Search our Library

In November 2022, the County published an an Economic Impact Report on the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine. There are good reasons to take a very close look at the report. CEA Foundation thanks the County for commissioning the report, which provided a good framework for assessing the impacts. In the estimation of many however, its conclusions were not definitive. Some of the results were good news because they corrected some of Rise Gold's previous outrageous claims, but several more raised real concerns. Two events were hosted to help the community understand more about the report. County Webinar - The event was hosted by Nevada County on December 15, and presented by the report's author, Robert D Niehaus, Inc. (RDN). Get links to the report, the event recording, and PowerPoint slides on the County's website here. MineWatch Webinar - This event was hosted by CEA Foundation on December 20. It was comprised of a panel of community experts who came together to review the conclusions of the County's report. Watch the video and see the list of panelists. Some findings are quite useful to know. RDN “downgraded” some of Rise Gold’s most outrageous claims. Projections of generating more than $12M a year in local spending got reduced to less than $5M. Promises about generating 300 “indirect” jobs turned into 163 instead. The study assesses County revenues from a "low-end" scenario and a "high-end" scenario. On the high-end, revenue from the mine would only provide a 2.1% increase in County’s General Fund. On the low-end, it would provide only about 0.4% increase and the mine would close after year 11! Other findings are cause for concern. Some portions of the study which are very concerning. For instance, the study is based on the assumption that it would operate as proposed by Rise Gold and as documented in the project description in the Draft EIR. Also, RDN found “no conclusive evidence” to assert that the proposed project would have a significant impact on local property values. Learn more about the community's response. Read the Union article about the MineWatch webinar: Nevada County Community Weighs In On Mine's Economic Report Read the YubaNet article: CEA Foundation Urges Caution Interpreting Mine’s Economic Impact Report Watch the December 20 MineWatch Webinar to hear a community review. See all MineWatch articles and posts related to economic impact of the mine. Learn more about the County's report. The County commissioned the independent Economic Impact Report, which was authored by consultant Robert D Niehaus, Inc. (RDN). Read the report View the County's main information page Watch the recording of the County's informational webinar View the slides from the County's webinar

For Immediate Release: December 23, 2022 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Community Weighs in on Mine’s Economic Report Supervisors Could Vote as Early as 2023 Grass Valley, CA – Nevada County Supervisors may soon consider whether or not to approve a controversial plan to reopen a historic gold mine in Grass Valley. To inform their decision, the County commissioned an Economic Impact Report studying the Idaho-Maryland Mine. The report was authored by consultant Robert D Niehaus, Inc. (RDN). A community webinar on Tuesday offered perspectives and insights from community experts on the report’s findings. The long-shuttered Idaho Maryland Mine is proposed to be reopened by RISE Gold Corp – a company headquartered in Canada. 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. For the last three years, businesses, residents, and community leaders have expressed concerns about the potential economic impacts of the mine, including impacts on tourism, property values, tax revenue, and high-tech companies. “We are grateful to the County for commissioning an independent economic report, which provided a useful framework for assessing the impacts,” said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation. “It corrected some of Rise Gold’s most outrageous claims. And yet, like the Draft EIR released earlier this year, the report relied heavily on information provided by the applicant.” During the webinar, Silberstein noted that RDN downgraded Rise Gold’s local spending projections, adjusting initial claims of generating over $12.5M a year to just under $5M. Similarly, assertions about generating 300 “indirect” jobs were reduced to 163 jobs.. “Economic studies often present an incomplete picture,” stated John Vaughan, CIO PRIDE Industries, retired. “In this case, the software model used is designed to showcase benefits and highlight revenues – it is specifically designed not to show economic risk and real cost. When used in combination with data provided by Rise Gold, many of the economic benefits were unrealistic.” IMPLAN, the software model utilized in the study, is widely used within the industry by project applicants to highlight the economic benefits of a project, but it has limitations. For instance, Vaughan asserted that Rise Gold’s estimate of annual expenses is half the industry average, thus inflating the estimate of mineral property taxes that would be paid to the County. In addition, the cost of risk to the County for catastrophic events, health consequences, and other unintended outcomes was not included in the report. ”This report is in no way conclusive,” stated Jim Steinmann, Founder of Steinmann Facility, Planning and Project Management. ”Benefits to the community are substantially overstated, the costs of operations are understated, and the risks are ignored. For instance, over half the workers would likely be commuters sharing rental housing. Only a fraction of their spending would stay in the County.” Mining is a different kind of job compared to most other industries. With 12 hour shifts and one-week-on / one-week-off schedules, many workers live elsewhere, commuting in for half the month and spending far less money locally. Steinmann asserted that commuting workers would comprise 58% of Rise Gold’s workforce, rather than the 32% stated in the report. He also downgraded their local spending estimates from $61M to just over $15M. Steinmann has decades of project management experience on mining and industrial projects, including the development of economic impact reports. Impacts on property values were also a hotly contested issue. Attendees were taken through an extraordinary visual journey comparing the neighborhoods around the three mines used in the real estate case study. “The case studies show us that this project is unprecedented,” said Martin Webb, KVMR Radio Host and four-time business owner. “RDN identified three mines that were similar, but none were a good match for our properties, home values, or the sheer number of homes in close proximity to the mine.” The Draft Environmental Impact Report states that dozens of long-term adverse impacts will remain, such as traffic, noise, and visual impacts. The RDN report acknowledges these impacts could make “the surrounding area a less desirable place to live or visit,” translating to economic costs, including reduced property values and county tax revenues. The report, however, does not try to quantify these costs. “A closer examination of the RDN Report leaves a lot of room for questioning their conclusions. Tuesday’s panelists found that the numbers were overly optimistic, that the 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.” Silberstein concluded. The Final Environmental Impact Report was released Friday, December 16th. That sets the controversial proposal up for consideration in early 2023. The environmental review process does not require the completion of an economic study, but the five-person County Board of Supervisors will consider both reports when deliberating on the project in the new year. A link to a recording of the webinar can be found at MineWatch December Meeting - Economic Report Review The County’s economic report can be found at Economic-Impact-Report_Final. (nevadacounty.ca.gov) The final environmental report can be found at Final Environmental Impact Report. (nevadacounty.ca.gov) 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 Read this in The Union newspaper.

