Search our Library

The laws governing corporations are on the books. Unfortunately, enforcement of most laws is by "complaint only" in Nevada County. How then, will Rise Gold's compliance be assured if the Idaho-Maryland Mine is re-opened? Read it in the Union. There are a number of problems associated with the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Among these are noise pollution, air pollution, traffic congestion, contamination of our streams, and loss of our wells. Rise Gold denies that some of these exist, and says that it can mitigate the effect of others, to keep them within statutory limits. When mining was the major activity in Grass Valley and the surrounds, miners dug holes, dumped the resulting piles of rock wherever it was convenient, used mercury, cyanide and other toxic elements to extract the gold and left the toxic remains scattered over the landscape. Today, as the society has become more aware of the dangers of these toxins, strict laws controlling their use and disposal have been enacted. The same is true of other activities occurring in mining, as well as in other businesses: noise, traffic, other toxins in air and water, and the like. Limits have been set, and penalties for infringing on those limits have been established. Corporate behavior, however, is much like human behavior, and much as some individuals find it more convenient to dump their trash on the roadside, many profit driven corporations have little incentive to go the extra mile to ensure that their impact on their surroundings is minimal or non-existent. The number of corporations that go out of their way to improve the community in which they exist is a rare topic for a newspaper article. Unfortunately, the number of articles written about the environmental and human damage done by industries associated with mining, logging, and oil and gas extraction are too numerous to catalog. The laws governing these activities are on the books. Unfortunately, enforcement of those laws is by complaint in Nevada County. Who, then will complain about violations more subtle than traffic and noise, things like water and air pollution? Rise Gold is asking the county for a permit to operate a gold mine in the center of a residential community for 80 years. Should that permit be granted, there are no constraints to the mine then being sold to the highest bidder. In order to prevent a catastrophic result, Rise Gold should be required to address how, specifically, it will deal with each issue which arises in the Environmental Impact Report. It should be required to address how it will respond to each possibility should things not go as planned, and it should be required to post bond against the failure to meet the obligations it has assumed, and against cleanup after the end of 80 years or if the project fails at some future point. Accidents will happen, especially over a period of 80 years. The county needs to set limits on what level of compliance is acceptable and needs to establish a penalty structure which ensures that paying repeated penalties for violating the same regulation does not become simply a cost of doing business. The county must also require Rise Gold to establish the means and the funding for an independent agency to monitor each of the mitigation topics under consideration. The county has neither the manpower nor the resources to do this, but it is the only way in which the owners of the mine, whoever they may be in the future, can be kept in compliance with the terms of the permit for the next 80 years. Robert Hubbard lives in Grass Valley.

Is it really necessary to disrespect people who oppose the mine? Local resident Mary Anderson counters an opinion published in the Union pointing out that people opposing the Mine are not hysterical, obsessive, fearful NIMBYs, but a very thoughtful, organized group of people who love this community and don’t want to see it destroyed Read it in the Union. In response to Robert Ross’s May 15 Other Voices, “Reopen the mine for world’s sake,” I would like to offer that those opposing reopening the long sleeping Idaho-Maryland Mine are not hysterical, obsessive, fearful NIMBYs, but a very thoughtful, organized group of people who love this community and don’t want to see it destroyed. They have spent hours studying verified reports of the effect the mine may have on our community. I would suggest you take a drive around the residential area surrounding the mine, none of which was here 50 years ago when the mine was operating, and note the significant number of properties where the mine is literally in their backyard. And as the county has had the benefit of property taxes received from those properties all these years, I think the owners should have a say about what goes into their backyards. So yes, people are very concerned about not just the possible loss and/or pollution of well water, but 24/7 hour noise, the pollutant laden dust, and daily in and out truck traffic that this operation assuredly will bring, to name just a few. There is no guarantee that Rise Gold will be able to mitigate these issues. As for the water issue alone, there is no plan in place to provide NID water except for a few properties near the mine on East Bennett. Do you have any idea how long it would take to develop a plan, run lines, and the cost to do so if a well happens to lose water? What about the fire hazard if properties lose water? And let’s not forget the beauty of the landscape that will suffer or the huge carbon footprint from the tremendous amount of electricity that will be required. Since you seem to be concerned about the environment, I would think these things might concern you, too. I suggest you look at the minewatchnc.org website so you might better understand our concerns. You might even find that gold, even though it has many applications, is still used primarily as a precious metal for jewelry and as a currency stash/investment. As for monitoring, just because California has strict environmental standards is no guarantee that Rise Gold will meet those standards on an ongoing basis — for 80 years. Which government agencies will be doing this monitoring and how regularly? Even if the county is “accurately able to test the mine’s spoils (pollutants?),” neither is that a guarantee that were there problems, they would be corrected. Then what? Does the mine shut down, go bankrupt and leave us with another mine site to clean up? I would urge you to go to do some research on Rise Gold’s previous mining activities before you trust them to be leaders in safe, environmentally friendly mining. And if the “regulations which will be in place” don’t give us a “positive result” and a “clean mine operation,” what then? Yes, environmentalism isn’t just about Grass Valley, but I do believe it starts at home. Mary Anderson lives in Grass Valley.

