STATUS

BASIS FOR OPPOSTION

NCIP NEWSLETTERS

UPCOMING EVENTS

hISTORICAL BACKGROUND

NEGATIVE IMPACTS

ARCHIVE GOV. POSITIONS

DOCUMENTS OF INTEREST

IGRA Part 151

RELATED LINKS

HOME



 DRAFT ENVIRNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Explanation and Purpose of a Draft EIS

What exactly is a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)and how should the responses of Amador County, No Casino in Plymouth, and the Nature Conservancy that are documented in this section of the Website be viewed?

The Tribe is required by Federal Law to complete an EIS as part of the process for their proposed acquisition of Land for the purpose of Indian Gaming. The legal requirements and guidelines for that process are delineated in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

Purposes of NEPA

“The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” (40 CFR 1500.1(a).)

“In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may –
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and cultural pleasing surroundings;.” (42 USC 4331(b).)

“NEPA procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” (40 CFR 1500.1(b).)

“The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” (40 CFR 1500.1(c).)

“Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible:

b) Implement procedures … to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives. d) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.
e) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”
f) Use all practical means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.” (40 CFR 1500.2.)

How to View the communities Response:

The documents that follow are intended to highlight the failure of the Tribe’s draft EIS to fulfill the requirements of NEPA. This is accomplished by pointing out the inadequacies, shortcomings, and errors contained in the Tribe’s document and by asking questions that were not adequately addressed by the EIS. There is no requirement for the community to provide answers to the negative impacts of the proposed casino project. The BIA and Tribe are now required to review the communities comments and revise their own document in whatever areas they deem appropriate, prior to submitting a final Environmental Impact Statement. It is very important to realize that a draft and also the final EIS
are NOT IN ANYWAY indicative that this is a done deal. Quite the Contrary! Failure of the Tribe to adequately address the communities concerns in their final EIS are grounds for a Lawsuit in Federal Court, and quite frankly based on past Tribal actions, it is our expectation that Amador County will legally contest not only the expected shortcomings of the Tribe’s EIS but also the fallacious statements and erroneous contentions inherent in the Tribe's restored landless claims.

Read the following documents and stay tuned…it ain’t over until a federal judge says it’s over.

The Governor of California’s response as submitted by his Legal Secretary, Adrea Hoch, and can be accessed with the following link. Governor’s Response to Draft EIS.

The lengthy comments submitted by Amador County can be found on the Amador County Website at the top of the pageAmador County.

The comments submitted by the Foothill Conservancy can be accessed with the following Link Foothill Conservancy Document.

The detailed comments submitted by NCIP are contained in the following section and can be navigated with the INDEX provided.

On July 02, No Casino in Plymouth submitted a detailed response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement tendered by the Ione Band of Miwoks for their proposed casino in Plymouth. The complete text of that document can be addressed by use of the following INDEX.

INDEX

1) Cover Letter

2) List of Preparers

3) Federal Register Notice

4) Executive Summary

5) Section 1 Introduction

6) Section 2 Project and Alternatives

7)Section 3.3 Water resources

8) Section 3.4 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gasses

9) Section 3.6 Cultural Resources

10) Section 3.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice

11) Section 3.9 Public Services Overview

12) section 4.3 Water Resources

13) Section 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice

14) Section 4.9 Public Services

15) Section 4.10 Other values

16) Section 4.11 Cumulative Impacts

17) Appendix A Environmental Data Report

18) Appendix B Water & Wastewater Study

19) Appendix C Pumping Tests

20) Appendix M Traffic Study

21) Appendix M Supplemental - CALTRANS Data

22) Appendix M Supplemental - SANDAG Methodology

23) Appendix M Supplemental - Trip Generation Rates & ITE Journal Study

24) Appendix O Phase I

25) Appendix R Economic Impact Study

Cover Letter

Cover Letter

7/2/08

Amy Dutschke, Acting Regional Director,
Pacific Regional Office, BIA
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, Ca. 92825

RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ione Band of Miwok Indians’ Proposed 228.04-Acre Fee-to-Trust Land Transfer and Casino Project, Amador County, California.

Dear Director:

We the undersigned are submitting this cover letter and the following comments on behalf of the organization No Casino in Plymouth, their many individual members, and the good people who have diligently prepared these comments.

Description of No Casino in Plymouth

Members of No Casino in Plymouth and their families have taken their place in the rural grasslands and woods of Amador County. Their lives and memories are inextricably interwoven on the multifaceted tapestry of this unique region. It is the place they work with, struggle with; and where they endure the hot summers and the wet winters. Their connections to this place have inspired in them a desire to maintain the quality of their City and County, and to pass it on to newcomers and future generations.

The members of No Casino in Plymouth value the City’s simple rural amenities, and lack of urban blight. Plymouth is a city with no traffic lights, because it needs none. Plymouth is a City that has no loud and bright urban “night life”, because the early rising, hard working, people who call Plymouth their home like it that way. Plymouth is a city with actively grazed land right on edge of town, because ranching is a valuable part of its past and present. Plymouth is a city with a patch of irises along the highway that dazzlingly announces spring every year. Plymouth is a city where the post office door can stay open even after the postmaster has left for the day. Plymouth is a city where people check on the wellbeing of their elderly neighbors if they miss seeing them that week at church or at the branch library.

Members of No Casino in Plymouth, and the Amador County public, rely upon the area’s roads as the arteries of commerce, public service, community relations, and family life. It is through the highways that they commute, supply their businesses, and receive their customers. Safe and free-flowing thoroughfares are the difference between life and death when police, fire, and ambulance services are called into action. Their rural roads take them to the potlucks, dances, churches, and volunteer endeavors through which distant strangers, isolated by rural acreage, are transformed into communities of caring neighbors. It is on these roads that children return home from school, that parents return home from work, that patient drivers wait as elderly drivers carefully negotiate slow turns, and that the entire spectrum of life’s errands is run.

Members of No Casino in Plymouth recognize that there are a lot of things that are commonplace in urban cities that Plymouth does not have. Plymouth and Amador County do not have grand plans for expanding road infrastructure, because existing development patterns around narrow roads make widening cost prohibitive, and the area does not receive outside funding at the levels seen in urban areas. Plymouth does not have a large surplus potable water supply and available sewage treatment capacity, because it has a limited level of development planned for within its sphere of influence. Plymouth and Amador County do not have large enough populations to financially support one gaming and entertainment complex, let alone the three that are planned for the area.

Finally, members of No Casino in Plymouth recognize that the scale of the built environment is smaller and simpler in Plymouth than in urban cities. Plymouth is a city without a building over three stories. In Plymouth, people park their cars in small parking lots, not multi-level parking structures. In Plymouth, roadside advertisements are on waist-high sandwich boards and wooden roadway signs, not multi-story electrified billboards. For recreation in Plymouth, parents take their children to a baseball diamond or to Sharkey Park, instead of going to a 120,000 square-foot casino. For event receptions, folks in Plymouth use a carousel- styled picnic area, not a 30,000 square-foot event and convention center.

Thus, while a more populated urban area like nearby Stockton or Sacramento would be an ideal location for a casino, it would be an environmental catastrophe to introduce a loud, bright, late night, traffic generating, water sucking, sewage spewing casino into a rural city like Plymouth. Members of No Casino in Plymouth, like any reasonable person, have to believe that there are less harmful and more profitable alternative casino locations available for the Bureau to consider.

Purposes of NEPA

Before reviewing the Bureau procedure and the Draft EIS for compliance with NEPA, it is useful to review the purposes of the act.

“The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” (40 CFR 1500.1(a).)

“In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may –
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and cultural pleasing surroundings;.” (42 USC 4331(b).)

“NEPA procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” (40 CFR 1500.1(b).)

“The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” (40 CFR 1500.1(c).)

“Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible:

b) Implement procedures … to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives. d) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.
e) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”
f) Use all practical means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.” (40 CFR 1500.2.)

With this federal mandate for environmental protection and informed government in mind, we can now review the adequacy of the Bureau’s procedures and the DEIS.

The Bureau Afforded Insufficient Notice and Opportunity to Comment

The Bureau has failed to provide the public an adequate opportunity to review and comment on this document. The following problems are noteworthy:
1. Though the Tribe was given over 4 years to professionally produce the Draft EIS, the public was given only 33 days to review it prior to the May 21 hearing, a mere 42 days more to provide written comments.
2. Though the letter sent out to notify people of the intent to file a DEIS stated that interested parties can receive a copy of the draft document, in fact only select individuals have been provided a copy and others have been informed that they would have to pay $175 for a copy. Two or three copies of a document this lengthy available only during working hours for an entire county to review in only 75 days is wholly inadequate.
3. Electronic versions have proved impossible to navigate due to the number of appendices and cross-references and have suffered continual technical difficulties.
4. Additionally, a simple 25-day request for extension of the comment period made on behalf of this community by our Congressman was denied.
5. Lastly, while no mention of time constraints on the public comments where included in the notification and instructions sent to interested parties prior to the May 21, 2008 hearing (and indeed at the prior Scoping sessions held in 2003 and 2004 no time limitation where imposed) the public was informed at the meeting just prior to the commencement of the oral comment period that a three minute time limit would imposed. This severely prejudices that opportunity to participate by those members of our community who due to physical limitations are not be able to provide their comments in written form.

The Bureau’s DEIS Does not Inform Public Participation and the Agency’s Decision. Inaccurate Notice

Basic flaws in the DEIS make it unsuitable as an environmental disclosure document and as a tool to inform pubic participation and agency decisionmaking.

The credibility of data in the DEIS was compromised from the very beginning, due to the gross factual inaccuracy in the Federal Register Notice. The Federal Register notification for this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is false and misleading to the public in stating that the “228 acres in question is currently held in fee by the Ione Band.” It is more than difficult to believe that an error in such a fundamental and easily verifiable aspect of the project description could be mistaken.

The Department of Interiors own Ethics Office indicates this statement may be a violation of U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations and quoting in part from the same (18 U.S.C. § 1001; 43§ CFR 20.510) “An employee shall not, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, knowingly or willfully falsify, conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make any false, fictitious, fraudulent statements or representation, or make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry.”

We are pleased that, at the Public Hearing held on May 21, 2008 in Plymouth, California, the hearing facilitator admitted to this error and indicated that a correction should be made. She indicated that the properties in question where in fact “not” owned by the Tribe but were in the “acquisition pipeline”. We hope that the Bureau is similarly responsive in making the numerous corrections needed in the DEIS as described in our comments and in those of others.

Lack of a Clear, Stable, and Finite Project Description

From the beginning of this environmental review, we have not had a clear and stable project description for the casino proposal. The Scoping sessions held here in 2003 and 2004 took place without a formal project description. Even the number of parcels of land under discussion has continued to change to this day.

Narrow and Vague Alternatives

The descriptions of the proposed alternative projects are brief and sketchy, and certainly do not meet the criteria for adequate alternatives for the sake of the environmental review at this time.

Substandard Analyses

The issues of inaccuracy, incomplete analysis of data, and complete omission of supportive materials, are pervasive throughout the (DEIS) text. Quite frankly, the majority of the document is so poorly and inaccurately put together as to amount to, in many instances, a huge collection of words few of which have any relation or relevance to actual fact.

Conclusion

While the members of No Casino in Plymouth have tried to diligently participate in this environmental review process, they have been repeatedly frustrated by the fundamental failure of this process to meet the basic foundational principles of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Neither the letter nor the intent of the laws regarding this process are being followed with respect to public notice, public participation, and environmental review. These fundamental flaws must be corrected as this process continues.

The flaws in the EIS process and document to date are so pervasive that they cannot be cured by mere production of the Final EIS. The DEIS should be withdrawn until a project proposal has been submitted with all the necessary and required detail. Likewise, care should be taken in correcting the false statements in the DEIS. The Federal Register notice should be reissued in an accurate and truthful form, and appropriate public hearings should be held. Then and only then can we move forward with this process in the transparent manner that the law intends.

Documents referenced in these comments are incorporated into the administrative record for this project. Please retain a copy of these comments for the administrative record.

Sincerely,

Thomas P. Infusino, Esq. P.O. Box 792
Pine Grove, CA 95665
(209) 295-8866
tomi@volcano.net

Elida Malick, Director No Casino in Plymouth
P.O. Box 82
Plymouth, CA 95669

Return to INDEX

List of Preparers

LIST OF PREPARERS

Below is a list of the individuals who prepared these written comments on the DEIS.

D.W. Cranford II (P.O. Box 794, Plymouth, CA, 95669) Executive Summary
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3.3 Water Resources
Section 3.6 Cultural Resources
Section 3.9 Public Services
Section 4.3 Water Resources
Section 4.9 Public Services
Appendix A Environmental Data Report
Appendix B Water & Wastewater Study
Appendix C Pumping Tests
Appendix O Phase I
Appendix R Economic Impact Study
Federal Register Notice

Walter W. Dimmers (18000 Burke Dr., Plymouth, CA 95669)
Section 4.10 Other Values

Patrick Henry (18210 Burke Dr., Plymouth, CA 95669)
Section 3.4 Air Quality

Thomas P. Infusino, Esq. (P.O. Box 792, Pine Grove, CA 95665)
NEPA citations Section 4.11 Cumulative Impacts

Elida A. Malick, (P.O. Box 82, Plymouth, CA 95669)
Sections 3.7 & 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice

Dick Minnis (P.O. Box 880, Plymouth, CA 95669)
Appendix M Traffic Study

Return to INDEX

Federal Register Notice

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

To have submitted this Draft Environmental Impact Study for public comment speaks to an apparent willingness of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office (BIA PRO), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Solicitor's Office to participate in a fraudulent action perpetrated by the Matt Franklin led Ione Band (MFIB). The apparent lack of integrity and apparent absence of ethics at these agencies is demonstrated by the content of this DEIS as well as the content of the Federal Register Notice that appeared on April 18, 2008 announcing the availability of the DEIS for public comment.

Since 2003 the MFIB, with the apparent cooperation of the BIA PRO, the BIA, the DOI, and the Solicitor's Office, has misrepresented the history of the Ione Band, invented a non existent termination of the Ione Band's Federal recognition, misrepresented Ada Deer's reaffirmation of the Federal recognition of the Ione Band as a restoration, misrepresented the Ione Band's lack of tribal land, misrepresented the leadership and membership of the Ione Band, misrepresented the Ione Band as a restored tribe and misrepresented the eligibility of the 228.04 acres for Class II / III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) despite a well documented Ione Band history that does not support the landless, restored claims of made by the MFIB. The repeated efforts by citizens, citizen groups, Amador County and the State of California to inform the BIA, BIA PRO, DOI, and Solicitor's Office of the documented history of the Ione Band have to date fallen on dear ears. It appears that the BIA PRO, BIA, DOI, and Solicitor's Office is intent on siting a casino in Plymouth without regard to the law, without regard to regulation, without regard to history, without regard to documented facts, without regard to the enormous negative impacts such a casino would have on the small city of Plymouth and Amador County and most importantly without regard to the overwhelming opposition from the community whose environment and lives will be most affected and negatively impacted.

The latest example of the misrepresentations afforded the public by the BIA PRO, BIA, and DOI appeared in the Federal Register Notice of April 18, 2008 approved by Carl J. Artman and contains a false statement in the first sentence in supplementary information. That statement is included below as copied from the HTML version of the notice available on line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribe has requested that the BIA take into Federal trust 228.04 acres of land currently held in fee by the Tribe,

This above statement cannot be supported with documents and is patently false. At the Public hearing held in Plymouth on May 21, 2008 the BIA Official moderating the hearing informed the approximately 150 attendees before the hearing began that this statement was not accurate and that the parcels were in the “acquisition pipeline”. To my knowledge no further action has been taken to inform the public as the fact that the Notice is not accurate or in more honest language false. This is not the first time the MFIB, the BIA PRO, BIA, DOI, and Solicitor's Office has presented the public with “not accurate” information about the Ione Band and the MFIB's attempts to take land into trust and build a casino in Plymouth. If the Federal Register Notice contains such an obvious and unsupported false statement about the ownership of the 228.04 acres how many more “not accurate” might be included in the massive DEIS? What confidence can the public have that the DEIS does not contain more of these “not accurate” statements relating to the tribe and the serious negative impacts to the environment and lifestyle a Las Vegas style casino will have on Plymouth and Amador County?

