Search our Library

The Union spoke with County planners and confirmed the delay. The article includes a great timeline showing where the community has opportunity for comment. And as an aside, explains why the County follows this process rather than putting the project up for a community vote. The countdown for the Idaho-Maryland Mine’s Environmental Impact Report looks similar to the countdown to the pandemic’s end — unclear. Rise Gold, the company interested in reopening the mine and miles of tunnels beneath Grass Valley, purchased the property in 2017. The company’s CEO estimated in May that the draft EIR would be available around September. However, Nevada County’s senior planner for the project, Matt Kelley, expects the draft to take another few months. “It’s taking time to put together,” Kelley said, specifically referring to updates to a number of technical studies needed for the document. “Those took time to write and update. We’re back and forth between the applicant, the county and our consultants.” The EIR, based in the California Environmental Quality Act, functions as a disclosure document, Kelley said. “The CEQA statute and CEQA guidelines lay out the environmental review process,” said Emily Breslin, deputy director of communications and external affairs in the state’s Office of Planning and Research. Kelley said all projects — be it an outhouse or a multi-storied apartment complex — require some form of environmental review by law. The review process ends quickly via categorical exemption for smaller projects, Kelley said, but the larger scale developments require real time to investigate intersecting realms of the community. Read the rest in The Union. Rebecca O’Neil is a staff writer with The Union. She can be reached at roneil@theunion.com

We often get the question "If no mining, then what?" Grass Valley resident Paul Schwarz suggests a plan that enhances our strengths in tourism, recreation, and green industry while also meeting critical community needs for employment, low-income housing, senior services, and emergency preparedness. Read it below, or read it in The Union. There are many development options for the Idaho-Maryland Mine property on Brunswick Road that are better than reopening the mine. Many options are consistent with the Nevada County General Plan and would not require zoning changes, special use permits, or variances that reopening the mine requires. There are many development options that bring synergy to current community development and economic strengths. Reopening the mine does not. There are many options that address community needs, such as low-income housing, employment, carbon reduction and energy efficiency. Reopening the mine does not contribute solutions to any of these community needs. I would like to offer one development plan vision for the 119-acre Idaho-Maryland Mine property. A good plan would contribute to our growing community economic strengths in tourism, recreation, and the green industry. It would also help solve ongoing and chronic challenges in housing, employment, energy efficiency, and carbon reduction. A good plan would offer opportunities to contribute to the needs of our seniors and the challenges facing the government sector. I propose a development that includes five uses for the 119 acres. Two of the uses are currently visible at the mine property. Space would be provided for the senior wood project and the emergency lay-down area for fire equipment staging and PG&E emergency equipment and materials staging. These are two important uses needed to serve our community. Granted, neither of these two generate ongoing revenue to support their presence and the business plan for the redevelopment of the Idaho-Maryland Mine property would need to address this. The third use I propose would be a commercial RV park including electric, water, and waste service at each site. When looking at the RV park industry, you will find a portion of typical parks offer space for long-term residents while reserving the majority of the park for visitors staying less than two weeks. This concept would also increase the inventory of destinations during mandatory fire evacuations. The RV park would add another option for tourists visiting our area. Which leads me to use No. 4: Partner with Empire Mine State Park and the city of Grass Valley to develop a walking and bike trail from Idaho-Maryland Mine to Empire State Park and Memorial Park. The trail could follow Little Wolf Creek. If I remember correctly, Grass Valley has a utility easement along the creek that former Senior Planner Bill Roberts assured the city Planning Commission could be used for a future trail. The combination of the RV park and the trail would strengthen recreation assets in the area and would add another attractive dimension to the Colfax Avenue business district. The final use I would propose is a solar farm that’s sized to support the RV park and other uses at the project. Using the land-use metrics of the current proposal to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine of preserving up to 59 acres of the 119-acre site as open space, leaving 60 acres for the new development. Picture 30 acres designated for the solar farm, trails, and lay down areas. That would leave 30 acres for the RV park. Picture a conceptual 12 RV pads per acre and the opportunity to develop 360 pads utilizing less than 50% of the 30 acres. This would leave the remaining 50% for circulation, open space, picnic areas, office, store, restroom and shower facilities. The property could be purchased by Nevada County or in partnership with the city of Grass Valley and Empire Mine State Park using low interest bond funds. The RV park and solar farm could be operated as partnerships with private sector vendors specializing in those types of enterprise or operated within the public management infrastructure. Obviously, there is a lot of research and number crunching to complete, but the research I have done suggests this concept would pencil out. Paul Schwartz lives in Grass Valley.