Thank you to everyone who came out for the NO Mine Movie Night on November 19, 2022! It was a packed house. The night was a celebration of community and grassroots activism. We watched seven short films, plus a surprise teaser for a film project about the IM Mine by award-winning filmmaker Lou Douros that is looking for donations. We also listened to a panel of filmmakers and experts. Just in case you missed it, some of the films are available for public viewing. Rise Beyond Gold Water for Gold Shafted (Trailer) / Lou Douros FULL EVENT DESCRIPTION Community Environmental Advocates Foundation and the MineWatch Campaign are partnering with the Wild & Scenic Film Festival to curate an inspiring collection of medium and short films. Explore some of the environment’s most pressing issues Experience diverse perspectives of people who love and steward nature See hopeful solutions for a healthier planets Held: Saturday, November 19, 6 to 9pm Seaman's Lodge | 423 Nimrod Street, Nevada City, CA Films screened included: The Magical Forest And The Things Dave Russo | 2020 | 5 min As a Covid lockdown project, 6 year old Calliope narrates a story animated by artist Dave Russo depicting a critical yet child-like observation of human consumption habits and the social reinforcements that influence it (in her words, of course). An Alaskan Fight Brian Kelley | 2021 | 7 min. Sometimes conservation can feel like an ultramarathon. In this short biopic, runner and wild fish advocate Sam Snyder fights against the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska over the course of a decade and learns the meaning of home and place in the process. Rise Beyond Gold Jennifer Ekstrom, Catalyst Communications | 2020 | 13 min. Watch the film now This is a film about a proposal to re-open the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley, 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? District 15 Anjali Nayar (Director) | 2019 | 23 min. Award Winner: 2021 Honorable Mention, Wild and Scenic Film Festival Communities for a Better Environment does critical work on environmental justice and empowers Californian communities to stand up to polluting industries and build a green energy future. This short film highlights the hope and tenacity of the young activists of Wilmington, California as they push the Los Angeles City Council to prohibit new and existing oil and gas drilling operations within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, and hospitals. ReBuilding Butte Amanda Lipp, Lipp Studios | 2021 | 25 min. This is the heartfelt story of a tiny home building project for survivors of the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history, the 2018 Camp Fire. The film follows Alyssa Hofman, a survivor herself and mother of three who learned how to build by watching YouTube videos. This film features the builders and tiny home recipients. Resilience Is In Our Nature Brady Holden (Cinematographer/ Director), Dez Ramirez (Writer/Director) | 2020 | 2 min. A snapshot of the Portland, Oregon community during the COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter uprising, Resilience Is In Our Nature captures resilience that can be found within us and around us. Whether it’s putting a mask on and enjoying outside, learning how to thrive and grow in quarantine, maintaining balance physically and mentally in nature, or a small business adapting and staying afloat – this film centers the fabric of what makes Oregon’s neighborhoods, cities, and state a special place to live. Water for Gold Tom & Debra Weistar | 2015 | 12 min. Watch the film now An alarming story about how international trade law is leading us to trade our most basic rights to clean, safe water for access to gold. In the 1990’s, a mine in nearby San Juan Ridge caused water to pour out of the aquifer scouring creeks and dewatering wells. This is the story of what a community can do when they decide that enough is enough, and that they will not trade water for gold. Panel of Speakers Our live panel of local experts will discuss and answer audience questions. Their diverse expertise and perspectives will help us better understand what 2023 looks like for the mine proposal and what we can expect in the longer term. Martin Webb - Moderator, KVMR Radio Host Martin has been in the renewable energy field for 25 years, as a business owner and solar expert, which translated into a life of environmental activism. Whether producing radio shows on KVMR as the host of “The Climate Report,” or on TV as the host of “Tipping Point,” a new monthly program on Nevada County Media, he has become a well-known voice for environmental awareness around a host of issues, including the proposed mine. Menkin Nelson - Filmmaker Menkin worked as a yacht captain abroad for a decade before starting an adventure travel business that raised money and awareness for small nonprofits around the world. An enthusiast for adventure and the great outdoors, she fell in love the Sierra's and now owns a home and business in Nevada County where she’s joined the fight to stop the mine and protect our resources with the production of 'Rise Beyond Gold'. Lou Douros - Filmmaker Lou is an award-winning writer and film director. He is currently working on a new movie titled: Shafted. Shafted explores whether Rise Gold Corp’s plan will devastate the people, the environment, and the economy of Grass Valley, CA. Elizabeth Martin - Former CEO of the Sierra Fund Elizabeth "Izzy" Martin is an organizer and advocate with more than forty years of experience working in rural communities to promote economic and environmental justice. While serving as Nevada County Supervisor (1999 – 2003) Izzy led the fight in the legislature to put the Yuba River into the state’s wild and scenic river system, spearheaded the effort to clean up an abandoned mine in her district, and began a successful five-year campaign to establish the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. As the CEO of The Sierra Fund, Izzy conceived of and directed The Sierra Fund’s Mining Initiative, working to assess and address mining’s toxic legacy. Ralph Silberstein - President, Community Environmental Advocates Foundation Ralph is the President of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEAF). He is a retired software engineer. Ralph served as a Grass Valley Planning Commissioner and on the Nevada County Fish and Wildlife Commission. He is a retired software engineer, business owner, and former building contractor. With 20 years of experience working on mining issues, he is an invaluable resource in the MineWatch campaign. Christy Hubbard - Impacted Homeowner Christy is an impacted homeowner and a spokesperson for The Wells Coalition. She is a retired high-tech marketing professional who spent decades with Adobe (the Photoshop and PDF company). As a volunteer with CEA Foundation, Christy has been a leader in creating the MineWatch campaign website, social media presence, and other communications. About MineWatch Minewatch Nevada County is a community campaign sponsored by Community Environmental Advocates Foundation that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses, in the Grass Valley and Nevada City areas. Community opposition to the re-opening of the mine the long-shuttered Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley, CA has grown significantly over the last two years. A residential neighborhood has developed around the abandoned site. In July, community leaders delivered over 4,700 petition signatures from Nevada County residents who opposed the mine. 250 business leaders have signed a letter or a petition opposing the mine. Hundreds of lawn signs are displayed throughout Nevada the County. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors may consider vote on this issue in 2023. www.minewatchnc.org About the Wild and Scenic Film Festival The Wild and Scenic Film Festival was started by the watershed advocacy group, the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) in 2003. Each year the festival hosts a large 5-day event in Nevada City. This year’s home festival will be held in February. The festival’s namesake is in celebration of SYRCL’s landmark victory to receive “Wild & Scenic” status for 39 miles of the South Yuba River in 1999. This February’s 5-day event features over 150 award-winning films and welcomes over 100 guest speakers, celebrities, and activists who bring a human face to the environmental movement. The home festival kicks-off the international tour to communities around the globe, allowing SYRCL to share their success as an environmental group with other organizations. The festival is building a network of grassroots organizations connected by a common goal of using film to inspire activism. With the support of National Partners: Peak Design, Hipcamp, EarthJustice, Miir and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, the festival can reach an even larger audience. For more information visit: www.wildandscenicfilmfestival.org

For Immediate Release: December 16, 2022 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org CEA Foundation Urges Caution Interpreting Mine’s Economic Impact Report Grass Valley, CA – December 16, 2022 – CEA Foundation recently sent comments to Nevada County’s Board of Supervisors about the recently released Economic Impact Report for the proposed reopening of Idaho-Maryland Mine. RISE Gold Corp., a company headquartered in Canada, is applying for permits to reopen the long-shuttered gold mine. The mine sits directly beneath what is now an upscale rural residential community. The report was commissioned by Nevada County and authored by consultant Robert D Niehaus, Inc. (RDN). It evaluates employment, tax revenue, real estate impact, and more. It will be used together with a soon-to-be released update of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to help the County’s five supervisors make a decision about the project. “We are grateful to the County for commissioning an independent economic report, rather than relying solely on the private report produced by Rise Gold”, said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation. “It corrected some of Rise Gold’s most outrageous claims. And yet it shares a similar problem with the Draft EIR released earlier this year, relying heavily on information provided by the applicant.” CEA Foundation, community reviewers, and state agencies deemed the draft inadequate and called for its recirculation, raising concerns about relying upon a document that was riddled with errors and omissions. The report’s tax revenue analysis shows a huge range from high to low. It hinges on estimates of “gold reserves'' that would be used to determine property tax assessments for Rise Gold’s underground mineral rights. These reserves, however, are not “proven” and can’t be certified until more exploration is done. The revenue figures represent a half to two percent (.04% to 2.1%) of the County’s general fund revenue. In the low-end scenario, the mine would close after eleven years. RDN downgraded Rise Gold’s local spending projections, adjusting initial claims of generating over $12M a year to just under $5M. Similarly, assertions about generating 300 “indirect” jobs turned into 163 instead. Project assumptions of the report are a key point of concern. The study assumes the mine would operate as proposed by the applicant and relied upon environmental impact information provided in the Draft EIR. Mine production levels and construction costs/timeline were provided by Rise Gold. At the same time, estimated costs of major expenses needed for an accurate analysis like facility construction, dewatering, and rehabilitation of the old mine works were not made available by Rise Gold. CEA’s comments raise questions about projections for direct and construction jobs. Estimates about how many Rise Gold employees would be hired locally are not well supported by other information sources about the mining industry and the transient nature of mine employees. Calculations related to 12 hours work shifts and one week on/ one week off schedules for over 50% of the employment base were challenged. Industry norms and previous EIRs on this mine say that most of these workers will live outside the county or reside in shared rental housing. They’re also unlikely to spend the majority of their take-home pay in the County. Similarly, mine construction requires highly specialized experience that may not be available using local companies. “RDN’s assertion that they found ‘no conclusive evidence’ the project would lower property values is a gut-punch for people living close to the mine,” said Charlie Brock, Nevada County Realtor for 54 years. “The report disregards the overwhelming opposition of local real estate experts who believe the mine will have considerable negative effects. It also reveals RDNs lack of expertise on the subject by creating a custom analysis of three mines that bear almost zero resemblance to our community or situation.” One mine in RDN’s report is situated across the street from a correctional institution. Two mines have no dwellings within 1/2 mile, compared to over 2000 dwellings near the Idaho-Maryland Mine mineral rights area. According to the Draft EIR for the latter, nearby homes would be subject to noise, vibration, dust, truck traffic, and aesthetic impacts – along with the creation of two large tailings piles for at least 11 years. For over 300 well owners in the area, concerns about the risk of dewatering or damaging wells that provide their only source of water are very high. There are also questions about RDNs analysis methods. For example, calculations minimized the impact on home value by expanding the range of properties evaluated – from right next to the mine to as far as 10 miles away. The community is also concerned that the limited scope of the report prevented analysis of several other impacts and costs. These include impacts on tourism, the hi-tech industry, and overall workforce availability. “Today’s well-balanced economy is built around tourism, recreation, and retirees”, said retired capital planner, Paul Schwartz. “Reintroducing a large-scale industrial mining operation to our area comes with significant risks”. Nevada County’s Board of Supervisors commissioned this report to get a reliable independent analysis of the economic impact of the proposed mine on the local economy. Community members say the report is far less than definitive. “While the report has given us some useful data, supervisors may want to take it with a huge grain of salt,” said Silberstein. “In the end, the Supervisors will be left with a single overriding question. Is this report credible enough to use as a justification to dismiss the lengthy list of environmental and financial risks?” View CEA Foundation’s comments and questions on the County’s Economic Impact Report here. Hear community perspectives from CEA Foundation and MineWatch coalition members by attending a webinar on Tuesday, December 20 at 6pm. Register here. 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