On April 23, 2008 I sent the following email to Brian Waidmann, Carl J. Artman, and James Cason challenging whether the MFIB held the 228.04 acres in fee and requesting the documents on which the BIA PRO, BIA, and DOI relied that indicate that the MFIB held the 228.04 acres in fee. As of June 12, 2008 I have received no reply and I have resent the request as of June 12, 2008 and will include George Skibine and David Bernhardt as recipients. I now submit the request as part of my comments on the DEIS that the MFIB, the BIA PRO, BIA, or DOI provide the documents that support the statement that as of April 18,2008 the Ione Band held in fee the 228.04 acres that is the subject of the DEIS.

Subject: Federal Register Notice for Ione Band DEIS
From: bcranford4588@att.net
Date: April 23, 2008 9:44:16 PM PDT
To: Brian_Waidmann@ios.doi.gov
Cc: Carl_Artman@ios.doi.gov, James_Cason@ios.doi.gov

Mr. Waidmann,

I write you once again concerning the questionable actions of the Matt Franklin led Ione Band, the BIA and the DOI relating to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and their attempts take land into trust in order to build a casino in Plymouth, California.

The following is from the Federal Register notice of February 18, 2008. The complete notice follows. I believe this statement, like many others contained in solicitor opinions, fee to trust applications, and other Federal Register notices related to the Franklin led Ione Band, is false.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribe has requested that the BIA take into Federal trust 228.04 acres of land currently held in fee by the Tribe,

According to records available in the Amador County Recorder's Office and the Amador County Assessor's office on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm the Franklin led Ione Band did not own in fee even one of the 12 parcels that make up the 228.04 acres contained in the Federal Register Notice as of the date of the notice or as of the date of January 22, 2008 next to the Assistant Secretary's name.

Therefore, finding Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Carl J. Artman's name affixed to this notice, I respectfully request copies of the documents on which Assistant Secretary Artman relied to approve the Federal Register notice in which this highly questionable information is included. While I would like to believe that this is simply an oversight, it is difficult to reach that conclusion given the considerable history of misinformation and questionable actions by the BIA PRO, the BIA, the Solicitor's Office and the DOI related to the Matt Franklin led Ione Band in order to take land into trust for the Franklin led Ione Band to build a casino in Plymouth.

The information and documents indicating ownership in fee of the 228.04 acres by the Ione Band should be readily available and I would expect that an email reply to my request could be accomplished within 24 hours and will include a date on which I could expect to receive the copies of the documents that clearly indicate fee ownership of the 228.04 acres by the Ione Band or a reply that no such documentation is available from the Assistant Secretary, the BIA, the BIA PRO, the Solicitor's Office, the DOI, or the Matt Franklin led Ione Band.

Respectfully Submitted

D.W. Cranford II
209 245 4588
P.O. Box 794
Plymouth, Ca, 95669

Although NEPA regulations require federal agencies to make such documents available to the public (40 CFR 1506.6 (f)), the lack of a response relating to this simple request for documentation on which the BIA PRO, BIA, and DOI relied in order to continue to release the DEIS for public comment and continue to process the Fee to Trust Application for the MFIB is not unexpected. The MFIB, BIA PRO, BIA, DOI, and Solicitor's office apparently have authored, embraced and are pursuing a policy that allows for questionable, misleading, and false statements to be included not only in this DEIS, but in both the Fee to Trust Application and the Artman restored lands opinion with little or no regard for their relation to fact or truth. In other words these agencies have continually for the past several years engaged in a process where whatever information is needed to support approving a casino in Plymouth is included as fact and truth in such documents as this DEIS, the Fee to Trust Application, and the Artman restored lands opinion without supporting documents.

This has not gone unnoticed by the public or other governments. Citizens and citizen groups, the City of Plymouth, Amador County, and the State of California have all brought a host of questionable, misleading, and false statements to the attention of the BIA PRO, BIA, DOI, Solicitor's Office, Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Congress and Congressional Staff. To date no action of note has been taken by any of these offices or agencies to curtail the continuing dissemination of the questionable, misleading, and false information by the BIA PRO, BIA, DOI, and Solicitor's Office. The most frequent response is no response, or that this is an executive branch issue, or that while your complaint is valid and should be investigated the amount in question is only a million dollars and there are no investigators available. Facts count in Federal Court and be assured we will avail ourselves of the Federal Court should that become necessary.

As indicated above this DEIS is an absolute joke, it is an affront to the history of the Ione Band, it makes a mockery of the truth, it is an insult to the public, it is a failure of the public trust and it should be an embarrassment to anyone who participated in its preparation or authorized its release for public comment. Outdated, incomplete, inaccurate, mistake filled, and filled with misleading and false statements hardly do justice in describing the content of this DEIS.

Due to the many false, undocumented, fictitious, and fraudulent, statements contained in this DEIS that have previously been brought to the attention of the Modern Day Ione Band led by Matt Franklin, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office, the Office of Inspector General, the Secretary of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of Interior, the Office of Indian Gaming and various members of Senate and Congressional staff we believe that continued use of these undocumented, false, fictitious, fraudulent statements related to this project would constitute knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up material facts related to the Ione Band and this proposed casino project in documented statements, representations, and writings including this DEIS, their Fee to Trust Application, the Artman restored lands Opinion, the briefs filed by the Department of Interior in the Muwekma Ohlone case in the D.C. District Court and the Federal Register Notice for this DEIS per the following from the Department of Interior Office of Ethics webpage. 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 43 CFR § 20.510 which follows.

>Fraud or false statements in a Government matter

An employee shall not, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, knowingly or willfully falsify, conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make any false, fictitious, fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry. Special attention is required in the certification of time and attendance reports, applications for employment, requests for travel reimbursement, and purchase orders and receiving forms. 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 43 CFR § 20.510

Comments and questions related to various specific sections and portions of the DEIS follow. I hope that the response to these comments is more timely than comments submitted by citizens, citizens groups, City, County and State governments to the Fee to Trust Application. It has been more than a year and no response has been received pursuant to those comments from the BIA PRO Director. Nevertheless, answers to my questions and a response to my comments are expected within 180 days. This is much more generous than the 75 days allowed for review and comment on this DEIS.

Additionally, selected comments on the Fee to Trust Application in 2007 were improperly submitted directly to Holland & Knight, the law firm representing the MFIB at the time by the then BIA PRO Director for review and comment. I specifically request that my comments not be submitted directly to the MFIB's law firm or their attorneys for review and comment.

Return to INDEX

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction, Page i:

NEPA requires that the EIS cite the documents that support its factual statements. (40 CFR 1502.21, 1502.24.) These underlying documents must be accessible and available to the public. (Save the Niobrara River Association v. Andrus (1977) 483 F.Supp.844, 850-851.) As noted below, the Executive Summary of the DEIS makes many statements of apparent fact without referencing the supporting documentation. Please make these references in the final EIS.

Recent estimates based on public statements by tribal leaders place the number of members at over 700. Is the actual number of members known as of some date such as January 1, 2008?

If the Ione Band has no trust land does the Ione Band of Miwok own any fee land? If yes please include all assessor parcel numbers for all properties owned in fee by the tribe as of April 18, 2008?

As of April 18, 2008, the date of the Federal Register Notice for the DEIS did the Ione Band hold in fee any of 228.04 acres which the tribe has applied to have taken into trust?

The tribe's eligibility to acquire land in and adjacent to Plymouth for a reservation is based on what supporting documents? Please provide the supporting documents.

In the DEIS it is stated that Commissioner Bruce agreed to accept land into trust on behalf of the Tribe. In the letter addressed to Nicolas Villa and the Ione Band of Miwok Commissioner Bruce states that “As the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, I therefore, hereby agree to accept by relinquishment of title or gift the following described parcel of land to be held in trust for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians:...” a description of one specific parcel then follows. Please correct this statement in the Final EIS to read that Commissioner Bruce agreed to accept the 40 acre parcel near Ione into trust on behalf of the Tribe.

Commissioner Bruce's 1972 letter contains specific direction that the Sacramento Area BIA office assist in the preparation of a document containing a membership roll and governing papers which conform to the Indian Reorganization. Please include this membership roll and papers in the appendix with the Bruce letter or include an explanation with supporting documents as to why these documents cannot be included.

Was the Ione Band included on the list of tribes eligible for reorganization under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)? Was the Ione Band or any members of the Ione Band contacted pursuant to the 1934 IRA?

The DEIS states that Secretary Ada Deer reaffirmed the Bureau's commitment to bring land into trust and declare a reservation for the Tribe. This is not accurate and is a misrepresentation of the facts based on a reading of the Ada Deer reaffirmation letter of March 22, 1994 addressed to Nicolas Villa Jr.. Secretary Deer, like Commissioner Bruce agreed to accept by relinquishment or gift the following described parcel of land to be held in trust for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. The described parcel is the same specific parcel described in the Bruce letter. Please correct this statement in the Final EIS. Nowhere in the March 22, 1994 letter does Secretary Deer refer to or even use the word reservation.

The reference to a reservation by Secretary Deer is contained in a July 14, 1994 letter where she is responding to a memorandum from the Area Director, Sacramento Area Office in which the Area Director apparently requested clarification of the March 22, 1994 letter. The declaring of a reservation was suggested as part of an alternative action to the taking of the specific parcel into trust and was not addressed directly to the Tribe but to the Sacramento Area Director. An accurate representation of the content of the letters is requested in the Final EIS. Additionally, please include all letters from Ada Deer to the Tribe or to the Sacramento Area Director in the Final EIS as well as all letters from the Tribe or from the Sacramento Area Director to Ada Deer.

Please explain why the specific 40 acre parcel described by Commissioner Louis Bruce and which both he and Secretary Deer agreed to take into trust for the Ione Band has not been taken into trust in the last 46 years? Provide any documents supporting the explanation.

What is the extent of the Federal actions in the development and operation of one of the four related commercial alternatives in this DEIS? What Federal agencies have been involved and to what extent? Please provide all documents referring to any Federal actions in the development and operation of one of the four related commercial alternatives in this DEIS.

Does the EIS address in any way the unforeseeable consequences of Tribal actions related to the development and operation of one of the four related commercial alternatives?

Executive Summary, Introduction, Page ii

NEPA regulations require that an EIS describe the environment of the areas affected by the proposed project. (40 CFR 1502.15.)

Is grazing lands the only surrounding land uses south and east of the proposed site?

Are there any mining operations or mining claims south and east of the proposed site?

Are there any Bureau of Land Management lands adjacent to or near the property?

Executive Summary, Purpose and Need, Page ii

Again, NEPA requires that the EIS cite the documents that support its factual statements. (40 CFR 1502.21, 1502.24.) These underlying documents must be accessible and available to the public. (Save the Niobrara River Association v. Andrus (1977) 483 F.Supp.844, 850-851.) As noted below, the Executive Summary of the DEIS makes many statements of apparent fact without referencing the supporting documentation. In addition to answering the questions below, please make these references in the final EIS.

What is the current employment status of tribal members?

What is the history of employment status of tribal members since 2002?

Are there any Department of Labor data / statistics available on tribal employment? If yes please include this information.

How many tribal members currently live in Amador County?

How many members currently live within 25 miles of the proposed Casino? Within 50 miles?

What are the current sources and amounts of revenue for the tribe?

Have revenues to the landless Ione Band led by Matt Franklin ever included EPA funds?

Were these funds applied for by the landless Ione Band by using the 40 acre parcel near Ione?

What current social and educational programs are available to tribal members through Federal, BIA, State, County, City, or private entities?

How many members currently use any social and educational programs available through Federal, BIA, State, County, City, or private entities?

What other economic opportunities have been explored?

Executive Summary, Alternatives, Alternative A, Page ii

NEPA regulations require that an agency consider the project and alternatives “in detail”. (40 CFR 1502.14.) In answering the questions below, please provide the details regarding the project and alternatives. Will the potentially reclaimed water storage tank be required or not? (Only 5 years to plan this)

Will the source of water for the storage tanks be from wells or from the municipal water supply? Again only 5 years to plan for this.

Was a fire station included as part of the project in the Scoping sessions?

Executive Summary, Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

Is the alternative 40 acre site the parcel of land that Commissioner Bruce and Secretary Deer agreed to accept by relinquishment of title or gift to be held in trust for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians?

When did the tribe consider the alternative 40 acre site?

Please reference and provide all documents relating to any studies done in consideration of the 40 acre site?

Since the current proposal also requires the removal of trees and vegetation and displacement of existing residents, please provide analysis why this does not disqualify the current land as a viable site?

What is the extent of tree and vegetation removal required on the 40 acre site?

How many residents would be displaced?

Are the residents that would be displaced members of the Ione Band? If yes, why are these residents not willing to be temporarily displaced in order to provide their tribe with a stable sustainable source of employment and revenue to be used to support social and educational programs for the elderly, the poor, and younger Tribal member?

Are there any other casinos proposed in the near vicinity of the 40 acre parcel that requires ancillary components such as a reservoir or wastewater treatment facility that requires more than 40 acres?

Please reference and provide documentation that ancillary components such as reservoir or wastewater treatment plant are required if a casino were built on the 40 acre parcel and that the property is not capable of handling such components?

How much of the 40 acre property is located partially within the 100 year floodplain? Please reference and provide documentation that some part the 40 acre parcel is actually in the 100 year floodplain and include the amount of the land that is within the 100 year floodplain.

Is there any history of actual flooding on the Ione Band's 40 acre property that would prevent a casino being constructed on the 40 acre parcel?

Executive Summary, Table ES 1 Groundwater Use AA, AB, AC, AD

Since an EIS must present impacts of the proposal and alternatives in a comparative form (40 CFR 1502.14), what would be the increase in groundwater use under these alternatives? Please present this information in the Final EIS.

Why is the monitoring program being developed by the Tribe in consultation with the BIA and EPA only? Any meaningful monitoring must include participation by potentially impacted off-site users and the Final EIS should include a monitoring program that allows for the participation of such off- site users.

The monitoring of the wells and reporting of the results must be completed by an unbiased third party and available to the public.

Has any monitoring of the on-site wells been implemented in the past 3 years?

What process would be used to determine if a significant effect to off-site groundwater users occurs? Who makes the determination? What criteria will be used? the time for determining criteria for significance is during the EIS process, not later. (40 CFR 1502.16 (a, b, c).)

How does monitoring the existing wells on the project site help determine whether off-site wells are being significantly affected?

Will off-site wells be included in the monitoring program? Off-site wells must be included in any monitoring program.

How often will the monitoring occur or data be collected?

Will the data be available to off-site users?

Have other monitoring programs in the Plymouth area been undertaken that have been completed or are still in process that indicate that the pumping of groundwater at the levels required by the project would in fact significantly affect off site wells?

Are any off site wells currently being monitored by any program?

Have all the wells that might be potentially affected been identified? Please include all wells that the tribe believes might be affected.

Has baseline well data for all wells that might be affected been collected?

NEPA requires reasonable forecasting of impacts, and the disclosure of the risk of uncertainty regarding impacts. (Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission (1973) 481 F.2d 1079; Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Petersen (1986) 795 F2d 688.) This is especially important when it comes to well yields. In reporting well yields, average numbers can be deceiving, since yields vary dramatically from dry years to wet years. In the Final EIS, provide expected future yields in dry and wet years based upon historic data, and forecast the likely extent of future impacts.

Will there be a requirement that the tribe alter or stop its groundwater pumping regime? This must be a requirement in the mitigation.

Where is the pumping regime for each alternative defined?

If the project causes impacts to wells, will the tribe be required to pay for a new well or deepening existing wells? This must be requirement in the mitigation.

Are the pre-project consumptive uses for off-site wells known? If not, how could the tribe or anyone know whether the pre-project use is recovered fully? Does this mean that if an off site-user had a 50 gpm well and it went dry due to tribal groundwater use the tribe will replace the well with 50 gpm well? Explain fully what this mitigation measure really means.

The off-site user will be connected to the tribe’s water supply. Are you serious? Do you mean the off-site user will be connected to the very source of water that caused their well to go dry? Connected permanently or temporarily? At what cost to the off-site user if any?

NEPA requires that an agency disclose the history of success and failure of similar projects. (NRDC v. Grant (1973) 355 F.Supp.280; Sierra club v. Morton (1975) 510 F.2d 813.) Specifically with regard to the mitigation component of a project, NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.) Have these or similar water supply mitigations been attempted at any other Indian casino projects? If so, in the Final EIS please indicate how effective these mitigation measures have been in the past, and provide documentation to support the effectiveness claim. Also, make some estimate regarding the expected effectiveness of these measures in the proposed project.

