Search our Library

Contaminated water containing unsafe levels of Arsenic, Lead, Barium, Chromium, and other hazardous metals is continuously draining out of the Idaho-Maryland Mine into Wolf Creek, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Read this opinion piece in The Union . Ralph Silberstein: Rise Gold is responsible for ongoing Idaho-Maryland Mine pollution November 20, 2024 Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation Currently, contaminated water containing unsafe levels of Arsenic, Lead, Barium, Chromium, and other hazardous metals is continuously draining out of the Idaho-Maryland Mine into Wolf Creek, in violation of the Clean Water Act. A Nov. 9 op-ed in The Union by David Watkinson, the former CEO of Emgold Mining Co., criticized the efforts by CEA Foundation to compel Rise Gold to get a Discharge Permit (NPDES), the first step in remediating the problem. The Watkinson op-ed contained numerous invalid statements. For example, Watkinson states: “The action may well be moot because the discharge from the mine does not occur on property owned by Rise.” In fact, as is well documented in the mine’s own hydrology studies, the discharge comes from the Idaho-Maryland Mine. And, as the holder of the mineral rights, Rise is responsible. This is almost identical to the situation with the Magenta Drain at Memorial Park. The owner of the mineral rights in that case was Newmont Co., a real mining company. Newmont was found liable for the pollution even though the surface property was owned by others. Watkinson also insinuated that CEA, or CEA’s predecessor CLAIM, has known about the ongoing pollution since 2008 and only took action now to hurt Rise financially. In fact, CEA learned of the pollution from the 2020 Hydrology study for Rise’s draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and promptly submitted comments identifying that the draft EIR failed to adequately address this polluting effluent. However, Rise completely ignored these comments and continued to incorrectly characterize the mine’s water quality. This is one of many reasons why the final EIR was not certified by Nevada County. Watkinson then laments that Rise lacks the financial resources to build and maintain a water treatment plant, suggesting that, due to CEA’s actions, the “cleanup costs will be borne by government agencies funded by taxes and also by local residents and businesses who happen to own the mineral rights under their properties, not by Rise.” This is blatant scaremongering. Rise may wish that property owners in the area would have to pay for the cleanup, but the liability rests with Rise. Rise has also withdrawn from their Voluntary Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to clean up the 56 acre Centennial Site, which may cause the EPA to resume classification of the site under the super-fund program. A significant amount of resources have been used by Rise to prepare a draft Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The next step was to make final revisions so that the RAP can be accepted by the DTSC, a key step towards getting the site cleaned up. But instead of completing that milestone, Rise has directed its funds and energy into futile lawsuits against Nevada County. Unless the cleanup is completed, the land has little value. Apparently, Rise intends to abandon the Centennial property. Rise’s financial problems are basically self-inflicted, in large part due to the fact that Rise is suing Nevada County over the County’s denial of Rise’s “vested right to mine” claim and Use Permit application. The vested rights claim is particularly ludicrous, as a vested right requires that the mine has been operating continuously. But the Idaho-Maryland Mine shut down in 1956 and has not been mined since. Additionally, in an illogical self-defeating action, presumably to raise more money for those lawsuits, Rise has listed its “Lumber Mill Site” properties along Brunswick Road for sale. If Rise sells the land, then even with a vested rights or Use Permit victory, Rise would still not be able to go forward with their mine project, which requires the Lumber Mill Site lands for the processing facilities. I wonder if the investors in this corporation even know what is going on? Watkinson suggests that Rise may go bankrupt and, laughably, that CEA’s action to require a NPDES Discharge Permit is the cause, and yet Rise seems to remain in a state of denial, obsessed with improbable lawsuits. It seems that what Watkinson is really hoping for is that the community will allow Rise to walk away from its ongoing pollution responsibilities while it funds salaries and expensive lawyers in their endless legal pursuits. CEA’s position is clear: Rise should begin fulfilling its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, get a Discharge Permit, and stop polluting our precious water.

CEA Foundation has taken initial steps to bring a “citizen lawsuit” against Rise under the Clean Water Act in order to compel Rise to address mine drain pollution. According to Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation, “Our goal is simply to compel Rise to stop polluting the creek, to follow the law and apply for a NPDES [Discharge] Permit. For Immediate Release: September 23, 2024 Contacts : commgr@cea-nc.org MineConcerns@cea-nc.org CEA Foundation PRESS RELEASE CEA Foundation Begins Legal Action Against Rise Gold to Stop Mine Drain Pollution Grass Valley, CA – Local non-profit Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) has sent Rise Grass Valley, Inc. a subsidiary of Rise Gold Corp, a Notice of Violation , and is preparing a lawsuit to address contaminated mine water effluent discharging into Wolf Creek. Currently, the Idaho-Maryland Mine discharges contaminated water from several mine drain points directly into the main branch of Wolf Creek, including the Eureka Drain and the East Eureka Drain. The illegal contamination levels were identified in testing done in 2019 by the EPA as well as in Rise Gold’s 2020 Environmental Impact Report. The tests show that the mine effluent exceeds safe values of Arsenic, Lead, Manganese, Barium, and other heavy metals in clear violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CEA Foundation has made efforts to address the ongoing problem since 2021. Following the denial of the Use Permit to reopen the mine by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on Feb 16, 2024, the plans to temporarily treat mine effluent during mine operations are no longer applicable and there are no provisions for long term treatment. CEA Foundation has taken initial steps to bring a “citizen lawsuit” against Rise under the Clean Water Act in order to compel Rise to address the contamination problem. According to Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation, “Our goal is simply to compel Rise to stop polluting the creek, to follow the law and apply for a NPDES [Discharge] Permit. This will likely require Rise to build a permanent water treatment facility along Wolf Creek similar to the one for Magenta Drain in Empire Mine State Park.” The Notice of Violation gives Rise 60 days to respond before the lawsuit is filed in the US District Court in Sacramento. (See https://www.cea-nc.org/notice-of-ongoing-violations-and-intent-to-file-a-citizen-suit-under-the-clean-water-act/   ) *** 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 leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org .

At the Final Hearing for the Idaho-Maryland Mine on February 15 & 16, 2024, Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 5-0 to deny the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and deny the Rise Gold project, fully rejecting Rise Gold’s plan to re-open the Idaho-Maryland Mine ! You can thank our Supervisors by sending an email to bdofsupervisors@nevadacountyca.gov . This is a huge victory , but it's important to know that it's  not over yet . Rise Gold has sued the County. They still claim they have a vested right to mine, and that the County has violated their due process rights in the processing of the application. CEA Foundation attorneys, Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger, analyzed their vested rights claims and assert they "will be dead on arrival in court." An Exhausting But Rewarding Marathon American Activist Dorothy Height, once said “Without community service, we would not have a strong quality of life. It's important to the person who serves as well as the recipient. It's the way in which we ourselves grow and develop.” And grow we did.  Opposition to the mine has brought this community together like perhaps no other issue. Over the last almost 4 years, thousands of residents, hundreds of businesses, and dozens of activist groups have come together to voice their opposition to the mine. In the meantime, County planners and executive staff spent exhaustive hours working to process the application thoroughly and fairly. Together – this community provided an example  of how to participate in the process with a respectful presence and well researched analysis of the issues. Fortunately, our efforts were well rewarded. Our County’s planning department and commissioners reviewed the risks and stood up for the people. Our Supervisors and their executive staff created an outcome that will protect our air, water, and quality of life in the future. There really are thousands of people to thank for this outcome . Civil servants, researchers, writers, speakers, demonstrators, educators, organizers, project managers, typists, filmmakers, minstrels, and more. It took ALL of us to get to where we are today. You know who you are. Please pat yourself on the back. This was an incredible community effort ! Hearing Highlights Hundreds of people of gathered  at the Rood Center for the hearing – despite chilly, rainy weather – proudly displaying “no mine” stickers and signs. Almost 90 people provided passionate public comments against the mine. At the same time, the County’s YouTube channel recorded over 1,500 views on the first day and 1,000 on the second. Watch Supervisors’ Final Comments and Vote   (apx 35 min) Or re-watch your favorite parts by watching the YouTube recordings of the full hearing. BOS Hearing Feb 15 Part 1 - 4:33   BOS Hearing Feb 15 Part 2 - 5:11   BOS Hearing Feb 16 – 4:26 In final comments, District 4 Supervisor Sue Hoek summed it up succinctly when she said, “This one doesn’t fit this spot anymore”. “ I just don't see it,”  said District 3 Supervisor Lisa Swarthout whose district includes the mine. “I don't see the promise of potentially 300 jobs to override people's quality of life”. “It’s clear that this community wants to move forward to a cleaner economic future  and not go back to mining,” said District 1 Supervisor Heidi Hall. “Brunswick Road is certainly not rural,” said District 2 Supervisor, Ed Scofield. “It’s right on the outskirts, right adjacent to the city limits to Grass Valley… That means that this operation will have the possible impact of 1,000s of people , if not more, if something goes wrong.” Hardy Bullock, Board Chair and District 5 Supervisor wrapped up the final comments. “The final EIR has adequately described – the key word ‘described’ – the potential significant and unavoidable impacts. But the project in my mind, has not adequately removed or mitigated these environmental threats which threaten our community, our way of life for cultural and economic prosperity here.” Lisa Swarthout made the final motion that was unanimously approved: “I make the motion that we deny the certification of the Environmental Impact Report and that we deny the Rise Gold project.” In the News Local News 2/17 – TheUnion.com | 'This one doesn’t fit this spot anymore': Supervisors deny proposed mine project 5-0 2/16 – TheUnion.com | BREAKING: Supervisors vote 5-0 against reopening Idaho Maryland 2/16 – YubaNet.com | Supervisors Deny Rise Grass Valley’s Idaho Maryland Mine Project 2/16 – KNCO.com | Final Rejection Of Idaho Maryland From Supes   Other Insightful Summaries 2/20 CapRadio.org | Nevada County rejects controversial gold mining project 2/20 BNNBreaking.com | Nevada County Says No Amid Community Concerns   TV News ABC 10 News 2/16 - Nevada County supervisors unanimously reject reopening historic gold mine 2/15 - Historic Nevada County gold mine to see final meetings before decision CBS News Sacramento 2/16 - Nevada County denies bid to reopen historic mine after days of public comment 2/16 - Nevada County supervisors reject reopening Idaho Maryland Project 2/15 - Heated debate unfolds Thursday over proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine project FOX 40 News 2/16 Nevada County officials reject Grass Valley mine reopening 2/15 - Dozens of community members speak out against proposal to revive mine 2/15 Nevada County supervisors to have final say on Idaho-Maryland mine project

In May 2024, Rise Grass Valley filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate against Nevada County. They're attempting to overturn the Board of Supervisors' denial of vested rights for the Idaho-Maryland Mine, and their decision to deny the application and use permit for the mine. Both decisions were unanimous. According to opposition leader, CEA Foundation, the lawsuit by Rise is more of the same delusional song that Rise has been singing all along. E.g., The case for vested rights has no merit. The mine shut down in around 1956, the mine was flooded, and all the structures were removed. Rise doesn’t even own the land where much of the processing took place. There has been no continuity of ‘mining operations’ taking place to warrant a claim of vested rights. The vested rights arguments made by Rise based on the Hansen case are based on a misinterpretation of those findings. The claims regarding the failure to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are also meritless. The EIR contained significant flaws, failing to adequately address the impacts to well owners, water quality, air pollution, noise, and more. The requested zoning changes were inconsistent with the General plan when considering the current residential land uses. Investors beware. The fact that Rise Gold has raised capital through private placement offerings of corporate stock to pursue a meritless lawsuit based on such misleading information should be a big red flag. Note that they also need to raise another $3.3 million to clean up the toxic mine tailings on the 56 acre Centennial site, as per their agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. NEWS COVERAGE The Union May 15, 2024: Rise Grass Valley files lawsuit based on claims of “vested rights” to mine Idaho-Maryland Mine site YubaNet May 13, 2024: Rise Gold files lawsuit against Nevada County LEGAL FILING Rise Grass Valley Filing, May 10, 2024

A powerhouse panel of community experts reviewed the conclusions of Nevada County's Economic Impact Report in a December 2022 MineWatch meeting. The report was authored by independent consultant, Robert D. Niehaus (RDN). “A closer examination of the RDN Report leaves a lot of room for questioning their conclusions, said CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein. [The webinar'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.” Read summaries of presenter comments below or click to listen to sections of the presentation. Keep scrolling to see panelist bios, quotes, slides, and related content. Full presentation (2 hours) REAL ESTATE Real Estate - Charlie Brock, Licensed Realtor and past President of the Nevada County Board of Realtors (5:20) Hear Brock's reaction to the report's dismissal of overwhelming opposition by local real estate agents Learn why local agents and appraisers predict considerable drops in real estate values Real Estate Case Studies & Webinar Summary - Martin Webb, KVMR Radio Host, Business Owner, and Solar Expert (30:25) Take a visual journey comparing neighborhoods around the three mines used in the study vs. ours Learn why this project is unprecedented in its lack of readiness, inflated claims, and proximity to homes PROJECT UPDATE & READINESS ASSESSMENT Project Update - Ralph Silberstein, President, CEA Foundation (5:45) Learn about where things stand in the fight against the mine Learn about the parts of the report that corrected some of Rise Gold's most outrageous claims Industry Perspective - Dr. David Chambers, Founder/President, Center for Science in Public Participation (19:36) Learn about the Idaho-Maryland Mine project's level of "readiness" as defined by the mining industry Learn why "gold reserves" used for high end estimates of tax revenues aren't proven/certified EMPLOYMENT & RISKS Employment, Economic Impact, & Risks - James Steinmann, Founder, Steinmann Facility, Planning and Project Management (16:51) Learn why Steinmann asserts that the economic report is "in no way conclusive" Learn why Steinmann believes that 58% of Rise Gold's workforce would be commuters, rather than 32% REVENUE & SPENDING Revenue & Spending Impacts - John Vaughan, CIO PRIDE Industries, retired (11:56) Learn about economic modeling software limitations and how revenue results can appear inflated when combined with questionable data from the applicant Learn how the cost of risks, such as catastrophic events and health consequences, weren't included OTHER Questions and Answers with Panelists (15:46) Panelists answer audience questions Introduction - Moderator, Greg Thrush introduces the session (Run time = 3:21) January is Critical for Action - Traci Sheehan - Organizer, CEA Foundations (1:17) A key priority in January is to review and comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The County has yet to announce the date of their public meeting on the FEIR. Watch for it. PANELIST BIOGRAPHIES Ralph Silberstein, President, CEA Foundation Ralph Silberstein is the President of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation. 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. Dr. David Chambers, Founder and President of the Center for Science in Public Participation David Chambers is the founder and president of the Center for Science in Public Participation, a non-profit corporation formed to provide technical assistance on mining and water quality to public interest groups and tribal governments. Dr. Chambers has 45 years of experience in mineral exploration and development – 15 years of technical and management experience in the mineral exploration industry, and for the past 30 years he has served as an advisor on the environmental effects of mining projects both nationally and internationally. He has Professional Engineering Degree in physics from the Colorado School of Mines, a Master of Science Degree in geophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and is a registered professional geophysicist in California (# GP 972). Dr. Chambers received his Ph.D. in environmental planning at Berkeley. His recent research focuses on tailings dam failures, and the intersection of science and technology with public policy and natural resource management; financial assurance for mine closure and post-closure; and, the water impacts of mining. James Steinmann, Founder, Steinmann Facility, Planning and Project Management Jim Steinmann is a resident of Grass Valley and founder of his Facility, Planning and Project Management Firm. He has 55 years of experience as a Planning Consultant for large-scale development projects. The vast majority of the projects included analyses of alternatives, environmental impacts, and economic evaluations of alternative courses of action. Three of the projects Jim participated in are particularly relevant to the proposed gold mine activation. John Vaughan, CIO PRIDE Industries, retired John Vaughn has been a resident of Nevada County since 1967. His water is served by a well approximately 100 yards from the southwest edge of the Rise Gold mineral rights area. He’s served executive roles at various for-profit and non-profit industries including at Grass Valley Group, Utah Scientific, Precision Printers and PRIDE Industries. He has extensive experience in software development, software selection, business analytics, including profit/loss and cost/benefit studies, acquisition strategies and logistics. Charlie Brock, Licensed Realtor and past President of the Nevada County Board of Realtors Charlie Brock has been a licensed Realtor in California for 54 years. He is the past President of the Nevada County Board of Realtors, founding Director of Nevada County United Way, and has served on numerous non-profit boards in Nevada county. Martin Webb, KVMR Radio Host, Business Owner, and Solar Expert Martin Webb 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. PANELIST QUOTES Summary “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.” “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? Economic Impact & Risks ”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.” “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.” Real Estate Property Values “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 RDN’s lack of expertise on the subject by creating a custom analysis of three mines that bear almost zero resemblance to our community or situation.” “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.” “My opinion is that the Niehaus economic report contradicts itself, relies on questionable assumptions and methodologies (they discounted all realtors opinions) in order to arrive at a misleading and faulty conclusion, said Charlie Brock, Nevada County Realtor for 54 years. In my opinion, the reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine will have an immediate, long-term, detrimental effect on real estate values in Western Nevada County.” “The Economic Study failed to implement accepted appraisal methodology that has clearly led to an unsubstantiated conclusion of 'no impact' on value.” “A carefully devised market study that includes comparison of controlled market comparative data and comparative data truly proximal to similarly operating mines -- each being subject to the same market conditions (at the same point in time) -- might have led to a much different conclusion.” Daniel Ketcham, SRA, MAI, SR/WA Designated Member Appraisal Institute & International Right of Way Association, Certified General Appraiser - California (read by Charlie Brock in live presentation). MORE EXCELLENT CONTENT ON ECONOMICS Economics is a hot topic. See the long list of outstanding opinion pieces in our library. COUNTY INFORMATION View the County's main information page Read the report (PDF) Watch the recording of the County's webinar (Register to watch) View the slides from the County's webinar (PDF)

