Decision Endangers Bald Eagles and Archaeologic Sites

Defenders of the Black Hills

P. O. Box 2003, Rapid City, SD 57709 Phone: (605) 399 -1868


Nov. 20, 2008

“Board Decision Endangers Bald Eagles and Archaeologic Sites”

Pierre, SD –

A decision made by the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment ignored recommendations by the SD Game, Fish, and Parks Department [GF&P] to protect a bald eagle nest, and the SD Archaeologist to study five possible cultural resource sites in an area slated to become a uranium processing plant.

Even though the recommendations were given to the Board in an information packet from the SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] at a hearing on Nov. 19, 2008, and Defenders of the Black Hills used the recommendations as a part of the grounds for denial of a permit to drill 30 more uranium exploratory wells, the Board granted the permit. Powertech (USA) Inc., a Canadian uranium mining company, wants to build a uranium processing plant on the site in question.

The GF&P letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, stated that the no exploration activity should be conducted on the land in question for 7 months per year, between Feb. 1 and Aug. 31, “to avoid disruption of bald eagle activity at the nest” and also a nearby redtail hawk nest. Defenders of the Black Hills further asked about compliance with other federal laws, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Gold Eagle Act which would protect the bald eagles. The Board did not respond.

Mike Fosha, the Assistant State Archaeologist for the SD State Historical Society who gave testimony at the hearing, also talked about several sites that still needed to be studied. In a letter dated Oct. 15, 2008, to the DENR, Fosha said “Before any recommendation on these sites can be made, a report outlining their avoidance or their archaeological potential from a cultural resources perspective must be reviewed by this office…Five sites have not been evaluated and require additional archaeological investigation before any recommendation can be made concerning their eligibility for nomination to the NRHP.” [National Register of Historic Places]

Defenders again stated that the Board of Minerals must deny the permit as the State Archaeologist did not have time to conduct a review or make a recommendation. Without such a review and recommendation, irreplaceable archaeological and historic sites could be destroyed. Defenders also questioned Powertech’s comments that a Cultural Resources evaluation was conducted as it did not state the date or who conducted the evaluation.

Gary Heckenliable, from ACTion for the Environment, had a statement presented which further questioned the financial viability of the Canadian company to reclaim the land after the mining operation ceases. Heckenliable asked the Board to consider the financial capabilities for a reclamation bond when Powertech’s shares are currently at 22 cents per share. His statement reminded the Board of their previous permit to Brohm Mining Company, another Canadian company, who mined gold and left an abandoned mine whose cleanup is now being paid by South Dakota taxpayers.

Garvard Good Plume Jr., in his individual testimony, quoted a study from the South Dakota School of Mines regarding the old abandoned uranium mines in the area contaminating ground water. He stated: “No more uranium exploratory wells should be drilled until all the aquifers are cleaned up, safe, and protected.”

According to state law, SDCL 45-6D-29., the Board may deny a permit for any of the following reasons:

(1) The application is incomplete or the surety has not been posted;

(2) The applicant has not paid the required fee;

(3) The adverse effects of the proposed uranium exploration operation on the historic, archaeologic, geologic, scientific, or recreational aspects of affected or surrounding land outweigh the benefits of the proposed uranium exploration operation;

(4) The proposed uranium exploration operation will result in the loss or reduction of long-range productivity of watershed lands, public and domestic water wells, aquifer recharge areas, or significant agricultural areas; or

(5) The proposed uranium exploration operation will adversely affect threatened or endangered wildlife indigenous to the area.

The next step in the process is an appeal of the Board of Minerals decision in state court.


For more information call Charmaine White Face, Coordinator at 605-399-1868.


Dear Defenders,  Anyone know a lawyer out there who would want to take on this case?  We are all volunteers, as you know, and operate on donations, a few small grants and no government money.  Please let me know.  Thanks.  Charmaine


About kiwihighlander

I was born in New Zealand (Kiwi) I do not necessarily agree with or endorse all of the views presented here. This is a learning curve! I have a wide range of interesting trivia or facts on a variety of topics with-in this blog, also like to show a presentation of some of my photography & art. Hope your day has been kind :-)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s