Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Community groups urge Mono County to ask Forest Service for Hot Creek protections amid renewed mining proposal
Loading...
Summary
Speakers at the March 17 Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting asked the board to write to the U.S. Forest Service and press for hydrological review and independent water monitoring after CORE Mining resubmitted an exploratory drilling proposal for Hot Creek, citing risks to trout habitat, groundwater and the local tourism economy.
Emily Markstein, campaign organizer for No Hot Creek Mine, told the Mono County Board of Supervisors on March 17 that CORE Mining had resubmitted a proposal nearly identical to a 2021 exploratory drilling plan for gold at Hot Creek and that the U.S. Forest Service will release a notice about the project in April. She asked the board to contact the Forest Service and seek protections for Hot Creek, including a thorough hydrological analysis and a condition requiring the project proponent to fund installation and maintenance of water‑quality and flow monitoring equipment with third‑party data review available to agencies, tribes and the public.
Why it matters: Hot Creek supplies water, supports a well‑known trout fishery and feeds into the Owens River. Markstein said any impacts to Hot Creek’s hydrology could harm local species and the Mono County tourism economy that depends on recreation and fisheries.
Lynn Bolton, conservation chair for the Ranger Light Group (a Sierra Club chapter), provided technical context from the 2021 plan. Bolton said the earlier proposal included 12 drill pads across four locations near the Hot Creek Fly Fishing Ranch and that a 2021 hydrological assessment concluded the area is a single hot‑water aquifer rather than separate cold and hot layers. She highlighted geological features (the Hilton Fault and the Resurgent Dome), noted the presence of candidate bi‑state sage grouse and mule deer concentrations, and questioned prior cultural‑resource and acoustic studies as incomplete or narrowly focused.
Board reaction and next steps: Supervisors listened and did not take formal action during the meeting. Markstein explicitly requested that the county submit a letter to the Forest Service asking for (1) a pre‑drilling hydrological analysis of the aquifers under the proposed project area and (2) a requirement that the proponent pay for water‑quality and flow monitoring and third‑party analysis shared with agencies and the public. The board did not indicate a vote on that request during the public‑comment period; any staff follow‑up or formal letter would be a separate action.
What’s next: The Forest Service’s notice in April will determine whether the project proceeds as a categorical exclusion or requires an environmental assessment with a public‑comment period. Markstein said the latter could provide roughly 10 days for public comment if an EA is issued.