Are there any local, county or state restrictions on the use of water delivered via tanker truck to off-site users?

Are any permits required for off-site delivery of water by truck? If yes, will the tribe obtain the permits? When?

Is there a documented pumping regime for the three wells? Please provide it.

Return to INDEX

Section 1: Introduction

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Section 1.1 Introduction

Is the exact number of tribal members known as of any date such as January 1, 2008?

How many members were eligible to vote in the last election?

While the tribe has no trust land does the tribe own any fee land? Please include information about any fee land holdings of the tribe as of April 18th, 2008.

Was the Ione Band landless in 1972 when Louis Bruce agreed to accept a specific 40 acre parcel into trust for the Ione Band or had the Ione Band acquired title to the property through a quiet title action?

Is there documentation that supports the statement that the BIA determined in 2006 that the tribe is eligible to have lands taken into trust as its initial reservation pursuant to 25 USC Sec. 465? Please include supporting documents in the FEIS.

Is the tribe eligible to have lands taken into trust as its initial reservation for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)?

Section 1.1.1 Project Location

Were the two scoping sessions noticed and conducted on 12 parcel totaling 228.04 acres?

Explain why the scoping sessions were noticed and conducted on 10 parcels totaling 208 acres.

When will scoping be conducted for the two parcels totaling nearly 20 acres?

Why would scoping not be required on these parcels?

Section 1.1.3 Ione Band of Miwok Indians

How recently was the tribe restored to recognition? Please include documents that support official action by the U.S. Congress or the Department of Interior to restore the Ione Band? Please provide the official notification sent to the Ione Band informing the Ione Band that it was terminated and the official notification sent to the Ione Band informing the Ione Band that it was RESTORED.

Please explain the lack of tribal land statement in light of fact that the Department of Interior agreed to accept land the Ione Band owned in 1972 into trust in 1972? What happened to that land?

What, if anything, was the tribe been doing from 1972 to 2002 to acquire a land base?

What exactly does uncertain organization and status mean? How long has the status been uncertain? Why was the status uncertain? How long was organization of the tribe uncertain?

Why was the organization and status uncertain given the specific instructions contained in the Bruce letter?

Is this proposed casino project the only source of economic opportunity, employment, education, housing, and other services for tribal members?

Are tribal members not eligible for all economic programs, education programs, housing programs, and other services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Government, State Government, County Government, City Government and other entities? Please explain why the Ione Band needs more opportunity than is offered through all the programs available from the above listed agencies and the United States economy.

Specifically, what developments related to gaming does the tribe plan to develop on this site?

Specifically, what are the kinds and magnitudes of the unmet needs of members related to employment, education, and socioeconomic needs? Please provide information as to what specific needs are not being met and why these needs cannot be met through all the incentive programs available from the BIA, Federal, State, County, City governments and other private entities.

Has any determination been made to quantify the revenue stream required to meet the unmet employment, education, and socio economic needs of the tribal members? Please provide this data.

Would this initial reservation be the result of a Section 83 action and decision?

In order for land acquired after October 12, 1988 to be eligible for gaming as an initial reservation the tribe must have successfully completed the Section 83 Acknowledgement process. Has the Ione Band completed the Section 83 Process? Did the Ione Band ever attempt to complete the Section 83 process? If yes, was the tribe successful?

While there may be much land that could be within the tribe’s ancestral territory as a restored tribe proposing to engage in Class III gambling a tribe must show a historical connection and modern connection to the restored lands. Please provide the documents supporting any connection historical or modern of the Ione Band to the Plymouth site.

NEPA requires the consideration of alternatives to the project that could reduce its impacts. (40 CFR 1502.14.) Many of the impacts of this project could be reduced by locating the project in an urban location where there are ample public services, existing public transit, and potential casino patrons. To help in the identification of potential alternative sites, please provide documents identifying the range of areas to which the Ione Band has a historical and modern connection. Please use this information to include an urban location alternative in the Final EIS.

Is there any evidence that the Ione Band resided on the Plymouth site since pre colonial times or at any time? If yes, please provide the evidence which has been verified by at least two independent archeologists, ethno historians or other experts.

Are there any documents that support that the Ione Band has lived on or near the 40 acre parcel described in the 1972 Louis Bruce letter since the early 1900's and that this land has been the acknowledged land base for the Ione Band for a hundred years or more? If yes, please correct the statement that the tribe was without benefit of any type of tribal land base.

Specifically, how near is the Plymouth site to where treaties were negotiated?

If the tribe remains landless to this day what happened to the 40 acres near Ione? Has the tribe recently (in the past 12 months) purchased any land in or near Plymouth?

How many parcels of land does the “landless” Ione Band own in fee besides the 40 acre parcel near Ione?

Section 1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose in need statement must be reasonably detailed for it to meet its objective of helping to guide the development of alternatives to the project. (40 CFR 1502.13; See Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Department of Transportation (1997, 9th Cir.) 123 F.3d 1142, 1155; Friends of Southeast’s Future v. Morrison (1998, 9th Cir.) 153 F.3d 1059, 1066-1067.) Below are questions that should be answered in the FEIS. Those answers should also be used to refine the analysis of project alternatives.

Are there means other than gambling that could meet the diverse and urgent needs of the tribal members?

Specifically, what is the diversity of needs of Ione Band members?

Specifically, what needs are urgent and why are they urgent?

Why are these diverse and urgent needs not being met with current programs available from the BIA, Federal, State, County, City, private entities, the tribal government, and by the members themselves?

Given the fact that this proposed project is now 5 years old with no end in sight, how have the urgent needs been met in past years and how will they be met in the coming years when no casino is built?

In order to consider the present state of the tribe we need to know the present condition of the tribe. Please include this information in detail.

At what rate is membership increasing and why? Please provide a history of membership since at least 1972.

What is the history of the tribe? Please include a detailed documented history of the Ione Band.

What specifically in the history of the tribe, and the modern day needs of the tribe and its tribal membership, provide a strong basis for acquiring the lands in and near Plymouth?

What employment and educational opportunities and critically needed social services will the tribe provide that are not generally already available?

Specifically, what critical social services are needed?

Will this proposed project actually increase tribal employment or just increase employment opportunities?

How many tribal members will actually hold real jobs in the casino if the casino project were built?

What is the current socioeconomic status of the tribe?

If the tribe is landless, specifically what tribal housing will be improved?

Where will the new tribal housing be constructed?

Are there any plans to build tribal housing anywhere on the 228.04 acres?

How many tribal members live in or within 10 miles of Plymouth? 25 miles? 50 miles?

Specifically, what kind of welfare services would be needed?

Why would any welfare services be needed?

How much capital would be available for investment after the diverse, urgent and critical needs of the tribe are met?

Specifically, what other developments are planned and are these developments planned in or near Plymouth? What is the Environmental Impact of these planned developments?

Will the revenue stream generated by the casino project not be sufficient to meet the needs of the tribe and the tribal government so that additional developments are needed? If no, why are the additional developments needed?

What governmental powers of the tribe require acquiring land beyond the 40 acres in Ione?

How many members are currently enrolled or receiving public assistance funds?

Are funds received from the BIA public assistance funds are a trust responsibility of the United States?

Section 1.3 Overview of the Environmental Review Process

An agency is precluded from biasing analyses of alternatives in an EIS, and an agency may not take action to advocate for, or in furtherance of, an alternative prior to completion of both the EIS and the record of decision. The courts will not abide by such prejudicial agency behavior, and mere pro forma completion of an EIS, that renders impossible the fair and careful environmental evaluation that NEPA demands. (See NRDC v. Callaway (1975) 524 F.2d 79; International Snowmobile Manufacturers’ Association v. Norton (2004) 340 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1261.)

Does the following statement indicate a conflict of interest by the BIA? “The BIA exercises final approval authority over the EIS and related documentation, and has furnished guidance during development of the EIS and has participated in the preparation process.”

While the BIA “assumed” the “Lead Agency” role for the completion of the EIS could the Lead Agency role have been assumed by another agency?

Specifically, what guidance was furnished?

Specifically, how did the BIA participate in the process?

Have any of the employees of the tribal Fee to Trust Consortium operating at the BIA PRO participated or been involved in preparing the EIS?

Has the Ione Band contributed to the Fee to Trust Consortium operating out of the BIA Pacific Regional Office?

Did the Inspector General find that this Fee to Trust Consortium was a “conflict of interest” in a September 2006 report?

On April 18, 2008 was the Acting Regional Director of the BIA Pacific Regional Office a member of the Ione Band?

Is the current Acting Regional Director of the BIA PRO a member of the Ione Band?

Have any former Acting Regional Directors of the BIA PRO been members of the Ione Band?

Have any relatives of present or former BIA PRO Directors or Acting Directors been members of the Ione Band? If yes, how many

Are any relatives of present or former BIA PRO Directors or Acting Directors current members of the Ione Band? If yes, how many

Was the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register on November 7th, 2003 for 12 parcels and 228.04 acres? If no, how many parcels and how many acres were described by the November 7th, 2003 Notice?

Please explain why this DEIS includes parcels and acreages properties not included in the November 7, 2003 NOI?

Please explain why this DEIS includes parcels and acreages not included in the January 20, 2004 NOI?

Will the Final EIS be filed with the Regional EPA Office or the Central Office or both?

Can additional comments be made during the 30 days after the EPA Notice (NOA) is published in the Federal Register? If yes please include an accurate and complete description of the process.

What decision will the BIA proceed with after the process at EPA is completed?

If this is a decision on the Fee to Trust Application, how can a decision on the FTT be made since the application as noticed in November of 2006 was incomplete with more than 20 documents withheld from public review and comment including the Artman restored lands opinion?

When will the public be allowed to comment on the restored lands opinion, that was listed as an exhibit for the FTT Application but was withheld from comment?

The record of decision will be prepared by what BIA office or offices?

Section 1.4 Scoping

Why were two scoping sessions held?

Was a public hearing on the Ione Band of Miwok Indians Fee to Trust and Casino Project EIS Scoping Report required? If yes, when was the hearing held?

Table 1 - 1

Is a compact approved by the California State Legislature required? Please include this approval in Table 1-1.

Is this a complete list of approvals needed?

Return to INDEX

Section 2: Project and AlternativesIntroduction

Section 2 Project and Alternatives

SECTION 2.02: Description of Project Alternatives

The description of the project and its alternatives “is the heart of the environmental impact statement.” (40 CRF 1502.14; Sierra Club v. U.S. (1998) 23 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1145.) The purpose of the Alternatives requirement is “to ensure that each agency decision maker has before him and takes into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project (including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the const-benefit analysis. Only in this fashion is it likely that the most intelligent, optimally beneficial decision will ultimately be made.” (Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971) 499 F.2d 1109.) The alternatives must be considered in detail, rigorously explored, and objectively evaluated. (40 CFR 1502.14 (a & b).) Alternatives must be considered for any course of action involving unresolved conflicts over alternative uses of resources, even when project impacts are not significant. (40 CFR 1507.2(d); Hanly v. Kleindienst (II) (1972) 471 F.2d 823; Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton (1998) 47 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1194-1195.)

The discussion can include reasonable alternatives not within the lead agency’s jurisdiction, that could be implemented by other federal agencies or by the private sector, or that could require new legislation. This is especially true when the purpose of the project is broad like improving the well being of an alleged tribe. (40 CFR 1502.14 (c); State of Ala. Ex rel Baxley v. Corps. Of Engineers of U.S. Army (1976) 411 F.Supp.1261; NRDC v. Morton (1972) 458 F.2d 827.)

2.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Casino and Hotel

An EIS must be sufficiently detailed to enable those who did not participate in the statement’s compilation to understand and meaningfully consider the factors involved in the decision, and to allow responsible officials to arrive at a reasonably accurate decision regarding the environmental benefits and detriments to be expected from project implementation. (Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers U.S. Army (1974) 492 F.2d 1123; Sierra Club v. Froehlke (1973) 486 F.2d 946.) Please provide the details requested below.

Where in Phase I of Table 2-1 are the associated facilities included (i.e. parking, water, wastewater, fire protection etc.)?

Table 2-1 is nothing more than a list of the buildings, their purpose and square footage. A more comprehensive table that actually indicates the phases of development is required and must be included in the FEIS.

Development Standards Phases I and II

“ ‘Mitigation must be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that the environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.’ ” (Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S, Department of Transportation (1997, 9th Cir.) 123 F.3d 1142, 1154.) “ ‘A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.’ ” (Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1372, 1380.) NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp.2d 1169.) In the Final EIS, please provide the mitigation details requested in the comments below.

How would the tribes development in compliance with the building code standards described in this section be verified? Please explain. Who will verify? How often? Will reports or inspection results be available to the public? What liability is the tribe subject to for non compliance to the building code standards?

After the tribe issues a certificate of occupancy is the tribe liable for any injuries suffered as a result of shoddy workmanship or non compliance to building / construction standards?

How will verification that the tribe has adopted and is complying with standards no less stringent than state public health standards for food and beverage handling be accomplished? Who will verify? How often? Will reports or inspection results be available to the public? What liability is the tribe subject to for non compliance?

How will verification that the tribe has adopted and is complying with standards no less stringent than Federal air quality, water quality, and safe drinking water standards be accomplished? Who will verify? How often? Will reports or inspection results be available to the public? What liability is the tribe subject to for non compliance?

How will verification that the tribe has adopted and is complying with standards no less stringent than Federal workplace and occupational health and safety standards be accomplished? Who will verify? How often? Will reports or inspection results be available to the public? What liability is the tribe subject to for non compliance?

How will verification that the tribe has adopted and is complying with applicable Federal laws regarding public health and safety be accomplished? Who will verify? How often? Will reports or inspection results be available to the public? What liability is the tribe subject to for non compliance?

What does make “reasonable provisions for adequate” emergency, fire, medical, and related relief and disaster services for patrons and employees of the gaming facility actually mean? Reasonable as determined by who or by what standards? Adequate as determined by who or by what standards?

Does gaming facility mean hotel, parking lots, water and wastewater and all other facilities and areas of the 228.04 acres?

What liability is the tribe subject to for not “reasonably” providing “adequate” emergency, fire, medical, and related relief and disaster services for patrons and employees of the gaming facility?

While designing a sprinkler system to comply with applicable codes is commendable, the question is will the system as installed actually comply with the applicable codes?

Will the automatic fire detection and alarm system located throughout the buildings that triggers the emergency voice alarm signaling systems comply with applicable codes as installed?

Phase I Land Trust Action

Were parcels 2 and 12 listed in Table 2-2, Trust Parcels, included in the two Scoping sessions? If no, was a scoping session ever conducted these two parcels? If yes please explain how the scoping session acreages were listed at ~208 acres in the Federal Register Notice and the DEIS Federal Register Notice is for ~228 acres?

If these two parcels and ~20 acres are to be included in the fee to trust application is scoping required for these parcels? If no please cite applicable U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations. If, yes, when will the scoping session be held and when will it be noticed in the Federal Register?

Are any facilities, buildings, wells being used for this project located on either of the two parcels not included in the previous scoping sessions? If yes, what specifically is located on either parcel that will be used?

Was compliance with Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act included in the tribe’s incomplete fee to trust application in November 2006? If yes, where in the tribe's Fee to Trust Application would one find documentation that the tribe is in compliance with Section 20? If, no why was the documentation not included and when will this compliance to Section 20 be included in the tribe’s fee to trust application?

Has a final Department decision been made that the Ione Band's fee to trust application is compliant with Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

Since the DEIS states that the BIA determined in September 2006 that the Ione Band is eligible for an initial reservation, which part of Section 20 must the Ione Band comply with in its Fee to Trust Application? Two Part or Land Settlement or Initial Reservation or Restored Lands?

Is the Ione Band eligible for an initial reservation for gaming per the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

Management Contract

What process will the NIGC use to look at the overall effect the project will have on human health?

Where are the data and analysis related to the project's affects on human health?

Does the NIGC provide regulatory oversight on Class III tribal gaming operations to ensure the integrity of the games subsequent to the CRIT (Colorado River Indian Tribes) decision?

Is the proposed contract or any portion of a contract proposed between the Tribal Government and a management company to assist the tribe with funding currently in place without NIGC approval?

Does the tribe currently have any contract with any management company or any other entity to assist with funding?

Why is the management company required to comply with the terms of IGRA and NIGC regulatory requirements related to the operation of the TRIBAL gambling facility? Why is the Tribe not required to comply? Is the Tribe liable for non compliance?

