Record of Decision 

Section 30 Limestone Mining Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

USDA Forest Service 

Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest 

Pennington County, South Dakota 

Background 

Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) personnel recently completed a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project. The Section 30 Limestone 

Mining Project falls under the authority and guidelines of the Black Hills National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Phase II Amendment; and the 1872 Mining 

Law, as amended. 

The Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area is located west/northwest of Rapid City, South 

Dakota. The project area is located in the NE 1⁄4 and S 1⁄2 of the NW 1⁄4 of Section 30, Township 

2 North, Range 7 East, Black Hills Meridian, Pennington County, SD. The project area is

approximately 94 acres in size. This area is composed entirely of Black Hills National Forest 

System lands. 

The intent of the project is to recover chemical grade limestone from known deposits located 

within the Section 30 site. Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. (PLS) proposes to exercise their rights under 

US mining laws, through development of this limestone resource. The Forest Service 

administers locatable mineral development on National Forest System lands under mining 

regulations defined in 36 CFR 228, Subpart A. These regulations are focused on reducing the 

environmental effects of mining operations, consistent with applicable laws, while recognizing 

the rights of operators to develop minerals on their mining claims. 

The proposed action is to approve the Plan of Operation (PO) submitted by PLS to mine 

approximately 94 acres of National Forest System lands on the PLS 30-1 through PLS 30-10 

Lode Mining Claims. The PO was developed by Pete Lien and Sons Inc., and submitted to the 

Forest Service as per mining regulations 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. 

The proposed PO is presented in the FEIS as Alternative B. It is summarized as follows: 

• It is estimated that the operation would process approximately 10 million tons of 

limestone from a 94 acre open pit chemical grade limestone mine. The life of the

proposed mine is estimated at 7 – 25 years, not including final reclamation. Operations

would proceed from north to south within the area to be mined. 

• As confirmed by exploration and discovery of the unpatented claims on Section 30, the 

limestone deposit is at the surface and would be recovered by an open pit surface mining 

operation. The process for surface mining would follow Best Management Practices 

(BMP) standard procedures.
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 2 

• The operation would remove vegetation, stockpile topsoil for future reclamation, drill and 

blast rock to remove an average 25 foot bed of limestone rock resulting in an open pit 

with an average of 25 foot high walls.

• Blasted rock may be crushed on site to reduce size for hauling. Raw materials would be 

transported to the east of SD Highway 231 (formerly Hwy 79) for processing into 

chemical grade limestone products.

• Concurrent reclamation is planned. Approximately 60 acres would be disturbed at any one 

time. High walls would be reduced, site graded, topsoil applied, and vegetation planted once 

mineral extraction is complete in that area.

• Removal of limestone would require blasting. Blasting would follow standard industry

practices and would be performed under the direct supervision of certified blasting 

engineers and required state of South Dakota mining regulations and permits. 

• The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) would be responsible for enforcing 

mine safety regulations. The mine site would be enclosed by fences and gates as required 

by MSHA and other regulatory guidance. 

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. would secure permits for all mining and reclamation activities as 

required by law. Several permits have been obtained pending the NEPA analysis and decision. 

Permit requirements include, but are not limited to: 

• Clean Water Act – Apply for construction/mining activity permit with National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

• Clean Air Act – Permit or permits will be obtained from the South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to ensure that equipment and dust control 

measures comply with the Clean Air Act.

• South Dakota Mining License – Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. currently has a mining license 

inclusive of the relevant portion of Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area. 

• Pennington County Construction (Mining) Permit – Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. would 

notify the County of its schedule and plans to initiate mining on the Section 30 Project 

Area. Construction permit CP 01-05 specifies the scope of the County’s further review

of road impacts, drainage, and other matters related to mining on the Section 30 Project

Area. 

Through varied public involvement efforts, comments on the proposed action, potential 

concerns, and opportunities for managing the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area were 

solicited from Forest Service resource specialists, tribal representatives, members of the public, 

other public agencies, adjacent property owners, and organizations. Methods used to request

comments included: Publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal 

Register on October 27, 2006; publication of news releases and articles in the Rapid City Journal 

on November 7, 13, and 16 in 2006; a scoping letter was mailed on October 12, 2006 that 

solicited comments to approximately 172 interested parties; and a public meeting was conducted 

in Black Hawk, SD on December 14, 2006. 

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 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 3 

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. 

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

contacts having interest in the Black Hills. The proposed Section 30 Limestone Mining 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. 

That consultation resulted in development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Northern Arapaho Tribe, 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe, PLS, and the BHNF. 

Comments received during the scoping process were used to help in defining issues, develop 

alternatives and design criteria/mitigation measures, and analyze effects. Through review and 

analysis of the scoping comments and input, the Section 30 Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) 

identified four prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. The four key issues 

include: Visual Effects, Cultural Resources and American Indian Religious Use Sites, Changes 

in Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat/Use, and Effects on Public Health and Safety. 

Project Summary 

An overview of the issues and alternatives is presented below to provide a better understanding 

of the context of the decision disclosed in this document. A more detailed description of the

project can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIS. 

Issues

Comments received during the public scoping process were used to help define issues, develop 

alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 39 responses were received via 

letters, faxes, public meeting transcripts, personal-delivery, or email during the formal scoping 

process. Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the Section 30 Project Core ID 

Team identified four (4) key issues related to the proposed activities (see FEIS, Chapter 1, Issues 

section and Chapter 2, Table 2-1). A brief description of the key issues follows. 

1. Visual Effects. The proposed operation would be visible along the SD Highway 231, US 

Interstate 90 corridor, and to the residents and businesses in the area, and to neighbors adjacent 

to the proposed operation. These effects would change over time and would last for many years. 

2. Cultural Resources and American Indian Religious Use Sites. Quarry operations would 

affect cultural resources by permanently altering the landscape adjacent to the sites. Religious 

use sites would be affected by altering the adjacent landscape, restricting some access during the 

mining period, and from the noise, dust and traffic to anyone using the area for religious use 

purposes during active mining periods. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 4 

3. Changes in Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat/Use. The proposed operation would remove 

existing vegetation with potential negative effects to some wildlife species. This change could 

be long lasting. Noise from blasting and quarry operations could displace existing wildlife use. 

4. Effects on Public Health and Safety. The proposed operation could result in diminished air 

quality from dust and diesel emissions; increased noise from blasting, equipment and crusher 

operation, and truck hauling; increased safety hazards due to truck hauling and associated traffic; 

and public hazards near quarry operations. 

Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS. These are briefly discussed below. A more 

detailed description of all the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Alternative A (No Action) – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the 

study of the No Action Alternative and to use as a baseline and as a basis for comparing the 

effects of the proposed action and other action alternatives. This alternative represents no 

attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action for this project. The No Action 

alternative does not respond to the legal right of PLS under the 1872 Mining Law, as 

amended, that guarantees a right to develop their mining claims. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) – Alternative B proposes implementing the Plan of 

Operation (PO) PLS submitted for the project area. Under Alternative B, project 

components would include the quarry, equipment operation area where front-end loaders, 

worker trucks, fuel trucks, service trucks, haul trucks, scraper, bulldozer, drilling truck, and 

water trucks that support the quarry activities would be located and the access roads. These 

project components with the exception of the access roads would involve approximately 94 

of mined area with a total disturbance of approximately 100 acres. 

Alternative C – Alternative C was developed to address issues raised during scoping, both 

external and internal. This alternative is intended to reduce effects of the proposed operation 

without interfering with PLS right to develop limestone property. Alternative C includes five 

main elements that would modify the PLS proposed operation. These elements include 

changes in the mining sequence to commence quarry operations to the south (instead of the

north), adjacent to the existing Hills Materials Company quarry; changes to the clearing plan to 

reduce the amount of disturbed area at any one time; changes in the reclamation plan intended 

to achieve a more natural appearing result in a shorter amount of time utilizing native 

vegetation; requiring any new power lines (if needed) to be buried instead of overhead lines; 

and additional measures to reduce dust on the east/west section-line and the Quarry Road, and 

additional recommended speed limits.

