the drilling permit requests, all of which have legal descriptions, against that list and give special consideration—at least discuss—those which make a computer match. And, as I suggested last month, STOP ISSUING DRILLING PERMITS UNTIL THAT IS DONE. At least then we would know when places we are all concerned about are going to get an oil well. But you know what? I’m really convinced these people just don’t give a shit about what is going on. It’s all about money.

Anyway, it would be good for the Attorney General to do his work in the light of day. I’m going to find out when the next meeting is. I’m going to go. I hope some news media folks will join me. And also people who might be concerned about what’s going to be on this list, and what’s going to happen when it is completed. I’ll let you know when I find out the date.

- See more at: http://theprairieblog.areavoices.com/2013/10/15/of-lists-and-secret-meetings/#sthash.H2LW2nJq.dpuf

Published October 14, 2013, 08:26 AM

Plan for transmission line near Killdeer Mountain battlefield clashes with historical study

KILLDEER, N.D. – The Battle of Killdeer Mountain is regarded as the climactic clash of the Dakota War in Dakota Territory.

By: Patrick Springer, Forum News Service

• Rob Sand

In this Aug. 15 photo, conservationist Rob Sand discusses the Killdeer Mountains and the threats they face from oil. Now, the Killdeer Mountain Alliance is fighting another foe — a proposed power line the group says would go right through the historic Killdeer Mountain Battlefield site. Katherine Lymn/Forum News Service

KILLDEER, N.D. – The Battle of Killdeer Mountain is regarded as the climactic clash of the Dakota War in Dakota Territory.

The battlefield, where blood was spilled July 28, 1864, in a sprawling fight between the Sioux and the U.S. Army, has been called the Gettysburg of the Plains.

Now it’s the site of another clash, as Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s proposal for a transmission line through an area near the battlefield and a planned historical study have collided.

A group of property owners, meanwhile, angry that they haven’t been contacted by the study team for permission to access their land, has served notice that their property will be off limits.

Underlying the tensions is the dramatic increase in demand for electricity in western North Dakota because of the oil boom.

By 2025, Basin Electric predicts its power demand will increase by 1,600 megawatts, a 30 percent increase from the current 5,200-megawatt base load to serve member cooperatives.

To help meet that demand, Basin Electric has proposed a 345-kilovolt transmission line to carry power from its Antelope Valley Station near Beulah to a substation near Tioga.

“Time is not on our side in regards to serving this area,” Basin Electric spokeswoman Mary Robin Miller said, noting the project’s 2016 target completion date. “Demand continues to grow and we need to keep the lights on. There’s tremendous strains on the system.”

Eight miles of the transmission line would run through an area the National Park Service has selected for its Battlefield Protection Program.

The park service announced in July that it awarded a study grant to the Center for Heritage Renewal at North Dakota State University in Fargo.

The focus of the study is to determine “what happened where,” said Tom Isern, a history professor and director of the center.

The 1864 battle involved an attack by a force of 2,200 men led by Gen. Alfred Sully against an encampment of Dakota and Lakota Sioux with about 2,000 warriors and many more noncombatants.

Landowners in the area complain that they have yet to be contacted by the study team about the project, and informed of any possible ramifications that could result if the area is designated for preservation.

Craig Dvirnak, whose ranch surrounds the one-acre Killdeer Mountain Battlefield State Historic Site, said property owners are concerned they might face restrictions if the area is slated for preservation.

“Nobody has explained to us what are the ramifications of this preservation designation they want to hang on us,” Dvirnak said. “That’s plumb negligence.”

Dvirnak said his family has repeatedly granted access to its land when requested, including to descendants of the Dakota and Lakota Sioux who were killed in the conflict and wanted to perform ceremonies for the dead.

Basin Electric notified landowners starting two years ago informing them of the proposed corridor and power line route, Dvirnak said.

Misunderstandings have flared up because the proposed transmission line caught Isern’s study team by surprise, Isern said. Similarly, Basin Electric representatives said they didn’t know about the study until August, well into their transmission line project.

“The whole Basin Electric proposal kind of jump-started things,” Isern said.

Basin Electric has secured easements along 78 percent of its proposed route, including 7½ miles of the eight miles through the historic study area. The line would be less than a mile south of the state historic site.

It’s too early for the historic research team to contact landowners to seek permission for access, Isern said.

“We haven’t even identified who we might want to ask to go on their property,” he said, adding that field work is more than a year in the future.

Before then, researchers must complete a thorough document search to aid their effort to pinpoint where fighting and movement of the combatants took place, Isern said.

Noting that Basin Electric already has secured easements from many landowners in the area, he said a shared economic interest between the power cooperative and landowners paid for easements to cross their land.