Grass Valley resident Billy Packard was particularly disappointed about a recent article in The Union... and what WASN'T said pertaining to the water aspect of the Rise Gold project. Hidden from view when driving by is the old mine that is filled with water contaminated with byproducts of hard rock mining. June 2, 2021 I read the article on Rise Gold about their promises on water treatment. “It may make water have a musty odor.” Andy Kopania, a hydrologist hired by Rise Gold Corp, said, “Though unpleasant, water containing these naturally occurring minerals is not bad for one’s health.” Right! Drink up! ... Read the rest in the Union. Billy Packard lives in Grass Valley.

Paul Schwartz, who resides in Grass Valley, reminds us that the story of gold in this area is primarily one of exploitation. The impact of mining on the health of the local populace and ecology were barely taken into account in the past and it appears that they are still coming in a distant second. Compliance with environmental regulations relies on monitoring by local authorities, who have often failed or been slow to respond. Read it in The Union. Paul writes: My first major decision as an adult was to leave my home town of Santa Barbara because the rents were very high and the wages low. I traveled to San Francisco in 1971 and the talk on the street was that Nevada City bicycle races and the Yuba River were both amazing. I arrived in Nevada City and while enjoying a sandwich in the Rainbow Mountain Inn, I was offered a job and a place to rent. Over the next three-plus decades I married, raised a family, worked multiple jobs, bought a home, joined a food co-op, enjoyed the Yuba River and the bicycle races, got an education (commuted and long distance), participated in governing, and learned the beauty and the beast of our gold mining heritage. That brings us to my opposition to the proposal by Rise Gold to reopen the Idaho Maryland Mine. It’s easy to fall in love with the romantic story of the Gold Rush. The facts are that within one year of the discovery of gold, big money moved in and industrialized the removal of millions of dollars of gold. Once that occurred there was little concern for the individual miner, environment, or the impact of dangerous chemicals flushed down Wolf and Deer creeks into the Sacramento River and the San Francisco Bay. Arsenic, mercury, and other chemicals outlawed today were used to remove the gold. The waste was stored in chemical ponds. When the rains came the ponds were opened up to flood into the streams and rivers. Old-timers talked about Wolf and Deer creeks running white as milk on these occasions. When the mines closed in the 1950s, the remains of the waste ponds were pushed into the mine shafts and buried. We live today with this toxic legacy across much of our landscape. If you see mine tailings, you are probably seeing legacy toxic waste. The Empire Mine State Park has begun to fence off these areas to keep tourists from picking through them for souvenirs. We have learned from grand jury reports as recent as 2014 that the federal government, state, county and city regulators have failed to protect us from both the historical toxic legacy risks and current mining impacts. I remember my kids playing in the stream that runs through Memorial Park and my wife picking watercress to add to our salad that night. That stream is now fenced off mainly due to the grand jury report calling it out. The report called for Empire Mine and Newmont Mining to redirect the stream into safe holding ponds to limit the risk to the community. Although the stream is still fenced as it runs through Memorial Park, state parks and Newmont Mining completed a project to divert runoff away from the targeted contaminated soils and ensure they did not enter the greater watershed leaving Empire Mine State Park. The mitigations are intended to stabilize and hold legacy mining process toxins in place. This is a mitigation strategy widely used to lower the risk of the poisons leaching into the community watershed. Thank you, Nevada County Grand Jury, for bringing this to the attention of our city, county and state leadership. Aside from the million gallons of water that will be pumped out of the mine daily, the continual testing and monitoring of water quality, the dust and particulate that will cloud the air from the 1,000-plus tons a day of mine waste crushed and moved by truck every day, the noise that continuous industrial activity will add to our local soundtrack, the questionable practices that Rise Gold management used on their last gold mine that they are litigating currently in the Canadian courts, or the potential impact on hundreds of residential wells within the mineral rights boundary of the Idaho Maryland Mine, I question the ability of agencies responsible for oversight to regulate and control what Rise Gold does. Speak out, write letters, talk to family and friends, ask our local leadership why they are considering retreating into our past instead of looking to our future. Paul Schwartz lives in Grass Valley.

Ariana Zimmerman has a more progressive idea for bringing high-paying jobs to Grass Valley than degrading our community by reopening the mine. Grass Valley resident Ariana Zimmerman feels that bringing heavy industry into a residential area just for the sake of 300 jobs is a bad idea, not only because of the impact on people in the immediate area, but also for potential environmental problems. She points out that there are currently many lower-paying jobs available and offers an alternate proposal for creating higher-paying jobs that would be more peaceful and eco-friendly. For her innovative solution, read the article in The Union. Ariana Zimmerman is a resident of Grass Valley.

Local resident Mary Anderson questions the trustworthiness of the increasingly aggressive employment claims made by Rise Gold. What are your ideas about business alternatives that could provide good-paying jobs while being less damaging to the neighboring environment. Read it in the The Union. I don’t think that mine opponents would argue that our county needs good-paying jobs. However, they probably would argue whether those jobs will come with reopening the mine and at what cost. And how did we all of a sudden get to the promise of 600 jobs? If I recall, there were originally around 200 jobs and only part of those were for locals. Then it was upped to 300 jobs, still only part for locals. Now we¹re up to 600 jobs, “300 or so around town.“ As far as I know, there has been no formal study done to determine the effect of the reopening of the mine on the local economy. I would like to see a list of businesses that will supposedly be offering those jobs. As far as Nevada County being an older population and having a healthy dose of retirees from the Bay Area, that has been the case for the 30 years that I have lived here. I would venture a guess that Lake Wildwood owes its existence to a lot of those retirees. And for the young people “leaving in droves,” how many are going to want to stay and become miners when they finish school? Many leave because they want the experience of living in a more urban area. So maybe we can all come together and try to come up with something that could make better use of the mine property, something that would provide good-paying jobs while being less damaging to the neighboring environment. Mary Anderson resides in Grass Valley.

