Jackson Hills Update

Tuesday, 08 May 2007 11:12

Jackson Hills Update

{flv}5-8jhp{/flv}

Comments and other Documentation

These are the comments I made at last night's Jackson Planning Commission on Jackson Hills. The official ACSG comments were made by Judy Jebian and she can provide you those.

As Terri Works pointed out last night, the changes to the mitigiations actually came from the Planning Commission rather than the developer. So that portion of my presentation is incorrect.

Kathy Allen

May 7 Jackson Planning Commission

Tonight I am not speaking for ACSG. Judy Jebian, Vice-Chair of ACSG will be doing that. Tonight I am speaking for Kathy Allen.

You have the CEQA data and the mitigations that must be performed. However, what you don’t have is what concerns me the most. And that’s an overall financial analysis. Anybody who knows me knows that I’m always harping about the big picture and the bottom line.

Jackson’s General Fund is absolutely critical to the well-being and quality of life of her residents. And Jackson’s General Fund is only one piece of what makes up the overall local economy. If one piece of our economy suffers, the other pieces suffer, too, including the General Fund.

CEQA does not require a financial analysis be performed for a project decision. But that doesn’t mean that a jurisdiction can’t examine the financial impact. In fact, the financial impact of any project SHOULD be examined before any decision is made. Those cities and counties that are going bankrupt are the ones who didn’t look at the big picture and the bottom line before approving a project. Jackson is currently being pressured by outside developers to grow in ways that benefits the developers financially. It’s only fair that Jackson ensure that Jackson also benefits financially.

After reading the Planning Staff Report, I am very pleased with several changes to the amenities to be provided by New Faze, particularly the additional $1.6 million to pay for the Page 11 traffic fees. This, added to the $1.5 million regional fees and $711 thousand local fees brings New Faze’s traffic commitment to $3.8 million. I am also pleased about the dedication by New Faze to the City of Jackson of a 2.0 acre site for a new fire station.

I am still concerned about a few economic areas:

- In the possibility of paying an additional $4.3 million vs. offering a dedication of right of way along a portion of the northern property boundary for a bypass, I believe the most fair option would be for New Faze to do both. The reason being that the additional residents will add to the need for a by-pass.

- Also, regarding the funding of the $50,000 for the mapping tool, I don’t believe there should be a time limit on this. What if the Final Map is approved on March 2 rather than March 1, then New Faze isn’t required to provide this money? No, New Faze should pay for this map WHEN the Final Map is approved, irregardless of the timing.

- It is also fair that New Faze help fund a traffic study to address the Highway 49/88 intersection. This is a very large development compared to Jackson’s other communities and it will have a substantial impact on the traffic—it will add more than 5,000 cars every day to our local roads.

- Regarding fire protection, I understand that a Mello-Roos has been proposed to cover this cost. Has there been an assessment done to determine the value of the land vs. how much of a bond will be required? If you need a reason NOT to do a Mello-Roos, look at Ione who is trying to get its investors to accept $0.50 for every $1 initially invested. A Mello-Roos could end up being a cost nightmare for Jackson if the housing market continues to fall and land values decrease. And a Mello-Roos is definitely a cost negative for the residents whose property taxes could be as high as 2%.

- Golf courses, which will provide jobs and bring in tax revenue, are going bankrupt all over the country and they are scurrying to amend their strategies to bring in more customers. Jackson Hills claims that they can attract 40,000 daily fee rounds annually. That’s 114 golfers a day. Or 9-10 golfers an hour. Is that about what Mace Meadows and Castle Oaks have? It seems very risky to count on this much revenue to be generated from this private golf course. Particularly since a better and public golf community with a hotel and tourist appeal is being proposed about 2 miles away. Can Amador County successfully support 4 golf courses? Maybe. That would require a minimum of 450 people golfing in Amador County 365 days a year. Is there a coordinated plan to draw in golfing tourists? It definitely has potential, but a strategic plan will be needed to make it work. And all I see now is 4 golf courses that will compete with one another rather than work in coordination to bring in golf tourists to the region.

- Modifications to the wastewater process are going to be needed to utilize the golf field to accept tertiary treated water. According to the project’s engineering consultants, this will cost $9 million. I understand that the Plasses have offered a wastewater solution that would allow 2ndary water to be utilized, and that no modifications to the current process would be necessary. So the choice here is pay for $9 million for tertiary water to be put on the golf field or spray 2ndary water without modification costs.

- The additional residents are going to tax the police, schools, fire protection, and medical facilities. The largest piece in Jackson’s General Fund is the police, which is budgeted as over $1.7 million every year. The police department is already stretched. Jackson Hills states that their annual fiscal impact on the police will be $280,000. But in fact, the additional population will increase Jackson’s population by 1,151 residents, which is an increase of 27% to Jackson’s current population. And 27% of $1.7 million is $450,000. That’s almost twice the fiscal impact that Jackson Hills claims that they will have on the police department. It’s a known fact that property taxes generally aren’t sufficient to cover the cost of utilized services and infrastructure—unless all the houses are worth over a $1 million. So, in this instance the additional residents are a cost negative.

- However, the additional residents are also a cost positive because they will shop at Raleys and Longs and eat at Mel’s Diner, and that will bring in sales tax revenue. And, when they have out of town guests they’ll take them to Main Street which appeals more to tourists than to local residents. Has the analysis been done to correlate the per person spending impact on the various business types in Jackson? That should be done before any claim can be made that the additional residents will benefit the local businesses in a significant way.

- The additional residents will also generate property taxes. This figure needs to be added to the sales tax revenue and the combination compared to the cost of services, such as police and fire protection, to determine if it is sufficient to bring that number into the black.

- There has been no analysis of how many Jackson City staff hours will be required to monitor this project. Whatever the cost for the additional FTE needs to be paid for by the developer, and not Jackson’s tax payers.

- The claim is made that this project will generate $6.2 million in developer fees. That would sound good to me if the direct costs in infrastructure and services were $6.2 million or less. However, just the traffic improvement costs and tertiary wastewater costs are $29 million.

I also wonder how the impact of the recent subprime mortgage meltdown is going to have on the housing industry here in Amador County. Experts say that we’re at the beginning a storm that will touch everyone. How many foreclosures will there be here in Jackson and Amador? What will it do to the housing prices? What will it do to our local economy? This may not be a good time to approve a project that could make a bad situation worse here in Jackson.

In conclusion, I applaud New Faze’s willingness to discuss needed changes with the city, agencies, and citizens to make the Jackson Hills project something that will be good for everyone. And I applaud the planning staff for their diligence in the process. But I am still concerned that this project has the potential of sucking Jackson into an economic quagmire.

ACSG Comment on Jackson Hills
May 7, 2007
Judith A. Jebian

Good Evening, members of the Planning Commission. Tonight I want to address you not as a resident of Jackson, although I am; but as vice chair of Amador Citizens for Smart Growth.

As you know, ACSG has submitted numerous comments regarding Jackson Hills. We would like to commend the Planning Commissioners for incorporating so many of our suggestions into the mitigation measures. In particular, we are happy to see that the traffic light on French Bar Rd. will be installed prior to the granting of occupancy.

ACSG is concerned about the traffic impacts to Jackson’s only arterial highway and supports all of the recommendations made by ACTC, especially the dedicated alternative transportation paths and trails. We really agree with ACTC that the neighborhood bus stops should become small neighborhood parks. Several smaller parks will enhance the green appearance of the project and will provide more places for the childhood activities of bicycles and scooters, for example.

We also like that the developer will be asked to extend potable water to the neighboring properties prior to completion of the golf course as well as monthly monitoring of groundwater quality. Additionally, we believe that these water considerations should be at the developer’s expense.

The recent California Supreme Court decision with regard to allocations of water and waste water capacity prior to approval of large developments suggests that Jackson would be prudent to delay giving approval to Jackson Hills until it has been determined that there is sufficient water and wastewater capacity for both the golf course and the increased demand of whatever number of homes is approved.

If this project is given approval, ACSG believes that the approval should still be conditional. New Faze should accept a smaller footprint for homes designed and laid out using the smart growth principles of clustering on small lots with garages accessed by alleys. Fewer homes should be approved, and they should be built using Green standards. ACSG agrees with the Commissioners that the developer should include affordable housing either within the project or adjacent to the site.

ACSG is very pleased to see that the Golf Course should be designed to the minimum level of a Silver Audubon certification. We think that will be an additional plus that will pay off in the long run. It is also our hope that many, many of the mature oaks would be preserved as part of the overall design features of golf course.

In general, we would like this project more if it were smaller, had fewer homes, adhered to the principles of Smart Growth, and had greater consideration for the beauty and habitat of the French Bar countryside. New Faze has agreed to a redesign to accommodate a buffer zone next to the neighboring ranches. We believe that a 40 foot buffer is still not adequate and that the buffer should be a minimum of 100 feet and that the fencing between the project and neighboring ranches should be an 8 foot welded wire for mutual protections and safety.

In addition to the open space incorporated within the golf course, parks and Ag buffers, large portions of this land, especially those portions which possess oak woodlands should be set aside as open space and left natural as it is. Homes on small lots that look out on large open areas have a feeling of expansiveness and have less maintenance as well. Water use is also minimized. It’s a win, win, win for the potential homeowner, the developer, and the community.

The DEIR MADE the statement that there are overriding consideration and “the Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts to land use, population/housing, transportation/ circulation, air quality, biological resources, cultural/paleontological resources, utilities (water supply), and aesthetics/visual resources as set forth in Section 4. The City Council has balanced these significant unavoidable impacts of the Project against the Projects benefits and, based on the entire record before it, hereby determines that the identified impacts are acceptable.”

ACSG respectfully disagrees that the identified impacts are acceptable. The 24 significant and unavoidable impacts are balanced against uncertain benefits such as a potential wastewater solution. It has been repeatedly shown that there are other alternatives to the golf course solution that are less expensive and have less of an impact on the environment and community, for example the waste water holding tank needed for winter wastewater storage that has a 1,000-foot diameter and is 20-feet deep. That diameter would be longer than 3 football fields placed end to end. Has it been determined that the cost of building this tank would be borne solely by the developer? If not, that should also be required of New Faze.

ACSG is not comfortable with the city’s statement of Overriding Consideration and is not at all comfortable with what little Jackson stands to benefit from this project. The project could be better designed, and the developer should take more responsibility to ensure that it really is built to Smart Growth standards.

New Faze acquired a beautiful property replete with potential. New Faze could have brought Jackson a project with vision that fit into our community and had solutions to our bigger problems such as wastewater disposal. It could have incorporated smart growth principles thereby lowering the impact on the land and on the environment, thus saving our air and preserving our oak woodlands. It could have suggested homes that are innovative, incorporating energy savings and green building techniques. It could have suggested designs that blend with the surrounding home styles and culture of the foothills.

New residents may add revenue to the City and to local businesses, but they will also add to the City’s already groaning infrastructure and services such as fire, police and schools. Furthermore, those new homes must be sold and occupied in order for them to provide a revenue stream of any kind. Have you noticed the For Sale signs and the For Rent signs around town lately? When an economic slumps hit, regions that are overbuilt and overpriced experience many problems and recovery is often long and difficult. Statewide, the current economic climate looks uncertain at best. At this time, large developments may be high risk ventures and this also needs to be taken into final consideration.

ACSG still has many unanswered questions about this project. We appreciate that Jackson has asked for many conditions of approval, but there is still more that can and should be done to make this the type of project that Jackson really deserves.

DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Jackson
Planning Commission
DATE:
March 28, 2007
FROM:
Nolte Associates
PROJ #:
SA0150701
SUBJECT:
Summary of Proposed Wastewater Solution
The following information is a summary description of the proposed wastewater disposal
solution for the Jackson Hills Project (the project). A schematic of the proposed solution is
attached for reference (see diagram A) and is described below:
• Wastewater generated from the project flows to the existing City treatment plant.
• Wastewater is treated to the current treatment level.
• A new pump station at the plant conveys all existing City, plus project effluent, to a
new City Tertiary Treatment facility to be located on the Jackson Hills project site.
(See Diagram C - attached site location sketch).
• Wastewater is treated to the Title 22 tertiary standard for unrestricted re-use.
• During the summer months, all treated effluent is utilized as golf course irrigation.
This results in no discharge to Jackson Creek during June, July, and August. .
• During the non-summer months of September through May, excess effluent that is not
used for irrigation would be discharged from the tertiary plant to Jackson Creek just up
stream of the treatment plant. The dilution ratio could exceed a 20:1 factor on occasion
during those months, but the discharged effluent would be treated to a higher, tertiary
standard.
• Some operational storage may be needed or desirable to optimize the capacity and cost of
the tertiary treatment plant. The location and cost of that storage should be determined.
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.80 million gallons per day (mgd), the estimated
construction cost of the tertiary wastewater treatment plant, pump stations, and forcemain is
$ 9 million.
The current wastewater permit for the City (Order No 5-00-173) was adopted in June 2000. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is currently developing an
updated wastewater discharge permit. It is expected that an administrative draft of the new
permit will be provided to the City for review by May 2007, and that the new permit will be
adopted in August 2007.
It is important for the City to have this alternative wastewater solution for the City of Jackson
considered by the Regional Board, during its current analysis. Because the updated wastewater

permit conditions will soon be available for review, it is recommended that the new permit be
evaluated before selecting a disposal option. It appears that using the 20:1 dilution ratio will
meet both California Toxics Rule (CTR) and California Department of Health Services (DHS)
criteria, but this should be verified before proceeding with plans to discharge to Jackson Creek.
Conclusion:
This proposed Jackson Hills wastewater solution can provide the City with a system that may be
easier to permit then the April 2004 proposal by Ecologic. That proposal summarized on page 3
would require a discharge permit to the Mokelumne River and will require less pipeline right-ofway
acquisition.

A comparison to previously proposed solutions:
In a report prepared for the City of Jackson, Wastewater Facilities Planning Report, prepared by
Eco:Logic in April 2004, a Best Apparent Alternative was defined and presented that is
summarized below. Schematic diagram B is attached for reference.
• Wastewater generated from the project flows to the existing City treatment plant.
• Wastewater is treated to current treatment level, and recirculated to achieve advanced
secondary effluent standards.
• Some advanced secondary effluent is discharged to Jackson Creek, potentially exceeding
the 20:1 dilution ratio on some occasions (discharge permit 1 required).
• New pump station at plant pumps remaining existing City plus project effluent toward
Jackson Hills project site, where it then flows by force main 2-3 miles south to the
Mokelumne river, where it is discharged (discharge permit 2 required).
• While passing through Jackson Hill’s property, some advanced secondary effluent
diverted to a tertiary treatment facility and subsequently used on the golf course, when
needed.

Proposed Sewer Facility Site
Diagram C

Partial Analysis of the Jackson Hills RDEIR

Presented verbally on December 18, 2006, by Wm. Orescan, RCE 30737

1 PREAMBLE

On October 3, 2005 I had made some brief remarks on the subject Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, (RDEIR) during which time the Planning Commission voted to approve it. However, the project was put on hold for one year by the developer, pending resolution of the Amador Water Agency's Water Transmission Project. When David Butow, City of Jackson Planning Commissioner, asked me on December 11, 2006 to look into this RDEIR for the meeting on the 18th, I asked if there were not available to the Planning Commission any city planner or city engineering staff who had the expertise to do the analysis for them. As Dave's answer was "no", I agreed to look into the matter, even though one week's time was very short notice.

It has always been my contention that city planning commissions and city councils need independent engineering analyses to guide them on technical matters, instead of relying exclusively on the developer or the engineers that he hires. Why? Simply because any developer's point of view is a biased one and slanted to his benefit, the degree of which depends on his business philosophy. I was reminded of city planner, Susan Peter's memo of last year of "What CEQA Does" and "What It Doesn't Do", which I interpreted as full disclosure of all pertinent facts that do not advocate or oppose a project, nor address economics. This is stated in the RDEIR page 1.0-2: "The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if: 1) it shows good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences."

Yet, here I found that this RDEIR addressed economics in the Volume 2 Appendix, which incidentally was slanted to the developer's point of view because similar analyses were not done for the other four alternatives to the project. Here also I found that, although the engineering analyses were generally good and even exceptionally so at times, some of the data was omitted, biased and deliberately faulty. Although I thought that most of the work of PMC, the EIR Consultant, was exceptionally good, I did notice that he not only failed to correct the biased and faulty data from the engineer, but also on occasion enhanced the bias to a higher degree. Some omissions of data undoubtedly were due to him. There were roadblocks to full disclosure in this RDEIR that made cursory review and critical analysis difficult, and I will point these out in this report.

Initially, I had wanted to analyze three areas for the 18th meeting, that of 1) Storm Drain, 2) Project Alternatives and 3) Water/Wastewater, specifically recycled water for the golf course irrigation. I yellow high-lighted portions of the RDEIR for the meeting, included some of my notes, and made 20 copies for the Planning Commission and members of the audience. Unfortunately, time only allowed for me to complete the first two subjects prior to the meeting, and during the meeting I was rushed to make any kind of a presentation fully understandable. Not all of what I wanted to be said got said. Therefore this written report for the record, as later requested by Dave Butow.

11 VISUAL DATA

1.0 Drawing Omissions:

1.1 Missing Map Scales: All maps produced in engineering or architectural offices are done on standard paper sizes. For mailing purposes, these standard paper sizes are folded per marked tabs, for easy insertion into manila envelopes. The drawings produced on these standard paper sizes are always done to scale, and pertinent titles, legends and scales, both written and graphical, are directly noted on the drawings. When any of these drawings are reduced in size, typically at 1/2 or 1/4, the reduction is noted. This requirement is mandatory for bidders and for others, in order that they may obtain the necessary information by scaling the reduced drawing when dimensions or other pertinent facts are missing from the drawing.

When I first looked at the RDEIR maps, I found that of the 20 maps in Volume 1, only two maps showed any map scale, (Figures 4.1-1 and 4.9-1). This year upon closer examination those two map scales turned out to be inaccurate, ostensibly because of improper map reduction. I know this, because it was necessary for me to know the respective map scales of all of the maps, in order to fully understand the ramifications of each of the drawings as they relate to each other. (I was able to determine all of the map scales to a fairly reliable degree, by noticing the photogrammetry "grid ticks" on Nolte's Figure 1, Storm Drain Master Plan, in Appendix 4.7, and using that knowledge with my examination of Figure 3.0-1, Project Location Map.)

There were13 maps that did not show any map scale, yet they were all on the same paper size 11"x 17" that represented the same limits of the project site. This omission begs the question: Why would PMC or Nolte deliberately delete the map scales in the later RDEIR versions of the maps, when all of the maps initially in the engineer's office were drawn with map scales attached? Figure 4.3-2 shows such partial deletion where a "blank nothing" appears after "approximate scale".

1.2 Varying Map Reductions: Furthermore, all of the above-mentioned 13 maps originated from the one full-size map by Nolte, made at 1" = 200', with 2' contours, aerial mapped by American Aerial Surveys Inc on 1-10-02 for Toma & Anderson, yet all of these 13 reduced maps, all on the same size sheets, all scaled differently from each other, anywhere between 1" = 547' and 1" = 740'. This variance in drawing reduction begs a second question, as to why was it necessary for PMC or Nolte to reduce each drawing differently. Some may say "So, what?" but it is important to understand that, when detailing the same project limits on the same size sheets, all map scales should be the same. Why? Simply because when any two drawings are over-layered together, either on a light table or held up to the sunlight, one can see where there is agreement of detail or not. Many professionals and contractors use this method of over-layering drawings to spot architectural or engineering errors. In this RDEIR, the varying reductions of the maps made analysis of the RDEIR more difficult for me, and maybe for others too if they were so inclined to go into detail. When one is in a hurry to review an EIR, the tendency is to assume that all of the information is somewhere and correct, and, if the information is of small importance and not readily available, then the matter is generally overlooked. Thus the varying map reductions had the effect of hampering an adequate examination of the drawings.

