BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Prairie Hills Audubon Society - ECPv6.18.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://phas-wsd.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Prairie Hills Audubon Society
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Denver
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:MDT
DTSTART:20250309T090000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:MST
DTSTART:20251102T080000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:MDT
DTSTART:20260308T090000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:MST
DTSTART:20261101T080000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:MDT
DTSTART:20270314T090000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:MST
DTSTART:20271107T080000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261019T215000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261019T215900
DTSTAMP:20261013T054030Z
CREATED:20261012T203641Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261013T054030Z
UID:23337-1792446600-1792447140@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Deadline to comment on Deep Seabed Mining Exploration and Recovery Applications 10/19/26
DESCRIPTION:Deadline Monday\, Oct 19th\, –deep seabed mining regulations \nThe Action: Following a rewrite of deep seabed mining regulations earlier in the year\, NOAA has formally accepted a massive consolidated application from The Metals Company USA\, LLC (TMC USA). The application seeks federal exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits to mine the ocean floor for hard minerals. This is heavily focused on regions near Clarton-Clipperton Zone in international waters. \nNOAA is holding a virtual public hearing on October 13\, 2026\, and gathering oral public environmental input. The deadline to register has closed & we think only registered folks can attend\, but we believe a recording will eventually be available \nComment Deadline: October 19\, 2026. (Virtual Public Hearing scheduled for October 13\, 2026)  \nFederal Register Notice: 91 FR 53608 – Deep Seabed Mining; Notice of Receipt of Consolidated Application   \nhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/19/2026-16869/deep-seabed-mining-notice-of-receipt-of-consolidated-application-for-deep-seabed-mining-exploration \nUnique Comment Submission Link: Regulations.gov Docket NOAA-NOS- 2026-1751 \n==== \nWhat’s at stake: The Clarion-Clipperton Zone\, between Hawaii and Mexico\, is a deep-sea plain three miles down\, scattered with mineral nodules that grow a few millimeters per million years. Mining machines would scrape up the nodules and the top layer of seafloor\, wiping out animals that live nowhere else\, most of them not yet even named by scientists. Test tracks from small experiments decades ago still haven’t recovered. Sediment clouds stirred up by the machines would spread far beyond the mined areas. \nThe mining ship would also dump sediment-laden wastewater back into the ocean at mid-depths\, where tuna\, swordfish and other fish feed. University of Hawaiʻi researchers found this could cloud the water and starve the small animals at the base of that food web. The area overlaps major Pacific tuna fishing grounds\, and whales and sea turtles migrate through it. \nWhy other nations care: The open ocean belongs to no single country\, and its fish\, currents and ecosystems are shared by everyone. Damage in international waters can affect other nations’ fisheries and food supplies\, especially Pacific island nations that depend heavily on tuna. That’s why the world agreed that decisions about mining the deep seabed should be made together\, with rules to protect the environment and share any benefits\, rather than by whichever country moves first. \nWhy this matters internationally: Almost every nation\, including our closest allies\, has joined the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea\, which treats the deep seabed beyond national borders as the “common heritage of mankind” and assigns mining decisions to the International Seabed Authority. The U.S. never ratified the treaty\, largely because of objections to its seabed mining rules\, even though those rules were rewritten in 1994 to meet U.S. demands. The International Seabed Authority has not yet adopted environmental rules for commercial mining\, and dozens of countries support a pause until the science is in. \nThe Metals Company spent years seeking approval through that international system\, then turned to NOAA after a 2025 executive order opened a U.S. route under a 1980 law. Many nations and the Seabed Authority say unilateral U.S. permits for international waters would violate international law. \nOPPOSE THESE PERMITS\nPlease tell NOAA to deny these permits and urge the U.S. to work through the international process instead. Comments are due by Monday\, October 19\, 2026. \nPre-fabricated letter: \n1. Surfrider Foundation\, \nAction alert: https://surfrider.advocacyai.com/action/rejectseabedmininginpacific\nIt submits a comment to NOAA\, and members can click “edit my message” to personalize it. Surfrider’s page also has sample talking points for anyone who wants to write their own. Background page: https://www.surfrider.org/news/massive-seabed-mining-project-proposed-in-the-pacific-take-action \nDeep ocean starts at 200 meters\, Chart on ocean depths is attached –  chart by NOAA.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/deadline-to-comment-on-deep-seabed-mining-exploration-and-recovery-applications-2/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://phas-wsd.org/wp-content/uploads/ocean-zones-pressure.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261029T215000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261029T215900
DTSTAMP:20261026T232402Z
CREATED:20261026T232120Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261026T232402Z
UID:23366-1793310600-1793311140@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:COMMENT DEADLINE: Thursday\, October 29\, 2026 — EPA air permits for the Blue Marlin Offshore Port
DESCRIPTION:COMMENT DEADLINE: Thursday\, October 29\, 2026 — EPA air permits for the Blue Marlin Offshore Port (crude oil export terminal\, Gulf of Mexico) \nSummary \nEPA has proposed air permits that would allow construction of the Blue Marlin Offshore Port in the Gulf off Cameron Parish\, Louisiana; if finalized\, the port could export about 80\,000 barrels of crude oil per hour\, roughly 605 million barrels per year. The project is Energy Transfer’s. The terminal would sit in federal waters about 82 miles offshore\, in about 162 feet of water. Its oil would come from Energy Transfer’s existing Nederland Terminal in Jefferson County\, Texas\, through a new 42-inch onshore pipeline and the existing Stingray pipeline. Up to 275 Very Large Crude Carriers would load there each year. \nThe draft permits would allow about 1\,329 tons per year of volatile organic compounds and about 75 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants. They also include a “maintenance allowance” scenario\, in which vapors that cannot be captured are vented directly to the air from the tanker being loaded. \nEarthworks and Gulf community groups say the terminal would raise export profits rather than lower U.S. fuel prices. They also say it would add about 14 million tons of CO2 a year and that its pipeline would cross Bessie Heights Marsh and Sabine Lake\, in habitat used by 29 threatened and endangered species. MARAD and the Coast Guard issued the project’s Final EIS in July\, but Blue Marlin does not yet have its federal deepwater-port license.\nwww.epa.gov \nSouth Dakota connection: the terminal’s source is the same Nederland\, Texas terminal that receives Bakken crude through the Dakota Access Pipeline. Dakota Access runs about 1\,172 miles across North Dakota\, South Dakota\, Iowa and Illinois to a hub near Patoka\, Illinois. From there the Energy Transfer Crude Oil pipeline carries the oil to Nederland\, Texas. Blue Marlin would give that system a new export outlet. The Gulf link also matters for ESA reasons. In March 2026 the Endangered Species Committee (the “God Squad”) used ESA Section 7(j) for the first time\, voting unanimously to exempt Gulf oil and gas activities from ESA requirements on national-security grounds. That decision put the Rice’s whale at risk\, and only about 51 of these whales remain.