Stop limestone quarrying on Humboldt County public lands
Notice of Intent To Amend the Winnemucca District Resource Management Plan for the Western Quarry Limestone Project, Humboldt County, Nevada and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment
Bureau of Land Management· Winnemucca DistrictFederal Register 2026-19769 ↗
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Nevada
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Nevada, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- American Wild Horse Conservation
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: they work only in Nevada.
- Center for Biological Diversity
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: sued the Bureau of Land Management in March 2024 over its failure to complete the overdue management plan for Basin and Range National Monument.
- Friends of Nevada Wilderness
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: campaigned for the 2015 designation and petitioned Nevada's governor and senators to remove Basin and Range from the federal monument review.
- Tahoe Rim Trail Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: nevada is one of the 2 states they work in.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
BLM may rewrite its land management plan to allow a limestone quarry on Nevada public lands.
What’s at risk
Public lands in the Winnemucca District face potential impacts to local ecosystems and hydrology from an open limestone quarry operation. The agency is amending its own Resource Management Plan specifically to accommodate this project.
If this goes through
If the plan amendment is approved, BLM would authorize the Western Quarry Limestone Project on federal land, reshaping how that land is managed to suit industrial extraction.
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
- Surface disturbance proposed
- approximately 474 acres
- VRM Class II acres downgraded to Class III
- 872.5 acres
- Total project life
- approximately 43 years
- Currently authorized disturbance at this site
- up to 3.89 acres
- Jobs claimed: part-time and full-time
- 78 part-time, 16 full-time
Preliminary Alternatives
Open the document ↗“of which approximately 474 acres of surface disturbance would occur”
Preliminary Alternatives
Open the document ↗“the BLM would change the visual management classification of 872.5 acres from VRM Class II to VRM Class III”
Preliminary Alternatives
Open the document ↗“The life of the proposed action is approximately 43 years and includes approximately six months for construction, 40 years for operation, and two years for reclamation”
Preliminary Alternatives
Open the document ↗“Exploration activities could continue under an existing Notice that allows for up to 3.89 acres of disturbance”
Preliminary Alternatives
Open the document ↗“Mine operations would employ 78 people part-time and 16 full-time”
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 BLM proposes to approve Lithium Nevada LLC's new limestone quarry on approximately 874 acres of public land in Humboldt County, Nevada. To do that, it would amend the 2015 Winnemucca District resource management plan and change 872.5 acres from Visual Resource Management Class II to Class III so the quarry would conform with the plan.
“The preliminary purpose and need also includes an amendment to the 2015 Winnemucca District RMP to adjust the Visual Resource Management Class II unit that contains the proposed project in order to respond to the proponent's Mining and Reclamation Plan.”
Purpose and Need
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.
Purpose and need
No support given yet
The quarry can't conform to the 2015 Winnemucca District resource management plan unless its land is changed from Visual Resource Management Class II to Class III.
The Preliminary Alternatives section says the project boundary overlaps 872.3 acres of Class II land and that conformance requires an amendment. The notice doesn't state the Class II objectives or show how a quarry with approximately 474 acres of disturbance would fail them. It also proposes changing 872.5 acres from Class II, slightly more than the 872.3 acres it lists as Class II.
AskState the Class II objectives, explain how the quarry would fail them, look at keeping Class II on land outside the disturbance footprint, and reconcile the 872.3 and 872.5 acre figures.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“This proposed change would require an RMP amendment to modify the direction established in the 2015 Winnemucca District RMP, adjust the VRM classifications, meet VRM objectives, and ensure that the Western Quarry Limestone Project is in conformance with the RMP.”
Preliminary Alternatives
Elsewhere in the same document
“Currently, the project boundary overlaps 872.3 acres of VRM Class II and 0.9 acres of VRM Class III adjacent to State Route 140.”
Preliminary Alternatives
Authority
No support given yet
The BLM's duties under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Interior regulations create the need to act on this quarry proposal.
The Purpose and Need section ties the need to specific legal sources: Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Interior's NEPA regulations and the 43 CFR 3600 regulations. It also cites the land use planning regulations at 43 CFR 1600 for the plan amendment. The Summary cites both NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. For a notice that starts scoping, naming the governing statute and regulations is adequate support for the agency's statement of need.
AskExplain what the cited authorities require of the BLM for this quarry, and how they apply to both the mining approval and the visual classification change.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“The need for this action is established by BLM's responsibility under Section 302 of the FLPMA and in compliance with U.S. Department of the Interior NEPA regulations, 43 CFR 3600 regulations, and other applicable federal and state laws and policies.”
