Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement 

APPENDIX A 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 


Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-3 

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

During project development and analysis period, collaboration efforts were made to involve, 

interact and cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Section 30 Project. Part of 

this effort included public scoping as discussed below. 

Scoping 

Scoping is the process of obtaining public comments about proposed Federal actions to help 

determine the breadth of issues to be addressed by project actions. The Section 30 Project was 

entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in October of 2006. A scoping letter 

soliciting comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for managing

the Section 30 Project was mailed to approximately 172 members of the public, American Indian 

Tribes, other public agencies, organizations, adjacent landowners, and Forest Service specialists 

on October 12, 2006. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on Friday, October 27, 2006. 

A public meeting was held in Black Hawk, SD on November 07, 2006. At this meeting key 

members of the ID Team presented the project proposal to the public; questions were answered; 

and concerns and issues were solicited and documented for consideration. 

Groups or individuals who are known to have or may have interest in management of the National 

Forest (and specifically this project area) were included on a mailing list and contacted with a 

scoping letter. The mailing list is held in the Section 30 Project File. 

The public scoping period for this project ended on November 11, 2006. Comments were 

received in writing via regular mail, email, telephone, facsimile, and personal contact. 

A Corrected Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

Wednesday, October 7, 2009. The Corrected NOI was published in order to update the estimated 

Draft and Final EIS publication dates. It contained no changes to the proposed operation. The 

time delay between the NOI and Corrected NOI was due to other work priorities on the Forest 

that required immediate attention. A second Corrected Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS 

was published in the Federal Register on Friday, June 17, 2011. This second Corrected NOI was 

published after the DEIS was released and simply updated the estimated date that the Final EIS 

would be published. 

Additional Tribal Consultation 

A concerted effort was made to engage in consultation regarding the project with Tribal contacts 

known to have interest in management of the National Forest System lands. The proposed 

Section 30 project was discussed in formal government-to-government consultation meetings in 

2006 to define specific actions that would mitigate possible risks to historic properties and 

religious use sites. Also, in 2002 consultation addressed a proposed land exchange between the 

BHNF and PLS with respect to the Section 30 project area (BHNF-SO 2006a). Some Tribal 

representatives opposed the PLS proposed land exchange during the 2002 consultation. The 

2006 consultations addressed the PLS 2005 proposed quarry operation in Section 30. Those 

invited to consult included the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), CheyenneArapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Lower
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-4 

Brule Sioux Tribe, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Three Affiliated 

Tribes of North Dakota, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Banks and Gesso, PLS, and SD SHPO (BHNFMRD 2005). Those who chose to participate in consultation included the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe, Banks and Gesso, PLS, SD SHPO, and the Forest Service. 

Three formal government-to-government consultations regarding the Section 30 project were 

held in the Black Hills in 2006, including two in Rapid City on January 19 and February 28, and 

one in Spearfish on June 27-28. In addition to the consultation meetings held in the Black Hills, 

Forest Service and PLS representatives were formally invited to three reservations to meet with 

tribal council members during one of their regular sessions. The first of these meetings was at 

Eagle Butte, South Dakota with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council on March 8, 2006. 

The next was at Rosebud, SD with the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council on September 13, 2006. 

The last was at Fort Washakie, WY with the Northern Arapaho Tribal Council on September 20, 

2006. Additional communication on the project was included in meetings held in 2009, 

including one at the Crazy Horse Memorial near Custer, SD on April 21 and one in Spearfish, 

SD on September 17. An additional meeting on June 15, 2010 at the Crazy Horse Memorial near 

Custer, SD included discussion of the project. 

Consultation led to the preparation and signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in late 

2007. The MOA was signed by the SD SHPO, PLS, and the BHNF. The Northern Arapaho 

Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe signed the MOA as invited signatories. The Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation was invited to be involved with the development of the MOA, 

but chose not to participate. Other tribes participated in the consultation process, but were not 

signatories to the MOA. Invited signatories for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux 

Tribe, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe did not sign the MOA. In correspondence to the BHNF, 

the Oglala Sioux Tribe expressed opposition to the MOA based on treaty rights and the 

sacredness of all the Black Hills to their people. In correspondence to the BHNF, the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe expressed opposition to the MOA based on Tribal Resolution No. 216-06-CR, 

signed May 5, 2006. This resolution opposes all timber harvest permits, mining permits, and all 

other permits that may have an adverse affect on historic and cultural properties or areas of 

significance within the Black Hills. 

Opportunity to Comment 

The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) during the 45-day comment period. This 

comment period began when a Legal Notice was published in the Rapid City Journal, newspaper 

of record, on Saturday March 19, 2011, announcing an Opportunity to Comment on the Section 

30 Limestone Mining Project DEIS. Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2011. The comment period ended on May 2, 2011. The Mystic Ranger 

District received 18 responses, including letters, email, phone calls, facsimiles, and meetings 

with individuals. These responses have been analyzed using a process called content analysis. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-5 

Comment Content Analysis and Agency Response Process 

Content analysis is a method developed by a specialized Forest Service unit, the Content 

Analysis Team (CAT), for analyzing public comments. This method employs both qualitative 

and quantitative approaches. It is a systematic process designed to provide a mailing list of 

respondents, distinguish specific comments in each response, evaluate similar comments from 

different responses, and from those, identify specific concerns. 

The content analysis process strives to identify all relevant issues, not just those represented by 

the majority of the respondents. In addition to capturing relevant, factual input, the content 

analysis identifies the relative emotion and strength of public sentiment behind particular 

viewpoints. The intention of the content analysis process is to represent the public’s viewpoints 

and concerns as fairly as possible, and to present those concerns in such a way as to assist the ID 

Team in effectively responding to them. 

The ID Team reviewed the public comment statements and considered the substance of the 

concerns, evaluated whether they triggered a change in the environmental analysis, and drafted 

responses. For some comments, they reviewed the original letter or other input to ascertain the 

full context for the concern statement. 

The ID Team provided any recommendations for adjustments to the DEIS analysis or 

documentation to the Team Leader for review, consideration, and action. The ID Team provided 

responses to 18 letters and 122 public comments. 

In general, the ID Team responded in the following ways to public concerns as prescribed in 

the 40 CFR 1503.4. 

• Modify alternatives including the proposed action 

• Supplement, improve, or modify analysis 

• Make factual corrections 

• Explain why the comments do not need further Forest Service Response 

In response to the comments on the DEIS, the ID Team has made factual and clarifying 

corrections in the document, and/or explained why changes are not warranted. Minimal response 

(basically acknowledgement) has been made to concerns stating a position or an opinion. 

However, these positions and opinions have been compiled by the ID Team for consideration by

the Responsible Official. Some specific suggestions for management of the project area may be 

adopted by the Responsible Official, other specific concerns are beyond the authority of the 

Forest Service and beyond the scope of the DEIS or determined to be impractical. None of the 

comments necessitated reanalysis of alternatives. 

The following is a list of individuals or organizations that commented on the Section 30 

Limestone Mining Project DEIS: 

First Name Last Name Organization City State

Mike and Jeanette Grimm Rapid City South Dakota 

Myra Duba Rapid City South Dakota 

Stan Michals Energy and Minerals Rapid City South Dakota 

 SD Game Fish and Parks 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-6 

First Name Last Name Organization City State

Myron Kidner Murray Utah 

Larry Svoboda US EPA Denver Colorado 

 Region 8 

 Office of Ecosystems 

 Protection and Remediation 

Darrell and JoAnn Miller Rapid City South Dakota 

Larry Brandt Rapid City South Dakota 

Steve Biegler Diocese of Rapid City Rapid City South Dakota 

Barb Honeycutt St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Rapid City South Dakota 

 School Corporation 

Nancy Hilding Prairie Hills Black Hawk South Dakota 

 Audubon Society 

Yvette Mallow St. Martin Monastery Rapid City South Dakota 

Lorre Buhler Rapid City South Dakota 

David and Linda Mitchell Rapid City South Dakota 

JoAnn Miller Rapid City South Dakota 

Robert Stewart US Dept of the Interior Denver Colorado 

 Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance 

Ron and Sharon Oney Rapid City South Dakota 

Danielle Wiebers Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. Rapid City South Dakota 

Candace Odom Lakeland Florida 

Alice Wermers Lead South Dakota 

Public Comment on the Draft EIS 

Public comment on the Draft EIS was rich and varied, and reflects, for the most part, 

respondents’ livelihood, lifestyle, and/or position/opinion on issues or concerns. 

In general, most of the respondents were in favor of the No Action alternative (Alternative A). Most 

stated that if they had to choose between Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C, they 

preferred Alternative C. The following are sample excerpts from original responses: 

“We object to this project and request it not happen, but if it does – Alternative C is better than 

B, as it provides more environmental protection and Native American religious and historic 

site mitigation. It needs less Forest Plan amendments.” (Letter 6) 

“First of all the General Mining Law of 1872 has been legal but outdated in content for almost 

a century. The Environmental Impact Statement has been very well researched and reported. 

With this in mind, Alternative A seems to be the most appropriate choice of action.” (Letter 7) 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-7 

“We would choose Alternative Plan C since it allows for a limited area to be mined at one time 

with reclamation following immediately. Pete Lien and Sons owns many acres of land. Why 

choose National Forest land right next to houses, schools, and a possible senior living facility?” 

(Letter 9) 

“First let us say that between alternatives B and C we would favor C if we were required to 

chose a “No Action” alternative.” (Letter 13) 

Agency Response to Public Comments 

In the content analysis process, each response is assigned a unique number (ID) and given a number 

(Letter Number). This ID allows analysts to link specific comments to the original letter. All 

respondents’ names and addresses are entered into a project-specific database, enabling creation of a 

complete list of all respondents. Each comment is given a number (Comment Number) and is coded 

by response. The following report: Section 30 Limestone Mining Project DEIS Public Comment and 

Agency Response Report contains the complete list of respondents’ comments and the Agency’s 

response. Original letters are held in the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project File at the Mystic 

Ranger District Office in Rapid City. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-8 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

1 1 Plan

Wermers, Alice

Comment:

I would like to know more of what is going on and all updates that you get.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

2 1 Plan

Kidner, Myron

Comment:

Please remove me from your Section 30 Limestone Mining Project mailing list.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 1 Plan

Miller, Darrell and JoAnn

Comment:

The impact of Pete Lien & Sons mining Section 30 would be devastating to our Hidden Valley neighborhood. The value of our 

homes would drop drastically along with dust pollution and noise pollution problems. Most of the people in this development have 

been here for many years and are on fixed incomes, our homes being our life savings. If this mining project were to go through we 

would never be able to sell our homes, if we could find buyers it would have to be because we would have to sell at a loss so Pete 

Lien & Sons could profit. It is appalling to think that such a "good neighbor", as Pete Lien puts it on his commercials, would choose 

to mine so close to people’s homes.

Agency Response: 

The DEIS, pg. 26, discusses the rationale of why property values were not addressed in the EIS. 

Effects on local residents such as increased noise, dust, traffic, and changes to scenery were presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

Specifically the Land Uses and Infrastructure, Air Quality, Scenic Quality, and Social/Economic sections. 

Additional language has been to the Chapter 3 Social/Economic section of the FEIS to address the effects of blasting.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 2 Recreation

Miller, Darrell and JoAnn

Comment:

This area is a beautiful area that is used not only by us in Hidden Valley, but by many people from Black Hawk and Rapid City. 

There are hikers, bikers, dog trainers, bicyclers to name a few.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 3 Minerals

Miller, Darrell and JoAnn

Comment:

Another major concern is Safety - Using Hidden Valley Road will ruin our road even more than it is now from Hills Material trucks.

Agency Response: 

The USFS does not have jurisdiction on the Hidden Valley Road. The USFS can only make recommendations to the City of Rapid 

City Street Department, Engineering Services and Pennington County Highway Department.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-9 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 4 Travel/Trans

Miller, Darrell and JoAnn

Comment:

Hwy 79 is a very busy hwy. Lien trucks will have to make a left turn onto 79 which will result in holding up the people of our 

neighborhood trying to enter Hwy 79.

Agency Response: 

Hidden Valley Road is under the jurisdiction of Pennington County and the City of Rapid City and SD Highway 231 is under the 

jurisdiction of the South Dakota Department of Transportation. Standard safety precautions along the haul route would include 

speed control and signage (trucks entering highway) at appropriate and permitted locations. Should additional control devices or 

improvements be warranted, Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. would coordinate with the government agency that has jurisdiction over the 

relevant road or intersection.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 5 Visuals

Miller, Darrell and JoAnn

Comment:

The view from I-90 looking at the area that Hills Material has mined South of us and next to Section 30 is enough to bring tears to 

your eyes - If Liens mine the rest of it the whole area will look like that. So much for our beautiful Black Hills of S.D. There is no 

reclamation that can replace what we will all, not just the people of Hidden Valley, have lost!

Agency Response: 

Alternatives B and C have separate reclamation requirements as described in Chapter 2 and in the Design Criteria contained in Appendix 

B of the DEIS. Chapter 3 of the DEIS presents the effects of these two reclamation approaches. Both Action Alternatives would have 

ongoing reclamation—after initial startup—that would run concurrent with the mining operation. Both of these alternative approaches 

would replace stockpiled topsoil and revegetate disturbed areas. The main difference between the two approaches is that Alternative C 

would limit the amount of area disturbed, without being reclaimed, to 25 acres versus 60 acres for Alternative B. Also, Alternative C would 

return the area to a more forested condition in a shorter time period of time as compared to Alternative B. The DEIS discloses that the 

disturbed area would be highly visible from certain vantage points for many years until the reclaimed areas blend in more with the natural 

landscape (pgs. 99-107). 

The existing Hills Materials Company quarry is on private land, and is not regulated by the Forest Service as is the PLS proposed operation. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 1 Minerals

Duba, Myra

Comment:

Some concerns - hours of operation - night work - early morning blasting - a while back we were shook by a 5am blast at the 

existing mining area there.

Agency Response: 

Hours of operation would generally occur during daylight hours on weekdays. PLS proposed operation includes “nighttime” 

operations limited to no more than 60 days per year. PLS has clarified the term nighttime as extending to approximately 7:00pm. 

