Jackson City Council
September 22, 2025

Jackson City Council Agenda
Monday, September 22, 2025 – 6:30 PM Regular Meeting
Jackson City Hall, 33 Broadway, Jackson, California 95642 Public Line (Audio Only): 1-650-419-1505
Meeting ID: 161024902
Please join using this link: https://v.ringcentral.com/join/161024902 Please note that the above information is for remote viewing only. Live remote public comment will not be taken unless required by Government Code section 54953(f). If required, it will be announced by the Mayor.

Should you wish to speak during Public Comment, please plan to attend in person at the address listed above.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

Approval of agenda for this date; any and all off-agenda items must be approved by the City Council (pursuant to §54954.2 of the Government Code).

2. PUBLIC MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

Discussion items only, no action will be taken. Any person may address the Council at this time on any subject within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Please note – there is a three (3) minute limit.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR.

Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. a. Approval of September 8, 2025 meeting minutes.
b. Approval of Expenditure Report in the amount of $217,949.89 (September 11, 2025). c. Receive July 2025 Treasurer’s Report.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS.

This section is to provide staff an opportunity to present oral status reports on issues. No legal action is expected to be taken by the Council.

5. COUNCIL REPORTS.

This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present reports on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.

6. DISCUSSION CALENDAR.
a. Amador Water Agency Update: Tanner Treatment Plant status, and current rate study [Larry McKenney, General Manager/Amador Water Agency].
b. Consideration and possible approval of Resolution No. 2025-24 Awarding the Construction Contract for the Main Street Maintenance Project to American Pavement Systems, Inc., and possible approval to fund the project utilizing TOT funds.

Jackson City Council Agenda Monday, September 22, 2025
c. PUBLIC HEARING –
Resolution No. 2025-26 Adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for a Remedial Action Plan for Oro De Amador [Susan Peters & Erin Ventura, Contract City Planners].

7. REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT.

Regular meeting adjournment.

8. CLOSED SESSION.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Mackey v. City of Jackson, Amador Superior Court, Case No. 23-CV-13061

9. CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT.

UPCOMING MEETINGS:

September 24, 2025 1:30 – 3pm Economic Development Committee Meeting October 8, 2025 10:00 am Cemetery Committee Meeting
October 13, 2025 6:30 pm City Council Meeting
October 20, 2025 6:30 pm Planning Commission Meeting (TBD) October 27, 2025 6:30 pm City Council Meeting
UPCOMING CLOSURE DATES FOR CITY OFFICE:

November 11, 2025 Veteran’s Day
November 27-28, 2025 Thanksgiving Holiday
Posted: City Hall, 33 Broadway, Jackson
Agenda materials will be available for review (pursuant to §54957.5 Government Code Section) in the City Clerk’s office in City Hall.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the Office of the City Clerk at (209) 223-1646 (voice) or (209) 223-3141 (fax). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

Visit our website at http://ci.jackson.ca.us for previous agendas, minutes and City budget.

CITY OF JACKSON
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2025
Mayor and Council Members
Steve McLean, Mayor
Chad Simmons, Vice Mayor
Max Godde, Council Member
Connie Gonsalves, Council Member
Sierra McLean, Council Member
ABSENT: None
John Georgette, City Clerk
Josh Nelson, City Attorney (attended remotely)
Staff Members:

Chris Mynderup, Police Chief/Acting City Manager
Ryan Pidgeon, Fire Chief
Carleen Kirkpatrick, Deputy City Clerk
Christine Platt, Homeless Outreach Coordinator
Mayor McLean called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.

Mayor McLean led the Pledge of Allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

Motion to approve the City Council Agenda dated September 8, 2025 as presented. Moved by Councilmember Gonsalves, seconded by Councilmember Sierra McLean, and carried by a 5 to 0 vote:

AYES: Steve McLean, Simmons, Godde, Gonsalves, Sierra McLean NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

2. PUBLIC MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

Discussion items only, no action will be taken. Any person may address the Council at this time on any subject within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Please note – there is a three (3) minute limit.

Resident David Drummond and a resident on Argonaut Lane (no name given) provided public comment.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR.

Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council Member. a. Approval of August 25, 2025 meeting minutes.
b. Approval of Expenditure Report in the amount of $195,746.56 (9/5/25). c. Approval of August 2025 Payroll Expenditure Report in the amount of $513,625.15. d. Receive Jackson Building Department Monthly Report for August 2025.

Item 3a
September 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes
e. Receive Jackson Fire Department Monthly Report for August 2025. f. Receive Jackson Police Department Monthly Report for August 2025. g. Receive Homeless Outreach Coordinator Report for August 2025. h. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for City Federally Funded Engineering Consulting Services Between City of Jackson and Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc. for Hwy 49 Street Lights – HSIPL 5141 (019).
i. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for City Federally Funded Engineering Consulting Services Between City of Jackson and Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc. for Pitt Street Bridge Replacement BRLO 5141 (018).
j. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for City Federally Funded Engineering Consulting Services Between City of Jackson and Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc. for South Avenue Bridge Replacement – BRLO 5141 (014).
k. Approval of Special Event Application from Argonaut Cross Country for the Motherlode Monster Dash – 5K Fun Run on October 25, 2025.

Motion to approve the Consent Calendar dated September 8, 2025 as presented. Moved by Councilmember Gonsalves, seconded by Councilmember Godde, and carried by a 5 to 0 vote:

AYES: Steve McLean, Simmons, Godde, Gonsalves, Sierra McLean NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS.

This section is to provide staff an opportunity to present oral status reports on issues. No legal action is expected to be taken by the Council.

Public Works Superintendent, Bree Wilder – absent.

Fire Chief, Ryan Pidgeon – Rescue 4, Engine 6333 and Engine 6332 currently out of service. 6332, rehab beginning – expecting to return May 2026 before starting rehab on next engine. Successful response to Court Fire: 2.5 acres near the Sutter Amador Hospital (immediately below Floors to Go in the grass area, just below where the homeless camps were located), cause still under investigation, thanks to all Mutual Aide. Bringing back Regional Occupational Program (R.O.P.) program to Argonaut High School.

Police Chief/Acting City Manager, Chris Mynderup – Attended DARE graduation for Detective Hopper with Police Captain Arevalos, benefit to Junior High and High School. Potential new School Resource Officer to the High School soon. Court Fire: Thanks to Jackson Fire Department, Mutual Aid, fast responses.

City Attorney, Josh Nelson – We are near the end of the legislative cycle and the deadline to pass bills is Friday, September 19, 2025; Governor will have one month to sign them. An update will be provided once that process is complete.

September 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes
City Manager, Carl P. Simpson – absent.

5. COUNCIL REPORTS.

This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present reports on their activities and to request item be placed on future agendas.

Councilmember Gonsalves – Attended the Main Street Crawl, good enthusiasm from Tin Roof.

Councilmember Godde – Attended a couple meeting with Mayor – HJBA. Met Jim McCarthy at the Cemetery for a small clean-up with Foothill Conservancy volunteers.

Councilmember McLean – No report.

Vice Mayor Simmons – Connected with Spinetti’s- donating use of the bottom of the Krabbenhoft building for the Festival of Trees competition during Christmas Delights. Met with Susan Tennyson, Sonya and Brian from EPA, and PW Supt Wilder to review DTSC issues, Tennyson’s listed property near the Superior Court and upcoming clean-ups.

Mayor McLean – Attended the Main Street Crawl. Attended HJBA and Christmas Delights meeting.

Attended ribbon cutting at BBQ Express with the Chamber of Commerce, the Amador Community Foundation event, and the Sheriff’s K9 Fundraiser.

6. DISCUSSION CALENDAR.

For the record: Action minutes provide the necessary documentation of City Council actions and audio recordings are retained for those desiring more detail on particular agenda item discussions. These audio recordings provide an accurate and comprehensive backup of City Council deliberations and citizen discussion.
a. Receive, discuss and provide direction regarding (verbal) report from the Homeless Outreach Coordinator regarding the City’s response to homeless issues. [Christine Platt] Celebrated her birthday at the Shower Program, provided hot breakfast, haircuts, and multiple agencies attended. Assisted someone recently with Veteran’s Court and they entered into a program with the VA. Got another client into program, and two others are doing well there. Custody was recently returned to parents of their 3 year old who had previously lost custody. b. Second reading and possible adoption of Ordinance No. 737 Adding Chapter 8.36 to Title 8 of the Jackson Municipal Code Relating to Burn Regulations.

Mayor McLean opened the item for council discussion. No comments.

Mayor McLean asked for public comments and received none.

Mayor requests a motion.

Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 737 Adding Chapter 8.36 to Title 8 of the Jackson Municipal Code Relating to Burn Regulations, dated September 8, 2025 as presented.

September 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes
Moved by Councilmember Gonsalves, seconded by Councilmember Godde, and carried by a 5 to 0 vote:

AYES: Steve McLean, Simmons, Godde, Gonsalves, Sierra McLean NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
c. PUBLIC HEARING – REMOVED
Resolution No. 2025-23 Approving and Confirming the Report of Delinquent Abatement Fees and Requesting Amador County to Collect such Charges on the Tax Roll.

7. REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT.

Mayor McLean adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m
ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________ John Georgette, City Clerk Date Approved

Item 3b

Item 3c

CITY OF JACKSON
City Council Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Matt Ospital, City Engineer
Date: September 3, 2025
Subject: Main Street Improvement Project
Background
The City of Jackson conducted the bid opening for the Main Street Improvement Project at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 2, 2025. The City received a single bid for the project as follows:

Contractor Bid Total
American Pavement Systems, Inc. $ 117,298.80
Attached is the bid summary for your reference.

Our office has reviewed the bid package and found no discrepancies.

Recommendation
Based upon the attached bid summary, I hereby recommend the City of Jackson award the contract to American Pavement Systems, Inc. for the Bid amount of $117,298.80.

Attachments:

Bid Summary
#3144-001

Item 6b
$/UNIT TOTAL
1 Crack Filling LS 1 $8,800.00 $8,800.00
2 Type III Micro-Surfacing SF 44,120 $1.24 $54,708.80
3 Type II Micro-Surfacing SF 44,120 $0.75 $33,090.00
4 Striping and Markings LS 1 $20,700.00 $20,700.00
BID TOTALS $117,298.80

CITY OF JACKSON

MAIN STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT

BID SUMMARY
BID OPENING: SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 at 10:30 A.M.

AMERICAN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS

Resolution No. 2025-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF JACKSON AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT FOR THE MAIN STREET MAINTENANCE
PROJECT TO AMERICAN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Jackson conducted the bid opening for the Main Street Maintenance Project at 10:03 a.m. on September 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City received a single bid for the project; and WHEREAS, no discrepancies was noted in the bid review; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Jackson hereby awards the contract to American Pavement Systems, Inc. in the amount of $117,298.80.

The foregoing resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Jackson on the 22nd day of September, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF JACKSON
______________________________
Steve McLean, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
John, Georgette, City Clerk

City of Jackson
Council Meeting Memorandum
Monday, September 22, 2025 – 6:30 PM Regular Meeting
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Susan M. Peters, Erin Ventura- Contract Planners
Date: September 22, 2025
Agenda Item #6c: Remedial Action Plan for Oro De Amador – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-26, approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Oro De Amador property and directing staff to file the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Amador County Clerk.

Project Description and Background:

The City of Jackson is proposing to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Oro De Amador property to address contamination from historical mining activities and prepare the site for future public use. Geocon Consultants Inc. prepared the RAP on behalf of the City to describe the proposed cleanup and reuse of the property. Preparation of the RAP was funded by Equitable Community Revitalization Grant (ECRG) #2022-00962, awarded to the City in July 2022 by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is serving as the lead regulatory agency overseeing the remedial action.

The 160-acre Oro De Amador site is located between North Main Street and New York Ranch Road, immediately north of downtown Jackson. Historically, the site supported gold-mining activities associated with the Kennedy Mine, including a mine tailings impoundment, cyanide treatment plant, and tailings disposal area. Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of mine tailings remain on the property. Land surrounding the site is primarily residential and includes nearby community facilities such as St. Seva Serbian Orthodox Church, Amador Senior Center, Rollingwood Estates subdivision, Jackson Hills Apartments, Jackson Elementary School, and several senior housing facilities within 400 to 1,400 feet.

The site is situated in the Mother Lode region of the Sierra Nevada Foothills, a geologically rich area historically mined for gold and other minerals. The Melones Fault Zone, a narrow band of highly altered rock, forms a north-northwest-trending ridge through the site and naturally contains elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, and nickel. As a result of historical mining and naturally occurring background levels, soil and groundwater at the site contain elevated concentrations of arsenic and other metals.

Item 6c
The RAP evaluates remedial alternatives and selects measures to effectively reduce human health and water quality risks associated with contaminated soil and mine tailings. Proposed remedial actions include waste capping, land use restrictions, and controlled reuse of the property for public open space, sports, and recreation. The proposed revitalization plan integrates cleanup of historic mining impacts with the development of a regional sports facility, public open space, and a connected trail system. Planned improvements include:
• Regional sports fields and amenities to support tournaments and community events. • Public open space, paved access roads, and parking areas. • Hiking and biking trails linking to existing and planned regional trail networks managed by the Mother Lode Land Trust.
• Opportunities for sustainable energy production such as a “brightfields” solar installation on historically mine-scarred land.

The RAP and proposed revitalization have strong local and regional support, including endorsements from the Amador County Recreation Agency, Amador Trail Stewardship, and the Mother Lode Land Trust. In addition to environmental benefits, the remedial action will generate temporary construction jobs and permanent operations and maintenance employment. The revitalization is expected to attract approximately 500 visitors per day, relieving pressure on other undersized sports facilities in the region.

As the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project (State Clearinghouse No. 2025080224). The IS/MND evaluated the potential environmental impacts of implementing the RAP and identified feasible mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The IS/MND was circulated for public and agency review beginning August 4, 2025, and was posted on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review period were considered and addressed as part of the final environmental document.

Discussion:

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Remedial Action Plan has been prepared in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and reflects the independent judgment of the City of Jackson as the lead agency. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented as conditions of approval. The required public review period began on August 4, 2025, and the IS/MND was made available on the City’s website and distributed to agencies, through the State Clearinghouse, for comment. Comments were received from Caltrans, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Changes to the IS/MND were made based on recommended mitigation measures from California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments from Caltrans and the Regional Water Quality Control Board outline necessary permitting that will be required for implementation of the RAP and subsequent improvements. The City acknowledges the need for such permitting activities and they will be incorporated into future project implementation work plans. In addition, previously submitted comments from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the lead regulatory agency, were incorporated into the final Initial Study document (attached). All comments were reviewed and addressed by staff to ensure that

the final IS/MND reflects a thorough and accurate environmental analysis. Based on the analysis contained in the IS/MND, and with the incorporation of all mitigation measures, the proposed Remedial Action Plan will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2025-26 Adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for a Remedial Action Plan for Oro De Amador.

2. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2025080224)

3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

4. Comment Letters Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5. Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Oro de Amador

Resolution No. 2025-26
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Jackson Adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for a Remedial Action Plan for Oro De Amador
WHEREAS, the City of Jackson received an Equitable Community Revitalization Grant (ECRG) from the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC); and WHEREAS, the City of Jackson contracted with Geocon Consultants Inc. to prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to describe the proposed clean up and reuse of the Oro De Amador property; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, (CEQA) requires that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be prepared for a project and that the decision-making body shall review said Mitigated Negative Declaration and make certain findings regarding the significant effects on the environment identified in the mitigated negative declaration; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2025080224) was prepared pursuant to the California Government Code, City of Jackson Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local administrative procedures, and reflects independent judgment and analysis of the City of Jackson; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (SCH# 2025080224), was made available to agencies and the public on the 4th day of August 2025 and was posted on the City’s website for the public’s review; and WHEREAS, the MND concluded that implementation of the Project could potentially result in significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce potential significant effects to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an MND that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decisionmaking body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report and MND, received public comment thereon, and considered the information contained in the MND; and WHEREAS, the MND for the Project is, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Jackson does hereby make the following findings: (l) it has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, (2) the MND prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and in a manner that is consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the MND represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City as a lead agency for the Project.