Local resident and singer/songwriter, Kate Canan, was inspired to write her own song against the reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Check out her performance with with Tom Wernigg on the guitar. Lyrics Fool’s Gold At first the 49ers came With picks and pans and mules Soon they were blasting out the motherlode Operating with no rules Our land still bears the scars They’re back with money and greed Can’t let them open up the mine We have all the gold we’ll ever need— Chorus: Sunlight sparkling in our streams Oak leaves dancing in the fall Wildflowers carpeting the foothills A golden way of life for us all 2nd Verse: Water fills the old mines They’d have to pump it out Sending toxins into Wolf Creek Destroying wells all about Diesel fumes, asbestos fibers Poisoning our air We must unite to tell them We have gold already, everywhere— Chorus 3rd Verse: Machinery pounding, hammering Trucks, a hundred trips a day Near hospital and senior homes Can’t let exploiters have their way Forest habitats erased by Seven story piles of tailings Peace of mind destroyed unless we Save the gold that never fails in Chorus Bridge: Tunnel down, blast it out, and haul up the ore Snake down beneath our town, always looking for more Then crush it and smelt it and mold it into ingots Store it back underground in vaults Coda: Our land still bears the scars They’re back with lies and greed Can’t let them open up the mine We have all the gold we need. ©Kathryn Canan, September 29, 2021

Watch the Film Watch the Film and Panel Discussion, which was hosted in our MineWatch Virtual Community Event in February. This year, SYRCL's Wild & Scenic Film Festival featured a film about the proposal re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, a relic gold mine in Nevada County, CA. The community faces a foreign corporation that would take the gold from under their property and leave a toxic legacy. Rise Beyond Gold raises bigger questions for the world at large. Why do we desire gold; and ultimately, is it worth it? The Community Event Panel: - Greg Thrush, The Sierra Fund, Moderator - Jennifer Ekstrom, Filmmaker, and Principal Storyteller, Catalyst Communications - Menkin Nelson, Film Producer - Ralph Silberstein, Community Environmental Advocates Foundation - Carrie Monahan, The Sierra Fund - Christy Hubbard, Impacted Homeowner Read CEA Foundation's review of Rise Beyond Gold, which further clarifies several questions raised by the film.

Almost 500 people attended the County's meeting. Of the 101 who picked up tickets to comment, only 1 spoke in favor of the mine. For Immediate Release: Mar 24, 2022 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Nevada County Commissioners hear from the public regarding proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine Grass Valley, CA– Residents of Nevada County filled the Board Chambers in the Rood Center today, to give public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Idaho-Maryland Mine. The five members of the Nevada County Planning Commission received information on the adequacy of the legally-required environmental report. The DEIR is required for large-scale projects with significant environmental impacts as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The special meeting was the first in-person public hearing on the controversial issue. RISE Gold Corp., a company headquartered in Canada, has proposed re-opening the mine in Grass Valley -- an urbanized gold-rush era mining town. The long-shuttered mine sits just outside of the downtown, and an extensive residential neighborhood has developed around the abandoned site. In its heyday, Grass Valley had 70 operating mines with over 300 miles of underground tunnels. Commissioners heard from scores of local residents who crammed the chambers today in response to the proposed re-opening of the gold mine, which many believe will disrupt the historic town. They considered the impacts this mine could have on the aesthetics of this popular tourist destination as well as the possible environmental consequences they could be facing. NEW INFORMATION: 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. Public comments focused on concerns about the wide range of impacts from the mine. Many commenters cited air and water quality as well as noise pollution as huge concerns. The report cited 83 impacts to the surrounding community, with a few of them designated in the report as “significant and unavoidable.” Some stressed that the report was in draft format and predicted more impacts will be revealed before the report is finalized. Community advocates who reviewed the 1,000-plus page report offered the results of their intense evaluation of the report. They found that the draft report underestimated the impacts of the mine and needs extensive additional re-examination, analysis, and mitigation measures. “What is most surprising is that after well over a year of preparation, this report has so many missing elements and so many inadequate assessments, stated Ralph Silberstein, CEA Foundation. “Starting with the most fundamental aspects, a good EIR relies upon adequate and reliable data in order for the decision makers to be properly informed. We believe this draft will need to be recirculated.” Numerous people expressed their concern about the impact on local groundwater, waterways, and homeowners’ wells. According to the report, the analysis focused on just 30 wells in the direct vicinity of the mine. Commenters urged commissioners to expand the scope of the potential impact zone. “There is no acknowledgement of risk – or plan to safeguard – domestic wells in the surrounding area,” stated Christy Hubbard, a homeowner who lives near the mine site. “The final report must provide significantly better safeguards for well owners. The potential impacts to well owners has been recognized by experts and these impacts must be addressed under CEQA.” According to the report, about 1500 tons of waste rock and tailings will be processed from the mine daily, with most of it being deposited on-site, or trucked to a 56-acre former mine site. The “Centennial” site is currently under an agreement to be cleaned up with the California Department of Toxic Substances. The DEIR however, did not connect or include the cleanup of that site. “The site contains contaminants such as arsenic and lead that pose a potential hazard to people and the environment,” stated Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA. “The Centennial site’s potential designation as a Superfund site was conditionally deferred because RISE entered into a cleanup contract. Yet this Draft EIR is based upon an assumption that it is already cleaned up.” Residents expressed concerns about air quality and the already compromised conditions in Nevada County. The report includes mitigations to reduce the impact, however residents expressed concern. “Complying with regulatory thresholds doesn't mean zero impact,” stated Bill Clark, Grass Valley resident. Nevada County currently gets an F rating when it comes to air quality and we have twice the State average in lung disease. Fugitive dust from rock crushing and transport; diesel exhaust from constant truck traffic; and the presence of asbestos fibers and dust will make a bad situation much worse.” Some community members suggested other uses for the 118-acre site. “Hard rock mining is our past, not our future,” stated Paul Schwartz who is a retired Capital Planner and former planning commissioner. Schwartz suggested the County should look at more alternatives in the environmental report. “Other alternatives create more jobs, use less energy, have lower carbon footprints, and generate more local wealth than the Rise Gold proposal.” A public comment on the mine began in early January and will close on Monday, April 4th at 5:00 pm. 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 *** 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. https://www.cea-nc.org/

Once again, Rise Gold’s attempts to greenwash a bad project have been revealed. They’re pitching the Centennial Site cleanup as a benefit to the community, but the proposed plan reveals they’re only trying to do the minimum so they can dump more mine waste. Kudos to the coalition team led by CEA Foundation’s President, Ralph Silberstein. Their public comments show why the plan is deeply flawed. Supporting documents are linked below. About this project Rise Gold owns two above-ground properties; the Centennial site and the Brunswick site. The cleanup plan for the 44 acres of contaminated mine tailings at the Centennial site was recently posted for public comments. The plan, known as a Remedial Action Plan (RAP), has been developed under the authority of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). This has thus far been treated as a separate project, independent of Rise Gold’s Mine proposal. Although, they need to clean it up even if the mine project is not approved. Rise Gold was apparently planning to use the cleanup as an opportunity to also prepare the site for the dumping of mine waste. This would have entailed destroying much more habitat and wetlands than would normally be necessary to do the cleanup. But thanks to the diligence of the coalition research team, the flaws of this approach were laid bare. Multiple voices submitted comments on the proposed RAP, indicating that if damage to wetlands and additional habitat is being done to accommodate mine waste, then to be legal the Centennial project should be included as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Mine project, and not treated separately and buried within the cleanup project. The team, led by CEA Foundation (the sponsor of MineWatch), included significant contributions and analysis from environmental law firm Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, along with members of the Wolf Creek Community Alliance, The Sierra Fund, the California Native Plant Society, and others. What will the outcome be? We don’t know yet, but it does seem likely that request will impact the timeline for the release of the DEIR as State and County officials work to define their next steps and/or expand the scope of the project analysis. Learn more Read the CEA Foundation comment letter. Comments regarding the Centennial M-1 RAP and MND, Project ID 60000716 Read why we're concerned about the wetlands. Read the extensive legal analysis from Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, the highly respected land use & environmental law firm hired by CEA Foundation. Read the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board comment letter. Learn about how this project is related to Rise Gold's proposal to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine. https://www.minewatchnc.org/dumps-mine-waste View the DTSC website for the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60000716

Investors often think gold is a safer choice, but even if the stars align, it's unlikely Rise Gold could process their first ounce before 2034. Retired Capital Planner, Paul Schwartz walks us through the timeline and corresponding risks in detail. This piece is also published in The Union. October 16, 2021 Fourteen months ago, Nevada County Planning Department published the notice of preparation (July 17, 2020) that presented Rise Gold’s proposal to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine, including 100-plus technical reports prepared under the direction of Rise Gold. The project scope of work and technical reports were made available for review and comments from federal and state agencies, nonprofits, and the public. Nevada County selected Raney Planning and Management to use the technical reports, the Rise Gold project description, and comments as a basis to complete the environmental impact report. This year, Raney Planning and Management submitted a draft administrative environmental impact report for review by Nevada County Planning. Nevada County Planning and Raney Management and Planning directed Rise Gold and their cadre of consultants to update, complete additional data collection, and develop further analysis in many of the technical reports. We are still in the administrative draft phase. If the county accepted the administrative report as complete, it would be retitled the draft environmental impact report and made available to federal and state agencies, Grass Valley and Nevada City, nonprofits, and the public for a 45-day review. Since the proposal is complex, it is likely the review period would be extended to 60 days. This process could easily extend into 2022. The process will include public hearings before the Nevada County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Many agencies will make specific requests that will influence conditions of approval. The Centennial cleanup proposal, also a Rise Gold project, is in the review and determinations phase at the Department of Toxic Substance Control and may influence the mine’s draft environmental impact report. If the department determined that the mine proposal and the Centennial cleanup proposal should have one environmental impact report that covers both projects, we would expect process delays. There is the possibility the notice of preparation and environmental impact report process would need to start over with a new unified scope of work and set of technical reports. Raney Management and Planning would likely redefine their scope of work and enter new agreements with Nevada County. If this were to come to pass, project consideration by the Nevada County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors could slip into 2023 or even 2024. The county supervisors circulated a request for proposal on Sept. 2 to complete an economic impact study of the proposed mining operations. The tentative deadline for submitting a proposal is Oct. 8. The draft economic study submittal date in the request for proposals is February 2022. I expect this is a loose date and may change. MINEWATCH UPDATE: The County's Economic Impact Report was released in November 2022. Learn more. The selected consultant would submit a draft report for the supervisors to review and comment. Likely, an additional 60-90 days would be needed to complete a final report. The supervisors could wait for the economic impact study to act on the draft environmental impact report or not. Approval of the draft environmental report is not a project approval. I would not expect the Board of Supervisors to begin the project-approval process before benefiting from a completed economic impact study and vetting the conclusions. The supervisors can approve the draft environmental report and reject the project. At some point the Nevada County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will hold hearings to finalize the draft environmental report, and consultants will draft a final environmental impact report. Public hearings will occur with Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to consider all public and agency comments received during the application process and finalize a decision on the environmental report. If the supervisors approved the environmental impact report, the project would proceed to the entitlements phase and project approval. This phase would require Rise Gold to complete schematic level engineering and architectural designs at a sufficient level for county analysis. Rise Gold would need to acquire the financial resources to fund technical and physical development of the project. Typically, the cost of design, engineering, capital planning and cost modeling is around 10% of the projected budget. If the estimated project cost is $100 million-$200 million, Rise Gold would need to raise $10 million to $20 million to keep the project rolling. There is a long list of state and federal agencies that require their approvals to advance the project. The entitlements phase could easily become a lengthy process. The Loma Rica Ranch Housing Development Plan was originally approved in the 1980s and only this year has it begun grading the project. We could see the entitlements phase extend the approval process into 2025-26. There are likely legal challenges and appeals that will follow any level of approval from the Board of Supervisors. If the Rise Gold proposal to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine survived legal challenges and the appeals, there would likely be new requirements, redesigns, new bench-marking, new standards for energy efficiency and carbon footprint reduction, and increased bonding requirements. These might require Rise Gold to increase their capital profile to restart the project. After 18 to 24 months in the courtroom, I expect most of 2028-29 would be needed to restart the project. If Rise Gold were to navigate their way through the environmental review, Board of Supervisors approval, legal challenges and raise enough funding, the two projects would begin rough grading, construct the water treatment pond and the detention pond, construct the underground infrastructure required to support the industrial complex including conduits and pipe for electrical, potable water, waste, fire protection water, data, natural gas or propane, and storm water. Residential properties relying on well water would need replacement water lines run, including a new water main on East Bennett Road. In addition, the new shaft would need to be constructed. While these improvements were underway, evaluation of the existing underground mine shafts and tunnels would need to occur. There is the possibility that de-watering couldn’t be undertaken or completed until many improvements were made to prevent shaft collapse or sink holes throughout the system. There is also the possibility that Idaho-Maryland Mine tunnels connect with Empire Mine tunnels and de-watering would require those connections be shut off. This process would likely extend into 2030-31. Final grading would happen to set the pads for new construction. Infrastructure and utilities would be raised to finished grade and extended where needed. Construction of new buildings would begin. Plans for improvements to the underground mine tunnels based on investigation would continue to advance. A full water treatment facility would have to be constructed, and the treatment buildings, utilities, equipment, treatment pond, pumps and pipelines would need to be completed before de-watering could begin. If all the permits were granted and all the prep work completed, de-watering could start as early as 2031-32. Then construction of a new access shaft would be completed and restoration of existing mine works could begin. When the mine closed for 17 months during World War II, 80% of the Idaho-Maryland shafts were caved in, as reported in Jack Harvey’s history “Gold in Quartz.” One can only imagine the scope of work needed for reopening after 65 years. All of the facilities and infrastructure for underground crushing, processing, transport and dumping would need to be in built and operational before removing any waste rock. Commissioning of all the systems above and below ground would be completed. The Centennial cleanup project would need to be completed before any waste rock could be relocated there. Even if all the stars aligned, processing the first ounce of gold would probably not happen before 2034. Paul S. Schwartz lives in Grass Valley and is a volunteer with CEA Foundation. Postscript: Paul shares this one additional thought. "Since we don't actually know the lag time between pulling the the first tons of crushed product (2034), shipping to a processing destination, separating gold from the crushed bulk, taking it to market, and then finally putting money in the bank, there is even more delay that could be added here. We don't know exactly what that is, but we bet it is slow."

