Advanced
SEARCH
Search our Library
314 results found with an empty search
- Rise Gold’s (Former) CEO found guilty on 13 counts in British Columbia retrial
"When people show you who they are, believe them the first time." Ben Mossman was found guilty of 13 charges related to discharging substances into the environment above permitted amounts when he was CEO and mine manager of the Yellow Giant Gold Mine in BC Canada. He was found not guilty on 10 other charges, but the judge had to some choice words to say about that. Ben Mossman was removed as CEO of Rise Gold just before he was sentenced to pay a fine of $30,000 Canadian dollars in Canadian Court. He remains on Rise's Board of Directors to this day. Read the full article in The Union newspaper. Excerpts: "Dan McLaughlin, Communications Counsel for the BC Prosecution Service states that the offenses with which Mr. Mossman is charged in British Columbia are “related to allegations of the discharge of waste, effluent, and other deleterious substances into the environment in contravention of several statutory regulations”. "In his written judgement, Judge Patterson repeatedly stated that he had his suspicions about the charges on which Mossman was exonerated, but that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mossman was directly responsible for the environmental damage resulting from the well-documented spills. "The judge stated that the testimony of the prosecution’s primary witness, the mine’s Environmental Manager and Site Biologist was flawed because of “her profound hostility, animosity, and negative attitude” towards Mr. Mossman and the trial process, as well as her less than satisfactory recollection of the events prior to the 2015 shutdown of the Yellow Giant Mine."
- Vested rights for Idaho-Maryland Mine denied by supervisors
The petition for vested rights to mine the Idaho-Maryland Mine (IMM) in Grass Valley submitted by Rise Gold Corporation was denied by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on Thursday, December 14. Read the full article in The Union. Excerpts: The current zoning and regulatory processes apply no matter what the reasons for the IMM to shut down over the years, according to Hardy Bullock, Supervisor for District 5. “In my mind, no mining activity has taken place since the early 50s. There’s clear and convincing evidence in my mind, not just on the Centennial and Brunswick, but the property as a whole,” Hardy said. Hardy went on to say, “Mining activity, in my mind, is excavation, blasting, tunneling, removing, processing, or the sale of mine products of any kind… That’s what mining is. In my mind, mining is not subdividing mine land into parcels for sale as residential developments. Mining is not selling the land for industrial purposes. Mining is not sawmill or wood products.” --- Megan Wold, Cooper and Kirk out of Washington D.C. advised Rise Gold, especially on the issues of the U.S. Constitution and the Fifth Amendment which refers to private property rights among other things. Abandonment of vested rights is comparable to other constitutional rights, according to Wold. “We require affirmative evidence of abandonment before we think someone has abandoned a Constitutional rights,” Wold said. --- Ralph Silberstein, President of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) commented on the inevitability that the County will now be sued by Rise Gold Corp., and a Resolution drafted and made public on the second day of the hearing is preparing for that lawsuit. “We’re pleased that the Council did the right thing, and turned down this vested rights petition, and weren’t intimidated by the threat of a bunch of high powered lawyers from the East Coast threatening to sue,” Silberstein said.
- Attend the County's Vested Rights Hearing!
Nevada County Supervisors will consider Rise's petition for vested rights in a public hearing at 9:00 AM on Wednesday, December 13 in the Board chambers, Rood Center, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City; with a second day added on Thursday, December 14, if necessary to accommodate public testimony and deliberation. Wednesday December 13th is the most critical day to attend. Please attend if you can! Even though the County's staff report is recommending a NO vote on Rise's petition for vested rights, this fight isn't over yet. We need to fill the room and remind Supervisors of the overwhelming community opposition to the Mine. If they vote no on vested rights, they still need to schedule a final vote on the original use permit and weather Rise Gold's inevitable legal challenges. They need to know that this community is NOT backing down! The Board has made it clear they will be restricting public comment to testimony related to the petition only. If history isn’t your thing, it’s OK to take a pass on public comment this time and save it for the next hearing. Read on to learn about: Public Hearing Details Parking and Transit Food Public Hearing Schedule How to Participate in Public Comment Written Comments Background on Vested Rights Petition and How We Got Here Resources for Learning More about Vested Rights Public Hearing Details: Wednesday, December 13, 9 a.m. If necessary, the hearing may be continued to Thursday, December 14, beginning at 9 a.m. Eric Rood Administrative Center, Board of Supervisor Chamber, First Floor, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City. View live online on Nevada County’s YouTube Channel. Parking and Transit: Carpooling is encouraged as parking is limited. In the afternoon, the parking lot will become more impacted as visitors arrive for Nevada City’s Victorian Christmas and park at the Rood Center. Food: Java John’s Nevada County Café will be open from 7 a.m. – 5 p.m. to provide food and drinks for purchase. Public Hearing Schedule: Presentations from the applicant and from County staff related to the history of the use at the site and the governing law on vested rights. Public comment. Members of the public who wish to address the Board of Supervisors should attend the December 13 meeting as there may not be a second day of hearings on December 14. Please see the “How to Participate” section below. Board questions and comments. Board deliberations. The Board can then make a final determination on whether the petition for vested rights should be granted. How to Participate in Public Comment: Due to the limited nature of this hearing, those wishing to comment will have three minutes, and any comment must be limited to the historical uses of the site and factual evidence of activities that have occurred on or at the site. Because it is not relevant to this hearing, no public comment will be allowed regarding support or opposition to the mine, the Idaho Maryland Mine’s Draft Environmental Impact Report, the use permit, the reclamation plan, and/or any other land use entitlement, and/or any other potential impacts of the mine, or any history pertaining to Rise Grass Valley or related businesses. All those comments should be reserved for either of the next hearings, as described under “Next steps” below. To provide public comment, receive a number from County staff outside the Supervisors’ Chamber. Public comment numbers will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 8:30 am. (They will also be available continuously until the public comment has concluded.) Speakers will provide public comment to the Board of Supervisors in the Supervisors’ Chamber in groups of ten. Written Comment: All written public comments should be received by 4 p.m. the day before the hearing (December 12) for it to become part of the public record. Email to clerkofboard@nevadacountyca.gov. Mailed to the Nevada County Clerk of the Board at 950 Maidu Ave, Suite 200, Nevada City, CA 95959. Submit eComment, available once the Agenda for the meeting is posted (December 8). Alternatively, as a last resort, you may submit printed and written copies of your comment directly to the Clerk of the Board at the Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing. Background on Vested Rights Petition and How We Got Here At this year’s May 11 public hearing for the Idaho-Maryland Mine, the Nevada County Planning Commission voted unanimously against the Mine’s Use Permit and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Now faced with the real possibility of a NO vote by the Board of Supervisors at the final hearings, Rise Gold is trying an unusual tactic aimed at side-stepping the normal use permit process by claiming they have a "vested right" to reopen the mine. Under both state case law and County code, a property owner may acquire a vested right to continue a use that existed at the time zoning regulations changed. Since the Idaho-Maryland Mine was open in 1954 when the County implementing new requirements, it may have had a vested right to continue mining at that time. But the right to continue is not permanent, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish the vested rights. If the Board denies the Petition, the County will resume processing Rise’s application to open the Idaho-Maryland Mine and schedule a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors early in 2024 for the final vote on the Environmental Impact Report and Use Permit. Resources for Learning More about Vested Rights News Coverage The Union | YubaNet Nevada County Releases Staff Report on Rise Grass Valley’s vested rights petition ahead of December 13 Hearing County Resources Petition for Vested Rights Board of Supervisor Staff Report News Flash: Nevada County Releases Staff Report on Rise Grass Valley Vested Rights Petition How to Participate in the Board of Supervisors’ Hearing on the Vested Rights | Nevada County CA Civic Alerts CEA Foundation / MineWatch Comments and Resources Press Release: CEA Foundation Weighs in on Rise Gold’s Vested Rights Petition | MineWatchNC.org Historical Review: CEA Foundation Review and Analysis of the Rise Grass Valley Vested Rights Petition (PDF) Legal analysis: Response to Idaho-Maryland Mine Vested Rights Petition (PDF)
- Earthshaking News: Planning Commission Rejects Mine
