Sunday, February 22, 2015

Item #1, Index to Home page

This "home page" is managed like a blog, - items are added and deleted to this page to keep it timely.
The Blog software misbehaves sometimes and alters the font type or font size and/or background color
 and sometimes it just won't be fixed...sorry
As it was printed, in April 2017 - this "Home page" is about 40 "letter size" pages of text.
Scroll down immediately below for an index of how this "blog" is ordered..  
 Older excerpts of the blog,  from 2015, 2014 and 2013 are found on "older posts",  which is a button on the lower right.
Home page: 2019 Deadlines and Events  and then alerts or issue/project discussions


Item # 2, Events/Deadlines

1. Events & Deadlines & Alerts in April 2019 & forward into 2019

Current Events
1.) Prairie Hills Audubon Society (PHAS) events 
2) iterative events,- a local environmental/conservation group's monthly meeting list 
              (iterative events - events which reoccur each month at same day/time) ,
3) Updates on PHAS's greater Sage grouse litigation 
 4.) then specific events in chronological order,
Event notices may include alerts on subject matter that is still relevant/active & thus event/deadline notice may be left up after event date

You can find the discussion of trapping issues at hearing dates of May 23rd & June 3rd & Sept 5th/6th and Oct 3rd/4th, 

Mountain Lions are discussed June 19th, July 18th, July 30th, August 15, August 26th, Sept 5th, Oct 3rd/4th & Nov 4th.

              scroll past 12 inches of empty space:
6) . then it goes to old alerts 
Old Alert Topics 
A) SD Mountain Lion Plan Revision Alert 
B) Mineral Mountain Resources Exploration project
C) Pennington County - Croell Sand/Gravel Mine Issue
D) Non-meandered waters Alert
E) Alert on Resilient Landscape DEIS (Forest Service)
F) announcement of Petitions to list or de-list under ESA and :
G)  S3254/SB 114 (Land Trade Little Spearfish Canyon & Bismark Lake) & 
H).  SD Important Bird Areas
I)  Missouri River Recovery
J) to Sage Grouse Litigation filed by PHAS and others in February  2016
K) then goes to - suspended campaigns discussions, 
for which comment deadlines have past, but related issues persist

We shelter e-mail addresses by replacing @ with (at) 
Prairie Hills Audubon Society  (PHAS) 
Meetings & Events

PHAS now has a Facebook page

Prairie dog photo copyright by Nancy Hilding

We schedule membership evening meetings some months...often towards later half of the month
We also have PHAS lunch or dinner meetings in some months  - 
they also may occur in the second half of the month, often on a Friday or Monday - 
at Hana's Restaurant,  (Asian food), on 3550 Sturgis Rd, Rapid City. 

Past Meetings 2019:  There was no meeting in January. We  co-hosted a cracker barrel in Piedmont on second Saturday in February 
 (thus no monthly meeting in February). We had no meeting in March, and we had no meeting in April, except we had 
 an Earth Day booth at Earth Day fair 4/27th . We  had an Endangered Species Day event on the 3rd Friday in May  (4/17 at OCW) and a field trip to La Creek NWR in early May. (May 4th). We had a lunch meeting on trapping reform, Thursday May 30th, and evening meetings on multiple topics , June 17th, June 28th and July 1st. 
We had meetings on mountain lions, in Spearfish, Rapid City and Kyle, 
Penny Maldanado of Cougar Fund was the guest speaker in late July, early August
Field trips occur when announced.  
 Board meetings are by conference call and members welcome. 
Contact - nhilding (at), 787-6779



Early Part of the Month Enviro Group Meets:
Various environmental groups meet in first weeks of the month on a fixed/repeating day of month.

The Black Hills Sportsmen have lunch meeting (start 12:00 am) the first Tuesday,  Rapid City, Rushmore Hotel, for info: Eric Porisch <ericporisch(at)>, 
Rapid City Chapter of Izaak Walton League may meet in the eve (6:30 pm) of the first Wednesday
Rapid City,  normally at  Outdoor Campus West (OCW), they may take a break during summer.
for info: Mark Boddicker <boddicker (at)>
Northern Hills Bird Club meets the first Thursday eve (7 pm) , Sturgis Library - except  in June-August, when have potlucks, at member's homes.
- they also generally have 2 field trips each month on Saturdays -- or for info: Nancy Drilling, President - nancy.drilling (at), 791-0459   or for info: Contact Vic/Donna Fondy 605-269-2553,
The Rapid City Sustainability Committee meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of the month at the City/School Administration Building at 5:30 it is open to the public and they focus on sustainable practices for the City.
For info: Erik Heikes:  EHeikes (at)
Dakota Rural Action normally meets second Tuesday eve, mixed locations,
for info: Cheryl Rowe: <cherylr (at)>
The Black Hills Photography Club normally meets the second Tuesday of the month at Outdoor Campus West, 6:30 pm.
Some times, the meetings are about photography of outdoor's subjects
and photography field trips to photograph outdoors may also be planned.
The Darton Society meets at Outdoor Campus West (OCW) on 2nd Monday, 
maybe not during the summer (please verify meeting times)
For info: Cathie or LeRoy Draine at 787-5956 or cathiedraine (at)
Norbeck Society normally meets second Thursday eve, Rapid City,
at - SDSMT, Classroom Bldg., Faculty Lounge  or Outdoor Campus West at 5:45 pm
Monthly meetings may be skipped in the summer.
Meeting on May 9th, 2019 is Dan Licht speaking about bats.
for info: Bob Burns < (at)>,787-4783,
SD Chapter of Citizen's Climate Lobby meets the 4th Tuesday of each month at Outdoor Campus West at 6:30 pm, in Rapid City   For info: Mary Deibert,  rmdeibert (at), 605-484-5790.
Clean Water Alliance normally meets the second Saturday
at 10:00 am at the Rapid City Public Library, downtown.  for info: nobhuranium (at)
(note recent - 2019- change of the start time from 9 am to 10 am)
Meets occurring at not regular times  of the Month:

Black Hills Group of Sierra Club has meetings and outings as announced
For info on Sierra Club, e-mail -Sandra Seberger <sandralss57702 (at)> 605-342-4335, 

We shelter e-mail addresses by replacing @ with (at) 


SPECIFIC EVENTS LIST February & onward
scroll down for legislative session


March 2019 & ONWARD

Protecting Greater Sage Grouse:
Oct 16th, 2019 Judge Winmill grants a preliminary injunction against Trump's BLM 
in a lawsuit brought by Prairie Hills Audubon Society, Western Watersheds Project, 
Center for Biological Diversity & WildEarth Guardians.
Our Attorneys: Advocates for the West

Press Release by Western Watersheds Project:

Link to the injunction is below:

New York Times Article on

We are suing to protect Sage Grouse
NEWS - PHAS Press Releases - 

For Immediate Release, March 27, 2019
Media contacts:
Laird Lucas, Advocates for the West, 208-342-7024,
Greta Anderson, Western Watersheds Project, (502) 623-1878,
Michael Saul, Center for Biological Diversity, (303) 915-8308,
Sarah McMillan, WildEarth Guardians (406) 549-3895,

Former Oil Industry Lobbyist Violated Federal Law, Groups Say
BOISE, Ida. ― Four conservation groups sued Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Idaho federal court today over their recent decisions to gut protections for greater sage grouse across millions of acres of public land in the West.  A copy of the lawsuit is available here. The groups are Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Prairie Hills Audubon Society. 
“The Trump Administration is gutting sage-grouse protections on at least 50 million acres of public lands without admitting what they are doing,” said Laird J. Lucas, lead attorney for the Plaintiff groups with Advocates for the West. “The lawsuit today exposes these actions as violating bedrock federal laws and flouting the extensive body of science on what sage-grouse need to survive.”
Bernhardt is President Trump’s nominee to replace Ryan Zinke as Secretary of Interior, and is a former lobbyist and attorney for oil and gas, coal mining, and other industries.  He has been criticized for using his position to favor those industries, including by opening millions of acres of sensitive lands to fossil fuel development.
“We’ve tried to improve the 2015 plans by providing the agency with the best science and substantive recommendations,” said Greta Anderson, Deputy Director of Western Watersheds Project. “The loopholes and exemptions built into the earlier plans were vulnerable to being exploited, but now they’ve been expanded into all-out industry giveaways, backroom decision-making, and weakened habitat protections. It’s very discouraging to see these plans being weakened in light of still-declining populations.”
Greater sage-grouse once occupied hundreds of millions of acres across the West, but populations have plummeted as oil and gas development, livestock grazing, roads and powerlines, and other actions have destroyed and fragmented their native habitats.  To avoid Endangered Species Act listing, BLM and the Forest Service adopted Sage-Grouse Plans in 2015 that identified key areas for protection and limited development in them.
“Trump and his oil industry cronies have declared open season on the vanishing sage grouse and the West’s remaining sagebrush landscapes,” said Michael Saul, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This administration can’t ignore the law, even if it wants to ignore science. We’ll do everything possible to keep this beloved bird off the path to extinction.”

The lawsuit filed today identifies Bernhardt as the “architect” of recent policy changes adopted by the Trump Administration to rescind or weaken the 2015 plans on BLM lands in seven states – Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Oregon – that have most of the remaining sage-grouse populations.
The challenged plans create enormous loopholes that make it easier for fracking and drilling near the imperiled bird’s prime habitat.  The lawsuit notes that these changes were sought by the oil and gas industry beginning in July 2017, and that Bernhardt and BLM have misled the public about the nature and extent of the changes.
“We knew that this administration was deeply enmeshed with fossil fuel production, but we’re shocked that they are willing to sacrifice the sagebrush sea and the many plants and animals found there, not to mention to long-term impacts to climate disruption, while squandering public resources for private profit,” said Sarah McMillan, Conservation Director at WildEarth Guardians.
 The groups are represented by Advocates for the West, a non-profit public interest law firm based in Boise.  The groups previously challenged the 2015 Plans as not doing enough for sage-grouse, and the complaint filed today seeks to supplement that case to challenge the recent Trump Administration roll backs.

