From: Nancy Hilding n.hilding@icloud.

com
Subject:Please Oppose SB 175 - funding for the proposed GFP shooting range at Elk Vale Rd near Elk Creek in Meade County.
Date:February 9, 2022 at 6:51 PM
To:senateagnaturalresources@sdlegislature.gov, gary. cammack Gary.Cammack@sdlegislature.gov,
casey.crabtree@sdlegislature.gov, Mike.Diedrich@sdlegislature.gov, Helene.Duhamel@sdlegislature.gov,
Mary.Duvall@sdlegislature.gov, Troy.Heinert@sdlegislature.gov, Michael.Rohl@sdlegislature.gov,
Lee.Schoenbeck@sdlegislature.gov, Kyle.Schoenfish@sdlegislature.gov, David johnson David.Johnson@sdlegislature.gov
Cc: Tom Kirschenmann Tom.Kirschenmann@state.sd.us, Nancy Hilding nhilshat@rapidnet.com

Nancy Hilding
President
Prairie Hills Audubon Society
P.O. Box 788
Black Hawk, SD 57718
February 9th, 2022

To Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and Senator David Johnson,
cc Tom Kirschenmann,

Written Testimony on SB 175 https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/23361/231510 - funding for the proposed

shooting range at Elk Vale Rd near Elk Creek in Meade County.
I wish to testify against this bill on Thursday February 10th, 2022 - I will be on Microsoft teams waiting on
remote. Our organization's address is located in Meade County, SD.

Short summary of our position:

We believe this funding is premature. Game Fish and Parks (GFP) is asking for a grant from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and thus the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been
engaged. GFP wrote a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) under the direction of the USFWS.

We don’t want any special state funding for the project happening before the NEPA document required by the
USFWS has been published for public comment & reviewed by all. After the 30 day public comment period,
the USFWS will either be satisfied with an Environmental Assessment (EA) and follow it with a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) or if they decide that a FONSI is unjustified, then an additional Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will be followed by a Record of Decision (ROD). This NEPA process is not finished.

A draft EA will likely be published on this web site within 2 weeks: https://www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/wsfr/nepa.php - We believe funding the project before reading the NEPA document(s) and the FWS's
conclusions/approval of the project is a premature action. This is a controversial project involving a toxic
pollutant (lead) & lots of adverse impacts to neighbors. Like with the GFP wanting funding of new camp sites
at Custer State Park -- the GFP needs to finish its' public outreach and the public needs to see and
understand the mitigations proposed, before public money is allocated.

We have concerns about the site location not being consistent with the EPA's Best Management Practices
of lead at outdoor shooting ranges. We believe SDGFP made a very unwise choice of location from the view
of lead management. We believe extensive & costly mitigations will be needed. The environment and the
finances of the state and GFP would be better off if the shooting range near Rapid City were placed at a
different and much flatter location. The SD National Guard failed to rescue GFP from its’ unwise choices by
agreeing to do (for free) the very expensive the dirt work that will be needed.

We quote that EPA document at page II-5:

"The most important site selection criteria to consider when selecting a new range
location include: topography; surface water flow patterns; and depth to groundwater. If
possible, ranges should be developed on flat terrain, as it facilitates reclamation and reduces
the chance of off-site migration due to surface water runoff as compared with highly sloped
terrain. When considering a prospective location for a range, ask yourself: What is the direction of
surface water runoff? Does the site drain to surface water (e.g., streams, rivers) on-site?
Off-site? Can the range design be modified to minimize potential runoff? Is reclamation
equipment accessible to the area to clean the range?” (Emphasis added).

Review of Facts:
Game, Fish and Parks has been unable to fund raise enough donations or grants to pay for building the
range and are asking the 2022 legislature for 2.5 million to fund the project and the permission to take an
additional 2.5 million from their internal budget to fund the project. They are asking for the US Fish and
Wildlife Service for a grant to help pay for it. They are asking for private and NGO grants and donations. We
have heard a total cost estimate of 10 million dollars.

