THE PROPOSED MINERAL WITHDRAWAL WILL PROTECT 20,574 ACRES IN THIS AREA FOR 20 YEARS.
What to know:
|
Map of the Mineral Withdrawal shows the area as indicated in yellow with blue outline is just a small portion of the actual boundaries of the Rapid Creek Watershed.
|
|
The US Forest Service & Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have proposed a mineral claims withdrawal which would prohibit most new mineral claims, exploration, and mining on 20,574 acres in the Pactola Reservoir area of the Rapid Creek Watershed.
Public participation in this process is crucial! Register your support for the withdrawal and its expansion, your thoughts, concerns, and questions via a public comment in writing by June 20th, 2023. Comment online using the Forest Service comment portal: https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/CommentInput?project=NP-3479. Comment via USPS mail to: Bryan Karchut, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730. |
SCAN THIS QR CODE FOR QUICK ACCESS TO THE COMMENT PORTAL
|
Rapid Creek Watershed Action has developed some guidance as well as questions that can help you develop your comment:
Write in SUPPORT of the mineral claims withdrawal, AND urge the Forest Service to consider an expansion/additional withdrawal:
- UPSTREAM from Pactola to protect tributaries that supply water to the Reservoir (as well as cultural & natural resources in those areas)
- DOWNSTREAM from Pactola to protect aquifers that Rapid Creek flows into (as well as cultural & natural resources in those areas)
- IDEALLY ask for protection of the entire Rapid Creek Watershed as the best way to protect surface & groundwater that Rapid City, Ellsworth Air Force Base, and surrounding communities rely on.
Do you live in and/or recreate in the Rapid Creek Watershed? Write about what activities you participate in and how clean water and healthy habitat play a part.
- What impact would it have on your daily life and recreational activities if the watershed were contaminated or impaired?
- Do you hunt, fish, or ride trails in the watershed? How would your activities be affected if trails were closed, seasons limited, or fish affected by any contaminants?
Are you a business owner? Write about how your business benefits from clean water, recreation, and/or tourism:
- What impact would it have on your business if the watershed was impaired and/or municipal water became much more expensive due to contamination?
- How does your business benefit from visitors and would it be affected if the watershed was impaired by roads, noise, and possible contaminants?
Are you a landowner in the Rapid Creek Watershed?
- What impact would large-scale exploration and potential mining in your area have on your quality of life and property value?
- The counties in the watershed receive more than half of their annual tax revenues from outdoor recreation. Are you concerned about property tax increases?
Do you graze/raise livestock in the Rapid Creek Watershed?
- What impact would large scale exploration and potential mining nearby have on your operation?
- If you have a grazing lease on the BHNF, what impact would curtailment or loss of that lease due to minerals exploration and potential mining have on your bottom line?
- If you have livestock wells or rely on surface water for grazing, what impact would contamination of that water have on your herd?
Ask for an Environmental Assessment (EA), NOT an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Because this is a protection act, a full EIS is not necessary to assess impacts. Additionally, an EIS is a lengthy process, and we want to see this withdrawal completed ahead of the next election (when, whether or not there is an administration change, there can be a lot of distraction & turnover that could stall the process).
Do you support the Ellsworth Air Force Base?
- How could a risk to our only fresh waters supply endanger the national security imperatives of the base?
- As in situ water supplies around the base have been infiltrated by PFAS, receiving classification as a Super Fund site, how much further could this base and our local economy suffer from potential water contaminants?
- What are South Dakota’s Congressional delegation doing to protect our area from this threat?
REMEMBER–COMMENTS ARE DUE BY JUNE 20TH!
Don’t wait until the last minute! If you comment now and think of something you want to add later, you can submit an additional comment ahead of the deadline.
Don’t wait until the last minute! If you comment now and think of something you want to add later, you can submit an additional comment ahead of the deadline.
4/12/23 - Forest Service published a News Release with an update regarding how to submit Public Comments. Written Comment can now be submitted via USPS.
On Friday, March 17, 2023, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released news of a proposed “mineral withdrawal” within the Pactola Reservoir/Rapid Creek Watershed area in the central Black Hills Region of Western South Dakota. Official notice of the proposed withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, March 21st.
The stated purpose of the withdrawal is, “to protect the cultural and natural resources of the Pactola Reservoir—Rapid Creek Watershed, including municipal water for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base, from the adverse impacts of minerals exploration and development.” Two weeks after publication of the withdrawal proposal, Rapid Creek Watershed Action (RCWA) received a map of the proposed withdrawal area from Forest Service staff. The map shows a total proposed withdrawal area of 20,574 acres situated in the area around Pactola Reservoir. |
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT:
SCAN THIS QR CODE FOR QUICK ACCESS TO THE COMMENT PORTAL
| ||
What is a Mineral Withdrawal?
Essentially, a mineral withdrawal prohibits location of mineral claims, mineral exploration, and mining subject to valid existing rights on federally-controlled lands within the withdrawal area.
A valid existing right is a claim that has been proven to have a reasonable expectation of a profitable mineral deposit prior to publication of the withdrawal proposal notice. Rapid Creek Watershed Action is unaware of any valid existing rights within the proposed withdrawal area, but we will be asking for this information from the Forest Service and BLM.