The Union newspaper reports on the long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project, which is now available for review. Public comment on this document is invited for a 60-day period commencing on January 4, 2022 and ending on March 4, 2022 at 5pm. After months of waiting, it’s finally here. Nevada County staff this week released a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Idaho-Maryland Mine project, stating in a news release that public agencies and the public will be able to give comments on the EIR’s adequacy at a special public meeting before the Nevada County Planning Commission on Feb. 23. The county has published the draft EIR on its website. According to the release, printed copies of the document are also available for public review at a handful of locations. Read the rest in The Union

In March 2022, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors (BOS) is expecting the results of an independent study regarding the economic impacts to Grass Valley should the Idaho-Maryland mine be reopened. Meanwhile, CEO Ben Mossman, based on reports commissioned by his company Rise Grass Valley, sent a spate of letters to local business owners in December 2021, claiming there would be various economic benefits to the local area and housing market and encouraging these businesses to show support for the reopening. Victoria Penate, staff writer at The Union reports: "According to the contract, following a number of data collection and economic and fiscal analysis tasks, the firm will present a draft report [to the BOS] mid-March and receive the county’s comments on it through March 30. A final report is expected April 13, with the firm to assist the county with public comments from April 14 to May 12, as well as attend a public hearing April 27." Rise Grass Valley — a subsidiary of Rise Gold Corp. which has proposed the reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine — asked in a letter earlier this month that local businesses “encourage the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to approve the project.” Rise Grass Valley President Ben Mossman wrote in the Dec. 13 letter that the company’s plan to reopen the mine will spur the creation of over 600 new jobs in Nevada County — 312 of which would be people hired by Rise Grass Valley directly, while the rest are estimated to be created in the community “through local supplier spending on goods and services integral to the ongoing operation of the mine,” the letter states — as well as expand the county’s tax base and result in over $50 million per year in new local spending. Mossman also wrote that the project “isn’t only about jobs and the economy,” listing a number of actions he says have been incorporated into the project proposal, including funds going toward the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, a new Nevada Irrigation District water supply pipe and permanent connection for some homes near the mine to the district’s supplies, and the creation of 31 acres of “flat usable industrial zoned land.” The letter asked local businesses, if they supported Rise Grass Valley’s efforts, to fill out an attached “support card” and send it back to the company. UPCOMING INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC STUDY Nevada County supervisors gave their unanimous approval Dec. 14 to a contract with Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (RDN), which is set to conduct an independent study regarding the potential economic impacts of the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine reopening. Read the rest in The Union Victoria Penate is a staff writer with The Union. She can be reached at vpenate@theunion.com

Local resident, Martha Turner does a great job of asking questions about why in the world Rise Gold thought it would be a good idea to open a mine in our community. I have lived in this community most of my life and am deeply concerned about the possibility of Rise Gold reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine. I am trying to understand why this company chose to try to open this particular mine in Grass Valley. These are some of my questions: ∎ Was it hoped that the residents of our rural county would simply open our arms to such a heavy industrial operation just 0.6 miles from the Grass Valley city limits? ∎ Was it hoped that we would welcome plans for the waste rock to be trucked, dumped, and compacted at the 56-acre Centennial site, which is two miles away from the mine site and surrounded on three sides by Grass Valley city limits? ∎ Was it hoped we would think this to be a good idea to create a 21 acre, 80- to 90-foot-tall mound on top of an existing toxic waste site? ∎ Was it expected that gold fever and promises of lots of money coming into the economy would keep us from recognizing the enormous cost of such theoretical gains? Most of the jobs they say they will create will be filled by experienced people they bring in. Read the rest in The Union. Martha Turner lives in Grass Valley

Our MineWatch Nevada County coalition partner, Sierra Fund, has a new director! Congratulations and welcome Joan Clayburgh! Rebecca O'Neil reports: Six months after environmental activist Izzy Martin departed her executive director post at The Sierra Fund, the organization — dedicated to offering solutions to ecosystems detrimentally affected by human impact — has chosen a new leader. Joan Clayburgh will offer oversight to The Sierra Fund for the nonprofit’s 20th anniversary, and said she hopes to help hone and promote models of advocacy and environmental repair for other communities. “We rely on the principles of science and stewardship,” Clayburgh said. “Our solutions are (oriented) 360 degrees. They work for the environment, for the community. That’s how you actually get something done.” Clayburgh said testing pilot ideas to identify what works, “adapting and scaling them up” are necessary to support climate healing at the current rate of its disrepair. “What are the hurdles? That’s where the policy advocacy comes in (as) more resources are needed for the region,” Clayburgh said. Read the rest in The Union. Rebecca O’Neil is a staff writer with The Union. She can be reached at roneil@theunion.com