Rise Gold’s recent, highly-criticized survey draws more fire from local resident Don Rivenes who says their attempt to align the survey with residents' top priorities was a total misfire and cites multiple reasons why running a gold mine would yield the opposite results of what the survey implied. Read it in The Union. Recently a poll conducted on behalf of Rise Gold asked the respondents what were their top three priorities for the government? The highest three answers were: keeping our community safe from wildfire 40.6%, fixing homelessness 33.0%, and helping to ensure housing remains affordable for locals 28.8%. Creating and running a gold mine is the opposite of keeping the community safe from wildfire. Given our current drought and forest conditions, it is smart for the county to concentrate on safety protections and ways to reduce its electric grid usage to limit the need for large transmission and distribution lines. Operating the mine will nearly wipe out the energy savings projected from actions under the recently passed Nevada County Energy Action Plan. It also would use the electricity equivalent of 5,500 homes. A re-opened gold mine would appear to have no effect on fixing homelessness, except to divert attention from the issue. The Nevada County Housing Element had a 2014-2019 allocation of 300 very or low income housing from the Regional Housing Authority of which 147 were actually provided. The new plan calls for 842 very-low or low income housing. Given past performance it appears the County should concentrate its efforts on meeting the regional goals. The only effect the opening of the mine would have on affordable housing might be to lower the real estate values of the housing near the mine or again to divert attention from the County housing problems. It is interesting that the survey in question one had only two choices for the environment — water/drought and environmental issues. And for question two, clean air and clean water and the environment were the only environmental choices. The words — climate change — were nowhere mentioned, even though it is covered extensively in the Nevada County Energy Action Plan. Question three of the survey was: Would you be willing to consider supporting a new mining operation in Nevada County if it provided [name the three services respondent identifies in question two] to your community? I suppose if I had taken the survey, and my top three personal choices were clean air, clean water, and fire safety, then I would have answered yes to question three. Unfortunately opening the mine will have an opposite effect on those issues. How running a gold mine would improve the air and water quality and stop a fire is beyond my understanding. Projected respiratory impacts of the mine could exacerbate heart and lung disease in Nevada County whose residents already must adapt to the particulates associated with a long wildfire season. Nevada County should be talking to the Rise Gold Company on how to make better use of its land to benefit themselves and the county. Cleaning up the Centennial site is an admirable undertaking. After cleanup, a business with some housing would work just fine there. The Brunswick site could include a green waste facility, such as recently run by the Fire Safe Council. It could feed a small biomass plant. This would keep our waste locally in the county instead of shipping it out. Each of these investments would be considered sustainable providing good jobs for the county. Calls have begun for a global ban of the unnecessary mining of certain metals such as gold, since by 2020 there was enough gold in vaults and national reserves to meet global demand in perpetuity without extracting another ounce from the ground. More than 90% of gold was mined exclusively for luxury and financial markets, whereas less than 10% went toward industry and technology applications. Gold price is currently $1,700 per ounce. Since only 10% of gold is of use to industry, the real value price is $170 per ounce. Thus the production and environmental costs of Rise Gold mining far exceeds the value produced for society. As for job creation, many of these jobs will be filled by people out of the county and some temporary. Only 9% of fulltime workers in the mining industry are women according to a survey by the NSW Minerals Council. Can’t the county find a better way to meet its job needs? In conclusion, stop wasting time on a project that has little real value and does not meet Nevada County needs. Nevada County should concentrate on protecting its current residents and environment, by meeting its citizen’s priorities as brought out by the survey, fulfilling its Energy Action Plan goals, and not gamble that this mine would provide the jobs it claims will appear. Don Rivenes is a member of Nevada County Climate Action Now NCCAN. He lives in Grass Valley.

Local resident Mark Hotsenpiller reflects on Rise Gold's recent opinion survey, questioning its accuracy and suggesting what should be done with it. So Ben Mossman hired someone to conduct a private survey about Rise Gold. Is anyone surprised what this survey reported? Such a survey is worthless. It wasn’t independent, publicly informed, and probably did not have any scientific basis for accuracy. These are the hallmarks of a valid survey. Mr. Mossman is obviously desperate to open the mine, yet clearly public opinion is against him...finish reading in The Union. Mark Hotsenpiller lives in Grass Valley.