The City Council designates the City Clerk at 33 Broadway, Jackson, California 95642, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby adopt the MND for the RAP for Oro De Amador and direct staff to prepare and file the appropriate State and County Notice of Determinations within five workings days of adoption. The MND is on file at Jackson City Hall located at 33 Broadway, Jackson, CA 95642 and is available for inspection by any interested person.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jackson on the 22nd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CITY OF JACKSON
________________________________
Steve McLean, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
John Georgette, City Clerk

1 of 46

CITY OF JACKSON

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan
November 2024 September 2025
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for a proposed public open space and sports facility which will be visited by 500 people per day on average and will relieve pressure and community concerns regarding other existing local sports facilities (e.g., Detert Park and nearby Jackson Jr. High School and Argonaut HS) that are undersized for tournament events. The IS/MND also considers the proposed Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Oro de Amador Property located in the City of Jackson north of the downtown area between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road. This IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration provides a description of the potential adverse impacts resulting from both the proposed City’s project and RAP and provides the reasons why those impacts will have no significant impact on the environment. When a Mitigated Negative Declaration is issued, it indicates that no substantial changes to the physical environment will result from the proposed project when mitigation is applied.

Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Jackson has determined that the above-referenced project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

Documentation supporting this finding is included in the attached Initial Study.

2 of 46

CITY OF JACKSON

INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Initial Study), this Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed public open space and sports facility and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared for the City of Jackson for the proposed cleanup and reuse of the Oro de Amador property.

LEAD AGENCY: City of Jackson
Planning Department
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642
PREPARED BY: Susan M. Peters, AICP
Planning Consultant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Jackson City Council is considering approval of the public open space and sports facility and adoption of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP was developed to evaluate potential remedial alternatives for soil impacted by arsenic and other metals at the city owned Oro de Amador property. The site is approximately 160 acres, a large portion of which was historically used for storing mine tailings from the former Kennedy Mine and for retaining waste from the processing of mine tailings at an onsite cyanide plant.

Preparation of the RAP was funded by Equitable Community Revitalization Grant (ECRG) #2022-00962, awarded to the City of Jackson on July 7, 2022, by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

The August 2023 Remedial Action Plan can be found on the City of Jackson website:
www.ci.jackson.ca.us.

Location: Oro de Amador is generally located in the center of the City between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road (see Figure 1). The Amador County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the site are 020-070-031, 020-070-037 and 020-070-040.

The site is mostly vacant with only remnants of mine-related structures including a cyanide plant foundation and tailings dam.

3 of 46
Figure 1: Site Location Map – Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Background: The Oro de Amador property was originally the location of the Bell WeatherBellwether Mine (north central portion of the site) which was active in the 1890s and consisted of a few isolated mine excavations. In 1912, the Kennedy Mining and Milling Company acquired the site and constructed a system to move mine tailings from the Kennedy Gold Mine, approximately one-half mile away, to the site in response to legislation requiring the impoundment of tailings. In 1914, a multi-arched reinforced concrete dam approximately 60 feet high and 600 feet long was constructed across an onsite valley to create an impoundment for tailings. Gold was extracted from the tailings via mercury amalgamation prior to transport to the site.

The Kennedy Mine constructed a 1,000-ton cyanide plant at the site on the ridge west of the tailings dam in 1933 which operated from 1935 to 1939. The plant was constructed as part of an effort to remove additional gold from tailings at the site. Tailings were removed from the area behind the tailings dam, processed through the cyanide leaching plant, and then deposited into piles on the western slope of the process area ridge.

The tailings reprocessing stopped in 1939 but tailings from the Kennedy Mine were deposited at the site until 1942 when the mine ceased operations. Remaining onsite buildings were demolished in the 1940s. Small-scale attempts to extract gold from the tailings were reportedly made between 1948 and 1950. In September 1950, the Kennedy Mining and Milling Company went out of business.

The tailings pile was covered with a layer of soil prior to 1960. The Flintkote Company operated a cement pipe manufacturing plant during the 1960s and reportedly used 36,000 tons of sand from the tailings in their process. An additional 150,000 tons of sand were removed from the southern rim of the tailings in the 1980s and reportedly moved offsite by the Wheels

4 of 46
Development Corporation. There have been no other mining or mineral ore processing activities reported for the site since the 1980s.

The site has been investigated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the City and private parties during the past three decades. The site is broken down into three contaminated areas (see Figure 2):

1. The Lakebed Area where mine tailings from the off-site Kennedy Mine were impounded.

2. The Cyanide Process Area where the mine tailings were reprocessed.

3. The Tailings Pile where the reprocessed mine tailings were disposed to land.

Except for cattle grazing, the site has remained vacant and inactive since the 1980s. The City of Jackson acquired the property in December 2006.

Figure 2: Site Plan – Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Surrounding Land Uses: Land surrounding the site is used primarily for residential purposes.

Adjoining land uses include residential properties along North Main Street, the St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church, Amador Senior Center, the Rollingwood Estates residential subdivision, and Jackson Hill Apartments. Land uses within 400 to 1,400 feet from the site include Jackson Elementary School, Amador Residential Care, Jackson Gardens assisted living facility, and Oak Manor Retirement Complex.

5 of 46
Project Objectives: The objectives of the RAP are as follows:

1. Minimize exposure to arsenic and other metals present in mine waste;

2. Minimize the spread of impacted material to adjacent properties; and

3. Facilitate the planned site improvements by covering the chemicals of potential concernbearing mine waste and/or soil in selected areas as part of the site redevelopment.

Workplan Summary:

The RAP evaluated the following three alternatives:

1. No action;

2. On-site consolidation under land use controls; and

3. Off-site disposal
The No Action alternative does not provide adequate protection of human health and water quality and does not comply with regulatory requirements. For these reasons, the No Action alternative was eliminated from consideration. The Off-Site Disposal alternative is not practical based on the costs and concerns related to truck traffic and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

On-site consolidation includes the excavation of approximately 12,000 cubic yards contaminated soil and mine waste from isolated tailings areas; verification of soil sampling and analysis to confirm that the remedial goals have been achieved; and consolidation of the waste and affected soils on-site at the Tailings Pile. Approximately 2,700 tons of oOff-site disposal maywill be required for if excavated materials that exceed hazardous waste criteria. Provided that soil verification sampling and analysis results meet the remedial goals, the excavation areas would be suitable for recreational uses. The existing lakebed area and concrete arch dam will remain in place and will be precluded from public access.

After consolidation, the Tailings Pile and surrounding area will be graded to direct surface water runoff away from the Tailing Pile (see Figure 3); drainage infrastructure (berms, ditches, overside drains and detention ponds) will be constructed; and the Tailing Pile will be covered with a clean soil cap to facilitate future recreational use. The soil cap will be comprised of approximately 97,000 cubic yards of imported clay and vegetative fill. Grading of the tailings pile in preparation for cap placement, and placement of the clay cap and vegetative soil cover,Excavation will require the use of a grader, dozer, excavator, loader, haul truck and water truck and is estimated to take approximately 88 days. Pending grant funds, this work is scheduled for to be performed between June 26, 2026 and October 15, 2026.

Development of the recreational facility will follow implementation of the RAP and incorporate approximately 7 acres of developed parkland, and several acres of undeveloped parkland (i.e. walking trails); somemost of the site (the Lakebed Area and Cyanide Process Area) will remain undeveloped and inaccessible to the public.

The proposed recreational use of the Oro de Amador site is based on a conceptual site utilization plan created in 2011 (see Figure 4) and includes the following improvements:

1. Public recreation facility, including:
a. Artificial turf fields,
b. Public parking with solar shade structures,

6 of 46
c. Raised-bed plantings,
d. Snack shed,
e. Restroom facility with on-site sewage disposal (septic disposal field outside of the Tailings Pile),
f. Lighting, and
g. Underground utilities (water and electrical connections from offsite and onsite stormwater treatment).

2. Public trail system for non-motorized use, including:
a. Unpaved hiking and biking trails,
b. Public trailhead parking with solar shade structure near the site entrance, and c. Cattle gates to retain livestock in grazing areas.

3. “Brightfields” solar arrays within the fenced Cyanide Processing Area.

The “Brightfields” listed above is a federal initiative to redevelop former industrial sites (brownfields) like Oro de Amador into brightfields by placing clean energy systems and solar manufacturing facilities on these sites.

Figure 3: Proposed Remedial Design - Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

It is expected that the proposed public open space and sports facility will be visited by 500 people per day on average and will relieve pressure and community concerns regarding other existing local sports facilities (e.g., Detert Park and nearby Jackson Jr. High School and Argonaut HS) that are undersized for tournament events. The “land use controls” portion of the selected alternative are required where waste remains in place at the Lakebed Area, Cyanide

7 of 46
Process Area, and Tailings Pile to limit contact with mine tailings and contaminated soil that are to remain on-site, and to restrict future residential use of portions of the site that are remediated to non-residential standard. These controls include the following:

1. A Land Use Covenant is required to memorialize the land use controls.

2. An Operations & Maintenance Agreement is required to set fourth procedures for routine visual monitoring and reporting.

3. Where recreational use is proposed (the Tailings Pile and non-motorized public trail system), the waste must be covered with clean engineered fill and protected from erosion using storm water best management practices.

4. Where waste remains in place without an engineered cover (the Lakebed Area and Cyanide Process Area), fencing and posting are required to restrict public access.

5. Routine monitoring and reporting are to be performed after the remedial action is completed to verify the ongoing protectiveness of the remedial action in the long term.

Figure 4: Conceptual Development Plan - Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Project Implementation:

Once the Remedial Action Plan is approved by DTSC and the Jackson City Council, city staff will work with DTSC staff to secure funding for plan implementation.

8 of 46
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☒
☐
Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water
Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☒ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☒ Utilities/Service
Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

9 of 46
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Background:

The project site is located in the Visual Corridor as described in the City of Jack General Plan Land Use Element adopted in October 2023. A large portion of the site is visible from Highway 49/88 (not a designated scenic highway) north of the downtown as well as from the Vista Point located immediately north of the City Limit. The portion of the site which is most visible is essentially a plateau that is currently void of any aesthetic features.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The project site is not located in a scenic vista or within a state scenic highway. No Impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Implementation of the RAP will cause a short-term adverse effect on the view as a result of the presence of construction vehicles and other equipment and the ground disturbance required to remove earthen materials that exceed hazardous waste criteria. In the long term, impacts are

10 of 46
anticipated to be beneficial, with the planting of vegetation and construction of recreational amenities. Less than significant impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The proposed project is predominately in a non-urbanized area which is visible from public vantage points. The site is currently unremarkable. The proposed park improvements will have short term aesthetic impacts due to construction, but the completed project will beautify the site and make it more aesthetically pleasing from nearby viewpoints. Less than significant impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Some of the park amenities will require lighting, however the City’s Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.43 – Lighting Regulations has regulations in place which, when implemented, will minimize any impact associated with the new light sources. Less than significant impact.

11 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES— In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

The project site is not considered Prime, Unique or Important Farmland per the California Resources Agency nor is it under Williamson Act contract. Additionally, the site is not forest or timberland as defined by the Public Resources Code and the Government Code. In recent history the site has been used for cattle grazing. Implementation of the RAP will eliminate some of the existing grazing area however, because of the poor quality on the Tailings Pile where the active park facilities will be located, the loss of grazing land is not considered significant. No impact.

12 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Background:

The project site is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District. The Amador Air District has established rules and regulations which are designed to limit emissions generated by various activities and which identify specific pollution reduction measures that are to be implemented in association with various activities.

Specifically, the Air District has promulgated Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions during a variety of activities including construction. The rule defines fugitive dust as follows:
"Fugitive dust for the purposes of this rule is also defined as the particulate matter entrained into the air which is caused from man-made and natural activities which is emitted into the air without first passing through a stack or duct designed to control flow, including, but not limited to, emissions caused by movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, and windblown dust." The intent of the rule is to control dust by water application, pavement, vegetation, etc. so that no visible dust is created. Violation of the rule could result in issuance of a notice of violation and assessment of penalties.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Amador County has not formally adopted an air quality management plan. While it is typical for the local air district to develop regional thresholds of significance for projects, in terms of criteria air pollutants the Amador Air District has not formally adopted recommended thresholds of significance for the evaluation of proposed projects that are subject to CEQA review. The Air District relies on its adopted rules and regulations to guide the analysis of air quality impacts

13 of 46
associated with criteria pollutants that could be generated during construction and operation of projects such as that proposed under the RAP. No impact. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, public access trails, road, and parking areas) with up to 97,000 cubic yards of clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The capping process will require earthmoving equipment and techniques which have the potential to emit or cause to be emitted air pollutants including fugitive dust and airborne constituents of concern. Application of Amador Air District Rule 218 calls for those portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment to be thoroughly wetted in advance of disturbing activities. Then, during grading and construction, additional water will be applied to control dust. There is no ambient air quality standard for arsenic, however thorough water application to control dust will also prevent arsenic from becoming airborne. In addition, earthmoving activities will occur for a short period only during the time mine waste materials are capped; post-construction activities (recreation, hiking, parking, etc.) do not have the potential to cause significant airborne emissions and/or violate air quality standards. Less than significant impact.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Amador Air District Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions will be applied to those portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment. As required under the existing regulations, areas scheduled for disturbance will be thoroughly wetted in advance of ground disturbing activities, and during grading and construction additional water will be applied to control dust.

Arsenic contributes over 99% of the calculated health risk to various receptors including recreational users, construction workers and outdoor workers (e.g. maintenance workers) (Geocon, 2015). The project’s heath risk assessment calculated excess health risks to various receptors based on current site conditions (i.e. prior to capping of mine wastes as proposed under the RAP). The project consists of capping portions of the mine wastes on site, thereby eliminating pathways of exposure to arsenic in areas to be accessed by the public.

Implementation of Amador Air District Rule 218 during construction, together with implementation of mine waste capping activities as described in the RAP, will effectively reduce or eliminate the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact.
d) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Neither the state nor federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The Amador Air District (AAD) does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be applicable to AAD Rule 205, Nuisance.

Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and to the Amador Air District. The AAD has not identified recommended significance thresholds for the evaluation of odor impacts associated with proposed projects that are subject to CEQA.

14 of 46
Activities associated with the project are primarily associated with earthmoving, including the importation of clean mineral fill (clean soil or aggregate base), synthetic materials or asphalt to cap mine wastes. With the exception of short-term odor generating potential associated with construction equipment and haul trucks, long-term odor generation is not anticipated from the project. Odor complaints, if any, will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with AAD Rule 205 and local ordinances. Less than significant impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒☐ ☐ ☐☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☒☐ ☐☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

15 of 46
Background:

A biological survey done by Geocon in May, 2015 shows the project site consists of three broad habitat types:

1. Disturbed or mining-impacted areas in and surrounding the tailings pile area and the tailing processing area near the center and in the western portion of the site;

2. Less disturbed woodlands and grasslands on the northern and eastern portions of the site; and

3. Emergent wetlands of the lakebed area in the southern and central portion of the site.

The survey of these three communities characterizes them according to their California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) vegetation classifications. These habitat associations are mapped on Figure 5 and the dominate plant species for each habitat type is summarized in Table 1. The habitat types include:

1. Disturbed historic mining areas. These areas total approximately 110 acres and consist of historical waste rock piles, structure foundations (i.e., the former cyanide plant foundations and the Bellwether Mine). The historical mining areas are covered by waste rock and tailings and have been graded, littered with scattered junk piles, and heavily invaded by introduced grass/weed species, like ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). These areas are best described as “ruderal” or disturbed and cannot be categorized using a natural California habitat association. The tree cover for these areas consists of a few interior live oaks (Quercus wislizenii).