Yet, I found a few cases in the RDEIR where the map reproductions were done accurately. When I examined the drawings in Appendix 4.7, Storm Drain Master Plan, the Figure 1, Vicinity Map, was accurately reduced at 1/2, from the shown scale 1" = 200'. Also Figures 2, 3 and 4, all at full size with shown scales, were accurately reproduced at full size with the scales shown. So, if it could be done here in the appendix, then why could it not have been done in Volume 1 of the RDEIR?

1.3 Map Distortion: When I read about the Clark Ranch occupying a portion of the site, I was intrigued to know its location, but no map had been provided in the RDEIR. So I decided to plot the Clark Ranch from the description given in the text, on a copy of the 1" = 2,000' USGS map that I obtained from the County Surveyor's Office. I then compared my plot to Figure 3.0-1, Project Location Map, which was made by PMC. In making their map, PMC had used the same source that I had used, the 1" = 2,000' USGS map. I was perplexed to find that although Figure 3.0-1 was at the same scale in the north/south direction at 1" = 2,000', its scale in the east/west direction was stretched by 31%. How could this drawing distortion occur except by deliberate means?

I then reviewed PMC's Figure 3.0-2, Project Site, which used the same source, that is the 1" = 2,000' USGS map, and found that this figure scaled equally in both directions, even though it had been reduced to 1" = 815'. So, why was the reduction of Figure 3.0-2 okay in both directions, but the reproduction of the full scale Figure 3.0-1 distorted? Could this have been a trial balloon, where someone deliberately misrepresents data in order to see if the other person either knows the inaccuracy thereof or is unaware of it, and, if so, determines that the other person is unsophisticated and perhaps gullible? Possible scenario? Perhaps.

2.0 Drawing Misrepresentations:

2.1 Missing Roads on Road Plan: Figure 3.0-5, Proposed Concept Land Use Plan, and Figure 3.0-6, Proposed Circulation Plan, misrepresent the total project. This is because these project and road drawings simply do not show all of the roads. As noted before, the basis for these two drawings was the initial drawing from Nolte, which showed all of the roads, and, incidentally, all of these roads are shown on other non-related road drawings, specifically on Figure 3.0-7, Proposed Wastewater Facilities, Figure 3.0-8, Proposed Water Facilities, and Figure 1, Storm Drain Master Plan, in Appendix 4.7. So the question that comes to my mind is why was it necessary for PMC or Nolte to deliberately delete from the road drawing all of the private roads serving lot B2, lot B9, Lot B15, Lot B18 and Lot B19?

Though seemingly innocuous, this drawing misrepresentation has the effect of diverting any reviewer's focus on roads, to only those roads that are shown on the drawing directly in front of him. That reviewer might have remembered somewhere that there were other roads somewhere else, but would he flip the pages to search? If he did search, he would have trouble replacing the missing roads to the drawing in front of him. If he did not search, then most probably he is apt to forget and concentrate on what he sees in front of him. The extent of the project roads obviously does have a bearing on the magnitude of impacts as they relate to noise, air quality, biological and cultural resources, aesthetics, light and glare. Questions that might have been asked are never asked, and answering those unasked questions no longer poses a problem for the developer's team.

Now when the Figure 3.0-9, Phase 1, was drawn the Phase 2 roads were correctly deleted, in the area where the Phase 2 portion overlaps and is within the boundary of Phase 1, i.e. within the city limits. There is no excuse, however, for deleting the Phase 2 roads in Figure 3.0-5 and Figure 3.0-6, and I see this as but another example of not providing full disclosure.

Perhaps connected to this drawing misrepresentation of the roads is the fact that at one place in the RDEIR it lists 3.8 acres of private roads (Figure 3.0-5), whereas at another place it lists only 0.7 acres of private roads (Table 1, Proposed Land Uses At Jackson Hills, Appendix 4.11c, Water Master Plan).

2.2 Incomplete Geotechnical Data: Another instance of drawing misrepresentation occurs with Figure 4.3-1, Mine Sites Within Project Area, by Kleinfelder, as it does not give full geotechnical disclosure. All this map shows are some surface features related to mining, on a blank background, without contour information.

It is important to understand that after the aerial survey and contour map is made for the civil engineer, the next order of business for the developer is to hire a geologist or geotechnical engineer to perform site investigations. Typically the geologist/geotechnical engineer might pace or field measure to locate items of interest, and these are plotted on a contour map to show relevance of elevation. Typically the maps that they produce show the locations of the bore holes that they drill -- sometimes precisely surveyed to show rim elevations; locations of old slide areas that they determine from stereoscopic photographs; locations and delineations of rock outcrops that correlate to underlying bedrock formations and hidden faults and that usually are shown on supplemental cross sections of the site; plots that show other pertinent soil profiles with depths to weathered bedrock, the thickness of the weathered bedrock, locations of water tables and aquifers for the evaluation of potential groundwater contamination and if monitoring wells are feasible to mitigate any contamination. Faults maps are always included to show proximity to the site with expected earthquake magnitudes. That Kleinfelder had access to a contour map in 2002 is obvious, because Sycamore Environmental Consultants used the Nolte site contour map in 2002, as shown in Figure 4.7-1, Project Site Drainage. So what is missing from Figure 4.3-1 are data on bore holes, old slide areas, underlying bedrock formations, hidden faults, and soil profiles with depths to weathered bedrock, weathered bedrock depths, locations of water tables and aquifers. Since mining activity had occurred in the past, the extent of the mining claim and its underground tunnels below the property should have been determined from the State Mining Archives and shown, but they are not. The fault maps are not shown. Those mining items shown on the blank drawing of Figure 4.3-1 are disconnected from the project details, unless one goes to the extensive trouble of plotting them on another drawing, and nobody will do that. It is incumbent on the project to do that, so that the reviewer can relate how the site will be impacted with the known geological data.

The RDEIR text on geology appears to describe the geology quite well, but there are omissions as noted above that are necessary for an evaluation of environmental considerations. Importantly, the impact of the written text is substantially reduced when the maps of the Kleinfelder report are not included in the RDEIR for reference. Very few experts, let alone public readers, are able to amass and visualize all the written words and place them accurately in their minds' eye of the site. Omissions of those maps have the effect of making Figure 4.3-1 less informative and less subject to scrutiny and questions.

3.0 Drawing Substitution:

3.1 Stormwater Plan: The text in Appendix 4.7, Storm Drain Master Plan, describes detention basins, which are an integral part of all storm drain plans. Why were the detention basins not shown on Figure 1, Storm Drain Master Plan, or on any other plan in the RDEIR? The only reference to these detention basins is in Table 5, Required Detention Volumes, but significantly not spelled out are any factual data on the maximum acreage extent of the storm water in the detention basin, the maximum depth of the storm water in the detention basin, and the time that it takes for the majority of the storm water to flow out of the detention basin. Full documentation? Hardly. Not many people would have realized that most of the proposed 3.0-acre park would actually be a stormwater detention basin, a facility that I consider to be incompatible with park usage and that could pose risks to any park stroller. Detention basins will be discussed later in this report. `

Also Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Appendix 4.7, refer to "design point", yet these design points are not shown on Figure 1, Storm Drain Master Plan, or on any other plan in the RDEIR. Why?

Upon closer examination I noticed in paragraph 3.3, Design Points, of the appendix, the statement, "that locations at which hydraulic information is needed are indicated on Figure 5 and labeled as design points. Design points are indicated on Figure 5 by a triangle with a number inside as shown on the legend sheet". Similarly, in paragraph 3.5, Peak Discharge Mitigation, it states, "the locations where detention is to be considered are labeled on Figure 5". So where was Figure 5? According to the table of contents, Figure 5, Storm Drainage Master Plan was included in the inside back cover pocket, but there is no Figure 5 in the Appendix 4.7 or anywhere else. What we do find, however, is Figure 1, Storm Drain Master Plan, which has no legend, no graphical scale, no labeled design points, no detention basins, and no whatever else that was shown on Figure 5. It is clear that the former well-defined drawing was removed from the appendix, and in its stead another drawing that gives very little detail was placed there. One drawing title is "Drain" and the other drawing title is "Drainage" -- two entirely different drawings.

Was this a possible mistake by PMC or Nolte? Perhaps, but it should be noted that each engineer that submits information to an EIR Consultant has an obligation, as part of his scope of work, to review his submitted portion and make the necessary corrections. This is customary practice. We know that Nolte did in fact extensively review and comment on all aspects of the RDEIR, as evidenced by letter 8 in the FEIR, showing 48 comments on 21 type-written pages. I presume that Nolte would have made some examination of his portion of the project. It does little good to do a splendid job of engineering, only to have significant portions omitted or misrepresented in the RDEIR, unless of course the developer mandates it otherwise. After all, it is he, the developer, who is paying the bill.

4.0 Missing Drawings:

4.1 Preliminary Grading Plan: It is common practice on large development projects that civil engineers prepare preliminary grading plans to make sure that the site can accommodate the features envisioned for a site. A preliminary grading plan showing proposed contours has not been included in the RDEIR, and, in fact, only existing contours have been shown (Figure 3.0-8 Proposed Water Facilities; Figure 3.0-9 Phase 1; Figure 4.9-2 Proposed Tree Removal; and Storm Drain Master Plan in Appendix 4.11c), which means that the plan of the proposed contours has been deliberately omitted from the RDEIR.

It is evident that a preliminary grading plan had been prepared for the project from a careful reading of the descriptions on page 3.0-31 under the paragraph "Construction". For examples: 1) "the golf course holes have been laid out...while following the general character of the terrain....Grading would be confined to as close to the golf holes as possible, leaving areas lateral to and between the holes natural and undisturbed. Total volumes of excavation and fills on the golf course are anticipated to be between 400,000 and 450,000 cubic yards." 2) "The major drainage courses have been maintained in their existing locations, with some required modifications." 3) "Excavation and fill of as much as 15-20 feet in depth may be required in some areas." 4) "Overall, cut and fills are proposed to be balanced on-site." 5) Roadway, residential and community center development would also require grading that would cut and fill activity on the project site."

I submit that the lack of information on the proposed contours deprives any reviewer of the information he needs to properly assess environmental issues relating to noise, air quality, hydrology and water quality, biological and natural resources, cultural resources, aesthetics/visual resources/light glare, and agricultural resources.

Let me illustrate with one of the environmental variables, agriculture resources of which I have little knowledge. It had been argued that there should be a 100-foot buffer zone between the existing agricultural lands with cattle grazing which create odors, flies and noise, and urban lands that create litter and trespassing; in its stead a solid 8-foot high barrier was incorporated as mitigation measure 4.13.2a.

Now I am quite certain that everyone would have visualized this ag/urban barrier as occurring on a level ground, cows on the one side, the tall barrier, and people on the other side. But what if the reviewer knew that the cows were 15' to 20' higher in elevation than the people on the other side of the barrier. Would that have eliminated the odors, flies and the noise? Similarly what if the reviewer knew that the people were 15' to 20' higher in elevation than the cows on the other side of the barrier. Would that have eliminated the urban litter onto agricultural lands? The latter two examples show that it is important to know in what context that 8-foot barrier would be constructed, as it is not too certain that the objectives would have been met. And so it is with the other environmental variables that I will leave for the reader to determine. Grading 15' to 20' lower or higher definitely enters into any consideration of effects. This is not full disclosure as required by CEQA, nor is it acceptable for the RDEIR to have deliberately limited this information to the reviewer.

On page 4.1-15, it states that, "Table 4.1-3 evaluates project consistency with the Amador County General Plan. As noted above, no conflict with either General Plan's land use policies were identified that would result in a significant impact on the environment." When one looks at that Table 4.1-3 in the third paragraph, the site-specific regulations state that, "Incomplete plans would be returned." PMC's analysis states a "Yes" compliance, based on the assertion that, "A detailed site plan for the development for Phase 1 of the project and an overall master development plan for the entire site (Phase 2) has been provided to the City. The environmental effects of development under Phase 1 and 2 have been evaluated in this EIR pursuant to CEQA". Now I fail to see how a submittal to the City, without a submittal within this RDEIR, is grounds for an environmental assessment pursuant to CEQA.

In discussing Impact 4.1.4 (potentially significant) and impact 4.1.9 (potentially significant) and impact 4.1.11 (cumulative significant), the proposed project may conflict with surrounding land uses, mitigation measure 4.13.2a with its 8-foot barrier is supposed to fix any problems between conflicting land uses -- but we have already seen that that was done by deliberately withholding knowledge from the reviewer.

4.2 Water Plan: In Appendix 4.11c, Water Master Plan, the table of contents lists Figure 2, Jackson Hills Golf Club and Community Water Master Plan Potable Water System. This drawing was omitted from the appendix, and one must wonder why. Although the Figure 1, Site Plan (without any map scale), was included in the appendix, the question remains as to why Figure 2 was deliberately omitted. Was this drawing any different from the PMC labeled drawing in Volume 1, Figure 3.0-8, Proposed Water Facilities? That there are two different drawings is obvious from the drawing titles. Who knows if these two drawings differ in content as well?

4.3 Wastewater Plan: Similarly, in Appendix 4.11d, Wastewater Master Plan, the table of contents lists Figure 2, On-Site Collection and Off-Site Conveyance Network. This drawing was omitted from the appendix, and again one must wonder why. Although the Figure 1, Site Plan, was included in the appendix (still again without any map scale), the question remains as to why Figure 2 was deliberately omitted, except possibly to hide facts? Was this drawing any different from the PMC labeled drawing in Volume 1, Figure 3.0-7, Proposed Wastewater Facilities? There are two different drawings as evidenced by the drawing titles. I suspect, however, that those two drawings do differ in content.

4.4 Missing Reclaimed Water Facilities: One possible explanation for the deliberate omissions of the two above-noted drawings, may have been a concerted effort to downplay any data on recycled water, which incidentally should have been discussed more fully in a separate section of the RDEIR -- as is customarily done, but it was not. Recycled water is mixed in with and discussed along with domestic water in the water service section 4.11.4, and similarly recycled water is mixed in with and discussed along with wastewater in the wastewater section 4.11.5. There are instances where recycled water and domestic water are discussed within the same impact sentence, and where recycled water and wastewater are discussed within the same impact sentence. This is neither acceptable nor standard practice. There is not any one coherent section describing the on-site and off-site recycled water facilities contrary to the statement on page 4.11-48 second last paragraph, "Off-site facilities proposed consist of a wastewater conveyance pipeline and a recycled water pipeline. The environmental effects of these off-site facilities are addressed in the various technical sections of this document".

When I looked at either Figure 3.0-8, Proposed Water Facilities, or at Figure 3.0-7, Proposed Wastewater Facilities, I could find no facility of the recycled water system, and I wondered why would there be a deliberate omission of these recycled water facilities from the drawings. Nolte in Appendix 4.11c, pages 6 and 7, describes these facilities as:

1) A 3,185gpm recycled water pump station at the WWTP. The Irrigation Consultant, Harvey Mills Design, had determined the flow rate for this pump station. In addition to the construction of this pump station, presumably the Jackson Hills residents would be paying for the annual pumping costs.

2) A 10-inch force main, from the pump station at the WWTP, 300 ' in elevation up the hill to the site. Incidentally a 10-inch force main is too small because it would produce velocities that are too high. The pipeline should be a 14-inch according to my calculations. (Later on I found in Appendix 4.11d, Table 5, page 9, that it stated an 18-inch force main was needed for the recycled water pump station. Why the disparity?)

3) A 3mg operational recycled water storage reservoir to accommodate the maximum monthly irrigation flow rate of 1,026,000gpd for a period of three days. The on-site storage would be a tank, either above or below ground, or an open water pond incorporated into the landscaping. (Later on I found in Appendix 4.11d, Table 5, that a 1/2mg recycled water storage tank was proposed, which would be much too inadequate for the maximum monthly rate and three day period. Again, why the disparity in data?)

(If one looks at the recycled water costs in table 7, the pump station and the force main are included but the storage reservoir is excluded. If one looks in table 5, the pump station, the force main and the reservoir are included. However, the unit costs for any of these three items are significantly understated in both of these tables.)

When one reads the RDEIR text on page 3.0-21 under off-site wastewater conveyance it states, "The construction of a wastewater conveyance pipeline and recycled water pipeline is proposed" without mentioning the necessary pump station or storage facility. The language of the RDEIR is couched so as to hide what the developer's true commitments for the project are. For example, it could have been expressed as follows: the developer 's proposal includes a recycled water pump station at the existing WWTP, a recycled water pipeline from there to the site, and storage areas for the recycled water to offset any operational needs, provided the city decides to treat the wastewater to the required standards for golf course use. What the RDEIR fails to do is to state what the developer's commitments are, and what he expects the city to do. This specificity has not been stated, and instead convoluted terms are used everywhere throughout the RDEIR whenever recycled wastewater is referred to. This is demonstrated in the above example: "recycled water pipeline is proposed". The reference as to who is doing the proposing is deliberately avoided. The developer? The city? And so the environmental aspect of "this proposal" is obscured by deliberate evasion of facts, and, consequently, any reviewer never asks the right questions and the project team does have to answer to un-asked questions.

Another example on page 3.0-25, under conceptual design of a reclamation facility, it states that, "Given the project site's elevation in relation to the existing WWTP, the reclamation facility could be located within the project area." yet nowhere is there a commitment from the developer to the city to supply such a site, and so it leaves the reviewer to wonder at whose cost will all this be done, at the developer's, or the city's, or both, and to what degree. It's this "wishy-washy" stance that I object to, for it might appear that a weasel is trying to get the taxpayers of Jackson to pay for part of the developer's development. Importantly for the environmental aspects of this issue, it is also unclear if the "wishy-washy" stance is part of the developer's project that should have been included in his RDEIR, or is it part of the city's obligation in their EIR if they should chose to supply reclaimed water. Further on it states that, "Storage could be provided at multiple locations in the process, including: ....tertiary effluent stored after treatment, prior to being pumped out to the golf course for irrigation...." and again, that leaves one to wonder is the developer willing to construct this or is he expecting that the city will construct it for him, and if it is the developer's commitment, then its environmental aspects should have been addressed in his RDEIR.

On page 3.0-26 in the first paragraph it states, " The capacity and location of the storage facilities must be determined based on several factors including the production rate and the quantity of secondary effluent available from the existing WWTP...." ???? what nonsense is this! ...Nolte already has that information and it is clearly spelled out in Tables 4.11.4-6, 4.11.5-4 and 4.11.5-5. This same nonsense continues in the same sentence,..."and the irrigation demand pattern on the golf course." ???? again nonsense language, because the monthly irrigation demands already have been spelled out in Table 4.11.4-6, which included Harvey Mills Design's accounting for the "pattern on the golf course" with his uniformity distribution factor. These are words that make no sense, and it appears that they are only used to confuse the issue of recycled water rather than illuminate it, otherwise why does the RDEIR purposely indicate that it does not have the data at hand when it is obvious that it does?