Casino Complex

As noted above, the description of the project and its alternatives “is the heart of the environmental impact statement.” (40 CRF 1502.14; Sierra Club v. U.S. (1998) 23 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1145.) The description must be detailed, so that the project impacts can be rigorously explored, and objectively evaluated. (40 CFR 1502.14 (a & b).) Please provide the details requested below regarding the casino.

Will any portion of any casino complex facilities be located on parcels 1, 2, or 12? i.e. wells, spray fields, reservoirs etc.

What small retail shops and how many?

What kind of alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) would be served throughout the casino?

When will the responsible alcoholic beverage policy be developed and adopted? This policy should be part of any mitigation measures and must be included in the DEIS and FEIS.

Have encroachment permits been applied for from Cal Trans for the two driveways off Highway 49?

Have any studies been conducted as to the safety of these driveways?

Where will patrons park if the parking lot is full, since you will not use Village Drive in any way?

What standard uses typical to describe lighting for roadways and parking lots? Please cite what lighting standards are being used and complied with.

Has the use of vintage style lighting standards on highway 49 been approved by Cal Trans?

What measures if any are planned to shield residences to the east, northeast from any potential noise? Many homes in this area are line of sight to the proposed casino complex.

Water Demand and Supply

An agency must have analytical data to support a conclusion that an impact is insignificant. (Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton (1998) 47 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1193-1194; Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1146, 1151; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161 F.3d 1208, 1214.) In the Final EIS, please provide the data and analyses requested below.

Option 1

How was it determined that the total water demand for Phase I Option I with or without use of recycled water would be met by the City of Plymouth's municipal water supply? Please include this analysis.

Did the water demand estimates for the year 2025 for the City of Plymouth include the use of water for a casino complex? Please include a more up to date estimate?

Was the personal communication with Selby Beck verbal or written? What authority to commit the city to any action does Selby Beck have? Is Selby Beck an elected member of the City Government?

What is the size of the lines that currently serve the properties in the City which might be available to the tribe?

Was the pipeline project designed to meet the water demand needs of the City of Plymouth or the needs of this casino complex project?

Option 2

What is the source of water to be trucked? What is the amount of water to be trucked? What is the size of trucks? How many trips a day are anticipated?

Is pumping at rate of 83 gpm 24 hours a day required to sustain a yield of 119,520 gpd?

In what rotation and for what time frames would the 3 wells (M1, M3, and H1) be pumped? Please include the pumping schedule for the wells.

Was the approximately 10,000 gpd of brine included in the water demand estimates Table 2-6? If so where?

When is it expected that trucking in water would be applicable?

How was it determined that 70% of demand for Phase I can be met by groundwater wells? Please include this analysis or a reference to the location of this analysis?

Is May 20, 2004 the most recent will serve letter from Aero Pure?

What is planned beyond the 5 to 10 year guarantee of delivery of water from Aero Pure?

On what data was it determined that with the use of recycled water 101 % of the remaining water demand for Phase 1 would be met by the groundwater wells?

An Additional Alternative: Consider an Urban Location Alternative

Members of No Casino in Plymouth recognize that there are a lot of things a casino needs that are commonplace in urban cities, but that Plymouth does not have. Plymouth and Amador County do not have grand plans for expanding road infrastructure, because existing development patterns around narrow roads make widening cost prohibitive, and the area does not receive outside funding at the levels seen in urban areas. Plymouth does not have a large surplus potable water supply and available sewage treatment capacity, because it has a limited level of development planned for within its sphere of influence. Plymouth and Amador County do not have large enough populations to financially support one gaming and entertainment complex, let alone the three that are planned for the area.

Also, the scale of the built environment is smaller and simpler in Plymouth than in urban cities. In Plymouth people park their cars in small parking lots, not multi-level parking structures. In Plymouth, roadside advertisements are on waist-high sandwich boards and wooden roadway advertisements, not multi-story electrified billboards. For recreation in Plymouth, people take their children to a baseball diamond or Sharkey Park, instead of going to a 120,000 square-foot casino. For event receptions, Plymouth has a carousel styled picnic area, not a 30,000 square-foot event and convention center. The scale of a casino is in sharp contrast to the rest of the built environment in Plymouth.

Thus, a more populated and up-scaled urban area like nearby Stockton or Sacramento would be a less impacting and more profitable location for a casino. Those locations have infrastructure for water and sewer already in place. They are accessible by major highways, as well as bus and rail transit, and Sacramento International Airport. They have existing law enforcement. They have potential labor forces already in residence. The Governor has already set the precedent that he will consider and approve land swaps like this for environmental mitigation reasons. Also, the alleged Ione Band claims that their archeological finds come from the area around the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers.

Return to INDEX

Section 3.3 Water resources

Section 3.3 Water resources

3.3.3 Groundwater : Groundwater Usage

As stated previously, NEPA requires reasonable forecasting of impacts, and the disclosure of the risk of uncertainty regarding impacts. (Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission (1973) 481 F.2d 1079; Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Petersen (1986) 795 F2d 688.) This is especially important when it comes to well yields. In reporting well yields, average numbers can be deceiving, since yields vary dramatically from dry years to wet years. As requested below, in the Final EIS, provide expected future yields in dry and wet years based upon historic data, and forecast the likely extent of future impacts.

On what data is the statement based that the City of Plymouth obtains its water supply from two groundwater wells located near the intersection of Burk Drive and Fiddletown that produce approximately 175 gallons a minute?

Have these two wells been tested and shown to have a long term yield of approximately 175 gpm?

On what data is the statement that two additional wells located north of the City produce flows of approximately 250 gpm?

Have these two wells been tested and shown to have a long term yield of approximately 250 gpm?

Does each well produce 250 gpm or is the combined flow of the two wells 250 gpm?

It is not stated that the City of Plymouth owns or receives water from the two wells producing 250 gpm so does the City of Plymouth receive any water from these two wells? If yes, in what quantity?

How many wells does the City of Plymouth use to supply City water?

Has the City ever had to limit pumping from any of its wells due to excessive drawdown in the well? If this has happened please include this information as part of the history of water use in the basin. A group with a historical and modern connection to Plymouth planning to build a casino should know this information.

You have referenced the Ketron Report , 2004. Please include the Ketron Report as an appendix to the Final EIS. NEPA requires that, when an EIS cites a document to support a factual statement, the underlying document must be accessible and available to the public. (Save the Niobrara River Association v. Andrus (1977) 483 F.Supp.844, 850-851.)

How much of an overdraft in the groundwater basin has over pumping by the City of Plymouth caused?

Are there other wells in the groundwater basin evaluated by Ketron other than the wells included in the DEIS? How many wells have been drilled in the basin since 2004? How many wells in the basin have gone dry or become unusable due to lack of water since 2004?

If more than one season of above average rainfall is needed to make up for the identified groundwater deficit, how many would be needed? This is important since California is now in a drought.

How large is the identified groundwater deficit? Has the deficit increased since 2004? If yes, by how much?

Did you make any attempt to collect any data to measure the impact of the groundwater deficit to other groundwater users in the basin? For example how many wells within one mile of the City of Plymouth's have had to be deepened or new wells drilled? It is essential to provide quantified and detailed information in the assessment of cumulative impacts across the impacted landscape. (See, Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846; Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035; Habitat Education Center, Inc. v. Bosworth (2005) 363 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1078.)

Are the City's 175 gpm? and 250 gpm? wells located within Watershed 1 or Watershed 2?

Why are the City of Plymouth's wells located in Watershed 2 since anyone familiar with the terrain and watershed know they should be located in Watershed 1?

Why is there nothing in this section relating to the number of wells within Watershed 1 within 2 miles of the proposed project?

How many wells are located within Watershed 1 within two miles of the project site?

According to Figure 3.3-4 nearly all of the residential development Burke Ranch is within two miles of the proposed project site. Why were the number of wells within Burke Ranch not included in the DEIS?

You reference the 36 wells and well reports for Watershed 2. Please include these reports as an appendix.

How long ago were the wells drilled? How are the wells used?

Is the data from the well reports current? Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)

Did you follow up with any of the 36 users to verify that the data from the well reports was still accurate?

Please provide the data to support that two domestic wells within the City of Plymouth produce more than 200 gpm.

Project Site

Are the wells M1, M3, or H1 located in Watershed 1?

At page 3.3-9 we read “Due to the unique geology of the project site and outlying areas, no single groundwater basin exists.” Please explain or provide data to support this statement since at page 3.3-8 you included the following; “Together these four wells represent the majority of the water usage for the basin....” (Ketron, 2004) and “Increased pumping by the City has led to an overdraft of groundwater in the basin even in years of average rainfall.” (Amador County, 2007)

Does this mean that there may be multiple basins? If yes, how many basins have been identified?

Table 3.3-4 Long Term Well Yields indicates that the recommended total long term yields (gpm) for wells M1 (10 gpm), M3 (38 gpm), and H1 (35 gpm) is 83 gpm. At page 2-10 it is stated that the total sustained yield of these three wells is 119,520 gpd. and that the three wells will be pumped in rotation to allow for recharge between pumping periods, but no pumping schedule is provided. 83 gpm x 60 minutes gives a result 4,980 gph and 4,980 gph x 24 hours gives a result of 119,520 gpd. This above described scenario raises several questions.

Will all three wells be pumped at 83 gpm when they are being pumped in the pumping schedule?

At what rate will the wells be pumped?

Have any of the wells been pumped at or above 83 gpm during step drawdown, constant rate, or constant yield/drawdown testing or at any time?

If the wells are pumped in rotation at the long term yield rates of 10 gpm, 38 gpm, and 35 gpm it would appear that the maximum daily yield of the wells would be less than 38 x 60 x 24 or 54,720 gallons.

If the wells were each pumped for 8 hours and rested 16 hours it would appear that the maximum daily yield would be 39,840 gpd.

There are many potential pumping schedules that will produce a different amount of gallons per day, so please provide the pumping schedule with pumping rates that verifies that the daily long term yield of three wells is 119,520 gpd.

Section 3.4 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Section 3.4 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gasses

This Draft EIS is clearly an attempt to overwhelm the reader. Taking 4 years to develop this document using sub-contracting help for an unqualified applicant* is an extreme misuse of government funds and power. Further, providing so little time to review and comment on an over 2000-page document with several missing sections and supporting appendices is NOT JUST UNREASONABLE, BUT IMPOSSIBLE. This is particularly true when public notice states there are 75 days provided for review with the clock started upon filing a notice in the Federal Register (which contained blatant lies**) with distribution of the document made more than a month later.

Because of the obvious lack of veracity demonstrated by the BIA in requesting constructive review and comment by the public, I elected to review a small portion of the Draft EIS trusting others would collectively cover the other areas to be addressed.

The BIA was told in the 2003 Scoping Session for the proposed Plymouth Casino that the projected traffic increase (using the SANDAG method) is expected to exceed 14,000 vehicle trips per day to the Amador County roadways when the casino project is implemented. This method and estimate was verified using traffic statistics resulting from the existing Jackson Rancheria Casino’s impact to our county. This verification of the method and estimate showed an accuracy of 0.3%.

As discussed in our review of the DEIS traffic analysis, the volume of traffic expected by development of the proposed Plymouth Casino is substantially underestimated in the DEIS. Hence, this analysis will be based on the 14,000 vehicle trips projected. ***

Using the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for calculating emissions require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 . To calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel the carbon emissions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 ( m.w.= 44) to the molecular weight of carbon ( m.w.= 12), or 44/12. Therefore CO2 emissions from a gallon of gas = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams/gallon = 8.8 kg/gallon.

The proposed Plymouth casino would be located more than 40 miles from major urban centers. Using an average of 5 gallons of fuel per vehicle trip, this would result in an increase of CO2 emissions caused by traffic to and from the proposed casino of 880,000 kg of CO2 added to our air quality every day.

The analysis of global warming in the DEIS makes the ridiculous claim that this project’s contribution is too small to matter as a percent of global emissions. In a state where the goal is to reduce emissions across the board by 30% by 2020 to avoid the devastating impacts of climate change, because our cumulative emissions already exceed significance thresholds, any increase in emissions is significant. In fact, the location of the casino in a rural area is counter to the state’s plan to reduce emissions by discouraging driving and concentrating development in urban areas near transit.

Further, the DEIS concludes that the project will generate “minimal adverse effects” because it does not exceed a 100 tons per year threshold for ROG and NOx. (DEIS, p. 4.4-10.) This threshold is ridiculously high. In Amador County, the Air Pollution Control District sets the threshold for significance for ROG and NOx emissions at the same level as the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District, 10 tons per year. (See Mokelumne Bluff Subdivision and Rezoning Project EIR, 2/15/08, pp. 6-9 & 6-10.) The project’s emissions of ROG are more than 3 times that threshold, and the emissions of NOx are more than 9 times that threshold! Now that is significant, and the Final EIS should disclose this rather than sweeping the issue under the rug. In order to avoid underestimating impacts, an agency must evaluate impacts in terms of the established standards of the area. (See, Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson (1986) 795 F.2d 688, 696.)

Similarly, traffic generated CO2 during the week of 111 tons/yr in 2008 will be more than double the Amador County Air Pollution Control District’s threshold of significance of 50 tons/yr. On weekends, traffic generated CO2 of 167 tons/yr. in 2008 will be more than triple this same threshold. The DEIS does not account for this unacceptable expected increase in CO2 emissions in the Amador County air quality.

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will almost certainly have a negative impact on existing water supplies, agriculture, wildlife habitat, our forests, public health, and the California economy. AB 32 acknowledges this in its initial findings and declarations. Global warming will have detrimental effects on many Amador County businesses including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing and forestry. It will also increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air conditioning in the hottest parts of the state.

Because the American Lung Association (ALA) has graded over 700 counties on their air quality, and their results were verified by the EPA, it would seem highly relevant that Amador County has been rated as having poor air quality for the past three years. It was concluded in the May 9,‘08 headline article in the Ledger Dispatch that we must reduce the vehicle traffic to our county in an attempt to correct this hazardous air quality condition. A 14,000 vehicle trip addition to our county roadways every day would most assuredly not help to improve this situation. Another article in the Sacramento Bee news-paper on 4 June ‘08 stated Amador County air quality is greatly negatively affected by emissions from Sacramento and Stockton to the extent that often, acceptable air quality is only achieved in the early morning hours of each day.

In summary, the DEIS draws the wrong conclusion regarding the air quality resulting from the existence of a Plymouth Casino by:

    (1) using very old reference documents and studies,
    (2) underestimating the additional traffic caused by the proposed Plymouth Casino,
    (3) observing but then ignoring the already existing effects of neighboring county pollution to the air quality in Amador County,
    (4) not properly evaluating the substantial contribution of CO2 emissions caused by 14,000 vehicle trips per day to our county roadways due to the existence of the proposed Plymouth Casino.

Clearly, the greenhouse effect and the carbon footprint of Amador County, along with its ozone and particulate problems, will be greatly affected by increased ROG, NOX, CO2 and PM10 caused by any more casinos in Plymouth or in the county.

* The application to place land in trust has never been filed in a completed form. The tribe’s restored status has never been established and the tribe is not landless. ** The government (BIA) cannot verify that the tribe owned any of the proposed land as stated in the Federal Register. ***The DEIS projected less than 14,000 additional trips which was shown to be underestimated in another study submitted.

Return to INDEX

Section 3.6 Cultural Resources

Section 3.6 Cultural Resources

3.6.3 Regional Archaeology

While this section makes for interesting reading, is there any history of archaeological excavations in or near Plymouth that are related in any way to the Ione Band of Miwok? If yes, please at least include a statement in this section that such a relationship exists.

3.6.4 Ethnography

Is there any physical evidence that the village of Yuleyumne was located where the City of Plymouth is located currently? Was Yuleyumne a permanent village? Was Yuleyumne actually located at the confluence of the Middle and South Fork of the Cosumnes River?

Unlike other mining towns Plymouth is not situated on a river or creek. What was the source of water that supported a village? How far is it to the nearest source of water from Plymouth? How many other, if any, Miwok villages are located where there is no source of water in close proximity in all seasons of the year including summer?

Please include the Levy information/document with the context of the comment in the Appendices. NEPA requires that when the EIS cites a document to support a factual statement, the underlying document must be accessible and available to the public. (Save the Niobrara River Association v. Andrus (1977) 483 F.Supp.844, 850-851.)

Ione Band of Indians

Exactly what lands in Plymouth has the Ione Band continuously used and occupied?

How long has the Ione Band been associated with, lived on, and occupied lands southeast of Ione?

