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 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 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.
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
Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.
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.
AskExplain the specific authority that makes this project non-discretionary, and list which parts of the operation, such as location, timing, erosion control and reclamation, the Forest Service can still set conditions on.
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.
AskDisclose trench number, size and depth, access routes, distance to streams, and reclamation plans, and show how the project was screened for listed species, cultural sites and water quality before relying on a categorical exclusion.
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
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The notice identifies the NEPA Start Date as 9/22/2026 and the Expected Decision Date as 3/2027, a window of roughly five months for a CE covering 222 cubic yards of excavation. No comment period end date, no scoping period, and no public notice publication date in the Federal Register or a local newspaper of record is identified anywhere in the notice. Without a defined comment window, the public cannot know when participation closes. The agency should publish a formal comment period with a specific open and close date.
- The notice states the excavation volume is 'approximately 222 cubic yards' but provides no information about where spoils will be placed, how disturbed ground will be reclaimed, or what happens to excavated material after sampling. For a project in a named mining claim in Josephine County -- a county that includes Wild and Scenic River corridors and sensitive aquatic habitat -- these omissions are material to any NEPA threshold determination. The agency should disclose spoil placement plans, reclamation requirements, and bonding or financial assurance in the project record before a decision is made.
- The notice gives only a township-range-section legal description for the project location and does not disclose proximity to any waterway, Wild and Scenic River corridor, wetland, or other sensitive resource. The Wild Rivers Ranger District, which is the lead management unit, administers lands adjacent to the Wild and Scenic Illinois River and Rogue River. Without disclosing whether the site is within or adjacent to these corridors, the public cannot evaluate whether the CE is appropriate or whether the project triggers the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's non-degradation standard. The agency should disclose the site's relationship to all designated or sensitive resource areas before the decision.
- The notice identifies no tribal consultation record, no reference to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and no cultural resource survey status, despite the fact that the project involves ground-disturbing excavation of 222 cubic yards in an area administered by the Wild Rivers Ranger District, which has documented tribal cultural affiliations. The agency must complete and disclose Section 106 consultation and any cultural resource inventory findings before issuing a CE decision, not after.
Show all 8 points from the document
- The notice names a single contact, Scott Blower of the Wild Rivers Ranger District, but does not indicate whether he is the responsible official, the project leader, or the NEPA coordinator, and does not name the deciding officer. For a project where the public may wish to object under 36 CFR Part 218, knowing the identity of the responsible official is procedurally necessary. The agency should identify the responsible official by title and name in the project notice.
- The notice lists no project documents in the record as of the notice date of 9/22/2026, directing users instead to a third-party platform (Pinyon Public) and a Box widget. There is no operations plan, no Plan of Operations, no biological evaluation, and no hydrologic assessment listed or linked. A CE determination requires a documented record; relying on an undisclosed third-party document repository with no listed documents does not constitute an adequate public record at NEPA initiation. The agency should post all foundational project documents -- including the Plan of Operations -- directly in the federal project record.
- 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.
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 identifies the NEPA Start Date as 9/22/2026 and the Expected Decision Date as 3/2027, a window of roughly five months for a CE covering 222 cubic yards of excavation.
The notice identifies the NEPA Start Date as 9/22/2026 and the Expected Decision Date as 3/2027, a window of roughly five months for a CE covering 222 cubic yards of excavation. No comment period end date, no scoping period, and no public notice publication date in the Federal Register or a local newspaper of record is identified anywhere in the notice. Without a defined comment window, the public cannot know when participation closes. The agency should publish a formal comment period with a specific open and close date.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states the excavation volume is 'approximately 222 cubic yards' but provides no information about where spoils will be placed, how disturbed ground will be reclaimed, or what happens to exc
The notice states the excavation volume is 'approximately 222 cubic yards' but provides no information about where spoils will be placed, how disturbed ground will be reclaimed, or what happens to excavated material after sampling. For a project in a named mining claim in Josephine County -- a county that includes Wild and Scenic River corridors and sensitive aquatic habitat -- these omissions are material to any NEPA threshold determination. The agency should disclose spoil placement plans, reclamation requirements, and bonding or financial assurance in the project record before a decision is made.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice gives only a township-range-section legal description for the project location and does not disclose proximity to any waterway, Wild and Scenic River corridor, wetland, or other sensitive r
The notice gives only a township-range-section legal description for the project location and does not disclose proximity to any waterway, Wild and Scenic River corridor, wetland, or other sensitive resource. The Wild Rivers Ranger District, which is the lead management unit, administers lands adjacent to the Wild and Scenic Illinois River and Rogue River. Without disclosing whether the site is within or adjacent to these corridors, the public cannot evaluate whether the CE is appropriate or whether the project triggers the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's non-degradation standard. The agency should disclose the site's relationship to all designated or sensitive resource areas before the decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice identifies no tribal consultation record, no reference to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and no cultural resource survey status, despite the fact that the project in
The notice identifies no tribal consultation record, no reference to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and no cultural resource survey status, despite the fact that the project involves ground-disturbing excavation of 222 cubic yards in an area administered by the Wild Rivers Ranger District, which has documented tribal cultural affiliations. The agency must complete and disclose Section 106 consultation and any cultural resource inventory findings before issuing a CE decision, not after.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice names a single contact, Scott Blower of the Wild Rivers Ranger District, but does not indicate whether he is the responsible official, the project leader, or the NEPA coordinator, and does
The notice names a single contact, Scott Blower of the Wild Rivers Ranger District, but does not indicate whether he is the responsible official, the project leader, or the NEPA coordinator, and does not name the deciding officer. For a project where the public may wish to object under 36 CFR Part 218, knowing the identity of the responsible official is procedurally necessary. The agency should identify the responsible official by title and name in the project notice.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice lists no project documents in the record as of the notice date of 9/22/2026, directing users instead to a third-party platform (Pinyon Public) and a Box widget.
The notice lists no project documents in the record as of the notice date of 9/22/2026, directing users instead to a third-party platform (Pinyon Public) and a Box widget. There is no operations plan, no Plan of Operations, no biological evaluation, and no hydrologic assessment listed or linked. A CE determination requires a documented record; relying on an undisclosed third-party document repository with no listed documents does not constitute an adequate public record at NEPA initiation. The agency should post all foundational project documents -- including the Plan of Operations -- directly in the federal project record.
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? .