There would be no late night or overnight operations. Blasting would occur only during daylight hours one to two times a week, and 

would be coordinated with those who want to be informed when a blast is to occur. There would be no early morning surprise blasts. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 2 Minerals

Duba, Myra

Comment:

lighting - we enjoy a dark night sky and hope to keep that if possible.

Agency Response: 

Lighting would only be used during operations either just prior to the sun rising or setting, and only during a portion of the year 

(generally winter when daylight hours are short). There would be very limited, to no lighting, overnight at the site.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-10 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 3 Minerals

Duba, Myra

Comment:

Current work at the existing site is extremely noisy - concern about a crushing plant at the site as well.

Agency Response: 

The DEIS (pgs.113-115) discloses the effects of noise on local residents. Noise is also included as an Unavoidable Adverse Effect 

on pg. 117 of the DEIS. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 4 Minerals

Duba, Myra

Comment:

What affects will blasting have on the structural integrity of our house? We do shake from blasts from that area as well as Sturgis 

Rd. blasts.

Agency Response: 

Blasting should have no effect on the structural integrity of buildings in the area. See Agency Response to Letter 17, Comment 6. 

Additional information has been added to the FEIS in the Social/Economics Section to address concerns about blasting effects on 

structures and wells. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 5 Plan

Duba, Myra

Comment:

When home building in a city/county is encouraged - Do residents have some expectations that quality of life will remain constant?

Agency Response: 

According to the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance (revised 02/09/11), the Section 30 Project Area, as well as the majority of the 

adjacent area is zoned “General Agriculture.” Section 205 – A-1 General Agriculture District, subpart B lists the permitted uses for 

this zone, which includes mining activities, per the approval of a Construction Permit. 

The land to the east of the project area and south of Hidden Valley Road is zoned “NO CODE.”

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

5 1 Minerals

Brandt, Larry

Comment:

Transport limestone to processing plant via covered belt.

Agency Response: 

The DEIS, pg. 44, discusses a conveyor system in the section entitled “Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

Study.”

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

5 2 Minerals

Brandt, Larry

Comment:

Eliminate any dust involved.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comments 7 and 13.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

5 3 Minerals

Brandt, Larry

Comment:

Blasting & crushing to occur during normal working hours (7 to 4) weekdays & no weekends or holidays.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 4, Comment 1. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-11 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 1 Plan

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Page numbering is erratic,

Sometimes, after page 49 we are in Chapter 3, but before and after that we aren't in any chapters. The DEIS starts with a page iii 

(given in roman numerals) and shifts from roman numeral (page ix) to page 11. You need to make your page number system 

consistent.

Agency Response: 

Page number consistency has been addressed in the FEIS. The preface of the EIS is numbered with Roman numerals. The main 

body of the EIS is numbered with natural numbers.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 2 Plan

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Object to Project, but C is better than B

We object to this project and request it not happen, but if it does -- Alternative C is better than B, as it provides more environmental 

protections and Native American religious and historic site mitigations. It needs less Forest Plan amendments.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 3 Plan

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Failing to meet Forest Plan Standards

The DEIS discloses that alternative B violates more Forest Service Standards than C. We request that the FS meet the FS Plan 

Standards. We request that only native species be planted, that winter range of deer and elk be protected with shut down during 

winter, that appropriate restocking of pines occur and that 40 acre limit on openings at one time be enforced. We don't think 

amending the Forest Plan standards would be "insignificant and we don't think they would be in the interest of the Forest. At the 

very least the text of such proposed amendments should have been disclosed in the DEIS.

Agency Response: 

Forest Plan Amendments for Alternative B are listed and explained on pg. 41 of the DEIS. Forest Plan Amendments for Alternative 

C are listed and explained on pg. 43 of the DEIS. 

In a letter dated April 8, 2011, the Rocky Mountain Regional Office stated, “The proposed mining operation is not part of the 

Renewable Resource Program and is not covered under NFMA. Any associated timber clearing to access the limestone would be a 

conversion, even if temporary, from timber land to a mining site. The proposed action is not timber management, even-aged 

management, or a regeneration harvest; therefore, NFMA requirements related to size of openings and reforestation are not 

applicable.” Since Forest Plan Standard 2101 does not apply to this project, we do not intend to amend Forest Plan Standard 2101 

as stated in the Draft EIS. Therefore, in the Final EIS, all language pertaining to amending Forest Plan Standard 2101 has been 

removed. 

Language has been added to the Wildlife Habitat section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, discussing the effects of year long mining 

operations within MA 5.4 - Big Game Winter Range. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-12 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 4 Heritage

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Native American Historic and Religious sites

Lack of consistence on religious sites

Chapter 3 page 108 you say that --- SD SHPO determined that " 39PN1277, 39PN1279, 39PN1280 and prehistoric components of 

sites 39PN1283 and 39PN1284 were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP. Wolf also documented 

three native American religious use sites with in Section 30 (1995:86) (page 108 of DEIS) (emphasis added)

You then say

"the FS determined that the proposed Section 30 project may have an Adverse affect on the 5 historic properties and the four 

religious sites discussed above." (page 108 of DEIS). (emphasis added)

You then say on Chapter 3 page 109

"The MOA consists of 14 stipulations or parts that address mitigation measure with respect to the five eligible historic properties and 

the one site of American Indian religious value and significance. The main provisions of the MOA include requirement to protect 

sites..."(page 109 of DEIS)(emphasis added)

Please clarify, there appear to be 3-4 religious sites and only one of them is said to be protected by the MOA. Are 2-3 religious sites 

not protected? Which religious sites are protected (or not)? What happens to the not protected sites?

We understand you wish to protect secrecy of religious and historic sites, and thus may not provide much information on them. 

However there is not enough information in this DEIS to understand the qualities of sites and how they will be protected or impacted. 

We question how having a deep limestone quarry nearby will effect religious sites and historic sites. We believe the noise and dust 

and vibrations of mining will effect religious sites. We question if there will not be irreversible and or irretrievable commitments of 

resources with respect to historic/religious sites. We can't but imagine a deep quarry visible from a religious site or the path to a 

religious site would not be a irreversible impact. We don't know if the water or rock formations on the site has cultural significance. 

We don't know which values on the land creates the religious site. We believe the DEIS violates NEPA with respect to not disclosing 

enough about affected environment and impacts and mitigations with respect to historic and religious sites. 

We object to this project, as we can’t tell if mitigations are adequate and at least two tribes are not satisfied with the mitigations.

Agency Response: 

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) details protection and/or mitigations for the adverse effects of the five eligible historic 

properties and four religious use sites. 

One partially intact religious use site lies outside the mining boundary and will be protected from mining and kept available for use 

throughout mining operations. Three other religious use sites that have no remaining physical remnants would not be protected. 

Mining would occur at the location of these three sites. The stipulations outlined in the MOA, act as mitigations to the effects of 

these sites. This includes mitigations from increased nearby disturbances, such as the effects of dust and vibrations. 

Details of religious use sites and historic properties are confidential and cannot be disclosed. Details of all historic properties and 

religious use sites were fully disclosed to Tribal representatives during formal government-to-government consultation meetings.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-13 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 5 Plan

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Environmental Justice

The Black Hills always considers the local community not to include the Native Americans with historic claims to the land, who 

dispute the ownership of the land. We believe any actions in the Black Hills National Forest impact the lands claimed by various 

tribes and thus environmental justice concerns are triggered. This is especially true here due to religious and historic site impacts.

We also question how you determine the local community. These local areas contain a great deal more trailer parks and smaller 

older houses. We question if the area has more low income folks in it than is normal for the Black Hills area.

Agency Response: 

Active American Indian Religious Use Sites would be physically protected from the quarry operation. The main effects to the sites 

would be the change to its surroundings – noise and disturbances during the mining operation, and the long term change in view 

both during and after operations. See pgs. 110-111 of the DEIS. See Appendix B, pgs. B-7 through B-8. 

Eligible historic properties would be protected with adherence to specific protection measures that have incorporated into the mining 

design and the signed Memorandum of Agreement. See pg. 110 of the DEIS. See Appendix B, pgs. B-7 through B-8. 

See Agency Response to Letter 18, Comment 4 for Environmental Justice information.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 6 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

1872 Mining law and SD mining licenses and permits

We have discussed our concern about locatable and saleable minerals and SD mine licenses and permit law in depth over the 

phone with FS staff. However we will briefly mention again. Pete Lien got the SD laws governing mining changed so that mining 

limestone would be permitted via mine license, not mine permit. Mine licenses are easier to get than permits. Section 30 is licensed 

not permitted. 

Ironically the FS considers mining high grade limestone to be under the 1872 mining law, not under mineral sales. We ask that the 

DEIS disclose the difference in regulation between a SD mine permit and a mine license, and what effect the more lax DENR 

requirements of a license will have on the project and how the Forest Service could increase required mitigations to offset the more 

lax requirements of SD mine license.

We hope the DEIS will include a section on Pete Lien's mining licenses and the protections those provide (or don't provide).

Agency Response: 

The Section 30 EIS and associated decision has been prepared under laws, regulation, and policy associated with locatable mineral 

activities on National Forest System land. This management direction was disclosed on pgs. 13-15 of the DEIS. The applicability of 

the locatable mining regulations (36 CFR 228, Subpart A) to the Section 30 Project is disclosed on pg. 58 of the DEIS. 

The State of South Dakota determines whether a license or permit is the proper authorization for the Section 30 Project, under State 

law. Describing the difference between a State permit versus a State license is beyond the scope of this EIS. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-14 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 7 Air Quality and Hydro/Soils

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

DENR regulations/Permits

We hope the DEIS will include a discussion of Pete Liens Air Quality permit and surface water quality permits, it has with DENR. We 

don't believe Pete Lien has disclosed any point source discharges to the Box Elder Creek drainage. We question if water released 

from tanks or other containers, (when engaging in dust control), becomes a point source release and if Pete Lien needs to disclose 

point source releases to the Box Elder drainage and if this project is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. We question if there 

will be storm water discharges to the drainage.

Agency Response: 

PLS has a South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) Title V Air Quality Permit (Permit # 

28.1143-02). This permit is available online for review at: http://denr.sd.gov/pdfaq1/28.1143-02_permit_20100816.pdf. This permit 

outlines specific requirements under the permit to be in compliance with state and federal air quality regulations. This includes 

monitoring and shutting down procedures to reduce air quality issues. 

A copy of this permit is also located in the Section 30 Project File. 

Permitting requirements, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, was summarized in the DEIS 

on pg. 22. A discussion of water quality as it pertains to required permitting was also presented in the Water Quality section in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS (pgs. 66-67). 

The proposed Section 30 quarry is not located within the Box Elder Creek watershed, so no discharges to Box Elder Creek would 

occur. No surface water discharges would occur because there are no perennial or intermittent streams or other water bodies within 

the proposed project area, or immediately downstream. Therefore no surface water discharge permit is necessary for the proposed 

Section 30 quarry. 

However,PLS is required by the SD DENR to have storm water permits for its quarry operations. Permit #SDR00A560 is for the 

Black Hawk Quarry north of the proposed Section 30 limestone quarry (T2N R7E Sec18). The receiving water for storm water runoff 

related to this permit and quarry is Box Elder Creek. Permit #SDR00A061 is for the Rapid City Quarry Complex (T2N R7E Sec21). 

The receiving water for the Rapid City Quarry Complex permit is Old Lime Creek/Box Elder Creek. Stormwater permits can be 

verified by interested parties via the online SD DENR Stormwater Permit Database: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/dbstormsearch.aspx 

Whether the current Black Hawk Quarry storm water permit is amended to include operations at the proposed Section 30 quarry 

site, or a new permit is obtained, is entirely at the discretion of the SD DENR. 

As part of the NPDES permitting process, PLS is also required to develop and submit a Spill Prevention, Containment, and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) plan to the SD DENR for approval. The plan must be in place prior to construction/mining operations 

beginning. Detailed information regarding SD DENR permitting requirements and discharges can be found online at: 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/stormwater.aspx 

 

The Water Quality section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS has been updated to include a discussion of the existing and applicable water 

quality permits. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 8 Travel/Trans

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Section Line Roads

If section line roads are involved, can Pete Lien restrict access along those roads to public use?

Agency Response: 

The section line roads are under the jurisdiction of Pennington County and the City of Rapid City. Only these government agencies 

have the authority to control traffic on these roads.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-15 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 9 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Use of Section 30 material for waste

On page 37, you say - "Use of Section 30 waste would only be allowed with permission of the Forest Service". We believe that use 

of the Section 30 material for road file, is not allowed as that makes it a gravel pit, - saleable minerals and not a mine. We suggest 

you delete this clause and clarify that no material from FS lands can be used for road paving materials. Pete Lien will have to use 

road paving materials from his private land mines.

Agency Response: 

Aggregate (gravel) from the quarry might be needed to provide a stable surface for access roads associated with the operation 

within bounds of the project area. It would make no sense to mine and bring this material in from off-site. Aggregate material would 

not be removed from this site for use elsewhere beyond the limits of the mining operation. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 10 Botany

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Seeding

Please use only Native plant seeds.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 4. 

Alternative C was developed in response to public comments and additional analysis. No non-native plants are included in Alternative 

C’s seed mix. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 11 Hydro/Soils

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Further Clarification of drainage

We would like maps of the drainage basins to see if this drains into Rapid Creek or Box Elder or Lime Creek. We would like to see 

the drainage basins and how this relates to the DENR's surface water quality permits.

Agency Response: 

Please refer to pg. 63 of the DEIS: “The proposed project takes place in the Middle Rapid Creek watershed (HUC 101201100202).” 

A figure showing the delineation between this watershed and the adjacent watersheds has been included in the water resources 

section of the FEIS.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 12 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Long term use of the area.

Please discuss the long term uses of the area - will it become trees or pasture after the mine.

Agency Response: 

The DEIS discusses reclamation plans in Chapter 2 on pgs. 38-40 (Alt. B) and pgs. 42-43 (Alt. C). Also, see Scenic Quality section 

in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, pgs. 94-111. 