It's official. County Supervisors have approved development of an Economic Impact report. There's still time to give them feedback on what ELSE should be included in the study beyond what's in the current scope. CEA Foundation's President, Ralph Silberstein spoke at last Tuesday's meeting and made the following suggestions. • Evaluation of the economic impacts on health care due to air pollution, traffic, noise, stress. (Needless to say, you can’t put a price tag on people’s actual health, which is a bigger question. ) • Impacts on high tech and medical imaging businesses such as in Whispering Pines, where blasting vibrations may be a problem. • And in fact, in general, what impact will the increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and aesthetic degradation have on businesses and residents. • How will the mine operations affect tourism? • What are the impacts on real estate and related activities? We know local real estate will be impacted. But also, in prior studies, an influx of skilled miners was predicted to increase demands for rentals. • And of course, costs to infrastructure and public services should be considered. • It should be noted that though the requested permit is for 80 years, most mines die a slow death as ore runs out and operations are cut, with increasing desperate measures taken towards the end. We hope that the analysis would bear in mind that, if approved, the project could easily shut down within 10-15 years. Perhaps one of our biggest concerns is that the consultant would rely solely upon the technical draft documents, which have not yet been subject to public review. Our analysis has found that the documents currently posted do not convey the full picture. Hopefully that will all be addressed by reviewing comments from the public and other agencies. The article in The Union states: The Nevada County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved a contract to conduct an independent economic study on the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine project. “The study will focus on the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project on our community,” said CEO Alison Lehman in a news release. “By doing an independent study, our board will have all the information to make an informed decision, in addition to the information that comes from the environmental review process.” The proposed project is a combined application for a conditional use permit and reclamation plan to reinitiate underground mining and gold mineralization processing, and is currently in the environmental review process. Read the rest in The Union. Source: Nevada County

One of the region’s most influential environmental organizations officially announced their opposition to the Idaho-Maryland Mine! They've been studying it as part of the coalition since 2019. The South Yuba River Citizen's League (SYRCL) recently lent their voice to an opposition article written by The Union and also contributed to a letter to the Central Valley Regional Water Board expressing deep concerns about the impact the mine could have on water quality and flows. Read the full announcement at https://yubariver.org/2021/10/syrcl-opposes-idaho-maryland-mine/ . .

GV Resident Heidi Zimmerman describes the insane disruption caused by Rise Gold during their exploratory phase and calls on the Board of Supervisors to make better choices for our community. You can also read this in The Union. I live on East Bennett across the street from the second exploratory drilling site that Rise Gold ran. It was directly across from my bedroom. They drilled for about nine months, 24 hours a day and exceeded allowable decibel ranges on properties that share a property line with different zonings. As in this case, residential next to light industrial, which gold mining 24 hours a day is hardly light industrial. I briefly want to say how incredibly intrusive that drilling was. It was quite maddening 24 hours a day. The vibration and loud drilling only stopped briefly when they changed their drills. We never heard the birds sing! The vibration in the ground was measurable by a human. I am expressing this because it’s important to understand that entire communities that currently pay a good tax base to the county would be devastated. I fear our town will decline on many levels, especially our basic quality of life, including air, water and sound pollution. It is so quaint and beautiful here. Isn’t this why we choose to live here? Let us look at the bigger picture of this issue. This would be a complete devastation to Nevada County, specifically Grass Valley and Nevada City. The outcome is very bleak if this town and county choose to give a permit to Rise Gold. Please review their mission statement. It says nothing about mining. I believe if this permit is awarded to Rise Gold, it could then be sold to a mining company that we have never dealt with, which could be even more tragic. Each of you on the board and any decision makers have the opportunity to create a legacy for this town, your families and peers in the community. At this pivotal time, we ask you to look deep into your hearts and feel what the right choice is in regard to this issue of reopening a gold mine in Nevada County in this day and age of 2021! It is time to look forward and plan a future for Nevada County with new programs that reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose and also continue to grow food and support our community with renewable energies. We can be a leader in this state and country, preserving what we have here. Let us be the model for others to follow in walking forward in a new way of living that is sustainable and reliable. Live in a way that is in harmony with Mother Nature. We have the perfect climate to do so. In addition, this said property would be a fantastic community gathering place. With bike/running trails, kids’ playground, the senior wood program, an outdoor venue for events, a dog play area and a farmers market. Let’s get creative and really plan the future for both of these towns. It’s exciting to look to the new and be a leader in moving forward. We live here because it brings us joy and isn’t that what all of us want in this life? More joy!

