Anunnaki Mining Claim bulk sampling on Illinois River uplands
Anunnaki Mining Claim Bulk Sampling
U.S. Forest Service· Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers 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 predicted likely to care in California and Oregon
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in California and Oregon, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- California Wilderness Coalition
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works California: spent years building the designation campaign with Tribal nations and now defends the monument as an intervenor in federal court.
- Cascadia Wildlands
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Oregon: plaintiff in the January 2026 suit against the Roseburg BLM plan to log nearly 7,000 acres near Camas Valley.
- Los Padres ForestWatch
Predicted likely to care · a guess
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.
- Oregon Wild
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Oregon: its attorneys, with Cascadia Wildlands and Crag Law Center, represent the groups challenging BLM's Blue and Gold old-growth logging project in the Coast Range.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service would allow excavation of roughly 225 cubic yards on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
What’s at risk
Historic tailings areas near the Illinois River on the Wild Rivers Ranger District would be disturbed by trench excavation and mechanical processing. The agency is pursuing a categorical exclusion, which limits environmental review.
If this goes through
A mini-excavator and portable trommel would dig and process alluvial material in the upland tailings area, advancing a potential mining operation on Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest land.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Expected excavation volume
- approximately 222 cubic yards
- Project footprint, Josephine County, Oregon
- W½ NE¼ NW¼ of Section 19, T38S R8W WM
Project Summary
Open the document ↗“with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material”
Project Overview
Open the document ↗“Josephine County, Oregon in the W½ of the NE¼ of the NW¼ of Section 19, Township 38 South, Range 8 West, Willamette Meridian”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.
The agency’s case, tested
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 2
- No support given yet
The Forest Service plans to let a claimant dig trenches with a mini-excavator to take bulk samples, about 222 cubic yards of material, from the Anunnaki Mining Claim in Josephine County, Oregon. The notice says the project isn't discretionary and expects to handle it with a categorical exclusion.
“This project will conduct bulk sampling on the Anunnaki Mining Claim, with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material.”
Anunnaki Mining Claim Bulk Sampling
Authority
No support given yet
The Forest Service has no discretion over whether this bulk sampling on the mining claim goes forward.
The notice states flatly that the project isn't discretionary. It doesn't name the law or rule behind that, explain what the agency can or can't control (such as trench location, timing or reclamation), or say why a decision is still expected in March 2027 if there's nothing to decide.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“Sampling will be conducted using a mini-excavator to excavate trenches. This project is not discretionary.”
Anunnaki Mining Claim Bulk Sampling
Effects
No support given yet
Trenching roughly 222 cubic yards with a mini-excavator is small enough to go ahead under a categorical exclusion without an environmental assessment.
The notice gives an approximate excavation volume of 222 cubic yards, says the work will use a mini-excavator to dig trenches, gives a legal land description, and lists the expected analysis as a Forest Service categorical exclusion. It also shows the project status as "Developing Proposal," with a NEPA start date of 9/22/2026, and points to project documents kept elsewhere that aren't part of this text. Within this text, though, there's no acreage, number or depth of trenches, access routes, distance to streams, reclamation plan, or review of wildlife, water or cultural sites showing the work fits that category.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“This project will conduct bulk sampling on the Anunnaki Mining Claim, with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material.”
Anunnaki Mining Claim Bulk Sampling
Read from the agency’s own notice ↗, the notice that opens this window; the full analysis comes later, so what it leaves unsupported is what to ask it to show. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
What to say
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 declares the project is not discretionary but cites no statute, regulation, or legal authority for that characterization. Without a stated legal basis, the public cannot evaluate whether that framing reduces the agency's NEPA obligations or forecloses higher-level review. In Project Summary, the agency should identify the specific legal authority for the non-discretionary determination and explain how it affects the extraordinary circumstances screening required before any CE can be applied.
- The notice selects Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS for an operation involving 222 cubic yards of trenching excavation but provides no extraordinary circumstances checklist and no disclosure of screening for water quality, threatened or endangered species, cultural resources, or other factors that would require a higher level of review. In Project Overview, the agency should publish its extraordinary circumstances analysis and explain why none apply to this scale of ground disturbance, or prepare an Environmental Assessment instead.
- The notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material by mini-excavator in the Wild Rivers Ranger District with no information about proximity to streams, springs, or other water bodies, and no evaluation of potential sedimentation, turbidity, or downstream water quality effects. Before selecting a NEPA pathway, the agency should disclose in Project Summary whether any waterways fall within or adjacent to the project footprint and analyze potential effects on water quality and downstream users.