Photo of Sage Grouse, copyright Dan Licht

As many as 16 million greater sage grouse once ranged across 297 million acres of sagebrush grasslands, a vast area of western North America known as the Sagebrush Sea.
Over the past 200 years, agriculture, oil and gas drilling, livestock grazing and development have reduced the grouse’s range by nearly half, and sage grouse populations have steadily declined. Today sage grouse are found in 11 western states: California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
The greater sage grouse is under threat because it is intensely loyal to particular areas, reliant on large expanses of intact sagebrush, and is especially sensitive to disturbance and habitat fragmentation. It also needs sufficient vegetation cover and nutrition to raise chicks, unaltered mating grounds called leks for reproduction, and sufficiently healthy winter habitat to survive the cold season.
Protecting the grouse and its habitat benefits at 350 other species that depend on the Sagebrush Sea ecosystem, including pronghorn, elk, mule deer, golden eagle, native trout and nearly migratory and resident bird species.
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing about half of the remaining sage grouse habitat. After years of inaction and then prompted by a 2011 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the bird for protection under the Endangered Species Act, the BLM initiated sage grouse protection planning.
This unprecedented five-year effort, led by the Department of the Interior, resulted in land-use plans with new measures to protect the bird. The Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to list the greater sage grouse as endangered was predicated on the assumption that the public land management plans would be implemented and would reverse the decline of the grouse.

April 22th Update - Preliminary Injunction Requested
Press Release 4/22/19:

For Immediate Release, April 22, 2019

Laird Lucas, Advocates for the West, (208) 342-7024,
Erik Molvar, Western Watersheds Project, (307) 399-7910,
Randi Spivak, Center for Biological Diversity, (310) 779-4894,
Sarah McMillan, WildEarth Guardians (406) 549-3895,

Court Order Sought to Stop Destruction of Sage-grouse Habitat in Seven States

BOISE, Idaho― Four conservation groups have asked a federal judge to block new plans that allow drilling, mining and other destructive activities across 51 million acres of greater sage-grouse habitat in seven western states: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, California and Oregon.

The motion for a preliminary injunction, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Boise, says the land-management plans approved by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt last month would gut protections for the birds’ dwindling populations and destroy their habitat.

“Since 2004 scientists have warned that preventing sage grouse from sliding toward extinction requires protecting all its remaining habitats and populations. The Trump administration has gone in exactly the opposite direction,” said Laird J. Lucas of Advocates for the West, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “Interior Secretary Bernhardt is opening up key sage-grouse strongholds to energy development and other impacts, while falsely claiming this will help sage grouse. Lying about what these plan changes mean violates bedrock requirements of federal law, and we are asking the court to hold this administration accountable.”

“Sage grouse are an American icon that will be irreparably harmed by the wanton destruction of sagebrush habitats that the recent amendments allow,” said Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds Project. “From rolling back protections in sensitive habitats to removing habitat designations entirely, the plans could cause already fragile sage-grouse populations to disappear completely. We need to stop that.”

“Bernhardt’s despicable plan is to open every last acre of sage-grouse habitat to fracking,” said Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “He’s stripping critical protections, holding fire sales of our public lands and pushing these beautiful birds to extinction. We’re asking the court to preserve sage-grouse protections until our claims can be heard.”

“Sage-grouse populations are in serious trouble across the West,” said Sarah McMillan of WildEarth Guardians. “These plans hasten their extinction by allowing extractive industries increased access to the last best public lands habitats for the birds.”
Friday’s motion is supported by expert declarations from sage-grouse scientists, wildlife biologists and public-lands enthusiasts, who urged the judge to stop the Trump administration’s plans.

“BLM essentially ignored analyzing either current habitat conditions and fragmentation or how plan changes may impact sage-grouse habitats,” said renowned wildlife biologist Clint Braun, who spent 30 years with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including as its avian program manager. The revisions “are contrary to the best available science and will allow significant adverse impacts to sage-grouse populations and habitats that BLM has failed to acknowledge and has misrepresented in its decision documents.”

In March the conservation groups sued Bernhardt and the Bureau of Land Management over the new land-use plans, which rescinded or weakened 2015 plans on BLM land in the seven states with most of the remaining sage-grouse population. That complaint supplemented a 2016 lawsuit arguing that those earlier plans ― intended to avoid Endangered Species Act listing ― didn’t go far enough to protect the grouse.

Greater sage grouse once occupied hundreds of millions of acres across the West, but their populations have plummeted as oil and gas development, livestock grazing, roads, powerlines and other activities have destroyed and fragmented their native habitats.

Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Prairie Hills Audubon Society are represented by Advocates for the West, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm based in Boise.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.


Recent News article on this injunction request.





Nest Predator Bounty Program, 

Thursday, May 23rd
(scroll down to June 3rd deadline for update on Alert)

There was an opportunity to comment before May 23rd in opposition to  decisions by SD Game, Fish and Parks Commission  (SD GFPC) on the nest predator bounty program,
 initiated by SDGFP.  See proposals at these links:

Commissioner's e-mail addresses


SD Game, Fish and Parks  recently initiated a nest predator bounty program.

 However, the legislative Interim Rules Review Committee failed to concur with GFP Commission's rule making on this program & sent recently adopted rules back to the Commission - There is a special meeting on Thursday, 5/23/19, 7 am MT, which we can attend at 4 conference locations in SD, including Outdoor Campus West & testify. We can send in opposition comments via on-line portal Monday night, or by e-mail to individual commissioners up to beginning of the meeting. We can object to the increase in the length of the trapping season on public land by 4 months  (May 1st season endpoint changed to August 31st endpoint). thus reducing the impact of the program on public lands and public right-of-ways.

 In April SD GFP allocated a half million dollar to bounties, for the killing of raccoons, opossums, striped skunks, red foxes and badgers, at a rate of $10 per tail. This will end 8/31/19 or when funds spent, which ever first. This is alleged to be to promote pheasants and ducks in SD by killing those predators that eat their eggs/young. The GFP also will be spending at least 800-900 thousand dollars on live traps, which it will give away. This cost could add up to almost 2,5% of SD GFP wildlife division budget.  This program was initiated primarily by administrative decision, without public comment before decisions were made, with very poor transparency to the public. 

 PHAS does not support the killing of native predators to maximize prey species for humans to then kill, especially pheasants, which are an exotic species from Asia.  We don't believe this predator killing program will be effective as designed & protection of habitat would be better & also help other species.  However in some places pheasants compete with SD's rare greater prairie chickens & sometimes the addition of a shelter belt can fragment some grassland habitats of west river's northern plains ecoregion. 

For statements that predator control won't work well in large areas visit these links on predator control and pheasants/ducks.
We refer you to Pheasants Forever 
Also see page 11 of SDGFP Pheasant Management Plan, the section on predators:
"Where predator control may be considered as a management option, managers should be aware that cost, logistics, and lack of effectiveness often limit success when compared to habitat management."

Some trappers will be trapping with leg-hold traps or snares, or body crushing traps. Some will use the live traps.   People should also realize that in SD west river the trap check time is 3 and a partial day and east river the trap check time is 2 and a partial day. Trapping can be cruel.  In high heat, an animal in a box can die in half a day. Animals in boxes or leg-hold traps can freak out and damage their bodies and/or teeth & thus not survive even if released. Animals in boxes or traps can't feed their dependent children. Via a "live trap" non-target species adults and their dependent young will die, in addition to target species. This may include endangered and threatened species.

 The swift fox is listed under SD threatened & endangered species law.:
There is a petition before the USFWS to list the plains spotted skunk and the prairie grey fox under the Endangered Species Act.

People should also realize that there is plague in western SD. Plague is spread by fleas often carried on rodents, which these small predators might eat. Lyme disease is in eastern SD, it can be spread by ticks, that can be carried by mice. SD's bounty program will be removing some of the rodent's predators.

While the Commission will consider the extension of length of trapping season on public land on Thursday, (May 1st season endpoint changed to August 31st) the Interim Rules Review Committee also sent back the rule about bounty hunters sending in an affirmation, not an affidavit, in order to collect bounties. That may be before the Commission again in the future we this trapping bounty program commenting is not over. If this passes the Commission, one can still comment again to the Interim Rules Review Committee, as they again review whatever the Commission does (or doesn't do) on Thursday.

PHAS has long had a campaign to ask for trapping reform in SD, including to ask for trapper IDs on all traps and for a reduction of the trap-check time to 24 hours, from the current time of 3 and a partial day west river and 2 and a partial day east river.  In addition to objecting to the bounty program,  people should ask for 24 hour trap check times & trapper IDs on the traps in SD.  How can SD enforce it's trapping laws, if it can't ID owner of traps.

If bounty trapping is occurring on  public land, such as the Forest Service or BLM, we can always contact those agencies and ask them to close their land to trapping.

Commenting to SD GFP:

(scroll down to most recent Commission meeting 
on October 3rd for commenting instructions)

GFP notice on special meeting - gives 4 locations of meeting & agenda:

 For more info on this issue:

There is a Facebook page created to end the program: 

Both HSUS and SD FACT are continuing to battle the bounty program - primarily through social media so you can find info at:

Interim Rules Review Committee hearing on this. Starting at 1:21, a member of the GFP staff explains the rules brought forward



Deadline - June 3rd, 2019, Monday
SD Interim Rules Review Committee (IRRC) Meeting.
UPDATE - IRRC voted 5 to 1, to pass the amended rule forward.
 It will be published & in force around May 26th.

This was another opportunity to try to mitigate the impacts of the Nest Predator Bounty program.

Photo by David Menke - Public Domain,
PHAS asked you to e-mail or call IRRC members to object to the SDGFP nest predator bounty program. One could have sent comment letters to IRRC's staff at -, 
so he had a copy, but Doug would not forward your letter to the 6 legislators on the Committee.
Letters were sent directly to and/or called the IRRC members:
Nancy Hilding drove to Pierre to testify at Committee meeting.

No rule passed by a SD agency is law in SD until the The Interim Rules Review Committee (IRRC) approves it & Secretary of State publishes it 20 days later. On May 6th, 2019, the IRRC rejected the two rules relative to trapping and the predator nest bounty program that SDGFP Commission had formerly passed in early April.  THANKS TO ALL WHO WROTE THEM! These rules could never have been law and legally used by GFP before May 26th at the very earliest. 
 The IRRC sent the rules back to SDGFP for reconsideration, so they were never ever made law.
To listen to the IRRC discussion visit this link & to skip unrelated audio, scroll audio forward & start listening at 1:21

GFP Commission on Thursday May 23rd, reconsidered one of the problem rules -- the one that extended the  trapping season by 4 months (beyond May 1st to August 31st) on public land and public right-of-ways.  They amended it by restricting the type of traps that may be used during the time extension. Thus if the IRRC accepts this change,  trappers in SD can catch animals on SD public land and right of ways using live traps, but not leg holding traps or snare or body crushing traps. This new trapping period would last from about June 23rd to August 31st. This is an improvement, but not adequate.   THANKS TO ALL WHO WROTE THE COMMISSION ALSO! 

