A proposal to blast an open-pit quarry down roughly 1,600 feet across 420 acres of Lone Pine Canyon, about four miles outside Wrightwood, has residents organizing against a mining claim that traces back nearly a century. The fight centers on a 2019 decision by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission that granted the project so-called vested rights, exempting it from a comprehensive environmental review and from needing a new land-use permit.
A Mining Claim Revived From the 1920s
Cajon Lime built a small plant on the property in the 1920s, and Michael P. Hannin acquired the quarry in 1931, according to the Los Angeles Times. Hannin's descendants applied for vested mining rights in 2018, saying the family had intended to mine before California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act took effect in 1976. The California Department of Conservation identifies the law as the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
A county geologist initially found that mining had gone dormant before 1976 and recommended the vested-rights application be denied, per the same Los Angeles Times account, but the Planning Commission ordered him to revise his findings. The commission ultimately voted 3 to 2 to grant vested rights after two 2019 hearings that drew just one member of the public speaking out, the report notes. Neil McCarroll told the paper his family had invested many millions of dollars in the mine, while Shane Brickley testified in support of the project because he hoped it would create jobs.
New Ownership, Century-Long Timeline
The quarry's owners sold the property in 2023 to Grand Lone Pine Canyon Enterprises LLC, a West Covina company whose members include Treiss International Corp., a firm incorporated in Taipei, Taiwan, in 1985 that supplies equipment to China's cold rolling and non-ferrous metal industries, according to a company-profile presentation on Prezi. California Carbonates Inc. is slated to conduct the actual mining, targeting ultra-high purity calcium carbonate, according to project documents filed with CEQAnet. Those documents indicate active mining could extend until at least 2175. Michael Dickens declined to comment on the project when contacted by the Los Angeles Times but said he plans to speak publicly about it in October.
Residents Organize as Petition Tops 7,600 Signatures
Wrightwood, a community of about 5,067 residents, has residents concerned about evacuation routes, making the quarry proposal especially alarming. The Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance formed among Wrightwood residents to fight the project, with Lyndsey Falb serving as vice president, Jennifer Unibe as secretary, and Melissa Manning as a board member, per the Los Angeles Times report. At a September 1 meeting, the group presented thousands of petition signatures opposing the quarry to the Wrightwood Community Services District, according to Citizen Portal, though district directors confirmed on the record that no formal proposal had actually been submitted to their board. The opposition petition has since grown to more than 7,600 signatures, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Concern reached beyond Wrightwood's borders in April, when Wrightwood Fire Safe Council President Jim Emery invited county officials to brief community members on the quarry at a meeting that drew standing-room-only attendance. Officials have since weighed in: Judy Chu, a U.S. representative, Suzette Martinez Valladares, a state senator, and Ryan Holman, a school district superintendent, each sent letters to the county calling for more scrutiny of the project, according to the Los Angeles Times account. The county, for its part, notified only three property owners within 1,300 feet of the proposed quarry when the reclamation plan review began moving forward.
Wildfire Memories Fuel Evacuation Fears
The September 2024 Bridge Fire burned 56,030 acres across Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties and destroyed homes, according to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. That disaster looms large over residents' fears that quarry traffic and blasting could clog Lone Pine Canyon Road exactly when families need it most to flee. Wrightwood residents worry the mine could also create toxic dust and pollute the water table, compounding the evacuation concerns, per the Los Angeles Times.
Wildlife Corridor and Regulatory Gaps
In a 25-page comment letter dated May 5, 2026, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife cautioned that the quarry site sits within a critical wildlife corridor connecting the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges, posing risks to golden eagles, desert bighorn sheep, and bumblebees, according to the letter filed with CEQAnet. State wildlife officials found that San Bernardino County had failed to provide evidence that the reclamation plan would not substantially interfere with animal movement through the corridor, the Los Angeles Times reports. The proposed site has also raised concerns about its proximity to the Pacific Crest Trail and potential water impacts.
Prior to a Planning Commission hearing originally scheduled for August 6, San Bernardino County Land Use Services had received more than 500 formal public comments on the reclamation plan, according to Citizen Portal. County officials had proposed an abbreviated reclamation-plan review rather than reopening the underlying vested-rights question, since the quarry must still clear that review before mining can end. The quarry owner requested a postponement of the August 6 hearing, and no new review date has been set.
A Legal Challenge Faces a Ticking Clock
The Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance and three residents filed a court petition in July seeking reconsideration of the 2019 vested-rights decision, arguing that mining had not occurred on the property for years before 1976. The case centers on the challenge to that approval.
The quarry's roots stretch back a century. Mining in the canyon ceased around the 1960s and sat dormant for decades before the current legal fight revived it. For residents watching a potential 150-year mining timeline unfold above their only backup escape road, the outcome of the pending court case may matter as much as any single hearing before the Planning Commission.