We won a pivotal victory! All five Planning Commissioners voted unanimously against the Idaho-Maryland Mine at the end of Nevada County's public hearing May 10 and 11! They JUST SAID NO to the project and NO to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)! Together we experienced two days of drama, culminating in not only a vote by the commissioners – but an earthquake too! It seems Mother Nature herself felt compelled to vote against the mine – only 20 minutes after Commissioner McAteer asked why the EIR erased a fault line from the final project map! Planning Commission Recommends NO to Gold Mine | Community Opponents Celebrate | YubaNet Planning Commission No the Idaho-Maryland Mine | The Union Both days were live streamed. Watch the videos. May 10 | May 11 Phenomenal Show of Community Opposition Perhaps the most impressive part of this story and that day is this community. Let’s face it – it really is like no other. Our collective experience and deep expertise are why we are effective. Thank YOU… Because YOU are why WE are winning! Our presence at the meeting was a sight to behold: Nearly 1,000 people attended the event, with over 900 “No Mine” attendance stickers handed out on the first day alone! 500 postcards signed in 7 hours 380 people grabbed tickets to speak 139 people commented across two days, 112 were opposed Dozens of students attended from local schools (with permission from their schools) 9 hours of public comment 4 TV crews 4 food trucks And one GREAT group photo! Our numbers leading up to the meeting were just as impressive. We delivered: A group letter from the 26 MineWatch Coalition organizations detailing the flaws in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Over 5,500 petition signatures and proof that over 250 businesses signed on in opposition (including 100 realtors). Huge stacks of paper containing some 1200 letters plus 600 “Just Say No” postcards submitted in the last 4 months alone. A huge photomosaic banner made up of hundreds of faces of activists and community members holding “No Mine” signs. 202 no-mine opinion editorials in the Union Over 1,000 petition signatures gathered by SYRCL (South Yuba River Citizen's League) at their recent Wild and Scenic Film Festival Over 200 signatures on a group letter from the Wells Coalition - a group of directly-impacted well owners within roughly 1/2 mile of the mine's mineral rights area More News 6.8.23 Grass Valley residents oppose plan to reopen old gold mine | The Sacramento Bee (sacbee.com) 5.26.23 Ideas & Opinions — John Brady: Urge the Supervisors to slam this project into the trash bin of history | Community | theunion.com 5.20.23 Ideas & Opinions — Martha Turner: Kudos to the Planning Commission! Kudos to the people! | Community | theunion.com 5.15.23 Rise Gold Sees Commission Deny Idaho-Maryland Mine Project In California | the deep dive 5.13.23 Planning commission rejects project to open up old gold mine in Nevada County (kcra.com) 5.12.23 Planning commission: No to the Idaho-Maryland mine | News | theunion.com 5.12.23 Nevada County Planning Commission unanimously recommends denying the Idaho Maryland Mine – Rise Grass Valley Project - YubaNet 5.12.23 Rise Gold Reports Planning Commission Recommendation on Idaho-Maryland Mine Project (yahoo.com) 5.10 CBS "It's a bad idea": Plans to reopen Nevada County gold mine sparks controversy - CBS Sacramento (cbsnews.com) 5.10.23 Fox News: Debate in Nevada County as company seeks to reopen mine - 5.10 Union: County chambers overflow with voices for and against the mine project (PHOTO GALLERY) | News | theunion.com 5.10 Union Video: Mine Meeting: Nevada County Planning Commission holds hearing on the Idaho-Maryland Mine (Video) | News | theunion.com 5.10 KCRA: Proposed Grass Valley mine reopening drew hundreds to public hearing (kcra.com) 5.10 ABC 10: Nevada County Planning Commission holding public meeting on proposed gold mine | abc10.com 5.10 YubaNet: Planning Commission meeting goes into Day 2 - YubaNet 5.9 KCRA: Grass Valley could soon reopen its Idaho-Maryland Mine. Here’s why some want to stop it (kcra.com) 5.9 Judgement day: Nevada County Planning Commission to make recommendations on Idaho-Maryland Mine | News | theunion.com
- Former B.C. mining mogul fined $30,000 for past environmental infractions
Recent Rise Gold CEO, Ben Mossman, was CEO and Mine Manager of Banks Island Gold in British Columbia in 2015 when environmental regulations were breached. After being found guilty of 13 counts, he was sentenced to $30,000 Canadian dollars. Read the full article in The Northern View. Excerpts: “By failing to ensure that the Yellow Giant Mine had protocols in place to avoid the very failings for which he was convicted, Mossman is the author of his own misfortune,” said Judge David Patterson, Prince Rupert B.C. Provincial Criminal Court. - While Patterson determined Mossman was remorseful for his actions, the Prince Rupert judge said the former CEO and his company were “lucky” their actions did not lead to a full-blown environmental disaster. - The mine’s environmental breaches affected not only the island, but also the Gitxaała people, according to Patterson. “Not only does violating mining permits potentially jeopardize the environment,” he said. “But in the present case, the offences jeopardized the rich resources and economy of the Gitxaała Nation as well as the spiritual beliefs of its people.” - While Gitxaała Chief Councillor Linda Innes said the Nation is happy to see Mossman held accountable, she was dissapointed in what the Nation deemed an insufficent punishment. “While Mr. Mossman is certainly accountable for the horrendous example of what happens when bad mines are allowed to operate without clear oversight and accountability to Indigenous Rights and Title holders, these shamefully light administrative penalties amount to nothing but small fractions of the costs of correcting the devastation left behind,” Innes said.
- Why Say No To The Idaho-Maryland Mine?
Quick Read: Summary of key reasons to say no to the mine — researched and validated by CEA Foundation/MineWatch researchers. Nevada County has completed both an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Economic Impact Report on the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine project. In May 2023, Nevada County Planning Commissioners voted unanimously against the project and chose not to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We are waiting for a final vote on the project and EIR by the Board of Supervisors. Our county is at risk. A Canadian-based company wants to reopen a gold mine under Grass Valley’s feet, changing the character of the community we love and impacting our air, water, and quality of life. Significant environmental impacts. The mine has significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that are inconsistent with the County’s General Plan and endanger this community's health and quality of life – including aesthetics, traffic, and noise. There are also serious deficiencies in the Final EIR that put the County and its citizens at further risk, including air and water. A few jobs and uncertain tax revenues just aren’t worth the risk. Learn more. Economic benefits aren’t worth the risk. The Economic Impact Report on the Mine showed a huge range of possible revenue outcomes from very low to very high, making actual revenue potential uncertain. Community experts recently reviewed the report and found that even the low-end numbers were overly optimistic, that real estate estimates were a big miss, and that the possible economic benefits to the community would be overshadowed by a lot of downside risk. Learn more. Gold mining is a serious threat to wells and area groundwater. Water is a precious resource. All the more so because of continuing concerns about drought. Why? Rise Gold plans to pump out 3.6 million gallons every day for 6 months and another 1.2 for up to 80 years. Mine dewatering risks depletion of our region’s groundwater. It puts the health of wells and creeks at risk. The Final EIR did not address serious deficiencies identified by expert reviewers. Its claim that impacts won’t be significant aren’t supported. Learn more. Nevada County already gets an F rating when it comes to air quality and has 2 times the average in lung disease. Reopening the mine will make it worse. Why? Even using today’s best technology, fugitive dust from continuous rock crushing, hauling, and compacting risks release of asbestos and silica particles. The huge increase in diesel truck trips amplifies the problem. The Final EIR’s conclusion that air quality impact would be ‘less than significant’ is unsupported. Learn more. Nearby residents will see reduced quality of life and lower property values. Why? Nearby residents will share the roads with large trucks carrying mine waste, feel the effects of underground blasting, and hear the sounds of rock processing, loading, spreading, and compacting. Over 75 acres of woodlands will also be replaced with industrial buildings and engineered fill. The Economic Impact Report’s assertion that property values wouldn’t decline was a big miss. It failed to recognize local realtor expertise or use acceptable home appraisal methods. Local realtors say it will have long term, detrimental effects on property values. Learn more. A yes vote for the mine is a no vote for climate change. Why? Mining operations would generate a staggering amount of new greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rise Gold would generate over 9000 metric tons annually from the Grass Valley site, plus another 4000 if you include the cement manufacturing that would be done elsewhere. The Final Environmental Impact report chose an outdated “threshold of significance” that doesn’t align with current state and federal recommendations. The correct threshold should be “net-zero”. Learn more. Mining is a toxic business that requires compliance monitoring we’re not set up to handle. Why? Mining is a hazardous business and most "compliance" measures are either self-reported or not monitored at all. The community needs to be able to trust that onsite safeguards are in place and that continuous testing is being handled by a trusted third party. Most of the compliance managed by our county today is “by complaint only” and handled with a very small staff. The mitigations described in the Final EIR do not address these significant gaps in regulatory protection. E.g., Read: No State Monitor for Mine and Forever Issues Plague Mines. The company that wants to open the mine can’t be trusted. Why? Rise Gold is a 16-year-old company that has never opened a mine and never made a profit. The trustworthiness of Ben Mossman, the former Rise Gold CEO who drove this project until September 2023, has been a major cause of concern. His last company polluted tribal waters, went bankrupt, and left Canadians with a bill to pay for cleanup. Mossman was found guilty in Canadian court of 13 charges of environment crimes related to spills at that mine in July 2023 and was sentenced for those crimes with fines on September 27, 2023. Since arriving in Grass Valley, Rise Gold has also made a number of questionable and misleading claims that have been widely criticized by the community. Learn more. Even people who generally support mining are against this project. Why? Two reasons: 1) The project is too close to an established community which creates a much higher level of risk if bad things happen. 2) Gold is not a high priority mineral to support the growth of green technology or medical science. We already have enough gold sitting in vaults to support that for generations to come. TAKE ACTION! Our handy online tool makes it easy to let Nevada County decision makers know what you think of the mine. Send a letter. PRINT or share this information with others using this PDF.