The IRRC met again on June 3rd, review the proposed rule amendment to see if that change adequately mitigates the IRRC objections.  The IRRC unfortunately accepted the changes and moved the rule forward to become law..

We (PHAS) continued to object to the trapping season time extension and while the 5/23/19 changes offered by the Commission is mitigation, it also remains inadequate to us, as we object to the "nest predator" bounty program entirely & also object to any extra time given to trap any animal, in spring/summer when many parents raising young. This also remains inadequate as SD allows for 3 and a partial day trap check time west river & 2 and a partial day trap check times east river.  A "full calendar day" is midnight to midnight.
Technically due to a very poorly written rule,  in SD the trap check time west river is 3and a partial day,  and east river it is 2 and a partial day.  In the summer in high heat an animal can die in a trap in half a day.
Wild animals trapped in boxes can freak out & damage teeth or body parts. Mothers in "live traps" are kept from nursing or feeding dependent young. May-August is the season many wildlife raise children.  So trapper, does not just kill the mom, but the kids may die slowly also.  Animals in traps don't have access to food or water & can die from exposure. In high summer heat, traps need checking at least twice a day, as heat & lack of water can kill. Target, non-target animals & either's dependent young can suffer cruel deaths. With excessively long trap check times, SD trapping program was always was inhumane, even if "live traps" are used. 
Link to hand-outs by Nancy Hilding to the IRRC meeting:

SD GFP spin on their "live trap" give away and nest predator bounty program, is that they are teaching families and kids to enjoy trapping and the outdoors. We are using public dollars, to be spent on public land to teach families and children that in-humane treatment of wildlife is both accepted, paid for & promoted by the state.

 The  Commission on Thursday May 23rd was asked to shorten trap check times, but decided not to do so.
Many small mammals in SD don't have a season past May 1st. The animals this would apply to are the 5 on the "nest predator bounty" list - red fox, striped skunk, badger, opossum, raccoon. But it would also apply to other wildlife with year round seasons: west river muskrat, grey fox, spotted skunk, jackrabbit, coyote, ground squirrel, gopher, porcupine, marmot.  

Other domestic animals and wildlife, for which there is no current season will likely be accidentally trapped. A petition has been submitted to the USFWS to list our regions spotted skunk & grey fox under the Endangered Species Act.  The swift fox, is listed as threatened and black-footed ferret as endangered under SD's Threatened & Endangered Species act. The black footed ferret is listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

We refer you to Bornfree web site to spreadsheets to see how badly SD trapping rules compare with other states &  how desperately we need reform. SD's overall score for 2017 s an "F". There are 2017 and 2012 scorecards to download & look at:
It is a damaged, in-humane trapping program & trapping ethics that we are spending public dollars to teach & promote to our children. Please help us reform this. Please learn about SD's trapping program & communicate to legislators, our governor, SDGFP Commission & GFP's Secretary.

We refer you to Pheasants Forever & ducks Unlimited web pages on predator control and pheasants/ducks.

Also see page 11 of SDGFP Pheasant Management Plan, the section on predators

On-line commenting to SDGFP Commission

To view SD Trapping rules - click button on upper left. to download the entire "article in MSW format"

Other actions to reform trapping will be planned, so this is not the last opportunity to seek change or to seek an end to the nest predator bounty program.

To find out how many tails are collected

To see all the public comments received by the GFP Commission on the trapping issue go to the meeting you are interested in (see GFPCommission Archives) and download either the public comments, commission Book or the minutes, the pubic comments may be in one of those 3 files. Links to audio may be available.

May 29, 2019 

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and South Dakota Game Fish and Parks (GFP) hosted an open house meeting on Wednesday, May 29, in Belle Fourche.

Reclamation, in cooperation with GFP, is working on the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Reservoir. 
For more information or to comment - please contact Jay Leasure at 605-519-5504,,
 Bureau of Reclamation, 515 9th Street, Room 101Rapid City, SD 57701
Here is a pdf on this to download:


June 19th, 2019
Nebraska Mountain Lion Comment Deadline
Wednesday June 19th, at 1 pm CT is the deadline to send comments to 
the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC),
on the proposed mountain lion hunting season in the Pine Ridge area of Nebraska. 
There is a NGPC hearing in Alma, Nebraska on Friday the 21st, cougars up at 9:30 am
At: Alma Golf Coarse Clubhouse, 102 Dick Brown Memorial Drive, Alma, NE

Pine Ridge Ecosystem is in Wyoming, Nebraska & SD


The NGPC's suggested take is 8 mountain lions, 4 (or 2 females) from south unit and 4  (or 2 females) from north unit. In 2017, biologists estimated there were 59 adult lions, sub adult lions and kittens in the Pine Ridge. 
 NGP assumes similar demographics as other well studied populations, and extrapolates the # of kittens, males, females to estimate those groups. Given their most recent (2017) population estimate of 59, that would be ~20 kittens, ~24 independent females, ~15 independent males at any given time. Thus the adult/subadult population is estimated at 39 individuals. They are allowing "harvest" of 16% of the 2017 # of adult/subadult females and 20% of the 2017 # of adults/subadults.

Pursuant to research, Washington State has adopted a "harvest" rate of 12% to 16% of adults and sub-adults, as the harvest levels that result in a sustainable population. Adopting the mean value of 14% for Nebraska's Pine Ridge justifies a harvest of 5.6 cougars. At the highest value of 16%, only 6.4 cougars could be harvested, and at the lowest value of 12% only 4.8 cougars could be harvested. The Nebraska's Pine Ridge cougar habitat is more isolated than Washington State's and these percentages may need to be lower in Nebraska due to Pine Ridge population's relative isolation.

The 2019 hunt, which ran from Jan. 1 - Feb. 28th, killed 8 lions, which is aggressive enough to depress the population -- a 20% hunt  is not likely to create a stable population, but create a shrinking population.  As they still use the 2017 mt. lions estimate of 59 lions, NGP seems to be assuming the mt. lion population is stable & that they yet again in 2019 have 59 lions & can harvest 8 more. 

We want Nebraska managed as a source population to help recolonize areas to the east and south.   Because we want Pine Ridge to be a source population, we request a harvest of 4 or fewer lions.  Folks should object and state the proposed "harvest" is too high and should be reduced. 

Pine Ridge Ecosystem is in Wyoming, Nebraska & SD. In SD, the Oglala Sioux Tribe has a cougar breeding population also & a cougar hunting season

Link to article, which has more details:

HSUS has an alert:
The Mountain Lion Foundation's alert on their web site:

Send comments to:,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, c/o Sandra Paice, Wildlife Division, 2200 North 33rd Street,, P.O. Box 30370, Lincoln NE 68503-0370

Areas in Nebraska with cougar populations

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Meeting
July 18-19, 2019
Rock Springs, WY

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission met to adopt the below regulations.  

Chapter 4,   Furbearing Animal Hunting or Trapping Seasons
Chapter 25, Falconry and Raptor Propagation Regulation
Chapter 32, Regulation Governing Firearm Cartridges and Archery Equipment
Chapter 42, Mountain Lion Hunting Seasons
Chapter 44, Regulation for Issuance of Licenses, Permits, Stamps, Tags,
                    Preference Points and Competitive Raffle Chances
Chapter 47, Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons

Unit 1 - Sep. 1 - Mar. 31 -Allowed Resident Limit - 20 kills, Nonresident Limit - 4kills,
 1 license per hunter
2018 actual Harvest -25 (limit exceeded), 
Unit 32-Sep. 1 - Mar. 31 - Allowed Limit 25 kills, 1 license per hunter
2018, actual Harvest 20 (Limit not met)
Unit 30  Sep. 1 - Mar. 31 Allowed Limit - 12 kills1 license per hunter
2018, actual Harvest 7 (Limit not met)
61 lions from Black Hills Area
Unit 24 , Sep. 1 - May 31, Unlimited, Hunters can get 2 licenses.
2018, actual Harvest 5

No changes to Wyoming's Mountain lion rules are proposed that would directly effect the Black Hills. However PHAS's position is that the harvest limits in BHs were already too high.

 Unit 17 (in west) would see reduction of "harvest" limit of 9 to 5, Unit 23 (north central) would see a reduction of 20 to 15 and Unit 19  (north west) would see  increase of 20 to 25, So a net reduction of 4 lions to be killed statewide. 
  The Department held public meetings to discuss the below regulations (Past).
Mail comment to: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, Attn:  Regulations, 3030 Energy Lane, Casper WY 82604,
The comment period closed  6/17/19.  
After 6/17, folks need to send comments directly to Commissioners - see contact info at link:.

Reminder to Send Comments on the  SD Mountain Lion Management Plan Revision by first deadline on Monday August 26th Deadline (now Sept 5th):

First Deadline to Comment was - Monday, August 26th

Draft revised SD Mountain Lion Management Plan
Next deadline(s) is Sept 29th (on-line) or Oct 3rd (in person or by e-mail)

Draft copy of revised SD Mountain Lion Management Plan was released
 July 23th, with a 33 day public comment period ending August 26th.

  A draft of the revised mountain lion management plan can also be found online at  
under button titled  “Plans Up for Revision”.  

How to Comment
Written comments on the plan could have been sent to 523 E. Capitol Ave., Pierre, S.D. 57501, or emailed to must be received by Monday, August 26, 2019, and include your full name and city of residence.   (No specific time of day/night on 26th is specified in the notice for deadline's time of day so we assume a midnight deadline, but I have an e-mail from Chad Switzer of GFP, saying they will accept comments that arrive "early" Tuesday morning and maybe even later comments, but only if they have time to consider any later comments)To request a printed copy of the draft plan, please call 605.773.3387. This feedback will then be shared, reviewed and considered by the planning team."  The Plan is still being rewritten and will be presented to the Commission as final version for approval on Oct 3rd or 4th. SDGFP will also review proposed changes to the mountain lion hunting season,
 that would result in an increased cougar "harvest".
In Pierre - Andy Lindbloom | Senior Big Game Biologist & 
Chad Switzer | Wildlife Program Administrator,  <> , have been in charge of this

NEXT IS Commission Review 
(another and later comment opportunity)
 The revision was to be presented at the Sept. 5th/6th GFP Commission meeting in Spearfish, however the re-write was not finished..  If you miss sending comments in by 26th, you could also go comment to the Commission in person in October or send in writing directly to Commissioners.
(Scroll down to October 3rd Item for commenting instructions).
Given the need to supplement the Draft with more prairie lion information, another supplemented version is needed for public review and hopefully they will decide to do that.