Do you remember the Perry Mason TV series? Perry was a lawyer who always got the bad guy to admit their guilt in the end. Enjoy this wickedly-funny read where long-time Grass Valley resident Bob Clark imagines a courtroom showdown between Perry and Rise Gold CEO Ben Mossman. Read in The Union. If you’re old enough or watch old TV shows, then you know that Perry Mason was a TV defense lawyer played by Aaron Burr that ran from 1957 to 1966. Perry was amazing! He never lost a case. In fact his cases never even got to the jury because at some point he would get some witness on the stand or often even a spectator in the courtroom to jump up and admit that they had lied and that they were the guilty party. And, he always did it within an hour (including commercials). Oh Perry, where are you when we need you? If we had Perry, I know the first witness we would want him to call would be Ben Mossman, CEO of Rise Gold Corp. Imagine a conversation that went like this: Perry: “How many full time employees does Rise Gold have?” Mossman: “Well, it’s just me.” Perry: “Mr. Mossman could you tell us about the gold mines Rise Gold has ever opened or operated?” Mossman: “Actually, we’ve never opened or operated a mine.” Perry: “In fact, isn’t it true that Rise has no business income at all and according to your SEC filings is dependent on selling more stock to even continue to operate?” Mossman: “Yes, but when we get the approval we can get a lot of money to open the mine and we’ll hire a bunch of people and provide locals hundreds of jobs.” Perry: “The mine closed in the mid-1950s. Are there a bunch of experienced miners in the area to recruit from?” Mossman: “Well, no, but we’ll train them all and pay them an average of $94,000 per year.” Perry: “That’s twice the Nevada County average, about $20,000 per year more than other mines are paying, and you’re going to pay trainees that much?” Mossman: “Well, maybe not initially.” Perry: “Are there any guarantees that locals will get these jobs or that you’ll pay them that much?” Mossman: “Sometimes things change. Besides, we have to claim some kind of benefit to the area.” Perry: “Your outside expert produced a report saying that not only will you hire 300 workers, but that they will have 80% of their pretax income that they’ll spend in Grass Valley, creating another 300 jobs. Will the dollars they pay PG&E for utilities stay in the community? Will the money they spend for gasoline be given to the community or the oil companies? Will the money they spend on a new car down the hill because the county doesn’t even have a new car dealership, or the money they spend at a big box store, or at a mall, or buy online stay in the community?” Mossman: “OK, so the numbers are inflated a bit.” Perry: “In fact isn’t it true that none of the reports you have provided from outside experts would ever be submitted if they identified even one problem that you won’t claim can be easily mitigated?” Mossman: “We’re not stupid. That could sink the project. We aren’t going to pay anyone who won’t say what we want them to say.” Perry: “Some top-producing Grass Valley Realtors, the professionals who do the local real estate transactions, were surveyed. Those surveyed agreed 100% that if the mine reopens local property values will decline, in some cases by as much as $100,000 or more. Does Rise Gold plan on reimbursing the owners for the losses the mine causes?” Mossman: “You’ve got to be kidding. That could be tens of millions of dollars! The county refuses to even consider it as part of the evaluation, so why should we?” At this point Perry is supposed to get him to say, “All right, it’s all a lie. We might drain wells, damage property values, destroy the environment, the air, the noise, the traffic, the very reasons those people love the community, but we’ll be filthy rich. Screw them all. We’re betting the county supervisors will approve it anyway.” Unfortunately, we don’t have Perry Mason. It all depends on us, the local residents, to stand up and say “Not here! Stop the mine!” You don’t have to be Perry Mason to know when someone isn’t telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This isn’t just an hour of entertainment. It is something that can change our lives for the worse forever. Bob Clark has been a Grass Valley resident for over 20 years.

Rise Gold is trying to convince us that the mine will be good for us, but local resident, Reed Hamilton, questions their claims and brings up a number of potential downsides. It's clear that a thorough economic analysis needs to be completed before any decisions are made. "...comments have pointed out the financial weakness of Rise Gold and its short history, including bankruptcy and the CEO’s abandonment of the toxic waste of another mine. When I look at the whole picture the question is what do we get out of this? While we could benefit from more good jobs, will those hires be local or imported? Will the jobs be mostly temporary? Will tax revenues offset the increased cost of public services and road maintenance from an industrial project? Will the increase in power demand threaten our already vulnerable electrical system? Will mining activity decrease the value of local businesses and residences and, if so, by how much? Will our tourist industry be damaged by traffic, noise and pollution from the mine?" Read entire article in The Union. Reed A. Hamilton lives in Grass Valley.

The only one to come out ahead when the Siskon Mine in North San Juan failed was the mine owner, not the investors. Local resident, Ray Bryars, wonders whether Nevada County planners who voted in favor of opening that mine in 1993 would vote the same way today given the environmental and financial problems that resulted. Read in The Union. It has been a number of years since June 1993 when, in a single hearing, the Nevada County Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report and Use Permit for the Siskon Mine in North San Juan. Although they were very concerned about the mine, a number of residents in North San Juan worked closely with Tim Callaway, the mine owner, in an effort to ensure that the mine was as environmentally safe as possible. Unfortunately, despite their efforts, disaster struck. In 1996, sections of the mine walls broke through, causing disastrous flooding and the dewatering of 12 local wells. Significant efforts by the mine owner to stop any further damage was unsuccessful, and operations ceased. By July 1996, Siskon was in financial trouble. The company sold the timber rights on its 2,000 acres of land for $450,000, and its stock price dropped to $2.50 per share. In March 1997, Siskon miners hit unstable ground in their tunnel. Then in May 1997 the mine folded. Siskon’s share price went to 2.3 cents and dropped even further in the following months. During this period Tim Callaway received $791,000 in severance pay plus a salary of $178,700. The company had failed at mining gold, but had successfully mined its investors. Ultimately the owner was forced to declare bankruptcy, leaving behind a legacy of dewatered wells and a school that to this day is forced to bring in bottled water for its students. As Rise Gold pushes forward to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine in an area that could possibly dewater over 300 neighborhood wells, I’ve been wondering if, knowing what they know today, would the 1993 Planning Commission change their votes on the Siskon Mine? We know that hindsight is 20:20, but given the multitude of things that can go wrong when you are digging or dewatering holes in the vicinity of wells, does it make sense to risk the well-being of hundreds of our neighbors and friends so that one company can make money on a very speculative venture? Mining in Grass Valley would be risky with a reputable company, but the environmental history of Ben Mossman’s management of the Banks Island Mine in British Columbia, Canada, does not provide anywhere near the level of confidence that our current Planning Commission should be requiring. The county approved the Siskon Mine but took absolutely no responsibility for monitoring operations. The community took the risk, and when there were issues, the county looked the other way. If there are impacts with the Idaho Maryland Mine, such as pollution, wells being dewatered, property values reduced or quality of life negatively impacted, can we expect the county to be there for us? Unfortunately there will be no funding for monitoring the operations of the mine for even a year, let alone the 80 years that Rise Gold claims they will be operating. No doubt that if the mine is approved and something goes wrong, the county will have moved on to other business and will be too busy with the latest Nevada County drama to do anything about it. Residents will be on their own to figure out how to find water and how to continue their lives while living on a property that is worth way less than they paid for it. This is not the way Nevada County residents should be treated. We need to put a stop to this continued whack-a-mole with speculative mine owners. A requirement for operation must be funding for 80 years of continuous monitoring and a multi-million dollar “forever” bond, so that if anything ever goes wrong, there will at least have been an effort by the county to minimize the impact to residents. Ray Bryars lives in Nevada City.