- MineWatch Community Meeting Sept. 26
It’s time to ACTIVE-ATE with FREE PIZZA! Join us on Tuesday September 26th, 6:00 to 7:30pm. Nevada County will be making final decisions about the Idaho-Maryland Mine in the coming months. We need all hands on deck to prepare for two critical hearings coming in October and December. This will be a rare IN PERSON community meeting from 6:00 to 7:30pm at the Nevada County Associations of Realtors’ Esterly Hall. 336 Crown Point Circle, Grass Valley, CA. Please join us! Here’s a peek at the agenda. - Status report – Vested Rights vs. Condition Use Permit - Refresher – Why this project can’t be fixed - Organize – What we can all do to take action - Social time – Gather & mill with fellow rabble-rousers WITH Pizza! Bonus – We may be doing some cheering too since Mossman’s sentencing date for his guilty verdict in Canadian court is currently set for the same day, September 26. If you can’t make it to the meeting in person, consider joining by Zoom. Please REGISTER in advance to get a personalized link.
- JUST SAY NO - Public Hearing May 10 (&11) - All hands on deck
Get ready for a big show of opposition at Nevada County Planning Commission's PUBLIC HEARING on the Idaho-Maryland Mine. If you attend one meeting this year, let this be the one. This is our last chance to tell Commissioners to Just Say No to the project... AND the seriously flawed Environmental Impact Report! Only denying the mine AND not certifying the EIR will defeat it for good! May 10 is the most critical day. We'll be taking a group picture during the lunch break. Wednesday, May 10, 2023 | 9:00am – 5:00pm "Overflow day": Thursday, May 11, 2023 | 9:00 – 5:00pm 950 Maidu Ave, Nevada City, CA 95959, USA Here’s a rough idea of how the schedule will go. 8:30 am – This is the earliest you can pick up a comment number if you want to speak, but you can pick up a number any time in the day. 9:00 am– Some of the morning will be taken with presentations & commissioner questions. Public comment will begin after that. Lunch break – The exact time will be decided by the Commission chairperson. Join us for an update, music, and a giant group photo. Food trucks will be available from 11am to 2pm. Afternoon to 5:00 pm / possibly continuing to May 11 – Continue public comment. Once all speakers have been heard, the commissioners will discuss and take a final vote. Know before you go: Allow EXTRA time for parking. We expect overflow conditions in the Rood Center parking lot. If you can, take the bus or carpool with others. See details below. If you would like to make a 3 minute spoken comment, show up early and get a number (that number is your assigned spot). It will also be possible to get a number in the afternoon. We recommend you practice your speech in advance to make sure it fits within 3 minutes. The County's microphone will turn off automatically when your time is up. Pack a lunch and bring a water bottle. The Rood Center Café is currently closed. Cousin's Maine Lobster, Thai Chic Street Food, and Sweeney's Weenies food trucks will be available on May 10th from 11 am - 2 pm to provide food and drinks. There will be an ice cream available later in the day. Join us for lunch and a group photo on May 10 -- We will give everyone an update, have music, and capture the moment with giant group photo. In addition to the Board Chambers, there will be overflow rooms for folks to sit inside. Outdoor seating is also available. Our goal is to have everyone seen and heard by the Planning Commissioners. Read the County's public notice about the event to learn more about the rules of engagement. The County will be live streaming the meeting for those who can't attend in person. https://www.youtube.com/@CountyofNevadaCA/streams More things you can do to help make a HUGE impact: Invite family and friends to attend the meeting. Share social media posts about the meeting on Facebook, Instagram, or Nextdoor. Write a letter to County decision makers using our easy online tool. MineWatchNC.org/send-a-letter. Have questions? Email mineconcerns@cea-nc.org Why take the bus? It's fast - check out the timetable hyperlinked below. 25 minutes from Tinsloy Center to Rood Center. It makes a bunch of convenient stops where you can park -- Grass Valley City Hall, Fowler Center, and Nevada City SPD to name a few. It runs on the hour- buses leave from Tinsloy Center It's free! You don't have to worry about how to buy a ticket or exact change. Just get on the bus! Route 1 | Nevada County, CA (nevadacountyca.gov)
- March Against The Mine!
Join us on Sunday September 17, 1:30 – 3pm at the Constitution Day Parade in Nevada City. Rise Gold would like nothing better than to see the community stand down and stop fighting. In an LA Times article last year, their CEO even told the reporter he figured local activists would "wear down. Eventually." Let's prove him wrong! We need all feet on Broad Street! If you’ve marched against the mine before, you know that this is a super-fun community event and a rewarding experience. The crowd cheers, chants, and sings with us! We promise you will be glad you joined. We meet at 1:30 at the top of Broad Street in Nevada City and the parade begins at 2 p.m. Grab your sign, a friend, and a flag, and we will see you there! There will be a free shuttle to the parade. The shuttle runs SUNDAY from Noon to 6 pm Park for free at the Nevada County Government Center just off Highway 49 at 950 Maidu Avenue. Take the shuttle into town for free. More info about the weekend events can be found here: Constitution Day 2023 - Nevada City, California (nevadacitychamber.com) Please RSVP to traci@cea-nc.org so we can track how many folks we will have and identify a few “helpers”.