After vigorous discussion and lengthy, detailed public comments, NID considered crafting an extensively conditioned resolution approving the legally-required assessment of the controversial Rise Gold mine in Grass Valley, California. For Immediate Release: February 10, 2022 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Water agency considers water needs for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Community urges NID to put safeguards in place to protect against mine impacts Grass Valley, CA – At the urging of community members, the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) today considered whether to approve a request to verify the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the potential re-opening of the long closed Idaho-Maryland Mine. RISE Gold Corp., a company headquartered in Canada, has proposed re-opening the mine. The water supply analysis is required for large-scale projects with significant environmental impacts as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After vigorous discussion and lengthy, detailed public comments, NID considered crafting an extensively conditioned resolution approving the legally-required assessment of the controversial Rise Gold mine in Grass Valley, California. The ID-MD Mine’s proposed groundwater use has the potential to drain wells on adjacent properties. “We believe this draft environmental report is flawed, incomplete, and provides a wholly inadequate assessment of NID’s water needs,” stated Christy Hubbard, a well-owner who is concerned over the ID-MD Mine’s potential to force her to rely on NID for her water. “Instead of asking NID to serve 31 homes in one small area, we need to take a much closer look at the risk of NID being asked to serve hundreds of homes and businesses across the entire mineral rights area – ranging from the hospital, to the airport, to Cedar Ridge.” NID Board members and staff heard from nearly twenty community members who expressed concern about potential damage to wells and lack of effective safeguards in place for well owners within the 2,500 acre mineral rights area. “Rise Gold’s claim that they will be a ‘net water producer’ by pumping groundwater is false and misleading and ignores the body of science that fundamentally links surface and groundwater,” stated Keiko Mertz, Policy Manager of the South Yuba River Citizens League. “Regardless, both surface and groundwater together make up the water ‘bank’ for our community. This project does indeed have the potential to adversely impact water supply in our region. Well users who can no longer access groundwater will become dependent on our already limited supply of water.” NID Board discussion and public comments focused on the uncertainty of information, the uncertainty of making predictions in the face of unknown operations and an increasingly unpredictable climate future. The conditional approval of the Water Supply Assessment does not guarantee water service to the affected parties and is only intended to indicate that at the current time, based on the information currently available, that NID appears to have sufficient water available to address well failures predicted due to mining operations for approximately 30 property owners nearest the site. Directors and staff discussed having detailed comments and response to the assumptions in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), as well as safeguards for the affected wells and unidentified parcels and well owners that may suffer damage. NID staff were directed to formally request the County of Nevada require fiscal security, like a bond to be posted in an amount appropriate for financial exposure of the District and its tax and rate payers, in the event the project is abandoned, sold, or RISE Gold goes bankrupt. 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. https://www.cea-nc.org/

What should the County do to protect well owners if the mine reopens? A lot. This research report tells us what was done in the past and makes additional suggestions based on the specifics of this project. RESEARCH REPORT BY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES FOUNDATION cea-nc.org Introduction An application for a Use Permit to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine (IMM) has been submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department. The applicant, Rise Gold Corp (DBA Rise Grass Valley, a wholly owned subsidiary) proposes to dewater the existing mine to depths of over 3000 feet, and to then maintain the dewatered state by pumping out the water for the remainder of the 80-year project. The mineral rights of IMM encompass 2585 acres and allow mining to within 200 feet of the surface. There are numerous domestic wells directly over the mineral rights area, but the dewatering impacts on the groundwater and wells may extend well beyond the boundaries of the mineral rights. The potential dewatering impacts on the region include, but are not limited to, reduction in well water levels, reduc­tion in well yield, degradation of water quality, well failure, impacts to land values, habitat, and per­sonal property. Safeguards are needed to protect all property owners, renters and the community at large from all po­tential harm due to mine dewatering and operations. In particular, safeguards in the form of mitigations and conditions of approval on the project are needed that will protect well owners and others who rely upon wells and groundwater for their water needs. Useful ideas can be considered by looking at what safeguards were required in the past. Recent Permitting History 1996 Dewatering Permit In January of 1996, a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to dewater the mine for exploration. It was not a permit to mine, although ore sampling was allowed. In that permit, extensive preparatory work was required to assure that local residences would be able to get potable water immediately if a well problem was detected. Specifically, the applicant, Emperor Gold, was required to “Obtain and document all necessary permits and approvals, and identify all right-of-way, variances, easements, and agreements necessary to guarantee installation and delivery of water service from NID [Nevada Irrigation District] to any and all residences in the study area.”[1] The “Study Area” was specifically identified in an area map.[2] The applicant was also required to provide cash, bonds and/or securities to pay for all construction costs, including meters, connection fees, run­ning lateral lines, and related expenses or damages associated with a replacement water service.[3] The dewatering permit was limited to 5 years. The Study Area ultimately included 101 wells.[4] In addition to wells in the area of East Bennett Road, the Study Area included a large portion of Cedar Ridge neighborhoods north of Colfax Highway, in­cluding wells as far west as Union Hill and as far east as Bellview Rd. and substantial areas East of Brunswick Road in the Greenhorn Rd neighborhoods to beyond Anchor Ln and to the north end of Glenn Pine Rd.[5][6] Emperor Gold did not initiate work before the permit expired. 2008 Emgold Mine Application In 2008, Emgold Mining Corporation applied for a Use Permit with the City of Grass Valley to dewa­ter, open and operate the mine. Instead of the New Brunswick site on Brunswick Road, the main pro­cessing facilities and mine access were to be located at the historic site of the mine on Idaho-Maryland Road and Centennial Drive, which was in the City’s near-term plans for annexation. For this reason, the City chose to be the lead agency. The application was for a 20 year Use Permit. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed in 2008 but major project revisions were necessary, so a revised DEIR was required. To address well-owner concerns, impact zones were established by calculating an estimated groundwa­ter cone of depression similar to the Study Areas from the 1996 reports. These resulted in an area de­fined by a 710 foot radius and a 1356 foot radius from any mine workings to determine “High Risk” and “Moderate Risk” groups respectively.[7] Well owners were invited to join a well monitoring pro­gram and Emgold conducted monitoring of approximately 78 wells in order to establish baselines. In this application a new water main was proposed to be run along East Bennett Road in advance of de-watering so that at least the High Risk well owners in the area could be provided water service quickly if a problem emerged. However, in the DEIR, the consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) wrote: “The analysis conducted in this EIR has determined that the applicant’s proposed measures (APMs) do not adequately reduce the impact of potential well dewatering to a less than significant im­pact level.”[8] Additional mitigation measures were proposed, including provisions that the risk groups be redefined, that all wells in both the High and Moderate Risk groups received a permanent NID connection in a timely manner, full financial assurances, and several other criteria. Because the revised DEIR was never completed, the precise mitigations were not established, but the indications were that protections would be required for wells up to 1356 feet horizontally from any mine works.[9] 2019 Rise Gold Application In the current application by Rise [10], the proposal is similar to the one made by Emgold: To install a water main and laterals to provide connection of NID water to 31 properties having wells in the area of East Bennett Road. However, Rise proposes actually connecting all these properties prior to dewater­ing. No monitoring of actual existing domestic wells is proposed and there are no indications of a delineated Study Area or impact zone for consideration of potential impacts. Rather, Rise depends upon a com­puter model of the hydrogeology and an estimated groundwater contour map showing predicted draw down areas. Ground water monitoring would be done by drilling paired monitoring wells at 15 specific locations, one well to 100 feet depth and one well to 300 feet. Rise Gold proposes that monitoring these wells will provide validation of the computer model and suggests that impacts to existing private wells can be determined by this.[11] What Would Be Acceptable? There has been no indication that either of the proposed mitigations from the 2008 Emgold proposal or the 2019 Rise Gold proposal would be acceptable to the community or Nevada County. Neither project has completed the Draft EIR process to date. The 1996 Emperor Gold project, on the other hand, was approved by the County and a Use Permit was granted, and this project provides a precedent and some good ideas as to a workable solution. However, a strong argument can be made that the approved miti­gations and conditions from the 1996 permit would now be, at best, a minimal starting point for any ac­ceptable protection for well owners in the region because the Rise proposal has a much greater poten­tial impact over a wider region. This is due to number of reasons: The 1996 Use Permit was only for dewatering. No additional tunneling would take place, so the risk of impacting ground water was less than the subsequent proposals in which tunneling would extend into new areas and consequently expand the area of impact. The addition of new mine works exposes additional surfaces which would also increase the amounts of ground wa­ter transmission, plus there would be an increased risk of encountering unexpected geologic conditions that could invalidate the hydrological predictions. The 1996 Use Permit was only for 5 years, whereas the current proposal is for 80 years. Due to the slow movement of water at depths and a number of other variables, maintaining the dewa­tered state beyond just a few years could expand the draw down region or change the degree of draw down. Climate change and the impacts of drought further threaten ground water. Global warming will likely cause reduced annual precipitation on average, and precipitation events, when they do occur, are more likely to be extreme with proportionally more runoff. In addition, longer, dryer summers increase transpiration. Taken together, these factors mean less groundwater recharge. The modeling of net impacts on groundwater levels needs to take this into consideration. Additional development has taken place, adding more wells and putting more demands upon the groundwater. The current ground water model produced for the Rise Gold application is limited in many ways. It focuses on the first 25 years of mining, assumes the mining will be confined to a very limited portion of their mineral rights, makes simplifying assumptions about the geology, and omits other factors. Yet even this model shows that ground water levels will drop 1-10 feet in 152 area wells. The risks that the predicted impacts by Rise may be incorrect are demonstrably real. Local dis­asters such as the draining of the groundwater and resulting damage to wells on the San Juan Ridge Mine (Siskon)[12] demonstrate that every model has a degree of uncertainty, and the consequences of guessing wrong can be devastating. Key Aspects of an Acceptable Safeguard A. Expand The Potential Study Area – Statements that “the risk is low” for outlying properties are not sufficient grounds to exclude them from guaranteed protections. The risk is real. The groundwater models are not that reliable and the consequences of failure are too dire. As pointed out in the 2007 Hydro-geologic Assessments by Todd Engineers, “…it is difficult to prove that aberrations in the system do not exist.”[13] Also, in consideration of points 1-6 above, a much larger Study Area than was ap­proved in 1996 is needed. A potential Study Area exceeding 1356 feet beyond the mineral rights zone, as considered in the Todd analysis, would be a minimum to safeguard the more than 300 wells in the area. B. Effective Monitoring and Assessment of Well and Groundwater Impacts – The 1996 Permit provided a number of oversight elements. It required that a third party consultant be hired to interpret ongoing monitoring results. The consultant would be chosen by a representative team including a com­munity liaison, the county, and the mine operator. All County monitoring, inspections and fees were to be paid by the operator. Provisions for communications of issues and redress were outlined.[14] How­ever, because the project had such a short lifespan, the problem was simpler. Due to the increased duration of the Rise project and the potential for problems to emerge, a commu­nity relations program with defined actions should be established. It should include a community over­sight committee which would review the project regularly and have authority to respond to issues. In addition, the Use Permit should be reviewed by County staff and the Planning Commission regularly, and the authority of the Board of Supervisors to revoke the Use Permit due to non-compliance issues should be established. There is a potential for disagreements to the determination of impact, such as a well exhibiting occa­sional or partial dewatering or damage. This problem will be exacerbated by the fact that the project would run for 80 years, and factors such as drought may come into play. In the 1996 Permit, even the partial dewatering of a well could trigger the remediation actions, but the determination was left to a third party consultant. More specific criteria should be developed to assure that each well owner is fairly compensated for any well or ground water impacts without having to overcome the burden of proof. I.e. the burden of proof that there has been “no impact” should rest upon the mine operator. C. Temporary Water Provisions – Once a well has been impacted, it is important that a replacement source of water be provided quickly. And while some of the details would need change, the 1996 Per­mit provided a fairly good approach to the problem. In that plan, before dewatering could begin, locations for temporary water storage tanks had to be pre­determined and plans for the location and size of the temporary water systems were to be completed and submitted to the County.[15] With the emergency water plans in place, an impacted parcel could have water service quickly. The temporary water source was required to be in place within 24 hours of notification. Daily fines were to be imposed upon the mine operator for failure to meet this require­ment, and all added costs were to be born by the operator.[16] D. Permanent Water Provisions – The 1996 Permit required that prior to dewatering, all necessary permits and approvals, rights-of-way, variances, easements, and agreements for water service from NID to any and all residences in the Study Area were to be completed. All costs were to be borne by the mine operator, and performance timelines were defined with penalties for meeting an acceptable completion time.[17] While this approach may work for a project that lasts for only 5 years, the notion that contractors, per­mits, plans, and entitlements would be kept in readiness, that costs would remain stable, and that condi­tions would remain unchanged for 80 years is implausible. Development in the area could completely change the conditions on the ground. Additional dwellings could be built. Policy and capacity changes could affect NID and connection viability. Therefore, the water mains and laterals up to the property boundaries necessary to service all parcels in the area of impact should to be installed prior to dewater­ing. In addition, the mine operator will need to complete all steps necessary to guarantee that a perma­nent actual potable water connection from the streets to the residences will be available for the entire lifespan of the Use Permit (80 years), plus an adequate equilibration time following the refilling of the mine with water. E. Hold Harmless – Financial Assurances and Long Term Issues – The 1996 Use Permit included detailed requirements for performance bonds and securities to cover all costs of providing a water ser­vice to all of the properties within the Study Area. Among the numerous assurances, a cash reserve of not less than $100,000 was required to be set aside for county use to allow for rapid deployment of emergency water provisions in the event that a well was impacted and the operator failed to respond within 24 hours. It also contained provisions granting, “…in addition to the rights of the County, an in­dependent right of action against the security deposit of bond in favor of any of the owners..whose wa­ter supply may be deemed to be adversely impacted by the dewatering…”[18] One would anticipate that the cash reserves and securities would need to be much greater today, con­sidering inflation and the larger potential impact area. And because of the long operational time frame of the proposed Mine, financial assurances will need to be regularly updated to account for changes in costs. Finally, a provision was included for suspending the Use Permit in event of failure by the operator to maintain the full securities or bonds. Conclusion Providing safeguards for well owners in the area of the proposed mine is challenging and requires care­ful and detailed consideration. The points considered herein identified many but certainly not all of the issues. If the Use Permit is approved, it is critical that any and all damages and costs associated with impacts of the mining operations are completely born by the mine operators and not the property own­ers and residents of the community. This is made difficult because of the long duration of the proposed project and the many unknowns. Establishing adequate conditions, mitigations, and oversight would re­quire a concerted effort on the part of the County, Rise Gold, and the at-risk community. ***Footnotes*** [1] County of Nevada Planning Dept., Jan 26,1996, U94-017 “Use Permit Emperor Gold Dewater­ing.pdf”, MM 4.3.5(e), p 12. [2] County of Nevada Planning Dept. May 1995, U94-017 Draft EIR, Section 4.3 Hydro-geology, Fig­ure 4.3 -1 (Willdan Associates map). [3] County of Nevada, Use Permit, op. cit., MM 4.3.6, p12-13. [4] Memo to Willdan Associates, “Hydrogeological Study of 37 Additional Domestic Water Wells”, Sierra-Pacific Groundwater Consultants, Inc., September 22, 1995. [5] County of Nevada Planning Dept, October 1995, Final EIR, Appendix 3, Revised Figure 4.3-3 (Willdan Associates map). [6] Despite the fact that there are substantial mineworks and near-surface features extending into the Wolf Creek watershed, the Study Area established in 1995 looked primarily at the South Fork Wolf Creek watershed. This was apparently because a 1992 hydro-geologic study by Vector Engineering maintained that the two watersheds were separated by a groundwater divide. (Vector Engineering, Inc., “Hydrogeologic Study for the Idaho-Maryland Mine”, 1992, pg 3). It has since been re-established that the mineworks are connected, and that groundwater in the South Fork Wolf Creek watershed finds its way to Wolf Creek, where the mine drains into Wolf Creek near Centennial Drive. [7] Todd Engineers, “Hydrogeologic Assessment Idaho-Maryland Mine”, August 2007, p23. [8] “Idaho-Maryland Mine 2008 DEIR, Executive-summary.pdf”, p15-16. [9] Todd, op. cit., p22-23 [10] Based on use permit application documents available on the County website as of Nov 1, 2021. [11] Itasca Denver Inc., “Groundwater Monitoring Plan”, December 2020, p1. [12] “A brief History of the San Juan Ridge Mine”, Liese Greensfelder, Kurt Lorenz, et al, https://www.sjrtaxpayers.org/history/. [13] Todd, op. cit., p27. [14] Todd, op.cit., p9-11. [15] County of Nevada, Use Permit, op. cit., PD12, p11. [16] Ibid., MM4.3.9, PD16, MM 4.3.9A, MM 4.3.9B; p15. [17] Ibid., MM 4.3.5, 4.3.6; p16, MM4.3.10; PD 17, p12. [18] Ibid., MM4.3.6, p12. *** References *** 1996 Emperor Gold, Dewatering and Exploration Use Permit, Nevada County “Use Permit Emperor Gold Dewatering.pdf,” County of Nevada Planning Department, U94-017, EIR94-003, Jan 6, 1996 County of Nevada Planning Department, Technical Appendices of the 1996 Use Permit U94-017: – Appendix 1, “Mineral Exploration and Environmental Assessment for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project,” Vector Engineering, June 1994. – Appendix 2, “Geologic and Hydrologic Background Report for the Idaho-Maryland Gold Mine,” Sierra-Pacific Groundwater Consultants, Inc., March 1995. – Appendix 3, “Hydrogeologic Study for the IdahoMaryland Mine,” Vector Engineering, January 1992. 2008 Emgold Mining, Mining Use Permit Application to City of Grass Valley Emgold Mining Co Idaho-Maryland Mine 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report. “Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report for Idaho-Maryland Mining Corporation Property,” From Draft EIR, “AppenG_Geotechnical Report.pdf,” Holdrege & Kull, Oct 25, 2004. “Geologic Evaluation for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project,” Geosolutions, April 15, 2008. “Hydrogeological Overview of the Idaho-Maryland Mine for the 2008 Environmental Impact Review Process”, Geosolutions, April 17, 2008. “Hydrogeologic Assessment Idaho-Maryland Mine,” Todd Engineers, August 2007. 2020 Rise Gold Mining, Mining Use Permit Application to Nevada County “Groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Report-03-31-2020.pdf”, EMKO En­vironmental, March 2020, 151 pgs. “Groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Report-Appendices-03-31-2020.pdf”, EMKO Environmental, March 2020, 558 pgs. “Groundwater Model Report”, Itasca Denver Inc, March 2020 , 93 pgs. “Groundwater Modeling Plan, Idaho-Maryland Mine Project”, Itasca Denver Inc., December 2020, 17 pgs.