Bill Condrashoff's comment on wastewater in letter 11-7 of the FEIR, made reference to the RDEIR text on page 3.0-21, Off-Site Wastewater Conveyance. The purpose here is to note that Bill referred to Figure 3.0-7 and to the text that states: "The construction of a wastewater conveyance pipeline and recycled water pipeline is proposed. These lines would likely tie into the City's existing wastewater treatment plant that is served by the City of Jackson, and located approximately 1/2-mile northwest of the project site. ... The recycled water would then be returned to the project site and used for golf course irrigation through a recycled water pipeline." This description is reinforced by the short discussion under Impact 4.11.5.1 on page 4.11-48.

It was much later while I was thoroughly reviewing all of the RDEIR maps that I noticed Figure 4.9-1, Biological Resources Within The Project Area, and that map, unbelievably, showed "Alternate 1 Sewer/Reclaimed Water" and "Alternate 2 Sewer/Reclaimed Water". So why was the recycled water pipeline shown on that unrelated map, but not on the related water or sewer drawings? This evidence revealed that there had been a concerted effort to erase any recycled water facilities from the project drawings ostensibly to hide facts from the reviewer. This sleight of hand, like a magician's, worked to fool everybody, for no one seems to have noticed the omission, nor had anyone made any comment in the letters in the FEIR in this regard.

Because the project drawings failed to show the locations and details of the reclaimed water system extending from the WWTP and throughout the site, this entire subject matter was bypassed in the RDEIR, and scrutiny of this important issue was thereby avoided.

5.0 Conclusion:

In conclusion, the above evidence shows that the presentation of visual data in this RDEIR is grossly deficient, and that information that could have been provided was deliberately withheld. I further submit that this RDEIR is not in the spirit of CEQA for full disclosure. As to whether the tabular and text data is fully disclosed in the RDEIR, is an issue that is examined in the next section.

111 TABULAR and TEXT DATA

1.0 Difficulty of Data Presentation:

1.1 Preamble: In the FEIR letter 10-13, Planning Commissioner Terri Works complained that she had trouble with the different units used to measure water flow, and she stated, "I had decided I was going to understand every word about water in this thing, and believe me, I don't". The PMC response was to provide a six-line summary of water demands versus availability expressed in units of mgd (million gallons per day).

I also believe that part of the problem for her, as well as for others who are not engineers, is the fact that it is difficult for any person to visualize any "million" quantity, or even any "one-hundred-thousand" quantity. Let me illustrate.

As water flows in an open channel, the cross-sectional area of the water in square feet, as that cross-section moves along at a velocity of so many feet per second, yields cubic feet per second. This is called the discharge. Mathematically this is expressed as: AV = Q. The discharge then is nothing more than some flowing volume during a unit of time. The same applies to pipe flow.

The volume units could be expressed in cubic feet as illustrated above, or in gallons, or in acre-feet, whereas the time units could be in seconds as illustrated above, or in days, or in years. It is the volume units that most people have problems with.

All too often people will use some conversion factor that is a rounded-off number, and this will produce varying results, which causes others to question as to whose figure is right and whose figure is wrong. To avoid this nonsense in computing volumes, for gallons I always use the definition that a standard US gallon equals 231 cubic inches, knowing full well that there are 12"x12"x12" in a cubic foot. Similarly, in computing an acre-foot volume, all one needs to remember is that the acre (about 209'x209') derives from the old English surveyor's chain measurement, which is defined as exactly equal to 66 feet, and ten square chains equals one acre, or 10x66'x66'. Thus any cubic foot volume can be easily converted to an acre-foot volume.

Now lets consider the visualization aspect. I find that most people can visualize a two-gallon bucket of water or a five-gallon can of gasoline, but to visualize 100,000 or one million of these gallons is hard to do. On the other hand, many people own property and are aware of its size in acres. Simply put, a volume of 10 ac-ft is the same as, 10 acres filled to a depth of one foot, or one acre filled to a depth of 10 feet, or 1/2 an acre filled to a depth of 20 feet, and so on. This I find is much easier to visualize. In the attachments that follow, I will be copying the RDEIR tables exactly as they are shown, and in an adjacent column I will be showing the flow or volume data in the much easier visualization units of ac-ft. I also find that it is very informative to show percentages when comparing data, which PMC had not done.

Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy, in the FEIR letter 9-25 notes that, "While the water and wastewater sections of this (R)DEIR contain a great deal of data, it is not presented in a way that enables the reviewer to quickly analyze the real impacts of the project". The PMC response was to state, "Given the complexity of water and wastewater demands associated with the project and the potential use of recycled water, it is difficult to easily summarize the conclusions of project demand and service impacts. However, Revised Draft EIR tables 4.11.4-5, 4.11.4-6, 4.11.5-4 and 4.11.5-5 do provide a summary of project water and wastewater demands". In the following paragraphs I will examine these tables in this order: 1st, 3rd, 4th and 2nd.

1.2 Water Demand Table: The first table Katherine Evatt was referred to is Table 4.11.4-5, domestic water demand, and the reader should note that this table is an update of Nolte's Table 3, which is in Appendix 4.11c. The update changed Nolte's gpd/edu from 375 to 400, resulting in an increase in the average daily water demand from 214,600gpd to 228,370gpd. I have included the former table as Attachment 1, and have shown the corresponding ac-ft/yr rates in the adjacent column. The text above this table states "(These numbers do not reflect potable water to be used for supplemental irrigation purposes"), and reference is made to the irrigation water demand table and the statement, " If a plan to upgrade the WWTP to provide recycled water to the project should be adopted, the capacity of the WWTP is such that the amount of recycled water the WWTP would be capable of producing would not fully meet all the project's irrigation demands between the months of June and August, and supplemental domestic water would be required to fully meet the project's irrigation demands". At the bottom of the paragraph, the text continues "It is estimated that this supplemental irrigation water demand would be at least 0.021 million gallons per year." So what does the irrigation table show? June 30days x 128,000 gallons

July 31 days x 318,000 gallons

Aug 31 days x 240,000 gallons, the total of which equals 21.38 million gallons (64.86 ac-ft). Now how could PMC have made such a gross error when it is obvious that 0.021 mg is only 21,000 gallons. Is it incompetence or simply a matter to distort information? None of the RDEIR reviewers seems to have noticed this blunder as no mention was made of it in the comments in the FEIR.

Attachment 1 shows that the domestic water used to irrigate the golf course would add another 25.4% to the residential use. The project's total domestic water demand would increase the city's existing demand of 1,097.74 ac-ft/yr (980,000gpd) by another 29.1% to 1,418.41 ac-ft/yr. I think that PMC could have done a better job of explaining this, especially since Nolte's Table 8 in Appendix 4.11c correctly added the maximum month irrigation demand to the residential demand. That PMC had this information from Nolte is clear, so the question that comes to my mind is why was it necessary for PMC to provide some fictitious irrigation water demand number? Was it simply an error or a deliberate masking of the facts?

2.0 Data Bias and Misrepresentations:

2.1 Wastewater Table: The third table Katherine Evatt was referred to is Table 4.11.5-4, wastewater generation, and the reader should note that this table copies the first part of Nolte's Table 2, which is in Appendix 4.11d. I have included the former table as Attachment 2, and have shown the corresponding ac-ft/yr rates in the adjacent column. However, in his table Nolte incorrectly added the 162,000gpd residential subtotal to the 9,500gpd recreational subtotal for an incorrect average "dry weather" flow of 171,000gpd, instead of the correct figure of 171,500gpd. PMC tried to correct Nolte's inappropriate "round-down" figure in Table 4.11.5-4 by showing it as 171,500gpd, but they failed to follow through in making the same corrections in the two subsequent tables, Tables 4.11.5-5, wastewater average and peak flows and Table 4.11.4-6, irrigation water demand. Accordingly, I penciled in the "adjustments" on Attachment 2 to conform to the later two tables as a reminder, knowing that these later tables in the RDEIR are slightly understating the average "dry weather" flow.

It turns that 74.9% of the residential water consumption of the city ends up as sewage that is treated at the WWTP. What is important to note about this table, however, is that PMC mislabeled the total bottom line as, "Total Combined Residential and Recreation" instead of the more accurate description that this total represented the project's average "dry weather" flow. Accordingly I penciled in the correct description to show the misrepresentation. This misdirection of information was not contained in Nolte's single display in Table 2. By deliberately splitting Nolte's table into two tables (4.11.5-4 and 4.11.5-5), PMC needlessly muddled up the correct terminology of this table. Instead of illuminating the issue, PMC confused the issue. Was this mislabeling intentional or a careless error?

On page 3.0-16 it states that the developer's preferred wastewater service option would be connection to the City's WWTP, and that an alternative would be to treat the wastewater on-site. I would note that the alternate proposal does not appear to be viable, given that the Lake Comanche area is experiencing problems with their system, i.e. too many people and insufficient capacity for the soils of the leach field to absorb more effluent.

2.1.1 Wastewater Terminology: Before discussing the remainder of Attachment 2 and the other two tables that Katherine Evatt was referred to, it is well for the reader to understand the various terms used by engineers in describing sewage flows. During any "dry weather" day, the average daily flow is calculated for the different land uses of a project. If we look at the plant wastewater flows during that same 24-hour day we would notice very little flow at night, that rises significantly as people prepare to go to work in the morning. Then it would decline and rise again at suppertime. Long ago this daily variation in wastewater was examined and a formula established between the average flow and the peak flow. This formula, called the peak factor, varies with population. The larger the population, the smaller the peak factor, as shown by the formula: 5/P to the 0.2 power, where P is the population in 1000's. Conversely, a smaller population results in a larger peak factor. Hence the terminologies, average "dry weather" flow and peak "dry weather" flow.

During the rainy season in winter, stormwater enters into the sewer system via leaks at all the pipe joints and at all the manholes, both through the holes in the cover and through the space between the cover and the rim. During a rainstorm the plot of wastewater at the plant shows this effect by a characteristic hydrograph shape, which is very large and pronounced above the small ups and downs of the sewage flow. Engineers refer to this as "infiltration/inflow", and the standard allowance for calculating this rate is either, 300gpd/ac or 30,000gpd/mile of sewer pipe, which allowances are applicable for a well-built sewer system. This allowance rate is added to the peak "dry weather" flow, to get a corresponding peak "wet weather" flow. It is the peak "wet weather" flow that is used to design the sewer pipes, pump stations and the plant, otherwise designs based on smaller flows would require some 'reservoir' to temporarily hold all that incoming sewage and stormwater inflow. During the "dry weather" season, these pipes, pump stations and plant would be subjected to reduced flows, which would vary from very low flows at night to peak flows when people are preparing to go to work in the morning. It is also obvious that there would be a difference in flow rates from summer to winter because of the stormwater infiltration/inflow during the wintertime. The inescapable conclusion is that a project's annual generation of sewage flow to the WTTP should, and would, vary over the year.

2.1.2 Historical Wastewater Data: To determine the summer to winter relationship, engineers have used historical data obtained from existing treatment plants, and Nolte had done so in Table 4, Summary of Historical Wastewater Flows, City of Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant, in Appendix 4.11d, page 7. These flows January through December are also shown in the first column of the irrigation water demand Table 4.11.4-6. For the 2001-2002 period the "year-average" flow was 602,000gpd, and in the year 2002 that "year-average" flow increased to 613,000gpd. Nolte had calculated these flows by the "rough method" of adding the numbers and dividing the total by twelve, instead of using the more accurate method of accounting for the various numbers of days in each month, which results in 611,888gpd.

Nolte's 2002-year historical data shows that during the summer six-month period from April to September the flows are markedly lower than the six-month winter period from October to March. The former period designates the average "dry weather" season versus the latter, which designates the average "wet weather" season, according to standard usage that the wet weather season begins on the first of October. Using Nolte's data the 183-day average "dry weather" flow calculates to 558,328gpd, and the 182-day average "wet weather" flow calculates to 665,742gpd.

As stated above the project's 183-day average "dry weather" flow is 171,000gpd, and it is not unrealistic to presume that the project's 182-day average "wet weather" flow would correspond to the city experience, and accordingly this was calculated to 203,898gpd.

At this point I am reminded of the RDEIR text on page 4.0-1 where it discusses baseline environmental conditions that, "Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published," i.e. November 2002. Nolte used the 2002-year data in preparing his Wastewater Master Plan report in March 2003. Thus the 2002-year is the basis for stating the city's current status as required by CEQA, otherwise data from any other time period could be manipulated ad infinitum to show conformance to any desired number.

When the rounded-down figure of the project's average "dry weather" flow, 171,000gpd is added to the city's average "dry weather" flow of 558,328gpd the total is 729,328gpd. However, when the project's average "wet weather" flow of 203,898gpd is added to the city's average "wet weather" flow of 665,742gpd the total is 869,640gpd which is clearly above the capacity of the city's WWTP at 710,000gpd. This is shown on Attachment 2. As it is difficult in the paragraph of a text for one to visualize all the various flow numbers, accordingly I have shown them in the following table in gallon-per-day units:

City + Project = Total Capacity

claimed existing demand 518,000 xxx xxx xxx

lowest month "dry weather" flow 537,000 xxx xxx xxx

183-day average "dry weather" flow 558,328 + 171,000 = 729,328 xxx

365-day year-average flow 611,888 + 187,404 = 799,292 xxx

182-day average "wet weather" flow 665,742 + 203,898* = 869,640 710,000

(* Under peak "wet weather" flows this would be 602,000gpd. See section 2.2).

However, the text of the RDEIR says something quite differently from what is shown in the above table and on Attachment 2. The four paragraphs above the table in Attachment 2, relate to Impact 4.11.5.2 that state: "At build-out, the proposed project would result in increased wastewater flows. Additionally, the project proposes to utilize recycled water for irrigation on the site. This is considered a significant impact." The last paragraph states, " As discussed the city's WWTP current treatment capacity is 0.71mgd. According to the tables, the project would generate a daily average of approximately 0.17mgd under build-out conditions, which, combined with the existing demands on the WWTP (0.518mgd), would equal 0.69mgd and be within the current treatment capacity of the facility." ????

So now we see how the data has been manipulated. First they state the city's WWTP capacity without qualifying it as to "wet weather" flow capacity. Then they use project's 171,000gpd -- the rounded down number --without qualifying it as a "dry weather" flow, and they add it to some "existing demand" that obviously is not within the baseline year as required by CEQA, nor is it qualified as to "dry" or "wet" weather, and then they contend that the project will not impact the city's WWTP. A little "tweak" here and a little "fudge" there, and no one will notice. It might appear that this developer and his consultants from the big city of Sacramento might be trying "to pull the wool over the eyes" of those folks in the foothills of Jackson. Perhaps, but did anyone pick up on the misrepresentation of the data? I doubt it as no one mentioned it in the letters in the FEIR. That magician's sleight of hand worked again. Why couldn't they have just told the truth like they are supposed to in an EIR?

2.1.3 Corollary: So what is the net result of the wastewater flows and recycled water for irrigation under impact 4.11.5.2? According to the standards of significance on page 4.11-47 wastewater treatment disposal impacts are considered to be significant if implementation of the project will result in a determination that the wastewater treatment provider has inadequate capacity to serve the project's estimated demand in addition to existing commitments. However, the city as the wastewater provider was considering increasing the WWTP flow to 820,000gpd even though no specific designs had been developed by the year 2005, and the city was considering even higher flows to accommodate the 1940 residents of other pending developments in addition to the 1620 residents of the Jackson Hills. Thus the developer's pressure on the city amounts to transferring the significant impact from the developer's shoulders onto the city's shoulders at a cost to Jackson's citizens who get water from the city and send their wastewater to the WWTP. The city is required to address a new EIR if it wants to increase the plant size to accommodate the developer, while the developer's significant impact is mitigated to less than significant by some future performance standard that may or may not be feasible. The mitigation measure MM 4.11.52b is such a performance standard. Thus any close examination of the issue of recycled water use for golf course irrigation is effectively bypassed in the RDEIR -- a clever strategy used by this developer and his EIR Consultant.

This thought is echoed to a degree in Katherine Evatt's comment letter 9-31 in the FEIR that states, "Mitigation measure 4.11.5.2b requires the project to prepare and submit recycled water estimates for all project phases. Those estimates should be a part of the application and analyzed in the EIR. Mitigation measure 4.11.5.2c requires a later report. It should be submitted now and analyzed in the EIR." PMC's response was, "This mitigation measure consists of performance standards to ensure adequate design and operation of the recycle water irrigation system. The use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a) and is supported by case law (Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento [3d. Dist 1991] 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028 [280 Cal.Rptr.478])." However, the RDEIR did provide examples that served as a basis for PMC's determination that golf courses irrigated with reclaimed water have been successful with adopted mitigation measures. It is this basis that needs examination as to whether the Jackson Hills site is similar to the golf courses that have served as the basis for the case law. Before I address this claim, I need to disclose other information and will examine this aspect later in this report.

2.2 Average and Peak Flows and Infiltration/Inflow Table: The fourth table Katherine Evatt was referred to is Table 4.11.5-5, Projected Average Wastewater Flows at the Project, another title that PMC had mislabeled, since the table contains both average and peak flow data. This table copies the second part of Nolte's Table 2 -- a four-line summary of wastewater flows --, which is copied as Attachment 3, and it shows ac-ft/yr rates in an adjacent column. The average "dry weather" flow of 171,000gpd -- the rounded-down number -- , when increased by a 3.0 peak factor, results in a peak "dry weather" flow of 513,000gpd. This 3.0 peak factor is shown in the footnote. However, neither Nolte nor PMC is forthcoming to advise the reader that the 3.0 peak factor corresponds to a population of 13,000 residents for the City of Jackson, versus our current population of 4,400. If the city decides to limit their future population to something less than 13,000 residents, then as discussed previously a larger peak flow factor would result, and this would increase the project's peak "dry weather" flow higher than the 513,000gpd of the RDEIR.

The standard infiltration/inflow of 89,000gpd when added to the peak "dry weather flow of 513,000gpd results in the peak "wet weather" flow of 602,000gpd. Attachment 3 shows that the ratio from peak "dry weather" flow to peak "wet weather" flow results in an increase of 17.4% due to the addition of the standard rate for stormwater infiltration/inflow.

2.3 Irrigation Water Demand Table:

2.3.1 Bias of the Irrigation Table: The second and last table Katherine Evatt was referred to is Table 4.11.4-6, irrigation water demand, which is copied as Attachment 4. For ease of reference I numbered the columns, (1) through column (5), for the city wastewater, project wastewater, total wastewater, recycled water demand and supplemental water needed for irrigation. The data of this table is the same as Nolte's Table 6 in Appendix 4.11c. The display of the data in column (5) is biased. Nolte initiated this biased display in favor of the developer because it left the city with unanswered information of what were the impacts to the city. A closer look shows that the total wastewater in column (3) is greater than the recycled water demand in column (4) for most of the time. The normal thing that most people would have done would be to show column (3), less column (4), equal to column (5), resulting in 9 positive numbers that would indicate the city's excess recycled water to dispose of in the months from September to May. It would also result in three negative numbers that would indicate the city's shortage of recycled water to supply to the project in the months from June to August, which could have been shown in an adjacent column (5). Instead by a clever footnote, Nolte reversed the order, i.e. "Supplemental water = recycled water demand - Available wastewater (zero if negative)." This ruse prominently displayed the project's lack of irrigation water at the expense of, and to the disadvantage of, the city. The city was left with a column of zeroes that provided no information on the impact to the city. PMC further compounded Nolte's bias of the data display by omitting Nolte's footnote altogether in their version of the table as shown in Attachment 4.