- Press Release: 250 Businesses reject idaho-maryland mine proposal
Opposition to the Idaho-Maryland Mine runs deep in Nevada County. 150 business leaders submitted a letter to the County Supervisors. In addition, nearly 100 business owners signed a petition, making a total of 250 businesses opposed to the re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. For Immediate Release: August 19, 2022 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Businesses urge County Supervisors to reject Mine proposal 150 local business leaders sign on to a letter. 100 more sign via petition. Grass Valley, CA – 150 business leaders from Nevada County submitted a letter to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. The letter includes businesses located in downtown Grass Valley and from diverse sectors in the County including tourism, agriculture, and real estate. In addition, nearly 100 business owners also signed a petition to the Board of Supervisors, for a total of 250 businesses opposed to re-opening the mine. The long-shuttered Idaho Maryland Mine is proposed to be re-opened by Rise Gold Corp – a company headquartered in Canada. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released in January. In response, many hundreds of comments were submitted by citizens to the County expressing serious concerns about the risks of the mine and the inadequacy of the report. The County Board of Supervisors could consider this issue as early as 2023 after a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is issued. The letter states: “Mining is our past, not our future. During the past 50 years, Nevada County has worked diligently to attract people and investments that contribute to and renew its economic vitality through promising and sustainable enterprises which align with the aspirations of its residents. That is what continues to make this County an attractive place to live, to make a living, and to start new business ventures.” Residents and businesses have expressed concerns about the potential economic impacts of the mine, including impact on tourism, property values, and tax revenue, and high-tech companies. Many businesses offered quotes expressing their opposition to the Mine. “This mine is on track to have a potentially significant impact on our regional flora and fauna, water quality, and even local culture,” stated Fable Coffee. “Rise Gold’s ethical practices are questionable; we simply do not know enough to say this is safe – but we know enough to say that this community is not ready to open Idaho-Maryland Mine. There are better, more innovative, and more regionally respectful ways to enhance our economy.” Nevada County’s agricultural sector is growing. With over 350 farms, tourists flock to farmers markets, and local farm-to-fork restaurants to experience fresh food grown by local farmers and prepared by local chefs. “Grass Valley and Nevada County are known for our local farms and businesses,” said Mike Pasner, Owner of Indian Springs Organic Farms. “We need to invest in our already existing sustainable businesses.” Nevada County was once the epicenter for gold mining. The big mines shut down in the 1950s, and mining is now less than ½% of the local economy. The County, particularly Grass Valley, is now considered a scenic and cultural destination. Residents contend that the few jobs that might be gained are offset by big risks to tourism, high-tech businesses, private wells, and 10’s of millions lost in property values. “Real estate values and the quality of life in Nevada County will suffer permanent and irreparable harm if the mine is allowed to operate,” stated Charles Brock, Real Estate Broker. “I have read the Draft EIR for this proposed project, and there are many unanswered and unmitigable issues which, in my opinion, will destroy the fabric of life as we know it in Nevada County.” The letter outlined key economic points and concerns, including: The County could do better by continuing to invest in existing industries and new enterprises that address current priorities in the Sierra, like watershed and forest management. Other industries can produce far better economic growth numbers than mining, including eight industries Nevada County already has today. An economic study commissioned by the City of Grass Valley during Emgold’s attempt to re-open the Idaho-Maryland Mine in 2008 concluded that Nevada County would be better off economically if it pursued other opportunities than mining. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released in January and while it is not required to include an analysis of the economic impacts, Nevada County has commissioned an independent economic impact report. The letter also urged the County to include consideration of a non-Mine alternative in their Economic Study. Because the DEIR will most likely have to be recirculated, the study is expected to be released after potential changes in the project description have been assessed. The public can view pictures of several businesses opposed to the Mine on the website www.MineWatchNC.org or on the MineWatchNC Instagram account at minewatchnc. For more information about the potential re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine visit: www.MineWatchNC.org *** About CEA Foundation: Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) performs research, education, and advocacy to promote responsible land use and environmental protection policies in Nevada County. www.cea-nc.org/ CEA Foundation is the sponsor of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org
- Community Reacts to Rise Gold's Temper Tantrum
Rise Gold wasn't happy when Nevada County Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend a NO vote on both the Idaho-Maryland Mine project and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on May 11, 2023. In response, they came out with what can only be described as a corporate temper tantrum. Community member and retired corporate attorney, Gail Schultz, wrote an opinion piece describing it as a tactic she learned in law school: “If you don’t have the facts, argue the law; if you don’t have the law, argue the facts; and if you don’t have the law or the facts, attack your opponent.” SOUR GRAPES It started with a “sour grapes” opinion piece from a Rise Gold Board member (and largest shareholder) the day after the vote – complete with a snarky assumption that our community is economically doomed without the mine, plus a personal attack on Commissioner Terrance McAteer (District 3). Read his opinion piece in The Union newspaper, and the community's response: May 13 — Lawrence W. Lepard: 'You may have blocked the mine, but how are Nevada County residents going to pay the bills?' May 17 — David Heinen: Not as simple as they hoped May 18 — Hits & Misses: Miss to Rise Gold director's claims TEMPER TANTRUM On June 1, 2023, Rise Gold submitted a 164-page letter to the County filled with complaints, assertions of unfair treatment, and public records requests — steps that typically lead up to legal actions. This was followed up with a press release that was published on the front page of the Union newspaper. Rise Gold feels that their “constitutional rights” are being violated. Among their list of complaints: comment letters submitted at the last possible minute, their supporters didn’t get early speaker numbers because the County staff are biased, and Commissioner McAteer ”utilized prepared remarks.” Leaving no grievance (or complaint) unturned, Rise Gold urges the Board of Supervisors to ”publicly disavow the Planning Commission’s recommendation.” Apparently Rise Gold thinks they can scare the Board of Supervisors into ignoring all of the problems with the project, ignore all of the defects in the FEIR, go against their own planning commission and staff, and approve the project. Read Rise Gold's press release in The Union newspaper, and the community's response: June 5 — Rise Gold calls on Nevada County Board of Supervisors to repudiate recommendation to deny the IMM Project July 7 – ‘The allegations in Rise’s letter are meritless’: CEA attorneys provide response July 6 – CEA Foundation: Opposition refutes unfair treatment claims of Rise Gold June 6 — Cecelia Royal: Desperation in Rise Gold's lame attempts June 7 — Gail F. Schulz: I do not appreciate Mr. Mossman's attacks on our planning commission June 8 — Charles Brock: Kudos to The Union for their outstanding and balanced coverage of Rise Gold’s efforts to reopen the Idaho Maryland Mine! June 9 — Gail Johnson Vaughan: No one has Constitutional rights to zoning and building changes June 10 — John Vaughan: Comments on a corporate tantrum at Rise Gold June 13 — Concerned Citizens Roundtable: You gotta know the territory Rise may question if the deck was stacked against them, but there are plenty of examples showing that the opposite was true. The City of Grass Valley, for example, had this to say in their introductory comments to the FEIR. “We are dismayed at the quality and tone of the responses which, in many cases, appear to have been written by the applicant's representative rather than an objective senior County staff member. The cavalier tone of some of the responses to a concerned city who will suffer concrete significant impacts as a result of the Project is disappointing.” “[The City] believes the FEIR and the County's response have failed to remedy major deficiencies in the assessment of air quality, greenhouse gases, land use, noise, and traffic, and consideration of alternatives which could reduce, or avoid, potentially significant impacts to the City and surrounding County areas.” CEA Foundation Legal Analysis Finds Rise Claims Meritless A fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative nature of the Planning Commission’s action renders virtually all of Rise’s many complaints irrelevant. - It’s a legislative process, not a court case. Rise’s letter assumes that the Planning Commission was required to act in a “quasi-adjudicatory” (court-like) capacity. But that assumption is wrong. Because the project requires a decision on rezoning, well established law holds that such decisions are categorically “legislative”. Rise’s letter wastes many pages arguing that the Planning Commission violated requirements that do not apply. - Laws were not violated. Even if one assumed that the “adjudicatory” standards did apply, the Commission satisfied the requirements. Courts have long recognized that local decisionmakers have not only a right, but an obligation, to discuss issues of vital concern with their constituents and to state their views on matters of public importance. Furthermore, association with members of community groups opposed to a project, or even membership in such groups, does not establish bias. Nor does having a point of view about a question of law or policy act as a disqualification by itself. - It’s a recommendation, not a decision. The Planning Commission was merely issuing a recommendation. Nothing in Rise’s complaint letter threatens the validity of the Board’s own upcoming decision on the project. - Democracy at work - The processing of the Rise application, the active engagement of the public, and the conduct of the Planning Commission were a good example of how democracy is supposed to work. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to continue with the normal processing of this project and not be intimidated by threats or accusations of foul play. For the good of the community, we urge them to Just Say No! Compromises Won’t Fix the Project The unavoidable reality is that this project can’t be fixed. Last-minute compromise offers won’t solve problems that are deeply embedded in the Mine’s flawed FEIR and project plans: - Incompatible use. Rezoning the Brunswick site to allow this mining project next to residential neighborhoods violates the General Plan and would be an incompatible land use. - The mine threatens hundreds of private residential wells used for drinking water. The FEIR does not address the high degree of uncertainty in predicting the impact to wells in our local fractured bedrock system and it completely dismisses the complexity and expense of providing homeowners with a “comparable water supply” if wells fail. - There is no viable solution for disposing of mine waste. After the first several years, the project depends upon being able to dispose of 1000 tons per day of the mine waste by off-site sales as fill materials or construction aggregate. But they’ve failed to determine it would be clean enough to sell (or even be permitted to dump anywhere) – and there is no market for "Restricted" mine waste in a flooded aggregates market. - Mine operations come with a huge cost in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. The mine will emit over 9000 metric tons of GHG/yr and use electricity equivalent to 5,575 homes/yr. But the state’s goal for GHG emissions is net zero and the energy use is so sizable it would negate key County goals in its Energy Action Plan to improve climate resiliency. Read more: The County should deny the Idaho-Maryland Mine and should not certify the Final EIR | minewatchnc.org
- CEA Responds To Vested Rights Maneuver
"..the biggest challenge for Rise Gold is to prove that mining activities have been ongoing continuously since before the current use permit requirements were enacted…" August 21, 2023 Listen to KNCO Radio's interview with Laurie Oberholzer from CEA Foundation here.