Decision 

This Record of Decision documents my decision and rationale with respect to the Section 30 

Limestone Mining Project alternatives as presented in the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project 

Area FEIS. The Section 30 Project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the 

proposed action and alternatives as they relate to Forest and national level policy and direction 

(FEIS, Chapter 1). Given this purpose and need, I have reviewed the proposed action (Alternative 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 5 

B), the issues identified during the public scoping period, the alternatives, and the environmental 

consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives disclosed in the FEIS. 

Furthermore, I have carefully considered public comments received on the Draft EIS. These 

comments were invaluable to me in weighing management options. Public feedback, the analysis 

disclosed in the FEIS, information contained in the project record, and management direction and 

policy considerations contributed collectively to determining the selected action. Based on this 

review, I have decided to implement Alternative C with several modifications as the Selected 

Action. The Plan of Operations will be changed to reflect this decision. 

The Selected Action (Alternative C Modified) is nearly identical to Alternative C as described in 

the FEIS. Modifications to Alternative C include permitting construction of an overhead power 

line, if needed, to service a crusher; a requirement to work cooperatively with neighbors to 

establish baseline and monitoring of water quality in adjacent groundwater wells; a requirement 

to work cooperatively with neighbors to inform them (at their request) of the timing for each 

blast; requiring blasting times to be no earlier than 7 am; a commitment by the Forest Service to 

work with PLS and MSHA to install quieter backup warning systems on equipment (white noise 

versus beepers); and a commitment by the Forest Service to work with PLS to reduce the amount 

of area fenced off as part of ongoing operations. The decision to allow for overhead power line 

construction is based on recognizing that the line would be located in the area disturbed by the 

mining operation, and so would have little effect on the overall visual quality of the area. It 

would also simplify the operation by not having to bury the line in solid rock along with the 

potential for damage during mining operations. The other modifications, taken together, address 

concerns that local residents have regarding noise and potential groundwater effects on their 

property, or recreation use of the area outside of a reasonable distance needed for mine safety 

and security purposes. 

My decision also clarifies the language in the FEIS regarding the possible 60 days of night time 

operations. This decision does not approve overnight operations. Night time, as used in the 

FEIS, actually refers to evening operations, up to approximately 7 pm. 

 

The Selected Action incorporates the design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring 

requirements included in Appendix B of the Section 30 Project FEIS, under subheading 

“Alternative C.” These design criteria and mitigation measures were identified by 

Interdisciplinary Team members during project development as resource protection measures 

required by law, policy, or regulation; as measures needed to ensure consistency with Forest Plan 

direction; measures that would reduce environmental and social effects; or measures designed to 

ensure coordination with adjacent landowners. Monitoring activities were identified to track 

implementation and efficacy of design criteria and mitigation measures. 

I want to emphasize that the Forest Service is only one of several local, State, and Federal 

agencies that have a role in approving and administering the Section 30 Project. I am committed 

to working cooperatively with all other responsible agencies to properly administer the operation 

and to reduce local effects wherever reasonable. 

The Selected Action is summarized as follows: 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 6 

Mining Sequence 

The Selected Action requires PLS to begin mining in the southern pit adjacent to the current 

Hills Materials Company quarry (i.e. start at south pit instead of north pit). This action will 

begin operations furthest away from the residents along Hidden Valley Road, with a buffer 

between the quarry and residents in place for much of the operating period. 

In addition, PLS would not leave an unmined portion of limestone between the existing Hills

Materials Company quarry and their new quarry. By removing this strip of limestone, the visual 

appearance would be one of a continuous quarry starting at the Hills Materials Company quarry 

site and extending northward across Section 30. 

Amount of Cleared and Un-reclaimed Land

The Selected Action will limit the amount of cleared and un-reclaimed land to between 12 and 25 

acres, as compared to the proposed 60 acres included in Alternative B. After initial development up 

to the 25 acres limit, previously mined cells would be reclaimed as soon as mining is completed. 

Vegetation would only be removed from the cells that would be operating during that timeframe. 

Trees, slash, and stumps would be removed from Section 30 annually to minimize the amount of 

land cleared prior to mining, and shorten the time period between mining and reclamation. The 25 

acre disturbance limit applies to the active mining area, and does not include access roads or 

soil/reclamation stockpiles. 

Heavy Equipment 

Heavy equipment will be needed to extract the limestone along with support vehicles. The 

following equipment is proposed for the mining and reclamation operation: 

• Production Drills 

• Loaders 

• Haul Trucks 

• Dozer 

• Maintenance Trucks 

• Water Trucks 

• Primary Crusher 

• Worker and Support Vehicles 

If other equipment is necessary to support the operation, it would be added with the approval of 

the Forest Service. Utility service may or may not be necessary for the proposed operations. A 

generator may be located on site to provide power to a primary crusher, otherwise electric 

service may be needed. This could include an overhead line into the quarry site. 

Employee vehicle parking and quarry equipment will be in maintenance areas where a planned 

site pad of four inches or greater of gravel road base would be constructed. These areas will also 

be used for equipment storage, waste rock transfer (as needed), and fuel storage. This will 

isolate the remainder of the quarry from the use of petroleum products and other chemicals used 

for vehicle maintenance. Efforts will be made to obtain approval through MSHA to install white 

noise backup alarms to reduce equipment sound levels within the quarry site. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 7 

Workforce 

An estimated eight to nine workers would be present on the proposed operation at any one time 

over the life of the mine. The majority of these workers are equipment operators with the 

exception of the blasters and supervisors. MSHA regulations will be met and miners would not 

be exposed to sound levels exceeding 115dBA. 

Site Security 

Enclosure of the active mine by fences and gates is required by MSHA and other regulatory 

guidance. Access will be limited to a few readily observable points during the day and when 

mining activity is present. The site will be locked at all other times. The Forest Service will 

work with PLS and MSHA to reduce the amount of area needing fenced at any one time in a 

manner that provides for public safety but also allows for maximum public use of National 

Forest System lands. 

Although PLS does not envision storing blasting agents on site, additional security measures will 

be taken if there is a future need for such storage. These additional security measures include, 

but are not limited to, additional locks and possibly an alarm system would be used where

blasting agents or other potential hazardous supplies are located on site. Storage will incorporate 

all security measures required by federal, state, and local laws. PLS does not envision needing 

overnight security lights in the mine area, but some minor lighting may be needed for security 

purposes. 

Signage 

PLS will post speed limits and traffic movements, as needed, to maintain a safe and efficient 

operation. Signing (every 100 to 200 feet) will identify the site as an active quarry with posting of 

all required federal and state permits. At a minimum, a stop sign will be located where the road to 

the quarry site intersects Hidden Valley Road. For dust control purposes, it is anticipated that the 

speed limit will be posted at 15 miles per hour on the internal roads within the quarry. 

Structures 

No permanent or semi-permanent structures will be necessary for the proposed operation. Office 

facilities and ancillary facilities (e.g., scale house) for the operation would be located off-site. Onsite structures will be limited to those absolutely necessary for the operation of the mine and 

implementation of the reclamation plan. Temporary and portable structures to be located on-site 

include portable restrooms, employee break room, a secure trailer or shed for blasting supplies (if 

needed) and a water tank for dust abatement. Other temporary items are included under signage 

and site security.

Monument Protection 

Boundary survey monuments will be maintained by sinking posts in the ground, or, in locations 

where exposed bedrock makes burial of a post impracticable, by placing the monument in stone. 

Water Supply for Dust Abatement and Sanitary Sewer and Waste Disposal 

Water will be imported to the site from State permitted wells off-site that have sufficient volume 

to meet the dust suppression needs. The well locations are within three miles of the proposed 

limestone mine and access roads. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 8 

Trucks with holding tanks and spray equipment will be used to haul water to the site. The same 

equipment will be used as necessary to do the actual dust abatement work. 

No sanitary sewer or waste disposal will be constructed for mining and reclamation activities. 

Sanitary facilities will be provided by portable restrooms. Any trash created will be removed by 

the operator to private land. 