Additional information has been added to the FEIS regarding reclamation requirements and objectives. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-16 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 13 Air Quality

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Air Quality Monitoring

Please discuss the location of DENR's 2 nearest air quality monitoring stations (Black Hawk and Rapid City) and the number of 

houses and miles of land between Section 30 mining operation and the nearest air quality monitoring stations. Please evaluate and 

discuss if monitoring stations at these far distances provide adequate assurances of the compliance with the Clean Air Act and the 

SD mine licensing law? How will the mine impact people that live between the monitoring stations and the mines?

Please discuss requiring Pete Lien (with FS oversight) to install monitoring stations closer to nearest homes and at or near the 

Native American religious sites.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comment 7. 

There are several air quality monitoring stations currently monitoring air quality near the project area. One is located at the 

Blackhawk School. Rapid City has three locations: The National Guard Armory, Rapid City Library and the Rapid City Credit Union. 

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources develops an Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 

which is a review of the ambient air monitoring network each as required by 40 CFR Part 58. The 2011 review finds that state’s 

ambient air quality concentrations are demonstrating attainment with EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This 

plan is published in the department’s air quality website to provide public review and comments before the annual plan is finalized 

(http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/monitoring/state-mo.aspx#WhatWeMonitor). 

Specific information regarding each monitoring site along with information regarding the Class I and II air shed areas can be found in 

the 2011 Annual Plan. The SD DENR will continue to evaluate the need for other air monitoring sites in Rapid City if problems with 

dust indicate a need and if EPA rules require modifications to testing site locations (SD DENR 2011). 

Air Quality monitoring is required onsite of the Section 30 projecting mining operation. Onsite Air Quality monitoring is implemented 

by SD state certified individuals. The SD state certification qualifies these individuals to perform the necessary emission tests in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9 in the Federal Regulations. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 14 Visuals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Additional Drawing needed

You should provide a drawing /schematic shown from the side of how the slope or cliff face would look after mining is complete. Will 

the west side of the mine be a cliff or a slope? What will be the angle of any slope? 

Agency Response: 

The requested slope drawing is included on pg. 38 of the DEIS. This would be applied to all edges of the mine. Alternative B would 

limit the mine faces to a 3:1 (three feet horizontal for every one foot vertical) as part of reclamation. It would resemble a slope rather 

than a cliff face. Alternative C would add a little more variety to the mine face at reclamation so that the slope varies somewhat 

rather than all being at the same slope angle. 

The existing topography is presented on pgs. 28, 29, 30, and 40 of the DEIS. The “after” topography would be similar to the existing 

but approximately 20 to 25 feet lower in elevation. Alternative C would include a little more topographic variability than Alternative B. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-17 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 15 Visuals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Scenic Quality,

The Recreation discussion discloses the area has large number of local users (page 93 of DEIS). The scenic quality section 

discloses how the FS assigns sensitivity levels. We disagree with and appealed the FS assignment of SIO during the Forest Plan 

and incorporate our 1996 Appeal of the Forest Plan by reference.

We don't think either Alternative B or Alternative C provide adequate mitigations on the visual quality issues. The impacts to the 

view-shed as seen from the highway and surrounding areas will be too extreme under all action alternatives. 

Further visual mitigations are needed, -- such as requiring Pete Lien to mine in stages, so that reclamation/re-growth with trees or 

other plants can progress before more areas are mined. Mining should result in less straight lines.

The FS can require Pete Lien to plant larger more fully grown trees/saplings instead of "seedlings" in subsets and patterns to break 

up the harsh visual impacts sooner and try to achieve visual repair in 3 years. Shapes of green saplings within the exposed soil 

areas, might provide nice fixes. A landscape architect should be consulted and asked to design a "sapling" clumps, planting strategy 

to break up the startling and harsh visual impacts, sooner.

Will cliff faces result - if they do there may be shadow effects or rock feature values created. Please discuss any rock features 

created and the potential use of rock features, alternating with trees/grass, as a scenic tool.

If the mine is avoiding the heritage and religious sites, will that break up the visual impacts and can more area around religious sites 

be avoided to help mitigate visual impacts?

Agency Response: 

The referenced appeal of the Forest Plan was considered after issuance of the Plan. That Plan decision was upheld. 

Alternatives B and C require mining to be completed in stages and reclamation to be completed before the next stage can progress. 

As shown in the simulations, the mine would be highly visible during production. Once mining starts, there would always be an 

equipment operating area that would be visible, even after one area is reclaimed and prior to the next area being mined. ‘Straight 

lines’ in the landscape already exist on east and north sides of the area in form of roads, and along the south side by the ongoing 

Hills Materials Company quarry operation. Vegetation currently screens the east and north sides from some viewing locations. 

During mining, when vegetation is cleared the northern road ‘line’ would be more visible until vegetation grows up and screens it. 

Other edges of the mine (south and west) could be shaped to reduced straight line-edge effects. 

Alternative B proposes to plant several varieties of trees in clumps—including some larger trees—within the reclaimed area. 

Alternative C would require more aggressive planting of ponderosa pine only that would take advantage of the variation in 

topography and soil depths within the reclaimed area. This would likely result in varying densities of trees planted within the 

reclaimed area, and may take on a clumpy appearance in places. Alternative C requires that planted trees be from native stock from 

seed sources within close proximity to the quarry site, thereby ensuring that the planted trees are well adapted to the site. These 

trees would be grown in a nursery for specific use in planting this area. Alternative C does not specify the size of trees to be planted, 

but it is likely most of these would be seedlings, although some saplings might be included in the planted tree mix. 

Cliff faces would only occur around the edges of the mine during the mine operation phase of the project, and possibly along the 

edges of existing drainages through approximately the center of the mining area. These cliff faces would be reduced to 3:1 or 

shallower slopes as part of the ongoing reclamation process (see Agency Response to Letter 6, Comment 14). Due to the eastern 

exposure of the site, shadow created by the un-reclaimed steep walls would only come into play in the afternoon, once the sun has 

moved to the west and is beyond the slope of the wall. If a strip of land is left between the existing adjacent quarry and the PLS 

quarry as proposed in Alternative B, a shadow would result from the narrow leave strip. This shadow would be prevalent throughout 

the day during most of the year. However, it likely would have the least effect during the summer when the sun in at its highest point. 

Alternative C would eliminate the strip of land between these two quarries. 

Due to the nature of the mining, an irregular surface may be created along the floor of the mine, but this ‘texture’ likely would not be 

evident due to the sight distance involved. The texture of the blades of grass likely would not be evident. However, if the grass is 

thick and covers the area, and some areas where the grass does not cover, the contrast in color (green or yellow and brown) would 

likely be the element in the landscape that would stand out. Trees along the edges of the existing mine, on private property, are 

approximately 40 to 50 feet tall. It would take trees, or landforms, of that size to make any appreciable difference in the appearance 

at the base of the mine. Otherwise, the only palette to work with is color. Massing of trees and other vegetation that could break-up 

the open landscape would take time to be established and grow up to a point where it makes a visual difference. 

The mine proposal was modified in response to heritage issues. This helps to reduce the straight line appearance of the mine 

disturbance in places. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-18 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 16 Hydro/Soils

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Potential for Quarry Lakes

Sometimes quarries result in lakes in the Quarry pits. What is the potential for the water table to be intersected or a spring created 

and a water body or water flow to be created by the mine? Please discuss the possibility and impacts.

Agency Response: 

None of the proposed action alternatives would intersect the water table and result in the creation of a quarry lake. All quarry 

openings or pits, would be reclaimed, so no quarry lakes would be present on the landscape following removal of limestone. During 

operations, storm water management has been included in the design for all action alternatives to control runoff amounts, runoff 

routes, and temporarily store runoff in a number of small, individual detention basins (in accordance with SD DENR water quality 

and storm water management requirements). 

Please also refer to pg. 63 of the DEIS: “The elevation of the water table in this area is approximately 3,700 feet (Carter et al 2003). 

Therefore, the depth of the water table is at least 100-350 feet below the current, undisturbed land surface.” Proposed quarry 

operations would remove approximately 25 feet of the Minnekahta limestone, leaving 75 to 275 feet of the existing hillside intact 

above the water table elevation. The depth to the water table following excavation would vary with location due to the natural dip 

angle of the geologic units. Please refer to the discussion of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative B and C on pg. 64 of the 

DEIS: “The final excavated depth of the proposed quarry would be at least 100 feet above the Minnelusa aquifer, except for the 

detention ponds at the eastern edge of the operation area. However, it is unlikely that the water table would be encountered during 

mining operations, even in the detention pond area; because the underlying Opeche Shale unit naturally retards both downward and 

upward water movement between geologic formations. An adjacent pit on the southern property boundary has been excavated 

previously to a similar depth proposed by this project. The water table was not encountered during this operation and no evidence of 

groundwater-related problems was observed during field review.” Please refer also to Figure 2-2 (pg. 29) and Figure 2-4 (pg. 36) in 

the DEIS. These figures both show the location of the previously mined quarry immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the 

proposed Section 30 Project. 

The operational storm water management plan and reclamation plans for both action alternatives call for preservation of the existing 

drainage ways (indicated by the break in lines between north and south pits as shown in Figure 2-2 (pg. 29), Figure 2-3 (pg.30), and 

Figure 2-6 (pg. 40) in the DEIS. Where minor tributary drainages exist within proposed quarry pits, drainage would be controlled per 

SD DENR storm water requirements and the storm water management plan outlined on pg. 37 of the DEIS. The storm water 

management plan is the same for both action alternatives. Stormwater detention ponds would be designed to handle the 25-year storm 

and then oversized to handle any off-site contributions. Site-specific runoff analysis and design would be performed following approval 

of a final mining plan of operations. Runoff controls would be in place prior to the start of mining operations and throughout mining 

operations, until final reclamation and site stabilization has occurred, regardless of which action alternative (B or C) may be chosen.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 17 Botany

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Length of time inspected for noxious weeds

What will be the length of time Pete Lien is responsible for treatment of any noxious weeds?

Agency Response: 

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. (PLS) is responsible for monitoring and treating noxious weed infestations until the reclamation bond for 

the site is released (approximately five years after the end of all operations).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 18 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Quality of Limestone?

Does the entire area have high quality locatable minerals to the entire depth that Pete Lien want to excavate, or do some areas or 

levels have lower quality limestone that would be of saleable grade and thus off limits? Will the FS be inspecting as mining occurs to 

assure that only high grade limestone is being mined.

Agency Response: 

The Minnekahta Limestone is very consistent in terms of grade and thickness over the area proposed for mining. The Forest Service 

would inspect/monitor the mining operation as it occurs to ensure that only high grade limestone is being mined.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-19 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 19 Hydro/Soils

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Drainages

I have found the 1 to 24,000 USGS topographic map for this area. It appears that section 30 is drained by 3 small creeks/drainage. 

Two go to Rapid Creek and one to Box Elder Creek. Which drainage will the run off go into to is a function of which part of Section 

30 is mined.

Please provide a topographic map of the section and clarify which headwater creeks may be impacted. One of these Creeks may 

run into the park area behind Game Fish and Parks outdoor campus building. Please discuss if any of the water runoff from this 

area impacts City Parks or the GFP Outdoor Campus/City Park set up and any impacts to springs and surface water in that area.

Please provide the topo map for the Section 30 area and discuss the surface and ground water supplies to the Outdoor Campus 

and associated City Park and Synagog lands in the area.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comment 11. 

Please refer to Figure 2-2 (pg. 29), Figure 2-4 (pg. 36), and Figure 2-6 (pg. 40) for Alternative B operations and reclamation plans in 

the DEIS. Please refer to pgs. 41-43 of the DEIS for a description of how the sequence of operations (timing, location, etc.) would be 

modified under Alternative C. 

The above figures all show the proposed project boundary on the eastern portion of National Forest System lands located within 

Section 30. In addition to these figures, several topographic maps are presented throughout the DEIS, showing the project boundary 

and which drainage ways would be affected. None of the proposed project area has drainage ways that flow north towards Box 

Elder Creek or south towards Rapid City and the vicinity of the city parks and SDGFP Outdoor Campus. All drainage ways in the 

proposed quarry boundary drain east towards SD Highway 231.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 20 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Topo Map

Please provide a "before and after" Topo map for section 30 and a schematic map showing the cliffs/slopes from a side view. What 

topographical features be provided by the mine after Pete Lien goes away.

Agency Response: 

Several topographic maps of the proposed mine area are included in the DEIS (pgs. 28, 29, and 30). 

Page 38 of the DEIS states that the proposed action (Alt. B) would seek to match existing grades at the limit of the mined area, and 

to mimic the contour pattern and functions of topography that exists prior to mining activities. Page 38 of the DEIS also includes a 

cross-section of a typical reclaimed slope. Page 42 of the DEIS states that Alternative C would utilize waste rock to include some 

additional hummocky topography and to include shallower slopes, in places, than that proposed in Alternative B. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 21 Recreation

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Incidental Benefits

Would cliff faces created by mining provide any public recreation value -- with possible new features such as: 1) cliff as back stops 

for shooting ranges, 2) climbing places for climb enthusiasts, 3) views from peaks after a climb, 4) views of geologic sections 

exposed, and or 4) new lakes and ponds?. Please discuss any potential recreational/educational values created by mine - we are 

not advocating any of these uses and we are aware that Tribes may have concerns for historic and religious properties, we are just 

asking - what they could be, as this area is very close to Rapid City and to the Outdoor Campus.

Agency Response: 

This type of dispersed recreation would not be encouraged due to safety of the public. This area is not recognized in the 2006 Black 

Hills National Forest Recreation Niche to add any facilities including trails or overlooks. 

No lakes or ponds would be created by the mining operation.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-20 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 22 Wildlife

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Would any new habitat types be created by the new topography, such as plant habitats on cliff faces or nesting sites for raptors who 

like cliffs or aquatic habitat in new lakes and ponds.

Agency Response: 

High walls up to 25 feet during active quarrying are temporary features and would be in near vertical condition only until reclamation. 

High walls could provide temporary habitat for some wildlife species. Bats may use crevices for day/night roosts. Birds may use high 

walls as perching areas, especially those that aerial hunt (e.g., insectivores). Some birds (e.g., swallows) may utilize these high 

walls for nesting but only if vegetation was starting to return and there is no disturbance. It is unlikely that raptors would utilize these 

walls to nest, mostly due to their preference for higher elevation aeries. Due to the amount of disturbance associated with mining 

operations (i.e., blasting, equipment use) it is likely that wildlife would avoid the mine area during those periods. 