This is hardly what I would call "full disclosure of information" for it is just the opposite of deliberately hiding information from the reviewer. Almost everyone looking at that table acknowledged that the project lacked sufficient recycled water to meet its irrigation demands, or so they thought. Jim Abercrombie's K-7 letter in the FEIR noted that, "Since the City of Jackson's wastewater treatment plant effluent would not fully meet all of the Project's irrigation demands between the months of June and August, supplemental water could be provided from a regional tertiary treatment plant, possibly located in Martell." Katherine Evatt's 9-29 letter in the FEIR stated that, "If the (R)DEIR is accurate, there will not be enough wastewater to meet irrigation demand, leaving a need for 111 ac-ft/yr of potable water for irrigation use in Phase 1 and 65 ac-ft/yr in Phase 2." Bill Condrashoff's 11-3 letter in the FEIR states, "The golf course will require more water than will be available from the city of Jackson's wastewater facility, and will use treated (domestic) water to supplement its needs." Only one person questioned the impact to the city to dispose of the excess wastewater/recycled water, and that in the 11-7 letter in the FEIR by Bill Condrashoff. It states that, "If the development does not agree to take all of the wastewater in every month of the year, the city of Jackson will have to come up with a way to dispose of the unwanted wastewater when the golf course does not need the water." Bill did not quantify that unwanted wastewater.

Another problem with the display of the data in this table is that it is awkward to use because one cannot simply add the monthly gallon-per-day flows because of the varying days in each of the months. The table provides no totals at the bottom line or averages that could help with a better understanding. As mentioned earlier, Katherine Evatt was correct in stating that the data was not presented in a way that enables the reviewer to quickly analyze the real impacts of the project.

2.3.2 Expanded Irrigation Table Without Correction of Project's Wastewater: For the benefit of this paper and to address this oversight in the RDEIR, which I believe was intentional considering all of the criticisms that so far have been noted, I have included Attachment 5, which is an expanded version of Attachment 4. I added a volume column in ac-ft units to each of the corresponding gallon-per-day columns. Also the original column (5) was expanded to show not only values for "city excess wastewater to dispose of" but also the complementary "city shortage of recycled water to supply". Furthermore, at the bottom of each of the 12 columns I have shown average "dry weather" and "year-average" rates where applicable as well as total volumes.

The data in column (1) of this table is the available wastewater from the City of Jackson in conformance with Nolte's 2002-year historical wastewater data noted previously. The total annual volume of 685.40 ac-ft results in a 365-day "year-average" flow of 611,888gpd versus the average 183-day "dry weather" flow of 558,328gpd. Incidentally, not shown for lack of space is the average182-day "wet weather" flow of 665,742gpd.

The data in column (2) is the wastewater from Jackson Hills, and it was not adjusted at this stage but left incorrect as per the original by Nolte and the RDEIR. It is displayed at a constant 171,000gpd for each of the twelve months. What Nolte was trying to do here was to add the "oranges" of column (2) to the "apples" of column (1) and hoping that those folks in the foothills of the Sierras in Jackson would not notice. As I have previously shown, the inescapable conclusion is that a project's annual generation of sewage flow to the WWTP should vary over the year. It is idiotic to assert, as the RDEIR does, that the project would only contribute average "dry weather" flows to the WWTP throughout the entire year, but all other parts of the city would contribute not only low, average, and peak "dry weather" flows but also low, average, and peak "wet weather" flows. But one person did notice. Bill Condrashoff criticized the flows in column (2) in letter 11-14 in the FEIR that stated, "The table shows the project creating 171,000gpd of wastewater independent of month. The table also shows that the City of Jackson's current wastewater output varies greatly depending on month. Why would this development create identical monthly wastewater flows when the City of Jackson's flows vary greatly? I believe the Jackson Hills predicted wastewater outputs should be adjusted to reflect this large variance in flows." PMC replied to Bill with a misdirected answer that one flow was based on "land use" while the other was seasonal which was true enough, but it still did not address Bill's point that Nolte was incorrect in the first place for mixing the "oranges" in with "apples". The PMC answer was given to make it appear that Bill's reasoning was somehow "misguided" and that the RDEIR was correct in what was presented. It would have been so simple for PMC to acknowledge the truth of the matter -- but they did not.

Accordingly, knowing that column (2) is incorrect to some degree, the bottom line information on this Attachment 5 is also incorrect to some degree. Given this warning proviso, the project adds 27.9% to the city's wastewater (contrary to Attachment 2). The data shows that the project would use only 59.8% of the available wastewater, (523.99 ac-ft out of the 876.95 ac-ft total available). To make up for the rest of its total irrigation needs (588.84 ac-ft/yr), the project would use 64.86 ac-ft of domestic water. The city would be left with the remainder 40.2% of the initially available amount to dispose of (352.96 ac-ft).

2.3.3 Expanded Irrigation Table With Correction of Project's Wastewater: Attachment 6 corrects Nolte's column (2) by adjusting Nolte's identical monthly flows to the 2002-year varying flows of the city. Consequently, because of the addition of stormwater infiltration /inflow in the winter months to column (2), column (2)'s total has increased from 191.54 ac-ft to 209.91 ac-ft, which now shows it adds 30.6% to the city's wastewater (in agreement with Attachment 2). This is also reflected in the year-averages, from the erroneous 171,000gpd "year-average" of Attachment 5, to the correct 187,404gpd "year-average" of Attachment 6, while at the same time still maintaining the same average "dry weather" flow of 171,000gpd. This correction to column (2) also increases the total available flows in column (3). Therefore column (3), less the same column (4), yields larger quantities in column (5), both for the city to dispose of and for city shortage to supply. Therefore the project would increase its use of domestic water from the 64.86 ac-ft of Attachment 5 to the 66.26 ac-ft of Attachment 6, and also the project's use of recycled water would decline from 59.8% of Attachment 5 to 58.4% of Attachment 6. Meanwhile the impact to the city would be to dispose of a greater percentage of the wastewater/recycled water from 40.2% of Attachment 5 to 41.6% of Attachment 6.

2.3.4 Assumption of Correct Irrigation Demand: All of the above assumes that the recycled water demand of column (4) is correct, which is the crux of the matter. There were comments questioning the validity of the winter irrigation of the golf course. Bill Condrashoff in letter 10-3 in the FEIR states that, "They're not going to be irrigating that, uh, lawn, their lawn 6 months out of the year, or at least I don't believe they will be... Does anybody in this room irrigate their lawns in (February and January) those months of the year here, I know I don't. ..in fact most people are trying to keep their lawns dry." ; and PMC's response was "Regarding golf course irrigation during the winter months, it is expected that the golf course would require irrigation year-round (except during precipitation events)."

Frank Busi in letter 10-4 in the FEIR stated that, "I irrigate with probably from the first of June til into the first of November, I'm dried up..." and PMC's response to Frank was to see their prior 10-3 response to Bill.

Not satisfied with PMC's prior response Bill Condrashoff raised the issue again in letter 11-4 in the FEIR that states, " From approximately November to March, there should be no need to irrigate the golf course. Why would irrigation be necessary during the rainy winter months, when most of us are trying to keep our lawns from getting too soggy? Yet the RDEIR states that there will be a demand for treated wastewater year round. I don't believe it." PMC's response stated that, " The commenter provides no evidence that no golf course irrigation would not be required during winter months. As noted on page 5 of the Jackson Hills Domestic Water Master Plan, the irrigation needs of golf course turf and landscape were based on evapotranspiration data for the region (see Appendix 4.11 of the Revised Draft EIR)."

And so, the gauntlet was laid down for a new issue to explore and evidence to gather. This issue is crucial, and for the reader to understand it better, it is best if it is explained in the next separate section that follows.

3.0 Are Nolte's Irrigation Water Demands Credible?

3.1 Review of Nolte's Recycled Water Demand:

Nolte's recycled water demands came from his irrigation consultant, Harvey Mills Design. Their eight-page appendix, pages WP-1 through WP-8, was incorporated at the end of Nolte's Appendix 4.11c.

Of the 194.9-acre golf course, 57.9 acres would not be irrigated. Irrigation water projections were developed for the remaining 137 acres divided into three areas as follows:

112 acres cool season turf

20 acres landscaping

5 acres lakes, as shown on the summary sheet WP-1, copied as Attachment 7.

For each of the three areas the monthly irrigation water projections are shown on pages WP-3, WP-4 and WP-7, copied as Attachments 8a, 8b and 8c. The application rates in inches per month, January through December, are also shown on the table and bar chart. These application rates are different for each of the three areas, and, when they are multiplied by their respective acreages, the results corroborated the gallon volumes as shown by Harvey Mills Design. In addition I was able to corroborate the peak gallon-per-minute flows occurring in July to a fairly reliable degree, as this served as the basis for sizing the irrigation pump station located adjacent to the WWTP at 3,185gpm, which is summarized on Attachment 7.

When I summed up the gallons of required irrigation water for the three areas for each of the twelve months, and divided by the appropriate number of days, the results in gallons-per-day were compared to the gallon-per-day recycled water demands in Nolte's Table 4, copied as Attachment 9. Nolte's recycled water demands did not correspond to the data from Harvey Mills Design, and I could not understand why not. As a registered civil engineer I should be able to duplicate another civil engineer's calculations, as any round-offs would make very little difference. Whereas the Harvey Mills Design figures are in corresponding relationships to each of the evapotranspiration rates, (denoted by ET₀ in inches per month, x the leaching factor, LF), Nolte's figures varied up and down and did not so correspond. Further evidence suggested that Nolte had, subsequent to the April 29, 2003 report from Harvey Mills Design, revised and increased his numbers, although not uniformly. This is evident by noting the following. The Harvey Mills Design sums up to 188,463,374 gallons for the year, which equates to 578.37 ac-ft/yr, in agreement with the 578 ac-ft/yr shown in the text below the table. On the other hand the summation of Nolte's recycled water demands shows 191,876,000 gallons for the year, which calculates to 588.84 ac-ft/yr and not in agreement with the text. Nowhere had Nolte provided back up for his revised and increased figures, and accordingly I so marked up his figures in Attachment 9, "NO BACKUP for these FIGURES". Was this another deliberate "fudging" of the data? Perhaps, but I could not proceed further with Nolte's data and non-existent explanation.

Page WP-8, copied as Attachment 10, summarizes the four irrigation variables that I did not understand at the time as to why they are used in calculating application rates for irrigation water projections. Only the values for ET_0, evapotranspiration, and LF, leaching factor, were taken from Attachment 10 for inclusion in Nolte's Table 4 in Attachment 9. The other two variables, K_c, crop coefficient, and DU, distribution uniformity, were not so incorporated. By trial and error I was able to deduce the following formulas for the application rates, the values of which were already shown for each of the following areas. These formulas are as follows:

112 acre cool season turf, application rate = (ET₀)(LF)(K_c= 0.80)/(DU = 0.80), in inches/month

20 acre landscaping, application rate = (ET₀)(LF)(K_c=0.60)/(DU = 0.70), in inches/month

5 acre lakes, application rate = (ET₀)(K_c= 0.84), in inches/month

Evidently it was time for me to contact these people at Harvey Mills Design to discuss their source of data and methodology, and this is shown in the next section.

3.2 The Harvey Mills Design Contact:

From Yahoo.com I was able to locate Harvey Mills Design in southern California and Arizona where they have offices and have done most of their projects. Attachment 11 from their website gives details on Brent Harvey, the degreed landscape architect of the firm with 12 years experience and his associate Marvin Mills with 14 years experience. Another page from their website, copied as Attachment 12, showed a typical bar chart identical to those shown on Attachments 7, 8a, 8b and 8c. Accordingly, on November 13, 2005 I telephoned and spoke with Marvin Mills and questioned him about the bar chart on his web page. He readily acknowledged, according to my scribbled notes at the time, that a typical bar chart like this is an evapotranspiration offset, and that it does not include the effects of rainfall or account for daily variations in the maximum month. When I asked if they included rainfall in places where it rained a lot, he replied that it could be done. When I asked where he got his data on evapotranspiration rates, he referred me to "CIMIS".

3.3 What is CIMIS?

Some more searching on Yahoo.com led me to the CIMIS website, an acronym for the California Irrigation Management Information System. Throughout the State of California the Department of Water Resources had set up weather measuring stations mostly on grassy plots of land. The automatic stations record eight different variables: 1) precipitation, 2) solar radiation, 3) vapor pressure, 4) air temperature, 5) humidity, 6) dew point, 7) wind speed and 8) soil temperature. These minute-by-minute recordings are used to tabulate hourly and daily values, and for calculating evapotranspiration rates, or ET₀'s as they are commonly referred to. The "zero" subscript in ET₀is referenced to the grassy plot of land of the weather station.

I have attached a number of the CIMIS website pages that I printed at the time on November 3, 2005. These attachments describe the CIMIS system far better than I can, and I offer but a brief description of each and leave it for the interested reader to read more thoroughly.

Attachment 13 is my log-on sheet to CIMIS on 11/3/05. (My Persian cat's name is Ziggy Marley).

Attachment 14 is the CIMIS overview.

Attachment 15 is the CIMIS map for the central district of California that did not show any CIMIS station in Amador County. Since I needed to corroborate the variables used by Harvey Mills Design I had hoped to get reliable data from adjacent stations. My scribbled notes refer to four possible stations for data to analyze: 1) Camino#13 in El Dorado County, 2) Fair Oaks #131 in Sacramento County, 3) Nicolaus #30 in Sutter County, and 4) Brown Valley #84 in Yuba County.

Attachment 16 is the CIMIS station list. I missed finding the one for Amador County on 11/3/05. It was much later after I had done my analyses that I did find it, the Shenandoah Valley #81 near Plymouth on inactive status. This station was active from May 1, 1990 to May 17, 2000, but I did not want to go through repeating all my prior efforts of re-analyzing the data. A good reason for this reluctance is that when I looked at the average ET₀'s for the total active period of the station they did not exactly correspond to the Harvey Mills Design ET₀'s, which evidently were averaged over some other period of time. Thus it would have been difficult to determine their period of time, and to determine it within any reasonable amount of time and effort.

Attachment 17 is the CIMIS ET overview. The reader should note that it states that precipitation and irrigation are the two primary sources of water for plants to use. Harvey Mills Design did not use precipitation values in calculating their irrigation water projections.

Attachment 18 is the CIMIS topic on crop coefficients, commonly abbreviated K_c. The values range from 0.1 to 1.2 for the different types of crops, and they differ as to the degree that a crop has grown from a seedling to a mature plant. A crop coefficient is used as a factor with the ET₀ values that vary from January to December, and when so multiplied together they are abbreviated ET without the zero subscript.

In the Harvey Mills Design the constant K_c values used were as follows: cool season turf.....0.80

landscaping...........0.60

lakes......................0.84

Attachment 19 is the CIMIS irrigation overview. The reader should note the third paragraph that states, "Water inputs to the plant root zone include 1) rainfall, 2) irrigation water and 3) capillary rise from ground water. The outputs include 1) runoff, 2) evapotranspiration and 3) deep percolation." The inputs are the positive water amounts to the soil, while the outputs are the negative water amounts from the soil, the same concept as what you would use in balancing a checkbook -- cash in (the positive inputs) and cash out (the negative outputs). This is easier to visualize in a table:

+ water to the soil - water from the soil

1) rainfall 1) runoff

2) irrigation 2) ET = (ET₀)x(K_c)

3) capillary rise 3) deep percolation

Instead the Harvey Mills Design used + inputs and - outputs as follows:

+ water to the soil - water from the soil

1) 1)

2) irrigation 2) ET = (ET₀)x(K_c)

3) 3) deep percolation

For the deep percolation variable I see this as being synonymous with the LF leaching factor used by Harvey Mills Design. Their basic formula for the irrigation application rate is equal to (ET₀)x(LF)x(K_c)/(DU). As shown in Attachment 9 the leaching factor varies from 1.00 to 1.20 with a 1.05 year-average value. It appears that as summer progresses the ground gets warmer and the leaching factor increases. In order to better understand the effects of this leaching factor, consider it equal to 1.00, and this means that there isn't any deep percolation into the soil below the plant's root zone, and it is as if there was a concrete-lined bottom that prevents deeper percolation. With leaching factors greater than 1.00, there needs to be more irrigation water to replace the loss of water due to the deeper percolation below the plant's root zone.

The distribution uniformity factor DU has the two values as shown in Attachment 10, but this irrigation term was not discussed in CIMIS. Per the terminology, I suspect its effects are the result from spraying large-sized areas from large-sized nozzles as is typically done. The DU factor is a divisor, so that when inversed, its true effect is known. For example 1/0.80 = 1.25, and similarly 1/0.70 = 1.43. In other words 25% more irrigation water needs to be applied when irrigating cool season turf and 43% more irrigation water needs to be applied to landscaped areas. This makes sense when one considers spray patterns. The sprayed areas are circular only under the ideal condition of zero wind velocity, and even then there will be overlapped spray patterns. With any wind velocity, the sprayed areas become elliptical in shape, and more elliptical with higher wind velocities. In order to get coverage of all the areas there will be over-spraying, and this fact will directly lead to runoff conditions that are imperceptible to notice even to the person monitoring the irrigation.

Let me illustrate this point. In the past I had done a spraying program from a waste pond where the majority of the effluent was stormwater inflow. We needed to reduce the dangerous pond depth in order to construct a dam immediately below the pond, and accordingly we had the water samples analyzed at the University of California and their got their determination that the spraying would not affect the grazing cattle. The spraying was done at the top of the ridgelines, similar to this site, where the tall grasses provided larger surface areas for evaporation of the sprayed effluent. Spraying was limited to three minutes at a location to preclude over saturation of the soil. Adjacent locations further along the hilltop ridge were sprayed, each in its turn. After about an hour, the first spray location was checked for dryness and the procedure repeated. Unknown to us at the time the hilltop and those gentle swales had a shallower soil depth than we thought, and they became shallower as the hill got steeper off-site, again similar to this site. That effluent flowed on top of the bedrock merging into the center swales. The soils in the swales above the bedrock got thinner and thinner as the effluent coursed further down the hill, until all of the soils were gone and the streambed turned into open sand and gravel beds. It was only there that we eventually noticed the runoff, some 400 feet in elevation below the site where we were spraying. At the top the conditions were dry before we re-sprayed an area and runoff at the top was imperceptible, even with a person standing by and watching that three minutes of spraying. I knew it to be our runoff because of the water samples that I took and compared to the effluent that we were spraying. The contaminants in the effluent, after coursing on top of the bedrock, were not removed, simply because of the steeper off-site slopes and fast rate of flow. The time of year was in the hot summer when evaporation was at its maximum. So that underneath the grasses you do not see the amount that surface flows or percolates or flows on top of the bedrock. It is imperceptible to the naked eye. With any degree of slope, the steeper the slope, the more pronounced the runoff will be. You will only get zero runoff on a flat plane, which this site does not possess. This is an environmental issue that needs to be examined. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to examine this issue, as it has been effectively by-passed in the RDEIR by some performance standard that is allowable under CEQA. I strongly object to the notion that I am not allowed to question issues that are of an environmental importance, and I assert that it is idiotic of CEQA to blindly allow such a by-pass without attached conditions.

As to the + input 3), capillary rise, I have no problem with its omission since its contribution of water to the soil is small. However, I do have a major disagreement that the net rainfall, i.e. rainfall less runoff, should not have been omitted in the Harvey Mills Design irrigation water projections, but, again, Nolte dictated their scope of work. Since Harvey Mills Design readily acknowledged that rainfall data from CIMIS could've been included in their calculations, it is reasonable to assert that Nolte required that they provide him with the evapotranspiration data and that he would take over from there and complete calculating the water budget. As it turns out Nolte deliberately used the incomplete Harvey Mills Design irrigation projections in the RDEIR, and these were double what they should have been, as will be proved further on. Neither did Nolte provide any water budget calculations in the RDEIR to correct the misrepresentation of data.