October 9th
Deadline on second comment period on 
American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Links to USFWS page on beetle downlisting

News Release (May 1, 2019)

Status: Endangered with a proposed rule to reclassify to threatened

Proposal to Reclassify from Endangered to Threatened with a 4(d) Rule

The Service is proposing to downlist the American burying beetle from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act. USFWS is also proposing a 4(d) rule that would limit ESA protections to only those, it thinks, the beetle needs for recovery. Publication of the proposed downlisting and 4(d) rules in the Federal Register on May 3, 2019, opened the first 60-day public comment period that closed on July 2, 2019.
 Then new revised publication  was issued on Sept 1st & new comment period.

 Public comment on the proposal, which would downlist the beetle from endangered to threatened, will also be extended 30 days until October 9, 2019. For more information see FWS's ABB page.
Revised Guidance for American Burying Beetle Mitigation Lands!
September 5, 2019 - This revision provides guidance for Federal and non-Federal proponents (conservation bankers, sponsors, mitigation landowners, federal agencies) involved in the establishment, management, and operation of American burying beetle (ABB) mitigation lands in Region 2 (proposed as Region 6 of Department of Interior Reorganization Plan) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Revisions are based on new climate projections, which indicate that southern portions of the ABB range may only support the species for 20-30 more years. This revised guidance promotes locating mitigation lands in more climate safe areas to provide long-term protection that contributes towards recovery of the species. Revisions include minor changes in the percentages of unfavorable or buffer habitat allowed in mitigation lands and changes in service areas to include northern portions of the species' historical range. Incentives are included that reduce mitigation recommendations by 50% when implemented in northern service areas.


The Forest Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Wyoming Department of Environment Quality, put the Companies applications and approval process on hold in early 2016, at the request of the Company. The Company stopped work on a DEIS on a proposed mine due to short fall of revenue, at a time when the market conditions on rare earth minerals changed. (Scroll down towards bottom of home page for more info.) Formal notice on restart has not been given yet. Where in the  approval process it will be restarted is not known yet. China is the major source of rare earth minerals and Trump and China conflict, may change the market. Contact Karl Emanuel  at the Northern Ranger District for more information or to be added to notice mailing list -
It is possible  that mineral exploration will re-start at Mineral Hill, in Wyoming. This exploration would be very near the Sand Creek Roadless area and a FS Botanical Area. Area is north of Cement Ridge and west of Tinton ghost town. In previous exploration efforts in the area, the target minerals were gold, silver and copper.  Scoping has not yet started on this, nor has exploration re-started and this may be on hold.  Contact Karl Emanuel  at the Northern Ranger District for more information or to be added to mailing list -, 605- 443-3072

Mineral exploration has started near Rochford, SD for Mineral Mountain Resources, scroll down for our alert on that topic. Scoping has past and this project may be on hold. Contact DENR at Roberta.Hudson (at)
Another project in the Central Hills  near inlet to west of  Pactola Res. is also being considered.

Another project in the Central Hills  near inlet to west of  Pactola Res. is also being considered. The company involved in the gold exploration project near the inlet to Pactola is F3 Gold of Minneapolis.

There are two companies that have applied for gold exploration permits on Forest Service land that are currently secret.  The Forest Service will not say who or where specifically they are, but has said they are also in the central Black Hills. 

Azarga Uranium, locally known as Powertech, has proposed an in situ uranium mine on over 10,000 acres in western Custer and Fall River Counties.  The company is in the permitting process and has received one of the ten permits it would need to start mining.  The permit they have received is under litigation.  For more information:



The Custer /Gallantin National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan, using the 2012 forest planning rule. 

For information about the Custer-Gallatin Forest Plan Revision effort;

For maps from the Forest Plan Revision effort visit

 The Sioux Ranger District is comprised of 175,660 acres located on 8 separate land units. They are mesas/tablelands in NW South Dakota & SE Montana that arise several hundred meters above the surrounding grasslands.  They have miles of steep cliffs of Fort Union sandstone and White River group (volcanic ash); geology which provide plentiful ledges, crevices, and small caves for nesting birds, especially raptors.The Sioux District is one of the seven ranger districts of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  

For information the Sioux Ranger District:

Custer National Forest in SD is designated as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society.

Pigeon Hawk by J.J. Audubon

Wildlife watching exceeds hunting/fishing for participants

2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National Overview
Download the USFWS survey on wildlife related recreation 2016.
Wildlife watching - page 7, fishing- page 5, hunting -page 6
 Total wildlife watching expenditures: $75.9 billion, Total fishing expenditures: $ 46.1 billion, Total hunting expenditures: $ 25.6 billion,
 Total wildlife watching participants: 86.million, Total Anglers 35.8 million, Total hunters: 11.5 million
 Of this Wildlife Watching subset 
Wildlife watching away from home: 23.7 million participants  or at watching home: 81.1 million;
Observe Wildlife away from home:19.6 million, at home 43.8 million, 
Photograph Wildlife away from home:13.7 million, at home  30.5 million
 Feed wildlife away from home: 4.9 million, at home 59.1 million, 
Visit public parks or areas 11.4 million; Maintain plantings or natural areas 11.0 million
Bird Observers: 2016
Away-from-Home Observers : 16.3 million
Around-the-Home Observers: 38.7 million

Total Bird Observers: 45.1 million


SCROLL DOWN about 12 inches to the next text



We shelter e-mail addresses by replacing @ with (at) 


SCROLL DOWN about 12 inches to the next text

New Section Below >>>scroll down 12 inch

New Section ON ISSUES
scroll down for various issues

A) SD Mountain Lion Plan Revision Alert 
B) Mineral Mountain Resources Exploration project
C) Croell Sand/Gravel Mine Issue
D) Non-meandered waters Alert
E) Alert on Resilient Landscape DEIS (Forest Service)
F) announcement of Petitions to list or de-list under ESA and 
G)  S3254/SB 114 (Land Trade Little Spearfish Canyon & Bismark Lake) & 
H).  SD Important Bird Areas
I)  Missouri River Recovery
IJ to Sage Grouse Litigation filed by PHAS and others in February  2016
K) then goes to - suspended campaigns discussions, 
for which comment deadlines have past, but related issues persist




  A biennial report on SD mountain lions can be found at  This document will provide more recent mountain lion data than what is found in the current SDGFP management plan.  This report can be found at the bottom of the mountain lion webpage at

Oct 2018 Commission meeting.
SDGFP staff presented an update on lion management. It will eventually be available on the web site, however Audio of meeting is here

Wednesday, November 15th, 2017
GFP Was Seeking Comments on Current Mountain Lion Management Plan

The current mountain lion management plan can be found online at:

OUR 13 Talking Points on the Mountain Lion Plan, have been temporarily deleted due to lack of space on this home page.
We will return the text when we have space again.
to get a copy...ask Nancy 605-787-6466 or nhilshat (at) rapid

Audio link to SD GFP Mountain lion presentation -- Lion Info Item Sept17.mp3

 If you want a copy of the power point GFP staff is showing the Commission...e-mail me (Nancy Hilding)  and I will send it.  It has lovely charts to help you make sense of the talk & what is happening to lions in Black Hills of SD.  It is a 2.7 MB file, Here is a sample slides.

Cougar population in the SD side of the Black Hills

Denise has mapped data from the SD GFP Mortality data spreadsheets.  


Projects/process on federal land that might move forward in 2018/2019


It is possible that Rare Element Resources will restart, at any time, the moving forward of it's application process for the proposed rare earth mine north of Warren Peak, in the Bearlodge and associated mill at Upton, Wyoming.
The Forest Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Wyoming Department of Environment Quality, put the  Companies applications and approval process on hold in early 2016, at the request of the Company. The Company stopped work on a DEIS on a proposed mine due to short fall of revenue, at a time when the market conditions on rare earth minerals changed. (Scroll down towards bottom of home page for more info.) Formal notice on restart has not been given yet. Where in the  approval process it will be restarted is not known yet. China is the major source of rare earth minerals and Trump and China conflict, may change the market. Contact Karl Emanuel  at the Northern Ranger District for more information or to be added to notice mailing list -
It is possible  that mineral exploration will re-start at Mineral Hill, in Wyoming. This exploration would be very near the Sand Creek Roadless area and a FS Botanical Area. Area is north of Cement Ridge and west of Tinton ghost town. In previous exploration efforts in the area, the target minerals were gold, silver and copper.  Scoping has not yet started on this, nor has exploration re-started and this may be on hold.  Contact Karl Emanuel  at the Northern Ranger District for more information or to be added to mailing list -, 605- 443-3072

Mineral exploration has started near Rochford, SD for Mineral Mountain Resources, scroll down for our alert on that topic. Scoping has past and this project may be on hold. Contact DENR at Roberta.Hudson (at)
Another project in the Central Hills  near inlet to west of  Pactola Res. is also being considered.

Mineral Mt Resources Rochford Exploration Project (ON HOLD 2019) 

SCOPING DEADLINE was - Oct 27th, 2017
After the deadline - we suggest folks send in short letters expressing basic concern and asking to be on the  mailing list for the project. This project, may be on hold.

Mineral Mt Resources Rochford Exploration Project 
on the Mystic Ranger District.  
A scoping period was underway - Forest Service (FS) sought public input on proposed project.  Link to FS info:

The Forest Service is considering whether to approve exploratory drilling for gold by the Canadian company, Mineral Mountain Resources, Ltd . 
The drilling would occur on public national forest land south of Rochford, South Dakota.
 This proposed project on public land is in addition to a similar project planned by the same company on private land next to Rapid Creek, less than a mile SE of Rochford near the old Standby Mill site. The Standby Project's site is handled by DENR not the FS. 

 The Stanby exploration project will consist of drilling up to 120 drill holes from 12 different drill sites. No drill holes will exceed 4,000 feet in depth. Approximately 3,000 feet of additional overland trails may be needed to access all planned drill site locations.  
The company already has a mine exploration permit from DENR on the private land 
(Standby Project) site, but may not have started work yet, but it does not yet have permit for exploration on Forest Service lands.