Rise Gold Corporation and its CEO Ben Mossman have followed a pattern of making false, incomplete, or misleading statements to investors and the general public. Read CEA Foundation President's blog listing just a few. This article is also available on the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation website. May 16, 2021 In an effort to gain approval for reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley, Rise Gold Corporation and Rise CEO Ben Mossman have followed a pattern of making false, incomplete, or misleading statements to investors and the general public. On Environmental Impacts Ben Mossman: “… we’ve designed it to have no impact on the environment.” [1] Facts: The mine project has major environmental impacts. The list of impacts is long, including habitat destruction, air pollution, traffic, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, wells, aesthetics, and more. One simple example: just to accommodate the 1000 tons of mine waste per day being dumped locally, 75 acres of woodlands and chaparral will be completely removed, including all the surface soil down to rock-solid base, and then built up with mine waste rock and tailings up to 90 feet high using dump trucks, compactors, and graders. On Water Treatment Ben Mossman claims that water discharged from the mine would be “drinking water quality standards.” And on the Rise Gold Corp website, their promotional document states: “Treated water to drinking water quality.” [2] [3] Facts: The water will not be treated to “drinking water quality.” According to the mine application documents on file with Nevada County, mine water discharge would be treated to remove Manganese, Iron, and Arsenic, bringing the quality up to what is referred to as “Secondary Drinking Water Standards.” [4] Treatment to Secondary Standards generally only removes certain water quality contaminants identified on a list of about 15 items. This meets standards for discharging into the creek, but it is not drinking water quality. To bring the water up to “Primary Drinking Water Standards,” bacteria and dozens of additional contaminants need to be removed. [5] On Wells and Ground Water Ben Mossman at a Rise Gold Presentation: “Zero domestic water wells dewatered / drained” “Assurance throughout mining to prove no impact to wells.” [6] Facts: The Hydrologic studies show predicted lowering of ground water levels of 1-10 feet on 152 wells. This reduction of ground water levels at private wells is clearly an “impact to wells.” Furthermore, the results of the computer modeling for the study were based on limited data that only account for 1/3 of the planned mining permit duration. And the study depends on the assumption that mine tunneling will not ever encounter fractures, tunnels, or more permeable rock of significant impact. These are major assumptions. Even Rise Gold realizes that the wells along East Bennett Road show significant risk, which is why Rise is already planning to pay for a new water main and provide water hookups for a portion of the well owners within the mineral rights region. The number of wells and scope of mitigations for regional well owners is controversial. [7] On the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Timeline Mr. Mossman has repeatedly made unrealistic statements about how long the environmental report will take. Aug 14, 2020: “…the County is doing their Environmental Impact Report which is in progress and will be out in the fall [2020], but that will be the final judgement, really, what the actual impacts are.”[8] Aug 24, 2020: “…the answer to the comments becomes the Final EIR, which should be out by the end of the year.” [9] Jan 31, 2021: Rise Gold Quarterly Report: “The Company’s estimate of the remaining timeline to approval is approximately May 2021. Ancillary construction and operational permits would follow as needed.”[10] As of April 23, 2021, Ben Mossman estimates the Draft EIR “will be complete in a month or two.” [2] Facts: The documents are still being revised. The Use Permit application has not yet even been deemed complete by the Nevada County Planning Department. If the Draft EIR is out by June, allowing for the normal time between the Draft and Final EIRs, comment periods and Planning Commission hearings (6-24 months), the Nevada County Supervisors likely won’t vote on whether to accept the Final EIR until next year, which is a prerequisite for voting on the actual project Use Permit. On Centennial Cleanup Project Rise Gold has repeatedly understated or failed to disclose the full scope and nature of the mandatory cleanup project on Centennial Drive and Idaho-Maryland Road. A recent statement about the Centennial cleanup project is included online in their March investor presentation, which in total says: “Berm and some mineralized material to be cleaned up.” [11] None of the Rise Gold Quarterly Reports in the last year have mentioned the cleanup. In Rise’s last Annual Report of July 31, 2020, only partial information is provided, mentioning the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) that was approved in June 2020, and that a draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was prepared and accepted by the “Cal EPA”. Information is provided about a 5.6 acre mine waste consolidation area, which will have deed restrictions. [12] In the Rise Gold Prospectus Amendment, SEC Form 424 B3, Jan 15, 2021 there is no mention of the cleanup.[13] Facts: The Centennial site was conditionally deferred from being classified as a Federal EPA Superfund Site in September 2019 on condition that Rise Gold makes satisfactory progress cleaning up legacy toxic tailings on the 56 acre site. [14] Scope of work and cost estimates, though known and included in the Draft and draft Final RAP, have not yet been disclosed. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the lead agency for this project and the cleanup needs to be completed, even if the mine project is not approved. However, the 56 acre site is also where Rise Gold plans to dump 1000 tons/day of mine waste rock and tailings during the first 5 years of mining operations. According to the PEA, contaminated mine waste from the historic operations contains elevated levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, and nickel. [15] These must be safely moved and capped to protect against release into the environment. In addition, approximately 270,000 cubic yards of surface materials covering 44 acres on the site are not structurally adequate for use as a base layer for the mine waste piles and will need to be removed and gradually mixed in with the mine waste as the dumping takes place. While it is conceivable that this cleanup project could be completed before mining operations begin, the costs of the project will run into millions and it could drag on for many more years. On Permits Mr. Mossman has made numerous false claims about how straightforward it will be to get permits. He has mostly made these statements when presenting before investment groups. Ben Mossman: “The only discretionary permits, or people that can say yes or no – it has nothing to do with the State of California – it’s all Nevada County.” [16] Ben Mossman: “No permitting through US BLM or US Forest Service” [17] Rise Gold Annual Report 2019: “The Project area is private land and no permits or consultations with the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the US Forest Service (USFS) are required.” [18] Facts: There’s a bit of obfuscation here, since the BLM is not involved in this project. If a Use Permit is granted, Rise will still need to obtain numerous State and Federal permits and overcome many hurdles before mining could start. Permits are required for everything from preliminary grading to reclamation plans. These include permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Forest Service, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Water Quality Control Board, Air Resources Board, State Mining Board, and Nevada County Planning. Obtaining these permits would take from one to many years if the project is granted a Use Permit by Nevada County. Ben Mossman again: “We’ve done water sampling. The water’s quite clean. And we know exactly how we would treat it. We know exactly where the water would go, into Wolf Creek. Already the permit’s done for that creek.” [19] Facts: As of May 2021, no permits are “done” for any creek. There are a number of permits needed in order to discharge water into the creek. If the Use Permit is granted by Nevada County, then the applications for de-watering can be submitted to the Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, etc. Also, to be accurate, the plans on file with the County show de-watering discharge would go into South Fork Wolf Creek, not Wolf Creek. Regarding “the water’s quite clean,” iron concentrations in the mine water range from 1600 μg/L to 4,800 μg/L, well over 5 times the “Maximum Contaminant Level” (MCL) of 300 μg/L. Manganese concentrations range from 200 to 310 μg/L, over 4 times the MCL of 50 μg/L. Arsenic concentrations range from 37 to 59 μg/L, over 3 times the MCL of 10. [20] In Summary Due to the potential for serious impacts on the environment and on the health of our community, CEA Foundation feels it is critical that we have accurate information. Our hope is that the community, the various agencies, and the Board of Supervisors will be able to make accurate and well informed decisions regarding what is best for all of us. ***** [1] Ben Mossman, CBS Channel 13 news. 4/22/2021 [2]The Union, April 22, 2021 . [3] RISE GOLD INVESTOR PRESENTATION MAR 2021.pdf, pg. 28. [4] Groundwater Hydrology study, Groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Report, pgs. 46, 104. [5] Drinking Water Regulations and Contaminants [6] Ibid., RISE-GOLD_INVESTOR_PRESENTATION-MAR-2021, pg. 28. [7] References and additional information [8] Interview with Nevada County Media, Aug 14, 2020, [9] Ben Mossman, Precious Metals Summit, Aug 24, 2020. [10] https://www.risegoldcorp.com/uploads/content/10QforQuarterendedJan312021.pdf , pg. 23. [11] https://www.risegoldcorp.com/pdf/RISE-GOLD-INVESTOR-PRESENTATION-MAR-2021.pdf, pg 22. [12] Rise Financial Reports. [13] Rise SEC Form 424 B3 Prospectus Amendment Jan 15, 2021 [14] US EPA Transmittal of Preliminary Assessment Report, Sept 26, 2019 [15] Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report [16] Metals Investor Forum, May 24, 2019 [17] Metals Investor Forum, Mar 2, 2019 [18] Rise Gold Annual Report 2019, pg. 16. [19] Ibid., Metals Investor Forum, May 24, 2019 [20] Ibid., Groundwater Hydrology study, pg. 55. Related article: 312 Jobs? Not What It Seems. Look Closer.

CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein weighs in on the DEIR, saying the issue is far from settled. "Looking into our crystal ball, we see a recirculation of the 'Speculative' Draft in the future in order to create a 'Realistic' Draft, consuming another year’s worth of delays." Read the full opinion piece below, or read it in The Union. The Idaho-Maryland Mine “Speculative” Draft EIR that has been released for public comment is a massive document based upon, well...clairvoyance? One might think so because the baseline, or “current conditions” of the Centennial site - described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) - is some future condition of the site after a required toxic mine waste cleanup project has been completed. However, no actual document describing the cleanup was included in the Draft. It turns out that the needed document, the “Remedial Action Plan” from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), is not yet even finalized. Meanwhile, well owners get a nice little letter from Rise Gold that repeatedly states things like “The County has determined that no domestic water wells will be drained by mine dewatering.” Of course, this also must be based upon a crystal ball session because a Final EIR has to be approved before any County determination can be made. But after all of that, Rise still could not accurately claim that the County has determined anything about the mine project. This is because the County is not clairvoyant either and so can’t possibly know whether a well will or will not see a drop in water levels, not to mention the fact that the current Draft EIR recognizes that wells could be drained. Regardless, the real issue is: can anyone can ever predict with any certainty what the impacts on wells will be? The short answer: No. Even among experts, there are different predictions, and all of them are couched in disclaimers, assumptions, and phrases of uncertainty. And the unfortunate situation is that the only way to find out how much damage the dewatering of the mine would cause to wells and groundwater is to dewater the mine and wait for a few years. By then, the damage would be done. For that reason alone the mine should not be approved. And if for some reason it is approved, there need to be protections for well owners. CEA Foundation estimates that more than 300 well owners should be protected. Rise’s own studies list 242 wells that will likely have some groundwater level decrease. And back in 1996, when the Board of Supervisors granted a 5 year permit to just dewater the mine for exploration, all of the wells within a designated “Study Area” were to be provided with emergency water hookups within 24 hours. That was backed up with water service connections that were pre-designed, pre-permitted, NID approved, and financially assured. This involved over 100 wells. None of that is included in the Rise Gold project Draft EIR, a slap in the face of well owners. This issue is far from settled, and the documents that supposedly make the case that the impacts to wells are known are surprisingly inadequate. What is fascinating is that in spite of the thousands of pages and over a year of delays, Rise Gold didn’t even bother to gather critical data needed to strengthen its arguments about groundwater predictability, such as logging the amount of water flowing out of the mine or conducting well monitoring. Instead they have relied upon sparse previous data from the Emgold Mining reports and word of mouth. Other omissions and errors point to a inadequate ground water assessment. Even the historical data examining mine water levels and seasonal variations were misinterpreted in the Draft EIR reports. Looking into our crystal ball, we see a recirculation of the “Speculative” Draft in the future in order to create a “Realistic” Draft, consuming another year’s worth of delays. Ralph Silberstein is a Grass Valley resident and President of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation.