The Selected Action also provides additional dust suppression on the Quarry Road and further

limit truck speeds in the area immediately adjacent to the residential area along Hidden Valley 

Road. Magnesium chloride will be added, as needed, to further reduce dust on the east/west 

section line road and the Quarry Road in addition to the use of water for dust suppression. The 

Forest Service will recommend to Pennington County/Rapid City that truck speeds on Hidden 

Valley Road be reduced to reduce the possibility of rocks propelled by truck tires. Hauling will be 

discouraged from operating during student bus departures/arrivals. 

Hazardous Waste, Fuels and Chemicals 

The petroleum products necessary to operate and maintain the heavy equipment for the mining 

and reclamation process requires diesel fuel. On-site fueling is contemplated for loaders, dozers, 

and other off-road equipment including generators. A fueling truck will regularly visit the site to 

maintain fuel levels in the equipment. On-site servicing of equipment is also planned which may 

also involve the use of various petroleum products such as motor oil, grease, antifreeze, and 

hydraulic fluids. 

Both the fueling and maintenance operations will take place within the confines of a standard 

containment basin (e.g., earthen berm or other sealed basin sized to contain a volume of at least 

150% of stored fluids). A Spill Containment, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan will 

be completed by PLS and be available on-site, as needed, in accordance with federal regulations. 

No hazardous waste is anticipated within the meaning of federal statutes of the Resources 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), e.g. cyanide, solvents, and chemical reagents will 

not be necessary to mine limestone. 

Phases of the Operation 

The following is a description of each phase of the operation and the activities needed during 

each yearly entry sequence. 

The quarry operation will consist of the following activities during each subsequent entry: 

• Removing vegetation 

• Removing and salvaging topsoil and overburden 

• Drilling and blasting 

• Loading and hauling material to the primary crusher 

• Primary crushing 

• Transporting crushed raw material (limestone) off-site via trucks 

• Storm Water Drainage and Erosion Control 

• Initial seeding and Noxious Weed Treatment 

• Reclamation of previous year’s work 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 9 

Removing Vegetation 

The proposed quarry site is covered predominantly with ponderosa pine trees of varying sizes 

from seedlings to mature age classes and a ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. There is 

no specific plan to use the trees or other forest ground cover materials in the Section 30 

operation. Land clearing, timber, and other salvageable resources on the Forest surface will be 

removed in the first phase of operations. Trees will be removed and stockpiled within the

boundaries of Section 30 but could be outside the active mining area to permit access to 

minerals. Commercial size trees will be purchased by PLS and removed from Section 30. 

Stumps will be removed, or stockpiled as needed for reclamation activities or for use by the 

Forest Service for other management needs. 

Removal and Salvage of the Topsoil, Overburden, and Waste Rock 

Separate stockpiles will be maintained for topsoil, overburden and waste rock. Soil will be 

removed down to bedrock. Organic materials such as decaying stumps, saplings, and coarse 

woody debris on the ground may be included in the salvaged soil stockpiles. Fresh stumps and 

debris created from vegetation removal for site preparation will not be included in the soil 

stockpiles. Topsoil will be stockpiled until such time as needed to create a plant growth medium 

for vegetation in the reclamation process. Soil stockpiles will be seeded to prevent erosion during 

the operation with the same seed mix (minus shrub component) that is used for final reclamation 

(see Appendix B, Alternative C in the FEIS). Western wheatgrass will not be used as a temporary 

cover crop on disturbed areas and stockpiles. 

Overburden will be used for general contouring, as needed. Little to no storage area for waste rock 

will be needed at the time of start up. Waste rock will be placed as permanent backfill at the base 

of high walls, as the first step in the concurrent reclamation process. Some waste rock storage is 

identified as a contingency should waste rock be encountered prior to the commencement of 

concurrent reclamation, or if short-term storage is necessary between the active face and areas 

where reclamation is occurring. Unprocessed waste rock will be the bottom layer in the backfill 

areas. Additional layers will be provided by fines from any on-site crushing, stockpiled subsoil, 

and finally stockpiled topsoil. 

Drilling and Blasting 

Removal of limestone will require blasting. The operation is planned to drill typical blasting 

boreholes in a pattern that meets the needs of material removal and follows a general pattern of 

sequential blasting along a continuous face. Blasting is planned to occur once or twice a week, but 

could be more depending on the season of the year and market conditions. No blasting is anticipated 

on weekends or major holidays (i.e. – Christmas, News Year, Labor Day, Thanksgiving etc.). For 

safety reasons, blasting will only be conducted during daylight hours. 

Blasting design will ensure that ground motion due to blasting will not exceed two inches per second 

at any off-site, occupied structure. The operator will monitor all blasts using a seismograph and 

microphone. Monitoring equipment will be located within ten feet of any structures identified for 

monitoring, on the side of the structure toward the blast. Where no structure is identified for 

monitoring, the seismograph(s) will be placed on the nearest property line of the Section 30 site. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 10 

The operator will follow generally accepted standards for vibrations and air overpressure and will 

adjust blast sizes and charge delays to maintain compliance and prevent damage to commercial 

and/or residential structures on neighboring properties. PLS will coordinate with adjacent property 

owners to address concerns regarding blasting effects to their properties. 

Drill rigs will be equipped with dust collectors. The primary blasting agent will be ANFO 

(combination of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil). Drilling will involve standard auger equipment 

unless unexpected situations arise which would be approved prior to changes in the boreholes. All 

work and storage of blasting materials secured on-site will comply with relevant regulations, 

including oversight by federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) and MSHA. 

After the high valued limestone is removed, a process known as Overshoot, material blasted or 

otherwise displaced from the upper part of the quarry highwall will be blasted to form an 

embankment covering the bottom of the highwall. Overshoot is intended to create a continuous 

slope at a safe and suitable gradient for reclamation purposes. The overshoot materials are 

normally limestone that would remain in the quarry. 

As stated under the site security section, a fence will be located around the site perimeter. The 

fence will be located at least ten feet from the upper edge of the highwall, and a berm may be 

located at the same distance around the perimeter of the quarry as needed. Berms are optional 

and will be employed in areas where additional barriers and boundary markers may be 

warranted. A possible location is along the northern and eastern proposed quarry limits due to 

the proximity of a roadway. The Forest Service will work with PLS to limit the amount of area 

fenced at one time, in keeping with safety and security needs. 

The quarry will recover locatable mineral limestone to a near-vertical face where the deposit at the 

edge of the Section 30 or at the edge of the mining limits is located at the full planned depth of the 

pit. Highwalls are temporary features and will be in near-vertical condition only for the period of 

time between active quarrying and concurrent reclamation. 

Loading 

Temporary new access roads may be developed, limited to no more than two at any one time, 

along the north to south Quarry Road. These roads would be used for the purposes of accessing

annual mining operations and concurrent reclamation. Existing roads within Section 30 in the

quarry area will be closed to the public as per state and federal requirements. 

Primary Crushing 

At the option of the company, primary crushing operations may occur at the quarry, otherwise they 

will be completed off-site at the PLS processing facilities. If crushing occurs on-site, the 

equipment will be located within the boundaries of planned disturbance at all times. 

Possible Power Line 

PLS indicated in their proposed Plan of Operations that there might be a need for a power line if 

a rock crusher is located on site. The Selected Action allows for the power line, if needed, to be 

constructed above ground. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 11 

Transporting Crushed Material Off-Site 

Raw materials will be hauled from the temporary roads using over the road haul trucks to the offsite processing facilities. The quarry will accommodate various types of payloads including 

tandem trailers and standard three-axle trucks. 