\nenergytransfer \nNotice / documents \nNo Federal Register notice exists for these EPA permits. EPA Region 6 published the notice on its own website: EPA Public Notice — Blue Marlin PSD & Title V draft permits\nRelated Federal Register notice: MARAD/Coast Guard Final EIS\, Blue Marlin Offshore Port (FR Doc. 2026-14336\, July 16\, 2026) \nHow to comment directly by 10/29/2026\, we assume before midnight in DC. \nSubmit at Regulations.gov\, Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2026-1323: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R06-OAR-2026-1323\nEach comment must say whether it concerns the PSD preconstruction permit or the Title V operating permit\, and it must be specific to the permit action. \nSupporting materials must be submitted in full. They cannot be incorporated by reference unless they are already in the record or are generally available references such as statutes or EPA documents. In practice\, attach what you cite. \nInclude an email or postal address if you want EPA’s response to comments and notice of its final decision. \nIn-person hearing (no virtual option listed): Thursday\, Oct. 29\, 6–8 p.m. CDT\, Cameron Parish Police Jury West Annex\, 148 Smith Circle\, Cameron\, LA. \nPre-written letter (Earthworks)\nhttps://act.earthworks.org/page/103936/action/1 — Earthworks asks people to add a personal comment\, because EPA groups identical letters together.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/comment-deadline-thursday-october-29-2026-epa-air-permits-for-the-blue-marlin-offshore-port/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261101T225000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261101T225900
DTSTAMP:20261030T201422Z
CREATED:20261030T201422Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261030T201422Z
UID:23376-1793573400-1793573940@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Deadline to submit written comments for the Nov. SDGFP Commission meeting
DESCRIPTION:The deadline to submit written comments for the Nov. SDGFP Commission meeting is Sunday Nov 1st just before midnight CT at this web site: https://gfp.sd.gov/forms/positions/. We will post more information about the meeting on our Nov 5-6 event page\, when they post the agenda\, which often doesn’t happen before Friday night or even Monday or Tuesday.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/deadline-to-submit-written-comments-for-the-nov-sdgfp-commission-meeting/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261102T215000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261102T215900
DTSTAMP:20261102T082855Z
CREATED:20260930T221437Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261102T082855Z
UID:23258-1793656200-1793656740@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Nov 2 Comment deadline --: EPA - Proposed Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CAA
DESCRIPTION:=== \nMonday\, Nov 2\, 2026\, 9:30–9:59 pm MT — Deadline to comment against EPA’s repeal of all power plant climate pollution limits \nSummary: EPA proposes that Clean Air Act section 111 does not authorize it to regulate emissions from power plants in response to global climate change concerns\, which would require rescinding the Administrator’s contrary findings and determinations in 2015 and repealing all associated 2015 and 2024 GHG standards for coal and gas plants. This follows the February 2026 repeal of the Endangerment Finding. Comment on the authority question itself\, since EPA is not reopening the concurrently published final rule. EPA numbers its questions\, and asks commenters to include the corresponding identifier (e.g.\, “C-1”) when submitting comments relevant to that solicitation.\nDocket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 · RIN 2060-AX00 · 91 FR 59002 (Sept. 17\, 2026)\nFederal Register notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-17/pdf/2026-19072.pdf\nComment portal: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124. The deadline is Nov 2\, 2026 at 11:59 PM EST.\nEmail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov\, with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 in the subject line\nSnail mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\, EPA Docket Center\, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124\, Mail Code 28221T\, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW\, Washington\, DC 20460. Comments must be received by Nov 2\, not just postmarked.\nReady-made alert: NRDC has a comment form at https://action.nrdc.org/letter/5269-PowerPlantReg-091426. It notes that over 26\,000 NRDC supporters already spoke out against rolling back carbon standards for power plants. The other groups on your list (EDF\, Earthjustice\, UCS\, CBD\, Sierra Club) co-filed on earlier rounds\, but I didn’t find their action pages for this round yet. \nHere is the alert for PHAS calendar\, that I have not yet posted\, as the PHAS web site is misbehaving. That happens sometimes and you just have to wait till it starts working.  \nMonday\, Nov 2\, 2026 — Deadline 11:59 pm Eastern (9:59 pm Mountain): Tell EPA not to give up its authority to limit climate pollution from power plants \nThe rule is titled Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124). Note: Daylight Saving Time ends Sunday\, Nov 1\, so the deadline is 11:59 pm Eastern Standard Time = 9:59 pm in Rapid City. \nQuick action: pre-written comment forms \n\nNRDC — pre-written letter you can edit and send: https://action.nrdc.org/letter/5269-PowerPlantReg-091426\nEarthjustice — comment form: https://earthjustice.org/action/dont-let-the-epa-gut-this-cornerstone-climate-protection\n\nTip: Please add a sentence or two in your own words (where you live\, a bird or place you love\, drought or fire you have seen). EPA tends to count identical form letters as one campaign; personalized comments carry more weight. \nOr comment directly to EPA\n\nRegulations.gov docket: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 (look for the September 17\, 2026 “Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking” and click “Comment”)\nFederal Register notice (has a “Submit a formal comment” button): https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-19072\nEmail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov — put “Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124” in the subject line\n\nWhat is happening\nOn Sept. 14\, 2026\, EPA took two actions (published Sept. 17): \n\nA final rule repealing most of the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards — the carbon-capture requirements for existing coal plants\, the requirements for existing gas- and oil-fired steam units\, and the carbon-capture standards for new baseload gas turbines. It takes effect Nov. 16\, 2026. EPA is not taking comment on this part\, and environmental and health groups have already sued.\nA supplemental proposal (open for comment until Nov. 2) that goes much further. EPA proposes that Clean Air Act section 111 never gave it authority to regulate power plant greenhouse gases to address global climate change\, proposes to rescind its 2015 findings that support that regulation\, and proposes to repeal all remaining power plant greenhouse gas standards\, including efficiency standards for new gas turbines and the 2015 standards for new coal units. If finalized\, no federal limit on power plant climate pollution would remain\, and a future EPA would have a much harder time restoring one.\n\nThis builds on EPA’s February 2026 repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding for motor vehicles\, which 24 states and other parties are challenging in the D.C. Circuit. Fossil-fueled power plants produce about a quarter of U.S. climate pollution\, second only to transportation. \nTalking points (pick a few and use your own words)\n\nKeep your comment on EPA’s authority. The open question is whether EPA can regulate power plant climate pollution at all. Say clearly: EPA has that authority and the duty to use it; withdraw the supplemental proposal and keep the 2015 findings.