Read the opinion and legal analysis. CEA Foundation's attorneys weighed in on the Rise Gold's threat of legal action against Nevada County just before they unanimously denied approval of the Idaho-Maryland Mine project. "The County's decision to deny the [Vested Rights] Petition was sound and a court is unlikely to overturn it," said Ellison Folk, Attorney for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. "No matter what sort of takings claim Rise tries to assert, it will be dead on arrival in court." Below is the full text of an opinion piece by CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein followed by the legal analysis. The opinion piece was originally published in The Union on February 13, 2024... three days before the Nevada County Supervisors voted 5-0 to reject the project and not certify the Environmental Impact Report. Ralph Silberstein: Rise Gold’s Constitutional takings prospects - Dead on Arrival February 13, 2024 Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation After receiving a unanimous rejection of the Idaho-Maryland Mine project from the Planning Commission, Rise Gold resorted to claims of bias and unfair handling, which gained little traction, followed by an unsuccessful effort to circumvent permitting with a Petition for Vested Rights to the Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, at the vested rights hearing and afterwards, Rise has made repeated accusations of “takings” and unfair treatment under the Constitution, threatening legal actions in federal court if the Board denies their project. Since both the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff Report have now recommended denying the project and not certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), it seems likely that the Board will follow suit at the final hearing on February 15,16. In that eventuality, the question arises: how realistic is it that Rise could prevail in a legal challenge? We look to an assessment of Rise’s potential legal actions, written by the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, and summarized here, to consider the likelihood of such a prospect. Regarding Rise’s vested rights petition, it is doubtful that State court — where the challenge must begin — would second-guess the Board’s fact-bound, thorough, and impartial decision to deny Rise’s petition. The petition contained major flaws and the mine has been abandoned since the 1950s. The burden would fall on Rise to overcome the “presumption of correctness” of the County’s findings and convince the court that the County’s “decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Rise has also accused the County of bias, thus depriving Rise of due process. The bias argument has no merit. The County’s staff reports and related materials explained in scrupulous detail the legal principles and factual context necessary to make a determination on Rise’s petition. This included a point-by-point analysis, supported with numerous factual exhibits, addressing the many misleading or simply incorrect statements in the petition. That the County’s analysis reached different legal and factual conclusions than Rise does not mean County staff were biased: it means they did their jobs. And in terms of “takings,” state and federal law are unambiguous that the County’s denial of the project would not amount to a taking. Rise has only two options for demonstrating that the County’s actions would constitute an unconstitutional taking. First, they would have to prove that the County’s denial of the project deprived Rise of all economically viable use of its property. But the properties owned by Rise have multiple other permissible uses that are consistent with existing zoning, including light industrial use, rendering that argument moot. Secondly, Rise could attempt to argue a takings under the multi-factor test set forth in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, but would be hard pressed to satisfy that test, which sets an extremely high threshold for a takings claim. In short, no matter what sort of “takings” claim Rise tries to assert, it would likely be dead on arrival. (Scroll down to see the full text of the analysis by Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger, Legal Considerations Surrounding Idaho-Maryland Mine Permitting Decisions.) So why would Rise file a legal challenge to the Board decisions, anyway? One possibility is that, having perpetrated a false narrative about the high quality of their EIR and the project’s benefits, Rise’s leaders may now believe their own falsehoods. Another possibility is that they have succumbed to incompetent legal counsel regarding vested rights and takings case law. A third and more cynical explanation for Rise filing suit is that they know they are on the losing side but imagine that launching a legal challenge in federal court would be so prolonged and costly that the County would seek a settlement agreement to end the fiscal drain on County resources. Or it could be all three reasons. Regardless of motivations, a legal challenge would likely be another big mistake for Rise because the Board, a huge coalition of environmental groups, and most of this community have already proven that they do not easily cave in to shoddy projects, marketing spin or threats. Furthermore, it’s one thing for one to lose one’s own money in a gamble or bluff, but another thing entirely to squander the capital of investors and bleed out shareholders’ equity on meritless lawsuits. Rise still owns 119 acres in Grass Valley. If faced with a no vote on their project, they should do the responsible thing and stay away from baseless legal challenges, consider the will of the community, sell the land, and move on. Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation Legal Considerations Surrounding Idaho-Maryland Mine Permitting Decisions Full text: February 7, 2024 Via Electronic Mail Only Board of Supervisors Nevada County 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, California 95959 bdofsupervisors@nevadacountyca.gov Re:     Board’s Consideration of the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project Dear Board Members: On behalf of the Community Environmental Advocates (“CEA”) Foundation, we write regarding the County’s ongoing consideration of Rise Grass Valley, Inc.’s (“Rise’s”) proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine Project (“Project”). On December 14, 2023, the Board unanimously voted to deny Rise’s Idaho-Maryland Mine Vested Rights Petition (“Petition”), concluding that Rise does not hold a vested right to mine on the Project site. Previously, the County’s Planning Commission had unanimously recommended (1) to deny Rise’s applications for a rezone and a variance, each of which is necessary to develop the Project; and (2) to decline to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project. The Board will consider those recommendations at a public hearing on February 15, 2024. We commend the County for reaching the correct decisions to date regarding the Petition and the Project entitlements. On behalf of CEA Foundation, we urge the Board to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendations, which are well-reasoned and were delivered only after a thorough process that afforded Rise and the public ample opportunity to be heard. We also write in response to threats that Rise will challenge these decisions in court.[1] As set forth in this letter, any claims that Rise could bring against the County in connection with the Project are unlikely to succeed. In particular, it is doubtful that a court would second guess the Board’s fact-bound, thorough, and impartial decision to deny the Petition. Additionally, Rise would have no viable claim that the County has taken its property without just compensation in violation of the state or federal constitutions. In short, the County should not be swayed by Rise’s empty threats of litigation. The Board should adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission and County staff[2] to deny certain Project entitlements, decline to certify the EIR, and put an end to Rise’s misguided Project once and for all. I. The County’s decision to deny the Petition was sound and a court is unlikely to overturn it. At the outset, it is important to emphasize that if Rise wishes to challenge the County’s vested rights decision, it must pursue that claim in state court. Longstanding precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is unequivocal on this point. In Eilrich v. Remas (9th Cir. 1988) 839 F.2d 630, 632-33, the plaintiff attempted to bring a claim against his former city employer in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that his discharge violated his First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit held that the claim could not move forward, as a city administrative body had already rejected that exact argument in an adjudicatory proceeding and the plaintiff did not challenge the city’s decision in state court. Id.; see also Miller v. County of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 1994) 39 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (reaffirming Eilrich). Thus, Rise could only contest the County’s denial of its Petition by seeking a writ of administrative mandamus in state court. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1094.5, 1094.6; Eilrich, 839 F.2d at 633; Miller, 39 F.3d at 1038. Any court reviewing Rise’s claims must afford the County’s findings a “strong presumption of correctness.” Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817. The burden would fall on Rise, as the challenger, to overcome that presumption and “convince the [trial] court” that the County’s “decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Id. Rise cannot possibly carry that burden. As the County explained at length at the hearing and in its written materials, there is ample evidence that any vested right to mine that may have once existed has long been abandoned. By comparison, and as the County also pointed out, there is virtually no evidence indicating that previous owners of the Project sites continuously intended to resume mining operations during the seven decades when the mine sat unused. The quality and the volume of the evidence that the County relied upon exceeds that in cases where courts have affirmed findings of abandonment. See, e.g., Hardesty v. State Mining & Geology Bd. (2017) 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 (unpublished); Stokes v. Bd. of Permit Appeals (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1348. Indeed, had the County found that any vested right was not abandoned in spite of the clear historical record, a court likely would have overturned that decision. See Keep the Code, Inc. v. County of Mendocino (2018) A147544, 2018 WL 6259477 (unpublished)[3] (overturning county’s determination that company had vested right to mine aggregate; included as Attachment A). Taking a different tack, Rise has also vaguely alleged that the Board was biased when it unanimously voted to deny the Petition, and thus Rise was deprived of procedural due process.[4] Rise has tried this exact strategy before.[5] Its allegations of bias are no more compelling now than they were the last time Rise raised them. The County’s staff reports and related materials explained in scrupulous detail the legal principles and factual context necessary to resolve Rise’s Petition.[6] This included a point-by-point analysis, supported with numerous factual exhibits, addressing the many misleading or simply incorrect statements in the Petition.[7] That these materials happened to reach different legal and factual conclusions than Rise and its counsel does not mean County staff were biased; it means they did their jobs. As for the Board itself, it is blackletter law that a decisionmaker is not biased simply because they have some attenuated connection with a group that takes a stance on the project at issue. See Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 971, 974 (holding a councilmember’s active membership in a neighborhood association opposed to a project on which the councilmember voted “did not establish bias” in and of itself); see also Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 559 (“[A] councilperson has a right to state views or concerns on matters of community policy without having his voted impeached.”). Rise’s complaints of bias were meritless when they were levied against the Planning Commission eight months ago, and those same repurposed allegations remain meritless today. The overall process that the County afforded Rise in connection with the Petition more than satisfied the requirements of state and federal law. Rise was able to present hundreds of pages of legal analysis and factual evidence to the Board. County staff considered those materials and disclosed their own thorough conclusions well in advance of a duly noticed public hearing. Then, over the course of that multi-day hearing, Rise and its counsel were able to present their case, rebut the conclusions of County staff, and address the Board’s questions. And the specific basis on which the Board denied the Petition—abandonment—was addressed extensively in the written materials and at the hearing itself. Rise was entitled to nothing more. See Calvert v. County of Yuba (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 613, 627 (indicating procedural due process requirements are satisfied in the vested rights context where interested entities receive “reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in an evidentiary public adjudicatory hearing before the vested rights claim is determined”); see also Eilrich, 839 F.2d at 633-35 (indicating that where a state administrative proceeding has these basic characteristics, a federal court must give its decisions preclusive effect). In sum, Rise received all the process that it was due. That process resulted in the Board reaching a decision that was not just well-reasoned, but was the only legally defensible conclusion available. A court would not second guess the County’s sound determination regarding the Petition. II. Rise would not have a viable takings claim against the County. Rise has repeatedly asserted that if the County denies the Project, the County will have committed an uncompensated “taking” of Rise’s property in violation of the state and federal constitutions.[8] This is flatly incorrect. State and federal law are unambiguous that the County’s denial of the Project would not amount to a taking.[9] Here, Rise has only two options for demonstrating that the County committed an unconstitutional taking. First, Rise could attempt to prove that the County’s denial of the Project deprived it of all economically viable use of its property. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 506 U.S. 1003, 1019. This is not a test that Rise could ever hope to pass. The parcels making up the Project site have multiple other permissible uses that are fully consistent with their existing zoning designations. Indeed, the EIR for the Project expressly acknowledges this. See Draft EIR pp. 6-11 through 6-13 (explaining how the Brunswick Industrial Site as currently zoned could be developed with over half a million square feet of new office, business, and/or industrial uses). This is more than sufficient to defeat a Lucas claim. See Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1267 (“[I]f permissible uses exist, a development restriction does not deny a property holder [all] economically viable use of his property.”). Rise’s only alternative would be to argue that the denial of the Project amounts to a taking under the multi-factor test set forth in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104. See 438 U.S. at 124 (listing the relevant factors as (1) the economic impact of the government’s action, (2) the extent to which the action interfered with “investment-backed expectations,” and (3) the character of the action). But for much the same reason that Rise cannot bring a successful Lucas claim, it will not prevail under the Penn Central test, either. Courts applying the Penn Central framework have repeatedly emphasized that a government action must deprive a property of virtually all economic value to amount to a taking. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (9th Cir. 2018) 888 F.3d 445, 451 (emphasizing that even “diminution in property value because of governmental regulation ranging from 75% to 92.5% does not constitute a taking”). Again, that simply would not be the effect of the County’s denial of the Project, given the many other permissible uses of the property. Additionally, Rise would have no “reasonable investment-backed expectation” in any additional economic value it hopes to attains from operating the reopened mine. Allegretti & Co. v. County of Imperial (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1279 (holding a “claim of loss of anticipated profits or gain is not compensable, as it demonstrate[s] no more than a possible restriction upon more economic uses of its property.” (citation omitted)). In short, no matter what sort of takings claim Rise tries to assert, it will be dead on arrival in court. III.  The Board should follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Any legal challenge that Rise could bring against the County is highly unlikely to succeed. However, the County would violate CEQA and State Planning and Zoning law if  the Board were to reverse the recommendations of the Planning Commission and County staff by certifying the EIR and granting the Project all necessary approvals. The recommendations to deny the re-zone and the variance are clearly correct on the merits, for the reasons that the Commission, staff, and general public have explained. Just as importantly, though, the EIR prepared for the Project is grossly inadequate. As we have discussed at length in previous letters to the County,[10] the EIR suffers from numerous fatal defects, ranging from an improper project description and environmental baseline, to a flawed analysis of Project alternatives, to inadequate analysis and mitigation of impacts to groundwater, air quality, energy, and climate change. The County cannot approve the Project unless it corrects the flaws in the EIR. ———— Again, we applaud the County for its careful consideration of the Project. The Board, Planning Commission, and County staff have repeatedly reached the correct decisions by faithfully applying the law and the facts and by resisting misleading and irrelevant claims. The Board should continue that practice by voting to deny the Project and decline to certify its EIR. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Ellison Folk Ryan Gallagher Attachments: A.      Keep the Code, Inc. v. County of Mendocino (2018) A147544, 2018 WL 6259477 cc:     Julie Patterson Hunter, Clerk of the Board, clerkofboard@nevadacountyca.gov Katharine Elliott, County Counsel, county.counsel@nevadacountyca.gov Matt Kelley, Senior Planner, matt.kelley@co.nevada.ca.us Laurie Oberholtzer, CEA Foundation Ralph Silberstein, CEA Foundation 1740001.4 [1] See Rise Gold Corp., Rise Gold Reports Result of Vested Rights Hearing 2 (Dec. 14, 2023), https://www.risegoldcorp.com/uploads/news_item/article/ARTICLE_126.pdf (quoting Rise Gold CEO Joe Mullin, who stated after the Board’s decision to deny the Petition that he “look[ed] forward to having our rights vindicated by the courts”); id. at 1-2 (implying the Board’s denial of the Petition was procedurally and substantively improper and suggesting that it would amount to an unconstitutional taking were the County to deny both the Petition and all necessary Project approvals). [2] See Brian Foss, Board Agenda Memorandum 2-3 (Feb. 2, 2024), https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/52237/Board-of-Supervisor-Staff-Report-. [3] Although the Hardesty and Keep the Code decisions are not published, they provide helpful guidance regarding how a court is likely to approach similar issues and facts. [4] See id. at 1-2 (alleging the Board relied on a “biased” staff report and implying the Board was not an “impartial tribunal” when it considered the Petition). [5] See Letter from Ben Mossman, President, Rise Grass Valley Inc., to Nevada County Board of Supervisors (June 1, 2023) (claiming Planning Commission was biased when it issued its unanimous recommendations regarding the Project entitlements and FEIR); see also Letter from Ellison Folk, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, to Nevada County Board of Supervisors (June 27, 2023) (addressing Rise’s previous allegations of bias). [6] Katharine L. Elliott & Diane G. Kindermann, Nevada County Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Memorandum (Nov. 28, 2023), https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/51714/2-Staff-Report; Katharine L. Elliott et al., Nevada County Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Memo (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/51825/Rise-Grass-Valley-Vested-Rights-Petition-Supplemental-Staff-Report-. [7] Katharine L. Elliott & Diane G. Kindermann, County’s Responses to Petitioner’s Facts and Evidence in the Vested Rights Petition (Including County’s Exhibits 1001-1027) (Nov. 28, 2023), https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/51712/4-Nevada-County-Responses-to-Facts-and-Evidence-in-the-Vested-Rights-Petition-w--County-exhibits. [8] See, e.g., Rise Gold Corp., supra note 1, at 2; Letter from G. Braiden Chadwick, Mitchell Chadwick LLP to Nevada County Planning Commission, at 4 (May 5, 2023). [9] As relevant here, state courts have interpreted the takings clause in the California constitution “congruently” with the federal takings clause. California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 456 n.10. [10] See Letter from Ellison Folk, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP to Matt Kelley, Senior Planner, Nevada County (Mar. 20, 2023); Letter from Ellison Folk, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP to Matt Kelley, Senior Planner, Nevada County (Mar. 30, 2022); Letter from CEA Foundation to Matt Kelley, Senior Planner, Nevada County (Mar. 30, 2022). Download the brief and attachment.