Local existing roads provide direct access to Section 30 and the proposed quarry location. As a 

result of South Dakota State Law, the one section line road that runs east to west is maintained by 

Pennington County as a Section Line Road. The north/south section line road described as the 

Quarry Road is currently maintained by Hills Materials Company. The Hidden Valley Road 

connecting both Section Line Roads to SD Highway 231 (formerly Hwy79) is maintained by 

Rapid City Street Department. The haul route heads north on SD Highway 231 for approximately 

one mile to Universal Drive where it heads east for 1.8 miles to reach PLS’s existing processing 

facilities on their private land. Standard safety precautions along the haul route will include speed 

control, signage (trucks entering highway) at appropriate and permitted locations, and maintenance 

of sight lines through vegetated sections. Traffic control is already present along Hidden Valley 

Road and at intersections with SD Highway 231. It is estimated that the volume of traffic 

generated by the Section 30 quarry will not warrant new traffic control. Should additional control 

devices or improvements be warranted, PLS will coordinate with the government agency that has 

jurisdiction over the relevant road or intersection. Any new road base material or paving may be 

added to internal haul roads and adjacent public rights-of-way, at the discretion of the controlling 

jurisdiction (e.g. Pennington County for section line road) and up to the level of improvement

necessary to accommodate anticipated truck use. Use of Section 30 waste rock will only be 

allowed with permission from the Forest Service. 

Transporting limestone off-site is considered a Connected Action, as described in Chapter 1 of 

the FEIS. The Forest Service has no authority to approve or disapprove these hauling activities 

because the roads are managed by other jurisdictions. 

Storm Water Drainage and Erosion Control 

Section 30 includes a ridgeline, and the proposed mining site is located near the top of the

drainage divide. The site conveys only a small amount of runoff from areas outside the proposed 

mining limits. Limestone bedrock is fractured and provides a route for rainfall to enter the 

groundwater system before accumulating as appreciable runoff. As a result of this combination 

of circumstances, storm water management on the site would be slightly oversized to handle offsite contributions. Storm water management is intended to maintain historical hydrology, control 

sediment, and maintain water quality. An Erosion Control Plan for the Section 30 site is

included in the Plan of Operations. Check dams and sediment control logs are called for where a 

swale is developed along the eastern floor of the quarry site. Check dams are located where 

flows are sufficiently concentrated to warrant the measure, while sediment control logs perform 

where flows are slower and less voluminous. Sediment logs are spaced at 50 foot intervals. 

Other erosion and sediment control measures are identified in the plan. 

Measures will be taken to minimize soil erosion and help long term soil productivity by 

stripping, stockpiling, spreading topsoil, and vegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after 

completion of mining activities in each area. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 12 

Initial Seeding and Noxious Weed Treatment

Temporary seeding will be applied to all earthen stockpiles and all disturbed areas not subject to 

further active mining using the approved grass and forb seed mix (see Appendix B of the FEIS, 

subheading “Alternative C”). 

The company will adhere to relevant laws and guidelines pertaining to noxious weeds. South 

Dakota laws regarding weed and pest control (e.g. South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 38-22; 

South Dakota Rules, Article 12:62) provides a reference for targeted species. The operator will 

actively monitor areas of the quarry site for infestation. The operator will expeditiously control 

any known infestation within the monitoring area by mowing and/or performing other 

appropriate mechanical, chemical, or biological control methods subject to approval by the 

Forest Service. The noxious weed program will occur continuously while the quarry is in 

operation, and the program will terminate when the reclamation bond for the site is released. 

Reclamation 

PLS will provide a reclamation bond to ensure that all required reclamation is conducted. This 

bond will be adjusted on a periodic basis, as mining and reclamation progresses. 

 The Selected Action has three main reclamation elements, as modified from the PLS proposed 

Plan of Operations: provide additional topography within the reclaimed quarry; utilize a different 

native seed mixture to decrease competition with desired species; and focus on returning the area 

to its current ponderosa pine forested condition in a shorter period of time. 

The Selected Action will utilize waste material to construct some additional hummocky (low 

mounds) topography within the quarried area to provide additional variety in landform and 

habitat. Highwalls will be reclaimed to a shallower slope, in places (less than 3:1). Adding 

topographic relief and diversity to the reclaimed quarry site is intended to reduce the amount of 

linear and unbroken land forms which can be a visual deviation from adjacent undisturbed areas. 

Stockpiles of topsoil will only be as large as is necessary to do concurrent reclamation during the 

time after each cell is closed. 

 

To the maximum extent practical, grading, topsoil spreading, and planting will commence as soon as 

disturbances are complete and the season is appropriate for such activities. Seeding should take 

place in the fall, if at all possible. Seeding in early spring is also acceptable, if it is not possible to 

plant in the fall season. 

No Western Wheatgrass, Crested Wheatgrass, or Smooth Brome will be allowed for reclamation. 

No Rocky Mountain juniper or lodgepole pine will be planted as part of the reclamation process. 

Following application of topsoil, ponderosa pine of a local seed source will be planted where the 

ground is conducive to planting. Planting will occur in late spring or early summer when 

precipitation is favorable to maximize survival of the seedlings. Tree planting will take advantage of 

the reclaimed topography and variations in soil depth. This will likely result in varying densities of 

trees, and may take on a clumpy appearance in places. Trees will not be planted in a grid-like 

pattern. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that at least 75% of the area will have a minimum 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 13 

stocking rate of 200 trees per acres. The seed source for seedlings shall be of local origin, within 

1,000 feet of elevation and 1 degree of latitude of the project area. Coarse woody material (tree 

branches, boles, etc.) will be placed on the ground at the same time as tree planting to provide for 

micro-habitats. 

Reclamation will be monitored based on the plan contained in Appendix B, subpart “Alternative C”, 

in the FEIS. This monitoring will ensure that reclamation is successful, and changes will be made as 

needed to ensure that reclamation objectives are achieved. 

Operating Time Period 

Mining operations will not be conducted on major holidays (i.e. – Christmas, News Year, Labor 

Day, Thanksgiving etc.). The operation will conduct no more than 60 days of evening operations 

per year, generally stopping operations by approximately 7:00 pm. No overnight operations will be 

conducted. 

Water Sampling 

PLS will work with adjacent landowners to conduct baseline and monitoring of groundwater wells in 

close proximity to the operation, specifically as it relates to nitrate levels in the water. This testing 

will be at the request of the adjacent property owners as the Forest Service has no authority to direct 

sampling on private land. 

Forest Plan Amendment

The Selected Action approves a non-significant amendment for Forest Plan Standard 5.4-1501. 

This amendment covers only the PLS operation for the approximate 100 acre Section 30 Project. 

It does not include any other activities in MA 5.4 on the Forest. 

Standard 5.4-1501 states that “Operating and reclamation plans shall minimize or mitigate 

impacts to deer and elk habitat. Operating plans shall restrict the period of operation to reduce 

disturbance to deer and elk during periods of high use”. In this case, high use is considered the 

period from December 15 to May 15, as the affected Management Area (5.4) is for winter range. 

The Selected Action authorizes mining operations on a yearlong basis. My rationale for 

providing this non-significant amendment and for the Selected Action as a whole is presented in 

the following section. 

Rationale for Selected Action

Alternative C-Modified is my Selected Action because it best meets the purpose and need for 

action, as determined by management direction; and it responds well to the issues and public 

comments. Alternative C-Modified approves mining of the limestone deposit, as provided for by 

law, and also reduces the overall environmental effects of the operation. The Selected Action 

meets requirements under all applicable laws, regulations and policies. 

The key to my decision is how authorizing a modified Plan of Operations addresses the Purpose 

and Need, Management Direction, Issues, and Public Comments on the DEIS. For clarity, I 

provide a discussion below of my rationale in terms of these four criteria. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 14 

Purpose and Need - As stated in Chapter 1 the FEIS, the Purpose and Need for this project is 

authorization of Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. proposal to exercise their rights under US mining laws to 

mine limestone while protecting the environment in accordance with Forest Service regulations for 

locatable minerals. 

PLS has a statutory right to extract locatable minerals (chemical grade limestone) in accordance with 

the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 21-54). The Forest Service’s regulatory 

responsibilities for oversight of mining activities on National Forest System lands is set forth in the 

Forest Service Surface Use Regulations (36 CFR 228, Subpart A). These regulations direct the Forest 

Service to prepare the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation when proposed 

operations may significantly affect surface resources. The regulations do not allow the Forest Service 

to deny entry or preempt the miner’s statutory rights under the Mining Law. The regulations also 

require the Forest Service to develop mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts on National 

Forest resources and include requirements for reclamation. 