Reduction of high walls would be part of the reclamation process, which would result in contouring to reduce areas of exposed rock face 

(DEIS pg. 38). Water held in check dams and detention ponds as a result of a rainfall event would be temporary. Reclamation does not 

include lakes or ponds. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 23 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Is there anything about how reclamation or mining happens, that could maximize some of these incidental benefits and tie in to the 

outdoor campus of GFP? Should the Forest Service plan for some of this, in coordination with mine, Tribes and GFP?

Agency Response: 

There is private land between the SDGF&P outdoor campus and the proposed mine site. Tying in reclamation and mining with the 

outdoor campus is beyond the scope of this project, nor has SDGF&P or the adjacent landowners proposed any coordination with 

the reclamation plans for the Section 30 mine. 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 24 Minerals

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment:

Time Frame of Mine

I believe that Pete Lien's mine license is for 150 years. Can you tell us how long he will be mining out there and when reclamation in 

sections will be finished and open to public. How long will the area be closed off and off limit to the public?

Agency Response: 

Page 29 of the DEIS states that the mining operation would occur over a seven to 25 year time period. Page 31 of the DEIS states 

that reclamation would be ongoing (concurrent with mining). Public access to the mining and reclaimed areas would be restricted 

based on safety requirements. Public access would occur after reclamation has been successfully completed and the area is safe 

for public use.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 1 Minerals

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

Is there verifiable evidence that this limestone has 95% or greater calcium and magnesium and that the end uses demonstrate that 

they are "uncommon Varieties"?

Agency Response: 

As stated on pgs. 57 and 58 of the DEIS, the Section 30 limestone deposit has been determined by Forest Service mineral 

examiners to be an uncommon variety (locatable) of minerals for the use in making lime.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-21 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 2 Wildlife

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The Forest service is required to protect wildlife and minimize all adverse impacts.

Agency Response: 

The Forest Plan provides specific management direction for all resources, including wildlife, as summarized on pgs.13-24 of the 

DEIS. The proposed project is consistent with Forest Plan direction, with the exceptions identified on pg. 41 (Alt. B) and pg. 43 (Alt. 

C) of the DEIS. 

See Agency Response to Letter 7, Comment 3.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 3 Wildlife

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

25 years of deforestation, blasting on 90 acres will drive the deer and other wild animals away. Not to mention the birds. PLS (Pete 

Lien and Sons) should not be allowed to conduct winter. Spring operation, have camping or other activities that will adversely affect 

wildlife. How can PLS "demonstrate that ALL feasible measures have been taken to minimize adverse impacts on National Forest 

Resources."?

Agency Response: 

Effects to wildlife and habitats are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS (pgs. 78-91). 

Loss of suitable habitat and disturbance caused by active mining operations would displace wildlife to adjacent suitable habitats for 

up to 25 years. Once mining operations cease and reclamation begins, it is likely that wildlife use would increase over time, but this 

would depend on availability of suitable habitat. 

Restricting mining operations during winter periods could prolong the period of time that recovering the mineral limestone resources 

would require. This could lengthen the time before the area is reclaimed. Additional language has been added to the FEIS regarding 

the effects seasonal restrictions on mining operations as compared to yearlong operations.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 4 Recreation

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The proposed mining would significantly change the intensity of human activity in the area (biking and hiking admiring the beautiful hill from 

the roads).

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. See DEIS pgs. 93-94.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 5 Hydro/Soils

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

If the runoff water finds its way into the aquifer "75 feet of shale below the 25 foot mining edge", why would the blasting not affect it 

as well?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comment 16 pertaining to runoff control. 

Runoff water would be controlled through a storm water management plan, approved by the SD DENR. The chance of runoff water 

reaching the underlying Minnelusa aquifer is very low, due to approximately 100 to 200 feet of material that would remain between 

the excavated quarry floor and the aquifer. Additionally, the Opeche Shale is a confining unit for the Minnelusa aquifer and as such it 

prevents seepage from the surface and upper rock layers from entering the aquifer. Only the Minnekahta Limestone would be 

quarried, so the Opeche Shale would remain in place above the Minnelusa aquifer. 

See Agency Response to Letter 17, Comment 8 with respect to the Opeche Shale formation. 

The discussion of groundwater effects has been clarified in the FEIS to reflect the explanation offered here.

 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-22 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 6 Plan

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The proposed operation has also been unwelcome to Hidden Valley Community especially with the experience of the Hills Material 

destruction.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 7 Plan

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

Do you have a cumulative impact analysis? This cumulative impact analysis must consider the impacts for all past present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects water air quality recreation wildlife scenic and visual resources, (see the destruction of 

highway 79 and from I 90) local residents etc.

Agency Response: 

Cumulative effects analysis for this project is discussed in Chapter 3 on pgs. 49-51. 

Cumulative effects are also address by each individual resource in Chapter 3: Land Uses and Infrastructure, pg. 54; Geology and 

Minerals pg. 59; Soils pgs.60-61; Climate pg. 62; Groundwater pg. 65; Water Rights pg. 65; Streams and Floodplains pgs. 65-66; 

Water Quality pgs. 66-67; Wetlands and Riparian Areas pg. 68; Air Quality pgs. 69-70; Timber pgs. 71 and 73; Botany, Noxious, and 

Invasive Species pgs. 76-78; Wildlife pgs. 79-80; Fire and Fuels pg. 93; Recreation Use pg. 94; Scenic Quality pgs. 99 and 107; 

Cultural Resources and American Indian Religious Use pgs. 109-111; Social/Economics pg. 115. 

After the Section 30 DEIS was released for public comments, the BHNF received a proposal from Black Hills Power to construct a 

230Kv power line adjacent to the Section 30 project area. Cumulative effects analysis concerning this new project has been 

incorporated in the FEIS. 

Language has been added to the FEIS to address cumulative effects associated with the proposed elementary school and retreat center.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 8 Wildlife

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

Is there wintering wildlife that will be affected by this mining?

Recommendation: prepare a paper to assess potential impacts to the population of deer and eagles that live here.

Recommendation: Avoid direct and indirect habitat loss.

Recommendation: Implement wildlife protection best management practices (no dogs onsite, reduce use of outside lighting, ensure 

waste and chemicals are securely stored).

Agency Response: 

Effects to wildlife and habitats are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS (pgs. 78-91) and in the wildlife specialist report found in the 

project file. The bald eagle (a Region 2 sensitive species) is addressed in Table 3-4 on pgs. 83-84 of the DEIS. White-tailed deer (a 

MIS species) is addressed on pgs. 87-88 of the DEIS. Habitat loss is unavoidable, as acknowledged in the DEIS (pg. 117). 

Design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring for each alternative is found in Appendix B of the DEIS which includes site security, 

safety, noise, and chemical storage. Performance based design criteria, mitigation and monitoring would become part of the Plan of 

Operations signed by PLS and the Forest Service.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-23 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 9 Minerals

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

Recommendation: Limit operations to daylight hours.

Recommendation: Do not permit wintertime operations

Recommendation: what about the dangers of the elements that are used for blasting? Some kind of petroleum. If impacts cannot be 

avoided or adequately mitigated deny the proposed mining operation.

Agency Response: 

The statement that blasting would normally be conducted during daylight hours (DEIS pg. 34) has been modified in the FEIS to state 

that blasting would be conducted only during daylight hours. Wintertime operations are included under both action alternatives. 

Restricting winter operations would simply extend the time required to mine the deposit and increase the overall effects of the 

operation. Page 34 of the DEIS states that the primary blasting agent will be ANFO (a combination of ammonium nitrite and fuel oil). 

ANFO is a standard blasting agent used for mining. Its use would be in compliance with applicable regulations along with oversight 

by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 10 Minerals

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

First of all the General Mining Law of 1872 has been legal but outdated in content for almost a century. The Environmental Impact 

Statement has been very well researched and reported. With this in mind, Alternative A seems to be the most appropriate choice of 

action.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 11 Wildlife

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The ecological and cultural concerns that I have include: decreased wildlife habitat which is already compromised by urban sprawl.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 7, Comment 3. 

The project area is approximately 100 acres in size and represents 0.025% of the 396,516 acres of Management Area 5.4 Forestwide (DEIS pg. 87). The project area is an isolated parcel of NFS land (total acres) surrounded by private land and has been 

impacted by its close proximity to Blackhawk and Rapid City (e.g., recreation use). This parcel would continue to be affected by 

urban sprawl as private lands are developed (DEIS pg. 50-54). 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 12 Visuals

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The ecological and cultural concerns that I have include: open pit mining scars the forest and visually obliterates the scenic view of 

the Hills.

Agency Response: 

As disclosed in the Scenic Quality section of the DEIS, the mining operation would be highly visible during operation. Reclamation is 

required that would return it to a more natural condition, but this would take time to achieve.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-24 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 13 Plan

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The ecological and cultural concerns that I have include: it is close to residential areas including private homes, housing for the 

elderly, a monastery and a grade school...forests contribute to the quality of life.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 4, Comment 5.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 14 Vegetation 

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The ecological and cultural concerns that I have include: destruction of trees and green growth that help to maintain clean air.

Agency Response: 

Reclamation of the site would include reducing high walls, grading the site, applying topsoil, and revegetating areas where mining 

operations have been completed (DEIS pgs. 71 and 72). Also, see Appendix B, Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 

for each alternative.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 15 Heritage

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

The ecological and cultural concerns that I have include: the Black Hills have long been recognized as sacred for the Native 

Americans. The fact that one of the nearby tribes would not agree to have this ground desecrated needs to be seriously considered.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. As stated in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), one religious use site would be protected from mining and 

kept available for use throughout mining operations. The five historic properties will be avoided by mining activities.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 16 Travel/Trans

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

One good outcome from mining would be the limiting of motorized vehicles.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. Off-road motorized use is no longer allowed in this area based on the recent Forest-wide travel management 

decision (USDA, Forest Service 2010c). Public motorized use is allowed on state and county roads and National Forest System 

Road 553 in the project area. Other roads on forest land used to access mining in this project area would be closed and reclaimed.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 17 Fire/Fuels

St. Martin Monastery

Comment:

One good outcome from mining would be...prevention of forest fire near buildings.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-25 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 1 Travel/Trans

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Haul road: The intended haul road is in such poor shape that it will not handle anymore truck traffic. The road is also to narrow for 

large trucks and will create a safety issue for the local traffic. This route will also create a large amount of dust and noise especially 

to those home owners right along the road. It will also interfere with our walks, because we use that road as it in the only street 

available to us.

Agency Response: 

The majority of the proposed haul route is on roads that are not part of Forest Service jurisdiction. Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. (PLS) 

has obtained Pennington County Construction Permit CP 01-05 which requires PLS to notify the County of its schedule and plans to 

initiate mining on the Section 30 Project Area and further specifies the scope of the County’s further review of road impacts, 

drainage, and other matters related to mining. Any road base or paving may be added at the discretion of the controlling jurisdiction 

(i.e., Pennington County, Rapid City, or the SD Department. of Transportation). 

For dust control purposes, it is anticipated that the speed limit would be posted at 15 miles per hour on the internal roads within the 

quarry. Design criteria and mitigation measures for dust control were included in Appendix B of the DEIS which include PLS develop 

and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, implement speed limits within the quarry, and routinely water unpaved roads as 

necessary. 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 4 concerning safety precautions.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 2 Travel/Trans

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Liens have a road above our housing community on their own land that will take them over to Box Elder Creek road. With a little 

work they could make this into a haul route. Pressure from the Forest Service would help them to decide to use the alternate route.

Agency Response: 

An alternative was considered that would change the haul route from the proposed action location of Hidden Valley Road and SD 

Highway 231 (DEIS pg. 44). It was determined that changing haul routes would require crossing private land that currently does not 

allow the United States legal access. The Forest Service cannot direct Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. to cross private land rather than 

using the proposed legal access on city and state roadways. This alternative is beyond the scope of this project and was dropped 

from further analysis.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 3 Minerals

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Mining area: I would like to see the mining start on the South edge and work north in 20 acre sections. Then have this area 

reclaimed to the fullest extent before moving to the next section. I believe this would ensure Liens to reclaim the area quickly so they 

could start up again. Since the Forest Service owns this land you should have the right to have Liens mine it the way you want. 

Starting at the south end would also provide a noise barrier between the mine and our housing district.

Agency Response: 

Alternative C requires mining to commence on the south end. See pgs. 41 and 42 of the DEIS. Reclamation would be ongoing 

during the life of the operation.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-26 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 4 Travel/Trans

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Dust control: I expect Liens to be constantly watering to keep the dust down and the Forest Service to be monitoring it due to all the 

nearby residents on all sides of the mining operation. Liens trucks should be covered to keep the dust coming off the trucks to a 

minimum.

Agency Response: 

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. (PLS) will secure permits for mining and reclamation activities required by law which include obtaining 

permit(s) to ensure that equipment and dust control measures comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA). In South Dakota, the 

Environmental Protection Agency has delegated enforcement of the CAA to the South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. South Dakota’s air quality laws contain requirements for controlling fugitive dust emissions during mining 

activities. 

Design criteria and mitigation measures listed in Appendix B of the DEIS include PLS develop and implement a Fugitive Dust 

Control Plan, post speed limits on internal roads within the quarry for dust control purposes, and routinely water unpaved roads as 

needed. The Forest Service and PLS will monitor roads for dust to keep air quality standards at levels meeting National Events 

Action Plan. 

In addition, Alternative C would provide additional dust suppression, such as magnesium chloride, and further limit truck speeds. 

These provisions would be in the form of recommendations to Pennington County and/or Rapid City who have jurisdiction on the 

Hidden Valley and Quarry section line roads.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 5 Minerals

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Blasting: We would like blasts to be set at a certain time each day. We would also like monitoring of the air blast, not just seismic 

monitoring of the ground. The real trouble comes through the air. This is what shakes windows and causes much of the blast issues. 

We are also concerned that the blast would affect our foundations and our water lines. If inspections could be completed and paid 

for by the Liens prior to their mine or blast, it would be a better indicator of the effects of their blasts on our personal property and 

homes.

Agency Response: 

Blasting would be conducted only during daylight hours. Area residents would be notified (upon their request) whenever a blast is to 

occur. Both seismic and air blast monitoring would be conducted for every blast. Blasting is not expected to affect homes/structures 

or water lines/wells. Additional information on blasting and its effects has been included in the Social/Economic section of Chapter 3, 

and in Appendix B of the FEIS. 

See Agency Response to Letter 17, Comment 6.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 6 Travel/Trans

Buhler, Lorre

Comment:

Signage: I assume there is going to be signage at the bottom of the hill at the corner of Hidden Valley Road and Hidden Valley Lane 

or in that vicinity, stating of mining operations ahead and for local traffic only. This hopefully will help keep unwanted traffic and dust 

down.

Agency Response: 

Signs identifying the site as a quarry would be conspicuously placed on the perimeter of the site at regular intervals (typically 100 to 

200 feet). A sign with the quarry name and detailed permit and contact information would be placed at the site entrance.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-27 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 1 Visuals

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

Rapid City is the gateway to the Black Hills. There is nothing like seeing the city with the beautiful hills in the background. When the 

locals and the tourists are on the hill on I-90 just entering the city this is what they expect to see. Right now there is one blemish 

made by an abandoned quarry........can you imagine what it will look like with the whole hillside being destroyed by a larger quarry? 

We can’t let that happen! In the present draft the quarry could be there for 25 years or more plus years of reclamation.

Agency Response: 

The mine would be highly visible from this view point, in any Action Alternative, during the life of the mining operation. Staged 

reclamation would reduce effects, but it would still be evident until the full growth of the reclamation efforts is achieved. 

The most highly visible location to area travelers would be on US I-90 heading west on the way out of the Rapid City area.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 2 Travel/Trans

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

Some of the actions that will happen to the families that live in the area are increased road traffic, especially if Hills Material Quarry chooses 

to re-start their mining operations immediately south of the Lien’s proposed 64 acres. he noise and dust from the quarry plus from the 

trucks going back and forth will create pollution. Also, the already busy traffic on Sturgis Road is going to become even more dangerous.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 8, Comments 1 and 4 concerning dust control. 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 4 concerning safety precautions.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 3 Minerals

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

We can already hear the sounds of the Lein quarry directly to the north of our property early in the morning plus all day long. We 

also hear the machinery and hear and feel the blasting that goes on all day every day. What will this blasting do to our water lines 

for the entire development? We would request a systemic monitoring of the above ground air disturbances during blasting.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 4, Comment 3. 

Blasting is not expected to affect water lines in the area. 

See Agency Response to Letter 17, Comment 6. 

Additional language on blasting effects in the Social/Economics section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 4 Travel/Trans

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

We are very concerned about Hidden Valley road conditions especially considering the horrible way it was left by Hills Materials 

Quarry. Several patches of the road, (anywhere from 3 feet to 20 feet) have been left in disrepair causing wear and tear on our 

vehicles. The families on Hidden Valley Road and Hidden Valley Lane are in a quiet, serene area where children are present and 

individuals do quite a bit of recreational walking. The only time we’ll have peace and quiet will be in the evenings and weekends. We 

would suggest an alternate entrance to the Lien Quarry.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 8, Comment 1 concerning Hidden Valley conditions. 

See Agency Response to Letter 8, Comment 2 concerning alternate entrance.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-28 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 5 Air Quality

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

We also have read that a senior living facility is being planned for this area. Do they understand these future plans of a possible 

quarry going up in this area? The dust from the quarry could have very detrimental affects on these residents as well as the children 

at the new elementary school starting soon at the St. Martin Monastery.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comments 7 and 13.

Adjacent land owners, such as Hills Material Company, St. Martin’s Monastery, and the Diocese of Rapid City were discussed in the 

DEIS Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Section on pgs. 50-51. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan 

Society Assisted Living Retirement Facility and the Black Hills Power (BHP) Teckla-Osage-Lange 230 Kv Transmission Line Project 

has been added to this section in the FEIS. This listing helped drive cumulative effects discussions in Chap. 3 of the DEIS, each 

specialist discusses cumulative effects as it relates to their resource. 

The effects on public health and safety were identified as a main issue for the development of the EIS. The comparison of the 

alternatives as they related to this issue is found in the DEIS pg. 47. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 6 Minerals

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

According to the Alternative C plan, less acreage would be mined at one time. We would propose to fence only the south 30 acres right at 

the start, mine the south 20, then mine the next 10 acres while doing reclamation on the first 20 acres, and continuing on in this manner but 

only fencing the acres that are being mined at the time. This way the entire 94 acres won’t be fenced off to the public for 7-25 years.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. The purpose of fencing is to provide public safety during the mining operation. Fencing is a requirement of MSHA.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 7 Plan

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

There is no mention of real estate devaluation. We are very concerned about the resale value of our properties. Most people here 

have retired and wish to live out their lives. Who is going to want to buy a house by a quarry!?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 1.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 8 Plan

Mitchell, David and Linda

Comment:

We would choose Alternative Plan C since it allows for a limited area to be mined at one time with reclamation following 

immediately. Pete Lien and Sons owns many acres of land. Why choose National Forest land right next to houses, schools, and a 

possible senior living facility? 

We are not mining experts and don’t know the best regions for mining and we understand this is a business, but where is the 

consideration for the general public and the national forest?

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

10 1 Plan

Grimm, Mike and Jeanette

Comment:

I would be in favor of Alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-29 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

10 2 Minerals

Grimm, Mike and Jeanette

Comment:

I understand that the Forest Service has no Authority to hold PLS responsible for hours of pit operation or maintenance of road ways 

used. I am however, most concerned about these 2 subjects. How can I be assured that the pit will not operate 24 hours per day, 

and that the haul roads will be kept in "as good or better" condition? As I have stated, I have no objection to the project as long as 

the proper authorities have some control of these two concerns. 

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 4, Comment 1. 

Roads within the mine operating area would be maintained. The USFS does not have jurisdiction on the Hidden Valley Road. 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 3.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 1 Minerals

Miller, JoAnn

Comment:

PLS will upset our peaceful life in Hidden Valley enough when they begin to mine. Hopefully they will not be allowed to fence off the 

entire area at once. We all enjoy hiking up there, picking berries, collecting fire wood etc. Things we have done for over 40 years. 

Seems as though the idea of mining, fencing, and reclaiming 20 acres at a time would make much less of an impact on all of us. It 

could also lessen the drop of our property values.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 6. 

Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with the mining operation. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 2 Minerals

Miller, JoAnn

Comment:

If PLS would leave a buffer along Hidden Valley Rd and begin the mining back from the roadways it would decrease the noise and 

the dust coming our way. I would like to see PLS leave a buffer of forest along H.V. Rd, do 20 acres, fence just the 20 acres and 

reclaim before moving on and work from the north to south and be moving away from us as they go.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 11, Comment 1. 

Alternative B proposes mining to start at the north and proceed to south. Alternative C proposes to start mining on the south and 

move to the north. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-30 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 1 Wildlife

US Department of the Interior

Comment:

U.S. Geological Survey

General: The document does not provide a discussion of multiple stressors and there possible adverse impacts to many of the 

wildlife species listed in the document. One example is Whitenose syndrome (WNS), an emerging fungal disease that threatens the 

survival of North America hibernating bats (USGS, 2011). We suggest that the Final EIS include a discussion of multiple stressors 

and mitigation options to avoid or significantly reduce impacts on these species.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 7, Comment 3 and Letter 7, Comment 11. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project on wildlife and their habitats are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

Habitat loss is unavoidable, as acknowledged in the DEIS (pg. 117). 

R2 and SOLC bats were analyzed in the DEIS. There are no known potential colonial roosts in the project area, therefore no 

colonial roosting habitat will be lost. (DEIS pg. 81-82 and 88-89). White-nose syndrome has been associated with bats that roost 

colonially in caves or underground mine workings during winter hibernation. At this time little is known regarding White-nose 

Syndrome and its causes and effects to bat populations (USDI FWS 2011). 

The type of limestone formation (Minnekahta) is generally not a cave-bearing geologic unit, like that of the Madison (Pahasapa) 

Formation found much deeper below the land surface (DEIS pg. 55). Therefore, no underground bat roosting habitat would be affected.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-31 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 2 Wildlife

US Department of the Interior

Comment:

U.S. Geological Survey

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Wildlife Habitat. 

Pages 78-91: Several wildlife species may be adversely impacted by the proposed activities including the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, Fringed myotis bat, Northern goshawk, Northern harrier, and the Loggerhead shrike. Fellers and Pierson (2002) demonstrated 

that the Townsend's big-eared bat shows considerably loyalty to their primary roosting sites; any loss of roosting habitat could 

adversely impact this endangered species. The Draft EIS states that project activities "May adversely impact individuals, but not 

likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area"; however, the document does not provide scientific references to support the 

statement. Suggest the Final EIS include scientific references to support the statement that the activities are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 7, Comment 8 and Letter 12, Comment 1. 

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Region 2 sensitive species, not a Federally endangered species. Fellers and Pierson (2002) 

study mostly focused on foraging behavior distances as it relates to the location of primary roosting habitat (e.g., maternity roost). 

This species was included in Table 3-4 in the DEIS because the project area potentially provides marginal foraging habitat. 

Townsends’s big-eared bat, Fringed myotis bat, northern goshawk, northern harrier, and the loggerhead shrike are considered R2 

sensitive species and were analyzed in the project Biological Evaluation (DEIS pg. 80). Since the release of the DEIS, the R2 

sensitive species list has changed (FSM R2_2600-2011-1) which required additional analysis and review. The FEIS reflects those 

changes. 

A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed for the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project following FSM 2670.4. The BE is a review 

of Forest Service actions in sufficient detail to: 1) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 2) ensure 

that actions do not contribute to loss of viability of native or desired non-native plant or animal species, or cause a trend towards 

listing under the ESA; and 3) provide a standard by which to ensure that endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species 

and critical habitats receive full consideration in Forest Service decision-making. The use of applicable research literature, local 

knowledge and expertise and other information was assessed to provide factual and scientific basis to this review. Documentation 

can be found in the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project file. 

The analysis of effects is tiered to the Revised Forest Plan and Phase II Forest Plan Amendment EIS and their associated biological 

assessment/biological Evaluations (DEIS pg. 79). 

Viable Populations are defined as a population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure 

the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed species) within the 

planning area (FSM 2670.5). Species viability is addressed at the Forest Plan level and is beyond the scope of this project.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 3 Minerals

US Department of the Interior

Comment:

Bureau of Land Management

Page 42 – bottom: The USFS might consider sewage treatment solids, which pass EPA standards, to enhance the quite limited 

existing topsoil. Additionally, any soil resource should be verified as noxious weed free.

Agency Response: 

Both Alternatives B and C provide for the option of amending the topsoil with imported organic material for use in reclamation. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-32 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 4 Botany

US Department of the Interior

Comment:

Bureau of Land Management

Pages 76 – 78: The proposal in Alternative B to use crested wheatgrass and smooth brome in the reclamation process is 

problematical. The DEIS documents that the use of these species does not follow the Forest Plan (Objective 230 and Standard 

1110). The DEIS also documents that the use of these species would hinder establishment of native species, decrease species 

diversity, and increase competition for sensitive plants. We would not recommend the use of crested wheatgrass and smooth 

brome. The seed mixtures in Alternative C, as found in Appendix B, would be adequate for reclamation, and much more desirable.

Agency Response: 

Alternative B’s seed mix was submitted with the Plan of Operations (PO). Pg. 77 of the DEIS discloses the effects of the seed mix 

proposed in Alternative B. The seed mix proposed in Alternative C meets Forest Plan Standard 1110 by excluding the use of 

smooth brome and crested wheatgrass and using native or non-aggressive annuals. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 1 Plan

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

First, let us say that between alternatives B and C we would favor C if we were required to chose a “No Action” alternative.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 2 Recreation

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

There is implication in the draft that the recreation loss of these 94 acres is relatively insignificant compared to the remaining 1.2 

million acres of National Forest. It is also implied that only local residents, such as ourselves, utilize the area for recreation. Neither 

of these implications is true. As public land adjacent to an urban area, this parcel has significant visitation from people from all 

around the metro area. We know of young people from 10-15 miles away that come to bike in this unique area. This parcel and the 

immediately adjacent National Forest are “destinations” for such young people. The trails on this ridge are utilized by bikers, hikers, 

and Native Americans because it is an area unique for exposed bedrock , steep narrow canyons, and cultural significance. We can 

only speak for ourselves, but we do not know of other reasonably accessible U.S. Forest Service parcels where we can wander in 

such narrow, steep, limestone canyons; sit on cushions of moss beds; look at dry “waterfalls” cut out of bare limestone and all the 

while notice mountain lion tracks. The point of this paragraph is that (1) this parcel is important to many folks besides “local 

residents” for recreation, (2) it has a uniqueness not available on the other “1.2 million acres,” and (3) this parcel is a recreation 

treasure immediately adjacent to our metropolitan area. If this parcel is removed from a recreation status, then the agency and 

applicant should be required to create significant recreational improvements on the adjacent Forest parcels. This will not replace 

these canyons but is at least a step towards mitigating the destruction.

Agency Response: 

The bike trails that exist in this area are user defined trails that are unauthorized and are not maintained by the USFS. Biking and 

hiking opportunities are available on authorized and maintained trails located on other NFS lands within the Black Hills NF. There 

are no long-term plans to develop trails or facilities on this parcel of land. 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comment 20. 