Rise Gold promises they'll bring 312 jobs to Nevada County, but a prior economic study suggests about half of those would come from out of area, less than 2% of those employees would buy homes, and simply allowing the property to develop according to the County's existing general plan would actually bring more jobs. Read this Op-ed on YubaNet. Originally posted on February 26, 2021. Full text below. Impacts to Jobs and Housing from the Proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine By Ralph Silberstein, President, Community Environmental Advocates Foundation The application documents submitted by Rise Gold show anticipated jobs that will be created once the mine is fully operational.[1] However, questions remain about the quantities and phasing of these jobs, and whether they will be filled from the local workforce or by people with specific technical skills from out of the area. It is also important to know what would be the net gain or loss of jobs in the area as a result of the mine, as well as the impacts on housing that may be caused by an influx of workers. While it is true that we can expect some evaluation of housing impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Report when it is eventually published, a more useful and comprehensive economic study regarding jobs, fiscal effects, and economic growth is not being done. There was an economic study done as part of the analysis for the previous attempt to open the mine by Emgold Mining Corporation, 2008.[2] It must be noted that the proposed project by Emgold was different in several ways. It included a tile factory as a means of disposing the mine tailings by fusing them into tiles. And the main processing facilities were to be on the 56 acre site on Idaho-Maryland Road, not at the Brunswick site. But otherwise, the proposals are similar in that they include dewatering, establishment of a mineral processing facility, and the same basic activities of reopening and operating the mine. There are a number of things that we can learn from that economic study. For example, because the Emgold project would have included a tile factory, the number of jobs when fully operational was predicted to be more, anticipating full operations to include 400 employees [3] (versus 312 employees in the current Rise Gold proposal [1]). Noteworthy, according to this study, 52% of the jobs would be filled by people who relocated to the Grass Valley area. [4] Also, a critical piece in assessing the true economic impact of a project is to compare it with the alternative of “no project”. In this case, a comparison was made in 2008 between allowing the property to be developed according to the Grass Valley General Plan versus permitting the mine as per the Emgold proposal. The findings of this comparison were rather surprising: “Under the General Plan Land Use Alternative, the land designated for Business Park use (the 56-acre northern portion of the Idaho-Maryland site) would accommodate about 800 jobs at buildout (see Table 9). The proposed Idaho-Maryland project would not generate as many total jobs in the City of Grass Valley. Up to 660 people would be working at the project area when construction and early operations phases overlapped. Over the 14 years of stabilized operations, the proposed project would employ about 400 people (see Table 3).” [5] The “no project” alternative would provide twice as many jobs! What about impacts to housing in this comparison? The study looked at the number of people who would come from out of the area for the ongoing operations once the construction phase was done. A large portion of them would take up residence as enters. There were also a number of people who would be commuting weekly from out of the area and just renting a room. Only 6 of the 400 would be home buyers. In total, of the 400 employees for operations, it was estimated that about 208 would be from out of the area, and 161 would constitute new renters in the area. [6] What conclusions can we draw from this study? Granted, it was done 13 years ago, and for a different project. But the fundamentals of the workforce, the local economy, and the housing have not changed much, except that housing is in a shorter supply. In conclusion, it seems reasonable that if the economic study were done again it would have the same basic results: that following the General Plan will produce more jobs, that about half of the workers would come from out of the area, and that most of them would stay in rentals. [1] Idaho-Maryland Mine Project Description, November 2019, pg17. [2] Hausrath Economics Group, Economic And Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Idaho- Maryland Mine Project in Grass Valley, California, July 30, 2008. [3] Ibid., pg 4. [4] Ibid., pg 6. [5] Ibid., pg 19. [6] Ibid., pg 6, 13. Update: The good news is that the County has commissioned a new Economic Impact Report for the current project. The community is currently reviewing the report and making comments on it. Learn more here.

Well owners near the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine are deeply concerned that the measures being taken to protect their only source of water aren't enough. Hear about the comments they made to Nevada County Supervisors. Excerpts from a Union article by Staff Writer, Marianne Boll-See Well owners and community organizations urged the Nevada County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to implement better safeguards to protect residents’ domestic wells at Tuesday’s regular board meeting. Members of the Wells Coalition spoke about the need for baseline data required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before Rise Gold Corporation’s proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland mine continues. “It is imperative that we have a process in place to gather baseline data for our wells before there is any further movement on this proposal. We could, literally, be facing life altering consequences and complete financial ruin without it…Without water, my property is worthless,” Tony Lauria from Grass Valley said. ‘Without water, my property is worthless:’ Well owners want protection from Rise Gold Grass Valley Tony Lauria from Grass Valley described a catastrophic event in the real possibility that well owners may experience: “You wake up and discover all the pressure is gone from the faucets...Oh my god! Without water, my property is worthless...Where is the protection from my county?” …. The Wells Coalition urged the supervisors to initiate a comprehensive domestic well monitoring program for a minimum of three years and to include the baseline data in a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIR) prior to any dewatering of the mine. … “Gravity! Nothing can stop it from drawing down water to its lowest point,” Tony Lauria told the BOS. Read the rest of the article online at The Union.