The Selected Action (Alternative C-Modified) responds well to the purpose and need. It authorizes 

Pete Lien and Sons Inc. to exercise their rights under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, but also 

protects the environment in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The associated 

Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) meets all legal 

requirements and provides a basis for an informed decision on this project. The Selected Action 

includes mitigations to reduce adverse impacts on National Forest resources and also includes strong 

reclamation standards to stabilize and provide future productivity of the land. A reclamation bond is 

required as part of this decision to ensure that required reclamation work is completed. 

Management Direction (Forest Plan) – The Forest Plan provides guidance for all resource 

management activities on the Black Hills National Forest. This includes designation of Management 

Areas; and also Forest Plan Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines, as presented in Chapter 1 of 

the FEIS. 

Management Area (MA) 5.4 is the only MA affected by the Section 30 Project. This MA is managed 

to provide big game winter range, mostly deer in this case. The full range of management practices 

occurs on these lands, particularly timber harvesting and recreational use. Mining and livestock 

grazing are also some of the anticipated uses for Management Area 5.4. 

The Forest Plan established eleven multiple use goals and associated objectives for management of the 

Forest. The goals providing primary management emphasis and direction for the Section 30 Project 

are Goals 1-4 and 7: 

1. Protect basic soil, air, water, and cave resources. 

2. Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems. 

3. Provide for sustained commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. 

4. Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection of heritage 

resources in response to the Black Hills National Forest visitors and local communities. 

7. Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations, and other agencies while 

 coordinating planning and project implementation. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 15 

The numerous objectives, standards, and guidelines to meet these overall goals are presented in 

Chapter 1 of the Section 30 FEIS. A provision of the Forest Planning process allows for significant or 

non-significant (limited scope) amendments as needed to achieve overall management purposes. The 

Selected Action includes a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan that allows the Section 30 

Mining Project to operate during the winter time period. 

I conclude that the Selected Action complies with applicable Forest Plan direction within the context 

of the legal rights granted to PLS under the General Mining Law. This decision includes additional 

requirements to protect soil, air and water resources (Goal 1); no cave resources will be affected. 

These additional requirements include design criteria, mitigation and monitoring (Appendix B, 

Subpart Alternative C, in the FEIS) for soil stabilization and reclamation; and additional mitigation to 

reduce air quality effects by controlling road dust. And, even though the analysis disclosed in the 

FEIS indicates that water quality should not be affected, my decision also requires that PLS work with 

neighboring property owners to establish baseline water quality sampling and monitoring to ensure 

that mining operations do not affect water quality in groundwater wells. 

The Selected Action includes additional measures to provide for a variety of life through 

management of biologically diverse ecosystems (Goal 2). This includes the requirement to 

utilize native seed mix in stabilizing and reclaiming the site (Appendix B of the FEIS), and 

precludes use of non-native grasses such as Western Wheatgrass, Crested Wheatgrass and 

Smooth Brome. It also precludes the planting of non-native lodgepole Pine. Only local seed 

sources will be used for planting of ponderosa pine to ensure that trees planted for reclamation 

are well adapted to the site. As presented in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS, the 

reclamation plan emphasizes that post-mining reclamation for Alternative C (included in 

Selected Action) shall be directed toward optimizing habitat diversity for big game species on 

the MA 5.4 site. The native grass, forb, and shrub seed mix, along with planting of local source

Ponderosa Pine, are aimed at providing for this post-mining big game habitat diversity. 

As stated above, my decision includes a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan. 

Specifically, the Selected Action approves a non-significant amendment to Forest Plan Standard 

5.4-1501. Standard 5.4-1501 states that “Operating and reclamation plans shall minimize or

mitigate impacts to deer and elk habitat. Operating plans shall restrict the period of operation to 

reduce disturbance to deer and elk during periods of high use”. In this case, high use is 

considered the period from December 15 to May 15, as the affected Management Area 5.4 is for 

winter range. I have given serious consideration to the need for this change in Forest Plan 

direction. My decision is based on two primary considerations: whether requiring PLS to mine 

the limestone deposit on a seasonal basis unduly restricts their rights under the Mining Law; and 

whether the effects on big game would justify such a requirement. The mining and processing of 

chemical grade limestone is a capital and labor intensive business. I believe that requiring PLS 

to shut down operations for half of each year would unduly restrict their operation, unless there 

is a strong and compelling reason to do so. It would significantly extend the life of the operation 

and stretch out the effects over a longer period of time (up to 50 years). Reclamation of the site 

would also take a much longer period of time. 

The Wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS states that “reducing the period of time allowed to 

mine the area may increase the longevity of the mine beyond 25 years, which could also have a 

greater effect on deer use of the area. Allowing operations to continue throughout the year 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 16 

would add insignificant effects compared to current and potential future conditions”. The 

analysis indicates that the area affected by the Section 30 Limestone Mine is a small fraction of 

MA 5.4 available on the Forest (less than 1 percent). I have decided that a non-significant 

amendment to Standard 5.4-1501 that would enable the mine to operate yearlong is justified. 

This amendment will shorten effects on wintering deer. The non-significant amendment is 

limited in scope. It applies only to the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project and does not affect 

any other areas of MA 5.4 on the Forest. 

The Selected Action provides for commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner 

(Goal 3), within the context of the legal rights granted to PLS under the General Mining Law. 

The Selected Action responds well to Goal 4 of the Forest Plan. Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses 

that changes to scenic quality are an unavoidable adverse effect of the mining operation. My 

decision modifies the proposed Plan of Operations to reduce these effects. Specifically, the 

Selected Action reduces the amount of land that can be affected by the mining operation at any 

one time without being reclaimed, from the proposed 60 acres down to 25 acres. It requires 

additional topographic variability in the post-mining reshaping of the landscape, and it requires 

more aggressive tree planting as part of reclamation. Each of these changes, taken together, will 

help reduce the overall scenic effect by reducing the area of impact at any one time, reducing the 

sharp contrast between the mined area and its surroundings, and more rapidly returning the area 

to a more natural condition. This decision changes the Scenic Integrity Objective (Guideline 

5602) for the area to reflect the changes resulting from the mining operation. The new SIO will 

change from the existing Moderate to Very Low. 

The FEIS acknowledges effects to recreation use in the mine area (Goal 4). Some of the areas of 

current recreation use will not be available during the life of the mine. The area will be fenced 

off to provide for public safety and security for equipment and stored items. My decision 

reduces these effects somewhat by requiring that PLS and the Forest Service work together to 

limit the amount of fencing needed to the minimum required to meet these safety and security 

needs. This will result in changes to fencing over time, and will allow the public to use at least 

some of this area for recreational purposes during the operating time period. 

Significant effort was expended to address heritage, religious, and traditional use issues 

associated with the mine proposal. This included actual changes to the mine boundaries in order 

to avoid certain heritage sites, and formal consultation with the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), interested Tribes, PLS and the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF). 

Consultation led to the preparation and signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this 

project between the South Dakota 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 development of the MOA but chose not to 

participate. Other Tribes participated in the consultation process but were not signatories to the 

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

sacredness of the Black Hills to their people. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also expressed 

opposition to the MOA based on Tribal Resolution No, 216-06-CR. That resolution opposes all 

timber harvest permits, mining permits, and all other permits that may have an adverse effect on 

historic and cultural properties or areas of significance within the Black Hills. No comments 

were received on the DEIS from any Indian Tribe. I recognize the historic reasons for objecting 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 17 

to mining and other activities in the Black Hills and the strong spiritual connection that these 

Tribes have for the area. My decision is based on compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations, implementation of the stipulations included in the MOA, and the inclusion of 

additional measures to ensure reclamation and the long term sustainability of the land. 

The Selected Action emphasizes cooperation with individuals, organizations, and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation (Goal 7). The Forest Service is only one of the 

local, State and Federal agencies that have a role in the Section 30 Mining Project. Other agencies 

with some level of involvement include, but are not limited to, the Rapid City Street Department; 

Pennington County; South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office; South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and 

the Mine Safety and Health Administration. My decision emphasizes cooperation and coordination 

with each of these entities. It also includes working cooperatively with the local residents and affected 

Tribes. 

Issues - There were four key issues identified as a result of internal and external scoping for the 

Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area, as presented earlier in this ROD and in Chapter 1 of the 

FEIS. These issues relate to Visual Effects, Cultural Resources and American Indian Religious Use 

Sites, Changes in Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat/Use, and Effects on Public Health and Safety. 

My review of the FEIS and project record focused on how well the alternatives addressed the 

significant issues associated with the proposed operation. 

The Selected Action addresses visual (scenic) effects of the operation by reducing the amount of 

land that can be affected by the mining operation at any one time without being reclaimed, from the 

proposed 60 acres down to 25 acres. It requires additional topographic variability in the postmining reshaping the landscape, and it requires more aggressive tree planting as part of reclamation. 

Each of these changes, taken together, will help reduce the overall visual effect by reducing the area 

of impact at any one time, reducing the sharp contrast between the mined area and its surroundings, 

and more rapidly returning the area to a more natural condition. I recognize that these actions do 

not eliminate the visual effects, as the changes to scenic quality are an unavoidable adverse effect of 

the mining operation. 

My rationale for the Selected Action as it affects Cultural (Heritage) Resources and American 

Indian Religious Use was presented under Management Direction earlier in this ROD. Formal 

consultation, in compliance with the regulations in 36 CFR 800, was conducted with SD SHPO, 

interested Tribes, PLS and the BHNF. This consultation resulted in an MOA for the Section 30 

Project. I acknowledge that not all interested Tribes signed the MOA. I also understand that 

many activities, perhaps most prominently mining, are particularly sensitive concerns to the 

Sioux and other Indian nations who have strong grievances regarding treaty and settlement 

issues. These larger issues are beyond my ability to address in this decision. The physical site 

boundaries of five eligible historic sites will be protected, as will a partially intact religious use 

site. The religious use site will remain accessible during and after mining operations. The 

Selected Action provides for reclamation and the long term sustainability of the land and abides 

by the stipulations included in the signed MOA. 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses the effects from the mining operation on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat/use for the affected area. The Selected Action reduces these effects, as presented under 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 18 

Management Direction in this section of the ROD. This includes limiting the amount of land 

that can be disturbed by mining before reclamation is required, utilizing native seed mix in 

stabilizing and reclaiming the site (Appendix B of the FEIS), and precluding the use of nonnative grasses such as Western Wheatgrass, Crested Wheatgrass and Smooth Brome, or the 

planting of non-native lodgepole pine. It also requires the use of local seed sources for planting 

of ponderosa pine. The reclamation plan emphasizes that post-mining reclamation for Alternative 

C (included in Selected Action) shall be directed toward optimizing habitat diversity for big 

game species on the MA 5.4 site. The native grass, forb, and shrub seed mix, along with planting 

of local source ponderosa pine, are aimed at providing for this post-mining big game habitat 

diversity. 

The Selected Action addresses the issue of Public Health and Safety in several ways. As 

included in the PLS proposal, safety precautions include fencing and/or placing berms around the 

area to protect the public from ongoing mining operations. My decision includes 

recommendations to the responsible road management agencies to control truck speed on the 

Hidden Valley Road. It also discourages hauling during school bus schedules, and applying 

more aggressive dust suppression on gravel haul roads. 

Public Comments on the DEIS – Public comments on the DEIS were an important consideration 

in my decision. I spent time reviewing these comments and the Agency responses, which are 

presented in Appendix A of the FEIS. Many of the items already discussed in this ROD are 

directly responsive to the concerns raised in the DEIS comments. In this section, I want to 

summarize some of what I have reviewed, and explain how my decision addresses these concerns, 

especially as it relates to neighbors living adjacent to the operation. 

Public comments on the DEIS understandably expressed concerns about living next door to an 

active mine. Concerns about noise from the blasting and mining operation were mentioned 

multiple times. I addressed these concerns by, first of all, selecting Alternative C for 

implementation because I thought it did a better job reducing noise from the operation. But I also 

felt that Alternative C could be improved; so I included some additional requirements in my 

decision. This includes a requirement that no blasting take place before 7 am in the morning, and 

also that PLS inform neighbors when blasting is to occur. I am also making a commitment to work 

with PLS and MSHA to install quieter backup alarms on equipment working in the mine. 

Other comments expressed concerns about possible effects to homes, groundwater wells, and other 

structures on private property related to blasting at the site. Two issues were expressed here--that 

blasting would physically damage these structures/wells, and that the nitrate residue from blasting 

would affect water quality in local wells. The Selected Action includes monitoring of both the 

ground and air vibration associated with blasting. This, and the requirement for PLS to work 

cooperatively with neighbors, should reduce any potential for damage on private property due to 

blasting. In regards to nitrate or other water quality effects to groundwater wells, the analysis in 

the FEIS and project record indicate that no effects are expected from the operation. But to assure 

neighbors adjacent to the mine that their water will not be affected, I have added a provision in my 

decision for PLS to work with adjacent landowners to collect baseline water samples and do 

periodic monitoring of the local wells. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 19 

Another set of comments expressed concerns about the visual appearance of the mine. The

Selected Action includes several measures to reduce these effects. It begins mining operations on 

the south side of the limestone deposit, thereby reducing the immediate visual (and other) effects 

to the adjacent residents along the Hidden Valley Road. It limits the amount of un-reclaimed land 

to 25 acres, down from the proposed 60 acres. And it aggressively reclaims the land with native 

grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees in order to more rapidly return the area to a natural looking 

condition. 

Finally, a concern that some had was that the entire area would be fenced off from public access, 

thereby eliminating recreation and other use on the land. My decision includes a provision to work 

directly with PLS to limit the amount of fencing to that necessary for public safety and security at 

the mine. 

Other Alternatives Considered 

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS. Alternatives A and B are summarized 

below. Alternative C-Modified is the Selected Action. A detailed comparison of the alternatives 

can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the No Action Alternative 

and to use it as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the Proposed 

Action or other action alternatives would take place within the Section 30 Project Area. This 

alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action for this 

project. The No Action Alternative does not respond to the rights granted mining claimants 

under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B is the Proposed Action contained within the proposed Plan of Operations (PO) 

submitted by PLS. The proposed quarry is located in Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 7 

East, Black Hills Meridian. 

PLS estimates there are approximately ten million tons of locatable mineable limestone 

recoverable on approximately 94 acres of the Section 30 property. Factoring in access roads and 

other ancillary disturbances: sediment ponds, soil and overburden stockpile areas, timber 

salvage stockpiles, crushing and load out areas, equipment service and maintenance area, and 

parking area; a total surface disturbance of 100 acres more or less would occur over the seven to 

25 year life of the mine. Based on the proposed action, the maximum disturbance at any one 

time over the life of the mine is estimated at 60 acres. 

The limestone deposit starts at the surface and averages about 25 feet in thickness, based on 

previous exploration drilling results. Development of the quarry is planned to start at the 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 20 

northeast corner of Section 30, parallel with the Hidden Valley Road, and proceed west (upslope) 

in what would be the northern pit. 

Once the northern pit is completed, work would start in similar fashion in what would be the 

southern pit. This proposed sequence does not prohibit PLS from mining simultaneously in both 

pits. The process for surface mining would follow standard procedures: First, trees and stumps 

would be removed; then soil and overburden, including weathered material with lower quality

limestone, would be stripped and stockpiled on the site for use in reclamation. There is very 

little topsoil or overburden present at the site, and in places mining could commence at the 

ground surface with very little advanced site preparation. Exposed limestone would then be 

blasted, as necessary to loosen the rock for removal. Loose rock may be crushed on-site to 

reduce its size for efficient transportation and subsequent processing into chemical limestone 

products. Material generated on the site may be temporarily stockpiled or loaded immediately 

for hauling off-site. Mining would progress upslope (east to west) resulting in an active quarry 

face (high wall) along the uphill side of the pit, with a quarry floor on the down slope (east) side 

of the pit. 

High walls would also exist along the boundary with Hidden Valley Road, Quarry Road, and 

along the boundary with the Hills Materials Company quarry operation in the SE 1⁄4 of Section 

30. 