Purpose and Need
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 SUMMARY section commits to an Environmental Assessment rather than an Environmental Impact Statement for a 474-acre open-pit mine with a 43-year life that also requires amending the existing RMP. An EA is a screening tool to determine whether an EIS is needed, not a substitute when significant impacts are apparent on the face of the proposal. The notice provides no written significance determination explaining why 474 acres of surface disturbance over 40 years of operations does not constitute a significant federal action. The agency should prepare a full EIS or publish a detailed written significance finding explaining why the project's scale, duration, and required RMP amendment do not individually or cumulatively require one.
- The Purpose and Need section defines the BLM's purpose as responding to a private company's Mining and Reclamation Plan. Defining purpose around an applicant's business plan improperly forecloses the range of alternatives the agency must consider, because every alternative is then evaluated by how well it satisfies the proponent rather than whether it serves a public land management need. The agency should rewrite the purpose and need around an independent public land management objective so that the alternatives analysis is not artificially constrained to options that satisfy Lithium Nevada LLC.
- The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section states that evaluating or designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern is outside the scope of this planning process with no legal justification stated. FLPMA Section 202 requires BLM to give priority consideration to ACECs when developing or amending an RMP. Excluding that statutory analysis from a plan amendment covering 874 acres of public land without citing any legal authority for the exclusion is facially inconsistent with FLPMA's mandate. The agency should explain the specific legal authority it relies on to exclude ACEC evaluation from this RMP amendment.
- The Purpose and Need section states the VRM Class II to Class III reclassification of 872.5 acres is needed to respond to the proponent's Mining and Reclamation Plan. VRM classifications are public-land visual protection standards established through prior planning. Amending a visual protection standard because a private project requires it, rather than because an independent analysis shows the land's visual values have changed, subordinates a public resource to a private applicant's needs. The agency should provide an independent analysis showing why the visual resource values of these 872.5 acres merit a lower classification separate from the project's requirements.
Show every point from the document
- The Preliminary Alternatives section establishes that the existing authorized disturbance at this site is capped at 3.89 acres under a prior Notice. The proposed action would create 474 acres of surface disturbance, more than 120 times the currently authorized footprint. The notice does not acknowledge this scale difference or provide any analysis of why a more-than-120-fold increase in ground disturbance does not meet NEPA's criteria for significance. The agency should publish a written threshold-of-significance determination that directly addresses this scale change before proceeding with an EA.
- The Planning Criteria section states the BLM has identified three preliminary issues for this planning effort's analysis but does not name them anywhere in the Federal Register notice. For a 874-acre, 43-year project adjacent to a state highway, the public cannot evaluate whether three issues are sufficient or whether important topics such as water resources, threatened species habitat, rangeland, or cultural resources have been omitted from the analytical framework. The agency should publish the three preliminary issues so the public can comment on whether the scope is complete before the scoping period closes.
- The Public Scoping Process section states the BLM will hold one public scoping meeting and will announce the date only 15 days in advance. The scoping period closes October 28, 2026, 30 days from publication. If the meeting date is announced with just 15 days notice, written comments could be due as few as 15 days after the public first learns the meeting exists. One meeting with minimal advance notice is inadequate public participation for a 43-year, 474-acre project requiring an RMP amendment. The agency should hold multiple scoping meetings, announce dates now, and extend the comment period.
- The Additional Information section states tribal consultation will occur but provides no information about which Tribal Nations have been or will be contacted, what cultural resources may exist within the 874-acre project area, or what early tribal engagement found. The Planning Criteria section notes early engagement was conducted with Tribes but describes no outcomes. Without this information, neither the public nor affected Tribes can evaluate whether tribal concerns are reflected in the three unnamed preliminary issues or whether Section 106 consultation is on track. The agency should disclose which Tribal Nations have been contacted, what concerns they have raised, and the current status of Section 106 consultation.
- 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
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Director intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Western Quarry Limestone Project and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments and identify issues, is providing the planning criteria for public review.
Did the agency answer?
8 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 Purpose and Need section states the VRM Class II to Class III reclassification of 872.5 acres is needed to respond to the proponent's Mining and Reclamation Plan.