From beginning to end, local resident, Richard Drace, skewers the anti-mine argument and raises a few on-target points that we don't hear enough about. The many contributors who have expressed their significant concerns about the Rise Gold proposal deserve our thanks. Perhaps it’s time for a bit of summary of a few salient points. Taken together, their arguments present a compelling case for denying the project application. Water, water, (not) everywhere: Scientists say they’ve been wrong about climate change; it’s happening more quickly and more severely than they predicted. We’re in a climate-change-influenced megadrought. Yet pumping out a million gallons a day or more for 80 years is no problem because a computer model, quite possibly is as much a parody of objectivity as the recent Rise satisfaction survey, says it will be OK? Job applicant: If you were an employer and you looked at Ben Mossman’s resumé and his references for his company, would you hire him? Past performance may be no guarantee of future results, but it sure is a strong indicator when it comes to a sketchy company CEO’s track record. Read the rest in The Union. Richard Drace lives in Grass Valley.

Check out The Union's coverage of our Day of Action! So proud of our amazing community who came out in force to show the absurdity of Rise Gold's privately-funded survey - which claims the majority of residents support the mine. Our volunteers talked with people across Grass Valley and Nevada City and heard overwhelming opposition to the mine, with nary a supporter to be found. Mine protesters organize in pursuit of "peace of mind“ One hundred and ten people signed up to protest at six different locations around Nevada County on Thursday to spread information about the potential risks of reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Tracy Sheehan helped organize the event to get petitions signed and distribute anti-mine signs, a yellow-and-black accessory for yards in the area. Sheehan, who worked to oppose Centennial Dam three years ago as coordinator for the Foothills Water Network, said the public-facing event was meant to counter any traction Rise Gold may have gained after publishing survey results she said are the antithesis to the community’s true, overwhelming opinion. Read the rest in The Union.

We're so proud of our amazing community who came out in force on July 22's Day of Action to show the absurdity of Rise Gold's privately-funded survey (which claims the majority of residents support the mine). Our volunteers talked with people across Grass Valley and Nevada City and heard overwhelming opposition to the mine, with nary a supporter to be found. Read The Union's coverage of our big day! This is not OK. Organizers mobilize in light of Rise Gold Survey. THANK YOU to EVERYONE who came out!. Here are just a few of the pictures that were taken! If you have more to share, please send them to mineconcerns@cea-nc.org.

Jeff Kane of Nevada City shares a hilarious conversation he "might have had" with someone he bumped into on the street Let me tell you about the gold mine we’re planning here in Nevada County. Yeah, tell me. After all, that’s our history. Are you gonna dip a pan into the South Yuba? Well, it’s a little bigger than that. We’ll dig for it at the old Idaho-Maryland site. Oh? How big a dig? We’ll go underground and remove about 1,500 tons of rock. Sounds like a lot. Ahem. Ah, 1,500 tons every day. Every day? Where will you put it? ... Read the rest in The Union.

A large exhaust fan drawing will move air out of the mine 24 hours a day Air from the mine will be exhausted through the mine’s headframe at approximately 165’ above ground. The ventilation fan exhausting the air will operate continuously, 24 hours a day, every day, at 200,000 cubic feet per minute. The permit application estimates a PG&E power net load of 6,000 Kilowatts (KW). Total power is estimated at 42,757,000 Kilowatt-Hours (KWH) per year. This is approximately equivalent to the power used by 5,000 houses. [1] Applicants Project Description, Nov 2019 https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/31023/Applicants-Project-Description, pp. 10 and 38 [2] Air Quality and greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project, Feb 2020, pp. 73-74: https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/33583/Air-Quality-and-GHG-Report---Added-3-9-2020 Average energy usage per CA residence = 667 KWH / month = ~8000 KWH / year. https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/electricity-on-average-do-homes/