This local resident takes serious issue with a mailer Rise Gold recently sent to the community with the headline "The Science is Clear", trying to make people believe that the DRAFT environmental impact report is the final word and that the County has all-but made a decision. You can also read this in The Union. The version below is a more current version, which includes a few corrections. Science is clear but Rise Gold’s most recent mailing is anything but. Rather, it is an intentionally misleading attempt to skew the facts regarding the mine reopening. Has the mine reopening been approved? No, Nevada County has NOT just completed anything regarding approval of the mine reopening. The county Board of Supervisors has yet to conduct its first meeting to discuss the contents of the draft environmental study. They have not yet fully considered nor approved the contents of the study. No final determination has been made as to the accuracy of the scientific analysis, anticipated impacts, or adequacy of the proposed regulation of a reopened mine. The DEIR (DRAFT Environmental Impact Report) has not laid to rest anything. Rather, the report enumerates 83 impacts, 32 of which are considered significant enough that they will require some measure of intervention so as to make them not as bad as they actually are anticipated to be. Some impacts are so severe, there is nothing that can be done, we will just have to live with them. We are being asked to accept a lower quality of life in Grass Valley. None of these concerns have been “put to rest”. There remains grave concerns about drained wells, spoiled aquifers, polluted water ways, destroyed habitats, dust, exhaust, noise, and airborne chemicals associated with the transportation of waste and by gold extraction. There is no confirmation that there will not be spills, seepage, accidents, oversight, or callous disregard of regulations or safety practices. What is the DEIR? The DEIR’s only purpose is to lay out the ways in which the reopened mine will impact our environment and the possible ways some of these impacts could be dealt with. This report was compiled for and paid for by Rise Gold. It is important to note that this report was limited by and relied exclusively on information provided to the consulting firm by Rise Gold, and many of the conclusions reached in the report are based on assumptions and best case scenarios. The report does not guarantee in any way what will be the actual outcome. The fact remains, the mining industry is the single largest source of toxic waste and one of the most destructive industries in the country. Today's industrial mining involves the blasting, deep excavating, and crushing of acres of land and the use of huge quantities of toxic chemicals such as cyanide and sulfuric acid. But what about the new jobs? Rise Gold states we can expect 612 new jobs, 312 of which are directly related to the mine operation. The other 300 are presumed to be increases in our current employment base, in response to the estimated 50 million new dollars being poured into our community. Two thirds of the 312 mine employees are to be current local residents. The remaining 104 employees, would be the top paid technical and managerial positions. Are any of these highly trained specialized employees already a part of our local community? Or will these positions more likely be outsourced? Will adding 104 new Grass Valley residents really induce a new local spending increase of $50M each year? Do mine workers really earn $122,000 a year? When Rise Gold says “average”, they are including all salaries, including the top 1/3 salaried positions in the calculation of that average. This includes the CEO’s anticipated very generous salary. Furthermore, Rise Gold’s estimated worker earnings includes company-paid benefit costs that the employee never sees in their paycheck. The reality is an entry-level Miner can expect to earn an average total compensation (includes bonus and overtime pay) of $18.55/hour, based on a survey of typical existing salaries. An early career Miner earns $20.26, and an experienced Miner with 10-19 years of experience earns $27.56. (source: payscale.com). Truck drivers, janitors, front load operators, security staff, etc. will all be making the current going rate, with or without a mine. Do we get to keep the gold? No, we don’t. All of the gold and all of the profits will be leaving Grass Valley. The city of Grass Valley and Nevada County will not be receiving a piece of the gold pie. Any profits will go to the owners and shareholders of Rise Gold. So what’s in it for us? That is a very good question. Grass Valley assumes all of the risks, and for what? It’s a case of trading the family cow for a handful of magic beans. We would be risking so much for so very little; throwing away our beautiful quiet community, our neighbors, our scenery, our streams and rivers, our air quality, our water quality and habitat, our well paved traffic free streets, our peace and quiet, and our tax dollars for mitigation and reparation—24/7 for the next 80 years; for what? Please let the Board of Supervisors know what you want for your community. email: BOS.PublicComment@co.nevada.ca.us Katharine Popenuk lives in Grass Valley.

Retired capital planner Paul Schwartz sees several gaps in the Independent Economic Impact Study commissioned by the County. This opinion piece was originally published in The Union. December 6, 2022 I am generally disappointed in the depth of the economic analysis and the decision to use the Rise Gold economic and jobs projections as the baseline for the analysis. There was no testing the data or comparison to actual data from comparable operating mines. There is no analysis that considers the impact on the current balanced and prosperous economy in our County when we entertain a return to industrial gold mining. What will the impact to an economy that more and more is built around tourism, recreation, and seniors? In the Niehaus Economic Impact Report for Santa Barbara County, they concluded the impact of expanding the oil industry would seriously impact tourism. As a result of the study Santa Barbara rejected the expansion proposal. Where is the similar analysis for the impact of industrial mining operation in a residential neighborhood, on a scenic entryway to our County, and close to Grass Valley and Nevada City? I can see a long list of what-ifs and unintended consequences that could affect the economic impact of the reopening of the IMM. One need look no further that the Rise Gold leadership’s last gold mining enterprise and the unfunded toxic material cleanups in excess of $1.4 million, according to the media coverage. What if the workers live outside the county because of affordable housing shortages here, thus spending their dollars somewhere else? What if labor contractors bus workers in? Again, no local spending. What if the IMM purchases supplies and materials outside Nevada County, and there is no tax or multiplier revenue to the local economy? What if the two years of construction to prepare the project for operations is completed by contractors from outside our county and that revenue disappears? What about issues related to climate change and energy consumption that change the way we require an industrial enterprise operate? Does the county have the authority to change the requirements placed on Rise Gold in their 80-year permit approval? What if Nevada County adopts stringent climate change regulations, carbon footprint restrictions, and county-wide carbon reduction goals? Will the residential sector have to make all the reductions or will Rise Gold and the Idaho Maryland Mine have to conform to new county and state climate change carbon reduction regulation? One revealing part of the Niehaus report on the economic impact of reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine is the data pulled from our local real estate professionals. Seventy-nine percent of those responding to the questionnaire thought real estate values would decline. Eighty-nine percent thought the loss in value would be permanent. Seventy-two percent of the respondents thought the environmental impacts documented in the EIR would be significantly greater. These are folks who are intimately involved in the heartbeat of our local economy. We should trust their understanding in this case. My wife and I took a 3,000+ mile road trip this summer through Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. We drove through a lot of mining communities. In general, and anecdotal, our biggest take away in these communities was massive poverty and cultural decline. Silver City, New Mexico represents my biggest fears of the long-range impacts of industrial mining. At one time the town was very prosperous. The residential areas similar to ours had large Victorian homes. The downtowns had government buildings, restaurants, retail similar to ours. Today, the economy has collapsed. Residential properties and the downtown are in serious disrepair. Stores are closed and boarded-up and restaurants are gone. Where in the Niehaus economic analysis is any work related to the possibility of this kind of impact of industrial mining to our local economy. Our local economy recovered from the age of big gold and large timber. Over the last four to five decades, we have built a strong balanced economy around construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, information and finance, professional, scientific, and technical services, healthcare, arts and entertainment, and government and government services. Two years of COVID impacts hurt some sectors more than others, but generally, compared to many communities, we are doing OK because of the diversity of our economy. Niehaus presents no analysis related to the impact of reintroducing industrial mining to our well-balanced economic mix. Thinking outside the box for a moment. What happens when the IMM reopens with a multimillion-dollar gold processing plant ready to go. Why wouldn’t other gold mining companies with deep pockets connect the tunnels and reopen the Empire and the North Star mines pumping out the water and processing the waste rock and gold at the Brunswick location. How big do the piles of waste rock grow? How much new particulate clouds our air? How many trucks are hauling waste rock on our roads? What is the impact of gold on our elections and governing? Just a thought on the slippery slope. Paul S Schwartz lives in Grass Valley.

UPDATE: As a response to community input, Nevada County ultimately commissioned an independent economic impact report. The community is currently reviewing the report and preparing questions in response. Learn more here. The following letter was part of that original community input. We are deeply grateful to the County for listening to our request and commissioning this report. By Ralph Silberstein - Community Environmental Advocates Foundation August 17, 2020 To: Nevada County Board of Supervisors Eric Rood Administration Center 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 bdofsupervisors@co.nevada.ca.us Dear Nevada County Board of Supervisors, The permit application for the proposed opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley is currently in the scoping phase, with comments due by August 17. We at Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) have been hastily reviewing the project and are submitting comments. However, it has come to our attention that there is no economic study proposed for the review process. As you well know, this project lies within the Sphere of Influence of Grass Valley; i.e. the project is ‘in Grass Valley” and is surrounded by local businesses and residential neighborhoods. Given the significant impact that one would expect from a project of this magnitude, there has been a wave of concern about the economic and aesthetic impacts that will result from this mine opening. Quite frankly, our email in box has been flooded with letters of concern. We are faced with the prospect of the serene rural residential area around the Brunswick site having a large ore processing facility and extensive gravel operations plopped down in its center. Already there are reports of residential real estate values dropping just on the potential that this project might be approved.[1] Several residents in the area have already indicated they will sell their homes and move out. Some of the economic impacts of concern: Negative impacts on the Real Estate Industry. Several retail businesses along Idaho-Maryland Road have expressed concern that it will hurt their business. High tech companies have struggled to attract qualified workers and the natural setting and small town charm have given them some good selling points in the past. The adjacent tailings piles could ruin that. Heavy truck traffic and mine employee traffic along Brunswick Rd will be challenging our infrastructure. Local air pollution will be exacerbated by the mine, impacting the health of residents. The potential loss of wells due to impacts on ground water from the mine can irreparably hurt businesses and residences alike. There are 900 parcels sitting over the mineral rights of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, with an estimated 300 wells that could be damaged. Tax revenue may be decreased due to lagging property values. Financial risks to the county due to mine failure and/or insufficient bonds.[2] Granted, there may be new jobs. Unfortunately, most of the jobs require mining related skills, so there will have to be an influx of people to fill that. In the long run, will the number of jobs in our area actually increase, or will the other impacts and loss of small businesses create a net job loss? There will be a lot of construction initially, but will the loss of construction in the housing market due to depressed prices result in a new long term loss of construction jobs and less new housing? And at some point, as always, the mine will close and we will be left with the pieces. Given the financial risks of the industry, this could be after 1 year, 10 years, or longer. It is unknown. These are all very important questions that should be answered before this project is placed before you for consideration. It is for that reason that we strongly urge you to include an economic study in the Idaho-Maryland Mine permitting analysis. Thank you, Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation [1] A local resident conducted an informal survey of well known and large volume realtors in the area and asked for their professional opinion as to the impact. He contacted multiple local realtors with multiple firms. 100% of them agreed it would have a negative impact on values. A well know realtor at Century 21 said that in her professional opinion that “reopening the mine depending on the property, could reduce values near the mine by from $50,000 to $100,000 or more”. Others estimated the reduction in terms of 20% to 25% or more. A realtor at Coldwell Banker said “While it would impact the properties close to the mine the most, it would negatively impact all property values in the area. I’ve had multiple potential buyers decide not to purchase here at all when they learned the mine could reopen”. “The same home in a nice area compared to one next to a railroad track would have far different values. No one wants to live next to a mine” said another agent. “The most important factors in values are “location, location, location. Next to a mine is not a good location”, several others stated. Another realtor told us “We had a property in escrow recently, but the sale fell through when the buyer found out that the mine could reopen”. (Contact information available upon request.) [2] Robert Clark, retired Grass Valley resident, former Grass Valley Branch Manager of Wachovia Securities and former CEO of a registered Broker/Dealer, expressed serious concerns about the financial viability of Rise Gold Corporation and the risk of working with them. “The failure rate of “penny stock” companies like Rise Gold is almost 100%. They aren’t even regulated like other companies.”

