Bulk sampling with heavy equipment proposed for Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest
Minerals Research Partners Bulk Sampling
U.S. Forest Service· Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades 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.
A mining company wants to excavate up to 1,000 cubic yards of material from national forest land near Prospect, Oregon.
What’s at risk
National forest land in the High Cascades Ranger District faces ground disturbance from heavy equipment and helicopter operations for private mineral extraction. The agency plans to skip a full environmental review by using a categorical exclusion, limiting public scrutiny of the impacts.
If this goes through
The Forest Service would authorize bulk mineral sampling that disturbs up to 1,000 cubic yards of subsurface material, with minimal environmental review and no requirement to reconsider the project.
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
- Volume of material proposed for bulk sampling
- up to 1,000 cubic yards
Project Summary
Open the document ↗“This non-discretionary project proposes to bulk sample up to 1,000 cubic yards of material.”
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 says it's processing a proposal to bulk sample up to 1,000 cubic yards of mineral material in Douglas County, Oregon, using heavy equipment and helicopters. It calls the project non-discretionary and expects to handle it under a categorical exclusion.
“This non-discretionary project proposes to bulk sample up to 1,000 cubic yards of material. The project will utilize heavy equipment and include use of helicopters to transport materials to the airfield at Prospect, Oregon.”
Minerals Research Partners Bulk Sampling
Authority
No support given yet
The Forest Service treats the bulk sampling project as non-discretionary, meaning it believes it has limited choice over whether the project goes forward.
The notice labels the project non-discretionary and lists its purpose as minerals and geology. It doesn't name the law, claim, permit or rights that would limit the agency's choice, and it doesn't say which parts of the project, such as equipment, helicopter routes or timing, the agency can still shape.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“This non-discretionary project proposes to bulk sample up to 1,000 cubic yards of material.”
Minerals Research Partners Bulk Sampling
Effects
No support given yet
Sampling up to 1,000 cubic yards with heavy equipment and helicopter transport fits a categorical exclusion and doesn't need an environmental assessment.
The Project Overview lists the expected analysis type as a categorical exclusion under category Department of Agriculture-32d-Forest Service. It also lists the current status as Developing Proposal, with the expected decision date as 3/2027 (Estimated), so the analysis may not be finished yet. Still, the notice gives no acreage, access route, number of helicopter flights, water or wildlife information, or reasoning showing that heavy equipment work and helicopter hauling of up to 1,000 cubic yards fit that category without unusual circumstances.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“The project will utilize heavy equipment and include use of helicopters to transport materials to the airfield at Prospect, Oregon.”
Minerals Research Partners 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 designates Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS in 'Project Overview' for a project that, by the agency's own description, uses heavy equipment for ground excavation and helicopters for material transport. No extraordinary circumstances screening is disclosed anywhere in the record: no analysis of threatened or endangered species habitat, no wild and scenic river adjacency review, and no roadless area analysis. Under the agency's own NEPA procedures, a CE is invalid when extraordinary circumstances are present, and the agency hasn't established their absence without disclosing the screening. The agency should publish its extraordinary circumstances analysis or, if any circumstance applies, step up to an Environmental Assessment.
- The opening description in 'Project Summary' calls this a 'non-discretionary project' without citing any statute, regulation, or legal authority. The Forest Service retains authority to require operating plans and impose surface resource conditions on mineral operations under 36 CFR Part 228; that retained authority renders at least some aspects of this decision discretionary. An unexplained non-discretionary label can be used to foreclose or narrow NEPA review without public justification, and the agency has not explained which decisions the label forecloses. The agency should identify the specific legal provision that makes this project non-discretionary and disclose exactly which agency decisions that designation eliminates.
- The 'Project Overview' provides only a township-range-section legal land description with no watershed name, stream name, named geographic feature, or project map. Most members of the public can't translate a township-range-section coordinate to a physical location without specialized tools. Without knowing the watershed or adjacent water bodies, downstream water users, tribal governments with cultural resource interests, and fish and wildlife advocates can't determine whether they have a stake in this decision. The agency should provide a project map and name the watershed, drainage, and any special management areas adjacent to the project footprint.
- 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 non-discretionary project proposes to bulk sample up to 1,000 cubic yards of material. The project will utilize heavy equipment and include use of helicopters to transport materials to the airfield at Prospect, Oregon.
On the record for this fight
3 people have filed on this fight through PLAN. The official record is still catching up.
- Al, California36 seals
- Milton M.39 seals
- 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?
3 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 opening description in 'Project Summary' calls this a 'non-discretionary project' without citing any statute, regulation, or legal authority.
The opening description in 'Project Summary' calls this a 'non-discretionary project' without citing any statute, regulation, or legal authority. The Forest Service retains authority to require operating plans and impose surface resource conditions on mineral operations under 36 CFR Part 228; that retained authority renders at least some aspects of this decision discretionary. An unexplained non-discretionary label can be used to foreclose or narrow NEPA review without public justification, and the agency has not explained which decisions the label forecloses. The agency should identify the specific legal provision that makes this project non-discretionary and disclose exactly which agency decisions that designation eliminates.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice designates Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS in 'Project Overview' for a project that, by the agency's own description, uses heavy equipment for ground excavation and helicopters for mate
The notice designates Categorical Exclusion USDA-32d-USFS in 'Project Overview' for a project that, by the agency's own description, uses heavy equipment for ground excavation and helicopters for material transport. No extraordinary circumstances screening is disclosed anywhere in the record: no analysis of threatened or endangered species habitat, no wild and scenic river adjacency review, and no roadless area analysis. Under the agency's own NEPA procedures, a CE is invalid when extraordinary circumstances are present, and the agency hasn't established their absence without disclosing the screening. The agency should publish its extraordinary circumstances analysis or, if any circumstance applies, step up to an Environmental Assessment.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe 'Project Overview' provides only a township-range-section legal land description with no watershed name, stream name, named geographic feature, or project map.
The 'Project Overview' provides only a township-range-section legal land description with no watershed name, stream name, named geographic feature, or project map. Most members of the public can't translate a township-range-section coordinate to a physical location without specialized tools. Without knowing the watershed or adjacent water bodies, downstream water users, tribal governments with cultural resource interests, and fish and wildlife advocates can't determine whether they have a stake in this decision. The agency should provide a project map and name the watershed, drainage, and any special management areas adjacent to the project footprint.
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? .