Significant amounts of hazardous materials such as explosives and toxic chemicals will be utilized and stored onsite if the Idaho-Maryland Mine reopens. Explosives will include ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil), and Ammonium Nitrate Emulsion. Up to 28,000 lbs. of explosives will be stored onsite underground. Diesel fuel storage will consist of a 30,000 gallon, above-ground storage tank at the Brunswick site and a 1,200 gallon tank at the Centennial site. A number of other chemicals will be utilized for processing the gold using the sulfide flotation system and other activities. Dioxins, PCP, and TCP were used during the lumber/ mill years 1950-2000. Lumber was treated with pesticide solution. Testing revealed presence of PCP and TCP down to 7 feet and in groundwater in 1987 [1] Applicants Project Description, Nov 2019, p. 9 https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/31023/Applicants-Project-Description [2] Applicants Project Description, Nov 2019, Table 9 on p. 19 https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/31023/Applicants-Project-Description [3] Applicants Project Description, Nov 2019, p. 12 https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/31023/Applicants-Project-Description [4] NV5 Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, Brunswick Industrial Site APNs 006-44, June 16, 2020, pp. 34-35 https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/35001/Phase-I-II-ESA-Brunswick-Industrial-Site---6-26-2020

Go to our new Action Kit online. www.MineWatchNC.org/action-kit

Get smart in a hurry. Hear from three experts about the risks posed by the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine in this educational video sponsored by the Sierra Club and produced by Nevada County Media. Host Cassandra Wahlstrom is joined by Ralph Silberstein – President, CEA Foundation, Barbara Rivenes – Local Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Maryanne Murphy – Local lawyer to discuss the impacts of the potential re-opening of the Idaho Maryland Mine in Grass Valley, CA. Full transcript below. This presentation starts at 2:30. Rewind to watch the introduction too. Transcript This is program presented by the Sierra Club of the Gold Country. [CASSANDRA WAHLSTROM – SIERRA CLUB] The issue that we're going to be discussing today is the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine located in Grass Valley. My name is Cassandra Wahlstrom, a longtime member of the Sierra Club and for the last few years a participating member of the local Sierra Club management committee I'm an art historian with three informed guests we will discuss the key issues regarding the mine. As far as our local environment is concerned, destruction of woodlands, massive mine waste dumping groundwater, pollution, air pollution emissions, and energy use of extreme quantity, noise and vibrations, traffic, real estate impacts to property values, issues of quality of life and beauty of the environment. For the people that actually live here with the three informed guests today: Ralph Silberstein president of the Board of Directors of CEA Foundation Community Environmental Advocates Foundation Barbara Rivenes an environmentalist for many years chairperson of the management committee of our local chapter of the national Sierra Club and Maryanne Murphy owner of Murphy law firm of Grass Valley she's a California lawyer since 1986 and a real estate broker very much familiar with the local property values I'd like to welcome Ralph to give us some information that he is very much familiar with because of his Community Environmental Advocates Foundation so please step forward here and let us know some of the interesting and essential details of this situation [RALPH SILBERSTEIN – CEA FOUNDATION] Thank you Cassandra and the Sierra Club for inviting us. As Cassandra indicated this is a huge project with impacts to air, water, traffic, safety, local habitat, and quality of life. I'll just touch on a few key issues there are two sites for this project the Centennial site and the Brunswick site. The Centennial site is along Idaho Maryland road and Centennial Drive. It's historically the site of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. The site will be almost entirely used for mine waste... mined waste dumping for about five years. The Brunswick site is on Brunswick Road and East Bennett Drive. It's 119 acres and there Rise Gold plans to build 122,000 square feet of storage buildings, including a 16 story tall head frame structure, a 425 foot long six-story tall mineral processing building, conveyor system storage tank, and several other industrial buildings. The Brunswick site will also be used for mine waste dumping for about six years covering about 31 acres to a height of nine stories above grade. These industrial buildings and the mine waste piles will be right along Brunswick Road. If approved we will all be impacted by this project. But any of the 1800 property owners over or near that two thousand five hundred and eighty-five acres of mineral rights should be especially concerned. Mineral rights generally extend within 200 feet of the surface so there's a nice map that shows where this is. From completely under the hospital on the west side, to under the airport on the east side ,and it begins from the edge of the Glenbrook Basin on the north, all the way down to highway 174 and under the Cedar Ridge neighborhoods. The mineral rights run continuously so within this area, blasting shockwaves may be felt. The blasting analysis for this project uses the standard of four-tenths of an inch per second motion as an acceptable standard because only eight percent of the people complain. If you're one of the several hundred well owners in this region your well may be impacted. Rise Gold's own hydrological study shows that dewatering the mine will lower the ground water levels by more than five feet over a fairly large area. There's a nice diagram to help explain this, but basically the study is based on a lot of assumptions. It assumes that the rock strata is uniform throughout the area. And it assumes there they won't encounter any unidentified fractures or faults or tunnels that might invalidate the model. And also assumes that the mining will be limited to a small area of the mineral rights accounting for only a third of the planned 80 years of operations. These are big assumptions. We need hard facts before putting hundreds of wells at risk. Other concerns are noise and traffic, trucks hauling cement, explosives, chemicals and materials. Heavy equipment dumping, grading, and compacting seven days a week. And up to 100 trips per day of gravel trucks running 16 hours a day seven days a week. They'll start out motoring up Brunswick Road and turning left on Whispering Pines Lane and going through the Whispering Pines Business Park to drop the mine waste on the Centennial Site. Later on they'll be driving up Brunswick Road and going through Glenbrook Basin to get on highway 49. There'll be lots of noise lots of traffic. And there'll be constant noise from the rock crushing and mineral processing facility, which will run 24x7, 365 days a year. Note that the application documents claim that the noise will meet County codes, but they said that for the exploratory drilling that drove the neighbors crazy for about two years. I've just covered a few of the issues but in closing I just have to ask a question. Does it really make sense to build a huge industrial gold mine operating in the middle of our beautiful rural neighborhoods? Constructing huge mine waste piles and causing air pollution, noise, traffic, loss of groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, and so on. All this extract little bits of yellow rock to profit a Canadian-based company. You decide. [CASSANDRA WAHLSTROM – SIERRA CLUB] Thank you. Our next guest is an