The Union just wrote an article about organizations opposing the mine. What do you think? Did they cover it well? Please read the following then jump over to The Union's post and join the conversation. P.S. If you can't comment on The Union's site, try their Facebook posting. https://www.facebook.com/theuniongrassvalley/posts/10158344668843342 A broad and eclectic range of local organizations have come out in opposition to the Idaho-Maryland Mine, including environmentalist nonprofits, social justice activists, and river conservation groups. Seventeen organizations have signed onto a web campaign, titled “Stop the Mine,” which was initiated by Community Environmental Advocates (CEA), a Grass Valley nonprofit focused on environmental awareness and activism. The organizations that have signed onto the petition formally opposing the mine include The Sierra Fund, Earth Justice Ministries, the South Yuba River Citizens League, and a range of other local entities. While the mission statements and specific focuses of each of the organizations may vary, they all have the same message when it comes to the topic of reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine: This is a mistake. Read the rest in The Union. Stephen Wyer is a staff writer with The Union. He can be reached at swyer@theunion.com

Should homeowners be compensated if Rise Gold opens the mine? Local resident Leah Fowler wants a piece of the profits. And commenter Rich Howell says he'd take 150% of market value. What do you think? Nevada County naturally has been referred to as “Gold Country,” and while assuming there is still much more gold to be found in our area, reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine really is a excellent idea. The question, then, is excellent for whom? Read the rest in The Union. Leah Fowler

Ready to learn more about the process? Reporter Rebecca O'Neil for The Union compares and contrasts Rise Gold's current proposal to reopen the mine vs. the emGold proposal in 2008. She also explores a variety of ways the Board of Supervisors could approve or deny aspects of the project. When the first murmurings of reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine began in 1991, EmGold Mining Corp. began pursuing project approval from the city of Grass Valley. Thirty years later, Rise Gold Corp. is seeking that same green light from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Nevada County’s Planning Director Brian Foss said although the mine’s visible parts are located outside of Grass Valley, the two parcels tethered to the project fall within the city’s sphere of influence. According to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, sphere of influence refers to a planning boundary beyond a legal boundary designating the agency’s imminent growth. “That means that the city can choose to process a land use entitlement application through their staff, their City Council and annex the land into the city,” Foss said. Foss, who has worked for the county since 2005, said Grass Valley opted into its optional leadership role for the previous mine project. However, the city chose not to be the lead processing agency when Rise Gold began pursuing the project in 2017. Read the rest in The Union. Rebecca O’Neil is a staff writer with The Union. She can be reached at roneil@theunion.com

Local resident Tony Lauria rails at Rise Gold's recent mailer to the community promising “a brighter future”. He marvels at how none of bad facts about deep bedrock gold mining ever get mentioned and wonders how in the world all the impacts on residents could be blissfully ignored. Read in The Union. I’m sending my recently received Rise Gold mailer straight to the Board of Supervisors with remarks saying I do not approve of letting this company bring back a dangerous industry for their profit. I think this is the best use for their response mailer. Their pamphlet says, “a brighter future.” Is this a brighter future for our residential community? Eighty years of heavy industrial operations, blasting, drilling 24/7, draining millions of gallons of our groundwater, 36,000 massive diesel truckloads per year spewing exhaust into the air, silica dust and asbestos released from serpentine bedrock, toxic tailings piled higher than the trees, potential for wells to run dry with no alternative water source, home values possibly plummeting, constant unbearable noise possibly heard for miles around, wildlife displaced, Wolf Creek affected, contaminated material brought to the surface, energy use equivalent to 5,000 homes, endless dewatering in a drought, traffic congestion, transporting explosives through neighborhoods, storing explosives on site during wildfire season, residential communities subjected to the chance of constant vibrations and pollution. Are the risks and realities something we want for our beautiful foothills? Heavy industrial operations have a legacy of severe impacts to humans and the environment. There is a reason deep bedrock gold mining ceased decades ago. Most mining sites are still contaminated with the results of those operations. None of the facts we know about deep bedrock gold mining seem to be represented in the statements publicized by Rise Gold. I don’t see “safe” as a way to describe those operations. “Protecting our natural environment” has never been achieved by the gold mining industry. How can the exhaust of 100 daily diesel trucks loads be “minimized.” Why do they say “emergency service teams available to respond to emergency situations?” Is this alluding to the obvious, that mining operations are dangerous? Nevada County is not “struggling to build a stronger economy.” Our county is booming with construction, housing projects, new retirement complexes, tech industry success, new shopping centers, small businesses and jobs. In my opinion, we would exit the dark ages of the past, and avoid reopening the unsavory toxic legacy of gold mining. Can you imagine new tech, or any other progressive business, wanting to set up their base in a heavy industrial mining town? What comes to mind when you think of a mining town? Would that be a place you would want to live and raise a family? Consider sending your mailer, in an envelope with a stamp, marked to oppose the mine, to: Eric Rood Administrative Center, Board of Supervisors 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City, CA 95959. Or, send your own personal note to the Nevada Count Board of Supervisors. Tony Lauria lives in Grass Valley.