News of the study grant was reported in by Forum News Service on July 13, and 10 days later Basin Electric went to the Public Service Commission, which must approve the transmission corridor and route, seeking a waiver of certain procedures and an expedited timeline, Isern said.

“I’m suggesting it’s an interesting coincidence,” he said.

After learning of the historic study area, Basin Electric scrapped plans to build an electrical substation in the area the National Park Service will study to see if it should be considered for federal recognition.

A listing on the National Register of Historic Places can happen only with landowner consent, Isern said, and landowners still can do what they want on their land.

“They can bulldoze any damn thing they’d care to,” Isern said, adding that he is sensitive to property rights as a “fourth-generation prairie farmer.”

A federal review of possible impacts to cultural resources also is underway because Basin Electric would use a federal loan to build the $350 million transmission project.

The real issue, in Isern’s view: “Are we going to spend federal money to destroy the most significant historical site in North Dakota?”

Basin Electric’s Miller said the power cooperative wants to protect cultural resources. It has agreed to additional ground studies along its route.

“It calls for collaboration among all parties and cooperation,” she said.

The State Historic Society of North Dakota and its State Historic Preservation Office said the project remains under review, with findings expected late this year or early next year.

“Basically, additional information is being collected,” said Paul Picha, the state’s chief archeologist, who is involved in historic preservation. “It will be analyzed and reported.”

The state is seeking more information, including possible visual effects from the transmission line towers.

For his part, Dvirnak said the biggest “eyesore” visible from the top of Killdeer Mountain comes from industrial parks north of the town of Killdeer, six or seven miles to the southeast.

Dvirnak, who said his family supports preservation of historic artifacts and sites, said the area has long been impacted by roads, farmsteads, oil wells and power lines.

- See more at: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/16362/#sthash.Xn4fyXR2.dpuf

Published October 12, 2013, 11:40 PM

Forum editorial: ND stands at outdoor crossroad

Hunters report loss, disruption of habitat.

North Dakota is at a crossroad. The direction the state takes might have as momentous and lasting impact as the great trends that shaped the state from the beginning: agriculture, drought, energy and more recently a diversifying urban economy. Decisions – private and public – made today regarding land and water stewardship will have ramifications for generations to come. If the drivers of the state’s early 21st-century economy continue to erode the conservation, environment and outdoor ethic that makes the state unique, the damage to traditional values and cherished heritage will be irreversible.
Signs are clear. As hunting season gears up, hunters report significant changes: game numbers down; habitat lost; roads where there never were roads; truck traffic driving more sensitive game species off the range on which they’ve thrived for decades.
Carefully worded statements from the state Game & Fish Department euphemistically cite “development impacts” as among factors in the decline of game numbers and the loss of habitat and available hunting acres. They mean, of course, oil and gas activity.
On the farm, ditching, draining and tiling have accelerated to a pace never before seen in the state. Water once held on the land in sloughs and coulees as habitat and water recharge now siphons quickly into ditches and rivers. Regulation and permitting are laughable. Flooding is aggravated.
Mature shelterbelts and the habitat and soil protection they provide are being bulldozed without regard to why they were planted. Conservation Reserve Program acres are going under the plow at rapid rates – another significant loss of habitat and soil and water conservation. Game and nongame animals that have done so well because of CRP in the past 30 years disappear, too. Game and fish surveys confirm it.
The individual trends comprise profound mega-change on the landscape. Depending on perspectives and perceptions, it’s fueled by the economics of agriculture and energy, or common human greed, or both. Whatever the combination of factors, the end game is yet to be played. The potential damage is yet to be honestly assessed. There is no appetite among the political class to take a critical look at the down side of a new kind of prosperity.
That’s the crossroad. That’s the question: Unprecedented prosperity on the farm, in oil country, in the cities – but at what cost to the land and water heritage that North Dakotans cherish. Or do they?

---

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

U.S.-Dakota War of 1862

Home | History | U.S.-Dakota War of 1862

The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 is a significant event in the history and development of the state of Minnesota and in the long and complex history of the Dakota people and the United States.

When you visit Historic Fort Snelling, look for the following opportunities to learn more about the war:

• In the Officers' Quarters, talk to historical interpreters about the role of the Indian Agency and U.S. government "Indian Policy" during the early 1800s.
• Take the History on the Spot cell phone tour (877-411-4123), which describes the fort’s role in the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 and its aftermath.
• Look for signage describing key 1862 events near the spots where they happened.
• The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 website contains an extensive collection of primary sources, oral histories, introductory videos and interactive maps.

---

Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, Franklin B. Mayer, 1885.
MHS collections.