Residents of Nevada County and local government agencies were shocked at the inadequacy of the 1000+ page Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine. It not only described a huge number of impacts, but it was riddled with errors, omissions, and legal flaws. So many in fact, that community reviewers, legal experts, and local government agency reviews of the report called for the draft to revised and recirculated before moving to the final draft. "We'll see many more impacts listed as 'significant and unavoidable' before its done," said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation. The Union | Opponents Decry Riddled with Errors: Water, mine waste, and greenhouse gas emissions top the list of concerns. The Union | The City of Grass Valley hired their own consultant to review the report. The Union | An investigative report describes how the Mine report leaves well owners 'Hung out to dry'. The Union | Rise Gold CEO calls county ‘naive’ in dealings with Nisenan. Article | Cartoon. Draft Environmental Impact Report Seriously Inadequate | Recirculation required to meet CEQA Guidelines Over 1000 legitimate public comments were submitted to Nevada County regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. These included experts, volunteers, and legal minds from CEA Foundation and its MineWatch coalition members, as well as local government agencies. Read the press release - CEA Foundation Exposes Massive Flaws in Mine Report Read Community Comments - CEA Foundation, Legal & Technical Experts, Coalition Organizations. Read local agency comments - City of Grass Valley, Nevada Irrigation District, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Bonus content - Controversy - Rise Gold "Stuffing the Ballot Box" In addition to the legitimate comments, Rise Gold submitted 1,600 comments that simply declared support for the mine which included over 500 duplicates & multiple faked names. Almost 500 people attended the County's meeting about environmental impacts of the mine. Of the 101 who picked up tickets to comment, only one spoke in favor of the mine. Check out the coverage in the Union. Read the article | View the video Local resident Michael Shea corrects The Union in this opinion piece. KVMR Radio Host, Martin Webb describes the DEIR by the numbers and what that means to our small community. Run time 9 min. Share the PDF or video with others using these links: https://www.minewatchnc.org/post/83-negative-impacts-oh-my or, https://youtu.be/Wyj0iwAS22Q Negative Impacts of IMM Are Too Many To List. Retired capital planner Paul Schwartz saw plenty of environmental impact reports in his career, and knows a bad project when he sees one. CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein questions the science and mitigations described in the DEIR. Run time 12 min. Mine would undermine climate change solutions. The mine report uses categorization to stay below arbitrary, outdated thresholds, says Citizen's Climate Lobby Nevada County chapter Director David Whitehead. Too Good to Be True. Rise Gold's biological assessment report on the 129 acre Brunswick site says they "did not record any observation of deer," but their next door neighbor, Mike Shea wrote a column a recorded the reality with a trail cam. Community members submitted many dozens of opinion pieces to the local newspaper during the DEIR review period. As of June 2022, 168 opinions had been published since the fight began. Only eight of them were pro-mine. That’s 95% opposed. Read more in our Library. Want to get involved? Show your support or volunteer to help Get a No Mine a sign

Want to know why people are so worried about impacts to wells and groundwater? This Union article is a must-read. By Shira Moolten Eric Gibbons’ rural Grass Valley water well was one of many that a previous Environmental Impact Report showed would be dewatered if the Idaho-Maryland Mine was reopened. An EIR out for the current efforts to re-open the mine does not show Gibbons’ well is in jeopardy, which he says makes no sense. “Unless something goes haywire, like I leave a sprinkler on overnight, or a hose pump,” Gibbons said. “Then we’re out of water and it has to recharge a while. But that’s OK, we’ve been here almost 30 years, and that’s just the way it is.” If Rise Gold Corp. succeeds in reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine, Gibbons fears he may no longer have just enough. Rise is the third company to attempt to reopen the mine in the past 27 years. If approved, the company would first have to dewater the shafts and tunnels starting 100 feet underground, and maintain that dewatered state for the projected 80 years of mining operations, a process that will reduce, or draw down, the amount of water in nearby wells. In January, the county released the draft environmental impact report, in which an independent consultant hired by the county reviewed all potential problems posed by the mine, determined their level of significance, and proposed mitigation measures. But while Rise says the report proves that mining won’t dewater wells, local advocacy groups and well owners themselves feel far from reassured. THIRTY OR 300? One major point of contention arising from the draft EIR is the number of wells at risk. Read the rest of the article online at The Union.

Mine impacts scrutinized during public meeting The Union newspaper covered a recent public forum hosted by the Universalist Unitarian Community of the Mountains in Grass Valley The Union | Elias Funez September 28, 2022 {Excerpted] A standing-room only crowd gathered Tuesday at the Universalist Unitarian Community of the Mountains in Grass Valley to hear the findings of a panel of individuals who have been delving into the more than 500-page Environmental Impact Report and Economic Impact documents regarding Rise Grass Valley, a subsidiary of Rise Gold Corp, and its proposed plans to reopen the Idaho-Maryland gold mine. Among those findings was information showing that air quality over the 80-year duration of Rise Grass Valley’s operation of the mine would emit over 7 million pounds of airborne toxins and carcinogens. “A few years ago, the American Lung Association gave Nevada County a grade F for air quality,” Dr. Jeff Kane said, crediting Sacramento’s drifting air pollution as a result. “That along with the endemic wildfires that we experience now means that we really can’t tolerate any more air toxicity.” Read the full article in The Union.