After the mines closed in the 1950s, Grass Valley and Nevada City reinvented themselves as tourist and retirement destinations, which is why Robin Hart chose to live and retire here. Will Rise Gold's plans to reopen the mine spoil it all? I have been a resident of Nevada County for more than 20 years. My husband and I moved here for the small-town charm, robust arts scene, natural beauty (as the gateway to the Sierra), as well as a good place to retire someday. When we recently sold our home in Alta Sierra after 20 years, we decided we loved this area so much that we stayed and moved closer to town to spend our retirement years. Now Rise Gold has plans to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine and spoil all of this. After the mines closed in the 1950s, Grass Valley and Nevada City reinvented themselves as tourist and retirement destinations. Thousands of people come every year for our fair, many concerts, festivals and street fairs like Cornish and Victorian Christmas and destination weddings. People enjoy our historic downtowns in both places. They also come to play in our forests and lakes. Who will want to live here if our towns become an industrial wasteland? Read the rest in The Union. Robin Hart lives in Grass Valley.

Why isn't the Grass Valley City Council taking a more active role to protect our interests w/respect to the Idaho-Maryland Mine? Bob Clark points out the gaps and asks Grass Valley residents to send letters asking them to fulfill their elected responsibility. This is a great read, and if you're inspired, please email a letter to public@cityofgrassvalley.com. Read in The Union. Slowly, but surely local residents are becoming aware of the perils of the possible reopening of the Idaho Maryland Mine. If you were to visit https://www.minewatchnc.org/ and simply start reading articles in their library, I can’t imagine anyone not opposing it. I know it has resulted in hundreds of letters, emails to the county, submissions to The Union, etc., stating reasons for opposition. So far the county has pretty much just said to wait for the draft environmental impact report. Theses two issues should not be tied together. So what is and should be the city of Grass Valley’s role in this? Is it simply to sit and wait for the county to decide our city’s fate? Do they really think that we will simply absolve them of any responsibility and blame it all on the county if it happens? I thought the City Council was elected to work in our best interest; to protect us from things that can harm us, economically, environmentally, socially, etc. The mine certainly fits all of those! The last time around with Emgold, it was the city’s job to approve or not approve the reopening. This time, the county has the responsibility to approve or not approve the application, and perhaps the city doesn’t want to tangle with them. That doesn’t make it right. Have they forgotten that the Centennial site is barely outside the city limit and is part of the city’s sphere of influence and been part of the city’s plan. Have they forgotten we’ve been through this mine thing before? How did that work out last time? When Emgold tried the same thing a few years ago, we lucked out. They ran out of money. Would the city have approved it if they hadn’t? Before they ran back to Canada, did they clean up the toxic mess at the Centennial site? No. They owned it and the clean up job was theirs, permit or no permit. Did the city even attempt to make them do it? Surely the city could have at least taken ownership of the property or placed a lien. No, they just waved goodbye. We all know that if Rise Gold doesn’t get their permit to open the mine, they are gone. Does anyone believe they would clean up Centennial before they went? Here’s a novel thought: Clean up the toxic mess, prove you will fulfill your responsibilities and then we might discuss a permit. Not until. What could be any possible benefit to the city or county of approving any application before the cleanup is finished? All it would do is throw away any leverage to get it done. Maybe the city is still as gullible as they were before when it comes to jobs. The last time they seemed to be enamored by the promise of hundreds of jobs from a ceramics plant converting mine waste into tile. Never mind that it had never been done in the history of mining. Do they buy into Rise’s claims of jobs and economic benefits for the area? Hey, maybe they think they could get one of those $94,000-a-year apprentice jobs. Maybe they think our mom and pop shops will start selling drill bits or repairing rock crushers. The county has declined so far to do an economic impact report. Does that mean the city shouldn’t? How about the city formally polling our local real estate agents and asking for their professional assessment of the mine reopening on local property values? One hundred percent of those who have been polled have told property owners that we would lose values amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The county supervisors say they have to remain unbiased. The city sure doesn’t have to. How could they not have an extreme bias against the single biggest issue our city has had or might ever have that could damage our community and its residents more? It’s time for us to force them to go on record! Now, before it’s too late. Maybe a few hundred emails and calls would get their attention even if their obvious responsibility doesn’t. My wife tells me I expect too much from people to think things through logically. I ask, how else can you think and still face your neighbors, voters, and yourself? I don’t know all the rules, regulations, etc., and they really don’t matter. All I know is what you were elected to do. At least that’s why we cast our ballots. Council members, we’re listening and waiting for you to fulfill your elected responsibility to us. Bob Clark has lived in Grass Valley for more than 20 years.

