DRAFT CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN FOR WHITEWOOD CREEK AND THE BELLE FOURCHE AND CHEYENNE RIVER WATERSHEDS, SOUTH DAKOTA PREPARED BY: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Draft Plan: September 29, 2004 This page is intentionally left blank. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – WHAT THIS DOCUMENT COVERS This document describes the process, purpose and need for the Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan for Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River Watersheds, South Dakota (the Plan). Section 1 of this Plan includes an introduction describing the applicable and guiding laws for resource restoration, definition of trust resources impacted by hazardous substances and the Trustees or officials responsible for the restoration process. The Plan is prepared pursuant to State and Federal regulations, policies and laws in furtherance of the Trustees’ responsibilities to restore, replace, rehabilitate and/or acquire the equivalent of injured natural resources. The Plan also serves as an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The State of South Dakota (the State) on behalf of the Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), also known jointly as the Trustees, together with the DOI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and DOI Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), have prepared this Draft Plan pursuant to implementation requirements of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU 1999). This Plan’s purpose (Section 2) is to guide the restoration of trust resources and services (physical and biological functions performed by the resource including ecosystem functions and human uses such as hunting opportunities and bird watching) that were injured, lost or destroyed due to hazardous substance releases from the Homestake Mining Company of California, Inc. (Homestake) into State waters. The intent of restoration funds is not to remediate hazardous substance sites but to restore, replace and/or acquire equivalent trust natural resources and lost services within the Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River watersheds for perpetual protection and conservation management. The intent is to also replace and/or restore those lost resources and services to the public and therefore, regulated public access is a necessary end product. Public participation and review is encouraged to help the Trustees identify community concerns associated with restoration of the focus watersheds. Inclusion of public comments, responses to comments and changes made as a result of comments, will be incorporated into the Final Restoration Plan. The first step in the natural resource restoration process was completed through the 1997 Preassessment Screens and initiation of a Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) which identified damages and injuries to trust resources that had historically occurred to Whitewood Creek and the downstream watershed (Section 3). The environments affected by hazardous substances are discussed both in terms of identification of trust resources (Section 4) and outlining known or potential injuries to trust resources (Section 5). The Plan is the second step in the restoration process (Section 6) and determines appropriate restoration activities through action alternatives (Section 7). The alternatives and associated environmental assessments center around three themes: no action or action, limited terms vs. i perpetual protection of restored lands, and treatment of uncontaminated vs. contaminated (with hazardous substances) lands. Alternative 6, Permanent protection and restoration of lands not contaminated with hazardous substances, is the Preferred Alternative. This Alternative best meets all the Plan’s goals and objectives of permanent restoration through replacement of lost, damaged or injured trust resources. The preferred alternative proposes to accomplish this via fee title ownership (land acquisition) or in-perpetuity conservation easements/management agreements with regulated public access. The Final Plan will solicit interested cooperators and includes application instructions (Section 9) for potential restoration projects and activities. Selected projects will be scored according to ranking criteria (Section 8) and those selected for implementation will be guided through cooperative management plans. Section 10 lists the literature cited. Appendix 1 contains a comprehensive glossary of definitions, acronyms and legal authority. Appendix 2 lists State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered and/or Species of Concern. Appendix 3 lists applicable Federal and State legal authority. Refer to these appendices to clarify terms and species status. Appendix 4 is the scoping list for this Draft Plan. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Shelly Deisch, Wildlife Biologist and appointed Plan Coordinator, and John Kirk, Program Administrator for Environmental Review and Management, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of Wildlife, were the principal Plan authors. The Plan was developed in coordination with the Restoration Management Team (the Team), which provided local ideas, information, expertise and direction. The Team also assisted with the development of restoration activities and alternatives, and provided review. The Restoration Management Team is comprised of the following members: Shelly Deisch, Whitewood Creek Restoration Plan Coordinator, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD John Kirk, SD Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD Joy Gober, US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD Scott Larson, US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD John Wegrzyn, US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO Joane Lineburg, SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD Faye Streier, US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Rapid City, SD Stan Michals, SD Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD Russ Pigors, US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Belle Fourche, SD Chuck Berdan, US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Belle Fourche, SD The following resource experts reviewed the Plan and provided valuable comments: Doug Backlund, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD Dennie Mann, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD Eileen Dowd-Stukel, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD Jack Erickson, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD Ron Koth, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD Jim Kangas, US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Rapid City, SD Denise Klimas, Formerly with US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO Mark Lawrensen, SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD Dave Ode, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD Tim Olson, SD Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD Charlie Olson, SD Bureau of Information and Telecommunications, Pierre, SD Patty Stevens, US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO Bill Stewart, Formerly with SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 CERCLA: PURPOSE, REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS................................................................1 1.2 TRUST RESOURCES...................................................................................................................................2 1.3 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS AND RESOURCE TRUSTEES....................................................................2 1.3.1. Federal Resource Trustees ....................................................................................................................2 1.3.2. State Resource Trustees.........................................................................................................................3 1.3.3. Tribal Resource Trustees.......................................................................................................................3 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN .............................................4 2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................5 2.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ............................................................6 2.2.1. Whitewood Creek Restoration Plan Coordinator and Where to Locate Copies of the Draft Plan: ......7 3 HISTORIC BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................8 3.1 MINING IN THE BLACK HILLS................................................................................................................8 3.2 REMEDIATION AND MITIGATION PRIOR TO 2001 ...........................................................................12 3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION FUND....................................14 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - TRUST RESOURCES ..............................................................................16 4.1 RESTORATION SITE DESCRIPTION