As stated in the DEIS pg. 114, recreationist would be temporarily displaced until both mining and reclamation activities are 

completed in both Alternatives B and C. After reclamation activities have been completed, recreation activities such as hunting, 

hiking, wildlife viewing, target shooting, etc. would again be allowed within the project area.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 3 Minerals

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

We concur that alternative C is preferable to B in limiting unrestored work areas to 12.5-25 acres. This will limit visual impact, dust, 

and other deleterious impacts. We support prohibition of simultaneous work units on the parcel.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-33 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 4 Heritage

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

We have encountered Native religious practice on this land that needs to be respected. Selection of an alternative that minimizes 

human impact is required.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 5 Minerals

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

Alternatives (primarily B) that state that traffic volume “would not warrant new traffic control” are incorrect. Weight and speed of 

other mining activity has already destroyed much of Hidden Valley Road. Heavy laden trucks coming down Hidden Valley Road 

require traffic control forcing a full stop. Selection of an alternative that minimizes human impact is required. The agency and 

applicant should be required to participate in planning road improvements with the County, City and State. In this day and age, it is 

not enough for a federal agency to meet minimum required planning and then suggest that impacted populations talk to their 

legislators if they want more. As an executive agency, the U.S. Forest Service has an ethical obligation to protect human impact by 

living up to the spirit of their decisions on people in the area.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 3.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 6 Wildlife

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

We disagree with alternative C that Ponderosa pine is the species to be solely utilized in reclamation. If a variety of land form is 

planned then utilize multiple species of trees on the parcel. Small area plantings of aspen and local “scrub oak” would enhance the 

visual and wildlife habitat properties of the land.

Agency Response: 

As shown on pgs. B-11 and B-12 of the DEIS, numerous species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs are proposed to be utilized for 

reclamation once mining is completed. The objectives of reclamation plan are discussed (DEIS pgs. 38, 42) which includes 

improving aesthetic quality of the site and creating potential wildlife habitat. 

Aspen and oak do not naturally occur in the project area. Some hardwoods (e.g., ironwood, elm) can be found along steep drainages 

where site conditions are more mesic and have deeper soil profiles. Through the mining process most of the mesic site conditions would 

be lost, where conditions become less suitable to sustain hardwood growth. Planting hardwood species at this project site would likely 

not be successful. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 7 Minerals

Oney, Ron and Sharon

Comment:

In conclusion, this parcel is important to many more people than just us local residents. The final decision on how to utilize this 

parcel needs to take into account the complex impact on local roads, schools, recreation, hunting, vegetation, visual impact, 

religious practice and other social impacts. We understand that the U.S. Forest Service does not have the authority to deny use of 

the land under mining laws but an alternative should be selected to minimize and mitigate every impact possible. This is unique 

national land essentially lying within a city.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-34 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 1 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Mining Sequence 

Pete Lien & Sons (PLS) supports starting the mining sequence in the south pit as proposed in Alternative C for the reasons given by 

the Forest Service (FS). The alternative actions considered but eliminated and the photos in the Environmental Consequences 

sections seem to contradict each other. PLS would like confirmation that their interpretation of the mining sequence is accurate. It is 

as follows: Mining will begin in the south pit; mining will occur from east to west and then proceed to the north pit where it will again 

proceed from east to west. This allows for reclamation that will help block the community’s view of mining activity to begin as quickly 

as possible.

Agency Response: 

The description provided accurately reflects the intention for mine sequencing in Alternative C. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 2 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Removal of Buffer between Hills and Forest Service Property 

PLS supports removing the buffer in the south east corner during mining as proposed in alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 3 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Mining Area 

In the Plan of Operation and Alternative B, PLS asks for the allowable amount of un-reclaimed disturbance be limited to 60 acres at 

any one time. In alternative C the allowed un-reclaimed disturbance is limited to 25 acres. PLS asks that the 60 acre limit be 

adopted since a lower limit will increase the amount of time needed to complete mining at this site due to the operating restrictions it 

will cause. Homeowners in the nearest development have expressed that they would prefer for mining to be completed as quickly as 

possible once started. Further limiting the allowable disturbance will lengthen the mining process and the amount of time PLS will be 

active on site.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 4 Vegetation

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Timber Removal 

PLS supports the annual removal of timber as proposed in Alternative C. Please confirm that in Appendix B on page B-5 the 

requirement for a FS representative to be on site to determine which trees are selected is only to prevent more than one year’s 

worth of clearing from being done.

Agency Response: 

Timber sale administrators would be on site to monitor operations during the timber sale and ensure contract provisions are 

followed.

 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-35 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 5 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Topography 

PLS supports adding hummocky topography and varying the slope of reclamation off highwalls in some areas to add topographic 

relief and diversity as proposed in Alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 6 Botany

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Topsoil 

Alternative C proposes that PLS brings in an additional 4” of topsoil as needed for reclamation. PLS proposes that the FS approve 

the mulching of vegetation removed each year to supplement the salvaged topsoil instead of introducing non-native materials to this 

site. This will allow for more growth media without the risk of importing weeds and non-native vegetation.

Agency Response: 

Alternative C Design Criteria have been refined based on public comments to the DEIS and additional analysis. Under Alternative C, 

additional off-site topsoil would no longer be required. However, un-composted organic material, such as mulch, would not be added 

to the topsoil. Up to two inches of composted organic material may be added to the spread topsoil. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 7 Botany

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Vegetation 

PLS supports the seed mix and seedling requirements as listed in alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Alternative C’s seed mix and seeding requirements have been refined based on public comments and additional analysis. Alternative C 

Design Criteria have been modified to performance based standards and no longer have prescriptive requirements, such as 10 by 10 

spacing for pine trees or required seeding rates. The seed mix in Alternative C includes additional species to encourage wildlife use and 

increase plant diversity.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 8 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Power Line 

Due to the topography of the site and ground conditions PLS does not support alternative C and asks that if a power line is required 

that alternative B be adopted and the lines be allowed to run overhead.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-36 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 9 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Truck Speeds 

PLS will commit to posting a 15 mph speed limit on internal roads in the quarry to minimize dust as stated in the Plan of Operation, 

but a 10 mph speed limit on a public road may cause traffic and safety issues. Alternative C requests a 10 mph on Hidden Valley 

Road. PLS asks that speed limits for roads not on Forest Service property be left up to the county or city’s jurisdiction depending on 

ownership of the road in question. PLS agrees to abide by all applicable traffic laws on the off-site haul route and to sign access 

points appropriately.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 3, Comment 3.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 10 Minerals

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.

Comment:

Access Points/Haul Routes 

The Plan of Operation shows access onto Hidden Valley Road from the north pit. PLS would like to keep this access in the mine 

plan as shown and use the accesses on the east section line as needed. Only the east section lines were discussed in the DEIS. 

PLS requests confirmation that the north access is acceptable due to the inclusion of the Plan of Operation into the DEIS. 

In the event that PLS is able to obtain rights to convey material on private property in the future the access on the north side of the 

property and an internal haul route that connects the north and south pit would be necessary to transport material from the pit and 

across Hidden Valley Road. PLS asks that the Forest Service not preclude this activity in the decision on the basis that it would be 

beneficial in further mitigating neighboring landowner’s concerns.

Agency Response: 

Access to the quarry area is allowed from both the Quarry Rd. on the east side of the quarry and also off of NFSR 553 on the north end 

of the quarry.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

15 1 Minerals

Odom, Candace

Comment:

I am writing to you because I do not think that you should dig another "limestone-Quarry" in the Black Hills area.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. See DEIS, Chapter 1, pgs. 13-14 for the “USDA Forest Service Administration of the General Mining Law of 1872” 

section discussion. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

15 2 Heritage

Odom, Candace

Comment:

The Black Hills is a very sacred dwelling for the Native American People. As a member of the Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribe, I would like 

to say that I think it would desecrate a place that we hold high esteem and reverence. There is already a limestone quarry in the 

same area and you want to establish another one that will be six times larger and six times the devastation to Mother Earth.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-37 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

15 3 Air Quality 

Odom, Candace

Comment:

The dust in the air from the digging of limestone will be detrimental to the people who are living in Rapid City, SD and the air quality 

will go down. My own daughter died from an asthma attack so I know how hard it will be for the people to breath with the dust from 

the digging of limestone.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comments 7 and 13.

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 5. 

The mining operation will meet all state Air Quality requirements under their Title V Air Quality Permit. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

15 4 Plan

Odom, Candace

Comment:

Please do not harm the environment with this new Ranger Station that you plan to build in the Black Hills! I know you want to 

alleviate some Ranger stations from seven down to four. There are other ways to cut your overhead.

Agency Response: 

Comment outside the scope of this project. There is no Ranger Station construction planned within or adjacent to the Section 30 

Project Area.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

15 5 Heritage

Odom, Candace

Comment:

There is already, damage from the previous digging that has been done at the other limestone site. There needs to be more 

preservation of the historic Black Hills of the Native American People! My ancestors died at the Custer last stand and at the 

Sandcreek Massacre... I have traced my heritage and have strong feelings about digging up of my ancestors in that area. Just leave 

it alone! Earlier Chiefs like Chief Black Kettle and Chief Little Rock, the Great Sitting Bull, and Chief Joseph, my fore fathers of 

earlier time periods would surely, be against this. It is my belief that the more you leave things in their original state, the better it will 

be for the environment and the generations of people to come.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. Through our research and consultation, we have determined that there are no human or funerary remains within 

the Section 30 Project Area. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

16 1 Wildlife

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

Comment:

GF&P encourage the BHNF to accentuate the area’s “Forest Plan” MA 5.4 emphasis in determining reclamation and post mine land 

use of the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project. Specifically, we request the EIS include Design Criteria for MA 5.4 Big Game 

Winter Range, and support of wildlife habitat objectives during the State mine permitting consultation (74:29:06:01 Presubmission 

conference -- Determination of postmining land use).

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 7, Comment 3. 

By not restricting the periods of operation, a Forest Plan non-significant amendment would be required for Standard 5.4-1501, 

although Forest Management Area direction would not change as a result of this project (DEIS pg. 17). Post mining land use of the 

Section 30 Limestone Mining Project would emphasize meeting Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, 

emphasizing big game winter range habitat values. Additional language has been added to the FEIS regarding the determination of 

post-mining land use under South Dakota Administrative Rules, Article 74:29, Chapter 06:01. 

Design criteria have been added to Alternative C (FEIS, Appendix B) that would emphasize Forest Plan management objectives for 

MA 5.4 – Big Game Winter Range Emphasis. This would include travel restrictions during the winter from December 15 through May 

15 in areas not being actively mined. The reclamation plan would emphasize Forest Plan direction for the area. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-38 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 1 Plan

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Timing and Notification: Please note that our acquisition of the Terra Sancta property occurred after the 2006 NOI and public 

scoping process occurred (as described on p. iv of the Draft EIS and Appx. A "Public Involvement"), so the proposed operation is 

very new to us. We did not receive a copy of your March 4, 2011 letter, but fortunately became aware of the DEIS and comment 

period this past month. We would have preferred to have had time to inform and collect comments from the parents of our school 

and others in our diocese of the proposed mine, DEIS, and public period before preparing this letter. We hope that the review and 

preparation period associated with the Final EIS/Record of Decision and the identification of a preferred alternative will allow time for 

that to yet happen.

Agency Response: 

40 CFR Part 6, Subpart B §6.203(a)(5) states “The Responsible Official must use appropriate communication procedures to ensure 

meaningful public participation throughout the NEPA process. The Responsible Official must make reasonable efforts to involve the 

potentially affected communities where the proposed action is expected to have environmental impacts or where the proposed 

action may have human health or environmental effects in any communities, including minority communities, low-income 

communities, or federally-recognized Indian tribal communities.” 

As stated in your comment, the Diocese of Rapid City was not included in the initial scoping mailing list because the Diocese did not 

take ownership of the adjacent property until after the Notice of Intent (NOI) (40 CFR 1508.22) was published in the Federal 

Register and Scoping Letter was mailed in 2006 (36 CFR 220.4(e)). The previous landowners were sent a Scoping Letter in 2006. 

Since then, a Revised NOI was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2009. A Notice of Availability for the Section 30 

DEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2011 (40 CFR 1506.9). A Legal Notice was published in the Rapid City 

Journal on March 19, 2011, announcing an Opportunity to Comment on the Section 30 DEIS (36 CFR 215.6). The Section 30 

project was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) (36 CFR 220.4(d)) in October of 2006. The DEIS was also made 

available on the BHNF website in March 2011. A news release was sent out on March 23, 2011. On April 05, 2011, the Diocese of 

Rapid City requested two copies of the Section 30 DEIS. Two copies were mailed to the Diocese of Rapid City on April 05, 2011.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 2 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Potential Safety Concerns:

Overblast and flyrock concerns:

The Diocese of Rapid City and St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation are developing a series of hiking trails in the 

forested area and meadows in the NW 1⁄4 Section 29, T2N-R7E between the Terra Sancta school/retreat center and the proposed 

mine site. The trails could be located up to the boundary of Section 29 and 30, which could potentially have parts of the trail right 

next to the mine site. Could inadvertent overblast harm hikers?

Is there a suggested minimum distance that the trail should be located away from the Section 29/30 boundary to assure hiker safety 

from inadvertent overblast and flyrock?

Has overblast occurred at any PLS mine site in the past? If so, what distance did flyrock travel? 

If the proposed mine is approved by BHNF, the administration of Terra Sancta would like the blasting schedule in advance so that 

we can consider posting a “Trails Closed” sign at trailheads in an effort to avoid human injury during inadvertent overblast. Better 

yet, if blasting could be limited within a set timeframe during the day (e.g., very early morning well before school starts), we could 

inform retreatants and other people using our facility that access to the trails is prohibited during that timeframe.

Agency Response: 

Additional information has been added to the Social/Economics section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS regarding blasting and its effects. 

Blasting would be controlled to limit any overblast or flyrock concerns. The Forest Service would work with the Diocese of Rapid City 

and other interested parties on the location of hiking trails in the area to ensure user safety. 

Blasting would be infrequent (up to one to two times a week). PLS would notify interested parties before blasts occur. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-39 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 3 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Potential Safety Concerns:

Proximity to mine:

With our property located immediately east of the proposed mine, will there be measures taken so that we can be confident that 

children and adults cannot wander into unsafe areas?

Agency Response: 

Access to the mine site would be restricted by fences in order to provide site security and provide for public safety. See pg. 32 in the 

DEIS. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 4 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Potential Safety Concerns:

Truck traffic:

Will great care be taken to protect the safety of our occupants, especially school children? Although Figure 2-4 on page 36 is not 

available on the DEIS website PDF file, we are concerned that the quarry haul road described on page 37 may possibly interfere 

with the future entry for the school including entry by the high school children old enough to drive, parents driving younger children, 

and school buses/vans.