The EPA recommends flat areas for shooting ranges but this is a very rugged site. We assume major land
sculpting & storm water management has to happen. That will be very very expensive. What other GFP
projects for Wildlife or Parks Divisions could be afforded if a site, that better conformed with EPAs location
guidance, had been selected?

EPA and DANR normally only regulate shooting ranges at closure, or during construction for commercial
storm water runoff. Some times proponents say that “the law won’t permit lead to leave the site”. This is
untrue. In this area Elk Creek and Antelope Creek are not monitored for water quality standards compliance.
Neither are the ponds on and immediately adjacent to or bisected by the property boundaries. No ambient air
anywhere in SD is monitored for lead. Lead would be forbidden to be released into the water, if the local
water already exceeded the state’s lead standard, but local water is not monitored by DANR, so DARN can’t
say the lead levels currently exceed standards.. Same with air quality.

EPA provides guidance in its’ BMP - but that is guidance & not enforceable. Another consideration for the SD
Legislature would be to be give authority to the Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources (used to be DENR)
to regulate the location, construction and operation of shooting ranges, for lead management concerns during
operation (DANR & EPA don’t have that power now). Other considerations would be for DANR to designate
this as an industrial site, due to regular mining (reclamation) of lead and require an industrial storm water
permit, or examine water quality law, to see if with all the earth moving and drainage manipulations GFP will
create point source(s) and thus NPDES permit(s) will be needed.

Proponents may be saying GFP has worked out issues with Meade County Commission. To our knowledge
GFP is making some offers for mitigations of the County’s concerns and the County is listening, but no
agreements have been made. We believe Meade County want 3 miles of road paved, which GFP has not
offered to do.
Does SDGFP 10-11 million estimate include the cost of paving 3 miles of gravel road?

Map of proposed GFP shooting range, it is off Elk Vale Road north of Elk Creek

Some SD based hyper-links about the project:

SDGFP Commission's Resolution about land purchase using South Dakota Parks and Wildlife Foundation
as a temporary intermediary to hold the land, can be found at link (The range will be in Meade not
Pennington County):
https://gfp.sd.gov/UserDocs/meetings/21-03_Resolution_-
_Authorizing_purchase_of_Rapid_City_Shooting_Range_(3).pdf

GFP sheet about firing range:

https://go.boarddocs.com/sd/meade/Board.nsf/files/C9SU427A29C4/$file/RapidCityFirearmRange_On
ePager.pdf
ePager.pdf

Plans/Drawings of proposed Range:

https://go.boarddocs.com/sd/meade/Board.nsf/files/C9SU457A29C7/$file/RapidCityFirearmRange_01.
pdf

Meade County Map showing area's land parcels:

https://go.boarddocs.com/sd/meade/Board.nsf/files/C9SU4A7A29CD/$file/Rapid City Range
Complex.pdf

Nationwide links:

Fact sheet on Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges:

https://static.ewg.org/reports/2001/LeadPollutionAtOutdoorFiringRanges.pdf

EPA’s Best Management Practices (BMP) For Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, EPA-902-B-01-001, 2005
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/epa_bmp.pdf

Environmental issues associated with the shooting range will include:

1) Lead contamination from bullets with impacts to ponds/creeks and ground water in area - pollution risk to
waterfowl and people. Do folks living along Elk Creek have wells into a water table that is influenced by Elk
Creek?
2) Noise of gun fire from hundreds of shooting positions,
3) Disturbance to waterfowl wildlife, livestock and homes/ranches from noise and activity of people,
4) Bullets traveling to neighboring lands, including over areas with high slope, with possible impacts to
livestock,
5.) Fire risk,
6) Impacts of traffic to about 3 miles of dirt road resulting in noise, dust and wear and tear and cost of
maintenance to Meade
county. Will GFP pay to finish paving Elk Vale Rd, as the County requests?
7) Supervision of the property and law enforcement costs

There are several ponds/impoundments on or near edges of the property & several have some wetlands
associated with them. The range's south boundary intersects with or borders a pond on an unnamed tributary
of Elk Creek.That pond/wetland immediately to the south of the property has excellent birding and has an
associated fresh water emergent wetland. It is man-made pond, via the Partners For Fish and Wildlife
Program. The pond project was funded by federal 1121 funds & SDGF&P back in 2010 the 10 year
agreement with a previous landowner ended in 2020. Waterfowl will be disturbed and fish and waterfowl
potentially poisoned with lead. This range will also be about 2.5 miles from Sevey Lake, another popular
birding spot located to the SW.