Special Guest Speaker Dr. June Oberdorfer reviews Rise Gold's groundwater hydrology report, tells us where the modeling is flawed, and makes recommendations for what could be done better. This virtual community meeting was hosted by CEA Foundation and community partners on October 28, 2021. 1:17 The meeting begins with CEA Foundation leaders, Barbara Rivenes and Ralph Silberstein giving a progress report on the effort to oppose the mine. 9:22 Dr. June Oberdorfer, a Hydrogeologist with a broad range of experience with groundwater resource and contamination issues, makes a special presentation on the potential impacts of the mine on groundwater. She share her review of Rise Gold's publicly-available groundwater report. Her talk includes: - Groundwater under current conditions - Predicted impacts of mine dewatering and their short-comings - What Rise Gold's studies reveal about impacts to wells - Recommendations to reduce uncertainties 53:55 - Questions and Answers. Dr. Oberdorfer answers a number of questions from the audience. 1:11:50 - Take Action - CEA Foundations' Traci Sheehan gives more detail on progress made and what the community can do to take action.

Rise Gold is attempting to circumvent the County’s permitting process by claiming they have “vested rights” to mine. For Immediate Release: August 22, 2023 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org Rise Gold seeks to side-step requirements for mining use permit Grass Valley, CA – 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 forcing the County to let them reopen the mine. In a maneuver that would circumvent the normal Use Permit requirements of Nevada County, Rise Gold has met with County representatives and announced that they intend to petition for “Vested Rights” to mine the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Katharine Elliott, County Counsel, stated at the Board meeting on Aug 8 that “…in meetings with Rise Gold recently, they have asserted that they have a vested right to mine. A vested right is a legal principle that asserts that they have a legal right to mine on the Brunswick site. They have not yet filed the petition, but they have told me that they are planning to file that petition. Once they do that, we have a mandate to address that and to take that first before the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors.” ( See Nevada County Board of Supervisors Meeting August 8, 2023 Part Two | YouTube) Vested rights are rights held by entities that were already in operation prior to the establishment of the current, more restrictive regulations. A mine operating before the inception of the current Use Permit regulations can, in certain cases, establish vested rights and be exempted from those regulations. If the County determines that Rise Gold meets the conditions for “Vested Rights”, the Use Permit that is currently headed for the Board of Supervisors for a final vote would not be required. In effect, Rise would be able to operate without having to comply with many of the conditions of approval and mitigations required under the current Use Permit application. The granting of Vested Rights is a discretionary decision that would be made by the County. After Rise submits a petition for Vested Rights, draft documents would be available for review and Rise would present its case to the Planning Commission in a Public Hearing. The Board would subsequently take the Commission’s recommendation and make the final decision. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to demonstrate the vested rights claim. The most challenging requirement is to prove that mining activities have been ongoing continuously since before the current Use Permit requirements were enacted. In the case of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, that means that Rise must prove that, after the mine shut down in 1956-57, some level of legal mining activity has persisted at the Idaho-Maryland Mine site over the 65 years since the shut-down. This is not the first time the issue of Vested Rights has surfaced locally. Rise Gold’s attorney, Braden Chadwick, petitioned for Vested Rights in 2010 while representing the Blue Lead Mine. In that case, the Blue Lead applicants made the claim that they didn’t need a Use Permit because of vested rights, but a closer examination of the facts showed that photos submitted were from other mines and the evidence was unsupported. Because of this, the Planning Commission denied the request, and Blue Lead was required to obtain a normal Use Permit. Currently, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to make a decision on the Idaho-Maryland Mine Use Permit at public hearings on October 2nd and 3rd. This is the final step of a process that began in 2020. The final EIR for the project was released in December 2022. In response, over one thousand comments were submitted by citizens to the County expressing serious concerns about the risks of the mine and the inadequacy of the environmental report. In May 2023, the County Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of Supervisors not certify the EIR and not grant the Use Permit. In an unusual coincidence, Rise Gold CEO Benjamin Mossman is scheduled to be sentenced on pollution charges in Canada on September 26th, just one week before the Board of Supervisors’ final vote. Mossman was found guilty in British Columbia for the environmental damage caused at the Yellow Giant Mine, which polluted tribal waters, went bankrupt and left Canadians with insufficient funds to clean up the damage. The sentencing could include prison time. Ralph Silberstein, CEA Foundation President, stated “This maneuver to obtain vested rights at this stage of the approval process is very questionable. If Rise felt that they had vested rights, why spend years of time and millions of dollars to get to this point in the normal Use Permitting process? It seems very unlikely that Rise has a valid case. Perhaps they are simply seeking to delay the final hearings.” More information on the project can be found on the County project webpage. 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. CEA Foundation is the leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. Read this in The Union newspaper.

Claiming a ‘right to mine’ after a 67-Year closure is absurd. Local opposition leader CEA Foundation provided a review and analysis of the petition to help inform the Nevada County Supervisor's decision. For Immediate Release: November 1, 2023 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE CEA Foundation Weighs in on Rise Gold’s Vested Rights Petition Claiming ‘Right to Mine’ After 67-Year Closure Called Absurd Grass Valley, CA – Nevada County Supervisors will soon consider whether or not to approve an eleventh-hour petition to grant “vested rights” to Rise Grass Valley, a subsidiary of Rise Gold. The Canadian-headquartered junior mining company is aiming to reopen a gold mine that shut down 67 years ago. To inform their decision, local opposition leader CEA Foundation has provided a review and analysis of the petition. Following the regulatory changes initiated by Nevada County in 1954, mining projects were required to obtain a Use Permit. As an existing and continuing operation in 1954, the Idaho-Maryland Mine was probably exempt from the requirement at that time. 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. But the right to continue is not permanent, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish the vested rights. According to the CEA Foundation review, the Rise Grass Valley Vested Rights Petition ignores clear mandates in the County’s Land Use and Development Code which hold that any vested right to mine expires once a nonconforming use is discontinued for one year. The mine shut down in 1956. Assets were liquidated shortly thereafter. The mine was then allowed to re-flood. All mining had ceased by 1957 and the mine has not operated since. Once the mine was abandoned, vested rights to continue mining were presumably lost. “The notion that Rise could retain a legal right to resume mining that was abandoned over sixty years ago is absurd,” said CEA Foundation President Ralph Silberstein. “Petitioning for vested rights so late in the approval process is an act of desperation, apparently in response to the County Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendations to deny the project.” Rise’s Petition, however, provides a narrative of continuing operations covering the period from 1956 to the present. To achieve this, evidence such as an owner being “...convinced the Mine would be operational again…”, a third party running a sawmill on adjacent lands, and salvaging old surface tailings to be sold as aggregate, are used to build a story about continuous operations at the Idaho-Maryland Mine. But the CEA Foundation review came to a different conclusion: that the story doesn’t hold up either legally or historically. An owner’s “intent” to resume mining doesn’t qualify for vested rights. And while sawmills and aggregate operations did happen from time to time, both activities are distinct from the core business of gold mining that would be required to qualify for vested rights. In the Petition, Rise relies heavily on selected passages of the 1996 Hansen Brothers case, which awarded vested rights to an aggregate processing operation. However, the Hansen ruling was made under very different and more restrictive conditions. While Hanson Brothers did pause one type of quarrying for a period of time, they kept the business operational and never abandoned their plant, equipment, or utilities. In addition, rights were awarded specific to a single work product that produced an ongoing revenue stream – river and hillside rock combined to sell for aggregate. “If anything, a careful reading of the Hansen case further diminishes Rise’s claim of vested rights”, said Silberstein. CEA Foundation’s review concludes that almost all of the Rise Petition misses the main point – that there is ample evidence the mine was abandoned after 1956, and any vested rights were lost within a year. For example: There has been no recurrence of gold mining at the Idaho-Maryland Mine since it shut down. The EPA has determined it is an abandoned mine. Ben Mossman, recent CEO of Rise Gold, stated “...it has been closed since 1956.” Nevada County Supervisors will consider Rise’s Vested Rights Petition in a public hearing at 9:00 AM on Wednesday, December 13 in the Board chambers, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City; with a second day added Thursday, December 14, if necessary to accommodate public testimony. Members of the public are encouraged to attend. Public comment will be restricted to historical testimony related to the Petition. 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. A CEA Foundation review of the historical aspects of the Petition can be found at https://bit.ly/CEA-Historical-Analysis-Rise-VR. For more information about the potential re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine visit: www.MineWatchNC.org. *** 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 leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org. Related comments: 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)

A letter signed by over 1,100 residents urges the Board of Supervisors to say NO to Rise Gold's Petition for vested rights at the upcoming hearing on December 13th and schedule a final vote on the Idaho-Maryland Mine project as quickly as possible. For Immediate Release: December 5, 2023 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE Mine Opponents Urge County: “Let's Finish This” Community Coalition Presents Letter to Supervisors Before Long-Awaited Hearing Nevada City, CA -- The collective voice of Nevada County residents resounded as a community coalition delivered a powerful statement to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday. Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) presented a letter signed by over 1,100 residents urging the Board of Supervisors to say NO to Rise Gold's Petition for vested rights at the upcoming hearing on December 13th and schedule a final vote on the Idaho-Maryland Mine project as quickly as possible. In May 2023, the County Planning Commission unanimously recommended rejection of the environmental impact report and use permit for the project. Facing a likely NO vote from the Board of Supervisors, Rise Gold tried an alternative approach that delayed the final vote, claiming they have a “vested right” to reopen the mine without a use permit. A vested right is a right to continue a business use that existed at the time a zoning regulation changed. But vested rights are not permanent. The Idaho-Maryland Mine shut down in 1956, sold off its assets, and tunnels were allowed to flood. To claim vested rights, the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that mining continued without significant changes for the following 67 years. A staff report issued by the County last week concluded that Rise did not provide that proof, saying “1) Mining operations were abandoned at the Subject Property commencing as early as 1956;” and “2) Neither the Petitioner nor any other party has a vested right to mine at the Subject Property.” “Let’s finish this!” said Grass CEA Foundation volunteer, Christy Hubbard. “Our community’s future depends on a definitive rejection of mining in residential areas. It is with a sense of urgency and unity that we implore the Board to reject this ridiculous vested rights claim and proceed with a final vote." “It’s obvious that Rise is trying to pull a fast one on our community.” wrote one community member as part of the letter. “Please put these shenanigans to bed. Vote No ASAP and get this over with.” The presentation of the community group letter to the Board came on the heels of an advertisement Rise Gold ran in the local newspaper asserting the company's readiness to pursue legal recourse should their vested rights claim not be approved. Grass Valley Homeowner John Vaughan takes issue with the ad. “The community and County shouldn’t be held hostage by legal threats”, he said. CEA Foundation is urging community members to attend the hearing on December 13 to show their opposition. The County has announced that the hearing will be strictly focused on the Vested Rights Petition. Hubbard provided this guidance. “If history isn’t your thing, it’s OK to take a pass on public comment this time. You attendance is what really matters.” 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. To learn more about the public hearing on December 13, go to www.minewatchnc.org/post/attend-the-county-s-vested-rights-hearing. For more information about the potential re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine visit www.MineWatchNC.org. *** 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 leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org. Related comments: 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)

In a tense two-day public hearing that at times seemed deeply adversarial, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected a mining company’s claim to “Vested Rights” at a long-shuttered gold mine. For Immediate Release: December 15, 2023 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE Mining Company Demands Nevada County Approve Vested Rights Supervisors Stand Firm and Reject Claim Nevada City, CA -- In a tense two-day public hearing that at times seemed deeply adversarial, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected a mining company’s claim to “Vested Rights” at a long-shuttered gold mine. Rise Grass Valley is a subsidiary of Rise Gold Corp., a mining company headquartered in Canada. The only major asset of the company is the Idaho-Maryland Mine – a mine that was closed over 60 years ago. The hearing was a highly unusual detour from the standard Use Permit process. Rise began the application process to reopen the mine in 2019. Last May, Nevada County’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended that County Supervisors reject both the Use Permit and the Final Environmental Impact Report. With chances for approval looking dim, Rise responded by submitting a petition for vested rights that – if confirmed – would allow them to reopen the mine without a Use Permit. “Demanding vested rights so late in the approval process is an act of desperation,” said CEA Foundation President Ralph Silberstein. “The notion that Rise could retain a legal right to resume mining that was abandoned over sixty years ago is absurd.” A vested right is a right to continue a business use that existed at the time a zoning regulation changed. However, vested rights are not permanent. The County first started requiring Use Permits in 1954 when the Idaho-Maryland Mine was in production. However, the mine shut down in 1956, sold off its assets, and the tunnels were allowed to flood. The key question discussed in the hearing was whether mining was abandoned in the following 67 years. On day two of the hearing, Supervisors unanimously adopted the recommendations in the County’s Staff Report, which concluded that “1) Mining operations were abandoned at the Subject Property commencing as early as 1956;” and “2) Neither the Petitioner nor any other party has a vested right to mine at the Subject Property.” The hearing unfolded with a standing-room-only crowd. Over 500 people were in attendance on the first day. While the comments were limited to the Vested Rights issue, the public’s opposition to the Idaho-Maryland Mine project was visible, with the Board Chambers full of residents donning “No Mine” stickers. Approximately 30 speakers commented on Rise Gold’s historical and legal claims. Before and during the meeting, Rise made it clear they intended to sue the County if the decision didn’t go their way. While Supervisors asked probing questions relating to the company’s claims, it became apparent that Rise Gold’s legal and historical arguments for Vested Rights didn’t convince them. The unanimous vote to reject the claim marked a significant setback in Rise Gold’s proposal to re-open the long-shuttered mine. “The mine doesn’t have a vested right because it abandoned the mining activity. The current zoning and regulatory process applies, in my opinion,” stated Supervisor Hardy Bullock. “Our community has grown and changed in how we view the environment in which we live, what we hope to provide future generations, and how our ordinances and laws support that vision.” In their deliberations, Supervisors voiced their disappointment with Rise Gold’s adversarial approach and noted that Rise only objected to the Use Permit process after the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation. Chairman of the Board, Supervisor Ed Scofield, explained this “doesn’t mean that Rise Gold can’t mine. It means that they have to get a Use Permit. And yes, that Use Permit is going to be very difficult because of what mining represents and, again, the location of where it is in its proximity to the City of Grass Valley.” In the three-plus years since Rise first applied to re-open the mine, environmental and economic impact reports and studies were released and reviewed. Community organizations and businesses opposed the plan, citing the destructive environmental and public health impacts to the community. Two key concerns were the possible impacts and risks to residents’ wells and the violation of the County’s General Plan by opening a mine in a residential neighborhood. In May 2023, the Nevada County Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of Supervisors reject the Use Permit and the Final Environmental Impact Report. According to the County timeline, staff will now 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. A vocal opponent of the mine, reflecting on the hearing, remarked: “I’m glad the County saw through Rise Gold’s farce. The vast majority of this community is against this mine. We’re all looking forward to the day when Supervisors say “NO, and that’s final!” For more information about the potential re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, visit www.MineWatchNC.org. *** 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 leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org.