\nThe Clean Air Act already covers climate. The Act’s own definitions say effects on “welfare” include effects on “weather” and “climate.” EPA’s new claim that “air pollution” means only local or regional pollution conflicts with the law Congress wrote.\nThe Supreme Court has already answered this. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) held greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Act. American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011) held that section 111 “speaks directly” to carbon dioxide from power plants\, and on that basis closed the courthouse door to public-nuisance suits against utilities. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) limited how EPA may regulate power plants\, not whether it may.\nDon’t leave the public with no protection at all. If EPA disclaims authority\, polluters get the benefit of court rulings that relied on EPA having that authority\, and the public is left with neither regulation nor a remedy.\nCongress has confirmed the authority. In 2022 Congress added language to the Clean Air Act directing EPA to achieve greenhouse gas reductions from electricity generation “through use of the existing authorities” of the Act. Congress would not have written that if it believed EPA had no such authority.\n“Our share is too small to matter” is not a legal or moral excuse. The U.S. power sector emits more carbon dioxide than most entire nations. The Supreme Court rejected this same “futility” argument in Massachusetts v. EPA: big problems are solved step by step\, and if every large emitter used this excuse\, no one would ever act.\nTiny savings\, huge risk. EPA itself estimates this supplemental proposal would save industry only about $370 million in compliance costs over 20 years. Compare that to the costs of drought\, wildfire\, crop losses\, extreme heat and rising insurance premiums.\nCleaner air for our lungs\, too. Measures that cut carbon dioxide from burning coal and gas also cut soot\, smog-forming pollution and mercury.\nBirds are telling us. National Audubon’s Survival by Degrees study found 64% of North American bird species studied (389 of 604) are moderately or highly vulnerable to climate change\, including 69% of grassland birds and 86% of western forest birds — the birds of our prairies and the Black Hills. Holding warming down greatly improves their odds.\nSouth Dakota & Black Hills impacts. Hotter\, drier summers mean more fire weather and drought stress in Black Hills ponderosa pine forests\, less water in prairie potholes (the “duck factory”) and stock dams\, and harder times for ranchers and farmers. These are exactly the harms to “welfare” the Clean Air Act was written to prevent.\nRegional sources matter. South Dakota’s Big Stone coal plant reports roughly 1.9 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year to EPA\, and coal plants in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and North Dakota’s lignite fields are among the region’s largest emitters. Without federal standards\, nothing requires new or rebuilt plants to use the cleaner\, more efficient technology already available.\nDon’t finalize on a shaky foundation. EPA ties this proposal to its 2026 repeal of the Endangerment Finding\, which is under legal challenge. EPA should not stack a second repeal on top of one that may be overturned.\n\nBackground reading\n\nNature World News: EPA repeals most power plant carbon standards\, proposes it has no authority to regulate their climate pollution\nHarvard Environmental & Energy Law Program analysis: https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/epa-repeals-power-plant-carbon-standards/\nEPA rule page: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power\nFederal Register notice (PDF): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-17/pdf/2026-19072.pdf\nAudubon\, Survival by Degrees: https://www.audubon.org/our-work/science/survival-degrees/survival-degrees-about-study\n\nPrairie Hills Audubon Society plans to file its own comment letter by the deadline. \n+=================== \n 
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/nov-2-comment-deadline-epa-proposed-repeal-of-regulations-for-power-plant-greenhouse-gas-emissions-under-caa/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261103T070000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261103T190000
DTSTAMP:20260930T232302Z
CREATED:20260930T232023Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260930T232302Z
UID:23265-1793689200-1793732400@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Election Day\, Nov 3rd
DESCRIPTION:Election Day\, Nov 3rd \n  \nPlease Vote for candidates of your choice \nPlease  study  Amendment L\, that would make it harder to pass constitutional amendments by ballot measures \nWhat it does: Amendment L would require 60% of the votes cast\, instead of a simple majority\, to amend the South Dakota Constitution. It would apply to every future amendment\, whether it comes from citizens or from the Legislature.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/election-day-nov-3rd/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261105T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261106T110000
DTSTAMP:20261106T202820Z
CREATED:20261030T201025Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261106T202820Z
UID:23370-1793880000-1793962800@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:SD Game\, Fish and Parks November Meeting 11/5/26-11/6/26\, Sioux Falls and Zoom
DESCRIPTION:SD Game\, Fish and Parks November Meeting 11/5/26-11/6/26\, Sioux Falls and Zoom \nVisit this link for more Zoom and teleconference codes\, agenda and more info.\, when closer to the meeting date: https://gfp.sd.gov/commission/information/ \nAgenda: https://gfp.sd.gov/UserDocs/nav/Commission_Agenda_November_2026.pdf \nZoom Meeting Link | To join via conference call\, dial 1.719.359.4580 | Webinar ID: 1 719 359 4580 | Passcode: 970458 \nhttps://state-sd.zoom.us/j/91264176710?pwd=Vm00NEowdGV6N09Ib1hnVlJkMUF3Zz09#success \n====== \nThere will at least be an Open Forum at about 2 pm CT on Thursday\, where you get 3 minutes to testify on anything. Written comments are due Sunday night by midnight CT – at this web site – https://gfp.sd.gov/forms/positions/
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/sd-game-fish-and-parks-november-meeting-11-5-26-11-6-26-sioux-falls-and-zoom/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261107T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261107T120000
DTSTAMP:20261106T202412Z
CREATED:20261106T182147Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261106T202412Z
UID:23381-1794042000-1794052800@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Nov. 7th\, Morning field trip on "Fire in the Black Hills"\,  Norbeck Society
DESCRIPTION:Nov. 7th\, Morning field trip on “Fire in the Black Hills”\, Norbeck Society\, Chris Stover (Forest Fuels Specialist retired from BHNF) will lead the Field Trip.- \n ** Meet at 9:00 at the Three-Forks parking lot (intersection of Hwy 385 and Hwy 16). We will carpool into the area of interest and make 3 or 4 stops along the way. High clearance & 4-wheel drive are required\, and we need volunteers with suitable vehicles who are willing to take on passengers. The total loop is about 15 miles\, 10 on forest roads. You might enjoy a burger and brew at Cohort Craft Brewery afterwards!  \n** Bring water and snacks and appropriate footwear!  \n** Please RSVP: info@norbecksociety.com  \nLet us know if you are a passenger or a driver 
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/nov-7th-morning-field-trip-on-fire-in-the-black-hills-norbeck-society/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261109T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261116T220000
DTSTAMP:20261113T003417Z
CREATED:20261106T210110Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261113T003417Z
UID:23399-1794232800-1794866400@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Expected Monday\, Nov. 9: Senate vote on the permitting bill that would weaken NEPA\, ESA & the Clean Water Act.