2. Foothill pine/interior live oak/whiteleaf manzanita. Much of this habitat at the site, which comprises approximately 45 acres, was not likely used during historical mining activities, but for later cattle grazing. Interior live oaks are present within this area as well as a few foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana). Understory shrubs are limited due to cattle grazing, but observed species included: toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita). Like the neighboring mineimpacted areas, this habitat supports a number of introduced plant species that are indicative of anthropogenic influence and common to disturbed areas.

3. Palustrine. This emergent wetland habitat covers approximately 6 acres and was created by the construction of the tailings dam in the 1930’s. Typical warm-water emergent wetland vegetation, creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) was identified in this area. Cattails were not observed.

One elderberry bush was identified on the edge of this habitat.

The CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried with a 10-mile radius around the site to determine the potential occurrence of special-status species in the site’s vicinity. The following special-status plant species, which are mostly endemic to soils derived from serpentinite and gabbro, were identified within a 10-mile radius of the site:
• Bisbee Peak rush-rose (Helianthemum suffrutescens)
• Ione manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia)
• Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var. apricum)
• Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi)
• Red Hills soaproot (Chlorogalum grandiflorum)

16 of 46
The following animal species of special concern were identified within a 10-mile radius of the site:
• Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) • Giant garter snake (Thomnophis gigas)
• Rudolph’s cave harvestman (Banksula rudolphi)
• Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) No special-status species have been formally identified at the site, but the Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) may be present in the pond behind the tailings dam. This species of turtle is thoroughly aquatic and requires habitat that contains ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, with aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 feet in elevation. Specifically, this species needs basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) up to 0.5 kilometer of water for egg-laying.

The site does support some mature oak woodland. Regardless of the relative habitat quality of oak woodlands on the former mine site, all trees over 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are protected by the City of Jackson Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.40 Landscape Standards. This ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for removal of any tree over 8 inches DBH and replacement at a three to one ratio for removal of trees over 16 inches DBH.

Oak trees are to be replaced with oaks at a ratio of three to one.

Table 1
Site Habitats and Ecological Receptors
Habitat Type Approx Area
(Acres)
(% Site)
Representative
Species
Observed
Species
Relative
Occurrence
Rare,
Threatened or
Endangered
Disturbed Historic
Mining
Area/Grass
110
(68%)
Plants Various species
(1)
Moderately
abundant
No
Soil invertebrates None Unknown No
Deer mouse None Unknown No
Mixed Oak-Pinas
sabiniana/grass
45 (28%)
Plants Various species
(2)
Moderately
abundant
No
Soil invertebrates None Unknown No
Scrub Jay Kill deer, acorn
woodpecker
Unknown No
California Grey
Squirrel
California Grey
Squirrel
Unknown No
Palustrine –
Emergent
Wetland
6 (4%)
Plants Various species
(3)
Moderately
abundant
No
Benthic invertebrates None Unknown No
Amphibians Sierra Tree Frog Abundant No
Migratory Waterfowl Unidentified duck,
cattle egret, redtailed hawk
Unknown No
Raccoon None Unknown No
(1) Interior Valley Oak
(2) Foothill Pine, Interior Valley Oak, Blue Oak
(3) Rushes, sedges, deergrass
Discussion of Impacts:

The areas of the site to be impacted by the RAP are those with the greatest concentrations of arsenic which is predominately in the tailings pile area. This area of the site is virtually void of

17 of 46
vegetation with the exception of sparse, non-native grasses. The RAP’s recommended remedy is to cover this area with clean base material, soil, or asphalt in specific, access-controlled areas of the site. The RAP proposes that the bulk of the Lakebed Area in the location of the tailings dam and the foundations of the former cyanide plant be restricted from public access, consistent with the current condition. This is also the remedy for the remaining structures in the Bellwether Mine area. Fencing and signage will be posted around these more heavily contaminated areas.

Because Although the RAP capping/coverage remedy is located predominantly in nonvegetative areas, and those areas with existing vegetation are to be avoided by direct development, there is no anticipatedstill potential for impact to the five plant species identified within 10 mile radius around the site as candidate, sensitive, or special status, riparian habitat, or protected wetlands. Less than significant with mitigationNo Impact.

Mitigation Measure 4.1: Rare Plant Surveys. To protect special status plant species, a minimum of two focused rare plant surveys shall be conducted prior to construction during the blooming season for the species listed above (May-July). Surveys shall be spaced a minimum of three weeks apart during the blooming period. Exact survey timing shall be determined by the qualified biologist. Survey results shall be summarized in a Botanical Survey Report consistent with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. If rare plants are discovered during these surveys, the Project Proponent shall coordinate with City of Jackson to develop a plan for avoiding project impacts to rare plants. The project may not commence until an avoidance and minimization plan is approved by the City of Jackson.

The CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried for the Jackson Quad to determine the potential occurrence of special-status species in the site’s vicinity. One Federally listed threatened species was identified - Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimoprphus). No special-status plant species were identified in Jackson Quad. Two animal Species of Special Concern were identified – Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata). As such, there is potential for impact to the identified special status wildlife species and migratory nongame native birds (e.g., Killdeer and California Quail) with habitat within the vicinity of the site. Less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 4.2: Western Pond Turtle. Within 24 hours prior to initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the site for western pond turtles and/or their nests. If western pond turtle is encountered during surveys, a site specific avoidance, minimization, and/or relocation plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Jackson. This plan shall be submitted prior to starting construction activities within the areas where pond turtles were discovered. Measures included in the approved impact avoidance plan shall be implemented during project activities.

Mitigation Measure 4.3: Nesting Bird Survey. If project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within no greater than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the beginning of Project-related activities. A qualified biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for migratory birds and 1/2-mile for raptors around the Project area that can be accessed by the project proponent. The results of the survey shall be provided to the City of Jackson upon completion. If no active nests are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.

18 of 46
• Active Nests. If an active nest is found, active nests should be avoided, and a no disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and established by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be kept in place until after the breeding nesting season or the qualified biologist confirms the young have fledged, are foraging independently, and the nest is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by the qualified biologist and will depend on the species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. • Project Delay. If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or longer occurs, the qualified biologist shall complete another focused survey before Project work can be reinitiated.
• Project Proponent Responsibility. It is the project proponent responsibility to comply with Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 regardless of the time of year One elderberry bush, not enough to be considered habitat, was located on the site near the Lakebed Area (see Figure 5). There is no development proposed in the vicinity of the bush. No Impact.

The site has no wetland areas but does support a small area of mature oak woodland.

Regardless of the relative habitat quality of oak woodlands on the site, all trees over 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are protected by the City of Jackson Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.40 Landscape Standards. This ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for removal of any tree over 8 inches DBH and replacement at a three to one ratio for removal of trees over 16 inches DBH. Oak trees are to be replaced with oaks. The CDFW suggests in their comments on the Project that trees with a DBH of 4 inches or greater can be considered mature vegetation and thus, important contributors to the ecological value of the habitat in the environment. They indicate that studies suggest bats select roost sites in trees with DBHs as low as 6.6 inches (Brigham et al. 1997). Therefore, CDFW believes removal of any trees with a DBH of 4 inches or greater within the project area will reduce the availability of roosting habitat for bats, and may be considered a potentially significant impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 4.4: Mature Tree Mitigation. CDFW recommends replanting all native trees removed with a DBH greater than 4 inches at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees should be of native origin and to the extent feasible, trees should be planted on-site. If on site mitigation is not feasible, in-kind mitigation can be considered for an alternate location, or a donation to a local tree mitigation program or conservation fund could be considered.

Mitigation Measure 4.5: Bat Pre-Construction Surveys and Suitable Roost Tree Removal. A CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for potentially suitable bat tree roosting habitat, March 1 to April 15 or August 31 to October 15 prior to Project activities. If the habitat assessment reveals suitable bat habitat within trees, and tree removal is scheduled from April 16 through August 30 and/or October 16 through February 28, then presence/absence surveys shall be conducted two to three days prior to any tree removal or trimming. If presence/absence surveys are negative, then tree removal may be conducted by following a two-phased tree removal system. If presence/absence surveys indicate bat occupancy, then the occupied trees shall only be removed from March 1 through April 15 and/or August 31 through October 15 by following the two-phased tree removal system. The twophased removal system shall be conducted over 2 consecutive days and under supervision of a qualified biologist. On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches are removed by a tree

19 of 46
cutter using chainsaws or other hand tools only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures are avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features are removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed. The City of Jackson should consult with a qualified bat biologist to determine suitable buffers around roost and/or hibernaculum sites.

Buffers may vary depending on species and Project activity being performed.

The City of Jackson does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, the proposed park and RAP do not conflict with any such plan. No impact.

Figure 5: Habitat Map - Source: 2018 Removal Action Workplan, Geocon Consultants, Inc.

20 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The Oro de Amador site has a variety of resources pertaining to historic use of the property for gold mining. These historical resources include footings from the 1,000-ton cyanide plant, the cyanide tank and an impoundment dam constructed in 1914. There is also a mine shaft on the property which was part of the original Bellwether Mine (established in the 1890s).

Discussion of Impacts:

None of these resources listed above will be impacted by the proposed park and RAP as all of these sites will be avoided. Furthermore, the areas to be covered do not contain known paleontological resources or unique geologic features as these areas were previously covered with mine tailings. No impact.

There are no known human remains on the site. Implementation of the proposed park and RAP by covering areas of the site or fencing to not allow access will ensure that any unknown human remains will not be disturbed. No impact.

21 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:

At present, there are no energy demands for the site. Temporary increases in energy use (i.e. fuel) would be required during any future construction activities. Project energy use during future recreational operations would primarily consist of energy consumption for space heating and cooling, use of appliances and transportation energy use associated with increases in vehicle trips to and from the site. All building energy needs would be met by electricity supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. Project construction would be temporary and minor in terms of energy use. Compliance with CCR Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in an energy-efficient building.

Additionally, the proposed “Brightfield” solar fields will produce sufficient energy to offset some, if not all, electrical energy needs for recreational operations. For these reasons the project’s energy impacts are considered less than significant.

22 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

23 of 46
Background:

The Site is located in the Mother Lode region of the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. The western foothills are bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Central Valley to the west.

The Site is in the Melones Fault Zone, an inactive fault system separating Paleozoic limestone and Mesozoic granitic intrusive rocks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, from metamorphic and volcanic rocks to the west. Review of the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle indicates that the Calaveras Formation, which is present on the eastern part of the site, consists of a series of highly foliated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The Mariposa Formation is present in the western portion of the Site and consists of black slate interbedded with argillaceous metasedimentary rocks. The mineralized zone of the Melones Fault Zone, located in the center of the Site, is a thin band of highly altered rock that trends northwest.

Native soil observed at the Site consists of brown silty sand with cobbles of volcanic rock.

Native soil is classified as Auburn silty loam in the USDA's Soil Survey, Amador Area, California. This soil is described as dark reddish brown to yellowish red. Depth to bedrock ranges from 12 to 22 inches. The soil is well-drained, with a moderate permeability. Runoff is slow to very rapid with the potential erosion hazard being very severe.

Mine waste on the Site consists of waste rock and coarse- to fine-grained tailings. Waste rock was encountered in trenches excavated around the Site during the investigation conducted by Dames & Moore in the early 1990s. During a site visit conducted in May 2015, Geocon observed piles of waste rock south of the Tailings Pile Area and in the northern portion of the Lakebed Area. Geocon also observed tailings in the Lakebed Area. The waste rock consists of dark gray gravel, cobble, and boulder size slate with some white veins of microcrystalline quartz. The tailings consisted of gray silty sand and light gray silty clay.

Adapted from Draft Removal Action Workplan; Oro de Amador Site, Jackson, California (Geocon, September 2015). Original sources cited in the RAP include:

1. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15 Minute Quadrangle, Amador and Calaveras Counties, California; CDMG Open File Report 83-36, 1981;

2. CDMG, Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, 1:250,000, 1981; and

3. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Amador Area, California, September 1965.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides?
The project site is located in a seismically inactive area, therefore the potential for risk associated with earthquakes, ground shaking, or seismic-related failure is minimal. No impact.

24 of 46
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. By their nature, project activities will serve to reduce, rather than result in, erosion potential or the loss of topsoil. Project activities will require professionally prepared erosion and sedimentation plans and the placement and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to ensure existing erosion and sedimentation are reduced or eliminated. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) will be capped with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The capping of mine wastes will occur in areas of the site that are stable and most such areas have been graded and re-graded historically. Likewise, the capping of mine wastes does not in itself have the potential to cause the instability or failure of existing soils. No impact.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil?
The area of mine waste capping will be partially on soils of the Auburn soil series and partially on mine waste. Neither material (Auburn soil or mine waste) is considered to be an expansive soil by the California Building Code. In addition, no human occupation will occur on the site, therefore the exposure of life or property to the negative results of expansive soils will not occur.

No impact.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The site will utilize the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No impact.

25 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District. The Amador Air District has established rules and regulations which are designed to limit emissions generated by various activities and which identify specific pollution reduction measures that are to be implemented in association with various activities. The Amador Air District does not, however, have adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds for air quality or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For this reason, the analysis below is based on the methodology recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), in lieu of Amador County-specific guidance.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, an air emissions modeling program, was used in this analysis to provide a quantification of emissions levels during construction and operation. The model also quantifies greenhouse gas emissions to determine if impacts occur.

At present, there are no emissions generated at the site. Temporary increases in energy use (i.e. fuel) would be required during any future construction activities. Project energy use during future recreational operations would primarily consist of energy consumption for space heating and cooling, use of appliances and transportation energy use associated with increases in vehicle trips to and from the site. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the annual construction emissions predicted for CO2e (GHG emissions) total 1,473 metric tons and the adopted SMAQMD standard is 1,100 MTCO2e per year. The SMAQMD allows construction emissions to be amortized over 30 years, so the annual construction emission total would be reduced to

49.1 MT and well below the standard. These energy needs would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. All building energy needs would be met by electricity supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. Project construction would be temporary and minor in terms of energy use. Additionally, cCompliance with CCR Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in an energy-efficient building and g. Additionally, the proposed “Brightfield” solar fields will

26 of 46
produce sufficient energy to offset some, if not all, electrical energy needs for recreational operations and proposed activities for implementation of the RAP will comply with applicable Amador Air District rules and best management practices. With the solar field improvements, implementation of the Air DistrictSMAQMD rules and compliance with Title 24 the greenhouse gas emission impacts from the proposed project are considered less than significant. Less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
The City of Jackson does not have regulations regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

27 of 46
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project consists of the capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The project will not involve the off-site movement or handling of mine waste unless the mine tailings that are to be excavated from onsite locations are classified as hazardous waste. If some of the excavated materials are classified as hazardous waste up to an estimated 2,700 tons of mine tailings may be removed from the site for disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. Otherwise, all excavated mine tailings will be placed on the tailings pile and covered with the tailings pile cap. The primary transportation element is but rather the importation of clean fill and other materials (asphalt, etc.) for covering of mine waste materials. Fill materials will be inspected and tested if necessary, prior to transport to confirm that they do not contain hazardous substances exceeding screening or background levels for constituents of concern. A Soil Transportation Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and implemented prior to construction.

Following construction, a Land Use Covenant and Operation & Maintenance agreement will be recorded to limit the types of future land uses allowed on the site and to prescribe procedures for maintenance and handling of mine wastes in the event they are exposed in the future by site activities or natural processes. Future recreational activities and uses at the site will be subject to the limitations and provisions of both the Land Use Covenant and the Operation & Maintenance agreement.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The project will not may cause the movement of approximately 2,700 cubic yards of hazardous materials (e.g. mine wastes) from the site., but instead intends to cap such materials in place.

No transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials is anticipated to occur. However, offsite disposal of hazardous materials shall be required should excavated materials exceed hazardous waste criteria. ThisThe amount will be determined once remedial work begins – if required, excavated materials will be transported under existing regulations to ensure no hazards to the traveling public. Provided that soil verification sampling and analysis results meet the remedial goals, the excavation areas will be suitable for recreational uses. Recreational uses at the site will not routinely cause the transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Less than significant impact.

