Dakota Access pipeline developer misses year-end deadline to plant trees

The developer with the Dakota Access oil pipeline missed a year-end deadline to plant numerous trees across the pipeline corridor in North Dakota. The company stated it had been complying with damages of allegations it violated state rules during construction.

‘They’re billin’ us for killin’ us’: activists fight Dakota pipeline’s final stretch

Discover more

Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), which built the $3.8bn pipeline that may be now moving North Dakota oil to Illinois, is falling back using a provision on the September 2017 agreement that offers more hours would the company face problems. The firm must provide 20,000 trees to county soil conservation districts around the pipeline’s 359-mile route in North Dakota.

The deal with North Dakota’s public service commission settled allegations that ETP removed so many trees in a few areas which improperly handled a pipeline route change after discovering Native American artifacts.

The agreement required the business to replant woods in the higher ratio from the disputed areas, with an additional 20,000 trees around the entire route. ETP filed documents in October detailing efforts by way of a contractor to plant 141,000 forest, but the PSC asked the business thirty days later to supply more documentation that it had complied with all of settlement terms.

Company attorney Lawrence Bender recently submitted a report from contractor KC Harvey Environmental further detailing the replanting efforts during the disputed areas. He noted that in some spots where landowners refused trees, the trees were reallocated to many other landowners “who had originates from and want to fit more plantings”.

Only 8,800 of your required 20,000 additional trees were planted in 2018. There have been several factors, including equipment and staffing issues, difficulties finding willing landowners and poor planting conditions, according to Perennial Environmental Services, which ETP hired to handle work.

A soil conservation district within the seven counties refused to join whatsoever as it didn’t feel one of the 15 tree species identified in the settlement agreement were suitable.

The agreement makes for the effort to stay into 2019 if there are issues with the tree supply “or other market conditions”.