DESCRIPTION:Senate permitting bill (BAAJA\, S. 5653 / H.R. 2347): call congress before final passage\nUpdated Nov. 11\, 2026 (evening). Prairie Hills Audubon Society calendar alert. \n\nCalls to our delegation are not a waste of time this time. Sen. Mike Rounds has twice been the only Republican in the Senate to vote against moving this bill forward\, on Nov. 9 and again on Nov. 10. Every other Republican voting\, including Sen. Thune\, voted yes. A South Dakota senator is already willing to buck his party on this bill. He needs to hear that South Dakotans stand with him\, and Sen. Thune needs to hear that his constituents agree with Rounds. \n\nWhere it stood Wednesday\n\nMonday\, Nov. 9: The Senate voted 73–25 to end debate on whether to take up the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). This needed 60 votes.\nTuesday\, Nov. 10: The Senate voted 62–21 to formally take up the bill (H.R. 2347\, the House bill being used as the vehicle).\nBoth times\, Sen. Mike Rounds voted NO and Sen. John Thune voted YES. As Majority Leader\, Thune controls the Senate schedule.\nWednesday\, Nov. 11: The Senate met on Veterans Day. Sen. Thune filed cloture on the sponsors’ substitute amendment (the BAAJA text) and on the bill itself.\nThursday\, Nov. 12. The Senate turned to Judicial nominations. Further action on the bill is expected in week of Nov. 16th\, with final vote that week.\nAfter the Senate\, the bill would go back to the House.\n\nWhat to do\nCall as an individual constituent. Offices take voicemail after hours\, and calls count any time before the final vote. \n\n\n\nWho\nAsk\nPhone\n\n\nSen. John Thune\nVote NO on final passage of S. 5653.\nDC (202) 224-2321\nRapid City (605) 348-7551\n\n\nSen. Mike Rounds\nThank him for voting no\, and ask him to stay a no on final passage.\nDC (202) 224-5842\nRapid City (605) 343-5035\n\n\nRep. Dusty Johnson\nOppose the bill when it reaches the House. (He voted for the House version\, the SPEED Act.)\nDC (202) 225-2801\n\n\n\nCapitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. \nPrefer to write? Ready-made letters\nThese tools send a pre-written letter for you. Tip: form letters are usually counted\, not read. Your letter carries more weight if you add a sentence or two of your own at the top\, saying where you live and why it matters to you. Better still\, copy the text into the senator’s own contact form at thune.senate.gov or rounds.senate.gov\, or Rep. Johnson’s at dustyjohnson.house.gov. Pick “Environment” or “Energy” as the topic. \n\nEarthjustice Action (Senate and House): earthjusticeaction.org\nAnimal Commons\, Endangered Species Coalition and others: actionnetwork.org\n“Stop the Lame-Duck Congress” letter: actionnetwork.org · endangered species version: actionnetwork.org\nDefenders of Wildlife: act.defenders.org · WildEarth Guardians: wildearthguardians.org · Western Watersheds Project: westernwatersheds.org\nSample endangered species letter to copy into a senator’s form (IFAW): ifaw.org\nCall script with choices of concerns (5 Calls): 5calls.org\n\nSome of these were written before the Nov. 9 vote. If a letter says “vote no on Monday” or “vote no on cloture\,” change it to “vote no on final passage.” \nWhat to say: three short points\nThe bill runs nearly 500 pages\, so no one can cover it in a phone call. Pick one or two of these and say them in your own words. \n\n1. It’s not just about energy. The bill rewrites the basic environmental laws themselves. That changes the rules for every timber sale\, mine\, road and grazing decision on the Black Hills National Forest\, not just power plants and pipelines. \n2. It shuts South Dakotans out. The Forest Service already gives the public as little as 15 days to comment on a project. This bill narrows public review even further. It gives citizens only 150 days to go to court\, down from up to six years. And a court could not stop a project even after finding the law was broken. \n3. It weakens protection for endangered species and sacred sites. It shortens and weakens the reviews that protect species like the whooping crane\, pallid sturgeon and black-footed ferret. It also weakens the main law Tribes rely on to protect sacred places off their reservations\, including the Black Hills. The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association and national tribal organizations oppose the bill even after the latest changes. \n4. It locks in this administration’s decisions. Under “project certainty\,” most federal permits in effect from this fall on would be very hard for a future administration to revoke or change. That would freeze in place the results of more than 500 environmental rollbacks. \nBonus point: fix the real cause of delay. Studies\, including a 2026 Government Accountability Office report on Forest Service timber sales\, point to understaffed agencies\, not environmental laws. Staff the agencies instead of cutting the public out. \n\nSample messages\nThune: \n“I’m a constituent from [town]. Please vote NO on final passage of the permitting bill\, S. 5653. It isn’t just about energy. It rewrites the laws that give South Dakotans a voice on Black Hills timber sales\, mines and roads\, and it shuts citizens out of court. Fix permitting delays by staffing the agencies\, not by cutting out the public.” \nRounds: \n“I’m a constituent from [town]. Thank you for voting against advancing the permitting bill\, S. 5653. Please stay a no on final passage. It would cut South Dakotans out of decisions about our public lands and water.” \nWant to understand more? The two big pieces\, in plain language\nNEPA: “look before you leap”\nWhat it does now. The National Environmental Policy Act (1970) requires federal agencies to study a project’s effects before approving it. They must consider alternatives and let the public comment. That’s how ranchers\, hunters\, Tribes and other neighbors learn about a Black Hills timber sale or mine in time to fix problems. If an agency skips steps\, citizens can go to court. \nWhat the bill changes (according to analyses by the Bipartisan Policy Center\, Earthjustice and others): \n\nFewer projects reviewed. It narrows which federal actions need review and exempts more projects completely.\nNarrower choices. Agencies would have to drop alternatives that don’t meet the developer’s goals\, and could ignore new information that appears after a review begins.\nLess time to challenge. Lawsuits must be filed within 150 days instead of up to six years\, and only by people who commented and can show direct harm.\nWeaker remedies. If a court finds a review was illegal\, it can only send it back to the agency. The project goes ahead in the meantime.\nNot limited to energy. These changes apply to almost any project that needs a federal permit. A separate 150-day lawsuit limit is aimed specifically at energy\, mining and forest management projects.\n\nHow much time does the public get to comment?\nIt is already very short\, before this bill passes. A Forest Service rule finalized in October 2026 cut the public comment period to 15 days for an environmental assessment (EA)\, down from 30\, and 30 days for an environmental impact statement (EIS)\, down from 45. Objections\, the last chance to raise problems before a decision\, are due within 10 days after a draft EA decision or 20 days after a draft EIS decision\, with page limits of 15 and 30 pages. \nMeanwhile\, the documents are harder to read quickly. Since 2023\, federal law has capped EAs at 75 pages and EISs at 150 pages (300 for complex projects)\, but appendices don’t count. So more of the key information is moved into long appendices. Fifteen days is not enough for volunteers to learn that a document exists\, read it and its appendices\, and write useful comments. It is also not enough time for a county commission or city council to meet and vote on a response. \nWhat BAAJA adds: \n\nThe only public comment period the bill guarantees comes at the very start of an EIS\, when the agency announces it will prepare one (45 to 60 days). That is before there is any analysis of impacts or alternatives to comment on. The bill does not require a draft EIS to be released for public comment.\nThe bill requires no comment period at all for EAs\, the review used for most Black Hills timber sales.\nTo go to court later\, a citizen must have filed a comment “sufficiently detailed” to flag the exact issue they sue over. Form letters don’t count. So the public would have to spot every problem early\, often before the analysis even exists.