Black Hills groups say feds not involved in withdrawal proposal

RAPID CITY – No significant impact and government overreach continue to be repeated regarding F3 Gold’s exploration drilling project at Jenny Gulch as the reason to approve the project. This is one of two projects proposed by the Minneapolis-based company. Opposition to the project has united unlikely partners and is widespread among residents, recreationists, Tribes, historic offices and numerous local grass roots organizations who believe there will be significant impact and say the basis for this assessment is erroneous.

Those in opposition to the project most recently gathered more than 1,900 comments from residents who live downstream who are concerned about drinking water contamination. Prompted by the objections and after more review, the Black Hills National Forest has proposed to remove 20,574 acres in the Pactola Reservoir-Rapid Creek Watershed to protect it from mining and mineral exploration for 20 years.

The Rapid Creek Watershed Withdrawal Project has been very controversial because the exploratory drilling for minerals will take place at the Jenny Gulch area near Pactola Reservoir and could lead to future mining opportunities. James Preston from Rapid City Watershed Action told KOTA TV back in 2022 that the risk to the economy is too great “to even allow that small door to open up.”

Black Hills Clean Water Alliance (BHCWA) is a group of local citizens from diverse backgrounds who are concerned about the environmental, health, and economic impacts of mining in the Black Hills. It was started in 2009 in response to increased mining and the destructive practices of the industry.

BHCWA says that the central Hills claims are in the Rapid Creek watershed. The watershed, Rapid Creek, and its attached aquifers supply the water for Rapid Citty, Ellsworth Air Force Base and communities and ranchers down to the Missouri River. Black Hills resident Dr. Lilias Jarding, founder and co-coordinator of the organization, said any exploration or mining accident in the central Black Hills could have far-reaching impacts on human health, wildlife, ranchers and the tourism and recreation economy.

The Lakota People’s Law Project, Rapid Creek Watershed Action, Black Hills Clean Water Action, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, even the Rapid City Council voted in 2022 to approve a resolution to oppose the project over concern for possible contamination of Rapid City’s drinking water.

No action was expected to be taken at Tuesday’s meeting but Suzanne Ludicello from the Rapid Creek Watershed Action said they wanted to get the item on the agenda to set the record straight.

She explained that at the October 1, 2024 commission meeting, the resubmission of the County’s opposition comments was a consent item on the calendar. Ludicello said project opposition was not present at the meeting, but Kwinn Neff was. Neff is the president of the South Dakota Mineral Industries Association, formed in 2021 to represent all mining interests. Instead of forwarding the item to a future meeting to hear both sides, Ludicello said the item was removed for discussion. “Commissioner Hadcock had the item removed from the calendar in order to provide time for Mr. Neff to speak. In those comments, Neff made a number of exaggerations or questionable statements regarding the withdrawal, how it came about and then the environmental assessment process.

In the October meeting, Hadcock noted there were people in the audience who wanted to speak on the withdrawal saying, “I didn’t know if they wanted to comment on it. I think it should be heard and repeated ‘cuz I think it’s pretty important.” Neff spoke and claimed that the withdrawal came from the national level “versus through the Black Hills National Forest staff.” He also said that according to a project assessment there would be no significant impact.

Ludicello said the mineral withdrawal is in its final stages. “For us, the real point is to clarify that this is not government overreach, this is not the federal government just kind of making a decision out of nowhere.” She said the Minerals Industries Association continues to put forth that narrative. “We don’t believe that narrative and we have the facts to prove it. We have thousands of comments from local folks including from this Commission on the F3 drilling project saying ‘hey we want to protect this watershed.’”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hadcock sparred with project objection representative

Jay Davis, saying that there were many ranchers in opposition to the withdrawal, concerned about leases. “We all want clean drinking water. I also believe that if you are a watershed committee, the number one pollution of watershed is stormwater. But what I keep seeing, and I can respect that you believe in the watershed, but it’s not just mining. Every time that you have came up here on an issue, it’s been about mining. It’s not been about the full impact of watershed and what people have done with their properties or even having recreational areas next to watersheds.” She said for her to support the withdrawal she said it would have to be about protecting the watershed as a whole, from all activities. “That’s why I didn’t vote for it. I’m not just gonna go after mining.”

Davis assured Hadcock and viewers that the mineral withdrawal is not a threat to cattle grazing in any way. “It’s not in any way a threat to cattle grazing, ranching or other agriculture or for that matter recreational uses within Pactola. A lot of us do not agree that exploration for gold in Jenny Gulch would have no significant impact. That has not been our experience historically when there’s been mineral exploration or mining close to water sources in the Black Hills. We’re more sensitive to environmental concerns than they were in the 1870’s or even the 1970’s.”

As for stormwater pollution and other issues around septic pollution, Ludicello said that stormwater pollution prevention is already required. “The fact is that there are numerous federal and state and local agencies that are dealing with aspects of stormwater and other issues regarding septic systems. We can’t go on to people’s private properties to inspect their septic systems. That is not the role of citizen groups. That’s the role of government.”

(Contact Marnie Cook at cookm8715@gmail.com)

The post Black Hills groups say feds not involved in withdrawal proposal first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source