When the United States attempted to buy land for the Ione Band early in the 20th century did they attempt to buy land in or near Plymouth or did they attempt to buy land southeast of and near Ione where the Ione Band lived?

What lands have ancestors of the present day Ione Band occupied in Amador County since 1840? Please support this statement with documentation.

What is meant by around Amador County? Alpine, Calaveras, El Dorado, Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties are not Amador County and if the ancestors of the present day Ione Band are from those counties then they should site their casino in one of those counties.

Is there a letter from Ada Deer clarifying that it was her intent to recognize the Indians on the land near Ione?

Is there a letter from Ada Deer that verifies that the primary reason the Ione Band was reaffirmed was their ownership of the land near Ione?

Is the Federal Recognition of the Ione Band by Louis Bruce in 1972 based on the fact that the Ione Band had obtained title to the 40 acres near Ione?

Did Ada Deer ever restrict attendance at Ione Band tribal meetings or meetings organizing the tribe to those who lived on the 40 acres or in Amador County?

How many current members live in Amador County, not counting the members of the Historic Ione Band who live on the 40 acres near Ione?

Has tribal chairman Matt Franklin ever lived in Amador County or on the 40 acres near Ione?

What is the problem with the title to property held by named individuals of the Historic Ione Band and other members of the Ione Band?

Was the Ione Band ever instructed by any agency of the United States as to what needed to be changed on the deed so the United States could accept the property in trust? If yes, why has this not happened?

3.6.5 Historical Context of the Project Area

Is there any reference to the Ione Band that could be included in this section? Please explain why nothing related to the Ione Band was included in the historical context of the project area.

3.6.6 Cultural Resources

Did Windmiller and / or Osanna contact the present day Ione Band of Miwok as part of their study and 2001 Pioneer Mine Project Report?

If the present day Ione Band of Miwok was contacted by Windmiller / Osanna did they respond to the contact?

If the present day Ione Band of Miwok did reply please include their reply and if they did not reply, please explain how a project in an area of such historical and cultural importance to the Ione Band did not warrant a reply in 2001, but is now so closely associated with and important to the Ione Band.

The records search also revealed the presence of cultural resources recorded in close proximity to the project area. Are these cultural resources related to the Ione Band?

Does close proximity to the project area mean that the resources are not on the 228.04 acres?

Approximately what distance is defined by close proximity?

Field Survey Methods and Results

Did ECORP find anything related to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians in their survey?

Based on the statement that “None of the isolates recorded within the project area display any exceptional qualities,” and that Table 3.6-1 does not list a single cultural resource that appears to have any connection to the Ione Band, is it accurate to say that the project area contains nothing of cultural importance to the Ione Band beyond its value as a casino site? If no, please explain.

Contemporary Resources

Were any of the contemporary resources related in any significant way or of any importance to the Ione Band prior to 2003? If yes, please explain the relationship and why it was significant?

Native American Consultation Results

How many letters were sent and to what Native American Contacts?

How was the project described in the letters?

How many replies were received, and how many were no comment, and how many expressed no concern?

What reasons were given as to why there was no concern expressed concerning the project?

Return to INDEX

Section 3.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice

Section 3.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice
(PAGES 3.7-1 THROOUGH 3.7-12)

An EIS must be a document with scientific integrity. NEPA demands an unbiased evaluation of environmental effects. (NRDC v. Callaway (1975) 524 F.2d 79.) Sources of information must be footnoted. (40 CFR 1502.24.) Study methodologies and model limitations must be disclosed and explained. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir.) 395 F.3d 1019, 1036-1037.) “A patently inaccurate factual contention can never support an agency’s determination that a project will have ‘no significant impact’ on the environment.” (Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846.)

Nevertheless, in this section tables of data are incomplete and insufficiently analyzed and based on biased and unverifiable source material, there are numerous exaggerated statements made as if they are statements of fact with no available supporting documentation to reference, false statements are pervasive throughout the text, material has been plagiarized from other sources, critical studies and supporting references are missing altogether as are complete appendices. Furthermore, nowhere in this section is there a discussion of how the “proposed” project will affect and impact any of the considered topics.

3.7.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians Population

“The Ione Band of Miwok Indians has 652 members.”
Comment:
1. Explain the increase in membership from approximately 85 members to the current number.
2.Provide documentation to support that the over 550 individuals newly added to the tribe qualify as legitimate tribal members according to tribal charter and enrollment criterion.
3.Document the City or town of primary residence of the 652 tribal members

“Based on an economic survey distributed to members of the Tribe (32- percent of which responded…”
Comments:
1.What type of survey was conducted and was this survey of a standard recognized in the data collection industry as being accurate?
2.Who conducted this survey and was this institution a recognized entity with legitimate standing in the industry and no record of complaint against the business entity?
3.What measures were put in place to ensure accuracy of the data collected and to guard against individuals falsifying data in order to skew the results?

“It has been estimated that about 81-percent of all members have incomes below the national median income level.”
Comments:
1. Demonstrate the data that supports this estimate.
2. Who has made this estimate and is that entity a legitimate source for producing this data?

Table 3.7-1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Comments:
1.Employment and Income is notated with a superscript B indicating the source as the GVA, 2004. Define this acronym and document this source. It is now 2008; produce more timely data to support these descriptions of Employment and Income. Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)
2.Source “A-Ione Band of Miwok Indians, 2005” cannot be correlated to any statement in the text. Describe what information is being sourced to the tribe itself and provide independent and unbiased documentation to support the data received.
3. The report states that 32-percent of tribal members responded to an economic survey. Thirty-two percent of adult respondents wouldyield 85.12 persons of adult age providing employment information. Of that number, 47.66 persons are reported as employed. Of that, 38.60 persons receive incomes below the national median income. Of this number there is no identification of what percentage is of retirement age or disable and unable to work (AKA Not Available for Work). The table is therefore incomplete. It is possible that this 5% of the tribal enrollment falls into one of these categories thereby making the data provided artificially appear to support a large number of unemployed. Provide the data that fully describes tribal age, income, employment status, etc.
4. Explain the discrepancy between the data provided in the table that is based on tribal information, and the report of the 2003 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report put out by the U. S. Department of the Interior in 2003 (the year the casino project was made public) that indicates that of the 171 tribal members Available for Work, all 171 persons were employed. Also explain the apparent discrepancy between the Table data indicating that 81% of those employed are below the National Median Income an the 2003 DOI report indicating 27% below Poverty Guidelines.
5. Describe and explain all income received by tribal members via any and all social assistance programs as well as other funding sources e.g. special distribution funds, etc.

Tribal Government
Comment:
1.Are there any challenges to tribal membership and formation of a tribal council with the current members?
2.Document and verify tribal membership.
3.Explain and verify the statement, “...however no land is currently held in trust by the BIA.” since the BIA is not authorized to hold land in trust.

Tribal Attitudes, Expectations, Lifestyle and Culture
“Both the Tribal government and individual Tribal members participate in area political and social activities.”
Comments:
1.Document and provide proof to support this statement.
2.Document primary residence addresses for all tribal members and notating those new to the tribe since 2003.

“Tribal Children attend school located primarily in Amador and Sacramento Counties…”
Comments:
1.Document and demonstrate the number of tribal children attending school in Amador vs. Sacramento County. Document child enrollment in Amador County schools.
2.Document child enrollment in Amador County schools for new tribal members (since 2003).
3.What is the significance of children attending schools in Sacramento County?

“…and various Tribal members of age are employed by local businesses.”
Comments:
1.Documents by some verifiable method, i.e. tax records or other, the exact number of Tribal members employed by local business and if these Tribal members are new to the Tribe since 2003.

3.7.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Amador County Region

General Comment on Section:
1.The majority of estimates are based on numbers obtained from the California Department of Finance. Are there better and more accurate sources, perhaps in-County, from which to gather numerical data on which to base estimates?
2.For the City Plymouth in particular, are analysis models affected by or fail by virtue of small population size?

Population
“According to the City of Plymouth General Plan (amended 2001), the population is anticipated to grow to 1,880 persons in 2020, an increase of 80-percent compared to existing condition, (City of Plymouth, 2001).”
Comment:
1.Document that portion of the City of Plymouth General Plan that was amended in 2001.

Housing
“…it is estimated that approximately 689 units2 are vacant in Amador County.” (Footnote indicates that this figure does not include seasonal, recreation, or occasional use residences.)
Comment:
1.Provide data corrected to show the number of residences that are seasonal, recreation, or occasional use residences.

“In 2000, the median value of owner-occupied housing units in the county was $153,700 and the median contract rent was $568 per month.”
Comments:
1.Provide sources for this data.
2.This data is over 8 years old. Provide the most recent data possible. Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)

“The General Plan’s Housing Element estimates that nearly 20 percent of homeowners were overpaying for housing (paying more that 30-percent of gross income for rent or mortgage) and that nearly 40-percent of renters were overpaying for housing (Amador County, 2005).
Comment:
1.Explain the significance of this statement relative to the DEIS.

The number of housing units in Plymouth grew by 27.3-percent from 1990 to 2000 (US Census 1990 and 2000). In 2000, the vacancy rate was 14.2-percent, with approximately half of the vacant units (7.4-percent of total units) being identified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use residences (Table 3.7-3).”
Comments:
1.Provide current data. Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)
2.Has this accuracy of this data been verified with City or County sources?

“Based on the ratio of seasonal, recreation, and occasional use vacant units to total units shown in the 2000 Census and recent total vacancy rates, it is estimated that approximately 35 units3 are vacant in Plymouth (US Census 2000; CDOF, 2004c). (Footnote indicates that the figure does not include seasonal, recreation, or occasional use residences.)
Comments:
1.The figure of 35 vacant units in Plymouth appears to be seriously flawed based on real time personal experience of looking for a rental and then later owning a rental unit during this 2000 - 2004 period. Provide a detailed description of this analysis and estimation and recalculate the data using data from consistent years.
2.Provide data reflecting the current situation in Plymouth.

“The General Plan’s Housing Element identifies that approximately 139 rental units existed in the City of Plymouth in 2000 (Amador County, 2005).“
Comments:
1.How many rental units were reported to exist in the City of Plymouth by the City of Plymouth?
2.How many rental units are reported to exist in the City of Plymouth, by the City of Plymouth, today?

“Based on this ratio, and the total number of housing units presented in Table 3.7-3, it is estimated that by 2004 there were approximately 175 rental units in the City of Plymouth.”
Comments:
1.This data again appears to be seriously overestimated. Provide a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the 175, 2004-rental unit number.
2.Provide accurate data reflecting the number of rental units in the City of Plymouth today.
3.What is the significance of repeated calculation of inaccurate rental units numbers for random past years?

Employment
General Comments:
1.Who and what method is used to arrive at estimates in this section? Provide detailed description of method of calculation.
2.Do numbers of those employed include self-employed e.g. farm and agriculture?
3.Data listed on Table 3.7-4 for the Unincorporated County shows “figures estimated from City and County figures”. Demonstrate method of calculation and where the City and County figures come from.

Property Taxes
Comments:
1.Table 3.7-5 Major Employers and Manufacturers in Amador County does not reflect or report employment in the Agricultural industry.
2.Jackson Rancheria Casino Hotel is erroneously listed as “ misc. amusement”. Correction should be made to identify this source as “Casino Gambling”.
3.Likewise, Jackson Rancheria Casino Hotel listed under property taxes section is misleading in that this “major employer” does not contribute to the County property tax base.
4.The Ione Band of Miwok has title to lands contiguous to the proposed fee-to-trust parcels. It is fully expected that these parcels will be added to the application for a combined trust acquisition. There has been no denial of this plan by the Tribe and indeed is a tactic ascribed to by many tribes that have sought land in trust. There are no figures reflecting property taxes collected by Amador County for these additional parcels.

Community Infrastructure:

Schools:
Comments:
1. List of schools close to the proposed casino site did not include the Amador County Court School – list needs to include this school and proximity to site.
2. Table 3.7-6 a projected excess of classrooms for Plymouth elementary of 2. Provide a detailed description of analysis in light of the fact that Plymouth elementary is currently as maximum capacity and there are over 1200 new residential units planned for the City of Plymouth.

“Future plans may also include a new elementary school in the Sutter Creek area and a new high school that would serve all county students in grades 9-12 (Carey, 2004).
Comments:
1.With burgeoning development in Amador County, data from 2004 is obsolete. Likewise, statements of what “may” be included in plans from 2004 do not constitute data of sufficient substance to have meaning.
Provide current data reflecting the impact of today’s development plans for the County. 2.Is the ACUS’s updated facilities master plan completed and available to include in this DEIS?

“The main source of funding for K-12 schools comes from the state and derives from local property tax, business, corporate, and personal income taxes, and some special taxes.”
Comments:
1.How has the Governor’s recent budget and massive slashes in California’s school budget impacted Amador County and funds available for school facilities?
2.How will this project contribute to local property tax, business, corporate, and personal income taxes?
3.What is the impact to Amador County and Plymouth resulting from the loss of these funding sources from the project in question?

“Based on these percentages and the current property tax rate of $35,820 for the proposed project area, approximately $13,400 would be distributed to the school district, $4,755 would be distributed to ERAF, and $643 would be distributed to the County Office of Education.”
Comments:
1.On what basis does the DEIS claim that these tax revenues would be distributed to the school district?

Libraries:
Comment:
1.The Plymouth Branch of the Amador County Public Library is located on Main Street, on of the main thoroughfares to the project site. How will this project affect access and safety in accessing the Plymouth Branch Library?

Parks and Recreation:
Comments:
1.Colburn Ball Field, located at the edge of the Amador County Fairgrounds, is less than one-half mile from the proposed project site. How will this project affect access and safety in accessing the Ball Field?

3.7.3 Environnemental Justice

Ethnic Composition
“The largest minority in this census tract are Hispanic or Latinos and Blacks which each represent approximately 22 percent of the population.”
Comment:
1. Since there is only 1 known family of African American heritage living in the City of Plymouth, provide documentation and detailed review of analysis demonstrating that Blacks constitute 22 percent of the population.
2. Report current population figures for the City of Plymouth.
3. Report population figures for the City of Plymouth in 2003.
4. Report Native American population figures for the City of Plymouth in 2003 and 2008.

Return to INDEX

Section 3.9 Public Services Overview

Section 3.9 Public Services Overview

3.9.1 Municipal Water Supply

In Section 3.3 it is indicated that the City's has access to two wells that produce 175 gpm and a well that produces over 250 gpm. Are 175 gpm and 250 gpm the long term yields for these wells? If known what are the long term yields for these wells Simple addition would indicate that the City has access to over 550 gpm and one well producing 175 gpm would produce over 250,000 gpd so please explain your statement that “This water supply nearly meets existing average day demands of 205gpm but does not meet existing summer or maximum day demands of over 450gpm.”

Since NEPA requires that an EIS describe the environment in the project area (40 CFR 1502.15), please note in the Final EIS the answers to the questions below.

Is the City of Plymouth currently under a State Board of Health building moratorium for lack of a reliable supply of water?

If yes, how long has the City of Plymouth been under the building moratorium?

The City has no available building permits, and information indicating otherwise is outdated.

According to the General Plan in place in 2004 was the Arroyo Ditch determined to be the City of Plymouth's primary source of water?

Was the Arroyo Ditch purchased by the City from the County in 1987 or did the City only purchase the right to maintain and operate the Ditch? Please include the purchase agreement that supports this statement.

“The City has a five hundred thousand gallon storage tank to meet existing requirements for the City, but does not provide sufficient capacity for future City growth.” Please provide the data on which this statement based?

Is the City's growth limited because of a too small storage tank or an unreliable water supply?

There is no storage tank in the proposed AWA pipeline, and information indicating otherwise is outdated.

If the City had a larger storage tank would the building moratorium be lifted so the City could accommodate future growth?

“This water supply nearly meets existing average day demands of 205 gallons per minute (gpm), but does not meet existing summer or maximum day demands of over 450gpm.” 205 gpm x 60 mins x 24hr gives a result of 295,200 gpd or 107.4 million gallons annually.

If water supply does not meet the existing summer maximum day demands, does the City run out of water in the summer? If yes please provide dates and durations of insufficient water for the City of Plymouth. If no, please explain this statement.

You state that annual water sales peaked at 72.4 million gallons in 2004 (198,000 gpd). How are water sales relevant to water supply when you have already provided data the water supply nearly meets the water demand of 205 gpm or 107.4 million gallons annually?