Between 1805 and 1858, treaties made between the U.S. government and the Dakota nation reduced Dakota lands and significantly altered Minnesota’s physical, cultural, and political landscape. These treaties had significant impact on the lives of the Dakota people and the European-Americans flooding into Minnesota during the first half of the 1800s, and many historians agree that major factors in the lead-up to the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 lie in those treaties. The treaties of 1851 (in which the largest amount of land was ceded by the Dakota) established that the Dakota would be paid by the U.S. government for the land they ceded in yearly installments called “annuities.” Provisions in the treaties stated that portions of the money paid to the Dakota would go to fund trade shops, purchase agricultural tools and supplies, as well as to pay off debts claimed by traders. Many Dakota claimed these debts had been inflated or were falsified, and were opposed to the traders being paid directly by the U.S. government. As a result resentment grew within many Dakota communities towards the traders and U.S. government. 

In addition, U.S. government policies toward the acculturation of American Indians helped create divisions within the Dakota community at large. Dakota individuals who cut their hair and adopted European American agricultural methods received supplies, tools and housing at the expense of the U.S. government. Many Dakota who maintained their traditional life-ways resented what was perceived as preferential treatment of one group over another by the U.S. government.

By the summer of 1862 the situation for many Dakota families was desperate; annuity payments were late due to the U.S. government’s priority in financing the Civil War; some traders and officials at the Indian Agencies refused to extend credit for food and supplies until the Dakota had cash to pay their debts; and crop failures and poor hunting had left many Dakota families hungry. Due to these and other factors, tensions within Minnesota's Dakota community reached a breaking point.

Taoyatedute (Little Crow), ca. 1860.
MHS photographic collections.

On Aug. 17, 1862 four Dakota men killed five people living at the farms of Robinson Jones and Howard Baker in Acton Township. When word of the killings spread to theLower Sioux Reservation, a group of Dakota men argued that it was time to go to war with Minnesota's European-American population to reclaim their ancestral land. Without consensus from the Dakota community at large, these men went directly to Taoyateduta, "His Scarlet Nation" (Little Crow), an influential Dakota leader, to convince him to lead a military effort. After intense debate, Taoyateduta reluctantly agreed, even though he feared the war would end disastrously for their nation. “You will die like rabbits when the hungry wolves hunt them in the Hard Moon,” he is quoted as having said, but added “Taoyateduta is not a coward: he will die with you.”

The following day a group of Dakota under the command of Taoyateduta attacked the Lower Sioux Agency, killing many of the civilians there. Over the next several weeks, groups of Dakota soldiers attacked European American communities throughout the Minnesota River Valley, including New Ulm, as well as launching attacks on U.S. military posts. The war lasted nearly six weeks, during which more than 600 civilians and U.S. soldiers, as well as an unknown number of Dakota, lost their lives. 

The war fractured Minnesota's Dakota community. It was fought primarily by a relatively small group of Dakota and there was not universal support for the war within the Dakota community at large. Throughout the war, many Dakota as well as individuals of both Dakota and European ancestry (called "mixed-bloods" during the period) protected prisoners and worked to secure their release to U.S. soldiers. For a tense period of time it seemed as though a civil war might erupt between the Dakota on both reservations over the war.

Battle of Wood Lake (Sept. 23, 1862), MHS collections.

Fort Snelling played an important role in the war. Soldiers were organized at the fort under Col. Henry H. Sibley for a military response to the Dakota. After the Battle of Wood Lake (Sept. 23), the last major battle of the war in Minnesota, many Dakota left the state, while others surrendered to U.S. military forces at Camp Release (near present-day Montevideo). Col. Sibley established a military commission to try Dakota men suspected of killing or assaulting civilians, and by the end of the process 303 men were convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon further review of the evidence the number was reduced to 39 by President Abraham Lincoln who wanted to distinguish between Dakota men who had only fought in battles and those accused of killing and assaulting civilians. Just prior to the execution a man named Tatemina (Round Wind) was reprieved because his conviction had been based on questionable testimony. The remaining 38 men were hanged simultaneously in Mankato on Dec. 26 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history.

Fort Snelling Internment Camp, 1862-63.
MHS photographic collections.

The rest of the approximately 1,600 Dakota and "mixed-bloods" who surrendered at Camp Release (mostly women, children and the elderly) were removed to Fort Snelling where they spent the winter of 1862-63 in a civilian internment camp, sometimes referred to as a concentration camp, below the fort (located in the present-day Fort Snelling State Park) to await forced relocation to western reservations. According to reports in local newspapers and Dakota oral histories some of the prisoners endured assaults and violence at the hands of soldiers and local civilians. "Amid all this sickness and these great tribulations," remembered Tiwakan (Gabriel Renville), a "mixed-blood" man who was held in the stockade along with his family, "it seemed doubtful at night whether a person would be alive in the morning."