“This DEIR is riddled with errors, omissions, and legal flaws”, said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation For Immediate Release: Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Grass Valley, CA – March 30, 2022 – CEA Foundation and its MineWatch coalition members delivered comments to Nevada County’s Planning Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed reopening of Idaho-Maryland Mine today. Experts, volunteers, and legal minds reviewed the DEIR’s 1,000+ pages to provide a comprehensive review of the technical studies, impact assessments and proposed mitigations provided in the DEIR. Once the center of the famed California gold rush, at stake is a community that has transformed into a scenic and cultural magnet for families, retirees, and tourists from across the western United States. If approved, this mine would be opened under the community’s feet. “Mining is our past, not our future”, said retired capital planner, Paul Schwartz. “Today’s economic engine is recreation based, but we’re also facing historic drought and fire risk. Protecting precious resources like water, air quality, and our peaceful rural setting is job number one.” “This DEIR is riddled with errors, omissions, and legal flaws”, said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation. “The County will have to make significant changes and recirculate the draft. We’ll see many more impacts listed as significant and unavoidable. Beyond the EIR, our Supervisors will be faced with making the final decision. In the long run, it will very simply come down to whether the mine is good for our community.” The applicant, Rise Gold, was responsible for delivering the vast majority of the technical studies used by the County’s hired consultant to determine the impacts. “Surprisingly, the studies lacked key information one would normally expect and were often internally inconsistent.”, said Silberstein. Dewatering the mine is a key concern. “Groundwater modeling in fractured rock systems is considered unreliable even when everything is done right,” said Silberstein. According to experts, Rise Gold’s model has fundamental flaws in the initial start point of the model and baseline data assumptions – all of which throw off the entire analysis. The result is a DEIR that concludes that groundwater levels would drop a maximum of 10 feet and no more than 30 local wells would be a risk. Experts, however, recognize the extremely high degree of uncertainty involved. Comments submitted to the County by the community and the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) include requests to expand the potential area of impact, provide a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program, and post a $14 million bond. Dealing with mine waste is another major concern. “Looking at the rock core sample analysis, it is abundantly clear that asbestos will be a gnarly problem that will require comprehensive management. Mining operations don’t get to just haul and dump rock like the days of old,” said Silberstein. “Air and water quality regulations will significantly restrict throughput and the costs will be exorbitant.” Experts found the plans to mitigate fugitive dust to be inadequate. They also found no credible evidence that the mine tailings could be effectively sold to 3rd parties for fill or offsite construction. Climate change has increased forest fires and parched lands, resulting in the newest Federal and State greenhouse gas reduction goals. The DEIR used a threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year for greenhouse gas emissions but failed to include some elements that puts the project over that limit and makes it a significant impact. In the long run however, the limit defined in the DEIR is likely to be found irrelevant. Recent changes mean the County’s threshold must be established at “net zero”. Following is a quick list of additional gaps in the draft: Cleanup of the toxic, pre-superfund Centennial site that would be used to dump mine waste is not included in the DEIR but is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Missing construction time estimates throw off the entire analysis of noise, traffic, and air. The DEIR incorrectly assesses nighttime noise and underestimates the noise of dumping mine waste near established residential neighborhoods. Air traffic hazards and aesthetic impacts need to be studied further due the likelihood of a massive fog plume that could be created by warm, saturated air ventilation. Blasting plans don’t follow U.S. mining guidelines that restrict blasting during evening hours. The plan doesn’t demonstrate that the impact on biological and aquatic resources would be less than significant. Meteorological data used to assess the health risk of airborne pollutants doesn’t fit Grass Valley’s profile or accurately reflect local conditions. Rise Gold appears to be spending a lot of money ‘marketing’ to our community claiming nothing but net-positives and declaring “the Science is Clear”, but the reality is completely different. This DEIR reveals significant flaws in the analysis. Nevada County residents and the Supervisors who will be making the final decision deserve an accurate environmental report that shows the full extent of the impacts the mine project would have on our community. View the CEA Foundation and coalition comments here: www.minewatchnc.org/post/deir-comments-mar2022 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

Local agencies made extensive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, some of them calling for a recirculation of the draft due to multiple inadequacies. Nevada Irrigation District (NID) Comments for the Idaho Maryland Mine Project Draft EIR: City of Grass Valley Comments on the Draft EIR: Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) comments on the Draft EIR: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) comments on the Draft EIR:

What if our wells go dry just like they did at the most recent mining operation in North San Juan? Tony Lauria writes for The Union about the destruction to the environment and elimination of precious resources if Rise Gold reopens the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Read it in The Union. It is without conscience and integrity for a company to waltz into a residential community and falsely proclaim they will cause no environmental impacts with their heavy industrial mining operation. The very nature of deep bedrock gold mining is inherently tied to environmental impacts. The facts of history confirm this. The statement by Rise Gold’s CEO, in a KOVR 13 news interview, said they have designed their operation to have no impacts. How could this be any further from the truth? Dewatering the region’s aquifers at the rate of 4 million gallons per day for six months, then 1 million every day thereafter for 80 years is an environmental impact. It might be an environmental disaster. The complexity of hydrology makes it impossible to predict how far reaching this dewatering process will impact the quality of life for the residents who live here. The amount of churned contaminants that might be released and pumped out of these aquifers would be a significant impact. There is no guarantee those toxic elements will not mix with existing water stores and contaminate residential water sources. Furthermore, the loss of a precious resource, in the midst of declining water levels and frequent droughts, might significantly burden this environment and its inhabitants. There is a reason no active deep bedrock gold mines exist in Nevada County any more. The legacy of the gold mining industry has scarred many square miles of land here, with extreme toxic consequences. The Lava Cap Mine continues to fail complete clean-up efforts, initiated during the federal Superfund program. Downstream, Lost Lake still maintains its contamination status from the mine’s runoff. Similar hazardous conditions exist at, virtually, all other previous local mines, including the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Not only is this dewatering process an environmental impact, but its potential to destroy the hundreds of residential water wells, within their boundaries, is another collateral impact that should never be risked. Such a failure in their “no impact design” could render hundreds of homes without a clean water source and devalue property severely, undoubtedly triggering a mass exodus of residents from the county. What if our wells go dry due to this mining operation? They cannot guarantee it won’t happen. If this company turns a blind eye to this possibility, they are proving their lack of conscientious integrity. In other words, they simply do not care who gets thrown under the bus for their profits. Consider the failure at the most recent mining operation in North San Juan. The Siskon Mine company stated the same falsehoods of estimating no potential negative consequences. After a dozen wells were destroyed and the company filed for bankruptcy, the citizens were left to bear the burden of those consequences. If you have not seen it, this documentary shows it all: https://vimeo.com/120747168. This represents only the tip of the iceberg with known environmental impacts associated with gold mining. The company CEO has already been fined twice for toxic spills in British Columbia. Does the county have a budget to watchdog his operations here? Our risk, for profit in the pockets of this company, has no benefit for our community. How many jobs are worth the risk to the hundreds of homeowners that could lose everything, and our towns that could suffer the fallout of this industrial takeover? Their application to change the zoning to heavy industrial is simply an unconscionable action. It’s been 70 years since this mine was in operation. None of the residents here agreed to this possibility when they purchased their homes. A zoning change should never be permitted. Do not allow this Canadian company to risk our clean air, water and quality of life for their own benefit. The potential impacts are severe and might foretell a very grim upcoming 80 years for the community. The potential environmental and economic destruction of this area could ripple through both Grass Valley and Nevada City regardless of the proximity to ground zero. There is power in numbers. Show your opposition to the mine proposal every way you can. Write to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and express who will get your upcoming vote. Tell them they must protect the people they were elected to serve and stand up to these would-be takers of our resources, clean air and quality of life. Tony Lauria lives in Grass Valley.

There are hidden impacts to the proposed mine reopening that are not being acknowledged, according to Tony Lauria. Residents are having to spend time and money on warding off a lifestyle takeover by a foreign company that is only considering profit for themselves rather than being considerate of our community and way of life. Read it below, or read it in The Union. The unseen impact of the proposed mine is the stress, time and money spent by the community to stop this egregious attack on our water, air, quality of life, and threat to devalue our homes and property. In other words, we are being put through the wringer. We have all been forced to endure this abusive assault to win a permit that would let nothing stand in the way of grabbing the gold, literally, under our feet. We are all contributing our gold to stop it. We are hiring attorneys. We are paying for posters and fliers. We are spending evenings and weekends in meetings. We each devote endless hours writing commentaries, reading the documents and formulating plans and actions that will bring a halt to this atrocity. And sometimes, we stand dumbfounded in the face of such greed and disrespect. There are no words strong enough to describe how wrong this is for a company to invade our residential community and risk our health and well being for their own profit. It is utter disregard to the human decency of common consideration and respect for the people who live here. Their claims of low impact are continually spewed to the media, which further associates them with the unsavory, sly tactics of an organization that’s only focus is on what they can take from us in the name of profit. History has proven the detrimental effects of deep bedrock gold mining. We have dozens of contaminated sites from the 1800s, still toxic to this day. Any company that would deny those facts, is a company that should be denied permission to mine where people live. If you value the current way of life in our fine towns, please speak up. Read the draft environmental impact report and make your comment to the county, that this should never happen in our residential community. Go to http://www.minewatchnc.org for more information, sign up for newsletter, and to join the efforts to stop this unacceptable proposal. Tony Lauria lives in Grass Valley.

The long-awaited environmental report for the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine is out and we have until April 4 to comment. Also known as a "DEIR," the report is required to analyze the impacts of the mine project. CEA Foundation and MineWatch allies have been working to analyze past technical studies and are now digging into this report. Counting down. We built a calendar of activities to assist with community response. Some of them have already happened. Here are the key dates for the DEIR response. Today. Get educated. Read the draft environmental impact report on the County website. View the slides or recording of the DEIR Explainer Webinar to learn about what's in the report, learn how to write your own comments, or other ways to make your voice heard! Read the guide about how to write DEIR comments April 4, 2021. Comments are due at 5pm. Send to Idaho.MMEIR@co.nevada.ca.us. or read the how to guide for additional information. Public Comment Meeting (March 24). Almost 500 people attended the County's meeting about environmental impacts of the mine. Of the 101 who picked up tickets to comment, only one spoke in favor of the mine. Check out the coverage in the Union to hear what other people said. Read the article | View the video Read the CEA Foundation Press Release Learn more View the Nevada County website for the Idaho-Maryland Mine project. Main project page https://www.mynevadacounty.com/3195/Idaho-Maryland-Mine---Rise-Grass-Valley Environmental Impact Report page https://www.mynevadacounty.com/3436/Idaho-Maryland-Mine-Draft-EIR PDF of the Environmental Impact report https://www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/41650/Idaho-Maryland-Mine-Project-Draft-EIR_Volume-I-Draft-EIR-Chapters-1-8 View the State of California CEQA project page. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020070378/3 Read about the community's shocked reaction to the number of flaws in the DEIR Read the newsletter https://mailchi.mp/3face971a562/minewatch-news-deir-gets-30-more-days-nid-asks-questions?e=36f0ff592b Read community opinions https://www.minewatchnc.org/post/community-reacts-to-the-idaho-maryland-mine-deir Watch the Minewatch meeting https://www.minewatchnc.org/post/deir-explainer-minewatch-january-meeting Stay informed. Sign up for our newsletter to get breaking news in your inbox. https://www.minewatchnc.org/subscribe

Watch a short video (4:30) featuring CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein as he talks about the risks to wells in a MineWatch meeting. • Concerned? • Write a letter to your Nevada County Supervisor! • Learn more about why our community can't afford to risk its precious water resources.

In this documentary, filmmakers Tom and Debra Weistar tell the story of nearby San Juan Ridge, where a mine shut down in the mid-90's after draining resident's wells. In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada lies the San Juan Ridge. On the Ridge, tucked away amongst towering pines, flanked by two forks of the Yuba River, is a thriving, independent community. There is also a huge gold mine – a vestige of California's mining era. A mine that, in the 1990’s, caused water to pour out of the aquifer scouring creeks and dewatering wells; a mine that wreaked havoc on the community; a mine that is proposed to reopen. This is the story of what a community can do when they decide that enough is enough, and that they will not trade water for gold. • Learn more about why our community can't afford to risk its precious water resources. • Concerned? • Write a letter to your Nevada County Supervisor! • Watch the full length version of the San Juan Ridge Water for Gold video (32 min).

Rise Gold's sent mailers and letters to the community that included misleading statements. Following is a copy of a letter CEA Foundation sent to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors about a letter sent to impacted well owners. Community Environmental Advocates Foundation PO. Box 972 Cedar Ridge, CA 94924-0972 February 22, 2022 Nevada County Board of Supervisors 950 Maidu Avenue.Ste. 200 Nevada City, CA 95959 bdofsupervisors@co.nevada.ca.us RE: The County has NOT made a determination on the Idaho-Maryland Mine Dear Supervisors: As you may be aware, Idaho-Maryland Mine owner Rise Gold Corp has sent out yet another mailer to Nevada County residents, this time claiming that “Nevada County has just completed the most thorough environmental study in its history,” along with numerous unresolved claims about the project. The mailer includes a form for supporters to mail in to Rise Gold. We want to bring your attention to another letter that was sent to well owners in the mine area. (Copy included) The letter states: “The County has determined that no domestic water wells will be drained by mine dewatering,” that “The County has determined, using a safety factor of 100%, that several wells...could be impacted...to a maximum of 10 feet,” and “The County has determined that there is no threat to water quality to domestic water wells from the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project.” We feel that it would serve the public interest for the County to issue a clarifying statement regarding the status of the Draft EIR and the status of determinations by the County. Thank you. Sincerely, Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation

Companies are seeking to open old mines and explore in new sensitive regions, amid resistance from Californians who want the Gold Rush to remain part of history Below are a few excerpts. Read the full column in the Washington Post. SCOTT WILSON Senior National Correspondent, The Washington Post July 17, 2022 GRASS VALLEY, Calif. — Where the Sacramento Valley steepens into the Sierra Nevada, Susan Love found a home with big windows and pine-forest views. It was the house she shared happily with her husband before his death. The surroundings, though, are changing. A long-dormant gold mine within view of her front garden is showing signs of life. Once the second-highest-producing gold mine in the nation, the Idaho-Maryland Mine is again in the sights of prospectors, this time a Nevada-based company proposing to reopen it in this place born more than a century and a half ago in a rush of gold. “Gold is used as a hedge against economic insecurity, and we’ve certainly seen a lot of that in recent years,” said Elizabeth Holley, an associate professor in the Colorado School of Mines’ department of mining engineering. “And if you consider the time when Idaho-Maryland operated, the methods have matured greatly and today you can mine much more efficiently and at lower grades of ore.” Given the high prices, Holley said, the interest in gold has expanded well beyond traditional mining states in the West. She serves on a National Academies of Science board examining the potential effects of gold mining in Virginia. “The environmental and social impacts are always concerning for a community,” Holley said. “But modern mining is highly regulated and I do think people conflate historic practices with what mining is now.” Nonetheless, the potential for new prospecting has inspired a visible public resistance, a jobs vs. community character debate, that at its heart asks whether the Golden State really needs gold anymore. “There is no industrial need for gold — it is just a luxury,” said Ralph Silberstein, a 24-year resident here who heads the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation and MineWatch, a group that opposes the Grass Valley project. “Sure there are a lot of old mines around here, but all have a toxic history behind them.” A Canadian company called K2 Gold has proposed a major project to mine Conglomerate Mesa [Near Death Valley] through an open-pit system, which uses a chemical process that in this case involves cyanide leaching through earth to drag out gold. Bald spots along the mesa’s rolling plateau are evidence of the company’s drill tests. “It all comes down to water, as does everything in the American West,” said Wendy Schneider, executive director of the Friends of the Inyo, a nonprofit seeking to protect Conglomerate Mesa. “And there is none.” The Idaho-Maryland Mine has raised concerns about water — an unknown number of private-home wells are predicted to run dry because of mining use near the site itself, in addition to the potential chemical spillover from its ponds that could make its way into a highly popular river system. “We have to ask ourselves if this is the way we want to be using our most precious resource,” said Melinda Booth, executive director of the South Yuba River Citizens League, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of and helps maintain a river that draws nearly a million visitors a year. “I think the community says no.” Scott Wilson is a senior national correspondent for The Washington Post, covering California and the West. He has previously served as The Post's national editor, chief White House correspondent, deputy assistant managing editor for foreign news, and as a correspondent in Latin America and in the Middle East.