\n\nThe result: shorter documents\, shorter deadlines\, fewer chances to comment\, and a lawsuit that depends on having commented in exactly the right way. Ordinary people and local governments can’t keep up with that pace. \nBlack Hills example: If the Forest Service approves a timber sale with a flawed review\, local people today have years to find a lawyer and challenge it. Under this bill they would have 150 days. Even if they won\, the logging could continue while the agency rewrote its paperwork. \nThe Endangered Species Act: the science and the check\nWhat it does now. Before a federal agency approves a project that could harm a listed species\, it must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service reviews the best available science and decides whether the project would jeopardize the species. Its decision is called a biological opinion. \nWhat the bill changes (according to the Congressional Research Service and the 215 groups that signed the Oct. 6 letter opposing these provisions): \n\nA new definition of “best available science.” It raises the bar for which science counts. Critics say incomplete data\, which is common for rare and hard-to-study species\, could become a reason not to protect them. This applies to listing decisions as well as project reviews.\nLess time. Formal consultation is cut from 90 to 60 days.\nStates can take over. A state could take over the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role for projects inside its borders\, even if it has no endangered species law of its own.\nHarder to challenge. Challenges to biological opinions must be filed within 150 days and only in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.\nApplies to all projects\, not just energy. The only exemption is for certain highway work.\n\n“Project certainty”: locking in today’s decisions\nSupporters wrote “project certainty” (Title IV\, Sections 1401–1403) to stop a president from cancelling approved wind and solar projects. But it is written to protect almost every federal permit\, and critics consider it the most dangerous part of the bill. The sponsors revised it on Nov. 7. The description below reflects those revisions as reported by the Institute for Progress (which supports the bill)\, Earthjustice and the Clean Air Task Force (which do not)\, and the Center for Western Priorities. \nWhat it does (Section 1401). Once a project has a federal permit\, agencies may not revoke\, suspend or materially change it\, or take “any new action” that interferes with its operation at “normal capacity\,” except in listed cases: \n\naction taken in response to a court order;\nthe permit holder violated the permit or the law;\nthe permit was obtained by fraud or material misrepresentation;\naction needed to prevent immediate harm to life\, property\, national security\, human health or the environment. The words “human health” and “the environment” were added Nov. 7\, but Earthjustice warns that the word “immediate” sets the bar so high it would not cover\, for example\, a project that raises cancer risks. Any response must be “narrowly tailored.”\naction “taken pursuant to any applicable law or regulation\,” a new catch-all exception;\nthe permit holder asks for the change.\n\nThe revisions also added a “savings clause” saying the section does not limit agencies’ authority under other laws. \nDo the Nov. 7 changes fix it? The two sides disagree. \n\nSupporters (Institute for Progress) say the new catch-all exception and savings clause mean agencies can still issue new rules and make lawful permit changes\, and courts can still overturn illegal permits.\nCritics (Earthjustice\, Clean Air Task Force) say the catch-all and savings clause are vague\, and that courts are unlikely to read them so broadly that they cancel out the rest of Section 1401. The meaning would be fought out in court for years. Earthjustice says the “forever permits” problem remains: most permits still could not be revoked or changed except in very limited circumstances. And changes could come only after a court ruling\, which in turn depends on someone filing a lawsuit within the bill’s shortened deadlines.\n\nPenalties for agencies. If an agency interferes with a permit without proving an exception\, the company can sue for reinstatement\, attorney fees and delay costs. If the agency acted in bad faith\, it can also seek damages of 25% to 50% of the project’s development and construction costs\, paid from the federal Judgment Fund. That money comes from taxpayers. The Nov. 7 revisions added the bad-faith requirement and require a court judgment or a court-approved settlement before payment. \nIt is not limited to energy. It applies to most federal permits and authorizations\, so it could cover timber sales\, mining plans\, grazing and special-use permits\, pipelines and data centers. \nWhich permits does it cover? This is unclear\, and it matters. \n\nPermits in effect from this fall on: clearly covered. The bill as introduced covered permits “effective on or after September 16\, 2026\,” two weeks before the bill was introduced. The Center for Western Priorities reports that the amended bill uses Nov. 6\, 2026. Either way\, the cutoff falls before the bill would become law\, so approvals made this fall would be locked in.\nOlder permits: possibly covered. “In effect on or after” a date could\, read literally\, include permits issued years earlier that are still in effect. The Congressional Research Service flagged this ambiguity in the bill as introduced. Courts would decide.\nPermits in court: not clearly addressed. Agencies may act “in response to” a court order. But other parts of the bill limit what courts can order: for NEPA and some Clean Water Act violations\, courts generally could not throw out a permit\, only send it back for more review while it stays in effect. None of the analyses we found settle how pending cases would be treated.\n\nWhy this connects to the 500-plus rollbacks. NRDC’s White House Watch has documented more than 500 actions by this administration since January 2025 that threaten the environment and public health. They include rescinding the federal NEPA regulations and the Forest Service’s own NEPA rules\, weakening Endangered Species Act rules\, shortening Forest Service comment periods\, and proposing to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. Those are rules\, and a future administration can rewrite rules. But the permits issued while the weakened rules are in place are another matter. Under project certainty\, a timber sale\, mine or pipeline approved under today’s rules would stay approved even after better rules are restored. The rollbacks would be temporary on paper\, but their results would be permanent on the ground. \nBlack Hills example: A timber sale on the Black Hills National Forest approved this fall or later under the new 15-day comment rule would be very hard for a future Forest Service to cancel or scale back. That would hold even if new data showed the forest was being cut faster than it grows\, because “new science” is not itself an exception. \n“Disparate treatment” lawsuits (Section 1402). Developers of energy projects\, including oil\, gas\, coal\, mining\, nuclear\, wind and solar\, could sue if an agency denies or delays their type of project at a higher rate than in the previous ten years. After the Nov. 7 revisions\, they must show the denials or delays were in bad faith and part of an intentional pattern. Damages could reach 50% to 100% of expected construction costs. Critics note the ten-year baseline includes both Trump administrations. \nA new decision deadline (Section 1403). Agencies would have one year to decide on any project that doesn’t need an EA or EIS\, and applicants could sue to enforce it. \nSources: Congressional Research Service report R49511 (on the bill as introduced); Institute for Progress\, Earthjustice and Clean Air Task Force analyses of the Nov. 7 manager’s amendment; Center for Western Priorities; NRDC White House Watch. \nTribal Nations\, treaties and sacred places\nWhy this matters so much in South Dakota. American Indians are about 9% of South Dakota’s population in Census Bureau figures\, more if you count people of more than one race. The real number is likely higher still: the Census Bureau’s own follow-up survey found that the 2020 census missed about 5.6% of American Indians living on reservations\, the worst undercount of any group\, and reservations have been undercounted in every census since at least 1990. South Dakota has nine reservations\, which cover about 12% of the state’s land. Many places sacred to the Lakota\, Dakota and Nakota lie off today’s reservations: the Black Hills (He Sapa)\, Bear Butte and many others. The Black Hills were promised to the Sioux Nation in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court held that they were taken illegally. \nThe law Tribes rely on. Tribes don’t own most of these places\, so their main legal tool is Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It requires federal agencies to consult with Tribes before approving a project that could harm sites of religious and cultural importance\, on or off reservations. Tribes also use NEPA\, the Clean Water Act and the courts. For example\, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s challenge to the Dakota Access pipeline’s environmental review was a NEPA case. \nWhat the Nov. 7 revisions fixed. To be fair\, the sponsors’ substitute amendment made some changes Tribes