Mineral drilling approved on Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Burnt Rock Exploration
U.S. Forest Service· Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger DistrictU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work California
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- California Wilderness Coalition
Works California: spent years building the designation campaign with Tribal nations and now defends the monument as an intervenor in federal court.
- Friends of the Desert Mountains
Works California: coachella Valley land conservancy that helped establish Sand to Snow and worked with The Wildlands Conservancy on acquisitions inside the monument footprint..
- Friends of the Inyo
Works California: runs the Eastern Sierra opposition to the gold exploration projects around the Bodie Wilderness Study Area and hosts the Bodie Hills Conservation Partnership's donation and newsletter operations..
- Los Padres ForestWatch
Works California: has led opposition to oil drilling in the Los Padres region for two decades and is fighting the plan to reopen 400,000 acres to leasing.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service is near-final approval of a 10-year mining exploration project on public land in Nevada.
What’s at risk
Only people who already submitted written comments during the earlier public participation window are eligible to file an objection. Up to 600 drill pads, 45 miles of temporary roads, and 250 acres of surface disturbance on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are at stake from mineral exploration by CP Resources Corporation.
If this goes through
The Forest Service would authorize CP Resources Corporation to disturb up to 250 acres of national forest land over 10 years with drill pads, temporary roads, and laydown areas, with reclamation planned but not guaranteed to fully restore the land.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
5 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The notice states the project proposes 'approximately 266 drill sites' in the first phase and 'up to 334 additional drill sites' in subsequent phases, but provides no analysis, timeline, triggers, or decision criteria for those subsequent phases. Treating phases separately can artificially shrink the apparent footprint to avoid an EIS, a classic improper segmentation problem under NEPA. The agency should explain in the EA how it will ensure the subsequent 334 sites are analyzed as a connected action rather than deferred to avoid cumulative-impact review.
- The notice caps total disturbance at '250 acres on NFS lands' but gives no basis for how that ceiling was calculated, whether it includes access roads and staging areas, or whether the subsequent 334 sites are included within that figure. If the cap covers only the first phase, the real footprint could be far larger. The agency should clarify in the EA exactly what activities and infrastructure are counted toward the 250-acre limit and whether subsequent phases are inside or outside that cap.
- The notice identifies the project location only as 'approximately 23 miles WSW of Hawthorne, NV' and names no watersheds, drainages, sensitive species habitats, or proximity to water sources. Without this information, the public cannot assess impacts to water quality, wildlife corridors, or cultural resources during the comment period. The agency should release a project map and resource overview before the comment deadline so the public can submit meaningful comments.
- The notice names no tribes, lists no consultation status, and provides no information about cultural resources or sacred sites in the project area, despite the project being located in Nevada on Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands with documented Indigenous presence in the region. The agency should disclose the status of government-to-government consultation and any Section 106 undertaking review before the EA is released for comment.
Show all 7 points from the document
- The notice identifies the Lead Management Unit as the Bridgeport Ranger District but provides a contact address in Bridgeport, California, while the project is located in Mineral County, Nevada. No cooperating agencies, no state agency partners, and no county involvement are mentioned. For a 250-acre disturbance project in Nevada, the agency should disclose whether Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of Wildlife, or Mineral County have been invited as cooperating agencies in the EA.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
The Bridgeport Ranger District has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Burnt Rock Exploration Project submitted by CP Resources Corporation. This project is a non-HFRA 10-year mineral exploration-only Plan of Operations project located approximately 23 miles west-southwest of Hawthorne, Nevada. The Proposed Action includes the construction of drill pads with sumps, temporary roads, laydown areas, widening of existing roads, and overland travel for a maximum of 250 acres of total disturbance over the 10-year life of the Project. Concurrent reclamation practi…
Did the agency answer?
5 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe notice identifies the project location only as 'approximately 23 miles WSW of Hawthorne, NV' and names no watersheds, drainages, sensitive species habitats, or proximity to water sources.
The notice identifies the project location only as 'approximately 23 miles WSW of Hawthorne, NV' and names no watersheds, drainages, sensitive species habitats, or proximity to water sources. Without this information, the public cannot assess impacts to water quality, wildlife corridors, or cultural resources during the comment period. The agency should release a project map and resource overview before the comment deadline so the public can submit meaningful comments.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice identifies the Lead Management Unit as the Bridgeport Ranger District but provides a contact address in Bridgeport, California, while the project is located in Mineral County, Nevada.
The notice identifies the Lead Management Unit as the Bridgeport Ranger District but provides a contact address in Bridgeport, California, while the project is located in Mineral County, Nevada. No cooperating agencies, no state agency partners, and no county involvement are mentioned. For a 250-acre disturbance project in Nevada, the agency should disclose whether Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of Wildlife, or Mineral County have been invited as cooperating agencies in the EA.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states the project proposes 'approximately 266 drill sites' in the first phase and 'up to 334 additional drill sites' in subsequent phases, but provides no analysis, timeline, triggers, or
The notice states the project proposes 'approximately 266 drill sites' in the first phase and 'up to 334 additional drill sites' in subsequent phases, but provides no analysis, timeline, triggers, or decision criteria for those subsequent phases. Treating phases separately can artificially shrink the apparent footprint to avoid an EIS, a classic improper segmentation problem under NEPA. The agency should explain in the EA how it will ensure the subsequent 334 sites are analyzed as a connected action rather than deferred to avoid cumulative-impact review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice caps total disturbance at '250 acres on NFS lands' but gives no basis for how that ceiling was calculated, whether it includes access roads and staging areas, or whether the subsequent 334
The notice caps total disturbance at '250 acres on NFS lands' but gives no basis for how that ceiling was calculated, whether it includes access roads and staging areas, or whether the subsequent 334 sites are included within that figure. If the cap covers only the first phase, the real footprint could be far larger. The agency should clarify in the EA exactly what activities and infrastructure are counted toward the 250-acre limit and whether subsequent phases are inside or outside that cap.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice names no tribes, lists no consultation status, and provides no information about cultural resources or sacred sites in the project area, despite the project being located in Nevada on Humbo
The notice names no tribes, lists no consultation status, and provides no information about cultural resources or sacred sites in the project area, despite the project being located in Nevada on Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands with documented Indigenous presence in the region. The agency should disclose the status of government-to-government consultation and any Section 106 undertaking review before the EA is released for comment.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksIt’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .