(Editor’s Note: Over the next couple of issues, I will be exploring the history of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, and the controversy that has surrounded it. As a journalist, my goal is to remain neutral in this series of articles. In full disclosure, my beliefs on the subject are diverse. While I am against the pipeline route personally, I will strive to remain unbiased in my reporting.

In order to try to remain as accurate as possible, no rumors or speculations will be reported. I’ve strived to make sure that each piece of these articles are backed up with multiple documentation and sources. At times though, some of the sources used will go unnamed, as requested by those interviewed over the course of the last few month.)

Dustin White
Editor

“It was about two years ago that we (Standing Rock Sioux Reservation) were informed that the Dakota Access Pipeline was being built close to our reservation,” Dave Archambault II, Chairman of Standing Rock, said.  

By the time Standing Rock was informed of the pipeline route, the planning stages of DAPL had largely been completed. Yet, the current route, which passes just north of the Standing Rock Reservation, was not the only one that had been considered. 



Early on in the planning stages, an alternative route had been proposed, which would have crossed the Missouri River 10 miles north of Bismarck. 

While some would report that the Bismarck route would be dismissed because “white residents refused” to allow the pipeline to cross north of the city, it was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who rejected the route. 

Citing that the route would be 11 miles longer, cross more waterbodies and wetlands, and being difficult to stay 500 or more feet from homes, the Corps made it clear that the route would not be possible. A final blow to the route was that it would cross an area that was considered by federal pipeline regulators as a “high consequence area.” 

With the Bismarck route scrapped, the Corps opted for a shorter route via Lake Oahe, passing near Standing Rock. By September of 2014, the new route had largely been confirmed. 

On Sept. 30, 2014, officials from Standing Rock met with representatives from Dakota Access. Occurring three months before the company had applied for a permit with the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and almost two years before construction of the pipeline began in the state, the Tribe made their stance clear the route. 

“We recognize our treaty boundaries from 1851 and 1868, and because of that, we oppose the pipeline,” Archambault told representatives from Dakota Access. “We have a standing resolution passed in 2012 that opposes the pipeline within that treaty boundary. This is something that the tribe is not supporting.”

Officials from Standing Rock, during the Sept. 30 meeting, would make it clear that the Tribe would fight the pipeline, and that they were ready to do whatever it takes to stop it. 

However, the meeting itself was meant to provide the Tribe with information from the company, as well as answer questions they may have. Not included in the meeting were federal or state officials, who would have had oversight over the pipeline. 

During the meeting, Chuck Frey, vice president of engineering for Energy Transfer Partners, also tried to assure the Tribe that Dakota Access had purposely avoided the existing tribal boundary when selecting the route in order to avoid known cultural artifact areas. 

With a rich history, and many cultural significant sites in the area, officials from the Tribe were cautious about the claim. Waste Win Young, the former tribal historic preservation officer, informed Frey that 66 villages had existed along the Missouri River, and that many other areas with human remains or other cultural artifacts and sacred prayers sites were present.

Frey would ask the Tribe if there were maps available that documented the sites, so they could be avoided; however, Tribal officials stated there that no such documents were publicly available. Instead, they requested that Dakota Access consult with Standing Rock’s tribal historic preservation office. 



“We ask that you consult with Standing Rock because we do have the expertise and we have knowledge of where the sites are,” Archambault said. 

The Tribe’s opposition, voiced during the meeting, would not be reported to state regulators by Frey, who was the primary company representative who testified about the project to the PSC. 

Question of Consultation
On Jan. 25, 2016, Dakota Access announced that it had received permit approval by the PSC. On their website, they wrote that they had hopes to have the pipeline operational by the end of the year. 

A little over a year had passed since the Tribe and Dakota Access had their initial meeting. Communication had broken down, with the Tribe and state and federal government having different expectations. 

Over 13 months, the PSC held meetings in regards to DAPL. While the Tribe opposed the pipeline, no representative was present. 

However, while more than a year of meetings were held, during 2015, only three meetings were held in regards to public input on the construction of DAPL. 

Announced throughout the region through local papers, the announcement was missing from the Tribe’s official paper. 