The Purpose and Need section states the VRM Class II to Class III reclassification of 872.5 acres is needed to respond to the proponent's Mining and Reclamation Plan. VRM classifications are public-land visual protection standards established through prior planning. Amending a visual protection standard because a private project requires it, rather than because an independent analysis shows the land's visual values have changed, subordinates a public resource to a private applicant's needs. The agency should provide an independent analysis showing why the visual resource values of these 872.5 acres merit a lower classification separate from the project's requirements.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Purpose and Need section defines the BLM's purpose as responding to a private company's Mining and Reclamation Plan.
The Purpose and Need section defines the BLM's purpose as responding to a private company's Mining and Reclamation Plan. Defining purpose around an applicant's business plan improperly forecloses the range of alternatives the agency must consider, because every alternative is then evaluated by how well it satisfies the proponent rather than whether it serves a public land management need. The agency should rewrite the purpose and need around an independent public land management objective so that the alternatives analysis is not artificially constrained to options that satisfy Lithium Nevada LLC.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Public Scoping Process section states the BLM will hold one public scoping meeting and will announce the date only 15 days in advance.
The Public Scoping Process section states the BLM will hold one public scoping meeting and will announce the date only 15 days in advance. The scoping period closes October 28, 2026, 30 days from publication. If the meeting date is announced with just 15 days notice, written comments could be due as few as 15 days after the public first learns the meeting exists. One meeting with minimal advance notice is inadequate public participation for a 43-year, 474-acre project requiring an RMP amendment. The agency should hold multiple scoping meetings, announce dates now, and extend the comment period.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Planning Criteria section states the BLM has identified three preliminary issues for this planning effort's analysis but does not name them anywhere in the Federal Register notice.
The Planning Criteria section states the BLM has identified three preliminary issues for this planning effort's analysis but does not name them anywhere in the Federal Register notice. For a 874-acre, 43-year project adjacent to a state highway, the public cannot evaluate whether three issues are sufficient or whether important topics such as water resources, threatened species habitat, rangeland, or cultural resources have been omitted from the analytical framework. The agency should publish the three preliminary issues so the public can comment on whether the scope is complete before the scoping period closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section states that evaluating or designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern is outside the scope of this planning process with no legal justification stated.
The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section states that evaluating or designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern is outside the scope of this planning process with no legal justification stated. FLPMA Section 202 requires BLM to give priority consideration to ACECs when developing or amending an RMP. Excluding that statutory analysis from a plan amendment covering 874 acres of public land without citing any legal authority for the exclusion is facially inconsistent with FLPMA's mandate. The agency should explain the specific legal authority it relies on to exclude ACEC evaluation from this RMP amendment.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Preliminary Alternatives section establishes that the existing authorized disturbance at this site is capped at 3.89 acres under a prior Notice.
The Preliminary Alternatives section establishes that the existing authorized disturbance at this site is capped at 3.89 acres under a prior Notice. The proposed action would create 474 acres of surface disturbance, more than 120 times the currently authorized footprint. The notice does not acknowledge this scale difference or provide any analysis of why a more-than-120-fold increase in ground disturbance does not meet NEPA's criteria for significance. The agency should publish a written threshold-of-significance determination that directly addresses this scale change before proceeding with an EA.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Additional Information section states tribal consultation will occur but provides no information about which Tribal Nations have been or will be contacted, what cultural resources may exist within
The Additional Information section states tribal consultation will occur but provides no information about which Tribal Nations have been or will be contacted, what cultural resources may exist within the 874-acre project area, or what early tribal engagement found. The Planning Criteria section notes early engagement was conducted with Tribes but describes no outcomes. Without this information, neither the public nor affected Tribes can evaluate whether tribal concerns are reflected in the three unnamed preliminary issues or whether Section 106 consultation is on track. The agency should disclose which Tribal Nations have been contacted, what concerns they have raised, and the current status of Section 106 consultation.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe SUMMARY section commits to an Environmental Assessment rather than an Environmental Impact Statement for a 474-acre open-pit mine with a 43-year life that also requires amending the existing RMP.
The SUMMARY section commits to an Environmental Assessment rather than an Environmental Impact Statement for a 474-acre open-pit mine with a 43-year life that also requires amending the existing RMP. An EA is a screening tool to determine whether an EIS is needed, not a substitute when significant impacts are apparent on the face of the proposal. The notice provides no written significance determination explaining why 474 acres of surface disturbance over 40 years of operations does not constitute a significant federal action. The agency should prepare a full EIS or publish a detailed written significance finding explaining why the project's scale, duration, and required RMP amendment do not individually or cumulatively require one.
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? .