28 of 46
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is located approximately one-quarter mile north and west of the Jackson elementary school and approximately one-quarter mile north and east of the Jackson junior high school. Implementation of the project will likely disturb, to some degree, existing mine waste materials which has the potential to create dust containing elevated levels of arsenic and other constituents of concern.

The Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD) has promulgated Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions during a variety of activities including construction (http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ama/curhtml/r2l8.htm). The rule defines fugitive dust as follows:
"Fugitive dust for the purposes of this rule is also defined as the particulate matter entrained into the air which is caused from man-made and natural activities which is emitted into the air without first passing through a stack or duct designed to control flow, including, but not limited to, emissions caused by movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, and windblown dust." The intent of the rule is to control dust by water application, pavement, vegetation, etc. so that no visible dust is created. Violation of the rule could result in issuance of a notice of violation and assessment of penalties.

To comply with this rule, portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment will be thoroughly wetted in advance of disturbing activities. Then, during grading and construction, additional water will be applied to control dust. There is no ambient air quality standard for arsenic. However, thorough water application to control dust will also prevent arsenic from becoming airborne. Less than significant impact. d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is listed on the State’s designated list of hazardous waste substances sites (the Cortese list) under Envirostor ID no. 03100004. Pursuant to a voluntary cleanup agreement the project proposes to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to cover historic mine wastes in an effort to isolate mine waste hazards from public exposure. Implementation of the RAP will eliminate hazards to the public and environment by capping mine waste materials onsite. No impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? According to the Airport Land Use Plan for Westover Field, Adopted October 1987 and amended July 1990, the project site is outside all Airport Safety Areas. No Impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not result in temporary rerouting of vehicular traffic or decrease the number of travel lanes. Furthermore, emergency access to the project site will be improved as a result of implementation of the RAP. No impact.

29 of 46
g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Implementation of the RAP and the proposed park facility will involve the extension of water service to the site which will lower the risk of loss due to potential wildland fires. The residences on the west side of the project site will also have a reduced risk due to the reduction in unmanaged grass lands. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would;
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

30 of 46
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

Groundwater in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada typically occurs within fractured bedrock.

Perched groundwater may also be present in shallow alluvium overlying bedrock. Dames & Moore reported that during their investigation in 1993, groundwater was encountered at depths from 30 to 60 feet while drilling five site monitoring wells; however, several lenses of perched water were documented in soil borings completed at the Site. The perched lenses ranged in thickness from 9 to 15 feet, and were of an unknown total area (Dames & Moore, 1995).

LFR, Inc. (LFR) performed groundwater monitoring during their targeted site investigation conducted in 2009. Depth to groundwater ranged from 11.49 feet to 42.81 feet. Groundwater elevation data indicate that the groundwater flows to the south with a calculated gradient of approximately 0.05 foot/foot.

Adapted from Draft Removal Action Workplan; Oro de Amador Site, Jackson, California (Geocon, September 2015). Original sources cited in the RAP include:

1. Dames & Moore, 1995, Final Environmental Assessment, Kennedy Mine Tailing Site, Jackson, California;

2. LFR, Inc., 2009, Final Targeted Site Investigation, Oro de Amador, Jackson, California.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The USEPA establishes national water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the USEPA has also established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. Because the project will disturb more than one acre of land, coverage will be required under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (the Construction General Permit). Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented as required by the General Permit. In addition, grading plans will be professional prepared and will include erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with City of Jackson code requirements. Implementation of the SWPPP and local erosion and sediment control BMPs will minimize the potential for short-term construction-related water quality impacts resulting from sediment-laden surface water run-off. Less than significant impact. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
Neither the mine waste material capping project nor subsequent recreational activities at the site propose ground water extraction, as municipal potable water is available at the site. Most mine waste materials will be capped with clean soil or aggregate base fill which is permeable and will not significantly impede the vertical movement of precipitation and runoff to groundwater recharge. Other areas will be covered with synthetic materials or asphalt concrete/concrete

31 of 46
pavement which will impede the vertical movement of water, however these areas are proportionally small so their effect on overall, local and regional groundwater recharge is considered to be minimal. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would; result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
Future construction on the project site will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. As required under existing regulations, drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. By doing so, substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site will not occur.

Less than significant impact.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Implementation of the project will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. As required under existing regulations, drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. By doing so, substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site will not occur. Less than significant impact.

The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. Project activities will require professionally prepared erosion and sedimentation plans and the placement and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to ensure erosion and sedimentation are reduced or eliminated. By their nature, project activities will serve to reduce, rather than increase, the exposure of pollutants to precipitation and runoff and as a result the project is expected to increase the quality of water leaving the site. Less than significant impact.

The project site is depicted on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) no 06005C0557F. A fairly large part of the east-central portion of the property is shown as being subject to the 1% annual chance flood. This area is associated with the lakebed area and the drainage course that directs runoff into and out of the lakebed area. No project activities are proposed in the portion of the site designated as being subject to the 1% annual chance flood. No impact.

The project site contains a historic tailings impoundment, however the impoundment has been largely cleared of retained debris (mine tailings), therefore failure of the structure would not release a significant quantity of water or retained debris (if any). No impact.

32 of 46
The site is not located near lakes or reservoirs; therefore the site is not subject to seiche hazards. The site is approximately 95 miles from the Pacific Ocean, well outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone. Impounded tailings behind the historic impoundment dam have been largely removed and reprocessed, and reprocessed tailings have been placed and graded elsewhere on the site in such a manner that they are stable and represent no potential for mudflow deposition. Project-related activities (recreation, parking, hiking trails) are not expected to increase or affect mudflow potential at the site. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is General Plan designated and zoned Recreation with a Planned Development/Open Space Overlay. This means that the base use is recreation with areas of open space.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant so there is no community to divide. No impact. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Implementation of the RAP and the future use of the site for public hiking trails and recreational fields is consistent with the recreation and open space designation and zoning. No impact.

33 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

Federal, state and local agencies regulate or maintain documents regarding the presence of mineral resources. The State Geologist, California Geological Survey, and the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) provide assistance and direction with regard to mineral resources. The mineral land classification system is designed to provide local government agencies with information regarding the presence or likely occurrence of mineral deposits contained beneath land within their jurisdiction. Future land-use policy decisions made for land within the study area can be made with a better understanding of underlying mineral significance or potential.

The project site is covered by the Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15 Minute Quadrangle, Amador and Calaveras Counties, California (California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 83-36; 1981). The SMGB uses a classification system that divides land into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) based on quantity and significance of mineral resources. The project site is designated MRZ-2a, or an area classified as containing significant measured or indicated mineral reserves. This designation is consistent with the known historic mining that occurred in the area, and from the waste materials that occupy a portion of the project site.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Will the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Will the proposed project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The project consists of the capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The project does not propose to remove from the site or affect any known mineral resources. In addition, the City of Jackson owns the surface rights but not the mineral rights below approximately 500 feet (mineral rights below 500 feet, and in certain cases less than 500 feet, are reserved by others). For this reason extraction of mineral resources may still occur

34 of 46
beneath the project site without interference from or to the proposed recreational activities or improvements. Finally, the project does not propose occupation of the site by humans, but rather incidental and periodic short-term use for recreational activities only. Sensitive receptors (e.g. human occupation) will not occur on the site therefore interference between potential future mineral extraction and sensitive receptors is not expected. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project to
excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? In accordance with the City’s noise ordinance, all site work will be completed between the hours of 7:00 am and 9:00 pm on any day except Sunday, and between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Sunday. Construction activities during mine waste capping and site development have the potential to generate short-term increases in noise, however based upon historic experience with construction-related traffic and noise, the City does not anticipate off-site objectionable noise levels to be associated with this project. Post-construction noise will be associated with episodic passenger vehicles, an occasional bus, and human voice related to sports and recreational activities. Similar temporary increases in ambient noise levels at other sports and recreation facilities in the City have not resulted in violations of the noise standards in the noise ordinance. Less than significant.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

35 of 46
Neither the project’s construction nor post-construction activities will include activities likely to produce significant or excessive groundborne vibration or noise (e.g. blasting, impact pile driving, etc.) that would exceed regulatory standards. Conventional construction and recreational activities do not produce excessive groundborne vibration or noise. No impact. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project to excessive noise levels?
According to the Airport Land Use Plan for Westover Field, Adopted October 1987 and amended July 1990, noise contours associated with airport operations are oriented northeasterly and parallel with the runway. The 60db noise contour associated with airport operations is modeled to lie approximately one mile west of the project site, so airport noise levels at the project site will be significantly lower, and perhaps not detectable above existing ambient noise levels particularly during on-site activities. No Impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

The proposed project is General Plan designated and zoned for recreational uses and open space. The location, distribution, density or growth rate of the population and housing will not be affected or altered by the proposed project activities. No impact.

36 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is predominately surrounded by residential uses. Access to public services such as fire and police service is available from several access points including off New York Ranch Road and Placer Drive. These access points will remain open during implementation of the RAP and development of the active and passive park activities.

Discussion of Impacts:

The proposed project activities will comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s Fire and Building Codes. Implementation of the RAP and development of the park will decrease the burden on the Police Department because there will be more public activity on the site which may deter some of the criminal trespassing activity that has occurred in the past. The proposed project would not alter or affect schools located in the vicinity of the site. Implementation of the RAP ultimately includes active and passive park improvements that will provide much needed recreational opportunities for the City of Jackson and Amador County’s citizens. No impact.

37 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

Implementation of the RAP allows for subsequent development of active and passive park improvements that will provide much needed recreational opportunities for the City of Jackson’s residents and visitors. Thus, impacts to recreational facilities are considered beneficial. No Impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g. sharp cures or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

38 of 46
Background:

According to the September 2021 City of Jackson Existing Conditions Report for the General Plan Update, the City of Jackson represents 12 percent of the total population in the County, three percent of the lane miles, and 1.6 percent of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The low proportions of lane miles and VMT are the result of the City representing less than one percent of the total size of Amador County.

The completed recreational facility will follow implementation of the RAP and incorporate approximately 7 acres of developed parkland, and several acres of undeveloped parkland (i.e. walking trails); most of the site will remain undeveloped and inaccessible to the public. City of Jackson general plan land use and zoning for the RAP area is Recreation with a Planned Development/Open Space overlay which is consistent with the proposed recreation uses. The main point of entry to the park facilities will be from New York Ranch Road. New York Ranch Road is a major local collector road that begins at Court Street in the City of Jackson and extends northerly out of the City limits where it connects with Ridge Road.

Currently the only regional park in Amador County is Howard Park located in the City of Ione approximately 11 miles west of downtown Jackson.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? While the project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, including the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan and the Amador County Transportation Commission Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the design should include additional trails to maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The proposed active and passive recreational uses are within walking distance of downtown Jackson services and several residential subdivisions, consistent with General Plan goals for low VMT infill development but would benefit from pedestrian and/or bicycle access from Tyack Lane, Placer Drive, and possibly Rollingwood Estates. Less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 17.1: Park trail design shall be augmented with a minimum of two additional pedestrian and/or bicycles access points of entry. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? In the absence of models to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the proposed project CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)3 allows for a jurisdiction to analyze a project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. This analysis evaluates factors such as the availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The proposed project’s proximity (approximately 0.3 miles) to an established Amador Transit stop (at the County Library) and the close proximity of neighboring commercial and residential developments reduces the anticipated vehicle miles attributed to this project to a level of insignificance.

Furthermore, construction of a centrally located countywide regional recreational facility within the City of Jackson will redistribute trips and reduce overall trip length associated with existing vehicle trips to other more distant recreational facilities. Park goers in the Jackson area, as well as the upcountry areas of the County (Pine Grove, Pioneer & Buckhorn), will have the potential

39 of 46
to travel fewer miles to reach park facilities, thereby reducing existing VMT. Less than significant impact.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp cures or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. fam equipment)? The project’s main entrance on New York Ranch Road has been selected to provide for adequate vertical and horizontal site distance, and construction drawings will be carefully reviewed to ensure sufficient site distance is provided. During construction, workers and construction-related equipment deliveries will access the site via New York Ranch Road resulting in turning, slow-moving vehicle interaction with passenger vehicles, a potentially dangerous condition. However, construction plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer will include a traffic control plan which will be carried out during construction to minimize the potential adverse effect of such interactions. Less than significant impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The recreational facility design and construction drawings will be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure all emergency access provisions contained in applicable codes and ordinances are incorporated into the design. Construction drawings reviewed and approved by the City Engineer will include a traffic control plan which will be carried out through construction to minimize the effect construction-related traffic has on emergency services. Less than significant impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOUCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

40 of 46
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

Because of the extensive ground disturbance from past uses associated with the site, it is not anticipated that tribal cultural resources, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074 and listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or is determined to be significant pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 subdivision (c), would be impacted as a result of RAP implementation and subsequent construction and operation of the active and passive recreational land uses. The public recreation facility, parking and access roadway and dispersed non-motorized trail system are located within the existing disturbance area of the previous mining related land uses. California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have been notified as required by California AB 52 and will be included in the notices for public review of this Initial Study and future hearings before the City Council to consider approval of the Project’s construction.

Therefore, the project would result in no impact to any known Tribal Cultural Resources. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would
the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

41 of 46
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The ultimate use of the site as a passive and active recreational park will require periodic use of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity. The WWTP is currently operating below capacity, particularly during the dry months when the proposed park will likely receive the heaviest use. City staff have reported that sufficient capacity in the WWTP exists to serve the project. Construction and extension of sewer service lateral(s) from existing trunk collection mains to serve the project is considered routine, and biologically sensitive areas will not require disruption to facilitate such construction. No construction related to offsite WWTP treatment capacity is required. Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the project will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. Storm drainage improvements may include culverts, detention basins, grass-lined swales, or any number of other peak-reducing measures to control runoff quantities. Such facilities will be constructed on-site, in non-biologically sensitive areas, and will be designed by professional engineers in consultation with the project biologist to ensure significant environmental effect will not occur as a result of construction.

Less than significant impact.

The ultimate use of the site as a passive and active recreational park will require extension of electrical power, but no natural gas lines or telecommunication facilities. Electrical infrastructure will be coordinated with PG&E and will follow existing roadway/utility corridors. As such, no offsite construction related to electrical power is required. Less than significant impact. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

42 of 46
The proposed project will be served by the City’s water system. This system relies on water purchased from the Amador Water Agency (AWA). The AWA has indicated that treatment and storage capacity is severely limited. To ensure capacity the AWA will require the City to obtain a “Wholesale Water Will Serve Commitment” prior to service. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 19.1 the impact is less than significant. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 19.1: The City shall obtain a “Wholesale Water Will Serve Commitment” from the Amador Water Agency prior to service.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? City public works staff report that the WWTP is currently operating below capacity, particularly during the dry months when the proposed park facilities will likely receive the heaviest use. City staff report that sufficient capacity in the WWTP exists to serve the project in addition to existing commitments. No impact.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste collection service is provided to the City by ACES, a contract hauler who delivers collected waste to local transfer stations. Waste from transfer stations is segregated and nonrecyclable refuse is disposed at Keifer Landfill in Sacramento County. The hauler reports that waste generated by the project will be minimal and that collection and disposal capacity exists to serve the project. No impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Solid waste will be collected and handled by ACES. ACES operates under contract to the City as a contract hauler. By contract, ACES must demonstrate that its operations are in continuous compliance with federal, state and local statutes and regulations. In addition, ACES’s operations are routinely audited by a third-party service specializing in solid waste operations and its operations are routinely found to be compliant. No impact.

43 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The entire county is prone to fire, either man-made or natural. Location, accessibility, local climatic conditions, topography and vegetation type are among the factors associated with the intensity of a fire. Among the factors which can induce fire hazard potential to human safety and the environment is the degree to which fire hazard reduction measures are practiced in an area and, should a fire occur, the response time and effectiveness of the fire suppression activities.

The project area is located outside of the state responsibility area but is just west of a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CAL FIRE (map dated 9/29/2023).

Discussion of Impacts:

The project site is not located in a state responsibility area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. Applicable construction standards will be used during construction of the active recreational facility.