- The notice describes ground-disturbing trenching at a specific legal description in Josephine County with no mention of government-to-government tribal consultation, cultural resource survey, or National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance. The project footprint is presented only as a land survey description with no disclosure of cultural sensitivity screening or prior consultation contacts. In Project Overview, the agency should identify which tribes were or will be consulted, disclose the status of any cultural resource inventory, and complete required consultation before finalizing the NEPA pathway.
Show every point from the document
- The notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material and trench construction with no disclosure of how excavated spoil will be managed, how trenches will be reclaimed, or whether financial assurance has been required. Without a reclamation plan and bonding requirement in the public record, there is no basis to evaluate whether the site can be restored to pre-disturbance condition. In Project Summary, the agency should publish its reclamation requirements and confirm that adequate financial assurance is secured before any ground disturbance is authorized.
- The notice covers only the bulk sampling phase and is entirely silent on what mining activities would be authorized or anticipated if sampling returns a positive result. Connected actions and reasonably foreseeable future phases must be analyzed together rather than segmented across separate NEPA documents. In Project Summary, the agency should disclose whether any subsequent extraction, road construction, or further development is anticipated and, if so, analyze those connected actions in this same document rather than deferring them to a separate future NEPA review.
- 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
This project will conduct bulk sampling on the Anunnaki Mining Claim, with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material. Sampling will be conducted using a mini-excavator to excavate trenches. This project is not discretionary.
On the record for this fight
1 person has filed on this fight through PLAN. The official record is still catching up.
- Emily, California32 seals
Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards
Did the agency answer?
6 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 declares the project is not discretionary but cites no statute, regulation, or legal authority for that characterization.
The notice declares the project is not discretionary but cites no statute, regulation, or legal authority for that characterization. Without a stated legal basis, the public cannot evaluate whether that framing reduces the agency's NEPA obligations or forecloses higher-level review. In Project Summary, the agency should identify the specific legal authority for the non-discretionary determination and explain how it affects the extraordinary circumstances screening required before any CE can be applied.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice selects Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS for an operation involving 222 cubic yards of trenching excavation but provides no extraordinary circumstances checklist and no disclosure of scr
The notice selects Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS for an operation involving 222 cubic yards of trenching excavation but provides no extraordinary circumstances checklist and no disclosure of screening for water quality, threatened or endangered species, cultural resources, or other factors that would require a higher level of review. In Project Overview, the agency should publish its extraordinary circumstances analysis and explain why none apply to this scale of ground disturbance, or prepare an Environmental Assessment instead.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material by mini-excavator in the Wild Rivers Ranger District with no information about proximity to streams, springs, or other water bodies, and
The notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material by mini-excavator in the Wild Rivers Ranger District with no information about proximity to streams, springs, or other water bodies, and no evaluation of potential sedimentation, turbidity, or downstream water quality effects. Before selecting a NEPA pathway, the agency should disclose in Project Summary whether any waterways fall within or adjacent to the project footprint and analyze potential effects on water quality and downstream users.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice describes ground-disturbing trenching at a specific legal description in Josephine County with no mention of government-to-government tribal consultation, cultural resource survey, or Natio
The notice describes ground-disturbing trenching at a specific legal description in Josephine County with no mention of government-to-government tribal consultation, cultural resource survey, or National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance. The project footprint is presented only as a land survey description with no disclosure of cultural sensitivity screening or prior consultation contacts. In Project Overview, the agency should identify which tribes were or will be consulted, disclose the status of any cultural resource inventory, and complete required consultation before finalizing the NEPA pathway.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material and trench construction with no disclosure of how excavated spoil will be managed, how trenches will be reclaimed, or whether financial a
The notice describes excavation of 222 cubic yards of material and trench construction with no disclosure of how excavated spoil will be managed, how trenches will be reclaimed, or whether financial assurance has been required. Without a reclamation plan and bonding requirement in the public record, there is no basis to evaluate whether the site can be restored to pre-disturbance condition. In Project Summary, the agency should publish its reclamation requirements and confirm that adequate financial assurance is secured before any ground disturbance is authorized.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice covers only the bulk sampling phase and is entirely silent on what mining activities would be authorized or anticipated if sampling returns a positive result.
The notice covers only the bulk sampling phase and is entirely silent on what mining activities would be authorized or anticipated if sampling returns a positive result. Connected actions and reasonably foreseeable future phases must be analyzed together rather than segmented across separate NEPA documents. In Project Summary, the agency should disclose whether any subsequent extraction, road construction, or further development is anticipated and, if so, analyze those connected actions in this same document rather than deferring them to a separate future NEPA review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAnother foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
It’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? .