Special Guest Speaker Martin Webb explains how just about any other industry could provide a greater return on investment to our community. And a vote for the mine is a NO vote on the Energy Action Plan the County approved in 2019. This virtual community meeting was hosted by CEA Foundation and community partners on August 26, 2021. 6:45 The meeting begins with CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein, asking for the community to provide comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the toxic Centennial Site that Rise Gold proposes to dump mine waste on if the Idaho-Maryland Mine is approved. 17:45 He continues with a practical perspective on the critical nature of climate change and how opening a mine takes us in the wrong direction. 22:25 Martin Webb, KVMR Host of “The Energy Report/Climate Report”, brings stunning new information to the table to reveal the absurdity of Rise Gold economic claims and attempts to greenwash this project. He shows us how just about any other industry could provide a greater return on investment to our community, and how a YES vote for the mine would be a NO vote on the Energy Action Plan the county approved in 2019 to reduce the effects of climate change. Martin Webb, longtime host of KVMR’s Energy Report (now the Climate Report) and local solar energy expert, with a career spanning several decades as well as ownership of several local solar companies (Plan It Solar, Sierra Solar, and CA Solar Electric Co). Topics covered: • The Centennial site cleanup • The community’s energy action plans and climate change goals • Increased energy use and the impact on our County’s planned cuts to curb climate change • How the community gets a better return on jobs and earnings, with the same energy use • Potential impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions • What YOU can do to STOP the Mine.

Economist William Nordhous's "ninth circle of corporate irresponsibility" applies to companies that use devious means to get us to trust them, and then let us down in a big way. Local resident Julie Becker tells us why she wants to include Rise Gold on that list. The banner on the cover of Time magazine in late April read: “Climate Is Everything.” Inside the issue, among a selection of viewpoints, was an essay written by economist William Nordhaus, “The Ninth Circle of Corporate Irresponsibility,” an excerpt from his recently published book, The Spirit of Green. The book focuses on “green thinking” — on finding cures for some of the most serious economic and environmental problems around the world. Nordhaus praises businesses engaged in socially responsible practices, but feels it’s fruitful to be aware of businesses that do the opposite. Businesses with little or no concern for legal, societal or ethical obligations. Those that pollute the air and the water, drastically overpay executives, avoid paying their fair share of taxes (or any taxes at all) and sidestep well-grounded regulations. Those that turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. Among these businesses, he assigns the most egregious, those that deliberately mislead or provide false information, to the ninth circle of corporate irresponsibility, drawing a parallel to the ninth circle of hell in Dante’s “Inferno” — a circle designed especially for those who practice treachery and betray our trust. According to Nordhaus, star candidates for the ninth circle, all “languishing in their ethical filth,” include Philip Morris, which made mincemeat of research showing the harmful effects of tobacco; ExxonMobil, which famously played down any awareness of climate change, then went on to fund climate deniers; and PurduePharma, which made billions from the sales of OxyContin while playing dumb to its addictive qualities. Read the rest in The Union. Julie Becker lives in Nevada City.