asked for. It dropped a proposed federal redefinition of Tribal sacred places. It dropped a provision letting the federal government take over Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. It required consultation on the report identifying sites a project would affect. And it kept Tribal site databases confidential. \nWhat Tribes say is still wrong. The National Congress of American Indians\, the Native American Rights Fund\, the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and other tribal organizations\, including the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association\, say the revised bill still: \n\nlets federal officials end historic preservation review on their own\, over Tribal objections\, if they decide harm won’t disqualify a site or that “other considerations” outweigh preservation;\ndoes not require true government-to-government consultation\, meaning officials sitting down with Tribal leaders to resolve harm to sacred sites;\nnarrows which projects trigger historic preservation review at all;\nleaves the Historic Preservation Fund\, which supports Tribal preservation offices\, dependent on annual appropriations;\nkeeps the other changes that affect Tribes: tighter limits on Clean Water Act certification (which Tribes with approved water programs use)\, waivers of consultation for Army Corps nationwide permits\, state takeover of endangered species reviews\, the 150-day lawsuit deadline\, and “project certainty” that locks permits in.\n\nTribal organizations asked Congress to hold the bill until the next Congress can consult with Tribal Nations properly. The bill was negotiated for more than a year behind closed doors\, without government-to-government consultation. That is exactly the process failure the bill would write into law. \nOther changes worth knowing\n\nClean Water Act: It limits South Dakota’s and Tribes’ authority to put water-quality conditions on federal permits for pipelines and other projects.\nMining: Coalition analyses say it gives mining companies\, foreign-owned ones included\, a permanent right to use public land for waste dumps\, roads and pipelines. The Black Hills already have Gilt Edge\, a Superfund site\, and new gold\, lithium\, uranium and rare earth proposals.\n\nWhy permits are slow\nThe evidence points to agency capacity more than the laws: \n\nThe Government Accountability Office’s June 2026 report on Forest Service timber sales found that officials and stakeholders on all sides say the agency needs more staff with the right expertise.\nA University of Utah study of 41\,000 Forest Service NEPA decisions found that delays came mostly from inadequate budgets\, staff turnover\, slow information from applicants and other laws\, not from NEPA itself.\n\nFriends and family in other states\nFinal passage needs 60 votes in the Senate. Ask people in other states to check how their senators voted on the BAAJA scorecard. They can thank senators who voted no and ask those who voted yes to vote no on final passage. \nMore information\n\nBAAJA scorecard (how members of Congress voted and stand): parksgc.github.io/baaja-scorecard\n215-group letter on the Endangered Species Act provisions (Oct. 6): Center for Biological Diversity (PDF)\nDefenders of Wildlife advocacy toolkit: defenders.org (PDF)\nEarthjustice guide to the bill’s impacts: earthjustice.org\nNRDC assessment: nrdc.org\nNational Parks Conservation Association position: npca.org\nNRDC White House Watch (tracker of 500+ administration actions): nrdc.org/trump-watch\nEarthjustice on the Nov. 7 manager’s amendment: earthjustice.org · Institute for Progress (supports the bill): ifp.org (PDF)\nCenter for Western Priorities and Earthworks map of public lands at risk: westernpriorities.org\nClean Air Task Force on the project certainty revisions: catf.us\nCongressional Research Service on the ESA provisions: R49504 · on project certainty: R49511\nNeutral explainer: Bipartisan Policy Center\nWestern Environmental Law Center: westernlaw.org\nOcean Climate Action toolkit: Google Doc\nForest Service rule shortening comment and objection periods (Federal Register\, Oct. 13\, 2026): govinfo.gov\nTribal organizations’ statement opposing the revised bill (Nov. 8; signers include the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association): ncai.org\nNCAI on the manager’s amendment: ncai.org · 106 Strong coalition: 106strong.com\nCensus Bureau on the 2020 undercount\, including American Indians on reservations: census.gov\nSouth Dakota’s nine tribes and reservations (SD News Watch): sdnewswatch.org\nCongressional Research Service on BAAJA’s NEPA provisions: R49510\nGAO\, Forest Service timber sale management (June 2026): GAO-26-107993 (PDF)\n\n=========================================== \n================================= \nFURTHER More information: \nOcean Climate Action tool kit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gEvykG50LvO06uBZRt01Mr24m3XrlrEoc8iROMVk5vM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.njmtwcon24f  \n| Bill text and summary (Congress.gov) \n  \n\nAnimal Commons\, ESC\, and others action alert- https://actionnetwork.org/letters/stop-environmental-rollbacks-in-the-senate-permitting-bill/\nWildEarth Guardians action alert – https://action.wildearthguardians.org/page/104254/action/1?ea.url.id=6217457\nDefenders of Wildlife action alert – https://act.defenders.org/page/103490/action/1\nWestern Watersheds Project action alert-  https://www.westernwatersheds.org/actionalerts/take-action-permitting-reform-would-put-wildlife-and-clean-water-at-risk/\n\n===== \nAdditional Resources\nOrganizational Letters\, Press Releases\, and Statements \n\nLetter – NGO Letter to Congress on Harmful BAAJA Ocean Provisions\nLetter – The Environmental Council of the States\nLetter – Attorney Generals of CA\, MA\, WA\, AZ\, DE\, IL\, ME\, OR\, VT\nLetter- Senators Duckworth\, Wyden\, Merkely\, Markey\nPress Release – WE ACT\nPress Release – Defenders of Wildlife\nPress Release – Center for Biological Diversity\nPress Release – Oil Change International \nPress Release – Southern Environmental Law Center\nStatement\, Refaluwasch Journal of Knowledge and Culture (RJKC)\nPress Release\, The Wilderness Society\nEndangered Species Coalition – https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/2026-10/Permitting-Bill-Advocacy-Toolkit.pdf\n\n  \nNews Articles \n\n\n\nHeatmap\, John Podesta Says Permitting Deal Hands Trump ‘a Loaded Howitzer’\n\n\n\n\nPolitico\, Here’s what’s inside the Senate’s new bipartisan permitting proposal \nSubstack\, The BAAJA Scorecar – tracks Members of Congress and their support of the bill. \nCommon Dreams – https://www.commondreams.org/news/democrats-permitting-reform\n\nBill Analyses \n\nUnion of Concerned Scientists\, The Senate Permitting Deal Could Lock in Fossil Fuel Dominance for Generations\nFishery Friendly Climate Action Campaign\, The Permitting Bill Fishermen Can’t Afford to Ignore\nBill Analysis\, NRDC\, NRDC Assessment of BAAJA\, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill\n\n\nBill Analysis\, Columbia University\, Senate Bipartisan Permit Reform Bill Would Upend Many Environmental Laws\nBill Analysis\, Holland & Knight\n\n\nBill Analysis\, Jeremy Symons\, Substack\, This is not the permit reform deal that was advertised (Note: this piece includes considerable analysis of Title IV on Project Certainty)\nExpert Blog\, Earthjustice\, What Will BAAJA Do? Whatever the Trump Administration Wants\nExpert Blog\, Earthjustice\, How the Senate’s Permitting Bill Could Lock in Deep-Sea Mining for Years to Come\nExpert Blog\, NRDC – Hard Questions About the Permitting Bill\nExpert Blog\, NRDC – How the Senate’s Permitting Bill Could Lock in Deep-Sea Mining for Years to Come\nExpert Article\, Yale Journal of Regulation\, The Muddy Waters of BAAJA\nLegal Analysis\, David Bookbinder\nFact Sheet\, Oceana\nFact Sheet\, Center for Biological Diversity\nFact Sheet\, Defenders of Wildlife\nFact sheet\, Climate Justice Alliance\, Permitting Reform Myths vs. Facts\n\n 
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/expected-monday-nov-9-senate-vote-on-the-permitting-bill-that-would-weaken-nepa-esa-the-clean-water-act/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261109T153000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261109T160000
DTSTAMP:20261109T185618Z
CREATED:20261106T225739Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261109T185618Z
UID:23405-1794238200-1794240000@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Deadline comment/intervene in 2 ground water right permit applications for Uranium mine