The active public recreation area is served by a paved, publicly maintained roadway (New York Ranch Road) with adequate provision for emergency access equipment. The project’s new access roadway and associated recreation facility (parking, fields, courts) would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

44 of 46
Additionally, the active recreation facilities area topography is relatively level and it is anticipated that maintenance of this area’s surrounding vegetation would be required to ensure maximum efficiency of the facility. Given the public recreation facilities location immediately east of existing development footprint of downtown Jackson, it is not anticipated that wildfire risks would be exacerbated causing the project occupants to be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire.

As stated above, the active recreation facilities are located on a portion of the site with relatively level topography. No existing drainages are located in the area proposed for active recreation.

As a result, people or structures within the active recreation facility area would not be exposed to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding, or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Areas with greater slope and potential drainage/flooding issues are located within the lakebed area where public access is not allowed (fenced and posted to restrict public access)
Therefore, the project would result in no impact to Wildfire related issues. No impact.

45 of 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:

Approval of the RAP will not by itself have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Approval of the RAP will not by itself have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable as all cumulative environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the 2023 City of Jackson Land Use Element have been addressed in the certified EIR. The RAP does not increase the residential growth potential of Jackson. Approval of RAP request will not require mitigation to minimize impacts.

The analysis from this Initial Study for the proposed active and passive recreational land uses found the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal.

The proposed recreational project was analyzed for cumulatively considerable impacts. This Initial Study found that the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects

46 of 46
of probable future projects. There are no environmental impacts associated with the existing conditions or future conditions after implementation of the RAP that would be exacerbated by the recreational land uses.

The Initial Study found that the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly following implementation of the measures included in the RAP.

SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE A- 1

ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Jackson Oro De Amador Project is provided in Table A-1 and prepared in compliance with requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. In general, the City shall be responsible for implementing and monitoring the measures identified below.

Table A-1 describes each mitigation measure and identifies the responsible agency, timing, and monitoring requirements.

Table A-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
Mitigation Measure 4.1: Rare Plant Surveys.

To protect special status plant species, a minimum of two focused rare plant surveys shall be conducted prior to construction during the blooming season for the species listed above (May-July).

Surveys shall be spaced a minimum of three weeks apart during the blooming period. Exact survey timing shall be determined by the qualified biologist. Survey results shall be summarized in a Botanical Survey Report consistent with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. If rare plants are discovered during these surveys, the Project Proponent shall coordinate with City of Jackson to develop a plan for avoiding project impacts to rare plants. The project may not commence until an avoidance and minimization plan is approved by the City of Jackson.

City of Jackson During Plan
Development
Complete preconstruction survey.

Mitigation Measure 4.2: Western Pond Turtle.

Within 24 hours prior to initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the site for western pond turtles and/or their nests. If western pond turtle is encountered during surveys, a site specific avoidance, minimization, and/or relocation plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Jackson. This plan shall be submitted prior to starting construction activities within the areas where pond turtles were discovered. Measures included in the approved impact avoidance plan shall be implemented during project activities.

City of Jackson Prior to
construction
Complete preconstruction survey
to identify and
protect any active
nests within the
construction
disturbance zone.

Mitigation Measure 4.3: Nesting Bird Survey. City of Jackson Prior to Complete prePage 67 of 130 SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE A- 2
Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
If project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within no greater than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the beginning of Project-related activities. A qualified biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for migratory birds and 1/2-mile for raptors around the Project area that can be accessed by the project proponent. The results of the survey shall be provided to the City of Jackson upon completion. If no active nests are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.
• Active Nests. If an active nest is found, active nests should be avoided, and a no disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and established by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be kept in place until after the breeding nesting season or the qualified biologist confirms the young have fledged, are foraging independently, and the nest is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by the qualified biologist and will depend on the species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. • Project Delay. If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or longer occurs, the qualified biologist shall complete another focused survey before Project work can be reinitiated.
• Project Proponent Responsibility. It is the project proponent responsibility to comply with Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 regardless of the time of year. construction construction survey
to identify and
protect any active
nests within the
construction
disturbance zone.

Mitigation Measure 4.4: Mature Tree Mitigation.

CDFW recommends replanting all native trees removed with a DBH greater than 4 inches at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees should be of native origin and to the extent feasible, trees should be planted on-site. If on site mitigation is not feasible, in-kind mitigation can be considered for an alternate location, or a donation to a local tree mitigation program or conservation fund could be considered.

City of Jackson Prior to final
post-RAP
development
Include final tree
mitigation plan in
agency project
approval staff
report.

SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE A- 3
Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
Mitigation Measure 4.5: Bat Pre-Construction Surveys and Suitable Roost Tree Removal.

A CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for potentially suitable bat tree roosting habitat, March 1 to April 15 or August 31 to October 15 prior to Project activities. If the habitat assessment reveals suitable bat habitat within trees, and tree removal is scheduled from April 16 through August 30 and/or October 16 through February 28, then presence/absence surveys shall be conducted two to three days prior to any tree removal or trimming. If presence/absence surveys are negative, then tree removal may be conducted by following a two-phased tree removal system. If presence/absence surveys indicate bat occupancy, then the occupied trees shall only be removed from March 1 through April 15 and/or August 31 through October 15 by following the two-phased tree removal system. The two-phased removal system shall be conducted over 2 consecutive days and under supervision of a qualified biologist. On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches are removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws or other hand tools only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures are avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features are removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed. The City of Jackson should consult with a qualified bat biologist to determine suitable buffers around roost and/or hibernaculum sites. Buffers may vary depending on species and Project activity being performed.

City of Jackson Prior to
construction
Complete preconstruction survey
to identify and
protect any active
roosts within the
construction
disturbance zone.

Mitigation Measure 17.1: Park trail design
Park trail design shall be augmented with a minimum of two additional pedestrian and/or bicycles access points of entry.

City of Jackson Prior to final
post-RAP
development
Include final access
plan in agency
project approval
staff report.

Mitigation Measure 19.1: Water Will Serve Letter
The City shall obtain a “Wholesale Water Will Serve Commitment” from the Amador Water Agency prior to service.

City of Jackson Prior to final
post-RAP
development
Include will serve
letter in agency
project approval
staff report.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
4 September 2025
Susan Peters
City of Jackson
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ORO DE AMADOR REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN, SCH#2025080224,

AMADOR COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 6 August 2025 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan, located in Amador County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by

Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan - 2 - 4 September 2025 Amador County
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan - 3 - 4 September 2025 Amador County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan - 4 - 4 September 2025 Amador County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/

Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan - 5 - 4 September 2025 Amador County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT 10 RURAL PLANNING
P.O. BOX 2048 | STOCKTON, CA 95201
(209) 948-7325 | FAX (209) 948-7164 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 28, 2025
Susan Peters, AICP
City Planner
City of Jackson
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642
AMA-88-PM 15.328 Oro de
Amador Remedial Action
Plan
SCH 2025080224
Dear Ms. Peters,
The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review and provide information on the Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Initial Study. The RAP was developed to evaluate potential remedial alternatives for soil impacted by arsenic and other metals at the city owned Oro de Amador property. The site is approximately 160 acres, a large portion of which was historically used for storing mine tailings from the former Kennedy Mine and for retaining waste from the processing of mine tailings at an onsite cyanide plant.

The proposed project is generally located in the center of the community of Jackson between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 020-070-031, 020-070-037, and 020-070-040.

Caltrans, at this time has the following comments:

Environmental
If there are any construction related activities that will encroach into Caltrans Right of Way (ROW) as a result of the project, the project proponent must apply for an Encroachment Permit with the Caltrans District 10 Encroachment Permit Office. All California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, with supporting technical studies, must be submitted with the Encroachment Permit Application. These studies may include an analysis of potential impacts to any cultural sites, historic properties, biological resources, hazardous waste/materials, scenic highways, and/or other environmental resources within Caltrans Right of Way, at the project site(s).

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Susan Peters
August 28, 2025

Traffic Operations
Caltrans has no comment at this time under this Remedial Action Plan (RAP) review phase. When the RAP is approved, please submit the updated site utilization plan with proposed improvements, including traffic circulation and/or traffic impact on State Route (SR) 49 and SR 88, for review.

Encroachment Permits
If any future project activities encroach into State ROW, the project proponent must submit an application for an Encroachment Permit to the Caltrans District 10 Encroachment Permit Office. Appropriate environmental studies must be submitted with this application.

These studies will include an analysis of potential impacts to any cultural sites, biological resources, hazardous waste locations, and/or other resources within State ROW at the project site(s). For more information, please visit the Caltrans Website at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep/applications If you have any questions or would like to discuss these comments, please contact Ashley Cooper at (209) 670-9488 or at [email protected] or me at (209) 639-8832 (email:
[email protected]).

Sincerely,
Gregoria Ponce’, Chief
Office of Rural Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

From: Donaldson, Hailey@Wildlife
To: [email protected]
Cc: Wildlife R2 CEQA; Wood, Dylan@Wildlife; Sheya, Tanya@Wildlife; Kilgour, Morgan@Wildlife Subject: CDFW Comments on the Oro De Amador Remedial Action Plan - Mitigated Negative Declaration; SCH No. 2025080224
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 3:24:20 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Susan Peters:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received and reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Jackson for the Oro De Amador Remedial Action Plan (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines.[1] Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, native plants, and their habitat. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may need to exercise its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Fish & G. Code, § 1802). Similarly for purposes of CEQA, CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

The Project site is located in the center between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road, in the City of Jackson, Amador County; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 020-070-031, 020- 070-037, and 020-070-040.

The Project consists of remediation of soils contaminated with arsenic on an approximately 160 acre site that was historically used for mine tailings from the former Kennedy Mine and preparation for public recreational use. The plan involves on-site consolidation of contaminated materials and capping with clean soil. The recreational improvements include sports fields, trails, and solar arrays.

The Project description should include the whole action as defined in the CEQA Guidelines section 15070 and should include appropriate detailed exhibits disclosing the Project area including temporary impacted areas such as equipment staging areas, spoils areas, adjacent infrastructure development, and access and haul roads if applicable.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Jackson in adequately identifying and, where appropriate, mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

CDFW is primarily concerned with the project impacts to rare plants, mature trees, bats, western pond turtles, and nesting birds and raptors.

COMMENT 1: Rare Plants, MND Background Page 16.

Issue: The MND identified five special-status plants with the potential to be present within the project area, and the MND considers the project to not have any impacts to special-status plants because project plans are not located 200 feet of the lakebed. However, the species listed also have a likelihood of being present in upland areas where excavation to remove contaminated soils as well as project development are planned, yet no measures were proposed to avoid or minimize impacts to the rare, native plant species listed. The species listed inhabit the Sierra Nevada foothills, including habitats such as dry sandy slopes, and acidic soil in chaparral, woodland, and forests all of which are habitat types present within the Project Area. Because measures are not proposed, impacts to special-status plants could be considered significant.

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends the following measure to avoid impacting the rare plants identified in the MND that are within 10-

miles of the Project Site including:
• Bisbee Peak rush-rose (Helianthemum suffrutescens)
• Ione manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia)
• Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var. apricum)
• Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi)
• Red Hills soaproot (Chlorogalum grandiflorum)
Rare Plant Surveys. In accordance with the recommendations of the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and natural Communities, a minimum of two focused rare plant surveys shall be conducted prior to construction during the blooming season for the species listed above (May-July). Surveys shall be spaced a minimum of three weeks apart during the blooming period. Exact survey timing shall be determined by the qualified biologist. Survey results shall be summarized in a Botanical Survey Report consistent with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. If rare plants are discovered during these surveys, the Project Proponent shall coordinate with City of Jackson to develop a plan for avoiding project impacts to rare plants. The project may not commence until an avoidance and minimization plan is approved by the City of Jackson.

COMMENT 2: Mature Tree Removal Mitigation, MND Background, Page 16 and 17.

Issue: While the MND includes 3:1 mitigation for tree removal of trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of greater than or equal to 16 inches, and Planning Commission approval under the City of Jackson Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.40 for trees with a DBH of 8 inches or greater, trees with a DBH of 4 inches or greater can be considered mature vegetation, and thus, important contributors to the ecological value of the habitat and canopy cover in the environment. Studies suggest that bats select roost sites in trees with DBHs as low as 6.6 inches (Brigham et al. 1997) therefore, removal of trees within the Project Area as planned by the Project Proponent will reduce the availability of roosting habitat for bats, which may be considered a significant impact to biological resources if not mitigated for.

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends the following measures to ensure that removal of mature trees providing potential nesting bird and bat roosting habitat within the Project Area is properly mitigated for.

Mature Tree Mitigation. CDFW recommends replanting all native trees removed with a DBH greater than 4 inches at a of 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees should be of native origin and to the extent feasible, trees should be planted on-site. If on site mitigation is not feasible, in-kind

mitigation can be considered for an alternate location, or a donation to a local tree mitigation program or conservation fund could be considered. CDFW also recommends that a qualified biologist supervise vegetation removal to ensure compliance with mitigation requirements and avoid impacting wildlife during the removal.

COMMENT 3: Draft Final RAP: Pre-Construction Bat Surveys and Suitable Roost Tree Removal, Section 9.3.2, Pre-Construction Biological Surveys and Delineation, Page: 193.

Issue: It is not stated in the MND that the project will or will not impact roosting bats in the Project Area. The MND should address, avoid, and minimize impacting tree roosting bat species potentially roosting in mature trees within the Project area. The removal of suitable tree roosting habitat is not adequately analyzed or minimized through the proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Bats are considered non-game mammals and are protected by state law from take and/or harassment (Fish and Game Code §4150, CCR §251.1). Several bat species are also considered Species of Special Concern (SSC), which meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines §15065); therefore, impacts may be considered potentially significant unless adequate mitigation is incorporated.

CDFW recommends that the Project Proponent include surveys prior to tree removal for bats that are likely to roost in trees in Amador County including: the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevii), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends that the number, species, and size of the trees to be removed are included in the Removal of Vegetation section 9.4.1/9.5.1 of the RAP as well as a discussion on how this will or will not be a significant impact to tree roosting bat species. It is also recommended that the following bat survey measure be included in the RAP under section 9.3.2, Pre-Construction Biological Surveys and Delineation, Page: 193.

Bat Pre-Construction Surveys and Suitable Roost Tree Removal. A CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for potentially suitable bat tree roosting habitat, March 1 to April 15 or August 31 to October 15 prior to Project activities. If the habitat assessment reveals suitable bat habitat within trees, and tree removal is scheduled from April 16 through August 30 and/or October 16 through February 28, then presence/absence surveys shall be conducted two to three days prior to any tree removal or trimming. If presence/absence surveys are negative, then tree removal may be conducted by following a

two-phased tree removal system. If presence/absence surveys indicate bat occupancy, then the occupied trees shall only be removed from March 1 through April 15 and/or August 31 through October 15 by following the two-phased tree removal system. The two-phased removal system shall be conducted over 2 consecutive days and under supervision of a qualified biologist. On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches are removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws or other hand tools only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures are avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features are removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed. Project proponents should consult with a qualified bat biologist to determine suitable buffers around roost and/or hibernaculum sites.

Buffers may vary depending on species and Project activity being performed.

COMMENT 4: Western Pond Turtle, MND Background, Page 16.

Issue: The MND highlights the potential for western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) within the Project Site, and while the project activities are not planned to be within the waterbody on the Project Site, there is still a likelihood of impacting this species in surrounding upland areas if pre-construction surveys are not implemented and avoidance and minimization measures are not adopted.