environmentalist, Barbara Rivenes… for many years chairperson of the management committee of our local chapter of the national Sierra Club. [BARBARA RIVENES – SIERRA CLUB] I'm pleased you're joining us this afternoon or today. My involvement began when I heard that another Canadian junior mining company was coming to Grass Valley to despoil our community with dreams of gold again. This time for 80 years. I couldn't believe it. Their plan includes underground mining less than two miles from downtown Grass Valley. Exploring all the old shafts under people's houses, rumbling around, looking for specks of gold in tons of rock. But it did turn out to be true and the environmental impacts are many and varied. Completely erasing 75 acres of woodland at the Brunswick Site. Destroying rich animal habitat. They're depleting groundwater. Treating South Fork Wolf Creek like a storm drain. Increasing energy use. And reversing our county's climate change progress. There are two proposed active sites as Ralph said. Brunswick where the tall shaft sits at the corner of Brunswick and east Bennett, which is now populated with 50 acres of mixed conifer and hardwood species. Home to a variety of mammals and birds. Of course the area is completely surrounded by residential rural properties which reflects today's county zoning. The centennial site is smaller. It was heavily impacted in the previous mining years and requires state remediation before any work can be done. Rhis site will eventually be covered with waste rock and tailings up to 70 feet high at 70 feet high over 44 acres that is the height of a seven story building. Phew. Dewatering the mine will bring the other impacts. 800 million gallons of water will be pumped out of the mine and dumped into South Fork Wolf Creek in the first six months. Further dewatering continues removing over a million gallons a day over the 80 years of its production. Imagine the turbulence and the damage to the riparian areas along the creek. No longer a meander but a full rushing onslaught of water. Please note that the homes in this area of East Bennett and Brunswick all have private wells and no guarantee how these will be impacted. Also other reaches of the mineral rights zone may have impacts when the water is pumped out. About 1800 properties as you can see. There will be dramatic changes in the areas. Terrestrial flora and fauna. And our precious creeks. But we will also experience a slap in the face for our climate change actions. In the last few years both the county and the city have created ambitious energy action plans to reduce our energy footprint through efficiency and solar installations. The estimated energy use of the mine is 42 million kilowatt hours which will wipe out whatever energy savings we had calculated to save. Equal to about five thousand homes. And the estimated greenhouse emissions for the mine is nine thousand metric tons per year. Then there's the air pollution. Fugitive dust from the rock crushing, loading, hauling, packing, combining into engineered fill would create microscopic particles harmful to the lungs in the Grass Valley neighborhood that is home to Sierra Nevada memorial hospital, all the doctor’s offices in the area, the rest homes, and the apartments along that way. Nevada County is already considered by the state a non-attainment area for ozone an industrial venture of this magnitude will not be compatible with an idyllic small mountain town and its inhabitants. [CASSANDRA WAHLSTROM – SIERRA CLUB] Thank you. Our next guest will be Maryanne Murphy. She's owner of the Murphy law firm in Grass Valley and she also a real estate broker very knowledgeable about local properties in the area Maryanne [MARYANNE MURPHY – LAWYER, REAL ESTATE BROKER] Thank you. I will provide some general information about the processes involved in determining whether or not this project as filed will become a mining project of our community. You should first know that the deciders of whether or not that happens lies exclusively within the power of the board of supervisors from Nevada County. There are some ancillary public agencies that will be consulted or can voice their concerns agencies such as the city of the Grass Valley in Nevada City and NID, but the decision is the board of supervisors’ decision. And it would only take a majority vote of five of three of the five to approve this plan or this project. And it would become a member of our community at that point. There are a couple of legal issues surrounding the project. One is environmental. And the other one is land use. I say land use because the land where the operational sites and the residential sites have different zoning. One is ultra-hazardous and the other is residential. Some commercial sites if you consider the mineral rights expansion of this project. And their activity is not consistent with that zoning requirement. So, they would have to get approved by the board of supervisors a conditional use proof permit to work around that zoning -- to get an exception to that zoning. That process is in the hands of the planning department. They will be holding committee meetings and a hearing to eventually advise the board about the recommendation as to going around the zoning and giving out a conditional use permit. The second of course is the environmental which follows the state law called California Environment Quality Protection Act CEQA of 1970 that basically provides for the legal agencies such as the board to review the environmental impacts in a certain pattern or a step process. In this instance with public comment. By the way, in this instance, they're already at step three which is the final segment of the three-step process and have the board has issued a request for an environmental impact report. This is the final phase. What that report is made up of is specialist comments on some of the issues raised by Barbara and Ralph. They are to detail information about a project's likely effect on the environment. Consider ways to mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects. And, examine alternatives that will avoid or reduce the impact to the community. That information is made public. Some of it is put on the county's website. Eventually there will be a final Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). At that point, there will be public comment. There's public comment ongoing during this process and so I would encourage you (since there's no other people to who will be deciding this but the board) for you to become active. - if you care about the outcome of this - with the board by lobbying your individual board members. Or, showing up at an agenda and speaking your peace of mind on some of these environmental or land use issues. Or, joining an organization to fight like such as Ralph's to find out more information. But to do it in that way because you cannot do it in any other way at this point. Thank you. [CASSANDRA WAHLSTROM – SIERRA CLUB] Thank you Maryanne. he Idaho-Maryland Mine is an important issue. At this time the proposed reopening of industrial mining operations in a cultural residential community is a disaster that can be prevented. Consider the information shared in this program. You can make an important difference by contacting your representative on the board of supervisors. You can…at the end of this program... find a link to the information. How to find that website. Or, you can simply go onto the internet and locate it for yourself very easily. When you find your representative it's a good thing to contact him at least once and perhaps a couple of times over the next period while the things are developing. And before the vote (if you keep yourself informed, you'll know when the vote is). You really can make a difference by contacting your representative. Thank you so much for your interest care and concern about the quality of life in the environment you