For five years Rise Grass Valley has been trying to get a permit, but the people of Grass Valley are overwhelmingly rejecting the mine. And CEO Ben Mossman. Below are a few excerpts. Read the full column in LA Times. Or, watch the news coverage from SpectrumNews1. HAILEY BRANSON-POTTS JUNE 24, 2022 Like many of California’s estimated 47,000 abandoned mines, the Idaho-Maryland has a toxic legacy. To get the mine running again, Rise Grass Valley would have to drain its flooded tunnels and continuously pump groundwater from it. Mossman says the treated water will be “better than drinking water” and that the mine will actually create a surplus of much-needed water that could be used for agriculture and other needs. But detractors are leery of a project that requires pumping groundwater as California is in the midst of climate change and an extreme drought that is adding to strains on underwater aquifers. Elsewhere in the state — most famously the Central Valley — overpumping has caused land to sink. Before coming to Grass Valley, Mossman was the president and chief executive of a company called Banks Island Gold. It ran the Yellow Giant gold mine on remote Banks Island off the coast of British Columbia, on the traditional land of the Indigenous Gitxaala Nation — which long opposed the mine because of potential pollution. Mossman started mining there in 2014. But after he received complaints, provincial inspectors showed up the next year and found that his company was releasing mine waste and contaminated water into creeks, ponds and wetlands. Mossman and his chief geologist are currently on trial in British Columbia on nine federal and 20 provincial charges related to spills at the mine, a spokesman for the British Columbia Prosecution Service said. Inside his company’s small Grass Valley office, green-and-gold yard signs for potential mine supporters proclaim: YES! IDAHO-MARYLAND MINE. But if they are displayed around town, they are hard to find. Meanwhile, on front lawns and in storefront windows, black-and-gold signs scream: PROTECT OUR AIR, WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE. NO MINE. If it reopens, mining will commence on the ancestral homeland of the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe, who were brutalized and forced off their land during the Gold Rush. Shelly Covert, a spokeswoman for the tribe, said she was stunned to hear the mine could be reopened. Like the Gitxaala people in Canada, the Nisenan don’t want Mossman’s mine because of the harm it could do to the environment. “This land is just starting to revive,” she said. “They’re saying, ‘The science is great now. We don’t have to worry about anything.’ I still almost get speechless because I think it’s just so irresponsible.” “The county is so naive in trying to assist this group to gain status,” Mossman wrote. Then he sarcastically alluded to the tribes of the Great White North, where the Gitxaala could not stop his last mine from opening. “Welcome to Canada.” Hailey Branson-Potts is a Metro reporter for the Los Angeles Times who joined the newspaper in 2011. She grew up in the small town of Perry, Okla., and graduated from the University of Oklahoma. Times researcher Jennifer Arcand contributed to this report.

Local resident Katherine Popenuk did some homework on "average" mining salaries. They don't align with Rise Gold's promises. The following information is extracted from an opinion piece originally published in The Union. But what about the new jobs? Rise Gold states we can expect 612 new jobs, 312 of which are directly related to the mine operation. The other 300 are presumed to be increases in our current employment base, in response to the estimated 50 million new dollars being poured into our community. Two thirds of the 312 mine employees are to be current local residents. The remaining 104 employees, would be the top paid technical and managerial positions. Are any of these highly trained specialized employees already a part of our local community? Or will these positions more likely be outsourced? Will adding 104 new Grass Valley residents really induce a new local spending increase of $50M each year? Do mine workers really earn $122,000 a year? When Rise Gold says “average”, they are including all salaries, including the top 1/3 salaried positions in the calculation of that average. This includes the CEO’s anticipated very generous salary. Furthermore, Rise Gold’s estimated worker earnings includes company-paid benefit costs that the employee never sees in their paycheck. The reality is an entry-level Miner can expect to earn an average total compensation (includes bonus and overtime pay) of $18.55/hour, based on a survey of typical existing salaries. An early career Miner earns $20.26, and an experienced Miner with 10-19 years of experience earns $27.56. (source: payscale.com). Truck drivers, janitors, front load operators, security staff, etc. will all be making the current going rate, with or without a mine. Do we get to keep the gold? No, we don’t. All of the gold and all of the profits will be leaving Grass Valley. The city of Grass Valley and Nevada County will not be receiving a piece of the gold pie. Any profits will go to the owners and shareholders of Rise Gold. Katharine Popenuk lives in Grass Valley.

This resident reacts to the Union publisher's column & explains why the mine's compliance with "acceptable" standards is NOT good enough. Don Rogers suggests (“Rise’s messaging less than golden,” Feb. 18) that every assault brought by Rise Gold on our county (water quality, noise, air pollution) will be OK because scientific standards will be used to define “acceptable” levels of disturbance. Here is where I depart from his confidence: Measurements are made by science, but standards “acceptable levels of disturbance” are political judgments, and represent what official bureaucracies consider to be a ‘reasonable’ middle ground. For those on the other side of that comfort line, life can be hell. Risk of adverse effects: noise, pollution, water: Science can measure audible intensity — “noise” — with great accuracy, but bureaucrats set standards for what is acceptable. Here’s the rub: Humans vary widely in their tolerance for ambient noise, especially when it is constant and out of their control. This is where science leaves the debate and politics enters by making a determination of what is OK. Auditory limits are set by a committee that decides how much volume you must tolerate from your neighbor’s party music, or the “take off” noise inevitable for those living under an airport. What this means is that some people will be fine with the volume, and others will be driven crazy by the same noise. A constant rumbling deep within the earth may be barely noticeable to some, especially if they live far away from the site, but can be devastating to others, especially if the noise is constant. Auditory measures were made during a brief test of the ambient noise from Rise Gold blasting. The official auditory acceptable standards were met, yet a neighbor’s letter to the union stated that she had to move to the back of her house in order to sleep. Rise’s media person revealed that the treated water resulting from their operations would be potable (drinkable by accepted scientific standards) yet might taste funky, and be cloudy. Another scientific measurement judged acceptable by bureaucrats. The measure is scientifically accurate. The judgment of its acceptability is arbitrary and political. And what’s in it for the unfortunate folks who will be bothered by this noise, this bad air, this possibly funky cloudy water? We need airports, and must manage annoying noise while balancing air traffic safety, but we don’t need this mine adventure, so why accept any level of downside at all? Risk of Rise Gold being untrustworthy: Deception. I do agree with Don’s assessment of deception spewing from Rise — postcards broadcast to the community, pre-made out as supportive of the mine, and the phony survey which presented loaded questions like this: “If there were no problems, and a huge tax windfall for the county, and hundreds of well paying jobs made available, would you support the mine?” Please. Also, Rise Gold has demonstrated a willingness to be deceptive about the jobs they will provide (average salary $92,000 and 300-plus jobs) a statement derived from taking their full employment allocation and divided by the proposed 300-plus jobs, coming up with an average salary of $92,000. Why don’t we get a breakdown of job classification, required experience, and salary? Who would believe that a trainee would be sent underground to learn the mining ropes at a salary of $92,000? Obviously, the big bucks will go out of town, county, state, and probably country, to highly trained engineers. History: These Rise people have dumped on British Columbia. Banks Island Gold Ltd., which Mossman managed, went bankrupt because of 35 charges of failed compliance, and court cases continue to this day (Rondal Snodgrass O.V.2-22-22). If we commit to this massive, invasive industrial operation in our small community, what guarantees do we have that Rise will not cut and run when things get tough, as they did in British Colombia? Do we really expect that the officials in our small county will have the resources to restore the damage done to wells, aquifer, roads, and air quality if Rise fails to perform all the mitigation they have promised? Currently, we are unable to completely restore environmental damage from mining done in the 19th century! At this point, it is reported that Rise has $400,000 in the bank. Balance: I assert that there will be, for some at least, real downsides despite scientific “limits” from noise, pollution, diminished water quality and disruption, and on the other hand there is no guarantee of significant jobs, taxes, or successful mitigation in perpetuity. In other words, guaranteed risks and no clear local reward. Bad deal. David Heinen lives in North San Juan. This opinion was originally published in The Union.

Nevada County has a higher rate of depression & suicide than the CA average, but less mental health providers. The possible reopening has already led to considerable anxiety and depression in the community with worries about property values, loss of well water, noise, traffic, environmental impacts and increased health problems. This opinion pieces was originally published in The Union. Much has been written about the negative public health, environmental and quality-of-life impacts from the possible reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. An additional concern is its negative impacts on mental health for individuals and the community. Nevada County has a higher rate of depression and suicide than the California average, combined with a lower percentage of mental health providers per capita, according to the 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment (www.mynevadacounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/27995). The pandemic has led to an even greater demand for mental health services, and there has been an alarming increase in overdose deaths. It is clear from the number of people mobilized in opposition to the mine that the possible reopening has already led to considerable anxiety and depression in the community. Worry about property values, loss of well water, noise, traffic, environmental impacts and increased health problems is widespread. Additionally, the possible reopening of the mine is yet another divisive issue in the community. At a time when our cohesiveness is challenged on many fronts, this is an issue for which there is a clear solution, and that is to deny the Rise Gold proposal. Cheryl Morris Grass Valley