Comments closed October 6
Anunnaki Mining Claim bulk sampling on Illinois River uplands
U.S. Forest Service · Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District
- What
- The Forest Service would allow excavation of roughly 225 cubic yards on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
- Where
- Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District, CA, OR
- How much
- Expected excavation volume: approximately 222 cubic yards. Project footprint, Josephine County, Oregon: W½ NE¼ NW¼ of Section 19, T38S R8W WM.
- Decided
- Comments closed October 6, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from Forest Service CARA comment page ↗, read October 29, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Forest Service project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
- approximately 222 cubic yards“with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material” Project Summary Open the document ↗
- W½ NE¼ NW¼ of Section 19, T38S R8W WM“Josephine County, Oregon in the W½ of the NE¼ of the NW¼ of Section 19, Township 38 South, Range 8 West, Willamette Meridian” Project Overview Open the document ↗
- DecidedOctober 6, 2026, from Forest Service CARA comment page, the notice text ↗: “requested through 10/6/2026 11:59:59 PM (Pacific Standard Time)”. Read October 29, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 12, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
Affects public lands
The Forest Service would allow excavation of roughly 225 cubic yards on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
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
Project Summary
Open the document ↗“with an expected excavation volume of approximately 222 cubic yards of material”
- Project footprint, Josephine County, Oregon
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”
Source: the agency’s document ↗
Testing the agency’s case
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 2
- Not backed 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
AuthorityNot backed yetThe 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
EffectsNot backed yetTrenching 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
How this was read
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.
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.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Forest and peaks of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon (Forest Service photo). More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
One court case is over Rogue River National Forest and Siskiyou National Forest. The newest is first.
Docket closed · no date on file
Siskiyou Regional Education Project v. Rose
The court closed the docket. We don’t hold its entries yet.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
On the record for this fight
2 people told us they filed on this fight through PLAN; we haven’t found any of their letters on the agency’s record yet.
- Emily, California35 seals
- and 1 more steward
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
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper for 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.