Reclamation of the site would be ongoing (concurrent) with mining operations. Reclamation 

would consist of backfilling or slope preparation, preparation of a suitable plant growth medium, 

seeding and planting, and implementation of other features as called for by the reclamation plan 

(described later in this section). Except for dust control, these activities represent a dry process 

and do not consume any water. Mining activity would not involve any type of chemical 

processing. 

Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative B would require three non-significant Forest Plan amendments based on deviation 

from Forest Plan standards. Alternative B would require non-significant amendments for 

Standards 1110, 5.4-1501, and 2416.b. 

• Alternative B would not meet Standard 1110. The standard states that revegetation of

disturbed areas will use only native species and non-native, non-aggressive annuals. It

precludes the use of aggressive non-native species such as smooth brome.

• Alternative B would not meet Standard 2416b. This standard requires minimum 

restocking levels of 150 seedlings per acre for conifers on lands identified as suitable and 

available for timber production. The proposed quarry operation is located on lands 

suitable and available for timber production. Although this standard was intended for 

typical timber management activities, it appears to apply to the proposed operation, and 

so would need an amendment because it would not comply with this standard. 

• Alternatives B would not meet Standard 5.4-1501, which states, operating and 

reclamation plans shall minimize or mitigate impacts to deer and elk habitat. Operating 

plans shall restrict the period of operation to reduce disturbance to deer and elk during

periods of high use. The quarry operation would operate on a yearlong basis, and would 

not halt operations during the winter range period to provide for deer and elk. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 21 

Reasons for Not Selecting Other Alternatives

Alternative A – The No Action Alternative would not approve a Plan of Operation (PO) for 

mining operations within the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area. As such, this 

alternative would not comply with the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and would violate 

Forest Service regulations included in 36 CFR 288(a). However, consistent with 40 CFR 

1506.2(d), this alternative provides a comparable environmental baseline against which to 

evaluate effects of the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – This alternative would approve the proposed Plan of Operation (PO) submitted 

by Pete Lien and Sons Inc. After reviewing the FEIS and the project record, I do not believe that 

Alternative B provides the best option for implementing limestone mining operations on NFS 

lands in an environmentally acceptable manner. Alternative B would begin mining on the north 

end of the area, thereby increasing the disturbance to residents living along the Hidden Valley 

Road, adjacent to the mine site. It would result in larger areas disturbed at one time prior to 

being reclaimed. Alternative B would introduce aggressive non-native grasses as part of 

stabilization and reclamation. This alternative also would not return the area to a more natural 

reclaimed condition as rapidly as that required in the Selected Action. 

Public Involvement

During project development and analysis period, an effort was made to involve, interact, and 

cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Section 30 Project. Scoping is the 

process of obtaining comments about proposed federal actions to determine the breadth of issues 

to be addressed. Comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for 

managing the Section 30 Project Area were solicited from members of the public, American 

Indian Tribes, other public agencies, adjacent property owners, organizations, and Forest Service 

specialists. 

A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 172 interested parties, including adjacent land 

owners on October 12, 2006. This letter included a description of the project area, an overview 

of the NEPA process, a general explanation of the actions proposed, and an invitation to 

comment. 

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, 

concerns and issues were solicited and documented for consideration. 

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. A prior 2002 consultation addressed a proposed land exchange between the 

BHNF and Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. (PLS) with respect to the Section 30 Project area (BHNF-SO 

2006a). The 2006 consultations addressed the PLS 2005 Plan of Operations in Section 30 

(Banks and Gesso 2005). Those invited to consult included the Advisory Council on Historic 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 22 

Preservation (ACHP), Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Lower 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 Historical Society, PLS, and the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SD 

SHPO) (BHNF-MRD 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 Black Hills National 

Forest. 

Three consultations were held in 2006, including two in Rapid City, SD on January 19 and 

February 28, and one in Spearfish, SD on June 27-28. 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. 

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. The first 

two meetings included presentations by the Forest Service and PLS on the project proposal, a 

review of the historic properties, and possible mitigation efforts to protect the sites. PLS was 

unable to attend the third meeting. 

Publications of news releases and informative articles in the Rapid City Journal occurred on 

November 7, 2006, November 13, 2006, and November 16, 2006. 

The project was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in October of 2006. 

SOPA contains a list of Forest Service proposed action that will soon begin or are undergoing 

environmental analysis and documentation. It provides information so the public can become

aware of and indicate interest in specific proposals (located online at www.fs.fed.us/sopa/).

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

27, 2006. During the scoping period, 23 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comment 

letters. 

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. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 23 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Draft EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on Friday, March 18, 2011. This initiated the official 45-day 

comment period on the Draft EIS. This comment period ended on May 2, 2011. A Legal Notice 

was published in the Rapid City Journal, newspaper of record, on March 19, 2011 announcing an 

Opportunity to Comment on the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project DEIS. 

During the Draft EIS comment period, 18 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comment 

letters, 122 responses were identified and responded to by the Section 30 Limestone Mining 

Project ID Team. These comments and associated agency responses are located in Appendix A 

of this Final EIS. No comments on the DEIS were submitted by any Indian Tribe. 

No public comment on the Draft EIS generated the need for reanalysis of alternatives. 

Additional factual and clarifying information, and minor modifications were incorporated into 

the FEIS based on public comments to the DEIS and internal review. 

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferred alternatives is required [Section 101 NEPA; 

40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferred alternative is not necessarily the alternative 

that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It 

does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and 

best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources. 

In the case of the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project, I have determined that Alternative A is 

the environmentally preferred alternative because it would eliminate impacts from limestone 

mining to visual effects, cultural resources and American Indian religious use, changes to 

vegetation and wildlife habitat/use, and effects on public health and safety. 

Design Criteria and Mitigation 

Design criteria and mitigation measures describe features and actions applied in the project 

analysis during the design of the proposed action and alternatives to reduce effects (see FEIS 

Chapter 2, pg. and Appendix B). They include requirements such as BMP’s, standard operating 

procedures, and reclamation standards that are incorporated into (made part of) the action design. 

Design criteria will be used to reduce the adverse impacts of limestone mining operations. These 

criteria will be applied during implementation by both the Forest Service and Pete Lien and Sons 

Inc. Measures listed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS are incorporated by reference into this Record of 

Decision. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring of the operation, including reclamation requirements, is included in this decision. 

The monitoring activities described in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the FEIS will be 

implemented as appropriate. Activities and their effects, including effectiveness of design 

criteria and any needed mitigation measures, will be monitored during and following project 

completion. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 24 

Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy 

Another aspect of the process of selecting an alternative is ensuring that the planned action comply 

with all legal requirements and policy. The selected alternative specifically meets the following 

legal requirements. 

Federal Laws 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended: All surveyed and inventoried 

cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places will be protected from mining activities. New sites discovered during operations will be 

protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties and sacred areas will be protected. 

The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted concerning 

the proposed activities in the Section 30 Project Area. The SHPO concurred with our 

determination that sites 39PN1277, 39PN1279, 39PN1280, 39PN 1283, and 39PM1284 are 

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP (SD SHPO 2006, Concurrence #060210001F). 

The physical site boundaries for these sites will be protected with adherence to specific 

protection measures that have been incorporated into the design and the signed Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA) between the SD SHPO, PLS, BHNF, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and 

the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Formal consultation on a government-to-government basis with 

interested Tribes was conducted in compliance with regulations pertaining to Protection of 

Historic Properties (36 CFR 800). 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969: NEPA establishes the format and 

content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing 

the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project EIS and ROD was completed in accordance with 

NEPA. 

The Endangered Species Act, 1973: The project decision is in compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species within the Section 30 

Limestone Mining Project Area. Therefore, no consultation was required with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The bald eagle was recently de-listed under ESA. Potential effects to bald eagles 

and other sensitive species, along with documentation regarding species covered under ESA, were 

included in a biological assessment/biological evaluation and summarized in Appendix C of the 

FEIS. 

The Clean Air Act and Amendments, 1977: The Selected Action will be implemented to meet 

the National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality 

below health and visibility standards. PLS will acquire or maintain all applicable permits from the 

responsible agencies. 