Is 459 commercial and residential customers the number of customers served water by the City of Plymouth in 2008?

What is the current number of building permits available in the City of Plymouth?

It appears that data from this section is from 2004 and years prior and therefore its accuracy as to current conditions must be questioned as to the amount of groundwater the City removes from the basin. Please provide updated water data from 2007?

Groundwater

Please provide data to support the statement that approximately 50% of the 87 wells south of the City of Plymouth produce greater than 50 gpm. Where are these wells located? What is the long term yield of these wells?

Section 3.9.2 Wastewater Service

The use of 346 residential connections is outdated. Update to accurately inform the public as to the current number of residential connections as well as the total number of EDU's (Equivalent Daily Units). Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell .(2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)

Section 3.9.5 Public Health & Safety

Law Enforcement

The ASCO does not provide 1.5 full time sheriff's equivalent to the City of Plymouth and the statement to this effect is based on outdated case load information for the Sheriff and District Attorney Offices. Update this section in the Final EIS to reflect conditions as they currently exist and indicate accurately the increased impact which this casino project will cause.

Fire Protection

The material from 2003 is outdated and not reflective of current conditions. The reference to a Municipal Services Agreement with the City of Plymouth no longer exists as a valid agreement.

Return to INDEX

Section 4.3 Water Resources

Section 4.3 Water Resources

Groundwater

Please explain how the addition of a 250 room hotel in Phase II would not increase groundwater extraction. This statement is ludicrous on its face.

There appears to by a typo of 81gpm when it should be 83 gpm. 81 gpm delivers 116,640 gpd not 119,520 gpd.

Please explain how the three wells will deliver 119,520 gpd if they are pumped in rotation.

If necessary pumping by the City of Plymouth has led to an overdraft of groundwater in the local basin, please explain how an increase of more than 40% (295,000 gpd City of Plymouth / 119,520 Tribe 40.48%) would contribute to the existing overdraft of groundwater in the local basin, and yet result in a less than significant effect?

Return to INDEX

Section 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice

Section 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice
(PAGES 4.7-1 THROUGH 4.7- 11/24)

An EIS must be a document with scientific integrity. NEPA demands an unbiased evaluation of environmental effects. (NRDC v. Callaway (1975) 524 F.2d 79.) Sources of information must be footnoted. (40 CFR 1502.24.) Study methodologies and model limitations must be disclosed and explained. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir.) 395 F.3d 1019, 1036-1037.) Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.) “A patently inaccurate factual contention can never support an agency’s determination that a project will have ‘no significant impact’ on the environment.” (Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846.) In the Final EIS, correct the errors in methodology noted below.

4.7.1 Methodology

“…this analysis is based in part on an Economic Impact Analysis prepared by GVA Marquette Advisors(Appendix R9).”

    Comments:
    1.Appendix R, letter from GVA Marquette Advisors to Mr. Mark Williams of Ikon Group, LLC, dated August 18, 2004 Re: Ione Band of Miwok Indians Economic Impact of a Proposed Casino.
    a) This letter states “the revisions consist of an inclusion of the impact expected to result from the Municipal Services Agreement…” Comments:
    1.The Municipal Services Agreement was vacated by the California Third District Court of Appeal on April 17, 2007 and no longer exists. Any data based on this agreement or developed to include the effects of this agreement are inaccurate, misrepresentative, and obsolete.
    b)“Our analysis of the direct impact was based upon information obtained from direct interviews with representatives of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and Ikon Group, LLC…”
    “No effort has been made to obtain independent verification of the source data, which has been assumed to be accurate.”

    Comments:

    1.This is clearly a case of the wolf watching the proverbial hen house. With “no effort be[ing] made to obtain independent verification of the source data, and the project is being proposed over the strenuous objections of the majority of citizens of Amador County and the City of Plymouth as well as a multitude of local and state agencies including the County of Amador and State of California. What assurances are available to the public that the source data is in fact accurate and truthful?
    2. Why was no independent verification of the source data sought?

4.7.2 Alternative A – Preferred Casino and Hotel
Economic Impact
Phase I
Operation: Employment

“The proposed casino would also provide benefits for workers, including health insurance, workers compensation and other benefits.”
Comment:
1.Tribal governments are not required to adhere to State and Federal worker protection requirements. How will the provisions in the above statement be legally enforceable?

“…it is estimated the 60-percent or 763 of those employed would be residents of Amador County.”
Comment:
1.The existing Jackson Rancheria derives most of its labor pool from outside of Amador County. Likewise, there are a number of new developments including regional shopping centers and conference centers that will and are opening new employment opportunities in Amador County. Where is the data on which the 60-percent number is based? How is this estimate derived?

Expenditures on Goods and Services

“It is expected that these purchases would be made primarily from existing vendors located in Amador County and surrounding counties…” “This is considered a beneficial impact.”
Comments:
1. “Expected” indicates a level of uncertainty. If these purchases are not made from local vendors then would that represent another negative impact on the City and County?
2. What is the potential magnitude of that negative impact? The risk of uncertainty must be disclosed. (Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson (1985, 9th Cir.) 764 F.2d 581.)

Phase II
Operation: Employment

“…it is estimated that only five-percent or 68 of those employed would be residents of Plymouth.”
Comment:
1.Table 3.7-4, Regional Labor Force Estimates, indicates that there is a 0% unemployment rate in the City of Plymouth. Clarify the inconsistency between these two statements.

Community Infrastructure
Phase I
Schools

“Payment of school impact fees to the District totally $107,610, as indicated in Section 5.2.7, would provide Amador County Public Schools with the resources to mitigate effects that may occur as a result of Alternative A. This would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.”
Comments:
1. Provide data demonstrating what this payment will provide for the children in the ACUSC in terms of number of classroom, number of teachers salaries paid, or other essential services.
2. Explain in detail the assertion that impacts to the school system will be reduced to a less than significant level and demonstrate what the impact will be at this less than significant level.
3. Who determines what a less than significant level is? 4. On what basis is this one time payment of $107,610 considered sufficient to reduce impacts on the schools to a less than significant level. An agency must have analytical data to support a conclusion that an impact is insignificant. (Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton (1998) 47 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1193-1194; Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1146, 1151; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161 F.3d 1208, 1214; South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp.2d 1169.)

Phase II
Schools

“Based on the development of a 166,500 square foot hotel and 30,000 square foot event and convention center in Phase II of Alternative A, the calculated school impact fees from this devilment would be $66,810. Similar to Phase I, payment of school impact fees to the District would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.”
Comments:
1.Similar to Phase I, explain in detail the assertion that impacts to the school system will be reduced to a less than significant level and demonstrate what the impact will be at this less than significant level.
2. Who determines what a less than significant level is?
3.On what basis is this one time payment of $107,610 considered sufficient to reduce impacts on the schools to a less than significant level.

Fiscal Effects
Phases I & II

“Potential adverse fiscal effects would result from an increased demand for public services and loss of property taxes.” “Public services that could be affected include law enforcement and fire protection and emergency medical services.”
Comments:
1.Are these the only public services that could be affected? What other public services could be affected?
2.What is the estimated magnitude of the potential adverse fiscal effects? What effects have befallen other communities that have been impacted by this type of development? NEPA requires that an agency disclose the history of success and failure of similar projects. (NRDC v. Grant (1973) 355 F.Supp.280; Sierra club v. Morton (1975) 510 F.2d 813.) Specifically with regard to the mitigation component of a project, NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.)
3. There are no numbers provided in either of the references sections (4.9 or 5.2.9) to examine mitigation to be provided for these public services. Section 5.2.9 states in paragraphs K and L that it shall “negotiate the exact amount of compensation” for these services and in paragraph N that it shall “negotiate in good faith”. Provide data that will be used to conduct the negotiations for these services. “ ‘Mitigation must be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that the environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.’ ” (Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S, Department of Transportation (1997, 9th Cir.) 123 F.3d 1142, 1154.) “ ‘A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.’ ” (Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1372, 1380.)

“Potential fiscal benefit would result from increased revenues generated from sales taxes.”
Comment:
1.Since Tribal governments are exempt from collecting sales taxes and likewise from distributing any money’s collected as “taxes” to the County and City governments, how is the above potential benefit to be realized and enforced?

“The fee-to-trust transfer of the 12 project parcels would remove them from the County’s assessed property rolls.”
Comments”
1.As recorded in the Amador County Assessors office, the Tribe owns 5 parcels of land contiguous to the project parcels. It is fully expected and reasonable to expect that, like other tribes have done, the Tribe will exercise the ability to have these parcels taken into trust as well. Why are these parcels omitted from this DEIS analysis?
2. Not all parcels are located in the County of Amador; some are located in the City of Plymouth. Please make the necessary corrections that reflect the correct location of the parcels.

“The Tribe would provide compensation to Amador County to mitigate impacts of the lost tax revenues, as discusses in Section 5.2.7”
Comments:
Section 5.2.7only makes a vague reference to this aspect of mitigation in the following paragraph B, “ The Tribe shall negotiate in good faith with the City of Plymouth and Amador County regarding monetary compensation of the impact of the Tribe’s intended use of its trust lands. Monetary compensation shall be in the form of either a one-time payment or annual payments, as determined appropriate during good faith negotiations. The exact amount of compensation shall be negotiated. The amount of payment shall be subject to annual review”
1. Correcting the above statement to include the parcels that are within the boundaries of the City of Plymouth, what compensation will be provided to the City of Plymouth to mitigate impacts of lost tax revenues?
2. What measures will be in place to enforce the payment of that compensation?
3. Does this statement refer to mitigation of impacts of lost tax revenue?
4.Who will conduct the annual review?

“The net effect of fiscal impacts is considered less than significant”.” Comment:
1.Clarify if it is the net effect of the negative fiscal impacts or the positive fiscal impacts that are considered less than significant.

Social Impacts
Phases I & II
Pathological and Problem Gambling

“The APA has established ten criteria for diagnosis of a pathological and problem gambler, which include….illegal acts…”
Comments:
1.What types of illegal acts are documented as being committed by casino patrons, both pathological and recreational gamblers?
2. What are the social and fiscal impacts to local jurisdictions that are forced to host these casino venues?

“An additional casino in Amador County under Alternative A is not expected to substantially increase the prevalence of problem gamblers.”
Comments:
1.While it may be true that another casino may not increase the prevalence of problem gamblers, demonstrate what the effect of two new or more new casinos may do. In the case of Amador County, it is a real possibility that the Buena Vista Casino may be approved and constructed as well thereby creating two new venues for gambling.
2. While it may be true that another casino may not increase the prevalence of problem gamblers, demonstrate that another venue will not exacerbate the severity of the problem gambler issue that already exists in Amador County due to the existing Jackson Rancheria casino. This cumulative effect must be analyzed and evaluated. (Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S, Department of Transportation, (1997, 9th Cir.) 123 F.3d 1142, 1160; Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1372,1378- 1380; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161F.3d 1208, 1214-1215; Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846; Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035; Habitat Education Center, Inc. v. Bosworth (2005) 363 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1078.)

“Nonetheless, the Tribe has agreed to make an annual contribution of $10,000 to an organization or organization to address problem gambling issues, as address in Section 5.2.7”
Comments:
1. Section 5.2.7 states the following in paragraph A, “The Tribe shall pay an annual contribution of $10,000 to an organization or organizations mutually agreed upon by the Tribe and the BIA to address problem gambling issues.”

    a. How is the $10,000 figure derived and what substantiates that it will provide sufficient mitigation to Amador County to address the issue of problem gamblers?
    b. Why are the organization(s) to be benefited by the Tribes contribution selected by the BIA to the apparent exclusion of Amador County?
    c. Are these organizations(s) specific to Amador County as the impacted County and if not why not.

“This is considered a less than significant impact.”
Comments:
1. In order to determine if the effect of the casino will constitute a less than significant impact relative to problem gamblers we need to understand what the impact of the current casino is on Amador County. What is the current status of the problem gambler issue in Amador County, how are these numbers derived and what is the source of the data?
2. What is the expected impact of the new casino on the current status of the problem gambler situation in Amador County and how are these numbers derived?
3. How exactly will the Tribal contribution to some as of yet undefined and unnamed organization(s) alleviate the problem gambling issue to a less than significant level?

Crime

“Both of these arguments are based more on anecdotal evidence than empirical evidence”
Comments:
1.Since the introduction of Tribal Class III casino gambling in California, there has been ample data, not just anecdotal evidence, to support the contention that crime does indeed increase in communities that host Tribal gambling halls. In Amador County alone, 27 percent of the cases handled by the District Attorney’s office are attributed to the Jackson Rancheria Hotel and Casino.
2. Provide evidence supporting the above statement that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence on which to base arguments for decreased or increases in crime due to casinos. Collect the relevant law enforcement data from jurisdictions with existing Indian casinos.

“Whenever large volumes of people are introduced into a community, the volume of crime is also expected to increase. This holds true for the introduction of any large-scale-development.”
Comment:
1.Provide documentation that reflects similar effects on local communities from the introduction of Class III gambling establishments compared to the introduction of residential development.

“Taken as a whole, the literature on the relationship between casino gambling and crime suggests that communities with casinos are as safe as communities without casinos.”
Comment:
1.Considering that Amador County has itself experienced a significant increase in crime in the area of the casino, provide specific case studies demonstrating the contention that non-casino communities are as safe as casino communities. An agency must have analytical data to support a conclusion that an impact is insignificant. (Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton (1998) 47 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1193-1194; Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas(1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1146, 1151; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161 F.3d 1208, 1214; South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp.2d 1169.)

“Increased tax revenues resulting from Alternative A would fund expansion of law enforcement services required to accommodate planned growth.”
Comments:
1. Since Tribal entities are exempt from participating in the federal and state taxation system, explain how tax revenues resulting from Alternative A would fund expansion of law enforcement serviced.
2. Since Tribal entities are exempt from County and City general plan policies and implementation procedures as well as zoning regulations and other development regulations, they fall completely outside of the parameters of planned growth. Explain the above statement in this context and how Counties and City’s are expected to accommodate, in terms of law enforcement services, growth on Tribal land that is completely unplanned and uncontrolled.

Effects On The Ione Band Of Miwok Indians
Phases I & II

“Second, Tribal members will have access to new jobs created by the casino and hotel.”
Comments:
1. Since Tribal members will receive casino money whether they work or not, does access to new jobs mean that tribal members will actually seek employment?
2. If Tribal members do not fill casino jobs, how is this benefit achieved?

“Employment generated by the project would reduce government assistance payments to tribal members.”
Comments:
1. Document data that demonstrate reduction in government assistance payments to tribal members from casino operating tribes.
2. Document that Ione Band of Miwok members will no longer seek government assistance payments of any kind once they commence operation of a tribal casino.

Tribal Attitudes, Expectation, Lifestyle and Culture

“Alternative A would also fulfill stated Tribal goals for economic development and self-sufficiency.”
Comment:
1. Since economic development of the Tribe has to date included a project that will profoundly and most likely negatively affect the local community, and since the Tribe has purchased other lands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project lands that are not discussed in the DEIS, what are the Tribal goals for economic development that could potentially further affect the local jurisdiction in any way?

Environmental Justice Phases I & II

“One minority community was identified in census tract 3.01.”
Comment:
1. Section 3.7-8 discusses Census tract 3.01 as having 22 percent Black minority population. This is not an accurate reflection of the population of the City of Plymouth. Provide data demonstrating the minority make up of the City of Plymouth.

“Census tract 3.01 is located west of the project site and the City of Plymouth and is characterized by open spaces with scattered residential and commercial developments.”
Comments:
1. Provide easily identifiable landmarks such as parcel numbers or other labels in standard use to delineate this census tract.
2. Why are locations outside of the City of Plymouth being used to calculate minority parentages?

“Regional impacts, such as air quality impacts, would be distributed throughout the region.”
Comment:
1. What would the local impact to air quality be?

“Alternative A would benefit all communities within proximity of the project site by creating employment opportunities that would be primarily filled by the local labor market.”
Comments:
1. Table 3.7-4 provides data indicating that Plymouth has 0 percent unemployment. How does this affect the statement that employment opportunities will primarily be filled by the local labor market?
2. Section 4.7.2, page 4, paragraph three; states that an estimated 60 percent of those employed by the proposed project will be residents of Amador County. Provide data and methodology to support that estimate.
3. What percentage of the Jackson Rancheria employees are residents of Amador County?

“These communities would not be disproportionately adversely impacted. A less than significant effect would result.”
Comments:
1. Provide data and/or examples to support this statement.
2. How is a less than significant effect determined and what exactly does this statement mean?