- Rise Gold may apply for “vested right to mine”
Required public hearing will delay BOS decision on Rise Gold application. Read the full article in YubaNet. Excerpts from a YubaNet article August 15, 2023 During the recent Board of Supervisors meeting an agenda item by County Counsel’s Office, increasing the contract price for legal services pertaining to the Rise Gold project, yielded a new development. Rise Gold, via their lawyer, informed the county they consider filing a petition granting them the “vested right to mine.” If Rise Gold moves forward with the petition for vested rights, Nevada County will have to hold public hearings on the matter. A California Appeals Court decision in 2006 requires vested rights decisions cannot be simply determined by the lead agency (generally a county or a city) but are subject to noticed public hearings. ... Any vested mine does not need to apply for a mining permit to the county and no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the mining operation itself is required. Another exemption concerns grading permits for roads, landing pads, staging areas, etc. Culverts and diversion ponds are also exempt from any oversight under the vested right to mine. Read the full article in Yubanet.
- ★ Rise Gold Shouldn’t Be Trusted. Here’s Why.
Rise Gold CEO Ben Mossman's prior company polluted tribal waters, went bankrupt, and left Canadians with a bill to pay. Mossman is currently on trial in Canada on 9 federal and 20 provincial charges related to spills at the mine. Read the opinion piece in the Union. This piece was originally published on December 7, 2020. UPDATES are included in blue italics. Rise Gold, a15 year old mining company that has never opened a mine and never made a profit (1), wants to re-open the Idaho-Maryland Mine here in Grass Valley. They’ve already had some issues with compliance. After purchasing the Mine in 2016, Rise ran afoul of local regulations while doing their initial explorations. Rules designed to protect sensitive habitat along South Fork Wolf Creek were broken – triggering citations, disturbing residents, and requiring County intervention to bring them into compliance (2). But there’s a history of violations that runs much deeper than that. CEO Ben Mossman’s last venture before joining Rise Gold was a profound failure, and disregard for regulations and poor management practices appear to have played a significant role in that. His Company, Banks Island Gold, Ltd owned the Yellow Giant Mine in British Columbia, Canada, which polluted tribal waters, went bankrupt, and left Canadians with a mess to clean up. According to an investigative report by the Vancouver Sun in July of 2015 (3), after the pollution spill was discovered, Banks Island ignored a stop work order from the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines to shut down its processing plant and underground operation. In an interview, Al Hoffman, the Chief Mines Inspector said “Generally we don’t have this level of confusion and level of non-compliance. It worries me, but we are dealing with it as strongly as I can within my statutory authority, and I am going to make sure they are compliant.” When investigating the spill, mine inspectors observed several violations of mining regulations (4, 5, 6). In addition to the spill, it revealed that Banks Island was not only continuing to process ore in its Yellow Giant facility, but that they had been processing ore from multiple exploration sites out of compliance with their mining permit since its issuance on March 4, 2014. One report further stated that: “One of the magazines was noted to be so full the door to it would not close without considerable effort. [...] This shall not be allowed to happen. The explosives therein are to be reduced and distributed to the other magazine. In August of 2015, a second spill resulted in another shut down order. In January of 2016, Banks Island declared bankruptcy and walked away – leaving Canadians with only a $420,000 reclamation bond to pay for a cleanup estimated to cost $1.6 million (7). But the story doesn’t end there. Eventually, there were a total of 35 charges issued and in July 2016, Mossman and another Banks Island executive had 18 pollution charges filed against them personally. They were initially acquitted of the charges, though Mossman was fined $15,000, but the B.C. Supreme Court subsequently overturned that acquittal (8). Despite attempts by their lawyers to block a new trial, a Court of Appeals judge issued a decision to reject those appeals. On July 7, 2023 Judge David Patterson of the Provincial Court in Prince Rupert, British Columbia found Ben Mossman guilty on13 counts related to environmental spills. The Banks Island disaster prompted an outcry. First by the Gitxaala Nation, who called Mossman’s token fine a “slap in the face” (7), given that it contaminated one of the most important food gathering areas in their traditional territory. And later, legislators and nonprofits called for reform of the B.C. environmental assessment process to close loopholes that allowed the mine to open and operate for 15 months without examination (9). Adding insult to injury, one of the other injustices of Mossman’s story is that 90 hard-working people lost their jobs when Banks Island went bankrupt. Rise Gold promises new jobs for Nevada County, but if that’s their biggest selling point, their history alone should make us all want to scream and run away. This is not the type of company we want in our community. Truly. Rise and their CEO Ben Mossman shouldn’t be trusted. Tell your Nevada County Supervisor to “just say no!” By Bob and Christy Hubbard - Grass Valley Homeowners Mine sediments flow toward a lake from the Yellow Giant Gold Mine on Banks Island. (11) 1 Sedar.com - Rise Gold Filings 2 Jonathan Keehn Op-Ed, June 2020 3 Gold company has been ignoring province’s mine shutdown order 4 BC Ministry of Energy and Mines Inspection Report - March 19, 2015 5 BC Ministry of Energy and Mines Inspection Report - July 9, 2015 6 BC Ministry of Energy and Mines Inspection Report - July 15, 2015 7 Court assesses $15,000 penalty in Banks Island Mine case 8 BC’'s high court upholds new trial for two managers after spill at mine 9 Video: Banks Island Mine disaster - why it’s time to reform B.C.’s environmental assessment process 10 Employee review of Banks Island on Indeed.com 11 More witnesses testify on Banks Island Environmental Mess Rise Gold articles by timeline
- Man behind plan to reopen Grass Valley gold mine faced charges. Here are the verdicts.
"Ben Mossman, the man behind a controversial plan to reopen a shuttered gold mine in Grass Valley, has been found guilty of 13 environmental crimes but was exonerated on another 10 counts in connection with another mine project in British Columbia." Excerpts from a The Sacramento Bee article by Randy Diamond July 20, 2023 The court ruling involves a failed gold mine on an island off the coast of British Columbia that turned into a toxic site due to mine waste leaks. Ben Mossman is due to be sentenced on Sept. 26 in Prince Rupert Laws Court Mossman began mining operations in 2014 on Banks Island, but the next year government mine inspectors cited his company, saying mine waste and contaminated water were leaking into creeks, ponds and wetlands. Bank Island Gold declared bankruptcy in 2015 several months after the British Columbia government shut down the mine. Read the rest of the article at The Sacramento Bee.