Attachment 20 is the CIMIS water budget. The positive inputs of water to the soil, less the negative outputs of water from the soil, result in water storage within the soil. This is shown in equation format. I added the "dew" input to the diagram, and to the equation, per the description, but its value may have already been included in measured rainfalls.

Attachment 20a shows the notes that I made to a copy of Attachment 20 so that I could calculate the required irrigation amounts. The storage, S, amount is zero just prior to the winter rains. Then zero = + precipitation values from CIMIS + required irrigation amounts when S starts to fall below zero + capillary rise which is negligible + dew formation which is negligible - evapotranspiration values from CIMIS - deep percolation which is small and neglected for now - rainfall runoff which can be easily calculated from the Rational Formula used in storm drainage design. The variables that I used are shown in the same table format as above:

+ water to the soil - water from the soil

1) rainfall 1) runoff

2) irrigation 2) ET₀ (see note)

3) 3) (see note)

(Note: The omission of the leaching factor LF, together with the variables K_c and DU of the Harvey Mills Design, results in a 2.04% understatement, when the different acreages are taken into account for the three areas. As will be shown later in Attachment 22, this understatement is offset by a 2.76% overstatement because of the CIMIS ET₀values that I used.)

Attachment 21 is the two-page CIMIS irrigation scheduling that provides a sample calculation of the water balance method. This sample calculation was done on a daily basis, but the method is also applicable on a monthly basis, which is what Harvey Mills Design had done, except they disregarded the major effects of net rainfall. All units are in inches in the sample calculations. In this sample calculation the field in July has already been irrigated to the maximum, and the water storage in the soil, S is gradually depleted as evapotranspiration occurs. Irrigation is required once more when the field water storage approaches zero. I chose to start my water budget calculations in the late fall when water storage in the soil is practically zero and just before the winter rains -- which is the same as CIMIS except for the initial starting time.

3.4 Water Budgets for El Dorado and Yuba Counties (2003 - 2004):

From the four possible weather stations shown on Attachment 15, I chose to analyze Camino #13 in El Dorado County and Brown Valley #84 in Yuba County. Precipitation values and ET₀ values in inches were recorded from November 2002 through December 2004 on a monthly basis, and these are shown on Attachment 22. The January to December monthly ET₀ values were averaged, comparedto the Harvey Mills Design values for (ET₀)(LF) and plotted. The CIMIS data graph shows slightly higher values than for Amador County, indicating that the water budgets for Camino #13 and for Brown Valley #84 would show slightly greater amounts of required irrigation water by 2.76%. This would be reduced because of the 2.04% understatement discussed briefly above.

Attachment 23 shows the water budgets for Camino #13 and Brown Valley #84, with the starting storage = 0 at the start of the winter rains. This was done over a continuous two-year period for each station. For each month the following were added or subtracted to find the storage in the next month, i.e. + precipitation and + irrigation and - runoff and - ET₀ and disregarding deep percolation i.e. the small effect of the leaching factor = the S, storage value in the next month. The results of Attachment 23 show that irrigation is only required during the following monthly periods during that two-year analysis:

Camino #13 in El Dorado County:- from 7/03 thru 11/03 and from 5/04 thru 9/04.

Brown Valley #84 in Yuba County:- from 7/03 thru 10/03 and from 6/04 thru 11/04

The CIMIS results show a remarkable correlation to reality, for recall what Frank Busi had said, "I irrigate with probably from the first of June til into the first of November, I'm dried up..." Now this statement came from one who has farmed the land for many years, yet his remark was brushed aside by PMC as if he did not matter. There are others in Amador County who regularly use CIMIS, and over the telephone CIMIS will tell them when to irrigate. A rancher who once delivered firewood to my home in late 2005 told me this when we talked about Jackson Hills. Bill Condrashoff, a chemical engineer, also knew that one does not irrigate in the winter months in these foothills, but lacking the terminology of a civil engineer he could not "prove it on paper" as demanded by PMC. Well, there you have your proof, and from no greater an authority than the State of California. I merely brought it to light.

In order to complete the CIMIS comparison with Nolte's data, the data from Attachment 23 was entered on Attachment 24, where the four years of irrigation, (measured in inches of water to be applied to acreage), were added and averaged to a one-year basis. These then were applied to the total 137 irrigated acres of the project. These resulting monthly volumes are shown in ac-ft and mg units, in addition to the gallon-per-day units. Nolte's monthly irrigation rates from Attachment 4 have been placed alongside the CIMIS data for comparison. Where Nolte claims that they will need irrigation all year long, the CIMIS data contradicts Nolte showing that for five months there will be zero irrigation and for one month there will be negligible irrigation. Where Nolte claims that they need 191,876,000 gallons of irrigation water over the course of a year, the CIMIS data contradicts Nolte by showing that a much smaller quantity of 97,681,497 gallons per year is required. In other words Nolte and the RDEIR presented data that is overstated by 196.4% -- which of course is understandable when one realizes that they deliberately omitted any rainfall from their calculations. Such a gross misrepresentation of the facts corrupts all prior assertions by PMC, Nolte and the developer.

4.0 Conclusion:

And so we return full circle to the question that section 3.0 first asked, "Are Nolte's Irrigation Water Demands Credible? The answer is an unequivocal and resounding no -- not by a long shot. Was Harvey Mills Design responsible for the gross misrepresentation of the irrigation requirements in the RDEIR? Undoubtedly not, since Harvey Mills Design freely admitted that it was only a evapotranspiration offset that did not include rainfall, and Nolte as a professional civil engineer also knew this. When reviewers questioned the exaggerated irrigation requirements in the RDEIR, they were dismissed by the project that demanded evidence -- proof on paper. When Katherine Evatt suggested a reasonable solution for the project's apparent lack of recycled water in June, July and August, and the project's apparent need for domestic water in letter 9-9 in the FEIR that stated, "Develop and maintain stormwater collection and retention basins to provide additional irrigation water for the golf course turf and related areas", the PMC response was an insult as to infer that Katherine did not comprehend the RDEIR by stating, " The commenter is referred to Section 4.11 (Public Services) of the Revised Draft EIR regarding project water supply and irrigation demands." They could have responded, "Great idea, thanks. We will pass it along to the developer." -- but they did not, and for a reason.

All of the above omissions and biased and misleading representations of the drawings and the data in the text, contrary to CEQA for full disclosure, indicates that there was a deliberate policy to mislead any reviewer and to supply him with erroneous data in order to further the developer's agenda. And that agenda was stated on page 3.0-26, "Some, or all of the storage facilities containing tertiary effluent could potentially be used as golf course water features if properly designed." So here was the carrot, the enticement, the fishing line let out a bit more In other words, though their golf course irrigation water demands on 137 acres were only 299.90 ac-ft, (instead of the 588.84 ac-ft they claimed were necessary), they were further proposing to handle all 895.32 ac-ft of available wastewater.

And how would this be accomplished? The city would do an EIR for a reclaimed water facility and build it at city and taxpayer expense. Meanwhile the developer would incur no liability in this course of action, and he would have the advantage of using only what he needed at minimal or very little cost -- for after all it was he, the developer, that was part of the solution to the city's problem, or so he claims, but the reader should note that it is a problem which he magnified in the first place with his project and huge demands.

And what if the city in the future decided on further development? Could that small site irrigate even greater amounts of recycled water? I doubt it, as the soil has only a certain capacity to absorb any effluent or water, and thereafter it runs off, as I have demonstrated before with my experience with a site similar to the Jackson Hills.

Attachment 25 is a copy of Table 4.13-7, Soil Layer for Auburn Silt Loam that appears in the agricultural resources section page 4.13-8. This is the predominant soil on the Jackson Hills site. The other site soils are rocky loams of different degree, which have less capacity to absorb percolated water. The reader should realize how thin this soil layer is at 14-inches. If it were the only soil throughout the entire site, its total volume would be 602.12 ac-ft. At its 30% maximum capacity limit to absorb percolated water, this tells you that only 180 ac-ft could be applied over the entire 516-acre site before extreme runoff conditions would occur.

Now the developer is trying to convince you that he could use ponds and irrigation to get rid of 895.32 ac-ft of wastewater. His scheme is not workable, particularly when you note that there is solid bedrock immediately below this thin soil layer. Solid bedrock, as everyone knows, absorbs some, but very little percolated water. When extreme runoff conditions occur there will be surface runoff and underground runoff on top of the solid bedrock. The portion that will flow on top of the bedrock will not be filtered in a short travel length unlike water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains that traverses many miles. Groundwater runoff will pop out to the surface and appear in the swales, rivulets and creeks off-site from the project. The section on Hydrology and Water Quality does not address this aspect, and the only reference to soils is the short half sentence on page 4.7-6, "... and soils are relatively thin with shallow underlying bedrock."

The soil conditions on the Jackson Hills site are the same at my home, on a hill just below the Jackson Elementary School. The 12" storm drainpipe from the inlet below the school is barely covered with soil. I found out that I hit bedrock one-foot down when I wanted to plant rose trees and when I wanted to provide ground clearance to the wood siding along the back of the house. There was not any weathered rock but only solid bedrock.

Even with the irrigation required for the 137-acre golf course and landscaped areas, there will be a small amount of runoff that will flow through the grasses, unseen by the naked eye, and it will course off-site -- either through the detention basins or along the periphery where there are not any concrete "V" ditches to intercept the runoff. On December 18, 2006 I presented a drawing that showed places where there would be direct runoff off-site along the project's boundary lines. It's easy to determine this. All one needs to do is draw a pencil line from the top straight down and perpendicular to the contours, the same way water would flow.

Now knowing all these facts is it not somewhat strange that the soil profiles were not provided in the geology section of the RDEIR? One should also note page 1.0-6 of the RDEIR that states, "Geology and Soils (section) addresses the potential impacts the project may have on soils, soil suitability for development and seismic hazards for proposed development". This is fine and customary for all developments, but nowhere does that section address the capacity of the site soils to absorb percolated water, much less 895.32 ac-ft of wastewater effluent.

Let us also consider mitigation measure on page 2.0-32 of the RDEIR, MM 4.7.2 where it states that, "Guidelines for the operation of the golf course that take into consideration the field capacity of soil types and the timing with chemical applications". The reader should note how deceiving the wording is: "field capacity of soil types". To the uninitiated it seems perfectly OK, but that is not the case, because we already know the soil types, some very rocky, some rocky and others not rocky loams. So what the wording has not disclosed is that the capacity of the soils is heavily dependent on how deep those soils are. The deeper the soil, the more capacity to hold water, and conversely -- well, you guessed it -- very little for the Jackson Hills site. See what I mean about the misrepresentations in the RDEIR?

So it is well to think of the ramifications of this significant venture, for after the project is done and the developer goes back home to the flatlands of Sacramento, the City of Jackson would be left with a Homeowners Association. And things will not go as planned, as I will show in the next sections. The city will be blamed for letting the development proceed when they should have known better, and the lawsuits will follow. For such a large and prominent issue, it is incumbent on the City of Jackson to get expert independent engineering guidance, preferably from an academic professor at the University of California at Berkeley, someone not in the business of land development, and not rely on the developer's engineers for they will only do the developer's bidding as has been demonstrated. If the presentation of the data in the RDEIR had been candid and forthright, that would have demonstrated integrity. But that is not what has happened in the RDEIR. I have shown that there are so many places where full disclosure of information has not been forthcoming, from the visual data to the tabular and text data, and all of this done deliberately to hide factual information, which constitutes "substantial evidence" as defined by CEQA Section 15384.

It should be noted under CEQA Section 15084, Preparing the Draft EIR, that the City may accept a draft prepared by the project applicant. However, before using such draft, the City as the lead agency shall subject the draft to the agency's own review and analysis. The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR (15084(e)).

It is obvious that if the City had done as required with personnel knowledgeable, not only with the CEQA process but also with engineering, then there would not have been the biased data misrepresentations that I have uncovered. Therefore my prior admonition to the City to hire outside independent expert advice was well -founded.

There is another requirement of CEQA that I found interesting, in the fact that the guidelines were not adhered to by the City of Jackson. CEQA Section 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states that, "the lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response." The City itself has not complied with this obligation, but instead allowed the developer's EIR Consultant, PMC, to do this chore for the City, as evidenced by the title page of the FEIR. This represents a conflict of interest by PMC, and this directly resulted in responses that were not objective, were not in the best interests of the City, but were in fact biased in favor of the developer.

I do not see that the adequacy of the RDEIR/FEIR documents have been met given the above circumstances. This is substantiated in CEQA Section 15091, Findings, Inyo v. Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, where the Court restated that, "the courts do not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an information document."

4.1 Post-FEIR Erroneous Data:

Attachment 26 is a copy of Table 4, Application Depth for Jackson Hills, which is part of Nolte's report on the Analysis of Wastewater Storage and Disposal Options, dated February 2006. Only some pages of this report were presented at the Planning Commission's public meeting on December 18, 2006. I did not get a full copy until much later on 2/14/07, thinking that this "water budget method" was three years too late, as it should have been in the first EIR in 2003.

The immediate nonsense of Nolte's latest table was obvious -- because missing is a column for "rainfall runoff". Every child knows that when it rains there is "surface runoff", but this fact seems to have escaped Nolte's engineers.

The second thing that I noticed (because I had reviewed the Harvey Mills Design data), was that the three irrigation variables were not taken into account. These were the LF leaching factor, K_ccrop coefficient, and DU distribution uniformity, the values of which apply to the different areas that need to be irrigated as shown by Harvey Mills Design.

The third thing that I noticed in column (5), inches depth of irrigation water, was that Nolte now acknowledged that irrigation was no longer required in four months, December, January, February and March. Evidently Nolte, stung by the criticisms of the reviewers, now was trying to correct his assertion in his RDEIR Table 4.11.4-6, copied as Attachment 4, that irrigation was required all year long -- "except, that is, during precipitation events" was PMC's response.

The fourth thing that I noticed was the huge percolation depths in inches. It is as if Nolte was unaware that the predominant Auburn silt loams soils of the site were a mere 14 inches thick on top of solid bedrock.

The fifth and fatal mistake that I noticed, after examination of the table, was that Nolte did not know how to do a "water budget", at least not according to the State of California's Department of Water Resources, which is documented in the CIMIS website. Either that, or that Nolte has deliberately chosen to misrepresent facts. This becomes evident on the second and third lines of the footnote that states, "zero when negative". This is the same ploy that Nolte had used in Table 6 in Appendix 4.11c when he biased the display of the data for Table 4.11.4-6, irrigation water demand, when he stated "Supplemental water = recycled water demand - available wastewater (zero if negative)". By doing this subterfuge of "zero when negative", Nolte dismisses the storage, S capacity of the soil that is a requirement of the CIMIS equation. And it is to be noted that the CIMIS concept "water storage in the soils" is really not that difficult to comprehend. It is because of that "water storage in the soils" that we continue to get water flow into swales, rivulets and streams many months after it has stopped raining in the wintertime. It's what keeps the streams flowing -- though at gradually reducing rates as time goes by. Most people understand this notion, and so should have a civil engineer like Nolte.

The sixth and last thing wrong with this table is its over-exaggeration of the needed amount of irrigation water, the same over-exaggeration as Nolte had previously done in the RDEIR. In column (6), I calculated the ac-ft volume that Nolte's "depth" would be if irrigated on the same 137 acres of the RDEIR, and in the adjacent column (7) I have shown the CIMIS volume for the same acreage from Attachment 24. Nolte's erroneous claim is nearly doubled what it should have been at 183 % exaggeration.

There are other things wrong with Nolte's other tables in this report, but I will not go into them since my attention needs to address the rest of the RDEIR.

IV MITIGATIONS. WILL THEY WORK?

1.0 Preamble:

The RDEIR places much emphasis on Best Management Practices (BMP's) and on the bases for contending that golf courses are successful with mitigation measures. I shall refer to the latter simply as "Bases" for ease of description. It is these assumptions of the RDEIR that I am challenging as to their effectiveness for this particular Jackson Hills site -- though I contend that they are worthwhile for a more suitable site. Accordingly, I am listing these criteria and assigning them a number for easy reference. Any wording in bold lettering is due to my emphasis:

The project applicant anticipates the use of the following BMP's:

BMP#1: Routing of impervious surfaces with (onto) pervious surfaces (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP#2: Treatment of runoff from outdoor golf maintenance storage areas (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP #3: Conversion of project drainage flows to sheet flow conditions to reduce flow concentration and erosion (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP#4: Biofiltration through the use of vegetated swales (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP#5: Permanent erosion control features at (along) drainage courses (RDEIR page 4.7-15). The CHAMP or similar management plan shall incorporate the following: A description of chemicals... Guidelines shall include restrictions on their use near drainage systems. (FEIR page 2.0-31)

BMP#6: Use of detention basins (dry extended type) (RDEIR page 4.7-15); MM 4.11.5.2b Use of recycled water shall be designed to avoid potential human health impacts from contact ... (FEIR page 2.0-76)

BMP#7: Use of detention basins (wet extended type) (RDEIR page 4.7-15); The CHAMP or similar management plan shall incorporate the following: A description of golf course design features that prevent direct discharges of surface runoff into stream channels without water quality controls (e.g. engineered wetland features) (FEIR page 2.0-31)

BMP#8: Use of wetland features along the perimeter of some detention basins (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP#9: Permanent erosion control features at discharge points (RDEIR page 4.7-15)

BMP#10: MM 4.11-5.2a This will include details to protect and monitor groundwater... (FEIR page 2.0-75)

BMP#11: Possible use of pervious pavement systems (RDEIR page 4.7-15).

The "Bases" contentions of the developer's engineering team are as enumerated throughout the documents:

B#1: "Proper operation of BMP's and recycled water systems have been proven effective in protecting water quality. Several technical studies have been conducted regarding water quality control feature impacts on groundwater (e.g. City of Fresno Nationwide Urban Runoff Project...). These studies have identified that water quality control features such as infiltration basins have been successful in controlling water quality and avoiding groundwater quality impacts (metals and organic compounds associated with stormwater are typically lost within the first few feet of the soil in the basin). (PMC response 2-2 to John and Jeannie Plasse, residents concerned about contamination of their domestic water supply from wells, FEIR page 3.0-66)

B#2: El Paso, Texas (recycled water injection into groundwater aquifer) (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

B#3: Southern California, (several groundwater recharge projects have been in operation for over 30 years with no adverse public health effects linked to recycled water) (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

B#4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.2 would reduce this impact to less than significant. This conclusion is supported by the results of the Cumulative Water Quality Analysis Report for the Lahontan Development 1996 - 2002 (Huffman and Carpenter, 2003) that provides an analysis of water quality data for the Lahontan community, which includes a golf course. The report demonstrated that use of BMP's and a CHAMP can protect water quality from adverse impacts. (FEIR page 2.0-37)

B#5: Examples of golf course and landscape recycled water irrigation in Northern California include, but is not limited to: (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

B#5-1: Community of Rancho Murieta, in Sacramento County

B#5-2: El Dorado Hills in El Dorado County

B#5-3: City of Roseville in Placer County

B#5-4: City of Rocklin in Placer County

B#6: This mitigation measure consists of performance standards to ensure adequate design and operation of the recycled water irrigation system. The use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a) and is supported by case law (Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento ... (FEIR page 3.0-145, PMC's 9-31 response to Katherine Evatt's comment that recycled water estimates should be submitted now and analyzed in the RDEIR.)