Mineral withdrawals can be enacted administratively (as with the recently-proposed action in the Pactola area) or through Congressional action. An administrative withdrawal requires a public comment and hearing process and a two-year study period before taking effect. Administrative withdrawals have a twenty-year time limit. Congressional withdrawals require passage of legislation, and are considered permanent unless repealed.
Rapid Creek Watershed Action has been working toward a Congressional mineral withdrawal (the Rapid Creek Watershed Recreation Area Act-RCWRAA) that would protect the entirety of the Rapid Creek Watershed upstream from Rapid City. To date, we have more than two thousand signatures from residents and visitors alike in support of this Congressional withdrawal, with more signatures coming in daily. Sign The RCWRAA Petition Here!
Mineral Withdrawals Do Not Impact Private Lands
Mineral withdrawals do not interfere with timber harvest, grazing leases, or existing recreational or cultural activities on withdrawn public lands. Mineral withdrawals may in fact protect these uses because they stop mineral exploration and mining from displacing or destroying land and resources these activities utilize.
Does the Proposed Withdrawal Area Fulfill its Stated Purposes?
Rapid Creek Watershed Action believes that this proposal is a START, but it DOES NOT include the majority of the watershed that would need protection in order to satisfy the stated purpose: to protect cultural and natural resources and municipal water supplies for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base.
Essentially, a mineral withdrawal prohibits location of mineral claims, mineral exploration, and mining subject to valid existing rights on federally-controlled lands within the withdrawal area.
A valid existing right is a claim that has been proven to have a reasonable expectation of a profitable mineral deposit prior to publication of the withdrawal proposal notice. Rapid Creek Watershed Action is unaware of any valid existing rights within the proposed withdrawal area, but we will be asking for this information from the Forest Service and BLM.
Mineral withdrawals can be enacted administratively (as with the recently-proposed action in the Pactola area) or through Congressional action. An administrative withdrawal requires a public comment and hearing process and a two-year study period before taking effect. Administrative withdrawals have a twenty-year time limit. Congressional withdrawals require passage of legislation, and are considered permanent unless repealed.
Rapid Creek Watershed Action has been working toward a Congressional mineral withdrawal (the Rapid Creek Watershed Recreation Area Act-RCWRAA) that would protect the entirety of the Rapid Creek Watershed upstream from Rapid City. To date, we have more than two thousand signatures from residents and visitors alike in support of this Congressional withdrawal, with more signatures coming in daily. Sign The RCWRAA Petition Here!
Mineral Withdrawals Do Not Impact Private Lands
Mineral withdrawals do not interfere with timber harvest, grazing leases, or existing recreational or cultural activities on withdrawn public lands. Mineral withdrawals may in fact protect these uses because they stop mineral exploration and mining from displacing or destroying land and resources these activities utilize.
Does the Proposed Withdrawal Area Fulfill its Stated Purposes?
Rapid Creek Watershed Action believes that this proposal is a START, but it DOES NOT include the majority of the watershed that would need protection in order to satisfy the stated purpose: to protect cultural and natural resources and municipal water supplies for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base.
The areas to be protected encompass only lands in close proximity to Pactola Reservoir, while ignoring where the water in Pactola comes from, and where it goes after leaving the Reservoir. It also ignores the fact that mining downstream from Pactola is as much a threat as mining upstream or adjacent to Pactola because of the interplay between surface and groundwater in the watershed.
Mineral exploration and mining upstream from Pactola Reservoir threaten to contaminate water flowing into (and out of) the Reservoir. Mining downstream from Pactola Reservoir threatens to contaminate water that flows directly from Rapid Creek into the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers–the main aquifers from which municipal and private wells supplying Rapid City, Ellsworth Air Force Base, surrounding communities, and thousands of private landowners draw their water.
How Can I Take Action? Where Do I Make Comments & Get More Information?
You can comment on the proposed mineral withdrawal via the U.S. Forest Service comment platform HERE. A 90-day public comment period began with publication of the proposed withdrawal; comments are due by June 20th, 2023 at 11:59pm Mountain Time.
Also plan to attend the joint Forest Service - Bureau of Land Management public meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, 4-8 p.m., Mountain Time (MT), at the Best Western Ramkota Hotel, Conference Hall, 2111 N. LaCrosse Street, Rapid City, South Dakota 57701.
Information regarding the proposed withdrawal will be available at the Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730 and at the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101.
Mineral exploration and mining upstream from Pactola Reservoir threaten to contaminate water flowing into (and out of) the Reservoir. Mining downstream from Pactola Reservoir threatens to contaminate water that flows directly from Rapid Creek into the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers–the main aquifers from which municipal and private wells supplying Rapid City, Ellsworth Air Force Base, surrounding communities, and thousands of private landowners draw their water.
How Can I Take Action? Where Do I Make Comments & Get More Information?
You can comment on the proposed mineral withdrawal via the U.S. Forest Service comment platform HERE. A 90-day public comment period began with publication of the proposed withdrawal; comments are due by June 20th, 2023 at 11:59pm Mountain Time.
Also plan to attend the joint Forest Service - Bureau of Land Management public meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, 4-8 p.m., Mountain Time (MT), at the Best Western Ramkota Hotel, Conference Hall, 2111 N. LaCrosse Street, Rapid City, South Dakota 57701.
Information regarding the proposed withdrawal will be available at the Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730 and at the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101.