- John Vaughan: Rise Gold’s corporate culture — Lawyers, lawyers and more lawyers
It appears that an element of Rise’s Corporate Culture is a willingness to use threats of legal action to get their way. This opinion piece was first published in The Union. July 13, 2023 Last month, I wrote about the corporate temper tantrum Rise displayed after the unanimous Planning Commission vote against their proposed project (“Comments on a corporate tantrum at Rise Gold”, The Union Ideas & Opinions, 06/10). It appears that another element of Rise’s Corporate Culture is a willingness to use threats of legal action to get their way. A few examples include: After receipt of some negative comments in response to the Draft EIR from the Air Quality Board, Rise’s Attorney sent a long letter to the Air Quality Board claiming a number of grievances, including bias, influence by project opponents, defamation, violation of Constitutional Rights, challenges to the science and claims that Rise’s business interests had been harmed. The lawyers letter concludes with threats of lawsuits and demands a retraction. The Air Quality Board apparently bent to their demands. If Rise’s grievances with the Air Quality Board sound familiar, that’s because it’s basically the same elements included in the Rise June 1st letter sent to the Board of Supervisors following the Planning Commission’s unanimous vote against their proposed project. Grievance after grievance because the Planning Commission did their job, and the outcome was not what Rise wanted. Following their June 1st letter to the Supervisors, Rise has submitted Public Record Act Requests (PRAs) affecting dozens and dozens of people at several Agencies, including Nevada County and Nevada Irrigation District. Each of these requests does the typical lawyer thing, demanding “any and all” documentation about anything that’s ever happened regarding the Rise project in over 30 different categories. Responding to PRA’s requires volumes of paper and likely requires hundreds of hours of staff time to collect data and provide a response. This effort seems to be aimed at finding “evidence” that proves a conspiracy, when the facts are that what happened before and during the Planning Commission Hearing is a great example of democracy in action. Of course, Rise has a right to the information, but what we are seeing may well be a key part of the Rise Corporate Culture. If the Board of Supervisors approves this project, it’s unlikely the legal actions will end. Rise wants us to believe that no environmental issues of any kind will happen at any time for any reason for 80 years. But just for fun, let’s hypothetically suppose that some water quality reports are late or show toxins leaking into Wolf Creek, or maybe the waste rock asbestos content is higher than acceptable limits, or wells start going dry. Any of those scenarios and dozens of others require enforcement actions by the County or an outside Agency. These legitimate Agency demands for compliance will likely be met by Rise’s Attorney with obfuscation, delays, more long letters claiming County Staff or Agency bias, defamation, violation of Constitutional Rights, challenges to the science and threats of lawsuits. Good luck with getting any non-compliance enforced. In addition, close examination of the wording in the FEIR and the enforceability of the mitigations and conditions of approval will reveal they are riddled with ambiguity. Such ambiguities in the FEIR feed a corporate strategy which appears to be designed to ensure that no one but Rise will decide whether or not they are in compliance, whether or not anything has to be done about it, and when it will be done. All the mitigations, compliance promises, and plans noted in the FEIR and Development Agreement are likely just smoke and mirrors as the apparent plan is to use the Rise lawyers to do whatever they want. One might think that the Rise Board and especially the Rise CEO had learned from the negative outcomes (for the community, the employees, the environment, and the CEO) at the Banks Island mine in Canada. But Corporate Culture is often a reflection of leadership and is very difficult and unlikely to change. You can’t fix a bad idea with threats and empty promises. Please encourage your County Supervisor to “Just Say No” to all parts of the Rise project. You can find your Supervisors contact information and detailed analysis of why the Rise project is wrong for Nevada County at www.minewatchnc.org. John Vaughan, Grass Valley
- Robert Hubbard: Unanswered Questions about the Idaho-Maryland Mine
Given the history of Rise Gold's CEO and the company itself, two key questions remain that cast significant doubt on the entire venture. This opinion piece was originally published in The Union. July 11, 2023 Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” THE CEO’s HISTORY In January, 2011, Current Rise Gold CEO Ben Mossman founded the junior mining company Banks Island Gold in Canada and subsequently began mineral exploration for the Yellow Giant gold mine in the remote tribal territory of the Gitxaala [pronounced Kitkatla] Nation on Banks Island in northern BC, Canada. In November of 2012, he put the mine into commercial production. Because the Canadian government cannot afford to monitor the activities of all the mines that exist in the country, it requires that events which are out of compliance with Canadian mining law be reported by the mine operator. Over the next 3 years, a series of compliance failures, including an overstuffed explosive locker whose doors would not close, a series of toxic waste spills which polluted the shellfish banks and fishing waters of the Gitxaala Nation, numerous safety violations, and ore being processed from an unlicensed site resulted in 2 stop work orders (which the mine failed to honor), and shortly afterwards, a full shutdown order in July, 2015. In Jan, 2016, Banks Island Gold declared Bankruptcy. The reclamation bond posted was far from sufficient to repair the harm. Mossman walked away and left taxpayers holding the bag for the damages, the Gitxaala Nation’s food supply damaged, and employers and suppliers unpaid. THE COMPANY HISTORY Mining companies fall into two categories: major mining companies and junior mining companies. Junior mining companies explore for minerals and attempt to find funding to mine them. They are famous for mining investors, rather than minerals. The junior mining company now known as Rise Gold was originally incorporated on Feb. 9, 2007 under the name Atlantic Resources, and has a checkered history. Over the next 9 years, the company bought mineral rights, attracted investors, failed to realize a profit and acquired new CEOs, changing the name of the company a number of times. On August 1, 2016, seven months after bankrupting in Canada, Ben Mossman was named as CEO of the former Atlantic Resources, changing the name to Rise Gold. He then acquired the Idaho-Maryland Mine property on Aug 30, 2016 for $2,000,000. He applied to the county for a permit to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine, and the events which followed are local history. GUILTY On July 7, 2023 Mossman was found personally guilty of 13 of the 23 charges of environmental crimes he has been fighting in Canadian courts since 2015. Although the prosecution was unable to prove that Mossman was ‘directly responsible’ for the other 10 charges, he was CEO at the time. Ultimate responsibility for the actions of his company stop at his desk. Read more in the article: Rise Gold’s CEO found guilty on 13 counts in British Columbia retrial… TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS Although numerous problems with reopening the Mine have been thoroughly discussed, there are two important questions that I feel have been left out of that discussion. First, who will watch the watchers? Neither the State of California, nor Nevada County has the resources to independently monitor compliance with the air, water, mine waste and noise standards of this operation. Like in Canada, Rise Gold will need to be self-reporting. We have seen how well that worked in Canada. Should the mine reopen, the County should require from Rise Gold sufficient funds to pay for mining operation compliance to be monitored 24/7 by a County environmental scientist/engineer for the duration of the mine’s operation. Second, Rise Gold’s big claims to benefit the County are the jobs it is offering, and the money its employees will bring to the area. However, Rise also says (to set our minds at rest around its operations) that it uses the most modern mining methods. But the most modern mining methods include automated mining, where robotic machines replace human workers. Keep in mind that it was only 54 years between the Wright Bros flight and astronauts landing on the moon. How long will human labor be working the mine, should it open? How long will those jobs last? My suggestion to the Board of Supervisors: Ben Mossman has shown us who he is. Believe him. Robert Hubbard, Grass Valley
- Press Release: Planning commission recommends No to Foothills Gold Mine
For Immediate Release: May 13, 2023 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE County Planning Commission recommends NO to Foothills Gold Mine Community Opponents Celebrate Nevada City, CA - The Nevada County Planning Commission, before an overflow crowd, unanimously denied recommending approval to the Board of Supervisors of the reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine and opted not to recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The final decision will be made by the Board of Supervisors later this Summer. The decision came after two days of hearings, with over 900 people in attendance. Over 350 people signed up to speak to the Commission. The crowd flowed into the outdoor area surrounding the County Administration Center, where the hearing could be followed by outdoor speakers provided by the county. Food trucks provided lunch, and music lightened the tension. Those attending were overwhelmingly opposed to the mine, many holding what has become a common sight around the county - bright yellow “No Mine” signs. The Commission’s decision was met with applause and cheers. Ralph Silberstein, president of Community Environmental Advocates Foundation, the group that coordinated the MineWatch campaign, was relieved: “On behalf of CEA Foundation, I want to thank the Planning Commission for their diligence and patience in addressing this complex and controversial project. But even more, I want to thank the MineWatch team, our coalition partners, thousands of our supporters, and the community at large for their dedication and efforts leading up to the hearings. We can make a difference! We will move on to the Board of Supervisors vote, hoping that they will take the advice of their Commission and the overwhelming majority of their constituents.” The MineWatch campaign includes 26 state, regional, and local organizations that are concerned about the environmental and economic impacts of the mine reopening. Speakers at the Planning Commission meeting summarized the large-scale public participation during the three years of project review by presenting to the Commission petitions with 5,500 plus signatures, over 1000 letters and postcards, a notebook filled with guest editorials, and unveiled a photo collage of hundreds of No Mine activists. During public comments, opponents outlined concerns over the environmental impacts of the mine which would operate for up to 80 years, producing 1,000 tons of mine waste rock per day with unknown asbestos content, pumping thousands of gallons daily from limited groundwater supplies affecting over 300 residential wells, generating 100 truck trips a day on local roads, and releasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions the equivalent of that from the energy use of 5,575 homes. Christy Hubbard with the Wells Coalition responded to the vote: “Wells owners are deeply grateful to the Commissioners, including our District 3 Commissioner Terry McAteer, for listening so closely to our concerns. We also want to thank NID for setting the record straight on the enormous complexities involved in providing assurances to so many homes. Without water, our properties are worthless. Well owners were weeping tears of joy after the decision.” During the hearing, residents spanning ages and livelihoods made it clear that Grass Valley is no longer a gold-mining town. High school student Josh Thiem, a Ghidotti High School Student and leader in the Sunrise Movement, led a group of students who (with permission) left school to participate in the hearing. In his comments before the Commission, he said: “Think not for you, but for me and all the generations after me. It matters not for the people in this room but for all the people after us.” After the hearing, he concluded: “I strongly believe that the County will vote against the FEIR. It sends a message to us that we can take action and be heard.” Former County Supervisor Peter Van Zant and a leader of the environmental community’s participation in the 1995 General Plan Update, commented on General Plan issues: “I’m grateful that the Planning Staff recommended denial of the mine based on its being inconsistent with the General Plan’s requirement that projects maintain the County’s ‘rural character and quality of life.” Don Rivenes, speaking for CEA Foundation/MineWatch, and a leader in Nevada County Action Now, noted: “…. The mine’s 9,000 tons/year of emissions should be considered significant and unmitigated. The EIR should have established a net zero threshold for GHG emissions from the proposed project.” Lauren Tackbarry represented the Sierra Club, Sierra Nevada Group: “…Simply put, this community deserves better, and we refuse to go back in time to reopen a mine that would cause irreversible damage to the foothills.” Deni Silberstein echoed a concern heard throughout the hearing - the hazardous waste potential of mine waste (tailings) which would be produced by the mine: “… the mine waste has not been classified as Group C by the Water Board. Yet, only Group C mine waste is safe enough to be sold - or stored - without restrictions. So it is not even known whether the waste can be dumped at the Brunswick and Centennial sites, let alone whether or not it can be sold off-site.” Many area realtors joined in urging the Commissioners to consider impacts on property values and the local economy. The Nevada County Association of Realtors (NCAR) presented results from a recent survey of realtors. The poll included 162 survey answers, with 87% of survey participants believing that property values will be negatively impacted. In addition, realtors cautioned about the devaluation of residents’ properties and the impact on property taxes, estimating that the loss to the County could be significant. Residents echoed their sentiments, explaining that they were already having trouble selling their homes. One realtor presented a letter signed by 150 businesses and 100 realtors opposed to the project. Proponents of the mine touted job creation. Opponents disagreed. George Olive, Board President of the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), reminded us to prioritize projects that are constructive, progressive, and future-oriented. Restoration projects that are forward-looking "make life better," provide sustainable jobs and bring in millions of dollars to our region. "We hope to work together with the union members who testified to continue to add jobs in the growing restoration economy. SYRCL's restoration work last year supported nearly 70 skilled equipment operator positions," said Aaron Zettler-Mann, Interim Executive Director and Science Director. “CEA Foundation supports good jobs in the county and sympathizes with those hoping for mine jobs, but not jobs at the expense of our health and safety, and having adverse effects upon other thriving elements of the economy that are more sustainable,” added Ralph Silberstein. The Final EIR Throughout the two days, opponents continuously brought up the concern that even if the mine were denied, a county-certified EIR could be relied on by any future mine proposal on this site. Jillian Blanchard, a CEA Foundation supporter and a land use attorney, advised the Commission during the hearing: “The next applicant will claim that the County is bound by this FEIR’s analysis and mitigation. And you, Commissioners, will have your hands tied by a legally deficient document.” The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) drew attention to a number of failings in the final EIR. “Inadequate sampling, poor computer modeling, and baseless assumptions about aggregate sales and the failure to address the related water quality concerns mean the final EIR is inadequate. There is no market for their mine waste, the restoration economy is here and growing, and the environmental impacts of the project will be significant,” said Zettler-Mann. “SYRCL applauds the County Planning Commission for its final recommendation and looks forward to continuing to build a more resilient future for Nevada County residents absent destructive gold mines.” Gary Pierazzi, one of the last speakers at the end of day 2, reminded the Commission: “With the three proposals to reopen this mine over the last 30 years, I and many in the community have spent 20 of those years fighting to protect our wells from the mine. We don’t want to have to re-live this constant burden. This FEIR does not protect us, and certifying it would have come back to bite us.” Commissioners unanimous Commissioner Terence McAteer questioned consultants on many inadequacies of the report. Among them was the erasure of an earthquake fault line that ran directly under the mine workings. McAteer’s concern was confirmed when an actual earthquake occurred just 20 minutes later. Alarms sounded, the floor shook, and the Commission chose to continue with the hearing. In the end, the Commissioners were unanimous, voting 5-0 to recommend to the Nevada County Supervisors to not certify the FEIR and deny the mine project. In his closing statement before the vote, Commissioner McAteer told the packed house about the work of Judge Lorenzo Sawyer. Sawyer, a former miner who worked in Nevada City, became a lawyer and then eventually a judge. Fueled by his experience of mining’s destructive impacts, he wrote the 1884 Sawyer decision that states the environmental effects of mining “must not be foisted on neighboring property or community.” McAteer stated: “Today we are faced with a similar situation which has the potential to infect our air with asbestos and exhaust fumes, impact the wells of our neighbors, discharge harmful elements into the water, destroy many acres of wetlands, add significant amounts of greenhouse gases into our environment, and return to our legacy of mining.” The community has a rich history of mining with a “hotel called the Miner’s Inn, the high school’s mascot is the Miners, and…there’s a miner in the County logo,” stated Commissioner Mike Mastrodonato. “But things change.” The Nevada County Supervisors will consider the Commission’s recommendation no earlier than August 2023. More on the next steps can be found on the County’s website and this Nevada County News Flash The 2-day hearing is available on the Nevada County YouTube site. Nevada County Planning Commission Special Meeting May 10, 2023 - YouTube and Nevada County Planning Commission Special Meeting May 11, 2023 - YouTube For more information about the potential re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine visit: www.MineWatchNC.org *** The mission of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) is to perform research, education, and advocacy to promote public policy and actions resulting in responsible land use and environmental protection in Nevada County and the Sierra Nevada region. www.cea-nc.org/. MineWatch campaign, a grassroots effort to oppose the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org
- How the $100 million proposed reopening of a former gold mine has angered Grass Valley
"Sixty-eight years have passed since the Idaho-Maryland Mine operated in this small city in the Sierra Nevada foothills, about 50 miles east of Sacramento. Grass Valley residents want to keep it idle, a relic of the past" Excerpts from a The Sacramento Bee article by Randy Diamond Jun 10, 2023 Ben Mossman believes one of the largest amounts of unmined gold in the world lies deep under the ground in Grass Valley and wants to extract it. And that has made him, and his Rise Gold Corp., public enemy No. 1 in this town. Opponents crowded two days of hearing with the Nevada County Planning Commission last month, overflowing outside listening to testimony near a tent, with a "no mine" banner, that had audio piped in. Residents cite concerns that the 2,585-acre mine site would create failed wells, groundwater contamination, noise pollution and air pollution and increased truck traffic. Mossman said he and environmental studies have rebutted all those fears. He promises a mine that won’t damage the environment and will create an economic boom. The planning staff had reviewed a more than 800-page environmental impact report [correction, the report was 12,000 pages] paid for by Rise Gold but done by an independent consultant. But the planning staff found that reopening the gold mine was not consistent with the county’s overall general plan to maintain the rural characteristics of Nevada County. Read the rest of the article at The Sacramento Bee.
- Barbara Larsen: Rise folks out of touch
This local resident was puzzled by the constant flow of Cadillac Black SUVs circling the parking lot at the County's public hearing for the mine on May 11. Apparently, Rise Gold's Ben Mossman thought this would either impress or intimidate our community. So out of touch with our down to earth and environmental friendly community. Read Barbara's full letter to the editor in The Union.