In this era of pandemic, wildfire, and drought challenges, Steve Temple urges the Board of Supervisors to increase community unity, rather than encouraging the divisiveness the Rise Gold proposal brings. At the very least, he implores them to scrutinize every Rise Gold detail with the skepticism the CEO’s history demands. Read in The Union. I wish to voice my vigorous opposition to the propaganda campaign that Rise Gold is mounting to sway public opinion and our Nevada County Board of Supervisors in favor of reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine. In the context of previous behavior and legal misadventures of CEO Ben Mossman, this maneuver is at best suspicious and at worst a scam. You and we must examine every claim and promise in detail, and obtain legally binding commitments in lieu of empty promises. The overall community impact of extractive and exploitive ventures like gold mines, coal and copper and aluminum and silver mines, oil wells and pipelines, methane extraction, etc., are numerous and convincing. One has only to look at the Gold Rush-era photos of our beautiful region at the Empire Mine State Park Museum to appreciate the overpowering greed that devastated this area environmentally, the exploitation of Asian immigrants, and inhumane treatment of mules, extermination and bounty-hunting of our Nisenan citizen-neighbors (and on and on) to be skeptical of modern technology founded on similar motives. Western Nevada County was quite a violent place during the Gold Rush. And an 1850s comparison of living conditions for Empire Mine owners versus the mine workers does not need to be re-enacted today, albeit in a different form. The technology may be improved, but the psychological community mindset has not changed much and is antithetical to the open and inclusive, tourist-friendly environment that enticed so many western Nevada County residents like my wife and I to relocate here upon retirement. Literally all of the costs and risks that many residents and editors are writing about in The Union (noise, traffic, water, wells, fire, road maintenance, worker health-care needs, etc.) threaten the most basic attractions that Grass Valley and Nevada City offer to people like my wife and I. One has only to read historical accounts of the greed and violence that accompanied Gold Rush life here to be wary of a return to an extractive and exploitive community mentality. And we must look at the devastation (environmental and emotional) that oil fields, mines and pipelines have left in their wake to lend sufficient skepticism to the wisdom of exposing our very special community to the ravages of another extraction-based economic adventure (and that is really what we are all being subjected to … an adventure). In this era of pandemic and wildfires and drought challenges, please work together to give us increased community unity and cohesiveness to support one another, rather than the divisiveness that this Rise Gold proposal brings to you and us. At the very least, I implore you to scrutinize every Rise Gold detail with the skepticism that the CEO’s history demands. Thank you for putting our community needs first. Steve Temple is a retired UC Davis plant scientist. He lives in Grass Valley.

Take 15 minutes to learn why this community is so concerned about the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Sit back, relax, and listen to a MineWatch volunteer spell it out. You can also preview the presentation by downloading the PDF slides below. You can also ask for a volunteer to come present to your business or neighborhood group. Just send an email to mineconcerns@cea-nc.org.

Local realtor John Brady satirically expresses why the proposed idea that the mine will have little to no environmental impact on the local area may be a smidgen off base. I have resided in Grass Valley and Nevada City as a builder for 25 years and a Realtor for the past 23 years. My uncle worked in the Idaho-Maryland Mine for a while. He died at the age of 50 working in a mine. My father worked in lead and silver mines when young in Idaho. He left the mines young to work in insurance. He lived to be 92. Raised an Irish Catholic, his theology was simple — “always stay in the state of grace.“ A local well-drilling expert tells a close friend that likely 300 wells will be ruined quickly by this plan of Rise Gold to pump 3.6 million gallons per day in mine tunnels for six months and then 1.2 million a day for the next 80 years. Worrywarts fret about mercury, arsenic, lead, cyanide, and dioxin. Practical folk feel these contaminants are no biggie as filters work sufficient to pass monitoring. Watchdogs of purity will transform the heavy metal infested sewer slop (as critics so unfairly designate the water) to class 2 drinking water, allowed to stink mildly and able to rust pipes. A faith-based transformation, fluffed up with science! You get past official tests, so everyone feels better. Worrywarts: play “the Sound of Music” and drink up. Sissies,repeat this mantra: “Thank God for bottled water!” Subsidence could add concern. Learn to tolerate your sinkhole. Read on in The Union. John Brady is a Realtor in Grass Valley.