Standby Project Map of private land -- 
on which exploration has already been permitted by DENR
is below

Mineral Mountain EXNI  for the Rochford/Standby Area - DENR's records.
Map of Proposed exploration sites on Forest Service Land near
Meyersville and Castle Peak is below

Mining Claims on federal land in the Area, as mapped by Clean Water Alliance
is below
This map is not guaranteed to be accurate 
The above map is not guaranteed to be accurate. It was done circa 2016 and claims may have been added or deleted since then

Aerial Map of the region provided by Bing maps
go to
to zoom in and out at various resolutions

You may click HERE for a version of local opponent's  presentation that discusses the issues.       Concerned local folks are organizing and sponsored a recent meeting about the project -  for questions to locals contact - rees.doug (at) 
Comments were due on the proposed exploration drilling on Forest Service lands near Rochford on October 13 (original deadline was extended and folks  got another extension - new deadline was Oct 27th).   
This would be partly in the Rapid Creek watershed.  The upper edge of the  Forest Service site is about 2 miles south of Rochford and Rapid Creek. The sites continues past Castle Peak  to north of North Fork of Castle Creek and are also near Meyersville (historic town). There is a historic mine site (Alta Lodi) at Meyersville/Meyers City.,_South_Dakota   Here is a view of Castle Peak Campground, which is within a mile south of  site on the Forest Service land. -  
  This project on FS lands involves constructing 21 drill sites for the purpose of collecting core samples with a track or rubber tired mounted drill rig. Maximum water to be used for exploration on FS land is 1.8 million gallons of water (5.52 acre feet) at a maximum rate of 200 gallons per minute from Rapid Creek. This may convert to .45 cubic feet/second...The limits may translate to - withdrawing less than 5% of the flow of the lowest recorded level at a downstream Rapid Creek gauge location, for about an hour a day, for about three months duration.   Water is to be trucked to the site. The Company has received a Temporary State Water Right Permit to withdraw the water, which expires on December 31st, 2017.  Both sites may rely on the same temporary permit's 1.8 million gallons. Water Rights Program Chief Engineer approves temporary water withdrawals, but has the discretion to refer such to the Water Management Board.  Some closed roads will be opened and use of un-named trails and 3400 LF of over-land routes is planned. 
 The Forest Service at this point is planning to use  a "categorical exclusion" (CE) on the exploration. This designation (CE) means a less thorough environmental review happens for the exploration phase and Decision Memos are not subject to FS Objection process .  Folks should object to the "categorical exclusion" and ask for higher grade of NEPA, one that at least releases the environmental study on the exploration phase to the public for comments, before the Forest Service's decision is made & allows for objections to be filed. This exploration may lead to a large mine in the area.  Folks could express concern about water withdrawal from both projects and cumulative impacts to Rapid Creek's in-stream flows, water quality and Rapid City water supply - - the exploration impacts now may be much less significant than if a large mine ever results.  Also express concern for Castle Creek's water as some drill sites are near the North Fork of that Creek and Castle Peak Campground.  Canyon City Research Natural Area (RNA) is down stream of both Castle Peak and Rochford areas and is upstream of Silver City.  Pe Sla (Reynolds Prairie)  is to the south. Mickelson Trail runs along Rapid Creek through Standby site.  One can ask if there are any potential impacts to these special resources - some are next to the activities and some in the region.  One can express concern for bonds and liability assurances.
If they find minerals this could morph into a large mine. We suggest concerned people keep in contact with the F.S. & DENR with your concerns even after deadlines and ask to be added to the mailing list.
For questions to the Forest Service:
Ruth Esperance 
District Ranger
Mystic Ranger District Office
8221 South Highway 16
Rapid City, SD 57702
(605) 343-1567,
Also Gary Hauge at Mystic (605) 343-1567 and Ralph Adams at Supervisor's office (605-673-9200).
Roberta Hudson at Minerals and Mining Program, DENR, Pierre - Roberta.Hudson (at), (605) 773-4201

Eric Gronlund, Water Rights Program, DENR, 605 773-3352, eric.gronlund (at)


MAY 8th & 10th Hearings
Croell Sand Gravel Mine Application (new application)

MAY 8th  & May 10th were Hearing on
Croell Sand Gravel Mine Application (new application)
(This is a proposed mine off of Highway 16, SW of Rapid City)
before the 
Pennington County Planning Commission & Full Board of Commissioners,
The Planning Commission recommended approval and it went to the full commission
Full Commission recommended approval also
RCJ article about such:

This application was to have been considered under the old Ordinance 507A and 507B existing before March 2018 as well as the current Ordinance 320 passed on or about March 28, 2018
Notes on Croell Sand Gravel Mine Application (new application)

This is a controversial Project that has been subject to past litigation and a citizen's group was formed to oppose it. For information Black Hills Concerned Citizens - duane.abata (at)
We copied the Black Hills Concerned Citizens  6 page Alert on the issue 

SD law and the County's ordinance are inadequate to protect locals and the environment from adverse impacts from sand/gravel mining. Scroll down on PHAS web page for more info on the battle over Pennington County mining ordinance rewrite.

Croell Mining Case (Old history but relevant history)
Link to SD Supreme Court Decision that upholds Pennington County's decision to reject Croell Redi-Mix's mining application. This is about a historic lawsuit filed by miners over Pennington County rejecting Croell's mine application ( a sand/gravel/aggregate mine). The County won in the Supreme Court. It explains at least partly why Pennington worked to rewrite it's Sand/Gravel/Rock ordinance in 2017-2018. Some Commissioners  have changed since this past vote.

Alert on Croell Mining from
Black Hills Concerned Citizens
Deleted to save space
Contact Duane Abata for more information





Marsh Wren. - painting by JJ Audubon

PAST EVENTS - for current events, scroll up.

Link to map showing closed lakes or sections of lakes  (about 17 closures)

Link to GFP Discussion of "Progress Update"

A contested case hearing on November 2nd about
petition asking to remove public access from Cattail-Kettle Lake
UPDATE - the Commission did not approve the petition. 
- a non-meandered "Section 8" Lake-
8 am in the morning of November 2nd

The Commission has adopted rules (October 2017)  on how to petition the GFP Commission to have a "Section 8" Lake closed to public access...  "Section 8" Lakes are the non-meandered lakes the Legislature specifically named as open to the public on June 12th, 2017. They told the GFP to create a process for public to petition to close such lakes...GFP Commission did that and held the first contested case about a Section 8, Lake Closure.

SDGFP writes:
"PIERRE, S.D. – Earlier this month, the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) Commission denied a petition submitted by Cattail Land and Cattle Company, LLC, to restrict recreational use on portions of Cattail-Kettle Lake in Marshall county. 
A contested case hearing was conducted on the morning of Nov. 2, 2017, in Brookings where the GFP Commission heard testimony from the petitioner requesting to close a 100 yard buffer zone surrounding their property from all recreational use.  The GFP Commission also heard testimony from other interested parties who were both in favor and opposed to the petition. They then considered evidence as it related to privacy, safety and substantially affected financial interests of the petitioner in addition to historical use of the waters, the water quality, water quantity and the public’s interest in recreational use of the water. 

In failing to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the GFP Commission unanimously approved a resolution denying the petition. As a result, all portions of Cattail-Kettle Lake remain open to public recreational users."

It was JUNE 12th - 10 am
press release on session:

Bill delivered to the Governor (HB 1001) (has an amendment to section 21-suset clause)

 final draft legislation from the summer study on non-meandered waters that was considered on 12th.

GFP has done rule making ordered by this bill - look to the SDGFP Commission web page for archives and SD administrative rules;

On June 12th the legislature passed the proposed bill, with an amendment (originating from the Senate) to change the sunset clause date  from July 1st 2021 to July 1st, 2018.  Some Senators  planned to rework or to "tweak" the bill during the full session (2018) but agreed to pass the summer study's version in order to do something immediately and to open the closed lakes.  In both houses some legislators objected to the bill from a public rights viewpoint (bill did too much harm to public rights), some objected from a private property owners rights viewpoint (bill did not do enough to protect private rights) and some argued both views with respect to different sections.  
The anti-bill votes can reflect people opposing the bill from either or both viewpoints.  PHAS opposes HB 1001, but at least the sunset clause means the issue will be cracked open again in January 2018.

Failed amendments
           On the Senate floor Senator Kennedy offered some good amendments, trying to change words in some sections to "access" from "recreation" and attempted to add a statement that recreation is a beneficial use of water.  His amendment did not pass the Senate . On the House floor Representative Representative Tulson offered a hog house to change the bill to a bill to just open the 30 closed lakes.That also did not pass. Votes in favor of Kennedy's or Tulson's  amendments are a pro-public trust/pro-public asset vote.

Link to special session:
Link to bill history (see some of the votes)
Link To journals

Link to SDPB recording of special session:

Media article on session


The interim committee (non-meandered waters) last hearing/meeting was June 2nd.
The committee asked for a legislative session the week of June 12th
and they got it - June 12th..

PHAS opposes the last version of non-meandered water's access bill also... in our view some positive and negative changes were made from earlier version but the proposed bill was still adverse.

SD natural waters are divided into non-meandered and meandered classes. Folks have been arguing for years about what are the SD law or rules for public access to non-meandered waters and how to interpret existing law and previous court decisions with respect to this issue.  
The Supreme Court recently tossed the authority to decide this back to the legislature.  (March 2017).

PHAS opposed the proposed bill...

Here is a web link to the South Dakota Wildlife Federations (SDWF) petition on this matter -
Scroll down for their letter on this issue.

We suggest folks oppose the new law - we suggest you complain that this is not a fair and not a balanced compromise between recreators and lake-bed owners. 
Control over our public water is being surrendered to private individuals - 
this will be a huge surrender of public assets.

Here is a quote from the SDWF in the summer:

"South Dakota is on the eve of a great wrong—where over 40% of the waters in our natural lakes may be closed at the whim of private individuals.  The South Dakota Wildlife Federation (SDWF) cannot support a bill that delegates authority to private individuals to restrict access to massive amounts of publicly owned water with zero public due process, and then allows those private individuals to use the public waters for their own ends. "  

SD Wildlife Federation's letter on the proposed bill

Short discussion of issues and process


There was a SD special legislative session June 12th, with a bill proposed that may have large impacts for public recreation on or other public use of public waters; those that are in SD's non-meandered lakes.