Western pond turtles require terrestrial habitat for nesting, basking, migration or dispersal, overwintering and aestivation. Oviposition typically occurs from May through July. Females travel an average of 51 meters from water to excavate nests in upland areas with sparse vegetation and direct sunlight exposure. The nests depth generally occur between 9 to 12 centimeters below the surface. The incubation period for eggs typically ranges from 80 to 126 days. (USFWS 2023). Between September and December, western pond turtles have been found to migrate an average distance of 203 meters (666 feet) from water bodies to overwintering habitats (Reese & Welsh, 1997). The MND does not address the potential for nesting/overwintering habitat in the uplands within the Project Area making it difficult to assess the potential for impacts that the project may have on this species. From a desktop review, the upland habitat surrounding the Lake within the Project Area appears to be suitable for western pond turtle nesting which if not addressed through pre-construction surveys, could result in the potential for direct harm to female turtles during Project Activities (i.e. crashed or impinged) while traveling from the water to a potential nest site. If buffers are not established around active nests during construction, there is also potential for noise and visual disturbances to cause females to abandon nesting activities. If there is an active nest in the Project site, there is potential for the nest to be directly harmed (i.e. crashed) during ground disturbing activities.

Western pond turtles are a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Therefore, impacts to western pond turtles may be considered potentially significant unless adequate mitigation is incorporated. Western pond turtle populations have declined in

the past due to habitat fragmentation resulting from increased urban development and leading to loss of genetic diversity over time (USFWS, 2023).

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends that the following Mitigation Measure be included in the RAP: Section 9.3.2, Pre-Construction Biological Surveys and Delineation Page: 193 to avoid impacting western pond turtles which may be utilizing upland habitat within the Project Area.

Western Pond Turtle. Within 24 hours prior to initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the site for western pond turtles and/or their nests.

If western pond turtle is encountered during surveys, a site specific avoidance, minimization, and/or relocation plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Jackson. This plan shall be submitted prior to starting construction activities within the areas where pond turtles were discovered. All the measures included in the approved plan shall be implemented during project activities.

COMMENT 5: Nesting Birds and Raptors, Draft Final RAP: Section 9.3.2, Pre-Construction Biological Surveys and Delineation – Nesting Raptors, Page: 193 & MND: background, Page 16.

Issue: Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C., §§ 703-712). CDFW implemented the MBTA by adopting the Fish & G. Code section 3513. Fish & G. Code sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3800, which provide additional protection to nongame birds, birds of prey, their nests and eggs.

Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for birds and birds of prey is present on and adjacent to the Project area. Ground disturbance and other construction activities could result in the take of migratory native bird species, including ground nesting species such as Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and California Quail (Callipepla californica). Currently the MND does not mention any potential impacts that the Project Activities may have on nesting birds and the RAP does not include pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and only includes a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors which will not effectively reduce or avoid impacts on other birds and their nests if work takes place between February 1 and August 31, and it also does not include avoidance procedures if active nests are found in the Project Area both of which are considered significant impacts unless mitigation measures are incorporated.

Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends that the following Mitigation Measure be included in the RAP: Section 9.3.2, Pre-Construction Biological Surveys and Delineation Page: 193.

Nesting Bird Survey. If project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within no greater than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the beginning of Projectrelated activities. A qualified biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for migratory birds and 1/2-mile for raptors around the Project area that can be accessed by the project proponent. The results of the survey shall be provided to the City of Jackson upon completion.

If no active nests are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.

Active Nests. If an active nest is found, active nests should be avoided, and a no disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and established by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be kept in place until after the breeding nesting season or the qualified biologist confirms the young have fledged, are foraging independently, and the nest is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by the qualified biologist and will depend on the species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers.

Project Delay. If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or longer occurs, the qualified biologist shall complete another focused survey before Project work can be reinitiated.

Project Proponent Responsibility. It is the project proponent responsibility to comply with Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, regardless of the time of year.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected].

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of

filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092 and § 21092.2, CDFW requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the proposed project. Written notifications shall be directed to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 or emailed to [email protected].

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the for the Oro De Amador Remedial Action Plan to assist City of Jackson in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize and/or mitigate impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Hailey Donaldson, Environmental Scientist at (916) 216- 6253 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Morgan Kilgour
Regional Manager
ec:

Dylan Wood, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Hailey Donaldson, Environmental Scientist
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento

REFERENCES
Bringham M.R., M.J. Vonhof, R.M. Barclay, and J.C. Gwilliam. (1997) Roosting Behavior and Roost-site Preference of Forest-Dwelling California Bats (Myotis californicus).

Journal of Mammalogy. 78(4): 1231-1239.

Reese D.A. & H.H. Welsh. (1997) Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, (Clemmys marmorata): Implications for Management. Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. 352-357
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2023) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes federal protections for both species of western pond turtle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes federal protections for both species of western pond turtle under the Endangered Species Act | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hailey Donaldson
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Environmental Scientist
Cell: (916) 216-6253
1701 Nimbus Rd.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[1] CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

1 of 45

CITY OF JACKSON

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Oro de Amador Remedial Action Plan
November 2024
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for a proposed Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Oro de Amador Property located in the City of Jackson north of the downtown area between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road. This Mitigated Negative Declaration provides a description of the potential adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project and provides the reasons why those impacts will have no significant impact on the environment. When a Mitigated Negative Declaration is issued, it indicates that no substantial changes to the physical environment will result from the proposed project when mitigation is applied.

Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Jackson has determined that the above-referenced project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

Documentation supporting this finding is included in the attached Initial Study.

2 of 45

CITY OF JACKSON

INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Initial Study), this Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared for the City of Jackson for the proposed cleanup and reuse of the Oro de Amador property.

LEAD AGENCY: City of Jackson
Planning Department
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642
PREPARED BY: Susan M. Peters, AICP
Planning Consultant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Jackson City Council is considering adoption of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP was developed to evaluate potential remedial alternatives for soil impacted by arsenic and other metals at the city owned Oro de Amador property. The site is approximately 160 acres, a large portion of which was historically used for storing mine tailings from the former Kennedy Mine and for retaining waste from the processing of mine tailings at an onsite cyanide plant.

Preparation of the RAP was funded by Equitable Community Revitalization Grant (ECRG) #2022-00962, awarded to the City of Jackson on July 7, 2022, by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

The August 2023 Remedial Action Plan can be found on the City of Jackson website:
www.ci.jackson.ca.us.

Location: Oro de Amador is generally located in the center of the City between Jackson Gate Road and New York Ranch Road (see Figure 1). The Amador County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the site are 020-070-031, 020-070-037 and 020-070-040.

The site is mostly vacant with only remnants of mine-related structures including a cyanide plant foundation and tailings dam.

3 of 45
Figure 1: Site Location Map – Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Background: The Oro de Amador property was originally the location of the Bell Weather Mine (north central portion of the site) which was active in the 1890s. In 1912, the Kennedy Mining and Milling Company acquired the site and constructed a system to move mine tailings from the Kennedy Gold Mine, approximately one-half mile away, to the site in response to legislation requiring the impoundment of tailings. In 1914, a multi-arched reinforced concrete dam approximately 60 feet high and 600 feet long was constructed across an onsite valley to create an impoundment for tailings. Gold was extracted from the tailings via mercury amalgamation prior to transport to the site.

The Kennedy Mine constructed a 1,000-ton cyanide plant at the site on the ridge west of the tailings dam in 1933 which operated from 1935 to 1939. The plant was constructed as part of an effort to remove additional gold from tailings at the site. Tailings were removed from the area behind the tailings dam, processed through the cyanide leaching plant, and then deposited into piles on the western slope of the process area ridge.

The tailings reprocessing stopped in 1939 but tailings from the Kennedy Mine were deposited at the site until 1942 when the mine ceased operations. Remaining onsite buildings were demolished in the 1940s. Small-scale attempts to extract gold from the tailings were reportedly made between 1948 and 1950. In September 1950, the Kennedy Mining and Milling Company went out of business.

The tailings pile was covered with a layer of soil prior to 1960. The Flintkote Company operated a cement pipe manufacturing plant during the 1960s and reportedly used 36,000 tons of sand from the tailings in their process. An additional 150,000 tons of sand were removed from the southern rim of the tailings in the 1980s and reportedly moved offsite by the Wheels

4 of 45
Development Corporation. There have been no other mining or mineral ore processing activities reported for the site since the 1980s.

The site has been investigated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the City and private parties during the past three decades. The site is broken down into three contaminated areas (see Figure 2):

1. The Lakebed Area where mine tailings from the off-site Kennedy Mine were impounded.

2. The Cyanide Process Area where the mine tailings were reprocessed.

3. The Tailings Pile where the reprocessed mine tailings were disposed to land.

Except for cattle grazing, the site has remained vacant and inactive since the 1980s. The City of Jackson acquired the property in December 2006.

Figure 2: Site Plan – Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Surrounding Land Uses: Land surrounding the site is used primarily for residential purposes.

Adjoining land uses include residential properties along North Main Street, the St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church, Amador Senior Center, the Rollingwood Estates residential subdivision, and Jackson Hill Apartments. Land uses within 400 to 1,400 feet from the site include Jackson Elementary School, Amador Residential Care, Jackson Gardens assisted living facility, and Oak Manor Retirement Complex.

5 of 45
Project Objectives: The objectives of the RAP are as follows:

1. Minimize exposure to arsenic and other metals present in mine waste;

2. Minimize the spread of impacted material to adjacent properties; and

3. Facilitate the planned site improvements by covering the chemicals of potential concernbearing mine waste and/or soil in selected areas as part of the site redevelopment.

Workplan Summary:

The RAP evaluated the following three alternatives:

1. No action;

2. On-site consolidation under land use controls; and

3. Off-site disposal
The No Action alternative does not provide adequate protection of human health and water quality and does not comply with regulatory requirements. For these reasons, the No Action alternative was eliminated from consideration. The Off-Site Disposal alternative is not practical based on the costs and concerns related to truck traffic and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

On-site consolidation includes the excavation of contaminated soil and mine waste from isolated tailings areas; verification of soil sampling and analysis to confirm that the remedial goals have been achieved; and consolidation of the waste and affected soils on-site at the Tailings Pile. Offsite disposal will be required for excavated materials that exceed hazardous waste criteria.

Provided that soil verification sampling and analysis results meet the remedial goals, the excavation areas would be suitable for recreational uses. The existing lakebed area and concrete arch dam will remain in place and will be precluded from public access.

After consolidation, the Tailings Pile and surrounding area will be graded to direct surface water runoff away from the Tailing Pile (see Figure 3); drainage infrastructure (berms, ditches, overside drains and detention ponds) will be constructed; and the Tailing Pile will be covered with a clean soil cap to facilitate future recreational use.

The proposed recreational use of the Oro de Amador site is based on a conceptual site utilization plan created in 2011 (see Figure 4) and includes the following improvements:

1. Public recreation facility, including:
a. Artificial turf fields,
b. Public parking with solar shade structures,
c. Raised-bed plantings,
d. Snack shed,
e. Restroom facility with on-site sewage disposal (septic disposal field outside of the Tailings Pile),
f. Lighting, and
g. Underground utilities (water and electrical connections from offsite and onsite stormwater treatment).

2. Public trail system for non-motorized use, including:
a. Unpaved hiking and biking trails,
b. Public trailhead parking with solar shade structure near the site entrance, and c. Cattle gates to retain livestock in grazing areas.

6 of 45

3. “Brightfields” solar arrays within the fenced Cyanide Processing Area.

The “Brightfields” listed above is a federal initiative to redevelop former industrial sites (brownfields) like Oro de Amador into brightfields by placing clean energy systems and solar manufacturing facilities on these sites.

Figure 3: Proposed Remedial Design - Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

It is expected that the proposed public open space and sports facility will be visited by 500 people per day on average and will relieve pressure and community concerns regarding other existing local sports facilities (e.g., Detert Park and nearby Jackson Jr. High School and Argonaut HS) that are undersized for tournament events.

The “land use controls” portion of the selected alternative are required where waste remains in place at the Lakebed Area, Cyanide Process Area, and Tailings Pile to limit contact with mine tailings and contaminated soil that are to remain on-site, and to restrict future residential use of portions of the site that are remediated to non-residential standard. These controls include the following:

1. A Land Use Covenant is required to memorialize the land use controls.

2. An Operations & Maintenance Agreement is required to set fourth procedures for routine visual monitoring and reporting.

7 of 45

3. Where recreational use is proposed (the Tailings Pile and non-motorized public trail system), the waste must be covered with clean engineered fill and protected from erosion using storm water best management practices.

4. Where waste remains in place without an engineered cover (the Lakebed Area and Cyanide Process Area), fencing and posting are required to restrict public access.

5. Routine monitoring and reporting are to be performed after the remedial action is completed to verify the ongoing protectiveness of the remedial action in the long term.

Figure 4: Conceptual Development Plan - Source: August 2023 Remedial Action Plan, Geocon Consultants Inc.

Project Implementation:

Once the Remedial Action Plan is approved by DTSC and the Jackson City Council, city staff will work with DTSC staff to secure funding for plan implementation.

8 of 45
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water
Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☒ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☒ Utilities/Service
Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

9 of 45
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Background:

The project site is located in the Visual Corridor as described in the City of Jack General Plan Land Use Element adopted in October 2023. A large portion of the site is visible from Highway 49/88 (not a designated scenic highway) north of the downtown as well as from the Vista Point located immediately north of the City Limit. The portion of the site which is most visible is essentially a plateau that is currently void of any aesthetic features.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The project site is not located in a scenic vista or within a state scenic highway. No Impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Implementation of the RAP will cause a short-term adverse effect on the view as a result of the presence of construction vehicles and other equipment and the ground disturbance required to remove earthen materials that exceed hazardous waste criteria. In the long term, impacts are anticipated to be beneficial, with the planting of vegetation and construction of recreational amenities. Less than significant impact.

10 of 45
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The proposed project is predominately in a non-urbanized area which is visible from public vantage points. The site is currently unremarkable. The proposed park improvements will have short term aesthetic impacts due to construction, but the completed project will beautify the site and make it more aesthetically pleasing from nearby viewpoints. Less than significant impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Some of the park amenities will require lighting, however the City’s Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.43 – Lighting Regulations has regulations in place which, when implemented, will minimize any impact associated with the new light sources. Less than significant impact.

11 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES— In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

The project site is not considered Prime, Unique or Important Farmland per the California Resources Agency nor is it under Williamson Act contract. Additionally, the site is not forest or timberland as defined by the Public Resources Code and the Government Code. In recent history the site has been used for cattle grazing. Implementation of the RAP will eliminate some of the existing grazing area however, because of the poor quality on the Tailings Pile where the active park facilities will be located, the loss of grazing land is not considered significant. No impact.

12 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Background:

The project site is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District. The Amador Air District has established rules and regulations which are designed to limit emissions generated by various activities and which identify specific pollution reduction measures that are to be implemented in association with various activities.

Specifically, the Air District has promulgated Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions during a variety of activities including construction. The rule defines fugitive dust as follows:
"Fugitive dust for the purposes of this rule is also defined as the particulate matter entrained into the air which is caused from man-made and natural activities which is emitted into the air without first passing through a stack or duct designed to control flow, including, but not limited to, emissions caused by movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, and windblown dust." The intent of the rule is to control dust by water application, pavement, vegetation, etc. so that no visible dust is created. Violation of the rule could result in issuance of a notice of violation and assessment of penalties.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Amador County has not formally adopted an air quality management plan. While it is typical for the local air district to develop regional thresholds of significance for projects, in terms of criteria air pollutants the Amador Air District has not formally adopted recommended thresholds of significance for the evaluation of proposed projects that are subject to CEQA review. The Air District relies on its adopted rules and regulations to guide the analysis of air quality impacts

13 of 45
associated with criteria pollutants that could be generated during construction and operation of projects such as that proposed under the RAP. No impact. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, public access trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The capping process will require earthmoving equipment and techniques which have the potential to emit or cause to be emitted air pollutants including fugitive dust and airborne constituents of concern. Application of Amador Air District Rule 218 calls for those portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment to be thoroughly wetted in advance of disturbing activities. Then, during grading and construction, additional water will be applied to control dust. There is no ambient air quality standard for arsenic, however thorough water application to control dust will also prevent arsenic from becoming airborne. In addition, earthmoving activities will occur for a short period only during the time mine waste materials are capped; post-construction activities (recreation, hiking, parking, etc.) do not have the potential to cause significant airborne emissions and/or violate air quality standards. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Amador Air District Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions will be applied to those portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment. As required under the existing regulations, areas scheduled for disturbance will be thoroughly wetted in advance of ground disturbing activities, and during grading and construction additional water will be applied to control dust.