“We have our own paper and it wasn’t placed in there,” Archambault said. “In a government to government relationship, we shouldn’t have to dig through others papers.”

While the announcement was missing from the Tribe’s official paper, Julie Fedorchak, chair of the PSC, said that Archambault’s office was notified of the meetings. For Fedorchak, the absence of the Tribe appeared odd, as they had engaged with the commission on other issues in the past. 

The Tribe had a different focus though. 

“Section 106 is what we wanted to be consulted on,” Archambault said.

It would be through the Corps that such a consultation was to take place. But connecting with the Corps would prove to be difficult.

“We have actually been having a hard time setting up a meeting with the corps for this project,” Win Young had said during the Sept. 30 meeting with Dakota Access.  Young would add that on previous projects, the Corps hadn’t consulted with the Tribe. 

Defining Meaningful
As required by federal law, meaningful nation to nation consultation was expected to occur between the Tribe and Corps. However, there were differing opinions as to what meaningful consisted of. 



“There were four things we wanted: to meet with the decision makers, be part of the plan, ask that we be heard, and some deliberation on our meetings,” Archambault said. “That never happened. Instead, the Corps would make calls and send letter, and they said that was consultation.”

A level of consultation would eventually occur on Feb. 17, 2015, when the Corps sent a letter to the Tribal Historian Preservation Office.

“The USACE permitting process is the only Federal action associated with the project and therefore USACE is solely responsible for conducting consultation with interested Tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The purpose of this letter is to initiate Section 106 consultation and review, determine your interest in consulting on this undertaking, and to gather information that will assist the Corps in identifying historic properties.”

Responding, the THPO voiced their interest in consultation, and requested a full archeological investigation. They were met with silence.

It would be nearly half a year before the Corps responded. On Sept. 15, the Tribe received a formal letter inquiring if they would want to participate in the National Historic Preservation Act process. A month was given to respond, but it was more time than was needed.

Emphasizing that the tribe’s desire to participate, the THPO also reminded the Corps that up to that point, they had not been allowed to do such. Several more months would pass, and when the Corps did respond, it was in a shocking manner.

Publishing a draft Environmental Assessment in mid-December, the Corps “falsely claimed that THPO had indicated no impact to the tribe,” according to a docket filed in Federal Court.

A year after the initial letter from the Corps, on Feb. 29, 2016, the Omaha Commander for the Corps toured the borehole site. A week later, a follow up tour was conducted, on March 7, accompanied by archeologist from the Corps and the Tribe.

Observing the area, they witnessed dirt that had been pushed to the surface by moles, which contained prehistoric pottery shards, pieces of bone, as well as tools. Discovered were sites the the Tribe had been unaware of.

Yet, such discoveries did not find there way into the Corps assessment on April 22, which declared no historic properties would be affected.

However, while the Corps appeared to drag their feet a bit, court documents also suggest that they weren’t the only ones who failed in proper communication. 

While the Tribe held that the Corps did not offer them a reasonable opportunity in the Section 106 process, or provide meaningful consultation, the Corps argued, according to court documents, that they had “documented dozens of attempts to engage Standing Rock in consultations to identify historical resources at Lake Oahe…”

The Corps also held that Colonel Henderson met with the Tribe no fewer than four times in the spring of 2016, in order to discuss their concerns regarding the pipeline. 

Movement Begins
As snow covered the ground, a movement was beginning to take a new shape. A century old fight had taken a new, but familiar, form. Unbeknownst to those, who on April 1, 2016, set the foundations of the Sacred Stones Camp, a pleasant surprise would blossom out of the struggle. 



Gathered upon the land of LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, who was a Tribal historian with the Standing Rock Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and the closest land owner to the proposed Missouri River crossing of the Dakota Access Pipe Line, the Scared Stones Camp was established as a way to stop the pipeline through prayer, and non-violent direct action. 

The camp would also become a beacon for the nations, as a historic gathering would soon occur. However, other views would also rise as the protest grew, and various sides would vie for control of the story.  

In the following issues, I will continue the exploration of DAPL. In the next installment, I will look at the beginning of the protest south of Mandan, and how it effected multiple communities, as well as how various groups tried to control the narrative.