GFP won’t have access to all or parts of the edge/boundary ponds, as they are on private land - if lead gets
in them how does GFP monitor or dredge them? The proposed shooting range is divided between Elk and
Antelope Creek drainage basins, likely with at least some of the northeast-end of range draining to Antelope
Creek and the south-end will be draining to Elk Creek. As the crow flies the range is closest to Elk Creek,
but as water flows toward the two drainages, it is closer to Antelope Creek.

In the pink map below, the shooting range's south boundary crosses the heart shaped pond just east of Elk
Vale Rd, that sits on a tributary that flows southeast to Elk Creek - merging in several miles. It's north
boundary is near the slight bend in Elk Vale Rd at a mile and a quarter above that pond. The slight bend in
road is on the ridge top.
Property is a half mile wide and a mile and a quarter tall.
A public notice about the National Guard helping with construction of the project says: "This project can’t be
completed in it’s entirety without assistance from the National Guard” We question if the 10 or 11 million
dollar cost estimate includes the cost of the National Guard's time and resources. The National Guard said -
NO. We wonder if GFPs wanted the Guard to be doing the earth moving needed to create multiple terraces
and berms in the valley in the rugged northern part. (Likely 17 terraces with tall ridge rising above terraces)

The topography at the north end is much more hilly, with the north entrance at a ridge top. The smaller
shooting bays in the north, are in a descending valley. The whole property is descending from the ridge
towards the pond. This site does not meet the EPA’s guidance for siting shooting ranges: the EPA wants
them on flat sites. Soil has clay in it. It is harder for reclamation machines to recover lead from clay soil and
the machines need flat surfaces.

A section line crosses the southern unit and GFP may wish the County to relocate that section line.

Here is a map from the National Wetlands Inventory that shows water flow on the property and ponds. It
shows the complex topography.
Here is another excerpt of a contour map from the USGS

CUMULATIVE NOISE

See range design below. Each of the smaller shooting bays may have 5 -10 shooting lanes/each. There are
29 such bays, 12 are in the south . The 200-400 ft bays may have 20 shooting position/each, 2 are in the
south unit. The extra long bays may have 40 positions, 2 are in the south unit. The shooting clays have 12
positions/each. The south-end range may be used for local shooters. The north-end range may be used for
competitions or training activities and some bays are called “action bays” without assigned lanes.

Decibels from each gun fire are significant 150dB-163.2 dB ; https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-

chart/. The north end is in a more steep and rugged location, it has a small flat area at the top, but descends
into valleys and rugged territory. Sporting clay area would dispense shotgun pellets onto neighbor’s land and
into steep valleys too steep for lead reclaiming machine to handle.
This is a beautiful property, with nice views at the top ridge and would make a nice park or game, production
area, but not a shooting range.

Thanks,

Nancy Hilding
President
Prairie Hills Audubon Society

===========
Nancy Hilding
6300 West Elm, Black Hawk, SD 57718
or
Prairie Hills Audubon Society
P.O. Box 788, Black Hawk, SD 57718
nhilshat@rapidnet.com
nhilding@rapidnet.com
phas.wsd@rapidnet.com
605-787-6779, does not have voice mail
605-787-6466, has voice mail
605-787-2806, cell (rarely used)
http://www.phas-wsd.org
https://www.facebook.com/phas.wsd/
https://phas-wsd.blogspot.com/
Skype phone & name -605-787-1248, nancy.hilding