Many detainees sold personal possessions in order to purchase food to supplement the military-issue rations they were given. Some of the “mixed-blood” families owned land vouchers that had been granted them in treaties with the U.S. government. These vouchers granted each head-of-household up to 640 acres of any unsurveyed, non-federal land in exchange for giving up claim to land in Minnesota. Many sold these vouchers to local businessmen at deflated prices in order to have cash in hand to provide for their families while in the stockade. Businessmen, such as Franklin Steele, profited by purchasing these vouchers and later selling them to land developers for large profits.

A definitive number is unknown, but it is estimated that somewhere between 130 and 300 people died within the camp, mostly due to disease (a measles outbreak swept the region that winter). The majority of those remaining were taken by steamboats to the Crow Creek reservation in May 1863. By summer of 1863 the vast majority of the Dakota had left Minnesota, heading into the western territories or north into Canada, where many of their descendants live today. As a result of the war, approximately 6,000 Dakota and "mixed-blood" people were displaced from their Minnesota homes. Today Dakota communities remain spread throughout Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana and Canada.

Sakpedan (Little Six), left, and
Wakanozhanzhan (Medicine Bottle), right, 1864.
MHS photographic collections.

After the war many Dakota were captured and imprisoned by the U.S. military, among them Sakpedan (Little Six) and Wakanozhanzhan (Medicine Bottle). The two men fled to Canada after the war but were apprehended and delivered to U.S. authorities by British agents in Jan. 1864. Both men were subsequently imprisoned at Fort Snelling. They were charged and convicted by a military commission for the deaths of civilians and sentenced to death. Their execution took place at Fort Snelling on Nov. 11, 1865 in the presence of the fort’s garrison and numerous civilians. Tradition says that as they climbed the scaffold a steam train whistle blew in the distance, prompting Sakpedan to say, “As the white man comes in, the Indian goes out.”

During the summer of 1863, newly-promoted Brig. Gen. Sibley, along with Brig. Gen. Alfred Sully, mounted a joint military operation, called the “Punitive Expedition,” against those Dakota who had left Minnesota and headed west. Sibley’s troops pushed past Devil’s Lake and towards the Missouri River, fighting three major battles against combined Dakota and Lakota forces: Dead Buffalo Lake (July 26); Stony Lake (July 28); and Whitestone Hill (Sept. 3). In 1864 Sibley remained in Minnesota while a second expedition was launched. Sully commanded the operation and defeated a large, combined group of Dakota, Lakota and Yanktonai at the Battle of Tahchakuty, or Killdeer Mountain (July 28). Eventually, the U.S. military forcibly removed many Dakota to reservations in North and South Dakota. Intermittent fighting continued between the U.S. military and the Dakota nation in the western territories throughout the late 1800s, culminating at Wounded Knee on Dec. 29, 1890.

Explore more online historical resources about Fort Snelling and the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

Bibliography/Resources

Anderson, Gary Clayton. Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 1650-1862. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1997. 

Anderson, Gary Clayton. Little Crow: Spokesman for the Sioux. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1986.

Anderson, Gary Clayton and Alan R. Woolworth, eds. Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988.

Carley, Kenneth. The Dakota War of 1862. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2001.

Clodfelter, Michael. The Dakota War: The United States Army Versus the Sioux, 1862-1865. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 1998.

Manjeau-Marz, Corinne. The Dakota Indian Internment at Fort Snelling, 1862-64. St. Paul, MN: Prairie Smoke Press, 2006.

Millikan, William. “The Great Treasure of the Fort Snelling Prison Camp,” Minnesota History Quarterly 62, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 4-17.

Wingerd, Mary Lethert. North Country: The Making of Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.

Other resources 

• US Dakota War of 1862 website
• US-Dakota War of 1862 History Topic
• History on the Spot cell phone tour: call 877-411-4123 (can be accessed at the historic site as well as from your home phone).
• Fort Snelling: Should its history be told? (by Nina Archabal, Director of Minnesota Historical Society)
• Fort Snelling on the Agenda (Star Tribune editorial by Jeff Kolnick)
• Civil War and U.S. Dakota War of 1862 Collections
• The Minnesota River Valley Mobile Tour to listen to stories and reflections about historic sites along the Minnesota River Valley. Learn about the people who lived there and the lasting impact of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Call 888-601-3010 from any location--from the byway, from home, from anywhere.

http://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/us-dakota-war