DESCRIPTION:DEADLINE Monday\, Nov. 9: Comment or petition on Powertech’s water permits for the Dewey-Burdock uranium mine (Madison & Inyan Kara aquifers)\nWhat: Powertech (USA) Inc.\, a subsidiary of enCore Energy\, has applied to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) for two water permits for its proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ uranium mine. The mine site is about 20 square miles in southwestern Custer and northwestern Fall River counties\, near Edgemont\, on the southern edge of the Black Hills. DANR received the applications in June but didn’t publish notice until late October\, leaving the public less than two weeks to respond. Comments and petitions are due Monday\, November 9\, 2026. \n\nApplication No. 2914-2\, Inyan Kara Aquifer: Water to mine uranium out of the Inyan Kara formation. Powertech would pump at up to 4\,500 gallons per minute from up to 1\,000 wells. At that rate\, about 2.36 billion gallons a year would pass through the wells\, with net consumption capped at 274.2 acre-feet a year (about 89 million gallons). The notice gives no end date.\nApplication No. 2915-2\, Madison Aquifer: About 82.5 million gallons (253.2 acre-feet) a year for 20 years\, with a possible 20-year extension. The Madison water would mainly be used to try to restore the mined aquifer after mining\, plus facility operations and domestic and livestock water for local ranchers. Powertech’s application calls that a ‘temporary replacement of their wells in the vicinity of ISR operations.’\n\nThe Water Management Board will hear both applications at 10:45 a.m. Central\, Wednesday\, December 2\, 2026\, at the Matthew Training Center\, Joe Foss Building\, 523 E. Capitol Ave.\, Pierre (unless an extension is granted). The Chief Engineer found that the applications raise important public interest issues and should not be approved without a hearing. “The Chief Engineer recommends approving both permits. The Board makes the final decision.” \nWhy it matters: \n\nThe Madison and Inyan Kara are among the main aquifers supplying drinking\, ranch\, and irrigation water across western South Dakota. In-situ mining injects chemicals into the aquifer to dissolve & release uranium and other minerals\, and in-situ mines elsewhere have rarely\, if ever\, returned an aquifer to its pre-mining quality.\nBlack Hills water is already stretched. A 2025 U.S. Geological Survey study found that the region’s aquifers and reservoirs are falling short of demand\, and after years of drought many shallow wells have gone dry.\nA federal appeals court has noted that a sizable number of cultural\, historical\, and archaeological sites\, including burial sites\, have been identified in the project area. The court also found that the Oglala Sioux Tribe has the most direct historical\, cultural\, and religious ties to the area. The Tribe\, Black Hills Clean Water Alliance\, and others have fought this project in state and federal proceedings since at least  2012.\n\nTwo ways to take part (you must file separately for EACH application): \n\nComment: Anyone may comment to the Chief Engineer on DANR’s comment form. A comment goes into the record\, but it does not make you a party to the hearing.\nPetition to intervene: To become a party of record\, you must file a written petition on DANR’s form with both the Chief Engineer and Powertech. You must describe an injury to you that is unique\, not just the general public’s injury. For example\, you might own a well\, land\, or water rights near the site or downgradient from it. The petition must also give your reasons for opposing the application and your name and mailing address. A petitioner may also ask in writing\, by Nov. 9\, to postpone the hearing. Individuals can represent themselves in an intervention\, but corporations must be represented by an attorney.\n\nForms and notices: Go to danr.sd.gov/public\, scroll to the Powertech notice under “Water Rights\,” and click the dates in the “Petition/Comment Deadline” column. You can maybe read the Inyan Kara (2914-2) or Madison (2915-2) hearing notices here and staff reports and company’s applications. You can see comments and petitions already submitted.  However it is possible that parts of this web site will be broken & not work correctly this weekend (11/6-11/9). \nMail\, e-mail or deliver to: \n\n Chief Engineer\, Water Rights Program\, Foss Building\, 523 E. Capitol\, Pierre\, SD 57501. Phone (605) 773-3352.\nPetitioners also need to send a copy to Powertech (USA) Inc.\, 101 North Shoreline Blvd.\, Suite 450\, Corpus Christi\, TX 78401.\nThe mail must be POSTMARKED by 11/9/26.  Also DANR normally has a web portal you can upload comments to\,\n\nDANR WEEKEND WEBSITE ISSUES: However due to talking to DANR on Friday 11/6/26\, I am warned that DANR public notice/public commenting web page may be broken this weekend\, at least in part. DANR has an outage notice on their public notice/comment page that says comments and petitions may also be emailed to DANRmail@state.sd.us (you can’t upload to the DANR web site this weekend/Monday. \nPetitioners must still get a copy of their petition to Powertech and we are provided with postal address for Powertech.. On both applications this is the e-mail for Powertech applicant – aforbes@encoreuranium.com\,  (972) 891-8664\, but I don’t know if that is the proper e-mail to use for sending a petition or it is allowed to e-mail a petition to Powertech. Call up DANR (605) 773-3352 – and ask if you wish to e-mail Powertech or call up  Powertech. It is possible that everyone would rather have digital copies than paper. \nThe deadline for e-mails is  11:59 pm CT (10:59 pm MT).   \nHelp with writing comments: \nBlack Hills Clean Water Alliance has step-by-step filing instructions and commenting hints and videos on how to comment on its State-Level Comment Notices page. —  https://bhcleanwateralliance.org/public-hearings/state-level-comment-notices/ \nDakota Rural Action’s action alert and links to the permit applications and comment pages for each permit are here:\nhttps://www.dakotarural.org/powertech-seeking-billions-of-gallons-of-groundwater-comment-or-intervene-by-nov-9/ \nBackground reading: “Public comment period opens as company seeks state permits for uranium mine” (SD Searchlight / Rapid City Post). Also see the Rapid City Post’s article on declining state aquifers and Brad Johnson’s SD Searchlight commentary\, “With mining\, remember: The people who may need the water in 50 years won’t be at the hearing.” \nSources: \n\nDANR notice of hearing\, Application 2914-2\nSD Searchlight / Rapid City Post: Public comment period opens\nDANR Powertech water rights page
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/deadline-comment-intervene-in-2-ground-water-right-permit-applications-for-uranium-mine/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261109T215000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261109T215900
DTSTAMP:20261109T093536Z
CREATED:20260930T225159Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261109T093536Z
UID:23262-1794261000-1794261540@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Nov 9\, Deadline to comment against fast-track oil drilling permits in Alaska's Western Arctic
DESCRIPTION:Monday\, Nov 9\, 2026\, before 9:59 pm MT — Deadline to comment against fast-track oil drilling permits in Alaska’s Western Arctic (NPR-A) \nSummary: Qualifying oil and gas production sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska would get a decision within 60 days of a complete application\, with no additional project-level environmental analysis required. To qualify\, a project’s entire footprint would have to sit within 25 miles of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure. The proposal came following a formal petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Earthjustice warns that new projects in the Western Arctic\, including in Teshekpuk Lake\, the Colville River and other special areas that have long been off limits to development\, could be fast-tracked. The impacts analysis is missing: BLM published only a portion of the environmental impact statement for the proposed rule and did not include the section that analyzes its environmental impacts.\nFederal Register notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/08/2026-18261/national-petroleum-reserve-in-alaska-production-site-development\nComment portal (rule): https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2026-0133-0001 · RIN 1004-AF57\nDraft EIS chapters (separate comment): Comments on the draft environmental chapters go through the BLM ePlanning site.  Go to –  eplanning.blm.gov; the NEPA Number is DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS. \nBoth close on November 9 before midnight in DC.. \nReady-made alert: \nEarthjustice’s press release is at https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administration-proposes-regulations-to-rubber-stamp-drilling-in-alaskas-western-arctic. \nTheir Pre-fab comment letter – https://earthjustice.org/action/no-shortcuts-for-oil-and-gas-companies?ms=web \nNational Audubon’s action link w/ pre-fab letter: https://act.audubon.org/a/western-arctic-2026 \nAlaska Wilderness League and The Wilderness Society are also active on this issue.\nArticle: “BLM Proposes 60 Day Decisions for Arctic Oil Sites Within 25 Miles of Existing Alaska Infrastructure”  URL link >>https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/73225/20260907/blm-proposes-60-day-decisions-arctic-oil-sites-within-25-miles-existing-alaska-infrastructure.htm \n.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/nov-9-deadline-to-comment-against-fast-track-oil-drilling-permits-in-alaskas-western-arctic/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261110T180000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261110T203000