Agency Response: 

Figure 2-4 had been added to the online version of the DEIS.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 5 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Damage from blasting and removal of contiguous rock:

Potential damage to structures:

The Terra Sancta facility is undergoing major reconstruction. New windows have been installed around much of the 150,000 square 

foot facility. Large plate glass windows exist at the main entry to the chapel. Previous blasting at the Hills Material quarry just south 

of the proposed site rattled these windows. Could blasting at the Section 30 limestone mine possibly damage these or other 

windows around the facility? Could blasting cause other structural damage?

Agency Response: 

Blasting is not expected to damage local structures. Design measures have been added to Alternative C requiring PLS to coordinate 

with Terra Sancta regarding concerns about blasting effects on the large plate glass windows on the chapel. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-40 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 6 Hydro/Soils

Diocese of Rapid City

Comment:

Damage from blasting and removal of contiguous rock:

Disruption of geothermal well field and water quality:

A new geothermal heat pump system containing 200 geothermal wells is currently being installed at the Terra Sancta site between 

the main buildings and the proposed mine site. Could blasting and mining limestone upgradient from Terra Sancta interfere with the 

existing downgradient hydrologic system at Terra Sancta and result in damaging the operation of the geothermal heat pump 

system? We plan to drill a well for irrigation purposes. Is there a chance that mining activity will affect our water quality and quantity?

Agency Response: 

Use of blasting agents is strictly controlled and regulated by several federal laws and regulatory organizations. PLS is required by 

law to comply with 30 CFR Part 46 and 56 standards for blasting procedures and storage/handling of explosives. The Department of 

Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) oversees compliance with these federal regulations. PLS is also required by 

law to comply with USC Chapter 40 and 27 CFR Part 555 regulations for receiving and storage of explosives regulated by the 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE). 

There is little chance that geothermal systems or groundwater wells would be disrupted by blasting in quantity or quality. A typical 

blast was observed by members of the ID Team at the PLS Black Hawk Quarry. Blasts are typically only done one to two times per 

week and limited in size to about 60 feet wide by 30 feet thick and 20 feet deep. Only the minimum amount of blasting material 

necessary to achieve horizontal fracturing of the bedrock is used. This limits the vertical blast energy upward and downward. 

Explosives are expensive and ground vibration and/or excess noise concussion both represent wasted energy. Therefore, it is 

undesirable to have blasts that are more explosive in nature. To avoid this, PLS blasts are designed to utilize as much energy as 

possible to fracture the limestone and achieve outward toppling of the rock, thereby minimizing ground vibration and air 

overpressure. This type of blast has much less energy associated with it by design, compared to other blast types (such as those 

used in coal and gold mining operations). 

When a blast detonates, some of the explosive energy travels through the ground in all directions as a wave, while other energy is lost 

to the atmosphere in the form of noise and/or a concussion. Ground vibration is controlled by limiting the weight of explosives 

detonated within a period of time through the use of delay detonators (blasting caps). Air blast pressure is controlled through the 

proper use of stemming material (i.e., drill cuttings or crushed stone that are packed into the blast hole after the explosives have been 

loaded); and by not loading explosives into portions of holes with significant cracks, voids, or mud seams. Both techniques minimize 

the escape of gases, and confine the explosive energy. 

PLS has two seismographs with microphones in the vicinity of their current quarry operations to monitor ground vibrations and air blast 

pressure associated with blasting operations. These monitoring devices are portable and are usually located at the closest structure 

adjacent to PLS blasting operations. Based on PLS data, ground vibration associated with PLS blasting operations has been 

extremely low and has not caused any damages to underground structures or wells in the past. The U.S. Bureau of Mines (Siskind et 

al 1980) recommends that air overpressure should not exceed 133 decibels (dB) at any structure. Some windows will break at 151 dB 

and most windows will break at 171 dB (DuPont 1977; Konya 1990). PLS blast monitoring data indicates that air blast pressure 

normally ranges from 115-120 dB. The highest blast reading they have recorded was 128 dB. This could certainly sound loud but is 

still well below levels that would cause damage to above ground structures. 

PLS water quality monitoring data was reviewed by the Forest Service project hydrologist. None of the surface or well monitoring 

has indicated that contamination of water has occurred due to the use and handling of ANFO during blasting operations. Both 

surface and ground water quality in the vicinity of the Rapid City Quarry were found to meet all EPA and SD water quality 

requirements. The nitrate levels in the limestone quarry groundwater well were found to be well below EPA maximum contaminant 

levels (MCL) and nearly identical to natural, “background” levels at an undisturbed, spring located upstream of the quarry 

operations. The SD DENR has confirmed that PLS quarry operations comply with all aspects of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act 

requirements (personal communication with Eric Holm, SD DENR, June 7, 2011). Similar PLS operations at the Hunter Quarry in 

Sundance, WY also demonstrate compliance with all drinking water quality requirements since operations were begun in 2007. 

A section discussing blasting effects has been added to the Chapter 3, Social/Economics section of the FEIS to clarify this topic. 

The blast monitoring requirements listed in Appendix B has also been clarified in the FEIS. Blast monitoring will be required at two 

locations in the vicinity of the proposed Section 30 limestone quarry.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-41 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 7 Air Quality

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Air Quality

Fugitive dust and emissions:

Considering that prevailing winds are from the northwest and Terra Sancta trails and structures are immediately downwind of the 

proposed mine, we are concerned with dust from the crusher that may be set up at the mine site as described on pages 22, 30, and 

35 of the DEIS. Similarly, we are concerned with diesel odor from mine equipment exhaust. Can dust or the chemical emissions 

used for mining affect the air quality for the young children attending the Elementary School or those who will come to the retreat 

center?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comments 7 and 13.

The mining operation is required to meet all state Air Quality standards. Monitoring will be conducted onsite. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-42 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 8 Hydro/Soils

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Ground Water Quality:

Potential nitrate contamination:

Because 1) residual ANFO from incomplete detonation during blasting can be a source of nitrate contamination in ground water, and 

2) the proposed limestone mine sits atop a ground water recharge zone and is within an aquifer vulnerability area, we are concerned 

with potential increases in nitrate concentrations in ground water. This is particularly a concern when blasted waste rock or ore is to 

remain on-site for extended periods of time and when it is permanently used for backfill. Natural precipitation can carry contaminants 

downward very quickly in rock such as limestone and sandstone where infiltration and flow rates are controlled by secondary 

porosity and fracture flow. Nitrate as a contaminant has comparatively low attenuation characteristics in ground water and is a quick 

mover. An increase in nitrate contamination is a well-documented phenomenon within ground water monitoring wells at and 

downgradient of large scale gold mines that operated in the northern Black Hills were ANFO was used as the blasting agent. 

We submit that although the proposed Section 30 limestone mine is only 94 acres, the size of the proposed pit, the tonnage mined, 

and the amount of pit backfill is not significantly different in terms of blasting practices and concern over residual ANFO. Page 67 of 

the DEIS states “...no impact to groundwater quality is expected and no groundwater monitoring is prescribed.” We respectfully 

disagree with this decision and believe that if the proposed mine is approved, ground water monitoring is prudent and warranted. 

The DEIS page 62 describes the Minnekahta Fm. as a local ground water aquifer. The Minnekahta is continuous between the 

proposed mine site and Terra Sancta, so although we are not planning to tap that for domestic water supply, we are concerned with 

ground water contamination from residual ANFO. The DEIS pages 62-64 further states that the proposed mine site is situated within 

the recharge zone for two underlying regional aquifers; the Minnelusa and Madison aquifers. With ground water flow to the northeast 

(which is downgradient from the proposed mine and under Terra Sancta property), we are concerned with possible migration of 

nitrate to these regional aquifers especially if the integrity of the Opeche Shale as a restricting layer is compromised by drilling, 

blasting, or its thickness at the mine site. How thick is the Opeche Shale at the proposed mine site? Has its permeability been 

established? If so, what is the permeability of the Opeche Shale at the site?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 17, Comment 6 and Letter 6, Comment 16. 

The proposed limestone quarry blasting and rock handling is very different from heap-leach gold mining operations in the northern 

Black Hills and leaching of residual nitrates on rock surfaces within limestone waste rock piles would not occur. Very little 

overburden material exists on top of the Minnekahta Limestone in the Section 30 Project Area. This is due to the inherent 

characteristics of the geologic layers in the proposed project, and its location on the hillside above the valley floor. Blasted limestone 

rock would be removed from the quarry site. Very little, if any waste rock would remain on site. 

The statement on pg. 67 of the DEIS referencing monitoring has been clarified in the FEIS. All National and State requirements for 

protection and monitoring of surface and groundwater quality would be followed. 

The Minnelusa Formation outcrop lies to the west of the proposed limestone quarry location, as shown in Figure 3-1 on pg. 56 of the 

DEIS. The Madison outcrop lies even further west. No removal of either the Minnelusa or the Madison Formation would take place 

and thus the current recharge areas (outcrops) would remain unaffected. 

The thickness of the Opeche Shale in the vicinity of the Section 30 Project is approximately 85 to 130 feet thick (DEIS pg. 55). None 

of the Opeche Shale formation would purposely be fractured during blasting or removed from site. Incidental fracturing of the top few 

feet could occur but sufficient thickness (approximately 80-135 feet) would remain intact to prevent downward leakage of water 

and/or potential contaminants into underlying aquifers. The permeability of the Opeche Shale at the Section 30 project site has not 

been specifically determined. However, the Opeche Shale is nearly impermeable due to its inherent properties (e.g., well sorted, 

very fine-grained, tightly packed particles with little interconnection). Although shale has more porosity (ratio of solid rock particles to 

void spaces) than sandstone, it has extremely low permeability because these voids are not interconnected and thus water cannot 

move easily through the rock. These characteristics are why shale units form confining layers for groundwater aquifers. Past and 

ongoing quarry operations in the general area have removed limestone above the Opeche formation without compromising its 

function as a groundwater confining layer. The SD DENR maintains a ground water contamination database, available online at the 

following website: http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/Spills/SpillData.aspx . 

As of August 29, 2011, there were no records in this database documenting groundwater contamination associated with ANFO use 

in the limestone quarries in the vicinity of the Section 30 Project (SD DENR 2011). 

The discussion of groundwater effects has been updated in Chapter 3 of the FEIS to reflect the explanation offered here.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-43 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 9 Hydro/Soils

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Ground Water Quality:

Comparisons to Hills Materials quarry:

Page 65 of the DEIS discusses the existing dormant Hills Material quarry just to the south of the proposed mine (and just west of 

Terra Sancta). The DEIS states “The water table was not encountered during this operation and no evidence of groundwater related 

problems was observed during field review.” What monitoring efforts were undertaken during the field review to determine whether 

or not ground water related problems were caused by that previous mining venture? We assume that ground water monitoring wells 

were not part of that operation, but were any domestic wells sampled for nitrate during and after operations? Page 65 of the DEIS 

states “Based on past blasting operations in the area, damage to ground water wells should not occur.” While the statement is 

probably referring to well water quality, our concern is water quality. Likewise, page 47 states “Both Alternatives B and C would 

meet air quality standards, and water quality for the area would be maintained.” We again respectfully question the conclusion that 

ground water quality would be maintained considering the known nitrate contamination issue at other mines using similar blasting 

techniques.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Responses to Letter 17, Comment 6 and Comment 8. 

Field reviews verified that the ground water table was not encountered during limestone mining operations in the adjacent Hills 

Material quarry; and thus should not be encountered during similar operations proposed by PLS within the Section 30 Project 

boundary. 

The discussion of groundwater effects has been clarified in Chapter 3 of the FEIS to reflect the explanation offered here.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 10 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Noise, Visual, and other Disruptions:

Disruption to learning environment:

How will we know that the learning environment of the school children will not be negatively impacted by mining activity or noise? 

Will it be possible to time the blasting activity so that it is done during a time when school is not in session (i.e., early morning or late 

afternoon)? Are back-up beepers on mine vehicles likely to be audible at Terra Sancta and on the hiking trails discussed above?

Agency Response: 

The DEIS discloses the effects of noise from the mining operation. See Agency Response to Letter 4, Comment 3. Blasting would 

be infrequent (up to one to two times a week). PLS would notify interested parties before blasts occur. 

Backup beepers would be used as required for worker safety by MSHA requirements. PLS is exploring options for use of a quieter 

backup system and would use these if allowed by regulatory requirements (personal communication with PLS, 2012). 

The extent to which noise would be a disruption to those in the area is a function of many factors: such as the distance from the 

operation; whether the individual(s) are inside or outside of a building; current wind and atmospheric conditions; the location of 

vegetation or physical/topographic barriers; and whether the individuals are located above, below, or on-grade to the side of the 

operation. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-44 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 11 Visuals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Noise, Visual, and other Disruptions:

Visual concerns:

We are concerned with whether the proposed mine site will be visible above and west of the Terra Sancta property as people enter 

from Sturgis Road, and of course, from the trails in the western part of our property. If so, can the operation be bermed accordingly 

to minimize visual scars?

Agency Response: 

As people exit SD Hwy 231 and proceed west, the mine would be fully visible on the hillside above Terra Sancta. As they drive 

closer to Terra Sancta, the mine would be less visible. The visibility of the southern half of the mine from Terra Sancta existing 

facilities is limited due to the topography and the screening of trees. The western and northern edge, of the northern half of the 

mine, is expected to be more visible from Terra Sancta existing facilities during operation. The visibility of the mine would increase 

the further one moves east from the existing facilities at Terra Sancta. 

Due to the topography and viewing location at the entrance by SD Hwy 231, berms would have to be at a minimum of twice the 

height of the existing trees to minimally block the view. 

Trails at the western edge of the Terra Sancta property should have limited, or no, views of the mine site due to the topography. 

 

Reclamation would occur at the completion of each phase of the project, thereby reducing negative visual effects of the mining 

operation. Those effects would diminish over time as plants and trees become established and become more visually apparent. 