The Clean Water Act, 1982: The Selected Action will meet and conform to the Clean Water 

Act as amended in 1982. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed 

projects. The Selected Action is not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the 

State of South Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring

of Watershed Conservation Practices and other design criteria of project activities. PLS will 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 25 

acquire and maintain any required approvals or permits from the responsible agencies, including 

an NPDES permit, for the project. 

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended: The major Federal law governing the disposition 

of the locatable minerals on Federal lands in the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This 

law provides citizens of the United States the opportunity to prospect, explore, develop and 

extract certain valuable mineral deposits on Federal lands that remain open for that purpose. 

Forest Service compliance with the Mining Law is nondiscretionary. However, while miners 

have rights under the Mining Law, they are legally required to comply with the rules and 

regulations covering National Forests. They are also required to comply with applicable laws 

that have placed additional requirements upon miners. 

The lands within the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Area are open to prospecting, 

exploration, and location under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This law sets general 

standards and guidelines for mining claim location and provides for possessory right to valuable 

minerals with the lines of the location. The Selected Action, Alternative C-Modified, is in 

compliance with the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 

Forest Service Surface Use Regulations and Guidelines: Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 

Part 228 Subpart A (also known as the 228 Regulations) set forth rules and procedures for use of 

the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with mineral operations. The 

regulations direct the Forest Service to prepare the appropriate level of environmental analysis 

and documentation when proposed operations may affect surface resources. These regulations 

also do not allow the Forest Service to deny entry or preempt the miners’ statutory right granted 

under the 1872 Mining Law, as amended. The regulations require the Forest Service to develop 

mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts on National Forest resources. The 228 

regulations include requirements for reclamation. The Selected Action complies with the Forest 

Service Surface Use Regulations and Guidelines. 

Executive Orders: The Selected Action complies with all relevant executive orders, including 

those related to cultural resources (11593), floodplains (11998), wetlands (11990), 

environmental justice (12898), aquatic systems and recreational fisheries (12692), Indian Sacred 

Sites (13007), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (13186), and Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (13175). 

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan: The 1997 Black Hills National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) supported by its Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), is the Forest programmatic document required by the rules 

implementing the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). The Forest Plan was amended by the 

Phase II Forest Plan Amendment (Record of Decision dated October 31, 2005). This amendment 

provides revised and new Standards and Guidelines, as well as additional protection measures 

applicable to a number of plant and wildlife species on the Black Hills National Forest. My 

decision is consistent with the Plan in that:
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 26 

• Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan, as amended, goals and objectives (FEIS, 

Chapter 1). Actions proposed focus on Forest Plan Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Other Forest Plan 

Goals and applicable Objectives also provide management guidance and are achieved to 

varying degrees. 

• The effects of planned activities on management indicator species are consistent with the 

Forest Plan. They are also consistent with the FSM 2670 policy on sensitive species and 

FSM BHNF supplement 2600-2005-1 on species of local concern. 

• Planned activities are consistent with management area direction. Standard 5.4-1501 

requires a non-significant amendment. This ROD includes a non-significant amendment 

(Amendment No. 11) to Standard 5.4-1501, and provides the rationale for this decision. 

• Planned activities comply or move towards compliance with the Forest Plan, as amended. 

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act: The 1982 planning rule has been 

superseded and is no longer in effect. The Forest Service is implementing this project under the 

2000 planning rule. The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan’s management indicator species is 

determined by the Forest Plan’s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines 

(Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project-specific 

monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, 

Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not 

require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase 

II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238). Effects of the proposed 

project to species designated as MIS by the Forest Plan, as amended by the Phase II Amendment, 

have been considered. Due to the scale of the proposed project in relation to habitats available 

across the Forest, there will be no effect on Forest-wide habitat trends for any MIS species. 

Project effects on MIS are discussed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Similarly, project effects on 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are also presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Best Available Science: My decision also is based upon consideration of the best available science. 

I have reviewed the record which shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a 

consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or 

unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the record shows that 

extensive literature citations have been reviewed and considered by resource specialists in 

preparation of the EIS as evidenced by the literature cited sections in the specialist reports. In 

addition, the record shows that literature cited by the public during the comment period has been 

reviewed and considered by resource specialists on the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project ID 

Team. 

Administrative Review

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulation 

(CFR) Part 215. This decision is also subject to administrative review under 36 CFR Part 251 

Subpart C, by PLS, the mining applicant (§251.86). However, the applicant must choose to appeal

under either 36 CFR 251 or 215, but not both (§251.85). Notices of Appeal that do not meet the 

content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 or 36 CFR 251.90, as appropriate, will be dismissed. 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 27 

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215 – Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215, must be submitted (by 

regular mail) to: USDA Forest Service Region 2, Appeals Deciding Officer, 740 Simms Street, 

Golden, CO 80401 or (by fax) to 303-275-5134. The office business hours for those submitting hand 

delivered appeals are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic 

appeals must be submitted in .pdf, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to appeals-rocky-mountainregional-office@fs.fed.us Include the name of the project being appealed in the subject line. Appellants 

should normally receive automated electronic acknowledgement as confirmation of agency receipt of 

electronic appeals. If the appellant does not receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt, it is 

the appellant’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. In cases where no identifiable 

name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned 

signature is one way to provide verification. 

Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of notice of 

this decision in the Rapid City Journal, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 

day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Rapid City Journal, newspaper 

of record, is the exclusive means for calculated the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal 

this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. 

To be eligible to appeal this decision on this project, an individual or group must have provided a 

comment or otherwise expressed interest in this project by the close of the comment period. The 

notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14. 

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C – Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251, must be 

submitted (by regular mail) to: USDA Forest Service Region 2, Appeals Deciding Officer, 740 

Simms Street, Golden, CO 80401 or (by fax) to 303-275-5134. The office business hours for those 

submitting hand delivered appeals are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding 

holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in .pdf format, rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to 

appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us Include the name of the project being appealed in the 

subject line. Appellants should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement as 

confirmation of agency receipt of electronic appeals. If the appellant does not receive an automated 

acknowledgement of receipt, it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other 

means. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of 

identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. 

Appeals must be filed within 45 days following the date on the notice of the written decision 

(§251.88). Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. Appeals filed 

under 36 CFR 251 Subpart C must have a copy of the appeal simultaneously sent to the Deciding

Officer (§251.88) at: Deciding Officer, Black Hills National Forest; Attention: Craig Bobzien, 

Forest Supervisor, 1019 N. 5th St., Custer, SD 57730, or (by fax) to 605-673-9350. 

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, 

focusing on the decision, to show why the Deciding Officer’s decision should be reversed (§251.90). 

The Deciding officer is willing to meet with the applicant to hear and discuss any concerns or issues 

related to the decision (§251.93). An appellant may also include in the notice of appeal a request for 

oral presentation (§251.97) or request for stay of implementation of the decision pending decision on 

the appeal (§251.91). 
Section 30 Limestone Mining Project Record of Decision Page 28 

Implementation 

Implementation of the Selected Action will occur under the authority of this Record of Decision, 

subject to the appropriate appeal and implementation procedures cited above. Acreages and 

locations are approximate and may vary slightly during implementation depending on sitespecific conditions. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, if no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, implementation 

of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing 

period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business 

day following the date of the last appeal disposition. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C, if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision 

may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an 

appeal is received, implementation may occur during the appeal process, unless the Reviewing 

Officer grants a stay (§251.91). 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision contact Dave Slepnikoff, ID Team Leader, 

Robert J. Thompson, Mystic District Ranger, phone (605) 343-1567, Craig Bobzien, Forest 

Supervisor, Deciding Official, or Ed Fischer, Environmental Coordinator, Black Hills National 

Forest, 1019 North 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730, phone (605) 673-9200. 

/s/Craig Bobzien /s/Craig Bobzien 02/29/12 02/29/12 02/29/12 

__________________________________________ _______________

CRAIG BOBZIEN Date 

Forest Supervisor 

Black Hills National Forest 

USDA Forest Service 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, 

or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.