Yes, here it is, the Federal Register link, the Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota Access Pipe Line, a/k/a DAPL:

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

pdf of Notice: 017-00937_Federal Register – Notice EIS

Scoping comments are due by February 20, 2017.  By mail, and they ask that you include your name, return address, and “NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing” on the first page of your written comments:

Gib Owen

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

108 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0108

By email to gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil – use Subject: NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing

They say they want comments about these issues, but don’t limit your input:

(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;

(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and the Tribe’s water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and

(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe’s treaty rights in Lake Oahe.

What does this mean?  Well, they’re looking for a way to ram it through, looking for “alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River.”  They’re probably wanting to avoid any consideration of the entire project, avoid consideration of connected actions here, and the potential for and high risk of impacts downriver.  How about need?  I’ll bet they don’t want to consider whether there is need for this line, and what it means if there is increased oil output in the region, the impacts of continued extraction!  Broaden the scope!  From the Notice: “The range of issues, alternatives, and potential impacts may be expanded based on comments received in response to this notice and at public scoping meetings.”  So get to work!


6 Responses to “Dakota Access – Notice of Intent for Environmental Impact Statement”

  1. Brian C. PaStarr Says:

    Gib Owen, NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing.
    My name is Brian PaStarr, St. Paul Mn. I am writing about the EIS being done on the Dakota access pipeline in N.D. I think there should not be a pipeline. There has never been and never will be a pipeline built that will not break. That is a given. To build a pipeline next to the Missouri River is irresponsible and dangerous for all that live downstream. There are alternatives. The wind and solar industries are growing quickly and the Dep’t of Energy published a report saying that we could have 80% of all our energy needs met by wind and solar by the year 2030. These are renewable and nonpolluting sources of energy. But they will not be utilized to their full potential if we keep building pipelines. Please do not allow this one to be built.

  2. Barbara Vaile Says:

    In the midst of changing from oil to renewables it makes no sense to put good money after bad. The expense of toxic water sources is impossible to calculate. Keeping faith with all people and our need for clean water is the bedrock of civilization. The people’s health is number one. Keeping our word is number one. There is no room for going backwards to living for somebody’s profit. The EPA exists to protect the people. No pipeline is worth our future.

  3. Christine Popowski Says:

    No pipeline should ever be approved until a EIS study is done. If this pipeline is allowed to go through many Americans drinking water, not just native Americans could be contaminated. Thank You for your notice of intent to prepare an EIS which should have been done in the first place.

  4. Signe Martell Says:

    Please do the right thing for our beautiful Mother Earth & all the gifts of life we have been given, the water, animals, plants, air. Please do not let the pipeline go any further. The lives of us all are in your hands. We are to care for the Earth, not rape her for wealth. Sincerely, Signe Martell

  5. Doug Rohde Says:

    I am writing in opposition to the existence of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Instead of spending money, time, and resources on making it easier to distribute shale oil, we should be spending that money, time, and energy on renewable energy.

    The Chinese are doubling down on renewable energy. The Trump administration is doubling down on coal and oil. At a time when we are already over the red line in terms of climate change.

    The Chinese in this case are on the right side of history. Please put the U.S.A. on the right side of history as well.

    Thank you.

  6. Jean Ross Says:

    If the true externalities of building the DAPL are considered in the EIS this pipeline should not be built. We can ill afford committing to another 50 to 60 years of the extreme extraction of shale oil (fracking) & the damage to our biosphere that burning this oil will cause. Every pipeline in existence has leaked, so if it should leak near the Missouri River or any other body of water it crosses this should be taken into account. The impact of extraction, transportation, health of communities near refineries & ultimately the burning of the fossil fuel this pipeline will allow should also be taken into account. This is a continuum & only looking at one segment doesn’t tell the whole story. We cannot live without water, but w/ new technologies we can certainly live without oil. Peace & climate justice.

Leave a Reply