This release summarizes key events that led up to the final public hearing and vote by Nevada County Supervisors on the fate of the Idaho-Maryland Mine on February 15 and 16, 2024. In the end, Supervisors voted unanimously to deny the project and its Environmental Impact Report. For Immediate Release: February 13, 2024 Contacts: Traci Sheehan Community Environmental Advocates Foundation traci@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE California Gold Rush Community May Reject Bid to Reopen Historic Mine Grass Valley, CA – On February 15 and 16, residents of a Gold Rush community in the foothills of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains will be lining up for the final time to comment on a junior mining company’s bid to re-open the historic Idaho-Maryland Mine – which was once one of California’s top-producing gold mines. The applicant, Rise Gold Corp., promises a modern mine that prioritizes safety, but the project has undergone extensive scrutiny because the long-shuttered mine sits less than three miles from downtown Grass Valley, CA and lies directly beneath what is now a long-established residential neighborhood. After almost four years of preparation – including environmental and economic reports, public hearings, and intense public opposition – the Nevada County Board of Supervisors will be holding a special hearing to make final decisions on the fate of the mine.  The five Supervisors will be asked to consider rezoning and variance requests that would be necessary to proceed with the project. They’ll also make a decision about whether to certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). But odds aren’t looking good for Rise Gold. Opposition to the mine has been bipartisan and intense. Last May, the Nevada County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend rejection of the project and EIR. The County’s recently-released staff report endorses that recommendation for the Supervisors vote this week. “Our community was once at the center of the Gold Rush in the late 1800’s,” said Laurie Oberholzer, former Mayor of neighboring Nevada City, CA. “But the biggest mines shut down in the 1950’s, destroying the economy and leaving a legacy of toxic damage that residents are still living with today. We’ve since turned to tourism, technology, and agriculture to rebuild and sustain our economy. Mining is our past. Not our future.” The question of community support has generated plenty of controversy. Rise initially used a survey, then later tallied Draft EIR comments to claim that a majority of residents supported the mine. Both efforts generated a firestorm of criticism, including assertions that Rise was “stuffing the ballot box”. Meanwhile MineWatch, a coalition of groups opposing the mine, gathered over 5,500 petition signatures, gained support of 250 businesses, and delivered more than 2,500 postcards and emailed letters asking the County to “Just Say No” to the project. Troubles with the project first emerged when Nevada County’s Draft EIR was released in January 2022. Rise Gold sent mailers to the public saying “The Science is Clear”, claiming The County’s report confirmed that the mine would be safe and responsible. But critics reacted harshly. The draft report was anything but final and did list some significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Upon review of the 1000+ page report, residents and local government agencies claimed it was riddled with errors, omissions, and legal flaws. Citing deep concerns with technical reports provided to the County by the applicant, government agencies and a coalition of local organizations submitted extensive rebuttals by technical and legal experts. “Starting with the most fundamental aspects, a good EIR relies upon adequate and reliable data in order for the decision makers to be adequately informed,” stated Ralph Silberstein, President of Community Environmental Advocates Foundation about the Draft EIR.  His group echoed a comment from the City of Grass Valley requesting a revision and recirculation of the report, predicting: “We’ll see many more impacts listed as significant and unavoidable.” Little changed, however, when the Final EIR was released in December 2022. While the community was looking for revisions in key areas like air, water, mine waste disposal, and greenhouse gas emissions, very little was addressed. After an extended period of public comment, a public hearing about the Final EIR was scheduled in May 2023. The hearing was an exhaustive two day affair that included over 1,000 attendees, 139 public comments, and a remarkably-timed 5.5 magnitude earthquake mere minutes before Planning Commissioners unanimously rejected the project and the EIR. The project was deemed an “incompatible use” based on its proximity to neighborhoods. Mitigations for protecting hundreds of wells in the vicinity of the mine played a featured role. “The stakes are just too high to get this wrong”, said Christy Hubbard, spokesperson for a local group of well owners. “The plan completely ignores the complexity and expense of providing a ‘comparable water supply’ in this area. If wells fail, it would take many years and tens of millions of dollars to connect a permanent water supply.” After the Planning Commission hearing, residents thought it would be a short wait before the final hearing with the Supervisors, but faced with the real possibility of a no vote, Rise Gold made an attempt to circumvent the use permit process by petitioning for a “Vested Right” to mine. A vested right is a right to continue a business use that existed at the time a regulation changed. Rise claimed that, although the Idaho-Maryland Mine shut down and sold off all its assets in 1956 two years after the County started requiring use permits, all the subsequent owners of the property had an intent to mine and never explicitly abandoned their vested right. Another hearing was scheduled to review the claim in December 2023. It didn’t go well for Rise Gold. Lawyers for the County asserted that vested rights are not permanent and the owners of the Idaho-Maryland Mine property lost that right some time within the decade after the mine closed. “In my mind, no mining activity has taken place since the early 50s.” said Hardy Bullock, Supervisor for District 5, before he voted with other supervisors to reject the petition. “The current zoning and regulatory processes apply no matter what the reasons for the [mine] to shut down over the years.” Now finally, after years of waiting, Nevada County Supervisors are set to make a final decision about Rise Gold’s original use permit application and the EIR. The Special Public Hearing for the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project will be held February 15 and 16 at Nevada County’s Rood Center, 950 Maidu Ave, Nevada City, CA 95959, or online at https://www.youtube.com/@CountyofNevadaCA/streams. Learn more about the hearing at https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=7200 Learn more about the fight against the Idaho-Maryland Mine at www.MineWatchNC.org. *** 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 leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org.

CEA Foundation attorneys analyzed Rise Gold's 164-page complaint letter claiming unfair treatment and lack of due process in reaction to the May 11 Planning Commission's unanimous vote to reject the mine project and the EIR. "The allegations in Rise’s letter are meritless. At the outset, Rise fundamentally misunderstands the legislative nature of the Planning Commission’s action," wrote Ellison Folk, Attorney for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. This following press release and analysis were also published in The Union newspaper. Read the release Read the analysis Read Rise Gold's complaint letter For Immediate Release: June 28.2023 Contact: MineConcerns@cea-nc.org Opposition Refutes Unfair Treatment Claims of Rise Gold June 28, 2023 – Grass Valley, CA – Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) reports that it sent a letter to the Nevada County Supervisors containing a legal analysis of a complaint letter submitted to Nevada County by Rise Grass Valley. Rise Grass Valley is a subsidiary of the Canadian-headquartered junior mining company Rise Gold, and is applying to reopen the long-shuttered Idaho-Maryland Mine. At a public hearing on May 12, the Nevada County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend a NO vote on the Mine project and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In response, Rise Gold submitted a 164-page complaint letter to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on June 1 containing numerous assertions of unfair treatment, bias, and violations of due process in the processing of the Mine application. A story about the complaint was published in The Union, and in various other media including online investment sites. “Rise Gold is apparently attempting to create a false narrative of conspiracy and bias in order to sway public opinion and discredit the unanimous vote by the Planning Commission recommending that the project be denied,” stated Ralph Silberstein, President, CEA Foundation. Nevada County staff and the Board of Supervisors generally respond to such complaints under the guidance of County Counsel and in this case are likely informed as to the validity of the Rise objections, but CEA Foundation submitted their legal analysis of the complaint to the County in order to shed more light on the subject. A full copy of the CEA Foundation legal analysis is included below. The original Rise complaint document is here. (PDF) According to CEA Foundation’s legal analysis, the Rise complaint letter makes allegations of violations in due process and alludes to the requirements for the Planning Commission to act in a quasi-adjudicatory (court-like) capacity. However, the Commission was acting in a quasi-legislative capacity when it made its recommendations on the Project, not quasi-adjudicatory. This is because they were making a recommendation on a rezoning issue. It is well established law that rezoning decisions are categorically considered legislative acts. The analysis goes on to say that the hearing process was entirely consistent with the legal principles that actually govern these types of legislative decisions. Courts have long recognized that local decision makers 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.” (City of Fairfield v. Superior Court 1975). In addition, under the County’s Land Use and Development Code, the Commission was tasked with determining whether the rezone would be “consistent with and further[]” the County’s General Plan policies and “will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the County.” The Planning Commission satisfied these obligations, heard from the public, scrutinized the documents provided to them, shared their personal views and experiences, and made a unanimous decision. CEA’s analysis points out that even if one assumed that the court-like standards did apply in some way, the Commission satisfied those requirements. The Planning Commission has “an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with [their] constituents.” (Fairfield) And 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 a disqualification by itself. Moreover, the Planning Commission was merely issuing a recommendation. Nothing in Rise Gold’s complaint letter threatens the validity of the Board’s own upcoming decision on the Project. Additional grievances were stated by Rise, including violations of the Brown Act, but no evidence was provided. In summary, CEA Foundation’s analysis found that the allegations made by Rise Gold appear to be unfounded, and that what was evident in the hearing was active engagement on the part of the community and an informed and attentive Planning Commissioner fulfilling its responsibilities under the law. The Board of Supervisors will make the final decision on the project during the public hearings, currently scheduled for Oct 2 and Oct 3. Silberstein was appreciative of the legal analysis, adding “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, to not be intimidated with threats or accusations of foul play, and to deny the project.” 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 release in The Union Newspaper. Read the full text of the Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger analysis in the Union Newspaper. Following is the full text of the legal analysis letter. June 27, 2023 Via Electronic Mail Only Board of Supervisors Nevada County 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 bdofsupervisors@nevadacountyca.gov Re: Response to Rise Grass Valley’s Letter to Board Dear Board Members: On behalf of the Community Environmental Advocates Foundation, we write to address the letter that Rise Grass Valley, Inc. (“Rise”) submitted to the Nevada County Board of supervisors (“Board”) on June 1, 2023. The letter alleges that Rise was deprived of due process at the County Planning Commission’s hearing on the Idaho-Maryland Mine Project (“Project”).1 During this hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board deny the Project and decline to certify its Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The allegations in Rise’s letter are meritless. At the outset, Rise fundamentally misunderstands the legislative nature of the Planning Commission’s action. This misunderstanding renders virtually all of Rise’s many complaints irrelevant. Regardless, the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project comported both with due process principles and with the Commission’s obligations to consider public input on a matter of great local importance. Rise might have preferred for the Planning Commission to ignore the community’s views or reach a different decision. But this does not make the Commission’s process or recommendations illegitimate. In any event, Rise’s allegations have no bearing on the Board’s own future decision on the Project. Rise’s entire letteris premised on an assumption that procedural due process requirements applied to the Planning Commission’s decision. That assumption is wrong. The due process principles that Rise cites apply only when a local decision-making body is acting in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity. Save Civita because Sudberry Won’t v. City of San Diego (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 957, 983–84. They do not apply to quasi-legislative acts.2 Id.; id. at 994 & n.45. The Planning Commission was acting in a quasi-legislative capacity when it made its recommendations on the Project. The Project cannot be developed unless the County rezones the Project site. And the Planning Commission expressly recommended to deny the rezoningapplication.3 The California Supreme Court made clear over forty years ago that such rezoning decisions are categorically legislative. See Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 524 (in bank) (“[T]he current California rule that rezoning is a legislative act is well settled by precedent and comports with both federal and state constitutional requirements.”); see also id. at 514, 521–25. As a result, the Planning Commission’s decision was not subject to due process principles.4 See id. at 521; Save Civita, 72 Cal.App.5th at 994 & n.45. In overlooking these basic rules, Rise’s letter wastes a dozen pages arguing that the Planning Commission violated requirements that did not apply in the first place. The hearing process was entirely consistent with the legal principles that actually govern these types of legislative decisions. 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.” City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 780 (in bank). These obligations are especially acute when the decision involves the location and construction of a major project that could have significant economic and environmental impacts on the region. See id.; see also Cohan, 30 Cal.App.4th at 559 (“[O]pposition of neighbors to a development project is a legitimate factor in legislative decision making.”). Moreover, under the County’s Land Use and Development Code, the Planning Commission was specifically tasked with determining whether the rezone would be “consistent with and further[]” the County’s General Plan policies and “will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the County.” Nevada Cty. Land Use & Dev. Code (“LUDC”)§ L-II 5.9(G)(1), (2); see also Staff Report 78, 85–86, 116–19. And, under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the County was required to solicit, consider, and respond to input from the public and other agencies regarding the Project’s environmental impacts. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15086– 15088. The Planning Commission satisfied these obligations. Its members heard and respected the public’s views regarding a sprawling, complicated Project that would impact the community for decades. They carefully scrutinized the analyses provided by their own staff, Rise and its consultants, and other agencies. And they disclosed their personal views on these matters, which were informed both by the information presented during the hearing process and by their own relevant experiences. After considering that wide range of input, they reached a unanimous decision that the Project would not advance the County’s policy interests. This was not a biased adjudication. It was a legislative process working as intended. Additionally, even assuming that due process principles applied in some way to the Planning Commission’s action, the Commission satisfied those requirements. While Rise’s letter sets forth a laundry list of purported transgressions, a few core legal principles show that the Commission was not biased against Rise: First, because none of the Planning Commissioners had a “financial interest in the outcome of the” vote, they are all “presumed to be impartial.” Hauser v. Ventura Cty. Bd. of Supervisors (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 580. Rise’s scattered allegations cannot overcome that starting presumption. Second, because the Planning Commissioners have “an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with [their] constituents,” Rise could not have been deprived of a fair hearing simply because the Commissioners were contacted by or met with members of the public. City of Fairfield, 14 Cal.3d at 780; see also Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 974; Hauser, 20 Cal.App.5th at 580. It is puzzling that Rise would suggest otherwise, given that Rise itself has met with County officials multiple times and apparently intends to do so in the future. Third, although Rise faults Planning Commissioners merely for associating with members of community groups opposed to the Project, a decisionmaker can be an active member of such a group without being impermissibly biased against a project. See Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 971, 974 (holding council member’s active membership in neighborhood association opposed to project “did not establish bias” in and of itself). Fourth, even in a quasi-adjudicatory context, decisionmakers retain some ability to express their views on the merits of pending projects. See City of Fairfield, 14 Cal.3d at 780; Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 974; Cohan, 30 Cal.App.4th at 559 (“[A] councilperson has a right to state views or concerns on matters of community policy without having his voted impeached.”); Breakzone, 81 Cal.App.4th at 1234 n.23 (“[A] point of view about a question of law or policy is not a disqualification by itself, and . . . a predisposition about legislative facts that helps answer a question of law or policy is not by itself a disqualification.”). The Planning Commissioners’ remarks were consistent with these guidelines. In short, the Planning Commission’s action plainly was not adjudicatory. Yet Rise nonetheless received all the due process to which it would have been entitled if it were. Finally, putting all else aside, nothing in Rise’s letter threatens the validity of the Board’s own upcoming decision on the Project. Consistent with the legislative nature of its actions, the Planning Commission merely issued recommendations to the Board. It did not—and could not—definitively deny the rezone, decline to certify the EIR, or address any of the many other approvals the Project requires. See LUDC § L-II 5.9(E);Govt. Code § 65855.Those final decisions rest within the independent judgment of the Board and will be made only after another public hearing process. See LUDC § L-II 5.9(F); Govt. Code §§ 65856,65857; CEQA Guidelines § 15025(b). During that process, Rise is free to present any complaints that the Planning Commission got the facts wrong, considered improper evidence, or weighed the public policy considerations incorrectly—as Rise already has, and surely will continue to do. Once the Board has considered those allegations and all the relevant information, it can and should reach the same well-reasoned conclusions as the Planning Commission. But those decisions will be the Board’s alone. _________________ 1 The letter includes a single cursory allegation that County officials also violated the Brown Act. Rise never explains what Brown Act violations it believes the County has committed and nothing described in the letter implicates the Act. 2 Consistent with this rule, each of the land use cases that Rise’s letter references involved a quasi-adjudicatory decision. See Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 972; Woody’s Group,Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021; Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 482; Breakzone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1223–24; Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1170–71; Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 554–55, 559. 3 Specifically, the Planning Commission unanimously voted “to approve Recommendation A [in the Planning Commission Staff Report], with the exception of not certifying the Environmental Impact Report. ”May 11 Special Meeting Rec. 7:37:20. “Recommendation A” includes the recommendation “that the Board of Supervisors deny the Rezone(RZN12- 0002) to rezone the parcels located at the Brunswick Industrial Site from Light-Industrial with Site Performance Combining District (M1-SP) to Light Industrial with Mineral Extraction Combining District (M1-ME).” Staff Report 5. Recommendation A involved taking no action on the necessary Development Agreement (MIS22-0019), since the denial of the rezone would be sufficient to deny the Project outright. See id. But any express decision on the Development Agreement would also be a legislative action. See S.F. Tomorrow, 229 Cal.App.4th at 526, 528; Govt. Code § 65867.5(a), (b). 4 The same is true of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to decline to certify the EIR. Because the “underlying action that the [County] was analyzing in the []EIR” was quasi-legislative, the Planning Commission’s decision regarding the EIR was itself quasi- legislative, and thus not subject to procedural due process requirements. See Save Civita, 72 Cal.App.5th at 992–94. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Ellison Folk cc: Julie Patterson Hunter, Clerk of the Board Katharine Elliott, County Counsel Laurie Oberholtzer, CEA Foundation Ralph Silberstein, CEA Foundation 1660106.2 Rise Gold's Complaint Letter

CEA Foundation President, Ralph Silberstein questions the science and mitigations described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine. Rise Gold wants everyone to believe there are only 2 impacts, but this is a DRAFT report with a total of 83 impacts defined. There are key concerns about traffic, noise, aesthetics, water, air, greenhouse gases, and the related Centennial Site cleanup to be sorted out yet. NOTE: This video refers to the commenting deadlines that later got changed. View the PDF slides or watch the recording (run time 12:07) below. Or watch the full meeting here.