The draft bill was moving extremely fast outside the regular legislative time period. 
 The Summer Study Committee  had 4 meetings of the Committee  - 
3 in Pierre & one in Aberdeen. (4/27/17, 5/9-10/17, 5/24/17, June 2nd). 
 June 12 is Special Session day and bill is alleged to go directly to floor votes without more committee meetings.
 They moved this forward in one and a half months.  They had an emergency clause on the bill, so it needed a two thirds approval vote.
Summer Study link


Recent history:

Conflicts have arisen between property owners owning land around and/or under lakes & outdoor recreators: conflicts have especially been happening in NE SD over use of non-meandered lakes (smaller or more shallow lakes historically) . The status quo has been --  if the public has legal access to a lake they can use it.  Legal access can be from public property and public easements (a form of property).  Thus the public shares part of the lakeshore and perhaps the lakebed with other owner(s) around these lakes.  Lakes have increased in size due to rainy weather but also to extra runoff due to conversion of prairie grasslands to crop land and due to drainage tiling. Some lakeshore landowners have complained about conflicts with recreators - public's behavior and/or numbers. Counties and Townships have vacated section lines and closed roads to remove public access. There have been past court battles and battles in past legislatures over this issue. A recent Supreme Court decision (3/15/17) resulted in an injunction on 2 lakes, preventing GFP or general public from facilitating access on those 2 lakes, while not giving the public or the landowners superior access rights:

In response to a Judge's injunction on 2 lakes in SD, the SD Game Fish and Parks (SDGFP) has interpreted that injunction  broadly ... and has shut down access to additional lakes (25 lakes). Below is a link to a discussion of why GFP closed access to more lakes than the 2 the judge enjoined. This guidance was published in April 2017.

Fishermen and boaters both in SD and out-of-state visitors are alleged to now be afraid to use SD lakes, for fear they may be arrested and are thus not coming out to recreate and tourist businesses are suffering and hoping for relief.
SDGFP at the urging of the Committee issued this press release to reassure fishermen and boaters:

 Thus the legislature was moving in spring/summer 2017 at extreme pace to solve a very very complex issue that is currently impacting landowners, businesses and recreators. When people make decisions in a rush, they can be bad and can have unintended consequences.

Fifteen Legislators have been sitting on a “Summer Study” committee looking for a legislative solution to the Supreme Court’s decision on non-meandered waters.  (scroll down for a list of legislators)

Bear Butte Lake (east side)  Original Survey map - to find lake look on west edge of map.

The origin of meandered & non-meandered juxtaposition for lakes: the 1868 federal instructions to surveyors were to not draw meander lines around a body of water that was, (a) less than 40 acres;  or (b) shallow or likely in time to dry up or be greatly reduced by evaporation, drainage, or other causes. In these cases the surveyors included the water body and its bed in their survey as part of the lands available for settlement. 
 Water like this are called non-meandered waters & the person with title to the land(s) owns the ground underneath the lake (the lake bed) but the public owns the water (& living animal creatures in the water itself) - above the lake bottom 
The waters & ground beneath "meandered waters" were given to the public & the ground beneath meandered waters were never open for settlement. 

Link to the 1868 Surveyor's instruction manual

These land surveys in SD did not necessarily happen right away after 1868 -- in 1868 western SD was part of the recently designated "The Great Sioux Reservation" by the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty.

This link leads to what we suspect is the original first USA surveys (BLM General Land Office Records) - you can look up the "original survey" map for your area. Inputing your area's township and range allows you to find your square of land surveyed and then look for "plat image" in the various drop down menus and choices.


Lakes in NE SD have been increasing in size, alleged by GFP just due to rain fall, but also possibly due to drainage tiling, where land owners drain marshy or saturated areas, moving water downstream.  Also the rising waters could be partly due to conversion from native grasslands to crop lands, as the runoff from crop lands (or road beds) is greater than runoff from native prairie. The enlarging lakes & inundated farm lands, create hardships for farmers, who can't grow crops or pasture it. Farmers pay taxes on land they own under water..but less than for dry land.

While EXCLUDING several large lakes created by damed major rivers
the SD GFP estimates that there are:

1. Meandered lakes - are 29% of the cumulative lake area, and 267 lakes in number and take up 246,000  acres
2. Non - meandered lakes which are larger than 40  acres - are 39% of the cumulative lake area,
 they are 2,324 lakes in number and occupy 325,000 acres
  3. Non -meandered  lakes 40 acres or less -  constitute 32% of the cumulative lake area, and number at 26,709 lakes
occupying 263,000 acres.

 Not included are 487,000 acres of water in the Missouri River, Orman Dam,  Angostora, and Shadehill Reservoirs. Including these river dams with the other 3 categories would change the percentages of cumulative lake area significantly. The other 3 categories plus the dammed rivers create a total of  1,321,000 acres of water, of which 487,000 acres (dammed rivers) is 37%. and thus the above 3 categories divide up just 63% of SD standing "lake" waters.
 This inclusion of river lakes created via dams in total acres, changes the percents of "not-river-lakes "to  19%, 25% and 20% respectively and river lakes 36%.
 However some of the 3 classes of waters above, may be fully on private property with no public property rights held around the edges and thus they have no public access already. The lake data was assembled by GFP staff using aerial imagery. 

 Link to the SDGFP Fishing Access map

Link to Department of Environment & Natural Resources Rule that displays lakes by Counties that are
assigned the beneficial uses of immersion recreation and limited contact recreation and other uses:

DENR list of lakes by County
assigned beneficial use guides


See update above for 5 changes to draft bill on June 2nd - 

PHAS does not support this draft bill and does not consider this a balanced compromise.

 Lake-bed owners will be given the  choice to restrict access to the public's non-meandered lake water that overlays their private lake beds The bill will allow privatization of a large percent of SD water bodies.
Violators of restricted access areas will be guilty of criminal trespass.
There are 27 lakes (out of 29,033 non-meandered lakes) that are held open and the lake-bed owner must petition to close those, the rest -- it is his/her choice.

The types of bodies of water in question currently belong to the public. Local private property owners, under the status quo, own the ground beneath the non-meandered lakes in question, but not the lakes themselves or the wildlife, fish, and invertebrates that reside in the lakes. The public owns all water and the wildlife/fish that is above the lake bed.  With this bill the landowner can restrict the public access to something the public owns and thus land owners acquire unique access for themselves and their friends. If they commercialize such access -- they have successfully privatized some of SD's wildlife and fish for sale for private gain (you can't fish, hunt, trap, photograph or "nature study" on lake
 without paying to do so). The bill forbids them from receiving financial compensation for fishing, but not for other leisure activities nor does it prohibit non-financial compensation.

Main issues:

1.  The bill gives SD GFP's new legal authority to regulate recreation on these non-meandered lakes (Section 19.),, but does not wait to see if this new authority will solve many of the problems/conflicts.  It lets the lake-bed owner make the decisions about public access, without first requiring negotiation or mediation/arbitration of conflicts first (especially of concern given SDGFP's upcoming new  authority for regulation of recreation on non-meandered lakes).

2. Access closure decisions should be made by Game Fish & Parks Commission (GFPC) or Water Management Board (WMB). They should have the choice of whether to  1) block off all or parts of the lake, 2.) change recreation regulation on lake and/or 3) leave access and recreation as is. Appeal rights to any decision by GFP or Water Management Board (WMB) pursuant to the new law must be for both recreators and landowners. 

3. It allows privatization of a public resource, at choice of a private person(s).  If lake is closed to public recreators, the selling or trading of access to the closed-off public water resource must not occur.

4. Native American special treaty rights to hunt,fish and have access... must be discussed and addressed

Other problems

5. Lakebed owners can ask GFP to rent/purchase access on lake waters from them instead of closing the lake or parts of it. Expenses will be created for GFP under this bill - such as paying for access to keep lake open - ("ransoming back public water") and the likely cost & source of off setting revenue is not explained -- will GFP raise fishing license or park entrance costs to cover this? Will it short change other programs? Does this bill need a fiscal note? The GFP report in 2019 should disclose associated costs for GFP. (see Section 20) 

6. Native American's unique interests (1851 treaty rights to hunt, fish, have access) in this case need to be protected.

 GFP and DENR need to prove that consultation with tribes, especially Sisseton Wapheton Sioux Tribe, have adequately occurred.

7. There is no definition of "lakes" or "natural".  This creates confusion with how this bill applies (or does not apply) to "wetlands," "ponds" vs. applies to "lakes", and how it applies to "human made" or "human augmented" water bodies.  Does "unnatural" mean private chlorine enhanced swimming pools and sewage lagoons, or does it also mean lakes created by dams?  If this bill does not apply to these waters (dams), -  they remain in  the uncertain status about public access -- an uncertainty created by the March 2017 Supreme Court decision. This uncertainty can disproportionately effect west River SD, in which many of our standing waters are augmented or created by dams (impoundments). The instructions to surveyor in 1868 included no instructions to handle dammed water differently with respect to lakes/ponds.

8. Will the bill create an argument for adverse possession by lake-bed owner.. to eventually claim he/she owns the public's water, after it is closed off with buoys for years?

9.The bill needs to provide relief to recreators, from Counties and Township vacating section lines and closing roads to prevent public access to SD waters. This issue needs to be included in the bill.

10.  The legislation must clarify that if any lakes are bisected by a section line -- does this bill authorize lake-bed owner to "close section line access" across the lake? How does it effect navigation rights on navigable non-meandered lakes?

11. It allows GFP when considering petition to close one of 27 open lakes, to consider public, lake-bed owner and water quality/quantity interest. At such times it needs to also consider protection of biodiversity on the lake (the lake's animals and plants) not just the human use.

12. GFP (or whatever entity does bargaining with landowners) needs to learn and quantify when bargaining if - -  the land owner(s) seeking relief, have engaged in drainage tiling and have switched native grasslands to cropland, without vegetative buffers, and thus helped create their inundation or run-off problems.  If relevant - did the inundation happen before or after Bill Janklow provided a program to purchase some inundated lands  (with possible subsequent return to owner at the purchase price).  These landowner past choices should be a factor when seeking fair solutions.

13. Beavers create and created many "natural" lakes/ponds/wetlands. Given historic beaver trapping history and current GFP hunting rules, the trapping of beaver is not well enough restricted, thus we have lost and are maybe losing "natural" lakes.  Lost beaver created "lakes" may have been replaced with human constructed dams. This makes a difference if the law treats "natural" and "unnatural lakes" differently.

14. Adverse affect of buoys marking off "no trespassing areas" on lake scenery. This could effect enjoyment of lakes and tourism.

15. In the bill's introduction (Section 1),  private land owners have "rights" but the public only has "interests". As far as we know the public owns the water and has "rights" too.

Whose compromise?
What is proposed  is a deal cut by the landowners, the governor and SDGFP. The pro-recreator NGOs that have been involved in this, representing the outdoor recreator viewpoint (including an intervener in recent civil action) were not invited this most recent deal cutting.  PHAS is also concerned for inclusion of Native American interests during bargaining and we include a section on Native American concerns (those concerns of which we are aware)
 at the end of this section (scroll down).
With this "unbalanced negotiating" we get an unfair proposal.

UNCLEAR IMPACTS - East River vs. West River
  A question in all of this is - in the proposed bill, the meandered and non-meandered lakes are both qualified with the word "natural" and the words "natural" and "lake" are not defined in the bill.  Many lakes in SD may have been perennial, intermittent or ephemeral drainages, ponds or marshes that were augmented or created by dams or other water flow control structures such as flumes or altered with drainage tiling as locals may try to move water off one area or drainage basin to another.  Are such lakes now or were they ever "natural"?  How will the definitions in the draft bill and the bills goals effect western SD -- where there is generally not enough water and locals via "unnatural" actions  try to save it on their land? Conversely how will it effect northeastern SD where locals seem sometimes adverse to the amount of water on their land and may try to get rid of it or concentrate it "unnaturally"? 

If these are "unnatural",  how is SD GFP inventorying these "unnatural waters"?  Are "unnatural waters" in eastern SD (standing waters augmented unnaturally by tiling) considered natural and included in SDGFP inventories and concerns.. but are the "unnatural waters" in western SD (augmented unnaturally by dams) considered "unnatural" and ignored by the draft bill and left subject to the access uncertainty created by the Court's March 2017 decision?   Will the bill's impacts to both sides of the state  - which have very different water realities -- be fully understood & both sides treated fairly? 
The Committee has 2 legislators from west River and 13 from east River.. It has no Native Americans of which we are aware of.
Also of concern is how the Judge's decision will effect streams. they are not included in the proposed bill, but a future scenario of property rights advocates asking for a similar bill for streams in the 2018 legislature is a potential "falling dominos" scenario.  Will this bill set precedent or expectations that may be applied to other water types in the future?

Update on June 2nd Actions

6/2/2017Friday9:00 AMRegulation of Non-Meandered WatersRoom 414

An adverse bill passed Summer Study Committee  with a 13 to 15 vote. Senator Kennedy and Representative Tulson voted against it.. Thanks to the 2 of them for holding out for the public to the bitter end.  When many pro-public amendments were shot down, these 5 legislators voted leaning towards "pro-public" - Otten, White, Hawley  Kennedy and Tulson. Thanks to them all for their efforts for the public access to public waters and a for creating a more fair process.  

Changes to the bill (changes on June 2nd that modify May 24th version) include: 
1) change to the definition of recreation (improvement), 
2) not allowing landowners to charge $ for fishing once they rope off a section of the lake (improvement but not enough of an improvement - they can charge for boating or waterfowl hunting or other recreation),
3) there is a 4 year sunset clause (improvement but too long a time before sunsets),
4)  there is a reporting on results and review process scheduled after 2 years (improvement),  
5) there were 30 lakes that were sort of designated  open in the earlier draft, now just 27 (not an improvement).

PHAS did not support this bill and 
does not consider this a balanced compromise.
The link just below is to the draft bill (see link below), which is proposed to be adopted by the Committee 

on June 2nd  and  sent to a special session of the legislature in the week of June 12th (maybe - that is the Committee's  current objective). It was adopted on June 12th with a change to date of the sunset clause...which is now July 2018.

Draft Bills:
earlier version

Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters
 on Public and Private Property 
Summer Study
Look up summer study committee:

 (Chair) Rep. Lee Qualm -, (Vice chair) Sen. Brock Greenfield -, Sen. Gary Cammack -, Sen. Jason Frerichs  -, Sen. Joshua Klumb -, Sen. Craig Kennedy -, Sen. Jim White -, Rep. Hugh Bartels  -, Rep. Mary Duvall -, Rep. Spencer Gosch -, Rep. Spencer Hawley -, Rep. Steven Mccleerey -, Rep. Herman Otten -, Rep. Larry Rhoden -,  Rep. Burt Tulson -

Past  Summer Study Hearings on can watch on  You-tube
5-9-17 Non-Meandered Waters Legislative Hearing - Day 1 of 2, You Tube Link,

5-10-17 Non-Meandered Waters Legislative Hearing - Day 2 of 2, You Tube Link

SD Wildlife Federation's 
Opinion on the Non-meandered waters draft bill (earlier version - May 24th)


GFP references on this:

GFP web page  has a text discussion of this 

GFP you tube of GFP presentation on this

PDF version of above power point... The bills in this PowerPoint are just that  -- bills, not law, --
they did not pass the legislature

Understanding the judicial side of this:

Parks v Cooper Supreme Court decision 2004

Duerre v Hepler Supreme court decision 2017. 


SD Water Management Board (WMB) has authority under Title 34A SD to assign beneficial uses for SD waters. It sets SD's water quality standards, which according to EPA are tiered to beneficial use. Thus to set water quality standards, WMB must first assign a water a "beneficial use"

"  34A-2-10.   Classification of waters. The Water Management Board shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish or modify the classification of all waters in accordance with their present and future beneficial uses."

SD Water Management Board has created 11 categories of "beneficial use" of SD waters. It has assigned beneficial use # 9 to all lakes... Rule assigning recreation as a beneficial use to all lakes in SD

"  74:51:02:01.  Beneficial use of fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering assigned to lakes. The beneficial uses of fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering are assigned to all lakes in the state.(emphasis added)

Clusters of rules:

 Here is the 2016 Biennial Review of SD Waters, which has lots of nice information & maps.>>>..THE 2016 SOUTH DAKOTA INTEGRATED REPORT FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Water Management Board also assigns "beneficial uses" under Title 46 to SD waters when allowing appropriations from SD waters, which may involve constructing dams to collect water for use. So this is another set of SD law with a different concept of what a "beneficial use" is, than in Title 34A.

  46-1-3.   Water as property of people--Appropriation of right to use. It is hereby declared that all water within the state is the property of the people of the state, but the right to the use of water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law. (Emphasis added)
Source: SL 1955, ch 430, § 1; SDC Supp 1960, § 61.0101 (2); SL 1983, ch 314, § 1.

46-1-8.   Beneficial use--Measure and limit of right to use of waters. Beneficial use is the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of waters described in this title.
Source: SL 1955, ch 430, § 1; SL 1955, ch 431, § 1; SDC Supp 1960, §§ 61.0102 (6), 61.0401 (10).

DENR discussion of water ownership in SD


 Lakotas and other tribes,  may have special and unique access rights and fishing rights to western SD  waters under the 1851 treaty. Which rights have not been surrendered and remain in place... This is thus also about environmental justice and once again taking property rights from the Region's tribes.

See part B on pages 11 and 12 in this Brief filed by Yankton Sioux Tribe in civil case over Keystone XL

The legal argument for Tribal fishing and access rights is explained in this Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2008 by
Russell Means:

The Dog Ears Lake in Tripp County is one of the lakes with access blocked after Duerr v Hepler Decision..It  is named after a Lakota... It exists in Tripp County in land that was once within  the Rosebud Reservation and that jurisdiction taken away by the Supreme Court in  - Rosebud Sioux Tribe V. Kneip as recent as 1977. 

SD  statute grants a procedural right to  consultation for Tribes in SD
 SDCL  1-54-5.   Consultation with tribal government regarding state programs. It is the policy of the state to consult with a tribal government regarding the conduct of state government programs which have the potential of affecting tribal members on the reservation. This section may not be construed to confer any substantive rights on any party in any litigation or otherwise.
Source: SL 1990, ch 5; SDCL § 1-4-26; SL 2011, ch 1 (Ex. Ord. 11-1), § 83, eff. Apr. 12, 2011.

Part of Sisseton Wapheton Sioux Tribes Reservation's original boundaries overlaps part of Day County, the County where these law suits originated from.     In Western SD Lakotas have treaty rights to hunt, fish & pass over lands within western SD (1851 treaty... these treaty rights were not removed in subsequent treaties)

Various links to court cases on tribal hunting/fishing. 

Wisconsin - 

The Voight Decision,1983

March 1999 - "The Court affirmed the rights of the Ojibwe to hunt, fish, and gather on the lands ceded by treaty, contingent upon a set of guidelines to protect the Great Lakes fisheries. 
This decision is an important victory for proponents of Native American sovereignty."

July 2019 Draft Plan Revision Released - Scroll up to August 26th, 2019

  A biennial report on SD mountain lions can be found at  This document will provide more recent mountain lion data than what is found in the current SDGFP management plan.  This report can be found at the bottom of the mountain lion webpage at

Oct 2018 Commission meeting.
SDGFP staff presented an update on lion management. It will eventually be available on the web site, however Audio of meeting is here

Wednesday, November 15th, 2017
GFP Was Seeking Comments on Current Mountain Lion Management Plan
PIERRE, S.D. – The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) was seeking comments on the 2010-2015 mountain lion management plan ,prior to drafting the next management plan. 
The current mountain lion management plan can be found online at:

OUR 13 Talking Points on the Mountain Lion Plan, have been temporarily deleted due to lack of space on this home page.
We will return the text when we have space again.
to get a copy...ask Nancy 605-787-6466 or nhilshat (at) rapid

Audio link to SD GFP Mountain lion presentation -- Lion Info Item Sept17.mp3

 If you want a copy of the power point GFP staff is showing the Commission...e-mail me (Nancy Hilding)  and I will send it.  It has lovely charts to help you make sense of the talk & what is happening to lions in Black Hills of SD.  It is a 2.7 MB file, Here is a sample slides.

Cougar population in the SD side of the Black Hills


October 30th Comment Deadline

March 30th-April 29th Objection Period
Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project
Notice of the FEIS was released on Friday March 30th. The objection period for Forest Plan Amendment shall end 60 days after March 30th and 30 days after March 30th for  objections to the Project.

A large project which will determine actions on the Forest for  perhaps the next decade is available online/

Further information on the project is also available at:
It is on this webpage that you can also go to the “Reading Room” (in the right hand column of the page under “Get Connected”) to read comments (including those of the Norbeck Society) that were given about a year ago when the Forest Service conducted Scoping on the Project and recent comments.
Paper copies of the DEIS available on request and at all Black Hills National Forest offices. 605-673-9200

We recommend reading Norbeck Society, & Sierra Club comments
If you have time to read and then if you agree with the content of one or more - you could write to the FS  and tell them that you agree with any of these writer(s)

Norbeck Society's
Black Hills Group Sierra Club

The purpose of the proposed project is to move landscape-level vegetation conditions in the project area toward objectives set by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, in order to increase ecosystem resilience to insect infestation and other natural disturbances, contribute to public safety and the local economy, and reduce risk of wildfire to landscapes and communities.

Proposed activities include reduction of hazardous fuels, prescribed burning, enhancement of hardwoods and grasslands, timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, and associated actions. The project area, which includes most of the Black Hills National Forest, consists of the areas designated under Healthy Forests Restoration Act authority at the request of the Governors of South Dakota and Wyoming.

This is the beginning of a PHAS alert on this Project


Please oppose any reduction in mature dense pine stands. These have been reduced by logging for timber, logging to protect trees from mountain pine beetle or fire and also by the beetle and fire themselves. These are Structural Stage (SS)  3B and 3C, 4 B and 4C and 5 .  Have the Forest Service leave anything with a 35% canopy cover alone.  This lack of dense stands risks the viability of goshawk, brown creeper, martin and also indirectly black-backed woodpecker.  The woodpecker needs dense stands that have been killed by fire or beetles, but the stands have to first exist in order to be killed.


The mountain pine beetle epidemic is over and the beetles are at slightly below endemic levels and decreasing.  The MPBR Project is still logging mature dense stands, of which we don't have enough, in order to protect us from
a threat that is over.


The project will impact about 4/5ths of the forest... the project will occur in the major management areas to which most of the forest is assigned.  In these management areas only 1% or less of structural stage 5 (old growth) remains, except for MA 5.6, which is  2.2% of the forest & is found up in the NW corner of the forest. It has 2% old growth (SS 5)  left.  This means that the past management policy and structural stage goals for most of the forest (which goal was to have 5% old growth)  have not adequately protected the old growth from 1)  logging to produce timber output, 2)  logging with hope to reduce the beetle & fire risk,  3) beetle kill, and 4) fire kill.     Goshawks need old growth and the Forest Plan requires 180 acres of such near nests and also meeting the Plan's structural stage objectives generically, which protection has been inadequate as too few dense stands are left near nests. The current objectives of the existing Plan don't work for old growth.  A Forest Plan amendment is needed to address how to create and secure adequate replacement old growth -- before more logging is approved via this project.  What the Forest has been doing since 1996 obviously does not work.

There is not enough protection of the forest from the spread of weeds. Too much surface disturbance has happened in past and will happen in the future to promote pine regeneration and allow for logging and roads. The Forest Service  likely does not have the budget to treat all  the weeds - that  will grow after the planned disturbances. Funding for treating noxious weeds should be a limiting factor to actions that create them.

One of the side effects of beetles, fires and logging to prevent beetles and fire is to open the canopy which
results in the Black Hills in little pines sprouting like weeds.  These will grow and create a lower canopy fire risk and ladder fuels.  The real fire risk from beetles is not the standing dead pine trees. The needles fall off the dead trees. Needles on a live pine tree during drought can be just as flammable as dead pine tree needles.  A risk comes after 10 or 20 or so years later when the small pines start growing in mass next to the ground and producing ladder fuels.  The Forest Service pays for small pine thinning by cutting down big trees... but the Forest Service has a limited supply of those left.  The Forest Service does not need to be planting more small needs a plan to reduce the supply we have. The FS should not disk, rake & scarify sod to plant little pines.

The Forest is cutting timber at a rate that the forest can't sustain and the timber industry is heading off a cliff. The Forest is going to run out of timber. It needs to slow down the rate of the cut.

The Forest needs to protect birch stands from adverse impacts of logging pine from birch. Also small stands of lodgepole, doug fir and limber pine need to be protected and expanded. At one time there were blue grouse in the Black Hills, which are extirpated they need old ponderosa pines  or the above conifer species.  Aspen needs to be protected and expanded. Mixed aspen/pine stands are useful for species richness and visuals, and the Forest should save some of those, not just eradicate them.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) seeks to “reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation” in areas experiencing declining forest health (defined in the Act as “a forest that is experiencing substantially increased tree mortality due to insect or disease infestation…”).  A large portion of the remedies presented in the proposed project, namely the harvest of 185,000 acres of Structural Stage 4A stands and the associated road- building, will do very little-to-nothing in the way of reducing the risk and extent of, and increase resilience to mountain pine beetle infestation and the incidence of catastrophic wildfire.

 . Send written comments to: BHRL Project, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 North 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730, or via facsimile to 605-673-9350, c/o BHRL Project. Written comments also may be hand-delivered to the above address between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Mountain time, Monday through Friday except federal holidays.



Endangered Species -
 petitions to list under Endangered Species Act

This section is for the most part 
temporary deleted to make space on the Blog. 

May 16th
American Burying Beetle Status Review, 90 Day Finding, comment deadline

American Burying Beetle Photo - Lindsay Vivian,
On August 18, 2015, the Service received a petition from the American Stewards of Liberty, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Dr. Steven W. Carothers to delist the American burying beetle (which is currently protected under the Endangered Species Act & can be found in SD). 
         In response to the petition, the Service will be publishing a substantial 90-day finding, which is the first step in determining whether or not the American burying beetle should be delisted.
         The Service was requesting additional scientific and commercial data on the American burying beetle. 

Center for Biological Diversity's comment letter on USFWS's current status review of the beetle
it has a map of the range on  page 4.

USFWS web page on beetle:

USFWS Fact Sheet 

SD USFW page on:

USFWS 2008 status review --  it has a map of SD sites for 2008 on page 21:

Petition to de-list:

USFWS 90 Day Finding:

To see a map of beetle's range in 2004



Spearfish Canyon and Bismark Lake 
Land Exchange Act
This SD State Park Enlargement Effort Is Likely Dead For Now
Prairie Hills Audubon Board voted to oppose this proposed 
land trade ("land grab") on Oct 18th, 2016. 

PHAS [and the Forest Service, the Norbeck Society, Black Hills Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America , BHG of Sierra Club and Black Hills Group of Dakota Rural Action] oppose the proposed land trade from Forest Service to SD GFP for Spearfish and Little Spearfish Canyon and Bismark Lake.
Also opposing was an ad hoc group. Below is link to their page: 



a subset of a National Audubon Society Nationwideprogram

More details on PHAS web page




Announce litigation


Thursday February 25th, 2016
Complaint filed about greater sage grouse
PHAS major campaign announcement

On 2/25/16 Prairie Hills Audubon Society joined 3 other environmental groups (WildEarth Guardians, Western Watershed Projects, Center for Biological Diversity) in filing litigation to protect greater sage grouse. 

More details on the issue and litigation can be found on another PHAS web page or scroll up.

UPDATE Fall 2017
The Trump administration plans to change the decision on the sage-grouse plans and is engaging in the NEPA process to do that. 

Deadline - December 1st, 2017
BLM Scoping on Sage Grouse Plan Revisions

Here is a link to WWP alert on this topic, 
it has a sample letter

Deadline to comment on similar action by the Forest Service came later in 2018 

 Changed to January 19th,
It was Jan 5th 2018,
Deadline was Extended 2 weeks, Federal Register notice:

FS Deadline to Submit Sage Grouse Comments

Link to Harvard article on

This is the  link to Federal Register's web page, with this explained


Delayed/suspended Campaigns

(OUT-OF-DATE alert) 

Deadline Past: January 15, 2016

(OUT-OF-DATE alert - 2016)
-  NRC FR Notice on Upton Mill site hearing process
See:  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Notices, page 70846

SUMMARYThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had received an
application from Rare Element Resources, Inc., for a license to possess
and use source material associated with its Bear Lodge Project. The Bear Lodge
Project includes a mine in the Black Hills National Forest in Crook County,
Wyoming for the purpose of extracting rare earth element ores, and a rare earth
element processing plant in Weston County, Wyoming. In addition, the
license application contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

 Defenders of the Black Hills had requested a hearing. There was a teleconference hearing in 2016, RER asked for process to be put on hold due to lack of funds.  Last we knew this review & licensing process was suspended at request of Company.
for info. on that process;

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0255. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;

"Kalman, Kenneth" <>   301-415-6664
Report of NRC on pre-application visit;
Rare Earth Mine Review Processes Suspended

Proposed Rare Earth Open Pit Mine 
North of Sundance, Wyoming

The Forest Service had completed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Bear Lodge Project. 

The Company (Rare Element Resources) gave notice it temporarily suspended all further activities on the Bear Lodge Project, which includes all permitting and licensing efforts, including the DEIS process.
There was going to have been a 45-day comment period  beginning January 15th and ending on February 29, 2016
– however the Forest Service has suspended the DEIS process and removed DEIS from web site availability:

Alternative H had been identified as the preferred alternative.
The DEIS was viewed (but is now deleted, except appendices and maps)
on the Black Hills National Forest website at

 ,Check with Forest Service  BHNF - Bear Lodge District for updates - 307–283–1361

Discussion of issue as declared during scoping:

Rare Element Resources proposes to create a 232-acre open pit mine at Bull Hill on Forest Service (FS) land 6 air miles north of Sundance, Wyoming.  Ore will be crushed and concentrated at a facility on FS land.  A Hydromet Plant (chemical processing for crushed & concentrated rare earth mineral ore) is proposed to be at Upton, Wyoming, on private land next to the railroad.  Some existing roads will be closed, some upgraded, and some new roads built.  Mineral exploration will continue for 43 years. 

As the mine will be on FS land, an Environmental Impact Statement must be written.  The Forest Service has released the Draft EIS, you may read it and comment on it. The FS must respond to your questions and comments in writing in the Final EIS. 
DEQ review is also suspended at request of  Rare Element Resources. 
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had been reviewing an mining permit application for mine, that they received June 3rd, 2015.
Other permits with Wyoming DEQ may be applied for by Company 
Contact - BJ Kristiansen, 307-675-5615, for updates, bj.kristiansen (at)


2. 2015 items - Deadlines & Events old , this has events, that recycle each year (will occur again next year)
3. 2014 & 2015  items - Recently expired comment periods with link to public documents

Even Older - Below items are from the 2014 SD legislative session 
#2. - #4 various out of date & obsolete legislative 2014 alerts
(in Feb Blog Archives )
5. Links to Environmental Bill Tracking Services on the Internet (SD 2014 Legislature)
(In January  Blog Archives)
6. How to Contact SD Legislature 2014
(In January Blog Archives)
7. SD Legislative Cracker Barrels and Legislative Coffees 2014,

 (In January  Blog Archives )
8. Grey Wolf Delisting Comment Opportunity 
9. Christmas Bird Count List 2013-14
10 Mt Lion, SDGFP Commission meet
11 BlackBacked Wood Pecker Meeting
12, Missouri River Ponca Bluffs  Meeting
13. BLM Management Plan Revision