Arsenic contributes over 99% of the calculated health risk to various receptors including recreational users, construction workers and outdoor workers (e.g. maintenance workers) (Geocon, 2015). The project’s heath risk assessment calculated excess health risks to various receptors based on current site conditions (i.e. prior to capping of mine wastes as proposed under the RAP). The project consists of capping portions of the mine wastes on site, thereby eliminating pathways of exposure to arsenic in areas to be accessed by the public.

Implementation of Amador Air District Rule 218 during construction, together with implementation of mine waste capping activities as described in the RAP, will effectively reduce or eliminate the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact.
d) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Neither the state nor federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The Amador Air District (AAD) does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be applicable to AAD Rule 205, Nuisance.

Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and to the Amador Air District. The AAD has not identified recommended significance thresholds for the evaluation of odor impacts associated with proposed projects that are subject to CEQA.

14 of 45
Activities associated with the project are primarily associated with earthmoving, including the importation of clean mineral fill (clean soil or aggregate base), synthetic materials or asphalt to cap mine wastes. With the exception of short-term odor generating potential associated with construction equipment and haul trucks, long-term odor generation is not anticipated from the project. Odor complaints, if any, will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with AAD Rule 205 and local ordinances. Less than significant impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

15 of 45
Background:

A biological survey done by Geocon in May, 2015 shows the project site consists of three broad habitat types:

1. Disturbed or mining-impacted areas in and surrounding the tailings pile area and the tailing processing area near the center and in the western portion of the site;

2. Less disturbed woodlands and grasslands on the northern and eastern portions of the site; and

3. Emergent wetlands of the lakebed area in the southern and central portion of the site.

The survey of these three communities characterizes them according to their California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) vegetation classifications. These habitat associations are mapped on Figure 5 and the dominate plant species for each habitat type is summarized in Table 1. The habitat types include:

1. Disturbed historic mining areas. These areas total approximately 110 acres and consist of historical waste rock piles, structure foundations (i.e., the former cyanide plant foundations and the Bell Weather Mine). The historical mining areas are covered by waste rock and tailings and have been graded, littered with scattered junk piles, and heavily invaded by introduced grass/weed species, like ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). These areas are best described as “ruderal” or disturbed and cannot be categorized using a natural California habitat association. The tree cover for these areas consists of a few interior live oaks (Quercus wislizenii).

2. Foothill pine/interior live oak/whiteleaf manzanita. Much of this habitat at the site, which comprises approximately 45 acres, was not likely used during historical mining activities, but for later cattle grazing. Interior live oaks are present within this area as well as a few foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana). Understory shrubs are limited due to cattle grazing, but observed species included: toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita). Like the neighboring mineimpacted areas, this habitat supports a number of introduced plant species that are indicative of anthropogenic influence and common to disturbed areas.

3. Palustrine. This emergent wetland habitat covers approximately 6 acres and was created by the construction of the tailings dam in the 1930’s. Typical warm-water emergent wetland vegetation, creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) was identified in this area. Cattails were not observed.

One elderberry bush was identified on the edge of this habitat.

The CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried with a 10-mile radius around the site to determine the potential occurrence of special-status species in the site’s vicinity. The following special-status plant species, which are mostly endemic to soils derived from serpentinite and gabbro, were identified within a 10-mile radius of the site:
• Bisbee Peak rush-rose (Helianthemum suffrutescens)
• Ione manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia)
• Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var. apricum)
• Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi)
• Red Hills soaproot (Chlorogalum grandiflorum)

16 of 45
The following animal species of special concern were identified within a 10-mile radius of the site:
• Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) • Giant garter snake (Thomnophis gigas)
• Rudolph’s cave harvestman (Banksula rudolphi)
• Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) No special-status species have been formally identified at the site, but the Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) may be present in the pond behind the tailings dam. This species of turtle is thoroughly aquatic and requires habitat that contains ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, with aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 feet in elevation. Specifically, this species needs basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) up to 0.5 kilometer of water for egg-laying.

The site does support some mature oak woodland. Regardless of the relative habitat quality of oak woodlands on the former mine site, all trees over 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are protected by the City of Jackson Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.40 Landscape Standards. This ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for removal of any tree over 8 inches DBH and replacement at a three to one ratio for removal of trees over 16 inches DBH.

Oak trees are to be replaced with oaks at a ratio of three to one.

Table 1
Site Habitats and Ecological Receptors
Habitat Type Approx Area
(Acres)
(% Site)
Representative
Species
Observed
Species
Relative
Occurrence
Rare,
Threatened or
Endangered
Disturbed Historic
Mining
Area/Grass
110
(68%)
Plants Various species
(1)
Moderately
abundant
No
Soil invertebrates None Unknown No
Deer mouse None Unknown No
Mixed Oak-Pinas
sabiniana/grass
45 (28%)
Plants Various species
(2)
Moderately
abundant
No
Soil invertebrates None Unknown No
Scrub Jay Kill deer, acorn
woodpecker
Unknown No
California Grey
Squirrel
California Grey
Squirrel
Unknown No
Palustrine –
Emergent
Wetland
6 (4%)
Plants Various species
(3)
Moderately
abundant
No
Benthic invertebrates None Unknown No
Amphibians Sierra Tree Frog Abundant No
Migratory Waterfowl Unidentified duck,
cattle egret, redtailed hawk
Unknown No
Raccoon None Unknown No
(1) Interior Valley Oak
(2) Foothill Pine, Interior Valley Oak, Blue Oak
(3) Rushes, sedges, deergrass
Discussion of Impacts:

The areas of the site to be impacted by the RAP are those with the greatest concentrations of arsenic which is predominately in the tailings pile area. This area of the site is virtually void of

17 of 45
vegetation with the exception of sparse, non-native grasses. The RAP mitigation is to cover this area with clean base material, soil, or asphalt in specific, access-controlled areas of the site.

The RAP proposes that the bulk of the Lakebed Area in the location of the tailings dam and the foundations of the former cyanide plant be restricted from public access. This is also the mitigation for the remaining structures in the Bell Weather Mine area. Fencing and signage will be posted around these more heavily contaminated areas.

Because the RAP capping/coverage mitigation is located predominantly in non-vegetative areas, and those areas with existing vegetation are to be avoided by direct development, there is no anticipated impact to species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status, riparian habitat, or protected wetlands. No Impact.

The CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried for the Jackson Quad to determine the potential occurrence of special-status species in the site’s vicinity. One Federally listed threatened species was identified - Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimoprphus). No special-status plant species were identified in Jackson Quad. Two animal Species of Special Concern were identified – Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata).

One elderberry bush, not enough to be considered habitat, was located on the site near the Lakebed Area (see Figure 5). There is no development proposed in the vicinity of the bush.

The site has no wetland areas but does support a small area of mature oak woodland.

Regardless of the relative habitat quality of oak woodlands on the site, all trees over 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are protected by the City of Jackson Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.40 Landscape Standards. This ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for removal of any tree over 8 inches DBH and replacement at a three to one ratio for removal of trees over 16 inches DBH. Oak trees are to be replaced with oaks. Less than significant impact.

The City of Jackson does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, the RAP does not conflict with any such plan. No impact.

18 of 45
Figure 5: Habitat Map - Source: 2018 Removal Action Workplan, Geocon Consultants, Inc.

19 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The Oro de Amador site has a variety of resources pertaining to historic use of the property for gold mining. These historical resources include footings from the 1,000-ton cyanide plant, the cyanide tank and an impoundment dam constructed in 1914. There is also a mine shaft on the property which was part of the original Bell Weather Mine (established in the 1890s).

Discussion of Impacts:

None of these resources listed above will be impacted by the RAP as all of these sites will be avoided. Furthermore, the areas to be covered do not contain known paleontological resources or unique geologic features as these areas were previously covered with mine tailings. No impact.

There are no known human remains on the site. Implementation of the RAP by covering areas of the site or fencing to not allow access will ensure that any unknown human remains will not be disturbed. No impact.

20 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:

At present, there are no energy demands for the site. Temporary increases in energy use (i.e. fuel) would be required during any future construction activities. Project energy use during future recreational operations would primarily consist of energy consumption for space heating and cooling, use of appliances and transportation energy use associated with increases in vehicle trips to and from the site. All building energy needs would be met by electricity supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. Project construction would be temporary and minor in terms of energy use. Compliance with CCR Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in an energy-efficient building.

Additionally, the proposed “Brightfield” solar fields will produce sufficient energy to offset some, if not all, electrical energy needs for recreational operations. For these reasons the project’s energy impacts are considered less than significant.

21 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

22 of 45
Background:

The Site is located in the Mother Lode region of the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. The western foothills are bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Central Valley to the west.

The Site is in the Melones Fault Zone, an inactive fault system separating Paleozoic limestone and Mesozoic granitic intrusive rocks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, from metamorphic and volcanic rocks to the west. Review of the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle indicates that the Calaveras Formation, which is present on the eastern part of the site, consists of a series of highly foliated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The Mariposa Formation is present in the western portion of the Site and consists of black slate interbedded with argillaceous metasedimentary rocks. The mineralized zone of the Melones Fault Zone, located in the center of the Site, is a thin band of highly altered rock that trends northwest.

Native soil observed at the Site consists of brown silty sand with cobbles of volcanic rock.

Native soil is classified as Auburn silty loam in the USDA's Soil Survey, Amador Area, California. This soil is described as dark reddish brown to yellowish red. Depth to bedrock ranges from 12 to 22 inches. The soil is well-drained, with a moderate permeability. Runoff is slow to very rapid with the potential erosion hazard being very severe.

Mine waste on the Site consists of waste rock and coarse- to fine-grained tailings. Waste rock was encountered in trenches excavated around the Site during the investigation conducted by Dames & Moore in the early 1990s. During a site visit conducted in May 2015, Geocon observed piles of waste rock south of the Tailings Pile Area and in the northern portion of the Lakebed Area. Geocon also observed tailings in the Lakebed Area. The waste rock consists of dark gray gravel, cobble, and boulder size slate with some white veins of microcrystalline quartz. The tailings consisted of gray silty sand and light gray silty clay.

Adapted from Draft Removal Action Workplan; Oro de Amador Site, Jackson, California (Geocon, September 2015). Original sources cited in the RAP include:

1. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15 Minute Quadrangle, Amador and Calaveras Counties, California; CDMG Open File Report 83-36, 1981;

2. CDMG, Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, 1:250,000, 1981; and

3. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Amador Area, California, September 1965.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides?
The project site is located in a seismically inactive area, therefore the potential for risk associated with earthquakes, ground shaking, or seismic-related failure is minimal. No impact.

23 of 45
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. By their nature, project activities will serve to reduce, rather than result in, erosion potential or the loss of topsoil. Project activities will require professionally prepared erosion and sedimentation plans and the placement and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to ensure existing erosion and sedimentation are reduced or eliminated. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) will be capped with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The capping of mine wastes will occur in areas of the site that are stable and most such areas have been graded and re-graded historically. Likewise, the capping of mine wastes does not in itself have the potential to cause the instability or failure of existing soils. No impact.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil?
The area of mine waste capping will be partially on soils of the Auburn soil series and partially on mine waste. Neither material (Auburn soil or mine waste) is considered to be an expansive soil by the California Building Code. In addition, no human occupation will occur on the site, therefore the exposure of life or property to the negative results of expansive soils will not occur.

No impact.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The site will utilize the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No impact.

24 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District. The Amador Air District has established rules and regulations which are designed to limit emissions generated by various activities and which identify specific pollution reduction measures that are to be implemented in association with various activities.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
At present, there are no emissions generated at the site. Temporary increases in energy use (i.e. fuel) would be required during any future construction activities. Project energy use during future recreational operations would primarily consist of energy consumption for space heating and cooling, use of appliances and transportation energy use associated with increases in vehicle trips to and from the site. These energy needs would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. All building energy needs would be met by electricity supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. Project construction would be temporary and minor in terms of energy use. Compliance with CCR Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in an energyefficient building.

Additionally, the proposed “Brightfield” solar fields will produce sufficient energy to offset some, if not all, electrical energy needs for recreational operations and proposed activities for implementation of the RAP will comply with applicable Amador Air District rules and best management practices. With the solar field improvements, implementation of the Air District rules and compliance with Title 24 the greenhouse gas emission impacts from the proposed project are considered less than significant. Less than significant impact. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
The City of Jackson does not have regulations regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. No impact.

25 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project consists of the capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The project will not involve the off-site movement or handling of mine waste, but rather the importation of clean fill and other materials (asphalt, etc.) for covering of mine waste materials. Fill materials will be inspected and tested if

26 of 45
necessary, prior to transport to confirm that they do not contain hazardous substances exceeding screening or background levels for constituents of concern. A Soil Transportation Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and implemented prior to construction.

Following construction, a Land Use Covenant and Operation & Maintenance agreement will be recorded to limit the types of future land uses allowed on the site and to prescribe procedures for maintenance and handling of mine wastes in the event they are exposed in the future by site activities or natural processes. Future recreational activities and uses at the site will be subject to the limitations and provisions of both the Land Use Covenant and the Operation & Maintenance agreement.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The project will not cause the movement of hazardous materials (e.g. mine wastes) from the site, but instead intends to cap such materials in place. No transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials is anticipated to occur. However, off-site disposal of hazardous materials shall be required should excavated materials exceed hazardous waste criteria. This will be determined once remedial work begins – if required, excavated materials will be transported under existing regulations to ensure no hazards to the traveling public. Provided that soil verification sampling and analysis results meet the remedial goals, the excavation areas will be suitable for recreational uses. Recreational uses at the site will not routinely cause the transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is located approximately one-quarter mile north and west of the Jackson elementary school and approximately one-quarter mile north and east of the Jackson junior high school. Implementation of the project will likely disturb, to some degree, existing mine waste materials which has the potential to create dust containing elevated levels of arsenic and other constituents of concern.

The Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD) has promulgated Rule 218 for control of fugitive dust emissions during a variety of activities including construction (http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ama/curhtml/r2l8.htm). The rule defines fugitive dust as follows:
"Fugitive dust for the purposes of this rule is also defined as the particulate matter entrained into the air which is caused from man-made and natural activities which is emitted into the air without first passing through a stack or duct designed to control flow, including, but not limited to, emissions caused by movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, and windblown dust." The intent of the rule is to control dust by water application, pavement, vegetation, etc. so that no visible dust is created. Violation of the rule could result in issuance of a notice of violation and assessment of penalties.

27 of 45
To comply with this rule, portions of the Site that will be disturbed by grading and construction equipment will be thoroughly wetted in advance of disturbing activities. Then, during grading and construction, additional water will be applied to control dust. There is no ambient air quality standard for arsenic. However, thorough water application to control dust will also prevent arsenic from becoming airborne. Less than significant impact. d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is listed on the State’s designated list of hazardous waste substances sites (the Cortese list) under Envirostor ID no. 03100004. Pursuant to a voluntary cleanup agreement the project proposes to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to cover historic mine wastes in an effort to isolate mine waste hazards from public exposure. Implementation of the RAP will eliminate hazards to the public and environment by capping mine waste materials onsite. No impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? According to the Airport Land Use Plan for Westover Field, Adopted October 1987 and amended July 1990, the project site is outside all Airport Safety Areas. No Impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not result in temporary rerouting of vehicular traffic or decrease the number of travel lanes. Furthermore, emergency access to the project site will be improved as a result of implementation of the RAP. No impact.
g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Implementation of the RAP and the proposed park facility will involve the extension of water service to the site which will lower the risk of loss due to potential wildland fires. The residences on the west side of the project site will also have a reduced risk due to the reduction in unmanaged grass lands. No impact.

28 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would;
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

Groundwater in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada typically occurs within fractured bedrock.