B#7: "Application of recycled water as irrigation on landscaping and golf course features would provide additional filtration of the recycled water that further removes metals and organic compounds." (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

B#8: Indirect potable water reuse examples include the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority in Northern Virginia (recycled water discharge into the Occoquan Reservoir - a principal water supply source for approximately one million residents. (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

B#9" The Denver Water Board (with the assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) conducted a five-year test on the potential health effect of exposure to recycled water, which identified no significant health effects. (RDEIR page 4.11-52)

Before I address the above-numbered BMP's and "Bases", there are things that I need to disclose to the reader. When I read the comments in the FEIR and the PMC's responses to those comments, I realized that reviewers generally do not appreciate the significance of the steepness of ground slopes, how they affect fast runoff conditions, and what the ramifications of these conditions mean. Also I perceived that they do not know how a "detention" basin really works and the different "basin" terminologies. There are in fact three different types of "basins", two utilized, although PMC has incorrectly tried to use the third type, claiming it as his "Basis" of evidence. These concepts I will explain in the following sections, but it should be noted that since there are six different drainage basins: A, B, C, D, E and F, it would be too involved to discuss each in turn, and therefore my comments may be brief or non-existent on some of those basins.

2.0 Principles of Open Channel Flow:

The principles of open channel flow are easy to comprehend. If we draw a side view of a channel, inclined at some slope other than level, a portion of that water between any two cross-sections would be subject to a vertical gravitational acceleration, g, acting on the water of mass, m. This product 'mg' is the gravitational force, a vector having both a magnitude and a direction, in which the force is acting downward. Being a vector, the 'mg' force can be resolved into two components, one being perpendicular pushing into the streambed, and the other being parallel to the streambed, which causes the water to accelerate continually faster and faster down the slope of the channel. That the water does not accelerate continually faster and faster is because of the inhibiting force of friction that develops at the wetted perimeter, the contact area where the water wants to slide by the stationary walls of the streambed. This is the same friction that allows you to propel yourself forward as you walk, either on a dry sidewalk or on ice. The water molecules flowing next to the wetted perimeter experience that same frictional force, and this leads to constant flow velocities.

The important thing to realize is that the water velocity, in addition to parameters involving the frictional force, is directly dependent on the slope of the channel, the steeper the slope -- the faster the water will flow. When one walks down a steep hill, rather than on a sidewalk of lesser inclination, they instinctively feel that larger force of acceleration, and to over come this they need to proceed slowly with their feet planted firmly on the pavement.

If we consider any constant discharge, Q, then the product AV (area x velocity) is also constant. If A is small (i.e. depth x width) then V must be correspondingly fast, and conversely, if A is large then V must be correspondingly slow. The latter regime of flow is called subcritical, where the water flows at a deep depth and slowly. As the channel slope gets smaller and smaller, the flow velocity becomes slower and slower until it becomes almost like a slough, and even imperceptibly slower still until the water becomes brackish. This is the stage of natural and engineered wetlands, where the "bugs and critters and living organisms alike do their thing". When the body of water is stationary or nearly so there is time for percolation and filtration into the deep soil to occur while the natural processes of nature have time to clean up any pollutants. Consider for example the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989. After the cleanup of the beaches it took 15 years of wave action to restore the beaches to their prior condition. A great length of time is what is needed for the natural processes to work, and it can only occur at very low subcritcal flow conditions.

Let us now consider the opposite situation to subcritical flow. As stated above for any constant discharge, Q, if A is small then V must be correspondingly fast, and this regime of flow is called supercritical, where the Froude (pronounced 'frood') number is greater than 1.00. The steeper the slope of the channel, the larger the Froude number, and the flow will be faster and at a thinner depth.

In the presentation materials that I handed out on December 18, 2006, I showed a copy of Nolte's table 7 from Appendix 4.7, and, in addition, I provided a second table that I found buried within the voluminous input/output of the Corps' HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, a generalized computer program that Nolte had used. This second table was more revealing since it covered the 10-year, 25-year and 100-year storms, and gave full information on discharge, flow area, top width of flow, depth of flow, velocity and Froude number. All these values were for flows that were passing through the outlets of the detention basins: A, B, C1, C2, and D3, the first four of which are located at the north property line and the last on the south property line. That table showed that all of these flows at the detention basins were supercritical, regardless if it was a10-year, 25-year or a 100-year storm. I even demonstrated how fast one supercritical flow of 6.85 feet per second was, which anyone can repeat by marking off 20-1/2 feet and covering that distance in three seconds. In order to show that these velocities at the detention basins were also representative throughout the lengths of each of the basins, I provided one example for the A basin, and it showed that it took 13.8 minutes for the stormwater to flow from the uppermost end of the basin to the outlet detention basin. It was unfortunate that I did not have exact velocity numbers, because Nolte had shut off a bunch of 'switches' when he ran the HEC-1 program. I will show, however, that the slopes throughout the site are in fact much steeper than at the detention basins.

Given now this knowledge about subcritical and supercritical flow conditions, and that the former is an absolute necessity of "engineered wetlands," then it is obvious that any such references in the mitigation measures for this site to "engineered wetlands" is but a hollow gesture and devoid of any meaning since it cannot be accomplished due to site constraints.

3.0 Confusion over "Detention" Basins:

3.1 Preamble:

I am reminded of Tracey Towner-Yep's comment letter H-5 in the FEIR that states, "At this time, (the) designated parkland is depicted as having a comparatively large pond on this site. This body of water, while aesthetically pleasing, will reduce the useable space (of the park) significantly. Expansion of this site to be 4:1 land to wetland/pond would be acceptable." PMC's response was, "The commenter's statements regarding the sizing of the 3.0-acre park site is noted and will be forwarded to the City Planning Commission and City Council as part of project consideration." The reader should note that PMC did not correct Tracey's misconception of the "wetland/ pond".

Commissioner Warren Carlton in comment letter 5-7 in the FEIR stated that, "Plans call for a retention pond, or pond, to be located in the park. This will reduce the size of the park. This pond should be removed." PMC's response was, "The commenter's statements regarding the sizing and design of the 3.0-acre park site is noted and will be forwarded to the City Planning Commission and City Council as part of project consideration." Here again, PMC did not correct Warren's misconception of "retention pond, or pond".

Tracey Towner-Yep made another comment in letter 10-7 in the FEIR that states, "the 3.0 acres that there (we are) talking about is mostly on French Bar Road, is mostly covered by a pond, its not very safe. My feeling is if they are going to designate pond area for recreation space, then...." PMC's response was, "While play structures could be provided at this park site, the project applicant has identified that this park site would consist of passive recreation uses (revised Draft EIR page 3.0-15)." , again PMC replied without correcting Tracey on the misconception of a "pond".

In order to correct these misconceptions, the following explains the various terminologies that are used by civil engineers, and I note that Nolte should have been very specific and clear by what he meant when he used the term "detention" basin for it has only one meaning. I suspect, however, that it was not in the project's best interest to clarify issues for those that reviewed the RDEIR.

Attachments 27a and 27b shows data for each of the four drainage basins that I obtained from the input/output of the HEC-1 program. The four drainage basins are A, B, C and D, and they have five outlet detention basins A, B, C1, C2, and D3. Each of the basins were subdivided for the HEC-1 program and values are shown for each sub-basin. The reader should note the column described as "slope Y %" a cursory scan of which reveals significantly large slopes along all of the drainage courses, anywhere between 9.1% and 25.3%. These steep slopes point to the fact that the time for excess rainfall to peak is of very short duration, as evidenced under the last two columns identified as "T_lag." This means that because of the steep ground slopes, runoff will occur shortly after rainfall starts, which means that percolation into the thin soil layer above the bedrock will be small compared to that if it were on the flatlands.

The BMP #4 biofiltration through the use of vegetated swales is advanced as an effective method for the Jackson Hills site. This is not the case as documented by the HEC-1 data. The steep slopes will result in extremely high Froude numbers and supercritical flows. Any vegetation along the drainage courses will be 'washed cleanly' by the rushing flow of water. Filtration and cleansing of the flows will not occur.

In the attachment the 'AMC' letters denote antecedent moisture conditions, with '2' being the 'normal' and '3' being the saturated ground condition. The worst-case scenario of saturated ground condition was used in the appendix tables. The plots shown on the right-hand side of the pages are per the cross-sectional data in the HEC-1 program. I could only approximate that these elevations were correct from a review of the topographic USGS drawing. The values that are shown in Note's tables in the appendix did match the data in the HEC-1 program. Accordingly, these are bona fide inputs and outputs for the Jackson Hills site.

I would like to address each of these major drainage basins in turn, for it is necessary for the reader to understand why the developer and his team did things in a certain way and why they chose to cover up information and allow the reviewers' misconceptions to remain.

3.2 Retention Basin:

For drainage basin A, if we placed a dam across the channel to contain 100 % of all of the storm water runoff, this would be a retention basin. This volume of water would percolate into the underlying soil and evaporate, depending on their respective variables. After a great duration of time, this volume might reduce to zero, unless rainfall fills it back up again. Retention basins are used when it becomes necessary to control contaminants in the water from whatever sources. Infiltration into deep soils is preferable because it allows, not only for greater capacity to absorb the water, but also allows for better purification of the waters from the pollutants that may be in it. Also evaporation from a retention basin allows the contaminants to remain confined within the basin.

The cited "Bases" B#1, City of Fresno infiltration basin is in fact a retention basin, and it is interesting to note that PMC stated that, " metals and organic compounds associated with stormwater are typically lost within the first few feet of the soil in the basin." Evidently PMC had forgotten that the Jackson Hills site has only 14-inches of soil over solid bedrock. The cited "Bases" B#2, El Paso, Texas injection into groundwater aquifer is just another form of doing what a retention basin does but in a more efficient manner of direct injection rather that natural percolation. Similarly the cited "Bases" B#3 Southern California groundwater recharge projects is more of the same. In the City of San Jose they had been doing this many years ago, not to control pollutants, but to shore up the sinking landscape of the south part of the Bay Area.

It should be noted that PMC had raised these "Bases" issues to imply that the Jackson Hills site was somehow using these techniques to control recycled water use. Let us see if this is the case and if the stated "Bases" are justifiable evidence, or if this was just some 'smoke' to make it appear the project worthy.

According to the HEC-1 data for basin A, 31 ac-ft would be the retention volume needed to contain 100% of the storm water, as shown on the left-hand side of the attachment page. Because Nolte's stage-storage-area data in the HEC-1 program did not extend to such a large volume, I had to guess that the 31 ac-ft volume would cover about 15 acres. This large acreage is five times the size of the proposed 3.0-acre park. Would that impact the developer's plans for his project? Let us see from a review of the contoured storm drain master plan. A close examination shows that it would inundate not only the 3.0-acre park, but also inundate part of the Loop Road connection to Clinton Road, part of golf course greens #3 and #4, and part of Lot B17. Unbelievable but true, and so, this situation would leave the developer with a smaller area for his development. But the developer would not compromise his plans for the site, for as we shall see he did not care that there would be direct runoff from the site for he wanted as much room as possible for his golf course as this would entice those folks in Jackson and be a good selling point.

3.3 Detention Basin:

Accordingly, in order to reduce the large volume and surface area of a retention basin, it became necessary to design a detention basin, which would provide, not only for a potentially much-reduced volume and surface area, but also that water surface area would be reduced from its maximum stage to zero when it would be completely empty. This is accomplished by placing a small pipe through the dam at its lowest point in the streambed. This action permits outflow from the dam, which reduces the volume and surface area of the retention basin. If we increase the diameter of the pipe with a corresponding increase in discharge, then that action would result in a smaller volume and a smaller surface area behind the detention basin. The greater the pipe diameter and outflow discharge -- the smaller will be the volume and the surface area, and the best part, from the developer's perspective, is that the water will completely drain out so that the detention basin land could be used for a 3.0-acre park regardless of potential human health impacts from contact. It does not matter that every Bay Area Flood Control District prohibits any other facility within the perimeter of a detention basin out of health and safety concerns, those folks in the foothills of Jackson won't know the difference. And so the developer squeezed in that little 3.0-acre park in the corner of the site.

Civil engineers have it easy to figure out the correct pipe size that would permit the discharge from the developed conditions to be just below the discharge that occurs under existing conditions prior to development. Years before they had computers, this process was laboriously done by hand. Detention basins are great because they do reduce the increased flows that occur from developments that present more impervious surfaces where once there was open pasture.

But the use of detention basins has a seriously negative aspect when more than storm water is involved, because if there are any pollutants of concern in that water, the detention basin will simply let 100% of that water go through. There will be essentially no 'treatment' of pollutants because of short period of time that it takes to empty the detention basin, particularly if that detention basin is sized to be the smallest possible so that the development can be the largest possible. It is important to note also that as that incoming water rises and then falls there will be supercritical velocities and turbulence within that basin, unlike the requirements needed for a "wetland feature". So let us look at each of these basins and see why the developer chose to use the minimum size detention basins, rather than retention basins that could treat the recycled water and the effects of fertilizers, herbicides, rodenticides and all those other chemicals that are used on golf courses. This is the BMP #6, use of detention basins (dry extended type ) where MM 4.11.5.2b requires that recycled water shall be designed to avoid potential human health impacts from contact ... It appears then that by letting 100% of the recycled water with its cargo of fertilizers et al go directly off-site, that the Jackson Hills residents will be avoiding contacts with the recycled water, but I fail to see how it protects those off-site people from the same avoidance from contact. That evidently does not seem to be the project's concern.

For the 135.23-acre drainage basin A, the summary on Attachment 27b shows a retention basin volume of 31 ac-ft occupying about 15 acres, would be drastically reduced under a minimum size detention basin design, for its maximum volume would be only 4.49 ac-ft occupying a maximum surface area of 2.15 acres. Both of these detention basin values would reduce to zero in about an hour's time under the outflow discharge of 155cfs at the supercritical 6.85fps velocity. This is the minimum size of detention basin that the developer could get as evidenced by comparison to existing runoff conditions. That comparison had been shown on the handouts that I gave on December 18, 2006. On Attachment 27a, I have drawn to scale the cross-section of the dam across the channel per Nolte's data in the HEC-1 program. The 'pink' area represents the cross-sectional area of the outflow and the 'blue' area represents the maximum cross-sectional area of the detention basin. It should be noted that cross-sectional area of the retention basin could not be plotted as Nolte's data in the HEC-1 program did not extend that far, but I suspect that it would be 'off the chart'. Thus we see that the developer did not want to sacrifice any part of his project and that he was willing for all the golf course contaminants to flow directly off-site within one hour's time. The HEC-1 data supports that conclusion. As I had stated on a previous occasion, I had merely brought it to light.

For the 22.88-acre drainage basin B, a retention basin would have a volume of 5 ac-ft occupying about 2 1/2 acres, but it would not inundate any part of golf course green #2, yet the project chose the much smaller detention basin, of volume 0.93 ac-ft and 0.48-acres that allows 100% of the golf course green #2 flows to go directly off-site, all within two hours' time. Why did they choose not to treat it in a retention basin? We know that the higher dam of a retention basin would be more expensive to construct, and perhaps they knew that there already was a "retention-detention" basin (defined in the next section) below on French Bar Road at the Gold Country Estates, so why not adopt the cheaper solution? It seems that it was not their concern if that lower retention-detention basin could not handle the contaminants.

For the 47.15-acre drainage basin C1, a retention basin would have a volume of 11 ac-ft occupying about 5 1/2 acres, which would inundate part of the driving range. As a detention basin, however, the maximum volume would be 1.09 ac-ft occupying a maximum surface area of 0.54 acres, and both of these values would be reduced to zero in about one hour's time under the 47cfs outflow discharge at the 5.80fps supercritical velocity. Here again, the developer was not willing to sacrifice any part of the driving range and was willing to let 100% of the golf course flow go directly off-site within one hour's time.

For the 131.92-acre drainage basin C2, a retention basin would have a volume of 30 ac-ft occupying about 14 acres, which would inundate a large part of Lot 19, Lot 10, A-lane and B-road. However, as a detention basin its maximum volume would be only 2.25 ac-ft occupying a maximum surface area of 1.03 acres. Both of these detention basin values would be go to zero when it empties in about 1/2 hour's time under the 146cfs outflow discharge at the 9.30fps supercritical velocity. All of this is storm water from residential areas, and it is acceptable and normal practice to use a detention basin rather than a retention basin.

Lastly for the 266.77-acre drainage basin D3, a retention basin would have a volume of 62 ac-ft occupying about 30 acres, which would inundate golf course greens #13 and #14, and a large part of the Loop Road. As a detention basin, however, the maximum volume would be only 5.23 ac-ft occupying a maximum surface area of 2.29 acres, and both of these values would be reduced to zero in about 1/2 hour's time under the 315cfs outflow discharge at the 6.64fps supercritical velocity. The direct off-site discharge of this golf course contaminated water from ten greens is a concern.

So after examining these five detention basins we can conclude the following:

1) One detention basin involved storm water from residential areas and did not involve any flow from the golf course. Accordingly it was designed to customary and acceptable practice.

2) Of the remaining four detention basins the project chose to use detention basins in lieu retention basins that would have provided treatment for any pollutants in the water from the golf course.

3) There would be essentially no treatment of golf course waters in these four detention basins.

4) All four of these detention basins allow 100% of the golf course contaminated recycled water

to flow directly off-site within a short period of time, two hours maximum for a 100-year storm, and no detention for small storms.

5) All four of the detention basins were sized to be smallest possible in size in order to maximize land for other purposes.

6) Off-site personnel will be exposed to the potential human health impacts from contact with golf course contaminated recycled water.

7) BMP #6 Use of dry extended type detention basin is not a viable mitigation measure for the Jackson Hills site.

8) PMC's "Bases" B#1, B#2 and B#3 do not apply to the Jackson Hills as evidence that golf courses with mitigation measures are successful.

3.4 The Hybrid Retention-Detention Basin:

The hybrid "retention-detention" basin occurs when the pipe through the dam is placed, not at the flow-line, but at some point higher in elevation below the crest of the dam. The portion of water below the pipe flow-line is the retention part of the basin, while the portion above the pipe flow-line is the detention part of the basin. The upper part acts just like a regular detention basin as if the streambed of the channel was at the flow-line of the pipe. An example of this type of retention-detention basin is evidenced in the development just below Jackson Hills on French Bar Road. The iron fenced off area has a grated outlet, below which there is a pool of water amid grasses that allows the "bugs and critters" to do their thing. The Jackson Hills drainage basin B passes water through detention basin B directly into this lower retention-detention basin.

BMP #7 use of detention basin (wet extended type) is a hybrid retention-detention basin. The correct terminology is "retention-detention" basin because it signifies its dual purpose, whereas "wet extended type" imparts no information as to its dual nature. The Jackson Hills retention-detention basins are D1 and D2, and they are located within the central portion of the D drainage basin. The ponds that are used to store recycled water for golf course irrigation are the retention part of these basins. The detention part of these basins occurs when these ponds overflow due to any incoming drainage flows. These overflows go directly to the D3 detention basin, which allows 100% to flow directly off-site.

Any golf course runoff flowing back into these ponds will have a greater concentration of contaminants than the recycled water in the ponds, and therefore with a greater density will sink and displace the recycled water to overflow towards the D3 detention basin. If the incoming flow is fresh water, its density will be lighter than the retention waters, and therefore it will flow towards the D3 detention basin unless there is some mechanical device that would provide for mixing the fresh and 'not -so-fresh' water. If the fresh water is from a large storm, that runoff will tend to slide on top of the lower retention water without any 'mixing' of the waters. I have had experience with this when I was doing inundation dam studies for the City and County of San Francisco for their Hetch-Hetchy water system. Computer analyses showed this "sliding on top" action to be the case when flood waves from the hypothetical dam breaks hit the upper reaches of the downstream reservoirs. So it will be with the D1 and D2 retention-detention basins.