- Mike Pasner: Water problem
This local farmer notes that when the mine fails in their testing, poisoned water will go through canals and reservoirs. There are many other local ranches and farms relying on this water. This letter to the editor was originally published in The Union. Are there many problems with Rise Gold's proposed reopening of the Idaho Maryland Mine? Yes there are! My main concern as a Nevada County farmer is the pumping of millions of gallons of water out of the mine for the next 80 years. Rise Gold will be responsible for testing the purity of the water they pump. When the mine fails in their testing, this poisoned water will go through (NID's) Nevada Irrigation Districts canals and reservoirs. This is the water I have farmed with for 37 years. There are many other local ranches and farms relying on this water. Who will be held liable? The Canadian mining company, NID, Nevada County, me the farmer or you the rancher? We don't need this problem and it should not be allowed to happen. The county should deny the Idaho-Maryland Mine project and should not certify this flawed Final Environmental Impact Report. Mike Pasner Indian Springs Organic Farm
- Margaret Burks: Pause and imagine the mine in full operation
This local resident reflects that "Mitigation is the trade-off: we'll do 'this' good thing to offset 'that' bad thing." "The bad thing doesn't go away. Mitigation is a pipe-dream on paper: rarely 100% effective or even doable, expensive, not guaranteed, rarely inspected, rarely enforced." She concludes that the risks are unacceptable. Read her full May 9, 2023 opinion piece in The Union.
- Mack Shaver: Vote against reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine
Local resident and former National Park Service Superintendent watched the boom and bust of the oil shale economy in North Dakota. The euphoria of increased jobs, home values, and hotel construction soon fades to fear for community culture, the increase in crime, the drop in housing values, and the diminishment of the once promised economy. He asks Nevada County to spare our vibrant county culture, environment, and its stead economy. Read his full May 6, 2023 opinion piece in The Union.
- Charles Brock: County Policy - existing development shall be protected...
Nevada County's General Plans says that already existing development shall be protected from adverse environmental effects caused by mining. So why did it's planning department staff recommend certifying the environmental impact report? This opinion piece was first published in The Union. May 9. 2023 I’m having considerable heartburn over our Planning Department’s Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission vote to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Idaho Maryland Mine (IMM). General Plan Policy 17.14 states “Already existing development – commercial, residential and community, shall be protected from adverse environmental effects caused by mining through enforced use permit conditions and mitigation measures, OR DENIAL OF THE PROJECTS.” The FEIR identifies three SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS that CANNOT BE MITIGATED: Aesthetics, Noise, and Traffic/Circulation. Asbestos should have been a fourth. Accurate measurement of asbestos contained in the tons per day of mine waste rock, cannot be determined until TWO WEEKS AFTER the rock has been trucked away. The FEIR also fails in its arbitrary and inadequate attempt to mitigate admitted threats to water wells, using sparse data collected over 15 years ago! This is a clear violation of California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which requires “current data be used to assess impacts and mitigations.” To deny certification of the FEIR requires identifying its inadequacies. I have spent countless hours reviewing all planning documents from DEIR and FEIR to Use Permit Applications documents, Variance Applications, Technical Reports, Management Plans, etc. and often found these documents incomplete, frequently incorrect, self-contradictory, and basically nowhere near worthy of certification or approval by our County decision-makers. To build the main mining operation on the Brunswick industrial site, Rise Gold needs to rerecord the County Final Map of that site and erase a 1500’ long fault line that is shown running directly through the middle of their building site. In an “abundance of caution”, after admitting potential “SIGNIFICANT IMPACT” of removing the fault line, the FEIR concludes that “the fault line and its 200’ setbacks, can be removed from the Final Map if the mine’s building plans are reviewed and approved by the County Building Department”. Justification for this decision is that the mine is located in the Foothill Fault System which is reported to have “low seismicity…and low rate of recurrence”, with the nearest recent(1975) “activity” having occurred 25 miles to the north on the Cleveland Hill Fault, which is also part of the Foothill Fault System. The mine’s DEIR, FEIR, Geotechnical Engineering Report, and Management Plan for Potential Seismic Hazards all fail to note that a portion of the Cleveland Hill Fault is now designated within a high risk potential Alquist-Priolo ACTIVE FAULT ZONE! Each of these critical project documents also fail to mention an August 1978 article in California Geology which notes “Damaging earthquakes occurred in 1909 and 1888 15 km northeast of Nevada City.” To build on the Brunswick Industrial Site, Rise Gold needs a Variance to work within the County’s 100’ riparian setback, and permission to exceed 30% slope standards within these same areas. The FEIR informs us that “temporary and permanent ground-disturbing activities of jurisdictional waters/wetlands cannot be avoided”. Mitigation is achieved by payment of “an in-lieu fee or off-site wetland creation… or purchase of habitat credits”. Let me get this straight, “modern/clean” mining decimates the Wolf Creek watershed and mitigates this waste by paying into a fund to restore habitat or wetlands somewhere else? Read the mine engineer’s 1/2/20 Steep Slope and Sediment Control Management Plan (outdated) to learn that “due to the proposed development and existing site topography, there is no alternative feasible location on the subject property that would have less impact on the Site and surrounding area, and “no feasible alternatives were identified…that could avoid these environmentally sensitive resource areas”. The FEIR states “no groundwater level measurements have been completed since 2007, which creates some uncertainty to the predicted impact…of the water column in domestic wells”.(pg.147) Just the suggestion of millions of gallons of subsurface water being pumped out of the ground has already had an impact on the desirability and demand for real estate in Western Nevada County! The FEIR also makes the outrageous statement that “water quality impacts to domestic wells are speculative impacts that do not require analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act”.(pg.151) If local Realtors were required to include an accurate disclosure of IMM’s FEIR there’s no doubt that housing values throughout Western Nevada County would plummet! A certified Final Environmental Impact Report leaves us with the specter of potential future development of the Idaho Maryland Mine. Rise Gold’s FEIR must not be certified! Rise Gold’s Use Permit must not be approved! The examples I’ve quoted above just begin to scratch the surface of the incorrect, inconsistent, self-contradictory, and misrepresented information contained throughout Rise Gold’s EIR’s and Permit application documents! Write your Supervisor! Attend the Planning Commission hearings this Wednesday, May 10th (and 11th if necessary), at the Rood Center, Nevada City. Carpool. Ride the bus. Go to minewatchnc.org for more information. Charles Brock, Realtor Emeritus, Past President Nevada County Board of Realtors
- Just Say No': Supervisors asked to deny mine's reopening
“We will ask you to just say no, please do not certify this flawed EIR and do not approve the project,” said Laurie Oberholtzer to the members of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in reference to upcoming decisions on the mine. Excerpts from a Union article by Elias Funez | Managing Editor January 25, 2023 Public comments given on topics ranging from homelessness to the possible reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine were front and center [at Tuesday's Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting]. “We will ask you to just say no, please do not certify this flawed EIR and do not approve the project,” Laurie Oberholtzer said to the members of the board in reference to upcoming decisions on the mine. Olberholtzer, a current member of Community Environmental Advocates (CEA), is a former Nevada City mayor and planning commissioner, and warned of the lasting impacts that approval of the mine’s re-opening could cause. “Do we want a flawed EIR in our records that can be used in our future by the next Canadian gold mining company that comes along?” Olberholtzer said. Olberholtzer reminded the board that there are 5,500 people who have signed against the project along with 15 local and statewide groups. “The bottom line is that the community overwhelmingly does not want the Idaho-Maryland mine to reopen,” Olberholtzer said. “The many environmental impacts associated with this project as well as the inconsistency with both Grass Valley’s and the county’s land use plans, provide ample justification for denying the project.” Ralph Silberstein, also with the CEA, noted that the county’s final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), released late last year, omits plans to clean up the Centennial site, a historically contaminated 56-acre parcel off of Whispering Pines and Centennial Drive in Grass Valley. “Instead, Rise has included what it assumes are the base conditions that might occur,” Silberstein said of the proposed cleanup. “After it is cleaned up, Rise intends to dump mine waste there for about five years, but currently the cleanup is not done.” The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that the current conditions of a project must be assessed so that the environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations can occur. Read the rest of the article online at The Union.