Planted vegetation would move the appearance of the mine site toward a more natural appearing condition. Alternative C would 

accomplish this in a shorter time period than Alternative B.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-45 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 12 Wildlife

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Wildlife Impacts:

Eagles:

In Table 3-4 “Draft Summary of Effects of Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species” starting on page 81, there is no mention of 

Golden Eagles under the section for “Birds”. In April 2011, hikers scouting potential future trails on the Terra Sancta property saw 

what appeared to be two Golden Eagles flying over and roosting in NW 1⁄4 Section 29, T2N-R7E (photos were taken), but these 

people were not raptor experts. The Northern Goshawk and Bald Eagle are both listed as present at the proposed mine site and 

may have been what the hikers saw and photographed. Immature Bald Eagles can look like Golden Eagles to the untrained eye. If 

the photos are documented by an expert to be Golden Eagles, the mine operating plan should be restricted at key times necessary 

to reduce disturbance to nesting and/or roosting of these eagles. The Benedictine Sisters have told us that they have seen eagles in 

this area, so we assume that the Terra Sancta property is used by the eagles either to roost or nest. This particular wildlife species 

is of great interest and significance to the users of our facility and we request that extra precautions be taken to ensure that the 

eagles are not driven off the property by adjacent mining activity.

Agency Response: 

Table 3-4 in the DEIS includes only those species which have been designated as Region 2 sensitive species by the Regional 

Forester. The Rocky Mountain Regional Forester recently released the updated Sensitive Species list (FMS_R2_2670_2011-1), 

approved June 10, 2011. The criterion used to select these Sensitive species (2672.11) is included in the supplement. The 

American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) was dropped from the list and the Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) was added to 

the list. Therefore, changes to the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Biological Evaluation were necessary. Appendix C in the 

FEIS has been changed to reflect the new R2 Regional Forester’s direction and the updated Biological Evaluation. (Forest Service 

Regional Supplement No. 2600-2011-1, dated June 10, 2011). 

The northern goshawk and bald eagle are designated as Region 2 sensitive species. The golden eagle is not a designated sensitive 

species, therefore it is not specifically addressed in the DEIS. As shown in the table, potentially suitable foraging habitat is present 

for the northern goshawk and bald eagle, but neither species have been documented to occur in the project area. It is possible that 

the project area also provides marginal foraging habitat for the golden eagle, although the cliffs associated with the Box Elder Creek 

drainage just to the north provide far more suitable nesting and roosting habitat. Golden eagle home ranges are rather large, so 

observation of flying and perched eagles does not necessarily translate into roosting and nesting.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 13 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Other Issues:

Locatable minerals:

Under the 1872 Mining Law and other applicable federal statues and rules, is limestone a locatable mineral if it contains less that 

95% or greater calcium and magnesium carbonates? If not, please provide evidence that the Minnekahta Limestone proposed to be 

mined by PLS contains ≥95% calcium and magnesium carbonates and meets the definition of chemical grade limestone.

Agency Response: 

See pgs. 57 and 58 of the DEIS. Forest Service mineral examiners conducted an evaluation of the limestone deposit including an 

examination of the site geology, collection and assays of surface and drill hole samples, and an evaluation of suitable uses for this 

limestone. The Section 30 limestone deposit was determined to be an uncommon variety (locatable) mineral deposit if used for 

production of quicklime and hydrated lime, and for uses such as sugar processing and cement manufacture. 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-46 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

17 14 Minerals

Diocese of Rapid City and 

St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Corporation

Comment:

Other Issues:

Reclamation and limitations to disturbed areas:

While the submitted plan proposes disturbing 60 acres at a time as described under Alternative B, Alternative C would limit the amount 

of cleared and unreclaimed land to between 12 and 25 acres of disturbance at a time. Of the two disturbances scenarios, we would 

prefer the latter.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 1 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

The DEIS includes three Alternatives: no action, Alternative B (the proposed action by PLS) and Alternative C (formulated to 

address issues raised during the scoping process). EPA rates Alternatives Band C as Environmental Concerns (EC)-2. The EC 

rating indicates that EPA's review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. The (2) rating indicates that the identified additional information, data, and analyses discussed in our attached 

comments should be included in the final EIS. A copy of the EIS Rating System Criteria described above is also attached to this 

letter.

Although we have rated both alternatives EC-2, Alternative C, which responds to environmental and tribal issues raised during 

scoping, has incorporated important mitigation action that significantly diminishes the impacts of Alternative B. EPA recommends 

that Alternative C, including specified mitigation measures, design criteria and monitoring, be selected as the preferred alternative 

for implementation.

Agency Response: 

Comments and EPA’s rating is acknowledged and Alternative C as the environmentally preferable action alternative.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 2 Heritage and Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

Further, for the purposes of disclosure, EPA believes that the final EIS should include the Erosion Control Plan and the 2007 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer, PLS, Black Hills National 

Forest, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. This MOA consists of 14 stipulations that address mitigation 

measures with respect to the five eligible historic properties and the one site of American Indian religious value and significance. It is 

not clear whether these stipulations for mitigation are already addressed in the mitigation plan.

Agency Response: 

Information on protected and religious sites has been clarified in the FEIS. 

The Erosion Control plan is discussed in the DEIS on pg. 37.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-47 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 3 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

General:

EPA has reviewed the two action alternatives, Alternative B and Alternative C. As described on page B- 11, Alternative C clearly 

incorporates significant design criteria, mitigation measures and monitoring procedures that further minimize resource impacts 

compared to Alternative B. Specifically, these changes will minimize road dust on the gravel roads, improve short term stabilization 

and long term reclamation, monitor the establishment of vegetative stabilization, and improve overall visual disturbances (including 

burial of power lines and improved vegetative reclamation). Further, this alternative will also significantly reduce noise and dust 

effects on the nearby Hidden Valley subdivision for the first 10 years simply by beginning quarry operations furthest from this 

subdivision. This alternative also limits the amount of disturbed un-reclaimed land to 12-25 acres, compared to 60 acres for 

Alternative B, thereby reducing visual effects on this subdivision as well.

EPA recommends that Alternative C, including specified mitigation measures, design criteria and monitoring, be selected as the 

preferred alternative for implementation.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 4 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

Environmental Justice (EJ) and Social/Economic:

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies identify and address EJ issues to the greatest extent practicable in their 

programs, policies and actions. There is little discussion of the surrounding community's racial/ethnic make-up, how the community 

is defined, and whether there is an EJ community in the proposed action area. This should be discussed in the final EIS. Since the 

impacts occur near the proposed project, a more refined analysis could be carried out with regard to the area immediately around 

the proposed action. As the document reads, there is no way to determine if low-income or minority populations live near the 

proposed site. The tribal member population should be evaluated to determine whether it would meet the definition of an EJ 

community in this project area.

Agency Response: 

An Environmental Justice Analysis was done for Rapid City, SD, as well as the 57718 Zip Code, SD (which include the communities 

of Black Hawk, SD and Summerset, SD). Full Environmental Justice Analysis Reports for these two areas are held in the Section 30 

Project File at the Mystic Ranger Station. 

As stated on pgs. 115-116 of the DEIS, “None of the communities in the project area contain low-income or minority populations as 

defined by Executive Order 12898. During the course of this analysis, no alternative resulted in any identifiable effects or issues 

specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency has considered all input from persons or groups 

regardless of age, race, income status, or other social and economic characteristics.”
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-48 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 5 Heritage

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

Environmental Justice (EJ) and Social/Economic: 

According to the DEIS, formal government to government consultation meetings among the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SDSHPO), PLS, Black Hill s National Forest, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe were 

held between 2002 and 2010. The 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that resulted from these consultations was signed by 

these governments. This MOA consists of 14 stipulations that address mitigation measures with respect to the five eligible historic 

properties and the one site of American Indian religious value and significance. This MOA and stipulations were not included in the 

DEIS for public review, therefore, it is not clear whether these stipulations for mitigation are already addressed and incorporated into 

the Appendix B Design Criteria Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plan. EPA recommends that the final EIS clearly state the link 

between the MOA stipulations and the Design Criteria Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plan. In addition, please explain the 

application of these stipulations to the tribes that were not part of the MOA. Were the "use" provisions included for all tribal members 

or just those who were part of the MOA?

Agency Response: 

Information on protected and religious use sites has been clarified in the FEIS. 

The stipulations from the MOA include mitigation measures, clarification of responsibilities of the Forest Service and Pete Lien and 

Sons, Inc., in addition to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and design criteria. The final MOA is locacted in the Project File. 

The “use” provisions included in the MOA pertain to all tribal members.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 6 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

Environmental Justice (EJ) and Social/Economic: 

There is no discussion regarding cumulative impacts on the Catholic elementary school and Catholic retreat center. They are 

located very close to the project area and cumulative noise and dust impacts should be discussed.

Agency Response: 

Additional language has been added to Chapter 3 the FEIS to address cumulative effects associated with the proposed elementary 

school and retreat center.
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-49 

Section 30 Draft EIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

18 7 Air Quality 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment:

Air Comments:

Chapter 3, Air Quality (Page 68), provides a summary of the air quality for the area surrounding the proposed action, but does not 

include air quality data summaries. The final EIS should include a summary of available air quality data to describe existing 

conditions. Such data are readily available from the SO Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) and/or the 

EPA AirExplorer site (http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/) and VIEWS site for air quality related values (AQRVs) 

(http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/). Information regarding current conditions will be an important tool for monitoring the impacts of 

the various activities contemplated under the proposed action. Decision-makers will need to understand baseline conditions in an 

effort to ensure that project activities, when combined with air quality impacts from external sources, do not adversely impact the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs) or Air Quality Related Values such as visibility in the nearby Class I areas of Wind 

Cave and Badlands National Parks.

The final EIS should contain an inventory of predicted emissions that would be associated with the mining activities, as well as a 

discussion of proximity to sensitive receptors such as population centers and Class I and Class II airsheds. If emissions are 

significant and/or in close proximity to sensitive receptors, then the final EIS also should include an air impact analysis presenting 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of these activities on sensitive receptors. Such information is necessary for the decisionmaker to ensure protection of air quality and visibility. We also recommend that the USFS consult with the SD DENR for any 

modeling, mitigation, or other measures required under State regulations or the Stale Implementation Plan to address Clean Air Act 

requirements.

The proponents' planned open pit mine is located 4 miles northwest of the center of Rapid City and 1 mile from Rapid City's town 

boundary. The Rapid City area has had historical exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. To mitigate these exceedances, the SO DENR 

has implemented control measures on facilities near Rapid City. The USFS should contact the SD DENR and refer to the following 

website for inclusion of applicable mitigation strategies: 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/neap/neapcontrols.aspx

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 6, Comments 7 and 13.

Additional language has been added to the FEIS, Chap. 3, Air Quality Section, to reference the SD DENR website 

(http://denr.sd.gov) for additional information on Air Quality. 

The Best Available Control Measures (BACM), as stated in the Rapid City Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP), apply to PLS in the 

West Rapid City area, therefore additional mitigation measures are not needed (SD DENR 1998). 

During 2010, a total of seven high wind dust alerts were called for the Rapid City Area. None of the days exceeded the PM10 24 hour 

standard. The highest 24 hour average concentration recorded during an alert was 45.4ug/m3. This demonstrates the 

implementation of the NEAP for Rapid City area is working to maintain PM10 concentrations below the NAAQS during high wind 

events (SD DENR 2011f). 

SD DENR has confirmed that Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. are currently in compliance with all Air Quality requirements on their other 

mining operation sites. SD DENR expects Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. Air Quality regulation compliance to continue with the Section 30 

Project. 

 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-50 

Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Draft EIS Distribution List 

Name Organization City State

Mr. Tom Allen Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Larry Brandt Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Lorre Buhler Rapid City South Dakota 

Rev. Steven Biegler Diocese of Rapid City Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Barb Honeycutt St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Rapid City South Dakota 

 School Corporation 

Ms. Myra Duba Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Marlin Dummer Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. and Mrs. Louis and Hidden Valley Water, Inc. Rapid City South Dakota 

Lois Ewert 

Mr. and Mrs. Mike and Rapid City South Dakota 

Jeanette Grimm 

Mr. Randy Hildebrant Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Nancy Hilding Prairie Hills Black Hawk South Dakota 

 Audubon Society 

Ms. Patricia Horlock 

Mr. Myron Kidner Murray Utah 

Mr. Orlin Kidner Wells Nevada 

Mr. Ron Kortemeyer Rapid City South Dakota 

K. Mason Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. and Mrs. Darrell and Rapid City South Dakota 

JoAnn Miller 

Ms. JoAnn Miller Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. and Mrs. David and City South Dakota 

Linda Mitchell 

Mr. and Mrs. James and Rapid City South Dakota 

Delana Nelson 

Ms. Candace Odom Lakeland Florida 

Mr. and Mrs. Ron and Rapid City South Dakota 

Sharon Oney 

Ms. Danielle Wiebers Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. Rapid City South Dakota 

B. Sachau Florham New Jersey 

Mr. Marvin Sasse Rapid City South Dakota 

Sr. Yvette Mallow St. Martin Monastery Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Leona VanSchoonhoven Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. and Mrs. Al and Rapid City South Dakota 

Lorraine Weimer 

Ms. Alice Wermers Lead South Dakota 

Mr. Calvin White Butterfly Manderson South Dakota
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-51 

South Dakota Congressional: 

Senator Tim Johnson 

Senator John Thune 

Congresswoman Kristi Noem 

Native American Tribes: 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cultural Program Administrator 

Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma Cultural and Heritage Program 

Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma Governor 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Historical Preservation Officer 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor For Preservation 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Director of Cultural Resource 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation Tribal Chairman 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Arapaho Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Northern Arapaho Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe President 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe EPA Director 

Oglala Sioux Tribe President 

Oglala Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe President 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office 

Santee Sioux Nation Tribal Chairman 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairperson 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Environmental Protection Specialist 

Yankton Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Yankton Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Federal Agencies: 

Bureau of Land Management – South Dakota Field Office 

Planning and Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII EIS Review Coordinator 
Appendix A Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Public Involvement A-52 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA National Agricultural Library Head, Acquisitions and Serials Branch 

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning 

US Army Engr. Northwestern Division 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

US Coast Guard (USGC), Environmental Management CG-443 

FAA Great Lakes Region 

Federal Highway Administration 

US Dept. of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

State, County, and Local Agencies: 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Center 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

South Dakota Department of Transportation 

South Dakota Governor’s Office – Governor Dennis Daugaard 

Pennington County Commissioners 

Pennington County Highway Department 

Rapid City Mayor’s Office – Mayor Alan Hanks 

Rapid City Chamber of Commerce 

Rapid City Public Library