Perched groundwater may also be present in shallow alluvium overlying bedrock. Dames & Moore reported that during their investigation in 1993, groundwater was encountered at depths from 30 to 60 feet while drilling five site monitoring wells; however, several lenses of perched water were documented in soil borings completed at the Site. The perched lenses ranged in thickness from 9 to 15 feet, and were of an unknown total area (Dames & Moore, 1995).

29 of 45
LFR, Inc. (LFR) performed groundwater monitoring during their targeted site investigation conducted in 2009. Depth to groundwater ranged from 11.49 feet to 42.81 feet. Groundwater elevation data indicate that the groundwater flows to the south with a calculated gradient of approximately 0.05 foot/foot.

Adapted from Draft Removal Action Workplan; Oro de Amador Site, Jackson, California (Geocon, September 2015). Original sources cited in the RAP include:

1. Dames & Moore, 1995, Final Environmental Assessment, Kennedy Mine Tailing Site, Jackson, California;

2. LFR, Inc., 2009, Final Targeted Site Investigation, Oro de Amador, Jackson, California.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The USEPA establishes national water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the USEPA has also established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. Because the project will disturb more than one acre of land, coverage will be required under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (the Construction General Permit). Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented as required by the General Permit. In addition, grading plans will be professional prepared and will include erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with City of Jackson code requirements. Implementation of the SWPPP and local erosion and sediment control BMPs will minimize the potential for short-term construction-related water quality impacts resulting from sediment-laden surface water run-off. Less than significant impact. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
Neither the mine waste material capping project nor subsequent recreational activities at the site propose ground water extraction, as municipal potable water is available at the site. Most mine waste materials will be capped with clean soil or aggregate base fill which is permeable and will not significantly impede the vertical movement of precipitation and runoff to groundwater recharge. Other areas will be covered with synthetic materials or asphalt concrete/concrete pavement which will impede the vertical movement of water, however these areas are proportionally small so their effect on overall, local and regional groundwater recharge is considered to be minimal. Less than significant impact. c) Would the project Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would; result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?

30 of 45
Future construction on the project site will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. As required under existing regulations, drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. By doing so, substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site will not occur.

Less than significant impact.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Implementation of the project will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. As required under existing regulations, drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. By doing so, substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site will not occur. Less than significant impact.

The project consists of capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. Project activities will require professionally prepared erosion and sedimentation plans and the placement and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to ensure erosion and sedimentation are reduced or eliminated. By their nature, project activities will serve to reduce, rather than increase, the exposure of pollutants to precipitation and runoff and as a result the project is expected to increase the quality of water leaving the site. Less than significant impact.

The project site is depicted on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) no 06005C0557F. A fairly large part of the east-central portion of the property is shown as being subject to the 1% annual chance flood. This area is associated with the lakebed area and the drainage course that directs runoff into and out of the lakebed area. No project activities are proposed in the portion of the site designated as being subject to the 1% annual chance flood. No impact.

The project site contains a historic tailings impoundment, however the impoundment has been largely cleared of retained debris (mine tailings), therefore failure of the structure would not release a significant quantity of water or retained debris (if any). No impact.

The site is not located near lakes or reservoirs; therefore the site is not subject to seiche hazards. The site is approximately 95 miles from the Pacific Ocean, well outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone. Impounded tailings behind the historic impoundment dam have been largely removed and reprocessed, and reprocessed tailings have been placed and graded elsewhere on the site in such a manner that they are stable and represent no potential for mudflow deposition. Project-related activities (recreation, parking, hiking trails) are not expected to increase or affect mudflow potential at the site. No impact.

31 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is General Plan designated and zoned Recreation with a Planned Development/Open Space Overlay. This means that the base use is recreation with areas of open space.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant so there is no community to divide. No impact. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Implementation of the RAP and the future use of the site for public hiking trails and recreational fields is consistent with the recreation and open space designation and zoning. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

32 of 45
Background:

Federal, state and local agencies regulate or maintain documents regarding the presence of mineral resources. The State Geologist, California Geological Survey, and the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) provide assistance and direction with regard to mineral resources. The mineral land classification system is designed to provide local government agencies with information regarding the presence or likely occurrence of mineral deposits contained beneath land within their jurisdiction. Future land-use policy decisions made for land within the study area can be made with a better understanding of underlying mineral significance or potential.

The project site is covered by the Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15 Minute Quadrangle, Amador and Calaveras Counties, California (California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 83-36; 1981). The SMGB uses a classification system that divides land into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) based on quantity and significance of mineral resources. The project site is designated MRZ-2a, or an area classified as containing significant measured or indicated mineral reserves. This designation is consistent with the known historic mining that occurred in the area, and from the waste materials that occupy a portion of the project site.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Will the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Will the proposed project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The project consists of the capping of mine waste in selected areas of the site (the proposed sports fields, trails, road, and parking areas) with clean fill material, synthetic surfaces, and/or asphalt pavement on the road and parking areas. The project does not propose to remove from the site or affect any known mineral resources. In addition, the City of Jackson owns the surface rights but not the mineral rights below approximately 500 feet (mineral rights below 500 feet, and in certain cases less than 500 feet, are reserved by others). For this reason extraction of mineral resources may still occur beneath the project site without interference from or to the proposed recreational activities or improvements. Finally, the project does not propose occupation of the site by humans, but rather incidental and periodic short-term use for recreational activities only. Sensitive receptors (e.g. human occupation) will not occur on the site therefore interference between potential future mineral extraction and sensitive receptors is not expected. No impact.

33 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project to
excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? In accordance with the City’s noise ordinance, all site work will be completed between the hours of 7:00 am and 9:00 pm on any day except Sunday, and between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Sunday. Construction activities during mine waste capping and site development have the potential to generate short-term increases in noise, however based upon historic experience with construction-related traffic and noise, the City does not anticipate off-site objectionable noise levels to be associated with this project. Post-construction noise will be associated with episodic passenger vehicles, an occasional bus, and human voice related to sports and recreational activities. Similar temporary increases in ambient noise levels at other sports and recreation facilities in the City have not resulted in violations of the noise standards in the noise ordinance. Less than significant.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Neither the project’s construction nor post-construction activities will include activities likely to produce significant or excessive groundborne vibration or noise (e.g. blasting, impact pile driving, etc.) that would exceed regulatory standards. Conventional construction and recreational activities do not produce excessive groundborne vibration or noise. No impact. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or

34 of 45
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project to excessive noise levels?
According to the Airport Land Use Plan for Westover Field, Adopted October 1987 and amended July 1990, noise contours associated with airport operations are oriented northeasterly and parallel with the runway. The 60db noise contour associated with airport operations is modeled to lie approximately one mile west of the project site, so airport noise levels at the project site will be significantly lower, and perhaps not detectable above existing ambient noise levels particularly during on-site activities. No Impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

The proposed project is General Plan designated and zoned for recreational uses and open space. The location, distribution, density or growth rate of the population and housing will not be affected or altered by the proposed project activities. No impact.

35 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The project site is predominately surrounded by residential uses. Access to public services such as fire and police service is available from several access points including off New York Ranch Road and Placer Drive. These access points will remain open during implementation of the RAP and development of the active and passive park activities.

Discussion of Impacts:

The proposed project activities will comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s Fire and Building Codes. Implementation of the RAP and development of the park will decrease the burden on the Police Department because there will be more public activity on the site which may deter some of the criminal trespassing activity that has occurred in the past. The proposed project would not alter or affect schools located in the vicinity of the site. Implementation of the RAP ultimately includes active and passive park improvements that will provide much needed recreational opportunities for the City of Jackson and Amador County’s citizens. No impact.

36 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

Implementation of the RAP allows for subsequent development of active and passive park improvements that will provide much needed recreational opportunities for the City of Jackson’s residents and visitors. Thus, impacts to recreational facilities are considered beneficial. No Impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g. sharp cures or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

37 of 45
Background:

According to the September 2021 City of Jackson Existing Conditions Report for the General Plan Update, the City of Jackson represents 12 percent of the total population in the County, three percent of the lane miles, and 1.6 percent of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The low proportions of lane miles and VMT are the result of the City representing less than one percent of the total size of Amador County.

The completed recreational facility will follow implementation of the RAP and incorporate approximately 7 acres of developed parkland, and several acres of undeveloped parkland (i.e. walking trails); most of the site will remain undeveloped and inaccessible to the public. City of Jackson general plan land use and zoning for the RAP area is Recreation with a Planned Development/Open Space overlay which is consistent with the proposed recreation uses. The main point of entry to the park facilities will be from New York Ranch Road. New York Ranch Road is a major local collector road that begins at Court Street in the City of Jackson and extends northerly out of the City limits where it connects with Ridge Road.

Currently the only regional park in Amador County is Howard Park located in the City of Ione approximately 11 miles west of downtown Jackson.

Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? While the project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, including the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan and the Amador County Transportation Commission Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the design should include additional trails to maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The proposed active and passive recreational uses are within walking distance of downtown Jackson services and several residential subdivisions, consistent with General Plan goals for low VMT infill development but would benefit from pedestrian and/or bicycle access from Tyack Lane, Placer Drive, and possibly Rollingwood Estates. Less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 17.1: Park trail design shall be augmented with a minimum of two additional pedestrian and/or bicycles access points of entry. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? In the absence of models to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the proposed project CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)3 allows for a jurisdiction to analyze a project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. This analysis evaluates factors such as the availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The proposed project’s proximity (approximately 0.3 miles) to an established Amador Transit stop (at the County Library) and the close proximity of neighboring commercial and residential developments reduces the anticipated vehicle miles attributed to this project to a level of insignificance.

Furthermore, construction of a centrally located countywide regional recreational facility within the City of Jackson will redistribute trips and reduce overall trip length associated with existing vehicle trips to other more distant recreational facilities. Park goers in the Jackson area, as well as the upcountry areas of the County (Pine Grove, Pioneer & Buckhorn), will have the potential

38 of 45
to travel fewer miles to reach park facilities, thereby reducing existing VMT. Less than significant impact.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp cures or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. fam equipment)? The project’s main entrance on New York Ranch Road has been selected to provide for adequate vertical and horizontal site distance, and construction drawings will be carefully reviewed to ensure sufficient site distance is provided. During construction, workers and construction-related equipment deliveries will access the site via New York Ranch Road resulting in turning, slow-moving vehicle interaction with passenger vehicles, a potentially dangerous condition. However, construction plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer will include a traffic control plan which will be carried out during construction to minimize the potential adverse effect of such interactions. Less than significant impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The recreational facility design and construction drawings will be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure all emergency access provisions contained in applicable codes and ordinances are incorporated into the design. Construction drawings reviewed and approved by the City Engineer will include a traffic control plan which will be carried out through construction to minimize the effect construction-related traffic has on emergency services. Less than significant impact.

39 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOUCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion of Impacts:

Because of the extensive ground disturbance from past uses associated with the site, it is not anticipated that tribal cultural resources, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074 and listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or is determined to be significant pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 subdivision (c), would be impacted as a result of RAP implementation and subsequent construction and operation of the active and passive recreational land uses. The public recreation facility, parking and access roadway and dispersed non-motorized trail system are located within the existing disturbance area of the previous mining related land uses. California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have been notified as required by California AB 52 and will be included in the notices for public review of this Initial Study and future hearings before the City Council to consider approval of the Project’s construction.

Therefore, the project would result in no impact to any known Tribal Cultural Resources. No impact.

40 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would
the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The ultimate use of the site as a passive and active recreational park will require periodic use of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity. The WWTP is currently operating below capacity, particularly during the dry months when the proposed park will likely receive the heaviest use. City staff have reported that sufficient capacity in the WWTP exists to serve the project. Construction and extension of sewer service lateral(s) from existing trunk collection mains to serve the project is considered routine, and biologically sensitive areas will not require disruption to facilitate such construction. No construction related to offsite WWTP treatment capacity is required. Less than significant impact.

41 of 45
Implementation of the project will require professionally prepared grading and drainage plans which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Drainage plans will be required to demonstrate that project-related drainage improvements will ensure that post-project runoff quantities will not exceed pre-project quantities. Storm drainage improvements may include culverts, detention basins, grass-lined swales, or any number of other peak-reducing measures to control runoff quantities. Such facilities will be constructed on-site, in non-biologically sensitive areas, and will be designed by professional engineers in consultation with the project biologist to ensure significant environmental effect will not occur as a result of construction.

Less than significant impact.

The ultimate use of the site as a passive and active recreational park will require extension of electrical power, but no natural gas lines or telecommunication facilities. Electrical infrastructure will be coordinated with PG&E and will follow existing roadway/utility corridors. As such, no offsite construction related to electrical power is required. Less than significant impact. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The proposed project will be served by the City’s water system. This system relies on water purchased from the Amador Water Agency (AWA). The AWA has indicated that treatment and storage capacity is severely limited. To ensure capacity the AWA will require the City to obtain a “Wholesale Water Will Serve Commitment” prior to service. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 19.1 the impact is less than significant. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 19.1: The City shall obtain a “Wholesale Water Will Serve Commitment” from the Amador Water Agency prior to service.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? City public works staff report that the WWTP is currently operating below capacity, particularly during the dry months when the proposed park facilities will likely receive the heaviest use. City staff report that sufficient capacity in the WWTP exists to serve the project in addition to existing commitments. No impact.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste collection service is provided to the City by ACES, a contract hauler who delivers collected waste to local transfer stations. Waste from transfer stations is segregated and nonrecyclable refuse is disposed at Keifer Landfill in Sacramento County. The hauler reports that waste generated by the project will be minimal and that collection and disposal capacity exists to serve the project. No impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

42 of 45
Solid waste will be collected and handled by ACES. ACES operates under contract to the City as a contract hauler. By contract, ACES must demonstrate that its operations are in continuous compliance with federal, state and local statutes and regulations. In addition, ACES’s operations are routinely audited by a third-party service specializing in solid waste operations and its operations are routinely found to be compliant. No impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Background:

The entire county is prone to fire, either man-made or natural. Location, accessibility, local climatic conditions, topography and vegetation type are among the factors associated with the intensity of a fire. Among the factors which can induce fire hazard potential to human safety and the environment is the degree to which fire hazard reduction measures are practiced in an area and, should a fire occur, the response time and effectiveness of the fire suppression activities.

The project area is located outside of the state responsibility area but is just west of a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CAL FIRE (map dated 9/29/2023).

43 of 45
Discussion of Impacts:

The project site is not located in a state responsibility area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. Applicable construction standards will be used during construction of the active recreational facility.

The active public recreation area is served by a paved, publicly maintained roadway (New York Ranch Road) with adequate provision for emergency access equipment. The project’s new access roadway and associated recreation facility (parking, fields, courts) would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Additionally, the active recreation facilities area topography is relatively level and it is anticipated that maintenance of this area’s surrounding vegetation would be required to ensure maximum efficiency of the facility. Given the public recreation facilities location immediately east of existing development footprint of downtown Jackson, it is not anticipated that wildfire risks would be exacerbated causing the project occupants to be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire.

As stated above, the active recreation facilities are located on a portion of the site with relatively level topography. No existing drainages are located in the area proposed for active recreation.

As a result, people or structures within the active recreation facility area would not be exposed to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding, or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Areas with greater slope and potential drainage/flooding issues are located within the lakebed area where public access is not allowed (fenced and posted to restrict public access)
Therefore, the project would result in no impact to Wildfire related issues. No impact.

44 of 45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion of Impacts:

Approval of the RAP will not by itself have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Approval of the RAP will not by itself have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable as all cumulative environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the 2023 City of Jackson Land Use Element have been addressed in the certified EIR. The RAP does not increase the residential growth potential of Jackson. Approval of RAP request will not require mitigation to minimize impacts.

The analysis from this Initial Study for the proposed active and passive recreational land uses found the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal.

The proposed recreational project was analyzed for cumulatively considerable impacts. This Initial Study found that the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects

45 of 45
of probable future projects. There are no environmental impacts associated with the existing conditions or future conditions after implementation of the RAP that would be exacerbated by the recreational land uses.

The Initial Study found that the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly following implementation of the measures included in the RAP.