Section 3.7, the section on Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice, states the following, “Altogether, tribal attitudes and expectations promote increasing participation in and benefit from the regional economy, with continuation of the long tradition of comfortable coexistence and cooperation with their non-Indian neighbors.” It is fully understood that this Franklin-led Ione band expects to benefit from the regional economy. However, the neo-Ione band members that number over 500 since the début of the planned casino are complete strangers to Amador County and the Plymouth area, making the implications of the word “tradition” an utter sham and, in the face of 85% of Amador County and 73% of the City of Plymouth that have said “no more casinos”, and especially not in Plymouth, there is a clear disconnect on what cooperation with the non-tribal community means.

Return to INDEX

Section 4.9 Public Services

Section 4.9 Public Services

Municipal Water Service

Alternative A accounts for 17% of the city’s water supply. What is the current number of water hookups available in the City of Plymouth? Even with the proposed AWA pipeline, the City currently has applications that exceed the capacity of the pipeline. The statement that Phase I would have less than significant impact is false.

Wastewater Treatment

What soil data and analysis indicate that spray fields will be effective? The State of California will not allow discharge to surface waters. With regard to the mitigation component of a project, NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.)

Fire Protection

Please provide data that indicates that manpower for the proposed on-site fire department will meet the 7x24 demands of the proposed 2000 slot machine casino. The estimated manpower required for this 2000 machine casino is less than what was developed for a proposed 960 machine casino in Buena Vista and is not commensurate with the existing fire department in place at the 1650 machine Jackson Rancheria. Where is the analysis of the impact that the additional traffic and people will have in initiating fires, accidents, etc. miles from the casino site as they travel to and from Amador County?

Return to INDEX

Section 4.10 Other values

Section 4.10 Other values

Section 4.10, Other Values, is both inadequate and incomplete. The data presented is old and out of date. The absence of complete project design information as well as current noise studies renders impossible any analysis of significance.

Noise:

The noise measurements presented were made in early 2004. Why have current measurements not been made? Current traffic studies made by Cal Trans and the City of Plymouth have not been utilized? Why? Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.)

Noise measurements were made in January and at low traffic periods. Why? The results in no way represent current conditions in and around Plymouth.

When will studies and noise measurements be made which reflect current conditions?

Noise abatement walls and berms are mentioned in section 4.10. What will be the height and construction of these sound attenuation devices? What is the projected result? With regard to the mitigation component of a project, NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.)

Sound will escape in all directions from the proposed site but no attenuation was presented for the east side of the project site. Why? In the rural atmosphere of the proposed site noise is transmitted over much longer distances than in an urban environment. Traffic noise is clearly heard on a continuous basis by residents located approximately one mile east of the proposed site. Will the project meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 35; California Noise Insulation Standards, Cal Admin Code, Title 25 ?

Existing ambient noise levels and the anticipated noise increase associated with the proposed project must be determined. Amador County General Plan Noise Element calls for a maximum acceptable increase in noise levels of 3dB (A). Does the proposed project meet this standard?

Table 4.10.6 covers projected noise increases from traffic is several locations but does not cover that portion of Highway 49 for the junction of Highways 49 and 16 to the junction of Highway 49 and Shenandoah road. This omission pertains to the roadway that passes in front of the proposed site and through the City of Plymouth. This is the most important highway segment and the segment which will generate the most traffic noise. Why has this highway segment been omitted from the projections?

Hazardous materials:

Who will be responsible for identifying on site hazardous materials during the construction phase and during operations? Who will develop standard operating procedures (SOP) for handling hazardous materials during construction and during operations? Who will be responsible for compliance with SOP?

Lighting:

Light pollution has not been included in the list of potential environmental impacts. Why? What are the details of exterior lighting (parking lot, exterior walk ways, walls, portico, highway, landmark etc.) design for the project?

According to the International Dark-Sky Association, light pollution represents a waste of a magnitude that almost no home owner would allow inside their homes… Our tolerance of wasted light means most lighting fixtures are oversized by a third in wattage…. 30 to 50 percent of construction and operation costs are wasted.

Since no design information was presented, rational comments cannot be made. The ultimate design must be compliant with accepted standards for wattage, light shade, pole height, fixture design and type etc, etc. Offsite bleeding of light must be held to an absolute minimum and neon lighting should not be used. Ultimately light levels should be downsized to no more than the Illuminating Engineering Society recommended levels. Please provide mitigation specifications in the Final EIS.

Vernal pools:

How will vernal pools be identified and protected?

Electromagnetic radiation:

The DEIS omits any mention of the environmental impacts from electromagnetic fields power lines, internal wiring, electrical occupations, operation of appliances, and gambling machines. In light of current evidence this area of environmental impact must be evaluated. (See the national Institute of Environmental health.)

Return to INDEX

Section 4.11 Cumulative Impacts

Section 4.11 Cumulative Impacts

“Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (40 CFR 1508.7.) Cumulative effects must be analyzed and evaluated in NEPA environmental reviews. The analysis must be quantitative and detailed, not perfunctory or conclusory. (Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S, Department of Transportation (1997, 9th Cir.) 123 F.3d 1142, 1160; Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1372,1378- 1380; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161F.3d 1208, 1214-1215; Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846; Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035; Habitat Education Center, Inc. v. Bosworth (2005) 363 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1078.)

Air Quality

The evaluation of significance ignores the purpose of cumulative impact analysis. It dismisses project impacts as a small percentage (1% - 2%) of countywide emissions. That is irrelevant to cumulative analysis. What is relevant is that the project considerably contributes to a cumulative impact that is already significant, namely, the ongoing violation of federal air quality standards. By adding ozone precursors to a basin in non-attainment for ozone, the project will delay the time when federal ambient air quality standards will be met in the air basin. The DEIS does not disclose this. The Final EIS should.

The EIS notes that air quality in the area is impacted by the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins. The EIS relies on the notion that the SIP will solve the long-term air quality problem in the region. The EIS fails to disclose that the SIP has not resulted in attainment of federal ambient air quality standards for ozone in the region for the over 35 years that the Federal Clean Air Act has been in place. While the State and federal governments have adopted more than enough regulations to implement air pollution control technologies to reduce emissions from individual vehicles and individual industrial plants over that time, nevertheless, unrestrained growth (such as putting three casinos in one county) has added too many such polluters in close proximity, thus repeatedly overwhelming gains in emission control technology over the years. In the face of over three decades of air pollution mitigation failure, there is no basis for the EIS to cavalierly rely on the SIP to mitigate the project’s contribution to the regions cumulatively significant air quality impacts. NEPA requires that an agency disclose the history of success and failure of similar projects. (NRDC v. Grant (1973) 355 F.Supp.280; Sierra club v. Morton (1975) 510 F.2d 813.) Specifically with regard to the mitigation component of a project, NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.) The Final EIS should explain that history has shown us that the SIP cannot be relied upon to achieve federal or state ambient air quality standards for ozone in the region.

Greenhouse Gases

The DEIS refers to an outline of measures by the State Air Resources Board as evidence of efforts to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. However, the DEIS does not disclose in this section that this project will increase greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby contribute to the existing significant cumulative impact. Also, the Air Board’s list of measures includes efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled by concentrating development in urban areas. The proposed project makes no effort to do so. The ARB’s emission reduction strategy will only work if all Californians embrace the measures and follow the guidelines. It is disingenuous for the EIS to rely on, for cumulative impact mitigation, the very ARB strategy that the project refuses to follow.

Return to INDEX

Appendix A Environmental Data Report

Appendix A Environmental Data Report

Executive Summary page 4.

It is simply not believable that the sites listed could not be mapped due to poor or inadequate address information. Please explain why these well known local sites were not mapped.

Return to INDEX

Appendix B Water & Wastewater Study

Appendix B Water & Wastewater Study

An EIS must be a document with scientific integrity. NEPA demands an unbiased evaluation of environmental effects. (NRDC v. Callaway (1975) 524 F.2d 79.) Sources of information must be footnoted. (40 CFR 1502.24.) Study methodologies and model limitations must be disclosed and explained. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir.) 395 F.3d 1019, 1036-1037.) An agency must have analytical data to support a conclusion that an impact is insignificant. (Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton (1998) 47 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1193-1194; Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas (1998, 9th Cir.) 137 F.3d 1146, 1151; Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998, 9th Cir.) 161 F.3d 1208, 1214.) In the Final EIS, please answer the questions below regarding data and methodologies.

2.0 Projected Flows

Why are general assumptions being used? Are there no documented project facility designs from which to work?

Please explain why the analysis begins with estimates on wastewater flows rather than available water usage information? I do not believe that wastewater flows are available and that water usage information is not. Please explain why water usage information is not available. Is this a standard method / practice in the industry to calculate water usage? If not, why was it used for the DEIS?

2.1 Wastewater Flows

What facility programs were used to calculate the wastewater flows? What facility design documents were used?

How accurate are the estimates obtained using this method and these facility programs? Is the accuracy based on facility designs?

Why were assumed flows from other similar casinos used and not the actual flows? From what other similar casinos were “assumed” flows used? How similar were these casinos?

Why is it not known whether the casino and hotel heating and air conditioning system will include cooling towers? Why is this critical design information not available?

Is the size of cooling towers and amount of water they require known for other “similar” facilities?

2.2 Water Demands

Table 2-6 – is the water demand for the Brine included here? If not please include and update the table.

Why is it assumed that the proposed water storage tank will provide enough storage to handle the higher weekend water demands? Please provide analysis on the size of the tank vs. water demand? What if the proposed water storage tank will not handle the higher weekend water demands? NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.)

Is there any data available that supports the statement that similar facilities operating in California have historically recycled 40% of the wastewater flow for recycled water use? Please provide this data.

3.5 Water Facilities

“Due to the limited amount of available water supply in proximity to the project site, a multitude of supply sources are anticipated to be required to meet the various alternatives' water demands. The proposed sources of water for the project site include onsite wells and off site wells, as well as trucking water.”

How limited is amount of available water supply in proximity to the project site?

What portion of the water demand will be met with on site wells?

What portion of the water demand will be met with off site wells?

What portion of the water demand will be met with trucked water?

3.5.1 Water Treatment Plant

The iron and manganese sludge will be disposed at what local sanitary landfill?

Page 3-16 Does the Ione Band have any agreement with EBMUD for disposal of the brine?

Water Storage Tank and Pump Station

Have the projects fire flow requirements been determined? If not, why not? If yes, please include the fire flow requirements in the Final EIS.

Please provide tank sizes for no use of recycled water and for use of recycled water?

Wastewater Facility
5.2.1 Membrane Boireactors

How many MBR's are in operation in California?

Do these MBR's comply with or meet CEQA and all other State standards for wastewater treatment?

How reliable are MBR's? Please provide operation and maintenance history data from actual users. NEPA requires that the agency discuss the expected efficacy of the mitigation, and provide factual support for this effectiveness. (South Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2003) 277 F.Supp2d 1169.)

Page 5-6 Are the average day flows for other surrounding casinos actual flows, or assumptions, or estimates?

For comparison to this proposed casino project, what are the size of the casinos and casino hotels listed on page 5-6?

Explain how the wastewater flows from Cache Creek are 10% more than this proposed casino / hotel?

Explain how the wastewater from Thunder Valley (a casino only) is only 25,000 gpd less than the wastewater flows for this proposed casino / hotel?

6.0 Conclusions

Table 6-1 Summary of Demands and Flows - According to the DEIS 119,520 gpd is the potable water demand for Phase II Alternative A using recycled water while this table indicates this demand to be 128,500 gpd. Please explain the misrepresentation of the potable water demand in the DEIS for use of recycled water as well as the demand without use of recycled water?

Please explain all differences in the amounts of water demand required contained in Table 6-1 with the water demand presented in the main body of the DEIS.

Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2: Do these Flow Diagrams include the water loss from the Cooling Towers?

Why is the amount of water to be trucked not included in the body of the DEIS while it is included here?

How many trips required to truck 80,780 gpd?

Return to INDEX

Appendix C Pumping Tests

Appendix C Pumping Tests

2.1 Hydrology/Geology

Page 4: These 96 wells are very likely located on the eastern side of Plymouth not the Western. Please check this and change as necessary. If these 96 wells include the wells of the community of Burke Ranch, are there any Well Logs available that indicate how many (if any) of these wells have needed to be deepened or new wells drilled by the property owners since 2003? Please include this data in the Final EIS.

Have the wells in Burke Ranch been plotted? This is development of 5 to 7 acre parcels and a plot of these wells and their proximity to the project should be included.

Please provide data to support the statement that approximately 50% of these wells are reported to produce more than 50 gpm? When were these wells drilled? When was the last time these wells were tested?

Is it possible that some of these wells no longer produce 50 gpm providing they did in the first place?

How many of these wells produce 10 gpm or less?

3.1.6 Measurement of Discharge Rate

Are there no real time and cumulative flow meters calibrated above 50 gpm available? The data from the H1 well must be completed using a calibrated meter capable of measuring whatever flow the H1 well produces.

How long did it take for the H1 well to pump 5 gallons? Please show this calculation.

Was the device used to measure 5 gallons calibrated and was the timing device calibrated?

Table 3-4 indicates that the well M3 Discharge Rate test was performed at 60gpm for 188 mins and 70 gpm for 60 mins. At 3.1.6 it is stated that no meter calibrated above 50gpm was available, how was the 60 and 70 gpm rates for M3 determined?

4.2 Recommended Long Term Well Yield

This approach assumes that sufficient precipitation will occur and that a significant percentage of recharge will reach the aquifer. It also assumes that the interconnected fracture network extends beyond the radius of influence created during the test, and that these fractures have sufficient storage to produce sustainable yields. However, these conditions may not be realized.

What is the impact to the long term yield of M1, M3, and H1 if these conditions are not realized?

What is the impact to neighboring wells if these conditions are not realized?

Well M1, M3, H1 – what are the remaining degrees of uncertainty inherent these wells? The risk of this uncertainty must be disclosed. (Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Petersen (1985, 9th Cir.) 764 F.2d 581.)

Why are the Lower Limits not used as the recommended Long Term Yields for wells M1, M3, and H1?

Since 2004 what has prevented additional testing to determine the actual long term yields?

Why wait until the first year of production to determine the actual long term yields when it could have been done anytime since 2004? Based on the data presented in the DEIS I believe it is impossible for the three wells (M1, M3, H1) to produce the 128,000 gpd required for this project.

The need for additional wells can be assessed to meet the required water demands. The need for additional wells is obvious based on the data provided. No data has been presented that demonstrates that M1, M3, and H1 can meet the water demand needs or is the trucking of water not needed?

5.0 Statement of Liability (dated October 20, 2004)

This Report was written to document testing activities related to estimating the long term yield of water from certain wells at the Site based on a limited number of observation points and limited duration tests. Further investigation, testing, and data analysis can reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with this type of testing. The Report is based on factual information obtained from Analytical Environmental Services, and others, that has been assumed to be correct, accurate, and complete. Applied Engineering does not guarantee the correctness, accuracy, or completeness of those data.

Why is the number of observation points limited and duration of tests limited? Was there not enough time between 2004 and 2008 to conduct more testing of longer duration?

What are the inherent uncertainties associated with this type of testing? What is the level of uncertainty based on the limited observation points and limited duration tests used for this Report?

Is there a statement of Liability from Analytical Environmental Services? If not, why not?

Return to INDEX

Appendix M Traffic Study

Appendix M Traffic Study

An EIS must be a document with scientific integrity. NEPA demands an unbiased evaluation of environmental effects. (NRDC v. Callaway (1975) 524 F.2d 79.) Sources of information must be footnoted. (40 CFR 1502.24.) Study methodologies and model limitations must be disclosed and explained. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir.) 395 F.3d 1019, 1036-1037.) Stale data cannot be used in an impact analysis to support an agency conclusion. (Lands Council v. Powell (2004, 9th Cir) 395 F.3d 1019, 1035.) “A patently inaccurate factual contention can never support an agency’s determination that a project will have ‘no significant impact’ on the environment.” (Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005, 9th Cir.) 402 F.3d 846.) In the Final EIS, correct the errors in methodology noted below.