In developing the information for Attachments 27a and 27b I had to resort to schematically diagramming the sub-basins and their routed hydrographs, which I did not incorporate as an attachment. In order to complete the sequence of events for these retention-detention basins the reader is referred to the left column that enumerates the sub-basins. Sub-basins D-1 through D-12 flow directly into the upper and lower ponds, which act as one pond according to the HEC-1 program. Overflow from there will pick up sub-basins D-13 through D-18, which is the location of the outlet detention basin D3. The other three sub-basins are off-site downstream of the project.

BMP # 8 claims wetland features along the perimeter of some detention basins as a mitigation measure. This is not true for the detention basins A, B, C1, C2, or D3 because of the fact of the supercritical and pass-though velocities of the site constraints associated with those detention basins. BMP #8 is only associated with the retention-detention basins D1 and D2 and they will be effective only at that locale.

Conclusions from this examination are as follows:

1) None of the detention basins A, B, C1, C2, and D3 are retention-detention basins.

2) The retention portion of the retention-detention basin will be effective.

3) The overall effectiveness of BMP#7, the retention-detention basin, is reduced because it permits overflows to a detention basin rather than a retention basin.

4) BMP#8 wetland features apply only to two retention-detention basins. They do not apply to five detention basins.

4.0 Golf Course Operations:

4.1 Preamble:

Before discussing the operations of the golf course as I understand them, it is necessary to examine their topography and conditions below them, as these matters did not come up before.

4.2 The Moore Ditch:

The labeled Moore ditch is shown on Figure 4.7-1, Project Site Drainage, and its outline is also shown on Figure 4.9-1, Biological Resources Within Project Area. The water channels down slope of the Moore ditch are part of drainage basin A with its detention basin A at the property line. The flows through detention basin A will flow into the off-site pond above the Raley's supermarket. Attachment 28 shows a greater extent of the Moore ditch continuing south for another 1-1/2 miles towards the Mokelumne River. This ditch once supplied water, not only to the Moore Mine, but also to the mines further south. From the data in the RDEIR text giving its dimensions as 2-feet deep, 2-feet at the bottom and 3-feet at the top, with a down grade slope of 11-feet per mile, I was able to calculate its flow velocity at 1.98 fps. The overflow capacity of the ditch calculates to 9.88cfs (4,435gpm), which is a significant amount of discharge for site flows to be carried directly off-site in another direction than to the pond above Raley's.

Page 4.7-1 of the RDEIR states that, "the Moore ditch is intermittent with water flowing southeast when present....On the project site, the Moore ditch crosses two drainage systems that flow into the ditch. Due to the fact that the Moore ditch intercepts the flow from on-site channels and transports the water off the project site, segments of the ditch are considered to be jurisdictional waters." The reader should note that this description refers only to existing conditions. Nowhere in the RDEIR has the impact of the Moore ditch been considered in the storm drain design where the flows will enter this ditch and be carried off-site. The handout that I gave on December 18, 2006 shows that for a 10-year storm the discharge to the detention basin A will be 61cfs. Now with the realization of the existence of the Moore ditch intercepting the basin A flows, about 10cfs will be diverted off-site in the southerly direction, leaving the remaining 51cfs to flow through detention basin A at 5.37fps supercritical velocity to the pond above Raley's supermarket.

Mitigation Measure MM 4.10.2b states that, "Project golf course holes 3 through 6 shall be designed to minimize alterations to Moore ditch by providing a 25-foot buffer between golf course features and the ditch, except where crossings and infrastructure are required. This buffer shall be identified in improvement plans associated with the golf course.", and I think that this is commendable for a historic city like Jackson to maintain the integrity of the ditch. However, mitigation measure MM 4.7.2 states that, " The CHAMP or similar management plan shall incorporate the following: A description of golf course design features that prevent discharges of surface runoff into stream channels without water quality controls (e.g. engineered wetland features)." Now as been demonstrated previously under section 2.0 Principles of Open Channel Flow any references in the mitigation measures for this site to "engineered wetlands" is but a hollow gesture and devoid of any meaning since it cannot be accomplished due to site constraints.

In other words MM 4.7.2 is not workable with respect to the Moore ditch.

4.2 Drainage Slopes on the Golf Course:

Before we had discussed ground slopes along drainage courses and found them to be so steep as recorded in Attachments 27a and 27b that only supercritical velocities prevailed. These ground slopes varied anywhere between 9.1% and 25.3%. It is now appropriate to consider if the slopes on the actual golf courses are as steep or are at a much shallower slope as to produce subcritical flow conditions.

For comparison purposes, the reader should realize that the Highway 49 hill from Martell to Jackson is about a 5-1/2 % down grade, and that the steepest portion on Highway 49 locally is the hill from Sutter Creek to Amador City at a the 6% down grade according to the posted sign warning truckers to watch their speed. It is well for the reader to visualize just how fast any water would flow at those grades.

Page 4.7-1 of the RDEIR states that, "the project site's slopes range from approximately 3 percent to more than 30 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the site has slopes of less than 15 percent.", but what the RDEIR omitted to tell the reviewer is that these slopes would produce supercritical velocities that could not support engineered wetlands. It was also noted previously in section 4.1, Preliminary Grading Plan, that, "grading would be confined to as close to the golf holes as possible, leaving areas lateral to and between the holes natural and undisturbed."

Accordingly, I used the existing contours as shown on the Storm Drain Master Plan to determine the drainage slopes on the golf course along the fairways. Attachment 29 shows these results, along with the orientation as to whether the course was placed straight downhill, or parallel to the contours with a cross slope, or some orientation in between. I was primarily interested in the courses 1 through 8, because these courses all drained to detention basins C1, B and A that allow 100% of flows to go through untreated and unimpeded at supercritical velocities.

As shown on the attachment golf course #1 slopes 10% downhill where at the bottom the runoff flow would reach the swale that directs runoff towards the A14 lots. Any flow from here would be at supercritical velocity.

Golf course #2 has cross-slopes between 7.6% and 12.0%, indicating that runoff from here would be at supercritical velocity towards detention basin B.

Golf courses #3 and #4 are below the Moore ditch and have cross slopes of 13.7% and 10.5% respectively, indicating that any runoff from these two golf courses would be at supercritical velocities towards detention basin A.

Golf courses # 5 through #8 are all above the Moore ditch, and their slopes range from 9.2% to 16.4%, with orientations one - downhill, two - parallel to the contour, and one in between. Any runoff flow from these four golf courses would occur at supercritical velocities headed towards the Moore ditch where the runoff would directly be transported off-site towards the Mokelumne River.

4.3 The Moore Mine:

In the RDEIR Table 4.3-1, Database Records Review and Search Distance, I noticed that the "ERNS" database is listed with the distance description "site only", but nowhere does the text indicate what this means, and I suspect that most reviewers would have scratched their heads and forgotten about the matter. I bring this up because I do not know either, but I do not want to spend the time to find out.

On page 4.3-3 of the RDEIR six on-site findings are tabulated:

A-1) a sandy drainage area generated from the adjacent Moore Mine

A-2) a tailing pile

A-3) a possible filled-in mine

A-4) six mine pits

A-5) a concrete foundation and piers associated with cyanide storage tanks

A-6) and four wells

and the off-site findings included:

B-1) structures and tailing piles

B-2) a concrete dam

and it further stated that, "Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 illustrate the location and details of possible mine sites within the project area." (the letters in bold are my emphasis). So I looked at those two figures, saw the locations, but did not see any "details" that were subsequently described in the next two paragraphs.

Let me show the reader what I mean, A-1 a sandy drainage area generated from the adjacent Moore Mine: On one drawing it shows "sandy drainage area" and presumably this is east of the squiggly line, but on the other drawing the "sandy areas" are two small areas, and that former squiggly line is now dashed on the second drawing without any explanation what it means. However, the text described the following, "extensive mill tailings that have apparently originated from the nearby Moore Gold Mine... up to 6-feet deep... unknown volume...at least 86,000 tons of ore were extracted from the mine that was excavated to a depth of nearly 2,200 feet below the surface." Would the casual reviewer have connected these two descriptions? I had trouble when I first read it.

Similarly forA-2 and A-3 a tailing pile, a possible filled-in mine: On the drawings it shows "former mine shaft/spring" and "tailings pile" whereas the text described, "A large volume of mine tailings located next to a tunnel adit in the eastern portion of the site indicates the presence of underground workings. It appears this underground structure trends in a westerly direction from its adit and under the ridge that dominates terrain in the easterly portion of the property.... tunnel allows outflow of ground waters.... overall length may be as long as 600 feet.... the rate of outflow from this tunnel was also estimated to be approximately 1/2 gallon per minute.", yet neither of the two drawings gave any indication that there was a westward trending tunnel 600 feet long on the project site.

Similarly for A-5 a concrete foundation and piers associated with cyanide storage tanks: On the drawings it shows "former tank pad" and "concrete tank pad" and "concrete piers". However, the text describes the following, "Since the mine was worked in the 1880's and then later in the 1920's, the mine's milling processes had to first utilize amalgamation with chlorination and then cyanide with either sodium or potassium. As a result, some of these constituents and/or their daughter products are still likely to be in these tailings.", yet there is no indication on those two drawings as to the significance of the concrete tank pads and piers.

Similarly B-2 a concrete dam: one drawing shows an off-site arrow pointing to dam, yet the text makes no mention of it. Could this be the "off-site pond" above the Raley's supermarket shown on the biological resources drawing 4.9-1?

I was annoyed to say the least that it was made deliberately difficult to relate the text to what was shown on the drawings, that the two drawings did not define what that "squiggly" line meant and omitted showing that 600-foot long tunnel on the project site, and that text would chose words like "apparently originated" and "possible mine site" to express doubt when there should not have been any, and when the text "conveniently forgot" to discuss the "concrete dam" that might have been the "off-site pond" above Raley's that was shown on another unrelated drawing. It is the deliberately evasive language that is prevalent throughout the RDEIR document that I object to, for it indicates that the developer's team is attempting to hide relevant facts from the reviewer. Previously I had objected that the Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 were depicted on a blank drawing, without contours, and unrelated to the project's design, and now I find that there was at lot more than I previously thought.

Accordingly, I went to the Moore Mine site indicated on the USGS map off Fuller Lane, and right there in front of me by the side of the lane there was this historical sign that read," Moore Mine Founded and Active in 1880's, 10 Stamp Mill and a 640-foot shaft, Reopened 1921 till 1929, 20 Stamp Mill and a 2,291-foot Incline Shaft, Tailing Dam North to Raley's, Produced $564,624 in Gold." ???? Tailing Dam??? I decided to find out more as any inquisitive civil engineer would. From the lane to the west I could see the round concrete water tank and the 10 stamp mill on top of the hill that are identified on the drawing as "off-site tank foundation" and " tiered concrete pad". I did not cross the fence line that posted a 'no trespassing' sign. From there a row of concrete footings descended to and across Fuller Lane, and I followed that trail east until I found what I thought was the 20 stamp mill, for to the north of that at 100-feet there was the evidence of the mine opening, with heavy timbers and ore car rails protruding through the bull-dozed over opening. On a blow-up USGS map, I plotted the locations of the footings per my paced measurements as shown on Attachment 30. The adit opening to the 640-foot shaft was plotted per the location on the project drawing. The Moore ditch was plotted to the water supply pond that supplied water to the miners living in the bunkhouse.

I felt that I had to know more about that incline shaft and if it tunneled under the project site. Accordingly, the plat map from the County Surveyor's office, copied as Attachment 31, did not help since it did not show anything on the project site in Section 33.

However, the Amador County Archives did prove to be very helpful, and to my surprise the lady there told me that no archivist from the developer's team had done any research there. Attachment 32, at the same scale as my plotted map, shows the Moore shaft, concrete tank, reservoir, concrete dam and the "Casinelli shaft". As to the latter, I do not know how accurately Kleinfelder located his "mine test pits" on Figure 4.3-1, but the Casinelli shaft from this accurate drawing does not plot in the same location as Kleinfelder's mine test pits. This is a major concern because it could pose a fatal risk to any construction worker, golfer, park stroller or future Jackson Hills resident.

Attachment 33, Plate1, circa 1930, Mother Lode Mines, badly damaged, provided the Section A-A, shown on Plate 2, copied as Attachment 34.

Attachment 34, Plate 2, circa 1930, Geologic Map of the property of the Moore Mining Company, shows much detail that hitherto had not been revealed. The drawing has 1,000-foot grid increments. The 1921-1929 main incline shaft is off-site and is shown on the drawing by the four parallel lines that bear N.30 E. The perpendicular squiggly lines are cross cuts at different depths from the surface. The 1800-foot cross cut heads back towards the project site. The tramway from the shaft to the mill on top of the hill is shown as a double line with cross marks indicating the footings that I diagrammed. On the project site the 1880's adit to the 640-foot long mine tunnel plots at approximately the same location as the project drawings. There are, however, two tailing dams. The off-site concrete tailing dam plots on Figure 4.9-1 midway between the off-site pond near Raley's and the project property line where it is indicated as "SW/Off-site", the outline of which may indicate that it is already full of tailings. The on-site tailings dam is opposite the 1880's adit to the 640-foot mine tunnel, which had not been disclosed by Kleinfelder, and it evidently is buried under more mine tailings and channel debris. The Kennedy - Argonaut vein parallels the Moore ditch and goes through the 1880's adit of the 640-foot mine tunnel. It appears that the fault 700-feet to the west of the vein continues through the project site. This drawing now makes clear how the Moore Mine functioned. The ore was transported from the mine shaft via the tramway up the hill to the 20 stamp mill at the top, where cyanide was used and disposed of with the tailings that fell into the drainage swale below, which the project has now designated as drainage basin A and detention basin A, with its little 3.0-acre park located directly above those potentially cyanide-laced tailings.

Attachment 35 is an enlargement of Attachment 34 for the benefit of those who do not carry a large magnifying glass with them.

Attachment 36 is the reverse side of Attachment 34 that describes the plan of operation and development at the South Jackson Shaft. The "plate 3 and plate 4" referred to in this document were not in the Amador County Archives. The reader may find it interesting to read that an attempt was made by the Alma Mining Company to purchase the town lots of Jackson under which this (the Kennedy - Argonaut) vein traverses,...

Attachment 37 Journal of Mines describes the Moore Mine.

Attachment 38 is a photograph of the Moore mine showing the tramway heading up the hill towards the 20 stamp mill at the top of the hill (right side of picture). The road under the tramway is Fuller Lane, still in use.

Attachment 39 is a panorama photograph of the Moore Mine

Attachment 40 is a photograph of the "Old Moore Debris Dam from Raley's"

Impact 4.3.2 addresses historical and existing hazardous materials contamination as potentially significant, but with MM 4.3.2a, MM4.3 2b, MM 4.3.2c, and MM 4.3.2d the impact is less than significant. This is simply not the true. The methodology section stated that, "the analysis is based on information obtained from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the site by Kleinfelder in October 2002, consultation with relevant agencies, field review and a review of historical aerial photographs and topographical maps of the project site". Even though the site assessment report was not included in the RDEIR for anyone to review as to what manner the site was investigated, I claim that the investigation of this site was incomplete for the following reasons:

1) The Amador County Archivist stated that no one from the developer's team came to her office to research the archives.

2) My investigation revealed that there was a mine shaft labeled "Casinelli shaft" shown on a drawing. Since that map showed surveyed dimensions, the authenticity of it is quite certain. That Kleinfelder failed to find this shaft indicates that the shaft is hidden from view and is beneath the surface. A site reconnaissance using penetrating radar or other methods could have uncovered this shaft. That buried shaft poses a significant danger.

3) My investigation revealed a buried tailing dam from the 1880's mine that Kleinfelder failed to find. This suggests that Kleinfelder either did not research the historical reports of the former State Mining Bureau or that his on-site investigations did not include borings and trenchings to determine subsurface conditions

I found the following inadequacies of the RDEIR mitigations:

1) The soil sampling cited in MM 4.3.2a appears to be a 'surface type sampling', which would not expose underground conditions.

2) The mine waste capping cited in MM 4.3.2b is not a viable mitigation. We know that the 1880's mine is currently discharging 1/2 gpm from the tunnel. This means that there is some percolation through the solid bedrock. Consequently site runoff can move laterally under the cap and react with the mine tailings with their potential load of amalgam with chlorine and cyanide. The site runoff contains recycled water loaded with golf course amendments, fertilizers, herbicides, rodenticides and other chemicals. The RDEIR is silent on the issue of potential chemical reactions between the two.

3) MM 4.3.2b does not advance the option of complete removal of the mine tailings or of complete encapsulation.

4) MM 4.3.2b requires that after capping that the area be designated as open space with no public access allowed. Since it is obvious that the Loop Road connection to Clinton Road, and the 3.0-acre park, and golf course greens #3 and#4, and Lot B17 are located within the tailing area of the Moore Milling operations, then the mitigation measure should specifically state these facilities cannot be constructed as planned.

5) MM 4.3.3 refers to abandoned openings, test pits, and mine shafts (collectively "open structures") that daylight to the surface shall be capped. The mitigation measure is silent on the issue of openings that are concealed or buried beneath the surface. This oversight poses a danger.

6) The associated mitigation measures of Phase I are hereby included in the above inadequacies.

7) The associated cumulative mitigation measures are hereby included in the above inadequacies.

4.4 Irrigating the Golf Course:

There are three scenarios to consider:

Scene #1: When the golf course is irrigated, according to the Harvey Mills Designs' DU uniformity factor, there will be over spraying as indicated previously, an extra 25% for the cool season turf and an extra 43% for the landscaping. I anticipate that this will create small runoff conditions that will be hard to discern as I had previously indicated with my experience. Let us call these "seepage" flows to distinguish them from "runoff" flows that have a greater quantity of flow. Part of this excess irrigation will percolate into the thin layer of soil that is on top of bedrock and part will surface "seepage" flow through the vegetation. Because of the steep slopes and the supercritical velocities they produce, the surface "seepage" portion will be greater than the percolated "seepage" portion.

PMC has advanced the "Bases" notion B#7 as providing evidence of successful golf courses by stating on page 4.11-52 of the RDEIR that, "application of recycled water as irrigation on landscaping and golf course features would provide additional filtration of the recycled water that further removes metals and organic compounds." I submit that this notion does not make sense when one realizes that fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, rodenticides and other chemicals are applied to the golf courses, the very locations that are supposed to "purify" the recycled water. This is totally illogical and can be dismissed as more "smoke".

The surface "seepage" and percolated underground "seepage" from irrigation to golf courses #9 through #12, and #16 through #18, will flow back into the retention-detention basins D1 and D2, where, because of their greater density they will sink, and cause the same volume of recycled water in the retention part of the basins to overflow towards the D3 detention basin for direct off-site discharge. The surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to golf courses # 13 through #15 are lower in elevation than the D1 and D2 retention-detention basins, and accordingly their flows will go directly to the D3 detention basin for direct off-site discharge.

The surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to golf course #1 will flow directly to the C1 detention basin for direct off-site discharge.

The surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to golf course #2 will flow directly to the B detention basin for direct off-site discharge.

The surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to golf courses #3 and #4 will flow directly to the A detention basin for direct off-site discharge.

The surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to golf courses #5 through #8 will flow directly into the Moore ditch for direct off-site discharge towards the Mokelumne River.

These surface and percolated "seepages" from irrigation to all eighteen golf holes will result in direct off-site discharges of recycled water in three cases and irrigated waters in fifteen cases, and this is contrary to the use area requirements defined in the Water Recycling Criteria statements on page 4.11-46 of the RDEIR that state for, 1) "irrigation runoff must be confined to the recycled water use area" and 2) " runoff cannot enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas, or food handling facilities." None of the eighteen golf holes comply with these criteria, because in order to comply the project would need retention basins, the large sizes of which would have resulted in a smaller development.

Additionally the surface and percolated "seepage" from irrigation to golf course #3 will flow directly downhill and into the 3.0-acre park where the passive recreation use of picnic tables will be allowed. This result does not comply with the Water Recycling Criteria.

Furthermore, since we know that capping of the potential cyanide-laced tailings from the Moore Milling operations present a potential chemical reaction when in contact with irrigated "seepages" that could flow under the cap, I wonder how those folks at Raley's supermarket would react if they knew. In reading through all of the comments in the FEIR, I found that no one had addressed these concerns, and it is understandable that they did not do so when Kleinfelder's Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was deliberately excluded from the RDEIR document.

These conclusions are supported by the data in the RDEIR document and in Nolte's HEC -1 input/output. All of these direct off-site discharges contradict the developer's statement on page 4.11-51 of the RDEIR that states, "The project applicant has identified that the golf course features would de graded and designed to contain recycled water irrigation within the golf course, with no off-site discharge." This statement flies in the face of logic, given the topography of this site and the pass-through discharges allowed by the detention basins, for they are not retention basins or hybrid retention-detention basins. Grading of dirt berms can only deflect flows to a degree, but they cannot reverse the downhill drainage pattern that ultimately leads to the detention basins that are at the periphery of the project site. Drainage basins A, B, and C cannot be made to flow backwards uphill towards the D1 and D2 retention-detention basins on this site. Similarly to have the drainage basin D comply with the Water Recycling Criteria, there would need to be a retention basin at its outlet to preclude any off-site discharge, but as we have seen before the developer was not willing to compromise his dream of a project.

Golf courses are great, so do not get me wrong. (I am not a golfer.) They are beautiful, and without a doubt golf courses are an asset to any community. It is little wonder then that some folks in Jackson are enamored of this project, but they do not understand that the developer has chosen the wrong location to put his golf course as will be shown in the next sections. Let us continue with the analysis of irrigating the golf course.

Scene #2: In the fall at the close of the irrigation season with recycled water, the retention portions of ponds D1 and D2 will be more concentrated with constituent fertilizers and other chemicals because of the "seepage" backflows that occurred during the prior months. At this point in time the project will use domestic water to "wash down" the water features through several irrigation cycles, (and this is the hidden reason why they want domestic water rather than more recycled water). The concentrations in the ponds D1 and D2 will reduce with the addition of domestic water, and this water will be irrigated over the golf course to "wash down" the golf course. The strength of applying that "wash-down" irrigation will be as before to avoid runoff, and accordingly this will amount to "seepage" flows, and being so they cannot appreciably carry away any chemicals that may have built up on the golf course during the prior months. All the surface and percolated "seepage" flows will flow as before, in the same directions as before, and with the same direct off-site discharge, though at possibly at higher concentrations because of the "wash down" attempt.

Scene #3: When the winter rains come, that "first flush" of storm water will carry whatever pollutants that have remained on the grasses and landscaping along with the storm water runoff. This surface runoff will be significantly higher in discharge than the "seepages" described before, and consequently, even though the concentrations of the golf course pollutants in that water will be less, the total amount of those pollutants will be greater. The surface and percolated storm water runoffs will follow the same paths as the "seepages" did, and 100% of it will discharge directly off-site except for the retention portion left in the retention-detention basins D1 and D2.

5.0 How a Monitoring Well Works:

The best way to describe this topic is to illustrate an example from my experience. In the 1930's on Manhattan Island in New York City along side the Hudson River, workers constructed a cribwork filling it with rock, and as each section sank they added more cribwork and rock sections on top until the cribwork sank to the bedrock 80-feet below the water surface. The purpose of this was so that they could run trains across the river and discharge the office worker passengers. On the Manhattan side the locomotives had been filled to overflowing with diesel fuel, so that when the area no longer served its original purpose of passenger trains, it was ripe for development and found to have a large plume of oils that required remediation. At this location the Hudson River was subject to a three-foot tidal action, and an oil slick was observed to flow out through the cribwork with the outgoing tide. To fix the problem, holes were drilled all over the site, and at high and low tides they measured the water table at each of the cased holes. From these measurements two contour maps of the water table were drawn one at high tide and the other at low tide -- contours that were the same as on any topographical map. The water table contours gave them the information of how and in what directions the groundwater flowed back and forth during any 24-hour period. It was then a simple matter to determine where to place a central remediation well. Because the soil behind that cribwork was deep, the groundwater flowed through it easily, and any well with sufficient pumping capacity, could produce a draw down curve that would reach to the far corners of the site and overcome the plotted groundwater contours. Accordingly, an oil-water separator was installed at the bottom of the remediation well. Oil from the separator was discharged directly into 55-gallon drums for reuse at the refinery while the water was pumped directly into the river.

The conclusions from this illustration are as follows:

1) There is a difference between a remediation well that solved the contamination problem directly as in the case above, and a monitoring well that mainly provides observations of the contaminants that are in the groundwater. When contaminants are found in a monitoring well, you cannot install some magical device in the well that would separate the contaminants from the water, and under normal circumstances, you do not try to pump out all the groundwater, unless you had a very big budget and a large storage and treatment facility -- which has been done in some instances. Instead, your course of action would be to see what caused the contamination in the first place and try to change your method of operation in the hopes that it would solve the problem. If it does not, then you shut down operations. In the case of the Jackson Hills site the last resort would mean using 100% domestic water for irrigating the golf course, which is not a viable alternative as stated on page 3.0-22 of the RDEIR, "Alternative 2 would involve no use of recycled water for irrigation, and both domestic and irrigation water would be provided by the City's domestic water sources. Under Alternative 2, the golf course facilities would be eliminated from the project design." (and designated as open space.)

2) It is necessary to know the water table contours in order to know how and in what directions the groundwater flows. This information is necessary in order to determine the directional and lateral extent of any contamination in order to assess any remediation effort.

3) In the above illustration the water table contours were easily mapped because the surface ground was fairly level and the soil was fairly deep. There was a 'connectivity' within the water table that made the mapping reliable. With the Jackson Hills site this is not the case. The steep slopes in six different drainage basins and the very thin soil layer on top of solid bedrock, make the task of mapping any ground water table insurmountable and unreliable. Groundwater courses downhill, but we could not say if it was straight down or there were some underground obstruction or channel that caused some lateral diversion. We would not know if the soil layer itself were of uniform depth, or if it varied, or how it varied. These difficulties do not occur where the terrain is flat and the soil is of appreciable depth.

4) One might suppose in a hilly terrain like Jackson Hills that the lowest point in a swale at the property line would suffice to place a monitoring well, but such a method is not reliable. As shown on Figure 4.7-1 project site drainage, we know that the water table pops out of the ground at that location, but we do not know where all that flow came from. The direction of underground flows through the soils is a difficult enough matter for the Jackson Hills site, but when we consider the flows through the solid bedrock, that boggles the mind. Consider that Kleinfelder did his site investigation in October 2002, and at that time before the winter rains he observed 1/2gpm flowing out of the 1880's mine tunnel. Where that flow came from is anybody's guess, for no one knows. And that is why any monitoring well on the Jackson Hills site would be useless in assuring that all contamination could be observed and possibly remediated.

Impact 4.11.5.2 states that the project proposes to utilize recycled water for irrigation on the site, and the mitigation measure MM 4.11.5.2a states that, "this will include details to protect and monitor groundwater..." which I have listed as BMP #10. The above analysis shows that for this particular site, the Jackson Hills, this mitigation measure cannot perform its intended function of protecting the environment from contamination.

6.0 Best Management Practices:

Of the BMP's that the project applicant anticipates to use, which I listed previously as numbers 1 through 11, six have yet to addressed, as follows:

BMP#1 routing of impervious with (onto) pervious surfaces: This is standard practice provided erosion control is used. (The above is a mouthful! In simple language they are directing runoff from houses and streets onto grassy areas).

BMP#2 treatment of runoff from outdoor golf maintenance storage areas: It is standard practice to cover outdoor storage areas and prevent runoff from entering the facility, and then you would not need to treat anything, but not being a golfer maybe they have a requirement that I know nothing about.

BMP#3 conversion of project drainage flows to sheet flow conditions to reduce flow concentration and erosion: I did an experiment once. I tried to create sheet flow on a concrete driveway that was flat all the way across, or so I thought. Well that sheet flow condition could not be done. Then I observed that the only true sheet flow occurred when they construct these fancy fountains that spill water over a lip that has been very finely leveled so that the water flows evenly all the way around the rim. Civil Engineers like to think of sheet flow conditions and I myself have used that term on occasion. What it means in reality is that if you grade the compacted dirt smoothly, plant it with grass, you will not get erosion, depending on the steepness of the ground and on the length the runoff travels. For steep slopes, keep the travel length to a minimum, otherwise mother nature has a way of dislodging small soil particles that becomes the start of a rivulet. The project plans did not provide a grading plan for me to assess if they succeeded.

BMP#5 permanent erosion control features at (along) drainage courses. The CHAMP or similar management plan shall incorporate the following: A description of chemicals.... Guidelines shall include restrictions on their use near drainage systems: This is standard practice. If the ground is steep, then rip rap is used along the bottom to preclude erosion. The steeper the slope the heavier the rip rap requirement.

BMP #9 permanent erosion control features at discharge points: It is standard practice to use rip rap.

BMP#11 possible use of pervious pavement systems: I object to PMC'c insertion of this BMP into this list of BMP's, for the reason that one cannot have an anticipated BMP when it is only a possibility. It is the same as saying I can go to the moon or Mars, but that possibility is not to be anticipated. If the project wants to use pervious pavement sections then they should so state, otherwise PMC, do not show your bias in favor of the project. That is not what an EIR is supposed to do.

7.0 "Bases" Evidence for Successful Golf Courses:

What the RDEIR is saying in effect is this, "because you see these examples of golf courses that I have shown in this document are successful with mitigation measures, therefore the Jackson Hills golf course will be equally successful." It is this notion that I am challenging as to their applicability to this particular Jackson Hills site. I listed those "Bases" previously as B#1 through B#9, have examined the first three examples and determined that they did not apply to the Jackson Hills site because they involved retention basins of which this project has none, found out that B#7 did not apply, and we now need to examine the other five "Bases".

B#4: In response to the potentially significant impact 4.7.6 that golf course operation could degrade surface and groundwater, the RDEIR stated that implementation of MM 4.7.2

would reduce this to less than significant, a "conclusion supported by the results of the Cumulative Water Quality Analysis Report for the Lahontan Development 1996 - 2002 (Huffman and Carpenter, 2003) that provides an analysis of water quality data for the Lahontan community, which includes a golf course." I spoke to this issue on December 18, 2006 and complained that documentation was not provided in the RDEIR, as if we were supposed to blindly accept it because they said so. Now that I have researched the issue, I do not doubt the authenticity of that report. So does the Lahontan Development have the same site characteristics as Jackson Hills? I found that they were in no manner comparable. Attachment 41 shows the website of the Lahontan Development with two photographs of its golf course. That development is in the mountains across from Truckee, California, in a broad and wide valley that has a deep sediment layer typical of mountainous valleys, where monitoring wells are effective. Golf courses like these usually slope back to front, or side-to-side, or they have a central running stream - pond system where it becomes easy to control any contamination that might occur. Similar to Jackson Hills with its hilly site and 14-inch soil depth over solid bedrock? Don't make laugh. PMC's assertion borders on the ridiculous.

B#5 are golf course examples that are supposed to be comparable to Jackson Hills. Let us see if they are:

B#5-1: Community of Rancho Murieta, in Sacramento County? Nope! They are on the flatlands.

B#5-2: El Dorado Hills in El Dorado County? Not at all like the Jackson Hills site.

B#5-3: City of Roseville in Placer County? Nope. They are on the flatlands also.

B#5-4: City of Rocklin in Placer County? Another nope. They are on the flatlands too.

B#6: "This mitigation measure consists of performance standards to ensure adequate design and operation of the recycled water irrigation system. The use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(a) and is supported by case law (Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento)."

I looked up the cited guideline and on the prominent first line here is what it states, "(1) An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy." I submit that however measures may specify performance standards, if they fail the test of being feasible then they are worthless as a mitigation measure. I have documented such failure of the cited mitigation measure MM 4.11.5.2a and MM 4.11.5.2b. (It never did make much sense to me that the cited case law Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento would serve as a performance measure without there being the "feasibility" aspect associated with it. The reader should note that case law refers to a project on the flatlands of Sacramento and in no way is similar to the Jackson Hills site.)

The guidelines specifically say, "among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability,..." and that has been my contention all along that this site is not suitable for a golf course -- although there are other sites around Jackson that probably are.

Furthermore the guidelines continues, "(A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project. This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect." I submit further that requirement of the CEQA Guidelines has not been adhered to by the project applicant/ lead agency.

B# 8: The RDEIR page 4.11-52 states, "Indirect potable water reuse examples include the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority in Northern Virginia (recycled water discharge into the Occoquan Reservoir - a principal water supply source for approximately one million residents." So I looked up their web site and here is the latest news on them in quotes: "Sewage Plant Turns Nose Up at Helping Bay. Operators Balk at Va. Plan To Cap Nitrogen Discharge. By Nikita Stewart. Washington Post Staff Writer. Saturday, September 3, 2005: B03.

Each Day, the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority plant in Prince William County dumps high levels of nitrogen into Bull Run and, ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay 150 miles away.

In the Chesapeake, nitrogen is deadly, creating what are known as "dead zones" -- places in the water where it helps spur the growth of algae, which depletes oxygen in the water and kills animals and plant life.

If state officials approve stiffer regulations this month, the sewage authority, which serves 80,000 households in Northern Virginia, will have to spend about $100 million to rebuild its facility to reduce nitrogen levels by more than80 percent.

It is an expensive prospect, and one that about 120 plants statewide are facing. Total upgrades could cost $2.3 billion, and the bill will fall to Virginia residents whose sewer fees will rise by 50 percent over the next five years, officials estimate.

Already, virtually all the state's sewage treatment plants are trying to reduce nitrogen. Arlington's plant has embarked on a $350 million project to reduce nitrogen and make other improvements. County residents will see their bills rise from $500 this year to $570 next year.

But the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority has decided to put up a fight.

Its officials say that saving the Chesapeake could hurt the Occoquan reservoir downstream of the Bull Run plant. The reservoir, which is owned by the Fairfax County Water Authority and supplies water to more than a half-million Northern Virginians, is the largest reservoir in the United States that contains wastewater. So far, it has had no problems with nitrogen levels or algae blooms, officials said.

If the plant cuts the nitrogen in its discharge by 80 percent, officials say, there could be an unforeseen negative effect on the Occoquan Reservoir. The matter needs further study, they say. The water authority agrees.

"You best know what you're doing before you make these large-scale decisions without adequate scientific information in hand," said Thomas J. Grizzard, director of the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, an independent agency.

In Virginia, there are no limits on how much nitrogen can be discharged by a sewage treatment plant, but the state's Water Control Board has given preliminary approval to capping nitrogen discharge at 3 to 8 milligrams per liter, depending on the age and technology of the plant. The Occoquan plant discharges between 16 and 21 milligram per liter, according to James L. Bannwart, the authority's executive director.

The cap is scheduled for a final vote Sept. 27.

The proposed state regulations, which follow from the Environmental Protection Agency, are part of a massive effort, estimated to cost $10 billion, to save Chesapeake.

Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Virginia, said the Upper Occoquan sewage treatment plant should stop fighting the changes.

"They question the science. They question the timing. They question everything. And they are alone in that," Epes said. "There are several square miles of Gatorade green water [in the Chesapeake] that is so full of algae that it looks like green oatmeal floating in it."

An underlying problem, he said, may be the other green: money. "We are very much aware that localities and ratepayers will be saddled with the bill," Epes said.

The state water control board will decide whether there should be more research, said Thomas A. Faha, water permits manager for the Department of Environmental Quality's Northern Virginia regional office.

The foundation pushed for a "flush tax" on sewer users, similar to the one in Maryland, to be used to clean up the bay, but the tax was unpopular among state legislators."

END of News Story.

I do not think that PMC's example is valid for Jackson Hills and the residents of this city.

B#9: The Denver Water Board... I will not comment on this reference at this time, as the particulars of it are unknown. Given that PMC's biases have been demonstrated, that is a valid enough of an excuse.

V Project Alternatives:

Katherine Evatt in comment letter 9-1 in the FEIR states that, " In addition, too many of the mitigation measures for this project still include language that indicates they will be carried out "when feasible". Mitigations that aren't feasible are not mitigations at all." And PMC'c erroneous response was, "While some mitigation measures do contain some language regarding avoidance of impacts "when feasible" (or other similar), this language is provided where avoidance may not be technically possible." and this was stated without regard to alternatives or without regard to the feasibility requirement in CEQA, and that is why PMC'c response was not valid.

I noted further Katherine Evatt's comment 9-3 in the letter in the FEIR, where she simply added the number of alternatives that were better than the project, assuming that Table 6.0-1 was correct, and I realized that she did not critically read all 53 paragraphs x 4 each of the alternatives = 212 paragraphs that were the basis for the table.

Susan Bragstad in comment letter 10-1 did the same, assuming that the information was correct.

Commissioner Terri Works in comment letter 10-10 only noted the typographical errors under population and housing that the comparisons should have been respectively for alternates 2 and 3 and 4 and 5, And I realized that she also could not have read this portion critically.

Here are examples: Under land use construction impact 4.1.3, the table shows that all four alternatives are the same as the project. This is utter nonsense. For example "Implementation of Alternate 'x' would result in similar construction impacts, though the extent of construction would be substantially reduced under this 'x' alternative." Yet they coded on the summary table that all four alternatives would be the same as the project. The same paragraph wording was repeated

word-for-word in each of the four alternatives. This is what made that section so boring to read. It put the reader's mind to sleep.

Similarly under noise construction impact 4.5.2 it was the same wording as before, all coded on the table as if all four alternatives were the same as the project. Totally goofy, until I realized what PMC was trying to do. By stressing the word "similar" over and over again and again, it became natural that the alternative 'x' was similar to, and therefore the same as the project, and hence the ruse. It is unbelievable how many times PMC used that word "similar" in those two hundred and twelve paragraphs. One cannot make so many mistakes unless it was a deliberate action.

On December 18, 2006, I presented a handout detailing my critical reading of the project alternatives section, but at the time it did not get much of a hearing. I am presenting that last summary page as Attachment 42. What it shows is that the project looks better in relation to each of the alternatives, i.e. alt 2 is 34% the same, alt 3 is 43% the same, alt 4 is 64% the same and alt 5 is 74% the same as the project, but all these are fictitious and not true. The reality of the comparison is that alt 2 is only 13% the same (not 34), alt 3 is only 25% the same (not 43), alt 4 is only 32% the same (not 64), and alt 5 is only 25% the same (not 74) as the project.

This is bias at its worst.

Bill Orescan

RCE 30737

Latest from

All Shows

TSPN TV Live Stream