DTSTAMP:20261106T203557Z
CREATED:20261106T201616Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261106T203557Z
UID:23386-1794333600-1794342600@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Jack Gladstone - "Montana's Troubadour" Preforms at the Journey in Rapid City
DESCRIPTION:Jack Gladstone – “Montana’s Troubadour” Preforms at the Journey in Rapid City in the evening.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/jack-gladstone-montanas-troubadour-preforms-at-the-journey-in-rapid-city/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://phas-wsd.org/wp-content/uploads/Jack-Gladstone-Flyer-Word-Ver-4-FINAL-003.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261112T180000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261112T203000
DTSTAMP:20261106T202212Z
CREATED:20261106T201844Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261106T202212Z
UID:23388-1794506400-1794515400@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Travis Lavieri speaks on Black Footed Ferret - Norbeck Society meeting 11/12/26\, Rapid City
DESCRIPTION:Travis Lavieri speaks on Black Footed Ferret – Norbeck Society meeting 11/12/26. 6 pm presentation at OCW in Rapid City\,
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/travis-lavieri-speaks-on-black-footed-ferret-norbeck-society-meeting-11-12-26-rapid-city/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://phas-wsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2026-11-12-Norbeck-presents-Travis-Livieri.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261118T210000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261118T215900
DTSTAMP:20261112T203127Z
CREATED:20261112T203127Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261112T203127Z
UID:23456-1795035600-1795039140@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:EPA – Offshore pollution discharge (NPDES) permits rule
DESCRIPTION:Written comments due: Wednesday\, Nov 18\, 2026 (extended from Oct 19) – before midnight Washington DC time \nPublic hearing: none scheduled. \nPHAS Priority: MEDIUM (ties to PHAS deep seabed mining comments & T & E species & Rice’s Whale concerns) \nFederal Register: Updates to the NPDES Definitions and Exclusions\, Sept 4\, 2026 (2026-18134) \nPortal: regulations.gov\, Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2026-6965. Email also accepted: OW-docket@epa.gov (put the docket number in the subject line). \nSnail mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\, EPA Docket Center\, Office of Water Docket\, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2026-6965\, Mail Code 28221T\, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW\, Washington\, DC 20460 (verify mail code) \nIssue: EPA proposes to rewrite the Clean Water Act definition of “discharge of a pollutant” so that discharges from mobile vessels more than three nautical miles offshore no longer need an NPDES permit. Today that covers offshore seafood processing ships\, which would lose the best-management-practice requirements in their permits\, and EPA would stop collecting discharge data from them. EPA says outright that the change would also apply to future activities such as deep seabed mining. That means mining ships processing ore at sea (for example under The Metals Company USA application now before NOAA) could release sediment plumes and processing wastewater with no Clean Water Act permit. It’s a quiet but significant gap in ocean protection. \nPre-fab letters: Ocean groups (Earthjustice\, Center for Biological Diversity\, ocean conservation coalitions working on seabed mining) are likely to object. Check for a sign-on or pre-written letter before writing our own.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/epa-offshore-pollution-discharge-npdes-permits-rule/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261119T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261119T160000
DTSTAMP:20261112T202308Z
CREATED:20261112T201235Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261112T202308Z
UID:23453-1795078800-1795104000@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Board of Minerals and Environment November Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Board of Minerals and Environment November Meeting\,  Foss Building\, Matthew Training Center\, Pierre. \n10 am -5 pm Central Time \nIt will be live streamed.  The is a public comment opportunity limited to 3 minutes. \nFor  agenda\, board packet and details go to to –  boardsandcommissions.sd.gov/Meetings.aspz?BoardID=67 \nThey will be discussion a permit applicant for solid waste facility at Madison\, mining issues consent calendar  and there will be an executive session to talk about litigation. \nContact Brian Walsh for more info – 605-773-5559
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/board-of-minerals-and-environment-november-meeting/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261130T210000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261130T215900
DTSTAMP:20261112T235357Z
CREATED:20261112T235357Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261112T235357Z
UID:23460-1796072400-1796075940@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:Fish & Wildlife Service – Comment deadline - revised list of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
DESCRIPTION:Fish & Wildlife Service – Comment deadline – revised list of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act \nWritten comments due: Monday\, Nov 30\, 2026 (received or postmarked by that date) \nPublic hearing: none. \nPriority:  PHAS might comment \nFederal Register: General Provisions; Revised List of Birds Protected by the MBTA\, Oct 1\, 2026 (2026-20123) \nPortal: regulations.gov\, Docket FWS-HQ-MB-2026-0133 \nSnail mail: Public Comments Processing\, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2026-0133\, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\, MS: PRB/3W\, 5275 Leesburg Pike\, Falls Church\, VA 22041-3803 (verify) \nIssue: This is the periodic update that brings the MBTA list in line with the American Ornithological Society checklist. It would add 32 species and remove 7\, for a net gain of 25 and a new total of 1\,131 protected species: \n• 13 species are added because of new U.S. records\, such as Hen Harrier in Alaska. \n• 19 species are added because of taxonomic splits\, such as Hudsonian Whimbrel split from Whimbrel\, and Marsh Wren split into eastern and western species. \n• All 7 removals are taxonomic: the species was merged with another\, or a split left a form that doesn’t occur in the U.S. \nFWS also proposes not to add the Graylag Goose. Nothing here looks like a rollback. The threat is from the other side: CFACT is organizing college students to argue that list updates must not “extend regulatory jurisdiction beyond the MBTA’s original intent.” Please note that this administration no longer enforces MBTA incidental take. \nPre-fab letters: Maybe NAS or ABC will do an alert or write a letter or something. CFACT is organizing student comments from the industry side.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/fish-wildlife-service-comment-deadline-revised-list-of-birds-protected-by-the-migratory-bird-treaty-act/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20261203T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20261204T110000
DTSTAMP:20261112T200329Z
CREATED:20261112T200329Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20261112T200329Z
UID:23450-1796299200-1796382000@phas-wsd.org
SUMMARY:SD Game\,Fish and Parks Dec. Commission meeting 12/3/26-12/4/26\, hybrid Pierre and Zoom
DESCRIPTION:SD Game\,Fish and Parks Dec. Commission meeting 12/3/26-12/4/26. It is a hybrid meeting – in person in Pierre SD and remotely by Zoom \nDetails on this will become available closer to the meeting…If agenda items are low\, it may become a 1 day meeting. \nThe deadline for written comments is the Sunday 11/29/26\, submitted on-line before midnight CT at gfp.sd.gov/forms/positions \nGo to Current Meeting Overview web page – gfp.sd.gov/commission/information/ when closer the date for the agenda and Zoom/teleconference details. There will be an opportunity for 3 minutes of  oral testimony on Thursday afternoon at 2 pm CT\, you can testify by Zoom or in persons\, \nThere were no proposals presented in Nov\, but there was a petition\, so there may or may not be a hearing on a rule change. We need to see the agenda.
URL:https://phas-wsd.org/event/sd-gamefish-and-parks-dec-commission-meeting-12-3-26-12-4-26-hybrid-pierre-and-zoom/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR