Overview
Title
Public Land Order No. 7956; Withdrawal of Pactola Reservoir-Rapid Creek Watershed; South Dakota
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is protecting a big area of forest land in South Dakota to keep it safe from being dug up or sold for the next 20 years because it has important water that a nearby city and air base need. They want to make sure no harm comes to the land, so everyone can have clean water to drink.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Land Management has issued a Public Land Order withdrawing 20,510 acres of land in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota, from new settlement, sale, mining, and leasing activities for 20 years. This action is taken to protect the cultural and natural resources of the Pactola Reservoir—Rapid Creek Watershed, which includes essential water resources for Rapid City and the Ellsworth Air Force Base. The withdrawal aims to prevent environmental damage from exploration and development activities on federally owned minerals. The order will expire in 20 years unless reviewed and extended.
Abstract
This Public Land Order (PLO) withdraws 20,510 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Black Hills National Forest, Pennington County, South Dakota, from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights, to protect the cultural and natural resources of the Pactola Reservoir--Rapid Creek Watershed, including municipal water for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document is a Public Land Order (PLO) issued by the Bureau of Land Management. It pertains to the withdrawal of approximately 20,510 acres within the Black Hills National Forest in Pennington County, South Dakota. This area, known as the Pactola Reservoir—Rapid Creek Watershed, is being protected from activities like new settlements, sales, mining, and leasing for a span of 20 years. This decision supports the preservation of cultural and natural resources, especially crucial water supplies for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base. The order ensures these lands remain protected from environmental harm caused by potential mining and resource development.
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are a few noteworthy aspects of this order. First, the language and technical land descriptions present are complex, using specific surveying terms and divisions that may not be immediately clear to those without a background in land management or geography. This complexity can make it challenging for the general public to completely understand the extent and specific nature of the land areas being described and how they are affected.
Additionally, the implications of this order might be difficult to grasp without a broader understanding of U.S. land and mining laws. The legal terms and bureaucratic language could be seen as barriers to accessibility, though they are likely necessary for precision and compliance with federal legal standards.
Impact on the Public
This order is significant for the local public as it aims to protect an essential watershed that provides municipal water to vital areas, including Rapid City and a military base. By minimizing the risk of environmental degradation from mining and other activities, the order helps secure these water resources against contamination and overuse, thus benefiting the community’s health and well-being.
For the broader public, this order reflects a federal commitment to prioritizing natural resource preservation. It underscores the importance of safeguarding critical environments against the backdrop of increasing development pressures. However, the order's 20-year timeframe may present concerns regarding long-term sustainability, depending on future policy decisions and environmental reviews.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impact
Local Residents and Communities: Individuals in Rapid City and other nearby areas benefit from the protection of their water sources, which this order helps secure against the adverse impacts of industrial and mineral exploitation.
Environmental and Conservation Groups: These stakeholders often view such actions favorably as they align with their goals of preserving natural habitats and cultural landmarks.
Negative Impact
Mining and Resource Development Companies: Entities involved in the exploration and development of minerals might perceive this order as a limitation, potentially hindering economic opportunities related to mineral extraction and development in these regions.
Potential New Settlers and Developers: Those looking to develop new settlements or commercial enterprises in these protected areas might face restrictions, as this withdrawal places a legal barrier on such activities.
In summary, while this Public Land Order showcases a protective stance towards vital natural resources, it also delineates a clear boundary between economic development interests and environmental conservation priorities. Understanding and navigating these legal and bureaucratic landscapes will remain crucial for stakeholders directly affected by this order.
Issues
• No issues related to wasteful spending identified as the document primarily discusses land withdrawal without specific financial implications.
• No apparent favoritism towards specific organizations or individuals is evident.
• The document contains technical land descriptions that may be difficult for those without expertise in geography or land management to fully comprehend.
• The use of specific sections and survey terms (like "M.S. Nos.") may be unclear to readers unfamiliar with these designations.
• The language is generally formal and complex, which might be challenging for a general audience to understand without legal or bureaucratic knowledge.