The EIS said, Summary. Pg 1: “There are no published trip generation rates for casinos by the transportation industry standard the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The generation rates used within were developed by Analytical Environmental Services (AES) through survey of eight existing casino in the region.”
Comments:

  • Why were the names and location of those casinos plus their roadway infrastructure not listed in appendix M? (They may have been listed in traffic study appendices A through AC but those documents were not provided.)
  • Is the Tribe aware that the claim of no published generation rates is blatantly false? There was a study published in the ITE journal, ITE Date: 5/1992 vol. 62, no. 5, titled, Trip generation rates for Las Vegas area hotel-casinos By Kenneth Ackeret and Robert Hosea. A copy follows these comments.
  • Why didn’t the tribe develop data on the relationship between traffic counts and casino size, hotel rooms, and employees? (The study clearly demonstrated a relationship between traffic counts and casino size, hotel rooms, and employees. The developed equation which correlated the traffic counts at 21 adjacent strip casinos may not be applicable to a single destination casino in a rural location, but it does validate the use of casino square footage as a valid predictor.
  • Why didn’t the Tribe use the SANDAG method to develop traffic Counts? The SANDAG method is a well known industry standard based on the square footage of the gaming facility. This methodology has been validated in studies from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) from data derived from that area’s 12 Indian Gaming facilities. That generation rate is 100 trips per 1000sq. ft and 8 trips per hotel room.
  • Why was the SANDAG method valid for the Buena Vista Casino but not The Ione casino? The SANDAG method was used in the Buena Vista traffic EIS and is in fact mentioned in Section 6 pg. 187 of Appendix M.)
  • How can the Tribe discount the SANDAG method when it was validated by the Jackson Rancheria traffic data? The SANDAG method also predicted the actual traffic counts for the Jackson Rancheria within a hundred trips (data attached) and would seem to be the preferred methodology for this project.
  • How does the Tribe explain the discrepancies in Traffic ADT’s using their methodology when compared to the relevant industry standard methodology? The following table illustrates the EIS under projection (tables 4-1 through 4-7) of expected traffic counts when compared to the SANDAG methodology.
  • Is the Tribe deliberately underestimating the Traffic impact of this casino project in order to evade mitigation requirements?

Alternative

Casino size

Hotel size

AES Casino

AES Hotel

AES total

SANDAG Casino

SANDAG Hotel

SANDAG Total

under-estimate

A phase 1

120,000

none

8,149

0

8,149

12,000

0

12,000

-3,851

A phase 2

120,000

250 room

8,149

745

8,894

12,000

2,000

14,000

-5,106

B

100,750

250 room

6,875

745

7,620

10,075

2,000

12,075

-4,455

C

79,250

none

5,408

0

5,408

7,925

0

7,925

-2,517

D

123250 shop

none

5,292

0

5,292

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Quote from Section 2. Pg. 15: “For this casino project, the highest project trips would occur during the weekday evening (PM) commute peak period. According to the 24-hour volume counts, the weekend peak period for a casino occurs on Saturdays also between the evening hours of 4-6 PM. These time periods are considered the peak periods because the project is expected to have the greatest impact on the local roadway network during these time periods.”
Comments:

  • Why did the tribe fail to account for special events at the Amador County Fair and the Wineries in the Shenandoah Valley? The Amador County Transportation Commission maintains data for peak month ADT’s which account for special event winery traffic and Amador County Fair ground events which on occasion can even exceed peak PM periods.
  • Why didn’t the EIS account for peak monthly ADT’s? Amador County Transportation Commission peak monthly ADT’s range between .4% (SR49 S SR16) and 25% (SR88 W SR124) higher with an average increase of 11% (RTP data).
  • Is the Tribe unaware of the traffic problems associated with Amador County Fair and Winery special events? Data which does not account for peak month ADT’s seriously understates the negative potential impact of Casino traffic and has the potential of severely impacting special events at the Amador County Fair and Amador County Wineries.
  • Is the Tribe willing to mitigate the Amador County Fair for lost revenue for events that are dropped because of the negative effects of increased traffic?
  • Is the Tribe willing to mitigate the wineries for lost revenue due to a decline in attendance at events that are negatively affected by increased traffic?
  • Will the Tribe mitigate local businesses that make a significant amount of revenue based on attendance at these events?

Section 2, Pg.22: Level of service (LOS) and average daily traffic (ADT) are published for 5 locations and based on June 2004 data.
-SR 49 N. of Shenandoah Rd.
-SR 49 S of SR16.
-SR16 W of Old Sac Rd. .
-SR124 S of SR16.
-SR88 W of SR124.
Comments:

  • Why is there no explanation for the discrepancy between machine counts generated Daily traffic Volumes and the ADT’s listed in the EIS Tables? Automated machine counts were conducted for the road segments in question and displayed in figure 2-3 as Existing daily traffic Volumes, but the ADT’s listed are lower by 15%, 45%, 43%, 47%, and 43% respectively.)
  • What methodology was used by the Tribe to reduce the daily Traffic volume counts to the published ADT’s? According to phone conversations with Caltrans, reductions of this magnitude only make sense for extreme recreational areas like high sierra’s which are seasonally affected, not for road counts in the foothill area.
  • Why was there no explanation given to justify this questionable reduction which resulted in improved LOS’s in 3 of the 5 segments analyzed? The EIS states the calculations were in the Appendices not provided.
  • Why does the EIS not include data for traffic counts and ADT’s for Latrobe road? Latrobe Road is a more direct and more frequently used route from SR50 to Plymouth than is SR49.
  • Did Latrobe’s poorer material condition relative to SR49 influence its omission?
  • Why were traffic counts omitted from other intersecting roads and sources? Data also omits traffic generated within Plymouth (S of Shenandoah Road and N of SR16 / SR49 intersection) and the traffic entering SR16/SR49 from Fiddletown Road. There is a large volume of both Shenandoah Valley and Up-county traffic whose only realistic access to SR16 is from Fiddletown Road.)
  • Was it the Tribe’s intent to generate lower ADT’s by omitting traffic from local Plymouth residences, Fiddletown Road traffic, and Latrobe Road traffic?
  • Why is the data arbitrarily reduced by 3% for traffic that initially set out for the Ione casino but decided to go to the Jackson Rancheria instead?
  • Other than lowering ADT’s how can the change in destination from the Ione Casino to the Jackson Rancheria be justified?
  • Why didn’t the Tribe include an increase in traffic from a change in destination from the Jackson Rancheria to the Ione Casino?

Section 3, Pg.29/30: ….annual growth rate based on Caltrans historical data… traffic count data or historical data was as listed in the State’s website for state routes. The ADT roadway segment volumes for 2006 EPEP (No Project) Condition were calculated by applying a 2.2 percent annual growth rate to existing ADT roadway volumes. [Note EPAP=Existing Plus Approved Projects}
Comments:

  • Why doesn’t the Tribe’s EIS use the actual traffic growth rates for the road segments in question instead of using 2.2% as an average? (Data received from Joe Avis (916-654-3072) research Manager at Caltrans indicates that assigning a 2.2% growth rate for ADT’s to be significantly understated: o Caltrans growth rate for SR 49 south of SR 16 is 3.9% for 2004-2006. o Caltrans growth rate for SR 49 North of SR 16 is 3.08% for 2004-2006. o Caltrans growth rate for SR 88 west of SR 124 is 2.83% for 2004-2006.)
  • Where are the calculations justifying the 2.2% growth rate? Valid ADT’s can only be generated by using current growth data for each segment.

Section 4, Pg.50: Trip distribution patterns to and from the project site were obtained from a zip code based origin and destination study for similar casinos in Northern California.
Comments:

  • What was the methodology and the specific road infrastructure that justified using the distribution patterns in the EIS? The only valid trip distribution pattern should be based on the Jackson Rancheria due to the unique Amador County road network and the relative geographic position of the large population centers.
  • Why were the location of the cited similar casinos not stipulated in appendix M?
  • IS the Data listed in the mitigation tables realistic or purposely underestimated? Data listed in tables 4-8, 4-13, 4-18, 4-23, and 4-33 are significantly lower than what the more realistic SANDAG methodology would have produced.

Appendix M, Section 4 contains the intersection LOS’s and the proposed mitigation fixes with their attendant LOS’s for a predicted “no project” condition and five different project variations. This data is collated in chart form for both weekday and Saturday PM peak hour. For ease of discussion the attached chart (intersection matrix.xls) is a compilation of the data for worst movement weekday PM peak hour in charts 4-9. 4-11, 4-14, and 4-16.

#

Intersection

2004 no proj

signal

2006 no proj

2006 Ph I

2006 mitigation

2009 no proj

2009 PhII

2009 mitigation

1

SR49 / Miller Road

A

 

A

A

 

A

A

 

2

SR 49 / Main Street

C

 

C

D

A - RTP & Light.

D

E

A - RTP & Light.

3

SR 49 / Popular Street

B

 

B

B

 

B

B

 

4

SR 49 / Empire Street

C

 

C

D

A - RTP & Light.

D

D

A - RTP & Light.

5

SR 49 / SR 16

D

Y-06

D

F

B - Caltrans Lt (done)

E

F

B - Caltrans Lt (done)

6

SR 16 / SR 124

B

 

B

C

 

C

C

 

7

SR 16 / LatrobeRoad (Amador)

C

 

C

D

C - add lanes

C

D

C - add lanes

8

SR 104 (Preston Ave) / SR 124

E

 

F

F

A - Signal Lt.

F

F

A - Signal Lt.

9

SR 104 (Main Street) / SR 124

C

 

C

D

A - Signal Lt.

C

E

A - Signal Lt.

10

SR 88 / SR 124

B

 

B

B

 

B

B

 

11

SR 88 / SR 12 (East)

D

 

E

F

B - Caltrans plan light

F

F

B - Caltrans plan light

12

SR 88 / SR 12 (West)

F

 

F

F

C - Caltrans plan light

F

F

C - Caltrans plan light

13

SR 88 / Kettleman Lane

C

Y

C

C

 

C

C

 

14

SR 49 / Pleasant Valley Road

C

 

C

D

 

D

D

 

15

SR 16 / Ione Road

C

 

C

C

 

C

C

 

16

SR 16 / Murieta Pkwy South

B

Y

B

B

 

B

B

 

17

SR 16 / Murieta Parkway

C

Y

B

B

 

B

C

 

18

SR 16 / Stone House Road

E

 

E

F

D - add lanes

F

F

D - Sac plan to 4 lanes

19

SR 16 / Latrobe Road (Sac)

D

 

D

E

 

E

F

E - add lanes

20

SR 16 / Dilliard Road

B

Y

B

B

 

B

B

 

21

SR 16 / Sloughhouse Road

C

 

C

C

 

C

C

 

22

SR 16 / Grant Line Road

E

Y

E

F

E - add lanes

F

F

E - add lanes

23

SR 16 / Sunrise Blvd

C

Y

C

D

 

D

D

 

24

SR 16 / Excelsior Road

F

 

F

F

B - Sac plan (done)

F

F

B - Sac plan (done)

25

SR 16 / Bradshaw Road

C

Y

C

C

 

D

E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments:

  • Why were the following intersections omitted from the Tables? o SR 16 / Kiefer Blvd (serious congestion today because of K1-6 school at intersection) *major concern o SR 16 / Old Sacramento Rd. (alternate route out of Plymouth to SR 16 via Main Street) o SR 16 / Carbondale Rd. (access to Willow Springs development) o SR 16 / Greilich, Willow Creek, Welsh Pond, Forest Home, Long Gate, Michigan Bar o Meiss, and other smaller roads some of which provide access to small developments. o SR 88 / Buena Vista Rd. & Jackson Valley Road (access to Buena Vista)
  • Was the disregarding of major intersections on the studied arterials intentional?
  • Why is no mitigation offered for two intersections listed in tables 4-9 and 4-14 for both the 2006 and 2009 EPAP Conditions have LOS degradation from level C to D in 2006 and a level D in 2009 (SR 49 / Pleasant Valley Road & SR 16 / Sunrise Blvd.)?
  • How can the EIS claim mitigation for a SR 16 / Stone House rd. & SR 16 / Grant Line Rd. by referencing a 1993 Sacramento Co. general plan dated 1993 with no actual improvements actually being scheduled? The Sac. general plan actually suggest widening SR 16 to 4 lanes.
  • Why are no details given for the mitigation of intersections SR 49 / Main Street and SR 49 / Empire Street other than the reference to the regional traffic Plan?
  • Why is there no mitigation of SR 104 (Preston) / SR 124 on listed on pages 83 & 94? (charts show signal)
  • Why are most mitigation efforts applied to intersections with no mention of the degradation to arterial movement that will ensue from signalizing the mitigated intersections when large increases in ADT’s is projected?
  • Was this EIS provided to Sacramento, San Joaquin, and El Dorado Counties for their input on traffic flow?

CONCLUSION:

Was the EIS Traffic Study actually a carefully prepared retro-analysis? The Appendix M Traffic Study appears to have evolved by a process of retro-analysis where the money allocated for mitigation was determined in advance and the data was then processed to achieve the desired result. How else to explain the undercount of casino trips, the discrepancy between traffic volume and ADT’s, the omission of significant arterial roads and intersections and the reliance of unscheduled general plan improvements for mitigation?

Appendix M is seriously flawed both in data collection and analysis. It seriously understates the potential traffic impacts for this proposed project and is essentially worthless as a tool for determining mitigation. Essentially, the Traffic Analysis needs to be redone using current data which includes all effected roads and intersections and a valid methodology (SANDAG) that does not significantly underestimate the potential traffic growth from this project. p>Return to INDEX

Appendix M Supplemental - CALTRANS Data

Appendix M Supplemental - CALTRANS Data

The following link can be used to access a document procurred from Caltrans that was referenced in Appendix M as proof that the percentage of projected Traffic increase forcast in the Tribe's draft EIS was inaccurate: Scan of Caltrans Data.

Return to INDEX

Appendix M Supplemental - SANDAG Methodology

Appendix M Supplemental - SANDAG Methodology

How do you know that the SANDAG projected traffic count for the proposed Plymouth casino is a valid number and not something concocted to make it look bad? The Jackson Rancheria has been around awhile, so let’s use the same statistical analysis on projected and actual Rancheria ADT’s as validation of the Plymouth numbers. Column I of table 2 is the measured ADT for Ridge Road and NY Ranch Road in 1990, the year before the Jackson Rancheria assumed it’s current operating form. Column II of Table 2 is the projected ADT for 2003 using the average 3% growth rate without including the Rancheria’s impact. Column III of Table 2 is the actual measured ADT for both roads which does take into account the Rancheria traffic. By comparing the projected and actual ADT’s we find the difference to be almost exactly the SANDAG estimated 10,000 traffic volume increase based on a 100,000 sq. ft. casino. This exercise proves conclusively the accuracy of the traffic growth projections for the proposed casino in Plymouth. They should also cause you to question the motive of anyone who disputes their validity.

TABLE 2: RANCHERIA VALIDATION

IIIIII
Location1990 actual ADT2003 proj ADT2003 actual ADT
NY Ranch Road75411076396
Ridge Road6637974814350
TotalsN/A1085520746

Actual 20746 - Projected 10855 = 9891*

*An actual ADT increase of 9891, when compared to the SANDAG estimated increase of 10,000 validates the projected numbers for Plymouth.

Return to INDEX

Appendix M Supplemental - Trip Generation Rates & ITE Journal Study

Appendix M Supplemental - Trip Generation Rates & ITE Journal Study

Ackeret, Kenneth W. ; Hosea, Robert C., III

This study compiled existing driveway count data obtained and documented in various traffic impact reports prepared within the Las Vegas area, and used this information to prepare data plots and trip generation equations similar to those found in the ITE trip generation report. The study correlated the following independent variable characteristics to driveway count data from 1985 through 1990 for various properties: number of hotel rooms in the property; casino floor square footage; and average number of employees. Details of the data collection and data evaluation procedures are described, and the conclusions drawn from the study are set forth.
Date: 5/1992 vol. 62, no. 5

The study published in the International Transportation Engineers Journal can be accessed with the following Link: ITE Journal Study.

Return to INDEX

Appendix O Phase I

Appendix O Phase I

1.7 Walk-Over Site Reconnaissance

Were Parcels 2 & 12 included in the Scoping Sessions?

2.6 Aerial Photographs

Does the 1962 aerial photograph show any evidence of a sawmill on any of the properties or having been on any of the properties?

2.9 Historical Uses of the Project Parcels

Were any of the parcels or any portion of the parcels used for a sawmill?

Section 3.0 Site Reconnaissance and Interviews

3.2 Site Reconnaissance Findings

Parcel 1

Have the several large piles of waste rock been tested for hazardous waste or toxicity? Has the site been tested for hazardous waste or toxicity?

Return to INDEX