Protestors gathered at the intersection of Brunswick Road and Sutton Way on Earth Day, April 22, 2021, creating quite an impressive showing and raising community awareness. See the pictures and read The Union's coverage, including hard questions for Rise Gold's CEO, Ben Mossman. Read the full article in the Union here. There were a few accuracy issues in this article, please note After the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is completed, it doesn't go to the Board of Supervisors, nor will the final EIR include the Board's comments. Water discharged from the mine will be treated to remove Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese, but it is NOT "the same as the drinking water quality standards.” as Ben Mossman claims. It will be treated to Secondary Drinking Water Standards, which remove certain contaminants, but it would have to be treated before people could drink it. When challenged about fines paid by Mossman's previous mining venture in BC Canada, he was quoted as saying the past violations did not result in any environmental damage. While the violations he was "fined for" didn't cause the damage, the fact remains that there was a spill caused by the mine that polluted tribal waters. https://www.theunion.com/opinion/why-we-dont-trust-rise-gold/

This virtual community meeting was hosted by CEA Foundation and community partners on May 27th, 2021. It explored the impact of re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine on public health in our community. The special guest speaker was Dr. Christine Newsom. Dr. Newsom, a retired internist, long-time volunteer, and active community member of Nevada City and Grass Valley. Topics covered: An update on the timeline of the public process, including when the Draft Environmental Impact Report might be released. A discussion about the potential public health impacts of mine re-opening, including air quality, water, noise, and phycho-social effects. Corrections: Some statements included in the recorded presentation deserve correction or clarification. Rise Gold plans to do rock crushing underground, not on the surface. The "processed ore" is not loaded up on trucks and sent to the Centennial site. That is actually where the gold is concentrated. What is hauled to the Centennial site is just the waste rock and tailings.

How important is clean air, good water, and reliable power in your life? The proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine puts all that at risk. Read the full letter in the Union. Can Nevada County afford to share its precious but scarce resources with Rise Gold? Do we have enough good air, clean water, and available power in Nevada County to allow these valuable resources to be exploited by a junior mining company from Canada with a bad reputation? I believe that these three precious resources are at high risk of being significantly diminished if Nevada County allows Rise Gold to reopen the Idaho Maryland Mine. They are not the only resources at risk, but let’s start at the top. AIR In 2020 the American Lung Association published the State of the Air Report, in which they evaluated the quality of Nevada County’s air. They gave us an “F.” The report accounted for both high ozone days and particle pollution. If this mine is allowed, I believe dust will escape from it with continuous rock crushing, loading, hauling, unloading, spreading, and compacting. Air pollution will be increased further with a truck coming through town every five to 10 minutes, hauling and delivering tailings. More than 100 trips per day is the current estimate. We already have twice the state average of chronic lung disease. We can’t afford any more. WATER Rise Gold plans to “dewater” the abandoned mine tunnels under 2,585 acres of Nevada County and send the water into little South Fork Wolf Creek. Their plan is to pump 3.6 million gallons every day for six months and another 1.2 for up to 80 years! Because the geology of groundwater in fractured rock is extremely complicated and unpredictable, private wells in the mineral rights area and nearby are at risk of failing or becoming contaminated. Habitat destruction: The dewatering would treat little South Fork Wolf Creek like a storm drain, likely damaging the downstream riparian zone. In addition, Rise Gold plans to erase 75 acres of woodlands, grasslands, and chaparral, replacing them with giant built-up pads of mine tailings. We cannot afford to lose 75 acres of valuable habitat and risk the loss of private wells. POWER In order to protect our power grid, the Nevada County Energy Action Plan calls for a significant reduction of residential electric use by 2035 (42 gigawatt hours annually). But the mine would require massive energy usage that would be a whopping 12% of what all of Nevada County uses annually (an estimated 42 billion watt hours per year). This would strain our power grid and completely erase our county’s planned cuts, which are designed to save the environment, reduce the use of fossil fuels, and curb climate change. In other words, the mine would erase our planned gains. We already struggle with power shutoffs when PG&E can’t keep up with the demand on hot summer days, not to mention our new reality of Public Safety Power Shutdowns. Dramatic increases in demand will likely cause power interruptions for local businesses, homes, and for people who need medical support. With our vulnerability to wildfires and the potential loss of lives and community, we cannot afford the weakening of our power grid and the threat of even more shutdowns during the warm, dry season. Nevada County cannot afford this mine.

View the Fox News report: Locals up in arms over prospectors' plans to reopen California gold mine. Listen to local homeowner, Christy Hubbard, talk about the concerns members of the community share. View the video here.

View the CBS Sacramento news report: Gold Rush Return to Grass Valley? Company Works to Reopen Idaho-Maryland Mine, But Protestors Oppose. Listen to local homeowner, Tony Lauria, talk about the concerns many homeowners share. View the video here.