On Nov. 30, 2020, I saw my specialist at UC San Francisco. I was given a new and updated diagnosis: peripheral neuropathy caused by mercury poisoning. This was not a hippie-laden self-diagnosis. This is a real diagnosis by the head of dermatology at UC San Francisco, and now UC Davis neurologists are my next stop to treat my verified diagnosis. How did I get mercury poisoning? A tunnel of the Lost Lake leg of the Lava Cap Mine collapsed underground and disturbed heavy metals that had settled in the mine tailings, allowing them to move into the surrounding groundwater. Read the full article in The Union

Watch the Film Watch the Workshop, recorded live on January 23, 2021 during the 19th annual Wild & Scenic Film Festival. Hosted by YubaNet's Pascale Fusshoeller. This year, SYRCL's Wild & Scenic Film Festival featured a film about the proposal re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, a relic gold mine in Nevada County, CA. The community faces a foreign corporation that would take the gold from under their property and leave a toxic legacy. Rise Beyond Gold raises bigger questions for the world at large. Why do we desire gold; and ultimately, is it worth it? The Workshop Panel: - Host: Ashely Overhouse, South Yuba River Citizen's League, River Policy Manager - Moderator: Pascale Fusshoeller, YubaNet, Editor - Jennifer Ekstrom, Filmmaker, and Principal Storyteller, Catalyst Communications - Ralph Silberstein, Community Environmental Advocates Foundation - Mike Shea, Impacted Homeowner - Shelly Covert, Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribal Council, Secretary Community Outreach - Izzy Martin, CEO, The Sierra Fund Read CEA Foundation's review of Rise Beyond Gold, which further clarifies several questions raised by the film.

While COVID ravaged across the world, air pollution killed about three times as many people. We must fight climate change with the same urgency with which we confronted coronavirus. Read this article in the Guardian.

Watch CEA Foundation and coalition partners hosting a virtual community meeting to get the latest news on opposition to the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine. Meeting focus: Countering Rise Gold's Claims Agenda: The updated timeline -- anticipated next steps in the public process Countering Rise Gold's claims about the impacts to our community How to take action Q&A

The Union’s front page article on New Year’s Day gave a run-down of the top four issues facing the County Supervisors in 2021, listing the proposed re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine as one of four, along with the vaccine roll-out, economic recovery, and PSPS/Wildfire concerns. In a switch from past articles that were decidedly pro-mine, this article sized up the debate-to-come by presenting the opposition as credible and well organized, while putting Rise Gold in a defensive position and forcing them to explain CEO Ben Mossman’s bad history. A big piece of this win is due to you. The article remarked on this community’s visible and vocal presence at board of supervisor meetings over the past few months. Thank you! Your respectful participation in our government’s process is earning us the credibility we need in order to win this fight. Read the full article in the Union here.

Read GV Resident Tony's Lauria's short, but powerful argument for why the dangers of the Mine outweigh any rights to a financial profit. You can also read this in The Union. Analyzing this proposal at the basic level of common sense, I see no gray areas for dispute. The risks of permitting a heavy industrial mining operation, under residential property, outweigh any rights to financial profit. When you truly consider what this proposal is all about, it is money. It’s not about the health, safety and welfare of the thousands of residents in the area. It’s about taking. Taking away our clean, proficient wells. Taking away our clean air. Taking our energy resources. Taking away our quiet natural environment. Taking away our life’s investment in our homes and properties. Taking away the beauty of our natural habitat. Proponents of this proposal have an interest in making money for themselves. What is unspoken, but true, is that this money will be made off the backs of the citizens who live here. We have seen it before. It is written in history, all around us. If there’s any doubt, take a look at this documentary of the most recent gold mining travesty inflicted on our county: https://vimeo.com/120747168. Anyone in a position of power and charged with upholding the best interests of the residents of this community must stop this egregious attack on our town. I don’t believe any of the multitude of impacts can ever be mitigated to less than significant. They will devastate our community. There are no studies or reports that can 100% guarantee a safe outcome for any one of these impacts.