Read comments prepared by experts, volunteers, and legal minds from CEA Foundation and its MineWatch coalition members about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. “This DEIR is riddled with errors, omissions, and legal flaws”, said Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation. “We’ll see many more impacts listed as significant and unavoidable before this is done." Read the press release. CEA FOUNDATION & MIneWatch Coalition MineWatch Coalition - Summary Letter 18 page subset of the CEA Foundation comment letter, signed by coalition members. CEA Foundation - Full Comments CONSULTANT LETTERS Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP) - by Dave Chambers Legal Comments from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Baseline Environmental Consulting Report Covers hazards, hydrology, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions Salter Report Noise LOCAL Agency Comments Read local agency comments, (City of Grass Valley, Nevada Irrigation District, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) Files referenced with CEA FOUNDATION comments Review of the Idaho-Maryland Mine DEIR Groundwater Model Examines the data and analysis used to create the model Review of the ITASCA Groundwater Model Identifies multiple assumptions that understate the extent of groundwater drop Mine Exhaust Moisture Provides facts about saturated air coming out of the mine and the potential cloud plume Faulting Hazards Identifies potential seismic hazards from mining activities adjacent to and through fault lines Health Risk Assessment Critique Sampling Procedures Critique Identifies the very few samples used to characterize mine waste, etc. Sample Quality Control Review Details the failure to process specific tests correctly, making much of the data unreliable ASUR Plan Analysis Examines the issues with the asbestos mitigations and the air quality hazard ADDITIONAL MINEWATCH COALITION COMMENTS Wells Coalition

CEA Foundation submitted comments and questions about the County's Economic Impact Report for the proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine project in advance of the County's public webinar on December 15, 2022. CEA Foundation December 13, 2022 Comments and Questions on the Robert D. Niehaus Inc. Report (RDN Report) “Economic Impact of the Proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine Project” We applaud the Nevada County Board of Supervisors for seeking an independent analysis of the Mine Project by funding this report rather than relying on the private report produced by the project applicant, Rise Gold Inc. (dba Rise Grass Valley Inc.) The RDN Report provides useful information about the proposed mine project. It is important to note that most of the Report is “...based on the assumption that it would operate as proposed by the applicant and as documented in the project description in the Draft EIR.” (RDN p1) Similarly, apparently Rise Gold did not provide an estimate of the costs of facilities construction, the costs of developing the operational equipment, dewatering, creating a new access shaft and rehabilitating the old mine works. Similar concerns arise regarding the use of the Draft EIR, which had not been fully reviewed by the project consultant Raney Planning and Management, nor Nevada County Planning Department. Whereas, in a normal situation, the publication of the project description and a Draft EIR would provide an adequate bases for conducting a study, in this case significant defects and omissions were identified. CEA Foundation, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City of Grass Valley, Nevada Irrigation District, over 18 regional non-profits, and the public at large, pointed to significant inadequacies in the Draft and/or called for the Draft to be re-circulated. Given that a major portion of the information that would be necessary to produce a reliable economic analysis was likely to change, what confidence level would RDN assign to the findings? High-end and Low-end Scenarios The Report focuses almost entirely upon a “high-end” scenario. For the “low-end” scenario, the Report notes that the Mine operations lifespan may be only 8 years, ending with only $22,000/yr net revenue to the County after 11 years (RDN p 58). “RGV does not have any “proved” reserves because they are currently in the process of performing the exploration work to quantify these resources. Therefore, this analysis provides the potential tax impact for a range of proved reserves by providing a high-end and low-end estimate.” (RDN, p52) “The Emgold Mining Corporation produced the last reported measured reserves for the Idaho-Maryland Mine in November 2002, which they estimated as 212,000 ounces of gold. Therefore, the low-end estimate assumes the mine produces 26,500 ounces of gold per year over approximately eight years. Under this scenario, the proved reserves would be depleted by 26,500 ounces per year until none are remaining.” (pg 55, RDN) Why does the report focus almost entirely on the high end scenario? Why was an equally detailed assessment under the low-end not provided? Are the low and high end equally probable? What probability is assigned and what is the basis? Has RDN done any work to validate production or reserves beyond outlining high-end and low-end estimates? The most likely production scenario is somewhere in between. Why was that not considered? The economic benefits to the Community /County are based on assumptions and projections provided by Rise Gold regarding the source of employment (local existing, in migration, or weekly commuters), the ounces of gold extracted per year, and the percent of those economic benefits spent in Nevada County. Did the study perform any verification of these Rise Gold estimates? Construction Estimate of construction costs is apparently based upon the number of employees which is generally not considered to be a reliable method. The project applicant, Rise Gold, should be challenged for not providing construction costs estimates for the project, which would provide a more realistic viewpoint. At the least, a breakout of project elements and schedule should have been provided. Was any analysis done on the feasibility of the remarkably short proposed 18-month construction schedule provided by Rise Gold? Does RDN feel the construction costs and 18-month time frame are credible? End of life impacts Even though the low-end scenario indicates only 8 years of operations, the report fails to consider the cost and other impacts of shutting down the mine. Having developed the project adjacent to Grass Valley rather than allowing normal more sustainable development to take place, the impacts of the shutdown will create a local depression. This is generally what happens to mining communities. Why was this analysis omitted? Does the Economic Plan include any assessment of risk and potential related costs? Has any analysis been done regarding the accuracy of data provided by Rise Gold for “Improvements (new facilities)”? (RDN p55, Table 5-7) Miscellaneous Fact check: “The proposed project would construct and operate above-ground mineral processing and water treatment facilities at the Brunswick Industrial Site and place engineered fill at both industrial sites for the first five years of the project.”( RDN p3) Answer: Per the application documents and the DEIR, the local mine waste dumping operations (“engineered fill”) will be for 11 years, with approximately 6 years at the Brunswick site directly adjacent to numerous residences. Fact check: “According to the Draft EIR, the proposed project would increase water supplies by depositing an additional 1,000 acre-feet of treated water into the Wolf Creek System, resulting in a net positive impact to water supply.” Answer: The initial dewatering is not usable as treated water because it will blend with existing flow and is not connected to any service lines. Furthermore, the short-term increased flow’s possible benefit to irrigation downstream is not established, and it would be seasonally dependent. Also, after the initial dewatering, the predicted reduction in base flow is 0.75 cfs for Wolf Creek and 0.1cfs for South Fork Wolf Creek. [see DEIR Appendix K.2, p72] This will persist 24/7 for the life of the project, totaling 615 acre-feet/year. Maintenance dewatering for 70 years would reduce the flow by 43,000 acre feet total. And finally, at the end of the operations, the mine will reduce the flow into Wolf Creek System by 1,000 acre feet during the time in which the mine refills. This is another net loss in water supplies. Rise Gold’s Production Numbers Full employment likely won’t happen until full production, years from now. If the project is approved and not challenged legally next year, at least 1 year will be needed for near surface structure repairs and agency permitting before start of construction. It would likely be more than 4 years after Use Permit approval for start of mining operations. Full production will be years after that. Why was it assumed that full production would take place immediately upon start of operations? This is virtually impossible. Full production usually takes years to achieve and is seldom maintained continuously. Many expenses would not be reduced in proportion to reduction of gold output. The RDN “low-end estimate” assumes expenses would go down proportional to lower gold production. Table 5.5. This fails to consider fixed labor expenses and fixed operational costs such as pumping, ventilation, in addition to depreciations, etc.. These factors would further reduce the benefits to the county. Why were these factors not considered? What are the changes to economic benefits when allowing for those factors? Local Businesses High-tech industries, especially in the Whispering Pines Business Park, may move out, and it will be harder to attract new ones. Did RDN interview businesses in Whispering Pines Business Park, which sits over the mineral rights? What were the results of interviewing businesses within close proximity to the Mineral Rights area? Local Hires How were the numbers of non-local hires determined? Prior economic studies indicated that most of the jobs would go to out of towners and that they would rent, impacting the rental market. Also, general knowledge of the mining labor force indicates that most of the mining jobs will be filled by miners from out of town. For example, as reported by Jim Steinmann, who has expertise on mine employment demographics, the typical mine worker will take temporary housing and work a 12hr shift 7 days straight and then go home for a week. In addition, the Economic study on the same mine conducted in 2008 estimated that 52% of the workforce would be from out of the area. [Emgold Idaho-Maryland Mine DEIR 2008, Appendix H, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, pg 10, Table 2] Of the workers from out of the area, the study determined that the non-local hires would mostly be weekly commuters, and that 75% of those commuting would rent shared housing in Grass Valley. [Ibid, Table 6, p11 ] Of those 48% who would relocate, 54% would move without their families. [Ibid, p11] And only 10% of those relocating would choose to purchase. It is true that the 2008 mine project was different in several ways, but neither the demographics of Nevada County nor the mining industry have significantly changed in 14 years. Was this study taken into account? If so, why were the findings not included? Employee Sources Most of the construction will be done by out-of-town contractors who have experience and the capacity to build large metal structures. Also, installation or construction of gold processing equipment would likely be done by specialists. What findings did RDN discover on industrial construction resources in Nevada County for this specific industry? Assuming that there will be 213 local hires as reported, has the cost of depleting local labor force been analyzed? It seems likely that the 213 local hires will come from existing local businesses. E.g., existing contractors, existing lumber yards, virtually any business which does not pay $94,000/year. As noted in the Report (RDN, p17) “Local businesses are already competing for talent and labor; introducing additional high-paying jobs would likely make it harder for local businesses to meet their hiring needs.” Has the impact of this turnover in local employees been assessed? What will be the impact on the businesses that loses employment to the Mine project? What is the period of time for a new unexperienced employee to become a journeyman Miner? Assuming these 213 local hires are replaced, was the number of non-local replacement hires estimated? Local Expenditures Income to community from expenditures does not include many of the “benefits” paid to employees. Do the disposable income numbers used include the employee payroll withholdings? Can you identify how the payroll adjustments were assigned to determine gross wages vs the disposable income spent locally: mortgages, rent, large non-local purchases (e.g. cars, appliances), workers comp, Social Security, Social Security match, income taxes, Medicare, 401K, health, health savings, unemployment insurance, liability insurance, administration, 401K match, dental, etc.? (please list all) Environmental Impacts The costs due to environmental impacts were generally ignored. The Draft EIR elicited hundreds of comments from scientific experts, government agencies, and the public on the environmental impacts and associated costs of the proposed mine. Did RDN assess the local costs of health impacts attributable to increased noise, air pollution, increased temperatures from woodland and riparian habitat removal? The Economic report identifies specific benefits to the County based on a number of unverified assumptions relative to wages, costs, local expenditures, and income from the mining of gold. Did the analysis estimate or even identify the potential future costs to the County or property owners due to loss of well capacity, costs of environmental mitigation. and costs of site cleanup in the event of bankruptcy or early mine closure? Real Estate Impacts The conclusions of the study largely disregard the input from local realtors and instead relies upon 3 “comparison mines” However, the comparisons do not appear valid. The impacts of the comp mines opening did not account for the fact that much of the negative impact had already affected the market value before the "Before Opening" data was gathered. In addition, the validity of the “Comparison Mines” for real estate market value change is questionable for these reasons: The real estate comparisons fail to consider the actual physical characteristics of the mines with respect to geography, neighboring land use, and recent history prior to opening. None of the comps had comparable residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the mine The impacts on property values depends upon the actual environmental impacts, not simply a straight- line "distance" from the mine. In particular, dwellings that are directly over the mine or within a short distance would be greatly impacted. Yet in two of the examples, there were almost no dwellings within 1/2 mile, compared to over 2000 dwellings in the case of Idaho-Maryland Mine mineral rights area. These homes would be subject to noise, dust, truck traffic, aesthetic impacts from the creation of 2 huge tailings piles for at least 11 years, and for over 300 well owners, there is a widely recognized potential impact to their wells. These are much greater impacts. Comparison of residential values before and after the mine opens is not meaningful unless it is adjusted to allow for overall changes in the real estate market. The comps failed to assess changes in market value in a control population. To identify the impacts on real estate for a particular project, changes in the values of comparable housing in a similar market that is not impacted by the mine must be used. For example, real estate in CA more than doubled in value (868/426 = 204%) between Q2-2013 and Q1-2022. [see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI ] The increase in value for homes in the region of the Sutter Mine went up about 18% in the comparison provided (RDN Table 4-4). Granted, the averages in the periods "Before Opening" and "After Opening" are a different numeric value than the end points of the two periods, and the statistics for the entire state are not necessarily applicable to Sutter Creek, but this provides some insight into how misleading the number RDN provided can be. 18% is a paltry increase compared to the general trends in CA, showing that there was a strong negative impact on the Sutter property values. A more representative control population for comparisons would give a meaningful result. Why was this standard practice for Real Estate appraisals using comparable housing not utilized? There is strong evidence that the mine would have a negative impact on housing. Common sense would conclude that having a 90-foot-high tailings pile built next to one's home, replacing an oak woodlands, would hurt the property values. Numerous local professional realtors with years of experience have stated that the mine would have a negative impact on housing. Direct evidence of real estate sales falling out of escrow when the buyer learned about the mine proposal have been reported. Some residents have already moved out. Given that the perception is a valid and significant market factor, why was the reported negative views of a preponderance of Realtors not given more credence? The risk for the 300+ property owners with wells is extreme. Their property values would quickly drop in value if their wells have reduced capacity, become polluted, or go dry. The assessment of potential impact to area wells is a serious deficiency in the Draft EIR. The potential harm in this case is a good example of why the Idaho-Maryland Mine 2022 Draft EIR does not provide adequate information about the economic costs of the Mine. How is lack of available housing taken into account in the report, especially our lack of rental housing? Was the cost of displacing current residents in the community with lower incomes evaluated? County Revenue The high-end scenario for the mine would provide a 2.1% increase in General Fund revenue ($742K towards $35.19M), and would be a 0.2% increase of the $330M County Budget. The low end scenario would provide a peak of 0.4% increase in year 4 (163K towards 35.19) and drop steadily to a 0.06% increase (22K towards 36.19M) after year 11. Rise is claiming expenses that calculate out to about $630/oz for gold production, but the industry standard is closer to $1200, and because of all the needed mitigations and strict CA laws, if anything it will probably be much higher for this project. ( See https://bunker-group.com/en/blog/gold-s-cost-of- production-analysis and https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/responsible-gold/all-in-costs. In addition, Rise will not receive market price for the gold. The facility will output “gold concentrate” which requires costly processing, probably at a cyanide processing facility out of California. This will reduce the Mineral Reserves tax. What is the cost of refining the gold-concentrate per ounce? Why was this cost not used to reduce the estimated “sales price” of the gold produced. What would be the decrease in County tax revenues from Mineral Property taxes if the Proven Reserves are determined based upon a more realistic $1200/oz expenses and a lower sales price due to the need for gold concentrate processing? RDN estimates $4.96M in local expenditures under the most optimistic scenario. Were the listed $170,000/year in Mine related expenses for the City of Grass Valley included in the totals for the County? Conclusion The RDN Report has provided some useful data. Unfortunately, the dependency of the report almost entirely upon the production numbers from Rise Gold and the Draft EIR has led to conclusions which carry little prospect of providing a reliable economic assessment. In addition, the evaluation of real estate impacts seems to place too much focus on three mines which do not seem to be accurate comparisons. Our Nevada County Board of Supervisors commissioned this report to get a reliable independent analysis of the broader impacts of the proposed mine on our local economy. While the report did provide a lot of useful information, we urge RDN to revise the report by reconsidering a number of the identified issues and concerns. Thank you, Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation