U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

California Department of Water Resources 

State of California Reclamation Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency December 2006 

Folsom Dam Safety and 

Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report 

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Volume I: DEIS/EIR 

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

California Department of Water Resources 

State of California Reclamation Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency December 2006 

Folsom Dam Safety and 

Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report 

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Prepared by: 

A

Entrix 

Pacific Legacy 

Circle Point

Volume I: DEIS/EIR 

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 i 

Contents 

Page 

 Executive Summary .............................................................................. ES-1 

 Purpose of Study and EIS/EIR.........................................................ES-1 

 Study Authority ...............................................................................ES-3 

 Facility Description and Study Area................................................ES-3 

 Folsom DS/FDR Purpose and Need/Project Objectives..................ES-5 

 Development and Screening of Project Alternatives.......................ES-6 

 Folsom SD/FDR EIS/EIR Project Description................................ES-8 

 Project Alternatives........................................................................ES-11 

 No Action/No Project Alternative .....................................ES-11 

 Action Alternatives ............................................................ES-11 

 Environmental Consequences........................................................ES-16 

 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater....................ES-19 

 Water Supply .....................................................................ES-19 

 Air Quality .........................................................................ES-19 

 Aquatic Resources .............................................................ES-19 

 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife ...................................ES-20 

 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources........................ES-20 

 Visual Resources................................................................ES-19 

 Agricultural Resources.......................................................ES-20 

 Transportation and Circulation ..........................................ES-20 

 Noise .............................................................................ES-21 

 Cultural Resources.............................................................ES-21 

 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning........................................ES-21 

 Recreation ..........................................................................ES-21 

 Public Services and Utilities ..............................................ES-21 

 Hydropower .......................................................................ES-22 

 Population and Housing.....................................................ES-22 

 Public Health and Safety....................................................ES-22 

 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................ES-22 

 Environmental Justice........................................................ES-22 

 Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations.....................ES-22 

 Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative...............ES-22 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-1 

 1.1 Overview of the Folsom Facility ....................................................... 1-2 

 1.1.1 Main Concrete Dam............................................................... 1-3 

 1.1.2 Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam................................... 1-4 

 1.1.3 Dikes 1 through 8 and Mormon Island Auxiliary 

Dam ................................................................................. 1-4 

 1.1.4 Folsom Powerplant ................................................................ 1-4 

 1.1.5 Folsom Facility Dam Safety & Flood Control 

Concerns ................................................................................ 1-4 
Contents 

ii Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

 1.2 Existing Flood Control Operations at the Folsom Facility ................ 1-5 

 1.2.1 Reclamation’s Interim Operation Agreement with 

SAFCA ................................................................................. 1-8 

 1.2.2 Updated Flood Management Plan.......................................... 1-9 

 1.3 Federal Agency Objectives................................................................ 1-9 

 1.3.1 Reclamation’s Objectives ...................................................... 1-9 

 1.3.2 Corps’ Objectives................................................................. 1-11 

 1.4 Overview of Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction 

Actions Related to the Joint Federal Project.................................... 1-11 

 1.5 Folsom Dam Security Enhancement Project ................................... 1-13 

 1.6 Related Projects and Authorizations................................................ 1-14 

 1.6.1 The Corps’ American River Watershed Studies and 

Projects ............................................................................... 1-14 

 1.6.2 Reclamation’s Safety of Dams............................................. 1-21 

 1.6.3 Folsom DS/FDR................................................................... 1-23 

 1.6.4 Joint Federal Project Coordination ...................................... 1-24 

 1.6.5 Related Authorized Projects ................................................ 1-25 

 1.7 Folsom DS/FDR Purpose and Need and Project Objectives ........... 1-25 

 1.7.1 Statement of Purpose and Need ........................................... 1-28 

 1.7.2 Project Objectives ................................................................ 1-28 

 1.8 Study Area ............................................................................... 1-29 

 1.9 Summary of Scoping Activities and Issues ..................................... 1-29 

 1.10 Federal, State, and Local Requirements .......................................... 1-30 

 1.10.1 Federal Requirements .......................................................... 1-30 

 1.10.2 State Requirements .............................................................. 1-37 

 1.10.3 Local Requirements ............................................................. 1-41 

 1.11 Scope of this EIS/EIR ...................................................................... 1-41 

 1.12 Scope of Effects Analysis ................................................................ 1-42 

 1.13 Decisions to be Made....................................................................... 1-43 

 1.14 Uses of this Document..................................................................... 1-44 

 1.15 Report Organization......................................................................... 1-45 

2 Project Description and Project Alternatives............................................ 2-1 

 2.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process ............................ 2-1 

 2.1.1 Alternatives Formulation ....................................................... 2-1 

 2.1.2 Alternatives Identification ..................................................... 2-1 

 2.1.3 Scoping of Alternative Measures and Pre-Screening 

Process ................................................................................. 2-2 

 2.1.4 Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Measures 

Evaluated as Part of Alternatives Development .................... 2-3 

 2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Criteria.............................................. 2-9 

 2.1.6 Alternatives Eliminated as Part of Pre-Screening 

Process ............................................................................... 2-10 

 2.1.7 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Alternatives.......................................................................... 2-11 

 2.2 Project Alternatives.......................................................................... 2-12 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 iii 

 2.2.1 Introduction to Folsom DS/FDR Alternatives .................... 2-12 

 2.2.2 Corps Folsom Dam Flood Damage Reduction 

Related Alternatives............................................................. 2-30 

 2.2.3 Relationship of Safety of Dams and Flood Damage 

Reduction to the Joint Federal Project................................. 2-33 

 2.2.4 Description of the Engineering Measures............................ 2-34 

 2.3 No Action/No Project Alternative ................................................... 2-79 

 2.4 Alternative 1 ............................................................................... 2-81 

 2.4.1 Main Concrete Dam............................................................. 2-82 

 2.4.2 Stilling Basin........................................................................ 2-82 

 2.4.3 Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway ............................................... 2-82 

 2.4.4 Left and Right Wing Dams.................................................. 2-83 

 2.4.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam............................................ 2-83 

 2.4.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, & 8 ............................................................. 2-84 

 2.4.7 Dikes 4, 5, and 6 .................................................................. 2-84 

 2.4.8 Non-Federal Property Protection ......................................... 2-84 

 2.4.9 Staging and Site Development............................................. 2-84 

 2.4.10 Alternative 1 Operations...................................................... 2-85 

 2.4.11 Alternative 1 Security Upgrade Features............................. 2-86 

 2.5 Alternative 2 ............................................................................... 2-87 

 2.5.1 Main Concrete Dam............................................................. 2-89 

 2.5.2 Stilling Basin........................................................................ 2-89 

 2.5.3 Auxiliary Spillway............................................................... 2-89 

 2.5.4 Auxiliary Spillway Tunnel................................................... 2-89 

 2.5.5 Left and Right Wing Dams.................................................. 2-90 

 2.5.6 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam............................................ 2-90 

 2.5.7 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 .............................................................. 2-90 

 2.5.8 Dikes 4, 5, & 6 ..................................................................... 2-91 

 2.5.9 New Embankments/Flood Easements.................................. 2-91 

 2.5.10 Staging and Site Development............................................. 2-91 

 2.5.11 Alternative 2 Operations...................................................... 2-93 

 2.5.12 Alternative 2 Security Upgrade Features............................. 2-94 

 2.6 Alternative 3 ............ ................................................ 2-94 

 2.6.1 Main Concrete Dam............................................................. 2-95 

 2.6.2 Stilling Basin........................................................................ 2-96 

 2.6.3 JFP Auxiliary Spillway........................................................ 2-97 

 2.6.4 Left and Right Wing Dams.................................................. 2-98 

 2.6.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam.......................................... 2-100 

 2.6.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 ............................................................ 2-100 

 2.6.7 Dikes 4, 5 & 6 .................................................................... 2-100 

 2.6.8 Non-Federal Property Protection ....................................... 2-101 

 2.6.9 Staging and Site Development........................................... 2-101 

 2.6.10 Alternative 3 Security Upgrade Features........................... 2-103 

 2.6.11 Alternative 3 Operations.................................................... 2-103 

 2.7 Alternative 4 ............................................................................. 2-105 

 2.7.1 Main Concrete Dam........................................................... 2-106 
Contents 

iv Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

 2.7.2 Stilling Basin...................................................................... 2-107 

 2.7.3 4-Gate Auxiliary Spillway ................................................. 2-107 

 2.7.4 Left and Right Wing Dams................................................ 2-107 

 2.7.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam.......................................... 2-107 

 2.7.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, & 8 ........................................................... 2-107 

 2.7.7 Dikes 4, 5, and 6 ................................................................ 2-107 

 2.7.8 New Embankments/Property Acquisitions........................ 2-107 

 2.7.9 Staging and Site Development........................................... 2-108 

 2.7.10 Alternative 4 Security Upgrade Features........................... 2-108 

 2.7.11 Alternative 4 Operations.................................................... 2-108 

 2.8 Alternative 5 ................ .............................................2-109 

 2.8.1 Main Concrete Dam........................................................... 2-109 

 2.8.2 Stilling Basin...................................................................... 2-109 

 2.8.3 Auxiliary Spillway............................................................. 2-111 

 2.8.4 Left and Right Wing Dams................................................ 2-111 

 2.8.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam.......................................... 2-111 

 2.8.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, & 8 ............................................................... 2-111 

 2.8.7 Dikes 4, 5 & 6 .................................................................... 2-111 

 2.8.8 New Embankments/Property Acquisitions........................ 2-111 

 2.8.9 Staging and Site Development........................................... 2-111 

 2.8.10 Alternative 5 Security Upgrade Features........................... 2-111 

 2.8.11 Alternative 4 Operations.................................................... 2-112 

 2.9 Construction Sequencing and Other Construction Details ............ 2-112 

 2.10 Environmental Commitments ........................................................ 2-113 

 2.10.1 Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental 

Awareness Program ........................................................... 2-114 

 2.10.2 Obtain and Implement the Conditions of the 

Environmental Permits....................................................... 2-114 

 2.10.3 Designate Work and Exclusion Zones............................... 2-114 

 2.10.4 Dewatering of the Stilling Basin........................................ 2-115 

 2.10.5 Implement Environmental Timeframes ............................. 2-115 

 2.10.6 Develop an Environmental Mitigation, Monitoring, 

Restoration Plan................................................................. 2-116 

 2.10.7 Transportation.................................................................... 2-120 

 2.10.8 Air Quality ......................................................................... 2-120 

 2.10.9 Noise Abatement................................................................ 2-121 

 2.10.10 Recreation ......................................................................... 2-121 

 2.11 Environmentally Preferred Alternative.......................................... 2-122 

 2.12 Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues ................................ 2-124 

3 Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and Mitigation Measures..... 3-1 

 3.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater................................. 3.1-1 

 3.1.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.1-1 

 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.1-16 

 3.1.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.1-30 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 v 

 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.1-31 

 3.1.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.1-34 

 3.2 Water Supply .............................................................................. 3.2-1 

 3.2.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.2-1 

 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

Impacts .............................................................................. 3.2-3 

 3.2.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives................................ 3.2-8 

 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures ........................................................... 3.2-8 

 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects.............................................................. 3.2-8 

 3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................. 3.3-1 

 3.3.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.3-1 

 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

Impacts.............................................................................. 3.3-14 

 3.3.3 Significance and Comparison of the Alternatives ............ 3.3-33 

 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.3-34 

 3.3.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.3-38 

 3.4 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................... 3.4-1 

 3.4.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.4-1 

 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.4-10 

 3.4.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.4-23 

 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.4-24 

 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.4-26 

 3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife ................................................ 3.5-1 

 3.5.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.5-1 

 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

Impacts ............................................................................ 3.5-32 

 3.5.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.5-48 

 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.5-51 

 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.5-54 

 3.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources..................................... 3.6-1 

 3.6.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.6-1 

 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.6-10 

 3.6.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.6-16 

 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.6-16 

 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.6-17 

 3.7 Visual Resources............................................................................. 3.7-1 

 3.7.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.7-1 

 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.7-15 

 3.7.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.7-28 

 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.7-29 

 3.7.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.7-30 

 3.8 Agricultural Resources.................................................................... 3.8-1 

 3.8.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.8-1 
Contents 

vi Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

 

 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts .............................................................................. 3.8-6 

 3.8.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives................................ 3.8-8 

 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures ........................................................... 3.8-8 

 3.8.5 Cumulative Effects.............................................................. 3.8-8 

 3.9 Transportation and Circulation ....................................................... 3.9-1 

 3.9.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions........................ 3.9-1 

 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.9-38 

 3.9.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.9-82 

 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.9-83 

 3.9.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.9-84 

 3.10 Noise ............................................................................ 3.10-1 

 3.10.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.10-1 

 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts .......................................................................... 3.10-17 

 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.10-50 

 3.10.4 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.10-51 

 3.11 Cultural Resources........................................................................ 3.11-1 

 3.11.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.11-1 

 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts .......................................................................... 3.11-23 

 3.11.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.11-27 

 3.11.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.11-28 

 3.11.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.11-29 

 3.12 Land Use, Planning and Zoning.................................................... 3.12-1 

 3.12.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.12-1 

 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts .......................................................................... 3.12-11 

 3.12.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.12-24 

 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.12-25 

 3.12.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.12-26 

 3.13 Recreation Resources.................................................................... 3.13-1 

 3.13.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.13-1 

 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences/ 

 Environmental Impacts ................................................... 3.13-12 

 3.13.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.13-37 

 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.13-38 

 3.13.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.13-39 

 3.14 Public Services and Utilities ......................................................... 3.14-1 

 3.14.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.14-1 

 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.14-7 

 3.14.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.14-22 

 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.14-23 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 vii 

 3.14.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.14-24 

 3.15 Hydropower Resources................................................................. 3.15-1 

 3.15.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.15-1 

 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.15-3 

 3.15.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.15-4 

 3.15.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.15-5 

 3.15.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.15-5 

 3.16 Population and Housing................................................................ 3.16-1 

 3.16.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.16-1 

 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts .......................................................................... 3.16-13 

 3.16.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.16-19 

 3.16.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.16-20 

 3.16.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.16-20 

 3.17 Public Health and Safety............................................................... 3.17-1 

 3.17.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.17-1 

 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.17-9 

 3.17.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................ 3.17-16 

 3.17.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 3.17-16 

 3.17.5 Cumulative Effects.......................................................... 3.17-18 

 3.18 Indian Trust Assets (ITAs)............................................................ 3.18-1 

 3.19 Environmental Justice................................................................... 3.19-1 

 3.19.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions...................... 3.19-1 

 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental 

 Impacts ............................................................................ 3.19-5 

 3.19.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.............................. 3.19-8 

 3.19.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3.19-8 

 3.19.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................ 3.19-8 

 4 Socioeconomics............................................................................................. 4-1

 4.1 Regional Socioeconomic Setting ....................................................... 4-1 

 4.1.1 Sacramento County................................................................ 4-1 

 4.1.2 Placer County......................................................................... 4-4 

 4.1.3 El Dorado County .................................................................. 4-6 

 4.1.4 City of Folsom ....................................................................... 4-7 

 4.1.5 Recreation at Folsom Lake State Recreation Area .............. 4-10 

 4.2 Methods of Economic Analysis....................................................... 4-13 

 4.2.1 CEQA/NEPA Analysis ........................................................ 4-13 

 4.2.2 Assessment Tool .................................................................. 4-14 

 4.2.3 Assessment Methods............................................................ 4-15 

 4.3 Estimated Economic Effects............................................................ 4-22 

 4.3.1 No Action/No Project Alternative Economic Effects.......... 4-22 

 4.3.2 Action Alternatives Economic Effects................................. 4-23 

 4.3.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives................................. 4-29 

 4.3.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................... 4-30 
Contents 

viii Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

5 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 5-1 

 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 5-1 

 5.2 Regulatory Basis ................................................................................ 5-1 

 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act....................................... 5-1 

 5.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act................................... 5-1 

 5.3 Methodology ................................................................................. 5-2 

 5.3.1 Study Area ............................................................................. 5-2 

 5.3.2 Timeframe.............................................................................. 5-2 

 5.4 Related Projects ................................................................................. 5-2 

 5.4.1 Folsom Bridge Project ........................................................... 5-3 

 5.4.2 Future Redundant Pipeline..................................................... 5-3 

 5.4.3 Folsom Dam Road Closure.................................................... 5-3 

 5.4.4 LL Anderson Dam Improvements ......................................... 5-4 

 5.4.5 Lower American River Common Features Project................ 5-4 

 5.4.6 Long-Term Reoperation of Folsom Reservoir....................... 5-4 

 5.4.7 SMUD 230 kV Transmission Line Relocation...................... 5-4 

 5.5 Summary of Cumulative Effects for Individual Resource 

 Areas ................................................................................................ 5-5 

 5.5.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater........................ 5-5 

 5.5.2 Water Supply ......................................................................... 5-5 

 5.5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................. 5-5 

 5.5.4 Aquatic Resources ................................................................. 5-6 

 5.5.5 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................. 5-6 

 5.5.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources............................ 5-9 

 5.5.7 Visual Resources.................................................................... 5-9 

 5.5.8 Agricultural Resources........................................................... 5-9 

 5.5.9 Transportation and Circulation ............................................ 5-10 

 5.5.10 Noise ............................................................................... 5-10 

 5.5.11 Cultural Resources............................................................... 5-10 

 5.5.12 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning.......................................... 5-11 

 5.5.13 Recreation Resources........................................................... 5-11 

 5.5.14 Public Services and Utilities ................................................ 5-11 

 5.5.15 Hydropower ......................................................................... 5-11 

 5.5.16 Population and Housing....................................................... 5-11 

 5.5.17 Public Health and Safety...................................................... 5-12 

 5.5.18 Indian Trust Assets .............................................................. 5-12 

 5.5.19 Environmental Justice.......................................................... 5-12 

 5.5.20 Socioeconomics ................................................................... 5-12 

 5.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 5-12 

 5.6.1 Project-Related Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........ 5-12 

 5.6.2 Cumulative Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .............. 5-14 

 5.7 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

 Productivity ............................................................................... 5-14 

 5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources/ 

 Significant Irreversible Changes...................................................... 5-15 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ix 

 5.9 Growth Inducement ......................................................................... 5-15 

6 Consultation and Coordination .................................................................. 6-1

 6.1 Related Law, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders .................. 6-1 

 6.2 Public Scoping Meetings ................................................................... 6-2 

 6.3 Agency Coordination......................................................................... 6-4 

 6.3.1 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation ............ 6-4 

 6.3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .............................................. 6-5 

 6.3.3 California Department of Water Resources and State 

 Reclamation Board................................................................. 6-5 

 6.3.4 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency............................... 6-5 

 6.3.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................. 6-5 

 6.3.6 California Department of Fish and Game.............................. 6-5 

 6.3.7 State Water Resources Control Board ................................... 6-5 

 6.3.8 CVP Water & Power Users.................................................... 6-6 

 6.4 Project Management and Technical Teams ....................................... 6-6 

7 References..................................................................................................... 7-1 

8 List of Preparers and Contributors............................................................ 8-1 

9 Document Recipients ................................................................................. 9-1 

 9.1 Elected Officials and Representatives ............................................... 9-2 

 9.2 Government Departments and Agencies ........................................... 9-2 

 9.2.1 U.S. Government ................................................................... 9-2 

 9.2.2 State of California.................................................................. 9-2 

 9.2.3 Regional, County, and City.................................................... 9-3 

 9.3 Private Organizations and Businesses ............................................... 9-3 

10 Glossary ...................................................................................................... 10-1 

Appendices 

Appendix A – Public Scoping Report 

Appendix B – Federal Biological Compliance 

Appendix C – Biological Field Report 

Appendix D – CWA Section 404(b)(1) Analysis 

Appendix E – Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions 

Appendix F – Transportation Methods and Assumptions 
Contents 

x Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Appendix G – Noise Methodology and Assumptions 

Appendix H – Public Health and Safety Record Search 

Appendix I – Cultural Resource Study 

Appendix J – Trace Mercury and Total Metals 

Tables 

Page 

ES-1 Features and Objectives of Folsom Facility Engineering 

Measures ................................................................................................ES-7 

ES-2 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary – Folsom 

JFP........................................................................................................ES-17 

1-1 Overview of Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Risk Analysis 

Process ................................................................................................... 1-22 

1-2 Related Authorized Projects .................................................................. 1-26 

2-1 List of Potential Flood Protection and Hydrologic Risk 

Reduction Measures for Concrete Dam & Embankment 

Dams/Dikes.............................................................................................. 2-4 

2-2 List of Potential Static Risk Reduction Measures for 

Embankment Dams/Dikes ....................................................................... 2-5 

2-3 List of Potential MIAD Seismic Risk Reduction Measures .................... 2-6 

2-4 List of Concrete Dam Foundation Wedge Sliding Seismic Risk 

Reduction Measures................................................................................. 2-7 

2-5 List of Concrete Dam Foundation Contact Risk Reduction 

Measures .................................................................................................. 2-7 

2-6 List of Concrete Dam Potential Sliding Along Lift Lines Risk 

Reduction Measures................................................................................. 2-8 

2-7 List of Concrete Dam Potential Gate and Piers Improvement 

Measures .................................................................................................. 2-8 

2-8 List of Project Alternatives Addressed in PASS I Evaluations ............. 2-11 

2-9 List of Corps Project Alternatives Addressed in American River 

Long-Term Study Supplemental EIS (2002) ......................................... 2-13 

2-10 Summary of Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives............................. 2-14 

2-11 Folsom Area Projects Addressed by Corps in Other 

Planning/Environmental Disclosure Documents ................................... 2-31 

2-12 Features of Alternative 1........................................................................ 2-81 

2-13 Estimated Quantities – Alternative 1 ..................................................... 2-82 

2-14 Features of Alternative 2........................................................................ 2-88 

2-15 Estimated Quantities – Alternative 2 ..................................................... 2-88 

2-16 Features of Alternative 3........................................................................ 2-95 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xi 

2-17 Parapet Wall Lengths............................................................................. 2-98 

2-18 Estimated Quantities – Parapet (Flood) Wall ........................................ 2-99 

2-19 Features of Alternative 4...................................................................... 2-105 

2-20 Estimated Quantities – Alternative 4 ................................................... 2-106 

2-21 Features of Alternative 5...................................................................... 2-110 

2-22 Estimated Quantities – Alternative 5 ................................................... 2-110 

2-23 Folsom Project Generalized Sequencing of Construction ................... 2-113 

2-24 Comparison of Alternatives and the Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative............................................................................................ 2-123 

3.1-1 Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Folsom Reservoir – 1992 

to 1998 ................................................................................................ 3.1-10 

3.1-2 Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Folsom Reservoir – 2001 

to 2005 ................................................................................................ 3.1-10 

3.1-3 Folsom Reservoir Coliform Sampling – 2001 to 2003 Fecal 

Coliform Concentrations..................................................................... 3.1-11 

3.1-4 Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Lake Natoma – 2001 to 

2002..................................................................................................... 3.1-11 

3.2-1 Decreases in Storage from Excess Material ......................................... 3.2-5 

3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards...................... 3.3-3 

3.3-2 Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................. 3.3-4 

3.3-3 Federal and State Attainment Status..................................................... 3.3-5 

3.3-4 General Conformity de minimis Thresholds......................................... 3.3-7 

3.3-5 Sacramento County 2004 Emission Inventories................................. 3.3-11 

3.3-6 Summary of Pollutant Monitoring Data in Sacramento ..................... 3.3-12 

3.3-7 Summary of Toxic Air Contaminant Monitoring Data in 

Sacramento (Roseville)....................................................................... 3.3-13 

3.3-8 Ozone Precursor Significance Thresholds.......................................... 3.3-14 

3.3-9 Construction Equipment Emission Rates for 2007-2014.................... 3.3-17 

3.3-10 Peak Daily Construction Equipment Counts in Peak Year................. 3.3-19 

3.3-11 Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors for Sacramento 

Valley ................................................................................................. 3.3-20 

3.3-12 Paved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors..................... 3.3-20 

3.3-13 Unpaved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors ................ 3.3-20 

3.3-14 Haul Truck Trip Distances and Paved vs. Unpaved Road Ratios....... 3.3-21 

3.3-15 Materials Processing Emission Factors .............................................. 3.3-22 

3.3-16 Concrete Batch Plant PM10 Emission Factors .................................... 3.3-22 

3.3-17 Uncontrolled Construction Emission Inventories............................... 3.3-29 

3.3-18 Comparison of Modeled Concentration (Unmitigated Results) to 

NAAQS............................................................................................... 3.3-31 

3.3-19 Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Unmitigated Results) to 

CAAQS............................................................................................... 3.3-32 

3.3-20 Mitigated Construction Emission Inventories .................................... 3.3-37 

3.3-21 Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Mitigated Results) to 

NAAQS............................................................................................... 3.3-39 
Contents 

xii Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.3-22 Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Mitigated Results) to 

CAAQS............................................................................................... 3.3-40 

3.4-1 Comparison of Folsom Dam Raise Impacts for Fisheries and 

Vernal Pool Species (relative level of impacts increase from Alt 

1 to Alt 5)............................................................................................ 3.4-24 

3.5-1 Vegetation Community Acreages in the Project Construction 

Area....................................................................................................... 3.5-8 

3.5-2 Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring 

in the Project Area .............................................................................. 3.5-15 

3.5-3 Elderberry Shrubs Within or Adjacent to the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action Area......................................................................................... 3.5-16 

3.5-4 Summary Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives.............................. 3.5-49 

3.6-1 Folsom Facility Estimated Material Quantities .................................. 3.6-12 

3.7-1 Viewing Distances from Use Areas to Visual Impact Areas................ 3.7-8 

3.7-2 Comparison of Alternative Effects on Visual Resources ................... 3.7-28 

3.9-1 Direct Access to the Folsom Facility.................................................... 3.9-2 

3.9-2 Local Access Routes............................................................................. 3.9-6 

3.9-3 Local and Regional LOS Standards and Significance Thresholds ....... 3.9-7 

3.9-4 Regional Access Routes...................................................................... 3.9-29 

3.9-5 Accident History – Corridor Collision Rate ....................................... 3.9-37 

3.9-6 SACOG Projections Adopted 12.16.04 for Jurisdictions 2005 – 

2015..................................................................................................... 3.9-39 

3.9-7 Historical Traffic Data - Background Growth Rates .......................... 3.9-41 

3.9-8 No Action/No Project Traffic Volume Data....................................... 3.9-43 

3.9-9 Local Access Route Existing Traffic Volumes and Arterial LOS...... 3.9-46 

3.9-10 Assumptions for Total Truck Calculations......................................... 3.9-49 

3.9-11 Truck Routes - Weight Limits ............................................................ 3.9-51 

3.9.12 Daily Number of Workers Trips per Construction YearAlternative 1........................................................................................ 3.9-52 

3.9-13 Daily Number of Workers Trips per Construction YearAlternative 2........................................................................................ 3.9-53 

3.9-14 Daily Number of Workers Trips per Construction YearAlternative 3........................................................................................ 3.9-54 

3.9-15 Daily Number of Workers Trips per Construction YearAlternative 4........................................................................................ 3.9-55 

3.9-16 Daily Number of Workers Trips per Construction YearAlternative 5........................................................................................ 3.9-56 

3.9-17 Folsom Safety of Dams Offsite Material Haul Schedule.................... 3.9-59 

3.9-18 Folsom Safety of Dams Offsite Material Haul Schedule.................... 3.9-60 

3.9-19 Distribution of Labor Force ................................................................ 3.9-61 

3.9-20 Material Route Designations............................................................... 3.9-63 

3.9-21 Personnel Access Route Designations................................................ 3.9-64 

3.9-22 2007 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-23 2008 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-24 2009 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-25 2010 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xiii 

3.9-26 2011 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-27 2012 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-28 2013 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-29 2014 Construction Traffic...........................................................Appendix F 

3.9-30 2007 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-31 2008 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-32 2009 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-33 2010 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-34 2011 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-35 2012 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-36 2013 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-37 2014 Assignment of Daily Trips.................................................Appendix F 

3.9-38 Construction Year 2007 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-39 Construction Year 2008 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-40 Construction Year 2009 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-41 Construction Year 2010 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-42 Construction Year 2011 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-43 Construction Year 2012 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-44 Construction Year 2013 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-45 Construction Year 2014 Worker Distribution- Alternative 1 .....Appendix F 

3.9-46 Construction Year 2007 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-47 Construction Year 2008 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-48 Construction Year 2009 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-49 Construction Year 2010 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-50 Construction Year 2011 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-51 Construction Year 2012 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-52 Construction Year 2013 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-53 Construction Year 2014 Worker Distribution- Alternative 2 .....Appendix F 

3.9-54 Construction Year 2007 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-55 Construction Year 2008 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-56 Construction Year 2009 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-57 Construction Year 2010Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 ......Appendix F 

3.9-58 Construction Year 2011 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-59 Construction Year 2012 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-60 Construction Year 2013 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-61 Construction Year 2014 Worker Distribution- Alternative 3 .....Appendix F 

3.9-62 Construction Year 2007 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-63 Construction Year 2008 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-64 Construction Year 2009 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-65 Construction Year 2010 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-66 Construction Year 2011 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-67 Construction Year 2012 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-68 Construction Year 2013 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-69 Construction Year 2014 Worker Distribution- Alternative 4 .....Appendix F 

3.9-70 Construction Year 2007 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-71 Construction Year 2008 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 
Contents 

xiv Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.9-72 Construction Year 2009 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-73 Construction Year 2010 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-74 Construction Year 2011 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-75 Construction Year 2012 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-76 Construction Year 2013 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-77 Construction Year 2014 Worker Distribution- Alternative 5 .....Appendix F 

3.9-78 2007 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-79 2008 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-80 2009 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-81 2010 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-82 2011 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-83 2012 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-84 2013 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-85 2014 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 2 through 5.................Appendix F 

3.9-86 2007 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-67 

3.9-87 2008 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-68 

3.9-88 2009 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-69 

3.9-89 2010 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-70 

3.9-90 2011 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-71 

3.9-91 2012 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-72 

3.9-92 2013 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-73 

3.9-93 2014 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5.......................... 3.9-74 

3.10-1 Decibel Changes, Loudness, and Energy Loss ................................... 3.10-3 

3.10-2 Non-Transportation Noise Standards.................................................. 3.10-5 

3.10-3 Local Government Transportation Noise Standards........................... 3.10-6 

3.10-4 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria....................................................... 3.10-7 

3.10-5 Average Ambient Noise Levels for Various Land Uses..................... 3.10-9 

3.10-6 Folsom Dam Project Site Estimated Average Ambient Noise 

Conditions......................................................................................... 3.10-13 

3.10-7 Potential Local Hauling Routes Existing Ambient Noise 

Conditions......................................................................................... 3.10-16 

3.10-8 Proposed Construction Activities and Schedule............................... 3.10-17 

3.10-9 Construction Operations, Equipment Types and Their Noise 

Levels................................................................................................ 3.10-18 

3.10-10 Summary of Vibration Levels and Effects on Humans and 

Buildings........................................................................................... 3.10-20 

3.10-11 Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment .................... 3.10-20 

3.10-12 Summary of Construction Noise Impacts Results ............................ 3.10-23 

3.10-13 Comparison of Projected Construction Noise Levels to 

Community Noise Standards ............................................................ 3.10-25 

3.10-14 Construction Equipment Vibration Impacts ..................................... 3.10-27 

3.10-15 Comparison of Alternatives Construction Noise Impacts ................ 3.10-34 

3.10-16 Projected Construction Employee and Truck ADT Volumes........... 3.10-36 

3.10-17 Summary of Daytime Leq Results ..................................................... 3.10-39 

3.10-18 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Daytime Leq Levels in 

2006................................................................................................... 3.10-40 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xv 

3.10-19 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Daytime Leq Levels in 

2009 and 2013................................................................................... 3.10-41 

3.10-20 Summary of Nighttime Peak Hour Results....................................... 3.10-42 

3.10-21 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Nighttime Leq Levels in 

2006................................................................................................... 3.10-43 

3.10-22 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Nighttime Leq Levels in 

2009 and 2013................................................................................... 3.10-44 

3.10-23 Summary of 24 hour Ldn Results ...................................................... 3.10-45 

3.10-24 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Ldn Levels in 2006............. 3.10-46 

3.10-25 Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Ldn Levels in 2009 and 

2013................................................................................................... 3.10-47 

3.11-1 Cultural Resources within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site (Far 

Western 1992)................................................................................... 3.11-13 

3.11-2 Cultural Resources Within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site 

(URS 2006) ....................................................................................... 3.11-14 

3.11-3 Cultural Resources Within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site 

(North Central Information Center (NCIC) 2005)............................ 3.11-14 

3.11-4 Cultural Resources Within Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 1 

(Pacific Legacy 2006)....................................................................... 3.11-15 

3.11-5 Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site and Right 

Wing Dam Haul Area (Far Western 1993)....................................... 3.11-17 

3.11-6 Additional Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site 

and Right Wing Dam Haul Area (URS 2006) .................................. 3.11-18 

3.11-7 Additional Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site 

and Right Wing Dam Haul Area (NCIC 2005) ................................ 3.11-18 

3.11-8 Cultural Resources within Right Wing Dam .................................... 3.11-18 

3.11-9 Cultural Resources within Dike 8/MIAD Borrow Site and Left 

Wing Dam Haul Area (URS 2006)................................................... 3.11-20 

3.11-10 Cultural Resource within MIAD Borrow Site 2 (D2) (Pacific 

Legacy 2006) .................................................................................... 3.11-20 

3.11-11 Cultural Resources within Brown’s Ravine Borrow Site (URS 

2006) ................................................................................................. 3.11-21 

3.11-12 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within Brown’s Ravine 

Borrow Site (NCIC 2005)................................................................. 3.11-22 

3.12-1 Potential Land Use Actions for Folsom DS/FDR Alternatives ........ 3.12-16 

3.13-1 Boat Launch Capacity at Granite Bay Day Use Area......................... 3.13-7 

3.13-2 Construction Activity Timeframe..................................................... 3.13-13 

3.13-3 Attendance at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point as a 

Percentage of Total FLSRA 2000 Attendance.................................. 3.13-14 

3.13-4 Recreation Use at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point 

under the No Action/No Project Alternative .................................... 3.13-15 

3.13-5 Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under 

Alternative 1...................................................................................... 3.13-16 

 3.13-6 Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 1... 3.13-16 

 3.13-7 Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under 

Alternative 2...................................................................................... 3.13-22 
Contents 

xvi Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

 3.13-8 Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 2... 3.13-23 

 3.13-9 Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under 

Alternative 3...................................................................................... 3.13-28 

 3.13-10 Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 3... 3.13-28 

 3.13-11 Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities Under 

Alternative 4...................................................................................... 3.13-31 

 3.13-12 Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 4... 3.13-31 

 3.13-13 Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under 

Alternative 5...................................................................................... 3.13-34 

 3.13-14 Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 5... 3.13-34 

 3.13-15 Comparison of Alternatives Recreation Impacts Loss of Visits 

During Construction Season ............................................................. 3.13-37 

3.14-1 Easements and Parcel Leases at the Folsom Facility.......................... 3.14-6 

3.16-1 Demographic Characteristics of the Folsom DS/FDR Area............... 3.16-4 

3.16-2 Race and Ethnic Demographics within Folsom Prison and CSPS ..... 3.16-5 

3.16-3 Age Demographics by Gender Within Folsom Prison and CSPS ...... 3.16-6 

3.16-4 Race and Ethnic Demographics within Placer County Folsom 

DS/FDR Area...................................................................................... 3.16-6 

3.16-5 Age Demographics by Gender within Placer County Folsom 

DS/FDR Area...................................................................................... 3.16-7 

3.16-6 Economic Statistics in Placer County Folsom DS/FDR Area ............ 3.16-8 

3.16-7 Race and Ethnic Demographics within El Dorado County 

Folsom DS/FDR Area......................................................................... 3.16-9 

3.16-8 Age Demographics by Gender Within El Dorado County Folsom 

DS/FDR Area...................................................................................... 3.16-9 

3.16-9 Economic Statistics El Dorado County Folsom DS/FDR Area........ 3.16-10 

3.16-10 Race and Ethnic Demographics within City of Folsom nonPrison Study Area ............................................................................. 3.16-11 

3.16-11 Age Demographics by Gender within City of Folsom Non-Prison 

Folsom DS/FDR Area....................................................................... 3.16-12 

3.16-12 Economic Statistics for City of Folsom non-Prison Folsom 

DS/FDR Area.................................................................................... 3.16-13 

3.17-1 Map Findings Summary...................................................................... 3.17-6 

3.19-1 Demographic and Income Data of Environmental Justice Study 

Area..................................................................................................... 3.19-4 

3.19-2 Race and Ethnic Demographics within Block 1, Census Tract 83 ..... 3.19-5 

4-1 Industry and Industry Earnings, Sacramento County, 2001 to 

2003.......................................................................................................... 4-2 

4-2 Industry Employment and Compensation, Sacramento County, 

2001 to 2003 ............................................................................................ 4-3 

4-3 Industry and Industry Earnings, Placer County, 2001 to 2003................ 4-4 

4-4 Industry Employment and Compensation, Placer County, 2001 to 

2003.......................................................................................................... 4-5 

4-5 Industry and Industry Earnings, El Dorado County, 2001 to 2003 ......... 4-7 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xvii 

4-6 Industry Employment and Compensation, Placer County, 2001 to 

2003.......................................................................................................... 4-8 

4-7 Major Industries in Folsom...................................................................... 4-9 

4-8 Folsom Employment, 2000.................................................................... 4-10 

4-9 FLSRA Use Fees.................................................................................... 4-11 

4-10 Use Fees Collected (Fiscal Year 2004/2005)......................................... 4-11 

4-11 Concession Gross Sales and Rental Payments (2005)........................... 4-11 

4-12 Breakdown of Visitors Affected by FLSRA Closures........................... 4-18 

4-13 Average Daily Visitor Spending at FLSRA, 2002 Dollars.................... 4-18 

4-14 Annual Direct Effects from Reduced Recreational Activity at 

FLSRA ................................................................................................... 4-19 

4-15 Construction Activity Timeframe.......................................................... 4-21 

4-16 Total Number of Construction Workers Required per Year for all 

Project Alternatives................................................................................ 4-22 

4-17 Economic Baseline in 3-County Region, 2002 Values.......................... 4-23 

4-18 Annual Economic Impacts to Total Value of Output, Value 

Added, and Employment of Reduced Recreational Spending 

under Alternative 1, 2008 visits, 2002 Dollars ...................................... 4-24 

4-19 Average Daily Impacts of Reduced Recreational Spending under 

Alternative 1, 2008 visits, 2002 Values................................................. 4-25 

4-20 Estimated Annual Reductions in State Revenues Due to 

Reductions in FLSRA Entry and Boat Launch Fees under 

Alternative 1, 2008 visits ....................................................................... 4-25 

4-21 Total Annual Economic Effects of Employing 100 Construction 

Workers, 2002 Values............................................................................ 4-26 

4-22 Annual Total Economic Impacts During Construction of 

Alternative 1, 2002 Values .................................................................... 4-26 

4-23 Annual Economic Impacts to Total Value of Output, Value 

Added, and Employment of Reduced Recreational Spending 

under Alternative 5, 2014 visits, 2002 Dollars ...................................... 4-29 

4-24 Alternatives Comparison of Economic Effects...................................... 4-30 

5-1 Cumulative Projects................................................................................. 5-3 

6-1 Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders....................... 6-1 

6-2 Agencies Role in Folsom JFP.................................................................. 6-4 

8-1 List of Preparers....................................................................................... 8-1 

8-2 List of Contributors.................................................................................. 8-3 

Figures 

Page 

ES-1 The Folsom Facility ...............................................................................ES-4 
Contents 

xviii Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

1-1 The Folsom Facility ................................................................................. 1-2 

1-2 Main Dam Spillway ................................................................................. 1-3 

1-3 Releases from Folsom Dam..................................................................... 1-3 

1-4 Location of Folsom DS/FDR Study Area.............................................. 1-29 

2-1 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternative 1................................................ 2-19 

2-2 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternative 2................................................ 2-21 

2-3 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternative 3................................................ 2-23 

2-4 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternative 4................................................ 2-25 

2-5 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternative 5................................................ 2-27 

2-6 Post Tensioned Anchors Across Lift Line............................................. 2-41 

2-7 Post Tensioned Anchors Across Foundation Contact............................ 2-42 

2-8 Shear Key Element Concept .................................................................. 2-43 

2-9 Typical Dike Raise................................................................................. 2-47 

2-10 Reinforced Earth Wall ........................................................................... 2-49 

2-11 Reinforced Concrete Wall...................................................................... 2-50 

2-12 Dual Parapet Wall.................................................................................. 2-51 

2-13 MIAD Excavate and Replace Concept .................................................. 2-53 

2-14 MIAD Jet Grouting of Unstable Material Concept................................ 2-55 

2-15 Proposed Internal Construction Roads................................................... 2-63 

2-16 General Project Area Transportation Routes ......................................... 2-65 

3.1-1 Hydrology of Folsom Reservoir ........................................................... 3.1-7 

3.1-2 Groundwater Surrounding Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma ....... 3.1-15 

3.3-1 Air Quality Area of Analysis ................................................................ 3.3-1 

3.3-2 Federal 8-Hour Ozone Sacramento Non-attainment Area.................... 3.3-6 

3.3-3 1985 Wind Rose for Sacramento Executive Airport .......................... 3.3-28 

3.4-1 Cross Section of an Idealized Borrow Site ......................................... 3.4-17 

3.5-1 Elderberry Locations........................................................................... 3.5-17 

3.6-1 Local Geology of Folsom Reservoir..................................................... 3.6-7 

3.6-2 California Geological Survey Seismic Shaking Hazard Map............... 3.6-8 

3.6-3 Decomposed Granite and Asbestos .................................................... 3.6-14 

3.7-1 Potential Areas of Visual Impact .......................................................... 3.7-4 

3.7-2 View of Browns Ravine from Folsom Reservoir Marina..................... 3.7-9 

3.7-3 View from Beal’s Point at Right Wing Dam...................................... 3.7-10 

3.7-4 View from Beal’s Point South toward Folsom Dam .......................... 3.7-10 

3.7-5 View from Beal’s Point toward Folsom Point.................................... 3.7-11 

3.7-6 View from Beal’s Point North toward Mooney Ridge ....................... 3.7-11 

3.7-7 View from Granite Bay to Northeast.................................................. 3.7-12 

3.7-8 View from Peninsula Campground West Toward Granite Bay.......... 3.7-13 

3.7-9 View to the West from Doton’s Point Toward Granite Bay............... 3.7-14 

3.8-1 Farmland Soils of Importance............................................................... 3.8-5 

3.9-1 Regional Access Routes........................................................................ 3.9-3 

3.9-2 Local Access Routes............................................................................. 3.9-4 

3.9-3 Access Routes Available for Folsom DS/FDR Personnel .................... 3.9-5 

3.10-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noises................................................. 3.10-1 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xix 

3.10-2 Construction Noise-Sensitive Receptors........................................... 3.10-11 

3.10-3 Roadway Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Sacramento and El 

Dorado Counties ............................................................................... 3.10-14 

3.10-4 Roadway Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Placer County .................... 3.10-15 

3.12-1 Folsom Lake and Adjacent Jurisdiction.............................................. 3.12-2 

3.12-2 Placer County Land Uses.................................................................... 3.12-6 

3.12-3 El Dorado County Land Uses ............................................................. 3.12-8 

3.12-4 City of Folsom Zoning Surrounding Folsom DS/FDR Area............ 3.12-10 

3.13-1 Major Recreational Facilities.............................................................. 3.13-2 

3.16-1 Population and Housing Census Geographic Area............................. 3.16-2 

3.17-1 EDR DataMap – Corridor Study......................................................... 3.17-7 

3.18-1 ITAs Near the Folsom Facility ........................................................... 3.18-2 

4-1 Economic Linkages in a Hypothetical Industry..................................... 4-15 

4-2 Regional Economic Analysis Flowchart................................................ 4-20 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act 

ADT Average Daily Traffic/Average Daily Trips 

AF Acre-foot/Acre-feet 

Agreement Water Forum Agreement 

AMP Amphibians 

AMS American Meteorological Society 

AMSL Above mean sea level 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan 

AQMD Air Quality Management District 

ARB Air Resources Board 

ARMR Archaeological Resource Management Reports 

ARWI American River Watershed Investigation 

AST Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities 

ATCMs Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BP Before Present 

Bgs Below ground surface 
Contents 

xx Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

BISC Boating Instruction Safety Centers 

BLM US Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

oC Degrees Celsius 

CA California 

CA FID UST California Facility Inventory Database 

CA WDS California Water Resources Control Board – Waste Discharge 

System 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAQS California ambient air quality standards 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CAS Corrective Action Study 

CCAA California Clean Air Act 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CCTS Central California Taxonomic System 

CCTV Closed Circuit Television 

CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDL Clandestine Drug Labs 

CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation 

CE Species that is State listed as endangered 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CESA California Endangered Species Act 

CFCP California Farmland Conservancy Program 

CFP State fully protected species 

CFR Comprehensive Facility Review 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Cfs cubic-foot/feet per second 

CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System 

CIP Capital Improvements Program 

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xxi 

CNEL Community noise equivalent level 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CO Carbon monoxide 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

COSFM California Office of the State Fire Marshal 

CPRC California Public Resources Code 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 

CR Plant species that is State-listed as rare 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CS Sacramento Co. Contaminated Sites 

CSC California Species of Concern 

CSLC California State Lands Commission 

CSPS California State Prison, Sacramento 

CSUS California State University Sacramento 

CT Species that is State-listed 

CVC California Vehicle Code 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

CVRWQCB Basin 

Plan 

CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 

River and San Joaquin River Basins 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CY Cubic yard 

dB Decibels 

dBA A-weighted sound levels are designated 

DBW California Department of Boating and Waterways 

DEED Deed Restriction Listing 

DEM Digital elevation model 

DFG Department of Fish and Game 

DO Dissolved oxygen 

DOF California Department of Finance 

DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation 

DS/FDR Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction 

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Controls 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDD Employment Development Department 
Contents 

xxii Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

EDR Environmental Data Resources 

EGR Exhaust gas recirculation 

ERP Ecosystem Restoration Program 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMFAC2002 On-road vehicle emission factor model 

ENSA Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 

EOP Enhanced outpatient 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System 

ESA Federal Endangered Species Act 

EWA Environmental Water Account 

oF Degrees Fahrenheit 

FC Federal Candidate Species 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FD Species that was formerly listed under the ESA 

FE Species that is Federally listed 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act 

FINDS Facility Index System 

FLSRA Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 

Folsom Facility Folsom Dam and Appurtenant Structures 

Folsom JFP Folsom Joint Federal Project 

FONSI Findings of No Significant Impacts 

FPE Federal proposed endangered species 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FS Forest Service 

FSP Folsom State Prison 

Ft Foot/feet 

FT Species that is Federally listed as threatened 

FTA Federal Transit Authority 

FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

FY Fiscal Year 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xxiii 

General Permit State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated 

with Construction Activity 

GVR Green Valley Road 

GVW Gross Vehicle Weight 

GWh gigawatt hours 

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HDPE High Density Polyethylene 

HIST UST Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database 

HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System 

HMVM Hundred Million Vehicle Miles traveled 

HRA Health risk assessment 

HTRW Hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes 

Hz Hertz 

IMPLAN Impact Planning and Analysis 

INV Invertebrates 

Ips Inches per second 

IS Initial Study 

ITAs Indian Trust Assets 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 

JFP Joint Federal Project 

Kg Kilograms 

kV kilovolt 

kW kilowatts 

lb pound 

Ldn Day-night noise level 

Leq Equivalent noise level 

Lmax Maximum noise level 

LND Cultural 

LOS Level of Service 

LTS American River Watershed Long-term Study 

LTS Less than significant 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 

LWD Left Wing Dam 

M&I municipal and industrial 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels 

MDR Medium Density Residential 

Mg Milligrams 
Contents 

xxiv Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

MIAD Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

ML Sacramento Co. Master List 

MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 

MODS American River Watershed Folsom Dam Modification Project 

Mph Miles per hour 

Mpn Most probably number 

MPN Multiple Property Nomination 

MS Placer Co. Master List 

MSA Metropolitan Service Area 

MSCS CALFED Bay-Delta Program Multi-Species Conservation 

Strategy 

Msl mean sea level 

MTBE Methyl-tert-butyl-ether 

N/A not available 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Noise abatement criteria 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 

NAVD North America Vertical Datum 

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan 

NCCPA Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 

NCIC North Central Information Center 

NED National Economic Development 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFA No Further Action 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHSTA Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOD Notice of Determination 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRC noise reduction coefficient 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NTUs Nephelometric Turbidity Units 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xxv 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OAL Office of Administrative Law 

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark 

OPR Office of Planning and Research 

Os Ozone 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PAC Post-authorization Changes 

PASS Project Alternative Solutions Study 

Pb Lead 

PCA Project Cooperation Agreement 

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls 

PCWA Placer County Water Agency 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

P.L. public law 

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PMF Probable Maximum Flood 

ppm Parts per million 

PPV Peak particle velocity 

PRC Public Resources Code 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Reclamation Board State Reclamation Board 

RMP Resource Management Planning 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROG Reactive organic gasses 

RWD Right Wing Dam 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

RWQCBCV Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley 

SACOG Sacramento Council of Governments 

SAD Small Auxiliary Dikes 

SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SB Senate Bill 

SC species designated as a candidate for listing by the State of 

California as endangered or threatened 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SE species listed by the State of California as endangered 
Contents 

xxvi Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SIR Supplemental Information Report 

SJWD San Juan Water District 

SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing 

SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

SNAs Significant Natural Areas 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SRA State Recreation Area 

SSLE Reclamation’s Safety, Security and Law Enforcement 

Program 

SSTS Section Seven Tracking System 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

ST species listed by the State of California as threatened 

STAA Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

STC sound transmission coefficient 

SWEEPS UST Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System 

SWP State Water Project 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

SWRCY Recycling Facilities 

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule 

TACs Toxic air contaminants 

TDS Total dissolved solids 

TIS Traffic Impact Study 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads 

TNM Traffic Noise Model 

TOC Total organic carbon 

Tpd Tons per day 

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons 

Tpy Tons per year 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 
Contents 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 xxvii 

URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model 

U.S. United States 

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USC United States Code 

USCA United States Code Annotated 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Service 

UST Underground Storage Tank Facilities 

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties 

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan 

V/C volume to capacity 

VEG Vegetation 

VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WAPA Western Area Power Administration 

WIL Wildlife 

WQCP Water Quality Control Plan 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 

Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer Counties, California 

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091

State of California 

Lead Agencies: 

NEPA Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

CEQA Lead Agency: State of California Reclamation Board 

NEPA Cooperating Agency: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

CEQA Responsible Agency: 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

ABSTRACT 

Both Reclamation and the Corps have multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, 

static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its Appurtenant Structures (Folsom 

Facility). The Folsom Joint Federal Project (JFP) was developed to coordinate Reclamation and 

Corps efforts at the Folsom Facility. This Draft EIS/EIR evaluates implementation of the Folsom 

JFP by analyzing alternatives that modify the Folsom Facility to increase overall public safety. The 

alternatives differ in construction actions on the structures, including dams and dikes, of the 

Folsom Facility. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the alternatives on the 

physical, natural, and socioeconomic environment of the region surrounding the Folsom Facility 

are addressed. 

This Draft EIS/EIR is prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Reclamation NEPA procedures, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

and CEQA guidelines and meets the requirements of the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act of 2006. 

Comments on this document must be submitted by January 22, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Oliver Annalena Bronson 

Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation Board/Department of Water Resources 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 3310 El Camino Ave., Rm 140 

Folsom, CA 95630 Sacramento, CA 95821 

(916) 989-7256 (916) 574-0369 

SOliver@mp.usbr.gov annalena@water.ca.gov
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is a Federal Cooperating Agency for this 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The Corps intends to 

adopt the final version of this EIS/EIR to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) for the flood damage reduction features described in this EIS/EIR. Questions or 

comments on the flood damage reduction related portions of the draft EIS/EIR can be directed to 

the Corps at the following address: U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, Attn: Ms. Becky 

Victorine, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922, or email: 

Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil. 

2 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage 

Reduction EIS/EIR Executive Summary 

Purpose of Study and EIS/EIR 

The limitations of the existing flood control system in the Sacramento area, and the 

urgent need to increase the level of flood protection have recently received increased 

public attention in the aftermath of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Planning of 

significant improvements for flood protection and dam safety has been underway for 

some years among numerous agencies and organizations, notably the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the State of California Reclamation Board 

(State Reclamation Board)/State of California Department of Water Resources 

(DWR), and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). 

This Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 

presents the results of a joint agency study for the planning, design, and 

implementation of a flood control and Safety of Dams risk reduction action at 

Folsom Dam and Appurtenant Facilities (Folsom Facility). The objective of the 

study is the identification and selection of an alternative that would significantly 

reduce the risk of flooding along the main stem of the American River in the 

Sacramento area while also meeting dam safety and public safety objectives. 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 534) authorized the Corps to construct 

the Folsom Facility. The Folsom Facility was constructed by the Corps between 

1948 and 1956. Upon completion in 1956, the ownership was transferred to 

Reclamation for operation and maintenance as an integrated feature of the Central 

Valley Project (CVP). Both Federal agencies have obligations and interests in 

relation to the Folsom Facility but differ in respect to Congressional objectives, 

mandates, authorities, funding, and time lines. Through cooperation, Corps and 

Reclamation seek to integrate flood risk reduction measures with dam safety 

improvements under a single plan. 

Planning studies to address Folsom Facility issues were initiated during the 1990s 

and cumulated initially under the Corps’ Folsom Dams Modification Project (Folsom 

Mods Project) and Folsom Dam Raise Project. The objective of the Folsom 

Modification Project was to reduce damages from flooding to the Sacramento area 

by increasing outlet efficiencies at Folsom Dam in general by releasing water earlier 

prior to a flood event. However, cost concerns with enlarging the existing outlets 

caused the Corps to reevaluate modification options that would perform as a 

functional equivalent to the outlet modifications. The objective of the Corp’s Dam 

Raise Project was to increase flood storage capacity at Folsom Reservoir. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-1 
Executive Summary 

 

At the same time the Corps was investigating flood control options, Reclamation was 

evaluating Safety of Dams issues related to all of the Folsom Facilities. Reclamation 

initiated a Corrective Action Study (CAS) that evaluated public safety risks due to 

hydrologic, seismic, and static concerns. Beginning in 2004, Reclamation and the 

Corps established an Oversight Management Group, consisting of senior 

management from both agencies, to facilitate project coordination. Coordination 

activities included a comprehensive value planning effort to identify a joint project 

that the agencies’ respective flood damage reduction and dam safety objectives. 

Congress formalized this effort in the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act by directing the two agencies to continue progress toward a joint 

project. Since that time both agencies worked intensively to develop reasonable 

alternatives for a Joint Federal Project (JFP). 

The objective of the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) 

EIS/EIR is to assess engineering solutions addressing hydrologic control, and 

seismic and static issues that would integrate the Corps’ authorized Folsom Dam 

Modification and Folsom Dam Raise projects with Reclamation’s Safety of Dams 

objectives. Among other benefits, this would result in timely, cost effective 

completion of features at the Folsom Facility that expedite: (1) protection of public 

safety related to the structural integrity of the facilities and (2) improvement to flood 

control management for the communities along the lower American and Sacramento 

rivers. 

The proposed structural modifications to the Folsom Facility could ultimately lead to 

revisions of Folsom Dam operations that would provide for earlier releases of 

reservoir water in advance of a major storm (hydrologic event). The modifications 

being considered in this EIS/EIR would allow for the release of 115,000 cubic feet 

per second (CFS) (the existing objective release) sooner than is now possible, with 

the potential for higher releases should the downstream levees be improved to 

accommodate the increased flows. These larger, earlier releases from Folsom would 

create and conserve flood storage space based on projected reservoir inflows 

resulting from a major storm impacting the upper American River watershed. 

However, the proposed modifications would be operated using existing criteria until 

the completion of the revised water control manual and supporting supplemental 

environmental compliance documentation, which would be completed one year prior 

to completion of proposed structural modifications, at which time the full potential 

benefits of the proposed modifications would be realized. 

This EIS/EIR addresses project alternatives that include elements of the individual 

missions of Reclamation and the Corps. Due to specific Congressional 

authorizations limiting what actions each agency can implement, Reclamation would 

most likely implement separately those elements specific to its Safety of Dam’s 

mission and the Corps would implement those elements specific to improving flood 

control protection, as summarized in the paragraphs below. 

ES-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

Study Authority 

The current study was implemented under several existing authorizations. Primary 

authority and guidance for flood damage reduction is provided in the Folsom Dam 

Modification Project Authority under Section 101(a) (6) of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of 1999 (Public Law (PL) 106-53) and the Folsom Dam 

Raise Authority under PL 108-137, the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act for 2004. The Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam 

Raise authorities share the objective of improving flood management on the 

American River, primarily through structural modifications to the existing Folsom 

Dam and appurtenant facilities. With the Folsom Dam Raise authority, Congress 

also authorized the Corps to construct an ecosystem restoration project component 

on the Lower American River and a permanent bridge, provided that certain funding 

conditions were met. 

In addition, Reclamation has been pursuing Safety of Dams modifications separately 

through its existing Safety of Dams Program. Investigations and analyses by 

Reclamation have identified needed dam safety modifications at Folsom Dam and 

appurtenant facilities. In response to these studies, Reclamation initiated a Corrective 

Action Study (CAS) to identify technically feasible and environmentally and socially 

preferable alternatives that would address the identified safety concerns. A CAS 

Report, supported by the analyses in this EIS/EIR, will present a preferred alternative 

for incorporation into a Modification Report. This Modification Report will be 

submitted to Congress for approval. 

Recent modifications to both agencies’existing authorities were made in the Energy 

and Water Appropriations Act of 2006, which directed the Secretary of the Army 

and the Secretary of the Interior to collaborate on authorized activities to maximize 

flood damage reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at Folsom Dam 

and Reservoir as one project; and authorized both agencies to expend funds for 

design of a joint project. 

Facility Description and Study Area 

The Folsom Facility is comprised of twelve separate structures (Figure ES-1). The 

main structure, used to control releases to the American River, is the concrete dam. 

The Main Concrete Dam is located on the mainstem of the American River and is the 

only facility with operational gates and outlets used to retain and release water stored 

within the reservoir. Adjacent to the Main Concrete Dam and looking downstream 

are the Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam. The two wing dams serve to contain 

water within Folsom Reservoir. The other large earthen structure is Mormon Island 

Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), which retains water at the location of a historic river 

channel. The Folsom Facility also includes eight earthen dikes. The earthen dikes 

span areas of terrain with lower elevations and are primarily used to contain water 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-3 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Figure ES-1 

The Folsom Facility 
Executive Summary 

 

when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Folsom Dam is also a producer of 

hydroelectric power. 

Folsom is a multi-purpose facility operated by law for flood control, municipal and 

industrial (M&I) water supply, agricultural water supply, power, fish and wildlife, 

recreation, navigation and water quality purposes. The facility is primarily operated 

to maximize flood control and water supply storage benefits. To provide flood 

control storage capacity (protecting the Sacramento region), the reservoir is operated 

to provide the reservoir level at its lowest level starting in the fall of each year. The 

flood storage capacity is retained until April of each year when the reservoir is filled 

with snow-melt runoff from the Sierra Nevada. During the summer months when 

water elevations remain high, Folsom Lake serves a major regional recreational 

resource (Folsom Lake State Recreation Area). 

The study area addressed in this EIS/EIR includes the entire Folsom Facility, 

including approximately 75 miles of shoreline surrounding the reservoir. Due to the 

requirement to bring in materials from outside suppliers, the study area includes 

adjacent roadways, the city of Folsom, and the community of Granite Bay. 

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Purpose and Need/Project 

Objectives 

As a part of their responsibilities, Reclamation and the Corps have determined that 

the Folsom Facilities require structural improvements to increase overall public 

safety by improving the facilities’ ability to reduce flood damages and addressing 

dam safety issues posed by hydrologic (flood), seismic (earthquake), and static 

(seepage) events. These events have a low probability of occurrence in a given year, 

however due to the large population downstream of Folsom Dam, modifying the 

facilities is prudent and required to improve public safety. 

Reclamation has identified the need for expedited action to reduce specific 

hydrologic, static, and seismic risks under its Safety of Dams Program. The 

identified risks are among the highest of all dams in Reclamation’s inventory and the 

Folsom Facilities are among Reclamation’s highest priorities within its Safety of 

Dams Program. Reclamation’s primary interest for integrating dam safety activities 

with Corps’ flood damage reduction projects is to expedite corrective action and 

realize cost sharing benefits of a coordinated effort. 

The Corps in partnership with the Reclamation Board/DWR and SAFCA (nonfederal sponsors) have determined that Folsom Reservoir does not have sufficient 

storage or release capacity to safely manage flood flows from floods with recurrence 

intervals greater than a 100-year recurrence level nor do the downstream levees have 

sufficient capacity to provide greater than 100-year flood protection (Corps letter to 

SAFCA dated December 9, 2004). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-5 
Executive Summary 

 

The non-federal sponsors have identified the need to reduce the risk of flooding in 

the Sacramento area. Due to the number and value of the exposed structures and the 

size of the population at risk, Sacramento has been identified as one of the most at 

risk communities in the nation. Consequently, there is a need to expeditiously reduce 

this risk through interim and permanent flood damage reduction measures. The goal 

of the non-federal sponsors is to achieve at least a 200-year level of flood protection 

for the Sacramento area as anticipated in the Congressionally authorized Folsom 

Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise Projects. Pursuit of this goal constitutes the 

non-federal sponsors’ primary interest for integrating Corps flood damage reduction 

projects with Reclamation dam safety activities is to increase flood protection for the 

downstream and surrounding communities on an expedited basis and realize cost 

sharing benefits of a coordinated effort. 

Given these circumstances, there is a need to expedite dam safety corrective actions 

for the Folsom Facilities in order to reduce potential failure due to seismic, static, 

and hydrologic conditions. There is also a need to incrementally increase minimum 

flood protection by improving reservoir pool release mechanisms and, if 

incrementally justified, increasing flood storage capacity. The purpose of the project 

will be to increase overall public safety, improve the reliability of local water supply 

and power generation, and maintain an important recreational resource. Project 

objectives are: 

• Expeditiously reduce hydrologic risk of overtopping-related failure of any 

impoundment structure during a probable maximum flood (PMF) event in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any impoundment structure 

during a potential seismic (earthquake) event in accordance with Reclamation’s 

Public Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any impoundment structure 

during a potential static (seepage) event in accordance with Reclamation’s Public 

Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously improve the flood management capacity of the facilities in a 

manner consistent with existing Corps authorities. 

Development and Screening of Project Alternatives 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that a reasonable range of 

alternatives be analyzed, including a no action alternative. The California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental documents identify 

and analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could meet the project 

objectives to varying degrees. Under CEQA, the range of potential alternatives to the 

proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic 

ES-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the 

significant effects. 

The development of alternatives presented in this document has been an iterative and 

collaborative process involving teams of engineers from Reclamation and the Corps. 

Alternative measures considered by the teams focused on addressing Corps flood 

damage reduction and Reclamation Safety of Dams objectives. The process 

commenced with an initial scoping phase followed by further refinement and 

selection of structural measures during a subsequent feasibility phase. Outcomes of 

the feasibility phase defined the proposed project/action by evaluating various 

structural measures that addressed the overall project’s hydrologic, seismic, static, 

and flood control objectives. 

Structural improvement measures identified during initial scoping efforts were 

reduced to those determined by technical experts to have the greatest potential of 

providing practical, implementable, cost effective, and environmentally sound means 

of achieving the required project objectives. Due to the number of potential structural 

measures with multiple design variations that achieved the same goal, representative 

measures were selected for further evaluation that would be reflective of similar 

design concepts and expected similar costs and environmental impacts. 

The structural measures considered for the Folsom Facilities are summarized in 

Table ES-1. 

Table ES-1 

Features and Objectives of Folsom Facility Engineering Measures

Folsom Facility Engineering Measure Dam Safety and Flood Control 

Accomplishment 

Main Concrete Dam Dam raise 

Gate replacement 

Tendons 

Shear Keys 

Toe Blocks 

Pier and Gate reinforcement 

Flood control 

Flood control 

Dam Safety seismic 

Dam Safety seismic 

Dam Safety seismic 

Dam Safety seismic 

New Auxiliary Spillway Auxiliary Spillway Dam Safety hydrologic, flood 

control 

Wing Dams Earthen Raise 

Parapet Wall Raise 

Reinforced Earth Wall Raise 

Filters 

Flood control 

Flood control 

Flood control 

Dam Safety static 

MIAD Earthen Raise 

Replace foundation 

Jet Grouting 

Downstream Overlay 

Filters 

Flood control 

Dam Safety seismic 

Dam Safety seismic 

Dam Safety seismic, static 

Dam Safety static 

Dikes Earthen Raise 

Parapet Wall Raise 

Reinforced Earth Wall Raise 

Filters 

Flood control 

Flood control 

Flood control 

Dam Safety static 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-7 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Project Description 

The engineering measures proposed to address hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood 

control objectives vary for each of the Folsom facilities. The text below summarizes 

the basic features and aspects of the proposed project. 

The existing authorizations for Reclamation and the Corps direct the agencies to 

assess different dam safety and flood damage reduction measures. Reclamation 

focuses on dam safety (seismic, static, and hydrologic issues) and the Corps flood 

damage reduction (flood and hydrologic control). In addition to stand-alone dam 

safety and flood damage reduction activities, the agencies seek a common solution to 

the hydrologic control of the dam and reservoir that addresses Reclamation’s dam 

safety hydrologic risk (overtopping of facilities in the event of a PMF) and the Corps 

flood damage reduction objective (minimum 1 in 200 year protection). This 

combined effort has identified a gated auxiliary spillway, otherwise referred to as the 

Joint Federal Project (JFP), as the common feature addressing both objectives. 

Specifically: 

Project Description. The JFP at Folsom Dam and Reservoir will consist of 

six 23-ft x 33-ft submerged tainter gates at invert 368 ft combined with a 

concrete lined auxiliary spillway approximately 170 ft wide and 1700 ft in 

length. Gate dimensions and invert elevation may be optimized during 

design to maximize performance and/or reduce costs. To achieve the 

objective of expedited feasibility level design, optimization of the spillway 

design will focus, to the extent feasible, upon varying the invert elevation of 

the tainter gates, but if necessary, may include varying the dimensions of the 

six tainter gates, approach channel or auxiliary spillway. The optimization 

will seek to improve upon the flood damage reduction objective of at least 

1/200 year flood protection while continuing to preserve and expedite 

completion of the dam safety objective of safely passing the Probable 

Maximum Flood (PMF). 

Additions. Additional features to the JFP may be proposed later as mutually 

determined by participating agencies in order to (1) achieve a minimum 

1/200 year flood protection, or (2) as incrementally justified through 

appropriate analysis and evaluation. Potential additional features may 

include a raise of up to 3.5 feet for all embankments, or modification or 

replacement of the existing service gates or emergency spillway gates. Any 

additions to the JFP, as justified, will be for flood damage reduction purposes 

only. 

The main feature of the JFP would be the phased construction of an auxiliary 

spillway in the area to the east of the concrete dam and in the left abutment and 

below the Left Wing Dam. The auxiliary spillway would be constructed on a natural 

ridge and would involve the removal of approximately 3.5 million cubic yards of 

ES-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

material that would form the channel of the spillway. Construction of the spillway 

will be phased to fully meet dam safety objectives on an interim basis while design 

and construction of flood control objective elements are implemented or a permanent 

basis should flood control elements not be in place in a timely manner. An interim 

control section composed of a cofferdam/rockplug that could serve as a fuseplug and 

a permanent control structure composed of either a gated or fuseplug structure will 

be constructed as the final phase. 

Other stand-alone dam safety (seismic and static) and flood control features are 

specific to each agency’s mission and are not considered part of the JFP. Flood 

control actions could potentially involve some version of a raise or modification or 

replacement of existing gates as incrementally justified. Dam safety actions include 

such features as adding filters, anchoring of the main dam, and reinforcement of 

spillway gates and piers. To develop borrow for potential earthen raises, material 

excavated from the auxiliary spillway site would be hauled either to a storage 

location near dike 7, to Folsom Point, or to a storage location near MIAD. The 

material would be processed for proper sizing and eventually become borrow 

material for the raising and/or strengthening of the Left Wing Dam, Dikes 7 and 8, 

and MIAD. 

The Left Wing Dam, and Dikes 7 and 8 would potentially be raised by either 

constructing a concrete parapet wall on the existing crests, through placement of 

additional earthen material, or through a combination of both measures. To address 

static concerns at these facilities, a filter zone would be installed beneath the 

downstream overlay. Material for the filter would most likely be produced at Beal’s 

point or at Folsom Point, and hauled to the construction sites using construction 

roads within the reservoir or via city roadways. If it is determined that local material 

would not meet the specifications for the filter zone, then the material would be 

hauled to the site from local suppliers. 

MIAD would be subject to several measures addressing hydrologic, seismic and 

static concerns. MIAD is an earthen structure with part of its base constructed on 

potentially unstable river bed material. Due to the potential risk of the MIAD 

embankment subsiding during an earthquake, the downstream base would either be 

excavated and replaced, or the weak material strengthened through a jet grouting 

process. A downstream overlay, with filter, would be constructed on the downstream 

slope of MIAD to provide increased stability of the structure and to reduce static 

issues. 

Construction work would be scheduled to coincide with reservoir levels that would 

allow for development of borrow within the reservoir area. Construction work would 

be staged at several locations within the reservoir area near the borrow sites and near 

each of the structures requiring modifications. Staging areas would be located at 

Granite Bay (Dikes 1, 2, and 3), Beal’s Point (Right Wing Dam and Dikes 4, 5, and 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-9 
Executive Summary 

 

6), at the Main Concrete Dam, at the Left Wing Dam, at Folsom Point (Dikes 7 and 

8, MIAD), and at MIAD. Most staging areas would have a portable materials 

processing (crushing and sizing) facility to prepare earthen material for earthen 

raises, to produce sand from granitic rock, to store general construction materials, 

and to serve as a contractor work area. 

At a minimum, portable concrete batch plants would be set up at Beal’s Point, the 

concrete dam, near the Left Wing Dam, and at MIAD to mix (batch) concrete for 

construction of the new auxiliary spillway, conducting modifications to the main 

dam, miscellaneous features, and to produce grout for stabilization of MIAD. 

Borrow material for earthen raises and the MIAD overlay would be developed 

primarily from within reservoir sources. Borrow areas would be developed adjacent 

to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point for excavation and subsequent 

processing of granitic material. The material excavated at the auxiliary spillway site 

would also be processed for use in earthen raises. Granitic material at Beal’s Point 

would also be processed down to sand for filters. Borrow materials would be stored 

near each of the processing site, near each one of the facilities, and potentially at 

previously identified borrow storage sites such at Dike 7, or adjacent to the 

downstream construction zone, such as near the base of MIAD. 

Much of the borrow material would be hauled using construction roads within the 

reservoir rim. Transport of borrow and sand material from Beal’s Point to the Left 

Wing Dam and MIAD areas would involve the use of local roadways unless a 

processing site is set up at Folsom Point or the Observation Point parking lot. 

Any potential raise of the Folsom Facilities would also allow for an increase in the 

temporary storage capacity of the reservoir for flood control. The increased capacity 

in the reservoir would result in flooding of areas of land beyond the present project 

boundary. There are real estate solutions and construction solutions or a 

combination of the two that could be implemented to address occasional flooding of 

property not owned by the United States. The real estate solution involves the 

acquisition of occasional flowage easements from impacted property owners, or 

potentially, the acquisition of fee title, depending on the raise selected. The 

construction alternative would be implemented, where possible, by design and 

construction of new embankments on United States or non-government owned 

property. These flood protection embankments would be built so as to eliminate the 

potential for flooding on non-government property. The decision regarding which 

solution will work in the various impacted areas around the reservoir will be looked 

at on a case by case basis and depend on feasibility, cost and acceptability to the 

landowners. Additional analyses, including a supplemental EIS/EIR, will be 

required to address real estate and new embankments design and construction details 

should a specific raise of the Folsom Facility raise be justified and approved. 

ES-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

An additional action being considered by Reclamation for the Folsom Facility is an 

enhanced security project. Folsom Dam has been designated as a National Critical 

Infrastructure Facility. A compromise of its integrity could potentially result in 

serious property damage and loss of life. The enhanced security project has several 

features. First is the identification of Folsom Dam staff through the use of a 

proximity badge and monitoring system. The second is a closed circuit television 

monitoring system for surveying all critical features and access points to the 

facilities. Third is the remote operation from a security control center of access to 

dikes, wing dams, and MIAD. Fourth is a provision for supplemental lighting of key 

facility features. 

Project Alternatives 

No Action/No Project Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative describes the reasonably foreseeable future 

without any SD/FDR action. Without the project hydrologic, seismic, static, and 

flood damage reduction risks currently posed by the Folsom Facilities would 

continue into the future. 

Action Alternatives 

In addition to the No Action/No Project Alternative, the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

evaluates five action alternatives. The basic features of the five alternatives are 

outlined below. 

Alternative 1 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway, No Concrete Dam 

Raise/Embankment Crest Protection 

Under alternative 1, there would be no raise to the concrete structure with minimal 

modifications to the existing spillway. A large fuseplug auxiliary spillway would be 

constructed adjacent to the Left Wing Dam to address hydrologic dam safety 

concerns. The crests of some of the earthen structures would be strengthened to 

address hydrologic dam safety concerns, but not to increase the flood storage 

capacity of the reservoir. The basic elements of Alternative 1 are listed below. 

• Main Concrete Dam 

- No raise, 

- Minor to moderate modifications to existing spillway bridge, gates, and piers 

- Tendons, shear keys, or toe blocks to address seismic concerns 

- Large fuseplug auxiliary spillway for Safety of Dams risk 

• Right and Left Wing Dams 

- Crest protection for Safety of Dams risk 

- Toe drains and crest filters to address static issues 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-11 
Executive Summary 

 

• MIAD 

- Crest protection for Safety of Dams risk 

- Jet grouting of downstream foundation for seismic issues 

- Downstream overlay for seismic and static issues 

- Full-height filters 

• Dikes, 1, 2, 3, 7, & 8 

- No action 

• Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

- Crest protection for Safety of Dams risk 

- Full height filters and toe drains for static concerns 

• Potentially impacted real estate (no need for action) 

• Other Project Features 

- Staging for construction at Beal’s Point, Main Dam, Folsom Point and MIAD 

- Utility and road relocations within the reservoir boundary 

- Haul road construction within existing reservoir boundary 

- Borrow site development and processing 

- Concrete and jet grout processing 

Alternative 2 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with Tunnel, 4-ft Dam/Embankment 

Raise 

Under Alternative 2, the existing concrete parapet wall would be strengthened with 

some modifications to the existing spillway gates. A smaller fuseplug auxiliary 

spillway with a chute and a tunnel would be constructed to address hydrologic and 

flood control concerns. All of the earthen structures would be raised to address 

hydrologic concerns and to provide additional flood storage capacity. The basic 

elements of Alternative 2 are listed below. 

• Main Concrete Dam 

- Minimal raise of existing 3.5-ft upstream parapet wall along non-overflow 

structure. 

- Minor to moderate modifications to the spillway bridge, gates and piers 

- Tendons, shear keys, and toe blocks to address seismic concerns 

- Foundation drain enhancements 

- Smaller fuseplug auxiliary spillway with new spillway tunnel for Safety of 

Dams risk and flood damage reduction 

 

• Right and Left Wing Dams 

- <0.5-ft earthen raise with 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Toe drains and half-height filters to address static issues 

ES-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

• MIAD 

- 4-ft earthen raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Excavate and replace downstream foundation for seismic issues 

- Downstream overlay for seismic issues 

- Toe drains and full-height filters to address static concerns 

• Dikes, 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 

- 4.0-ft earthen raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Toe drains for static concerns 

• Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

- 4.0-ft earthen raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Toe drains and half-height filters for static concerns 

• Potentially impacted real estate 

- Acquisition of occasional flowage easements or fee interest may be necessary. 

- Flood protection embankments. 

• Other Project Features 

- Staging for construction at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, Main Dam, Folsom 

Point and MIAD 

- Utility and road relocations within the reservoir boundary 

- Haul road construction within existing reservoir boundary 

- Borrow site development and processing 

- Concrete processing 

Alternative 3 – JFP Gated Auxiliary Spillway with Potential 3.5-ft Parapet Wall 

Raise 

Under Alternative 3, a gated auxiliary spillway would be constructed to address 

hydrologic dam safety and flood control concerns. Certain flood control 

enhancements could potentially be added to the gated spillway as incrementally 

justified. Potential flood control enhancements include an embankment raise of up 

to 3.5 ft and/or modification or replacement of existing service gates and emergency 

spillway gates. The basic elements of Alternative 3 and potential flood control 

enhancements are listed below: 

• Main Concrete Dam 

- Major modifications to spillway bridge, gates, and piers (potential flood 

control enhancement as incrementally justified). 

- Tendons, shear to address seismic concerns 

- Foundation drain enhancements 

- Gated auxiliary spillway for safety of dams and flood control 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-13 
Executive Summary 

 

• Right and Left Wing Dams 

- 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for flood control (potential flood control enhancement 

as incrementally justified). 

- Toe drains and full-height filters to address static issues 

• MIAD 

- 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for flood control (potential flood control enhancement 

as incrementally justified). 

- Jet grouting of downstream foundation for seismic issues 

- Downstream overlay for seismic issues 

• Dikes, 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 

- 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for flood control (potential flood control enhancement 

as incrementally justified). 

- Toe drains for static concerns 

• Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

- 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for flood control (potential flood control enhancement 

as incrementally justified). 

- Full height filters and toe drains for static concerns 

• Potentially impacted real estate 

- Acquisition of occasional flowage easements will probably be necessary. 

- Flood protection embankments. 

• Other Project Features 

- Same as Alternatives 2 

Alternative 4 – JFP Gated Auxiliary Spillway with Potential 7-ft 

Dam/Embankment Raise 

Under Alternative 4, a smaller auxiliary spillway would be constructed to address 

both dam safety hydrologic and flood control objectives. If incrementally justified, 

a 7-ft raise of the concrete dam and all embankments could potentially be added to 

enhance flood control protection. All earthen structures would be raised to increase 

the temporary flood storage capacity of the reservoir. The flood storage capacity 

would be the same as for Alternative 3, but the additional raise would provide 

increased freeboard (i.e. the space between the maximum surface water elevation and 

the crest of the dams and dikes). The basic elements of Alternative 4 and potential 

additions for flood control purposes are listed below. 

• Main Concrete Dam 

- 7-ft concrete raise of non-overflow section (potential flood control 

enhancement as incrementally justified). 

- Major modifications to spillway bridge, gates, and piers 

ES-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

- Tendons and shear keys to address seismic concerns 

- Foundation drain enhancements 

- Gated auxiliary spillway for Safety of Dams and flood damage reduction risk 

• Right and Left Wing Dams 

- 7-ft earthen raise for flood damage reduction (potential flood control 

enhancement as incrementally justified). 

- Toe drains and full height filters to address static issues 

• MIAD 

- 7-ft earthen raise for flood damage reduction (potential flood control 

enhancement as incrementally justified). 

- Jet grouting of downstream foundation for seismic issues 

- Downstream overlay for seismic issues 

- Full-height filters for static control 

• Dikes, 1, 2, 3, 7, & 8 

- 7-ft raise for flood damage reduction (potential flood control enhancement as 

incrementally justified). 

- Toe drains and full-height filters for static concerns 

• Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

- 7-ft raise for flood damage reduction (potential flood control enhancement as 

incrementally justified). 

- Full height filters and toe drains for static concerns 

• Potentially impacted real estate 

- Acquisition of occasional flowage easements or fee interest will be necessary. 

Flood protection embankments. 

• Other Project Features 

- Same as for Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 5 – No Auxiliary Spillway, 17-ft Dam/Embankment Raise 

Under alternative 5 all Folsom project facilities would be raised approximately 17 

feet. No auxiliary spillway would be constructed because the reservoir capacity 

would be increased to contain the PMF event. All of the earthen structures would be 

raised to address hydrologic concerns and to increase the flood storage capacity of 

the reservoir. The basic elements of Alternative 5 are listed below. 

• Main Concrete Dam 

- 17-ft raise of non-overflow section 

- Major modifications to spillway bridge, gates, and piers 

- Tendons and shear keys to address seismic concerns 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-15 
Executive Summary 

 

- Foundation drainage improvements 

• Right and Left Wing Dams – 

- 17-ft earthen raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Full-height filters and toe drains to address static issues 

• MIAD 

- 17-ft earthen raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Excavation and replacement of foundation for seismic issues 

- Downstream overlay for seismic issues 

- Full-height filters and toe drains 

• Dikes, 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 

- 17-ft raise for Safety of Dams risk 

- Full-height filters and toe drains for static concerns 

- Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

- Full height filters and toe drains for static concerns 

• Potentially impacted real estate 

- Acquisition of occasional flowage easements or fee interest will be necessary. 

This could include the relocation of residences and/or businesses. 

- Flood protection berms will be necessary. 

• Other Project Features 

- Full development of all borrow sites, otherwise same as Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4 

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental baseline used to establish the basis for determining effects of the 

Folsom DS/FDR alternatives is derived from the NEPA definition of future 

conditions without project and the CEQA definition of existing conditions. The 

reader is referred to the individual resource chapters in this EIS/EIR for discussions 

on how the baseline is being applied to each resource. Table ES-2 provides a 

summary of the impacts by resource area along with the proposed mitigation 

measures. 

ES-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

Table ES-2 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary- Folsom DS/FDER EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Hydrology • Reduce water source to wetlands • Monitor water levels during/after 

construction 

Water Quality • Increased siltation 

• Increased turbidity 

• MAID water quality impacts 

• Best management practices 

• Best management practices 

• Best management practices 

Groundwater • Localized groundwater level 

fluctuations 

• Monitor water levels during/after 

construction

Water Supply • Potential short-term disruption of 

Natomas pipeline 

• Establish temporary water source 

Air Quality • Uncontrolled NOx emissions from 

construction vehicles exceeding de 

minimis thresholds 

• Particulate (PM10) emissions 

exceeding de minimis thresholds 

• Develop construction sequencing 

plan that includes best available 

emissions control practices. 

• Best management controls for 

roadway, processing facility, and 

batch plant particulate emissions 

Aquatic Resources • Less than significant impact to fish 

• Potential loss of seasonal 

wetland/vernal shrimp habitat 

• Displacement of non-native fish 

species from stilling basin 

• None required for fish 

• Mitigation plan 

• None required for non-native fish 

Terrestrial Vegetation and 

Wildlife 

• status 

plant and animal species 

Direct or indirect impacts t

Potential impact to special 

• o oak 

woodlands 

• Permanent loss of wetlands 

• Adverse impacts to the Valley 

Elderberry Long-Horn Beetle an

its habitat 

Potential im

d 

• pact to protected Mitigation plan 

amphibian species 

• Mitigation plan 

• Mitigation plan 

• Mitigation plan 

• Mitigation plan 

•

Soils • Loss of soil resource through • Best management practices 

excavation and borrow site 

development 

Minerals • No impact 

Geological Resources of geological 

ction 

•

None 

Asbestos abatement plan 

ment 

• Commitment

resources for facility constru

Naturally occurring asbestos 

disturbance 

•

•

incorporating best manage

practices 

Visual Resources • Temporary reduction in visual 

•

• rocessing facilities in less 

Not mitigable 

quality as a result of borrow 

development and construction 

activities 

Permanent loss of lake views from 

trails, shoreline and residences 

due to new parapet walls and 

embankments 

Siting of p

obtrusive areas 

•

Agricultural Resources • No impact 

Transportation and Circulation act to roadways with Complete a peak hour capacity 

•

Element 

• Significant imp

current poor level of service 

•

analysis to identify potential 

roadway improvements or 

operations modifications 

Prepare a transportation 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-17 
Executive Summary 

 

Table ES-2 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary- Folsom DS/FDER EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

management plan that outlines 

s 

contractor haul routes for 

coordination with the local entitie

Noise • Increase in area noise levels due 

to construction, processing, and 

•

ls at three sensitive 

• arriers 

•

•

transport 

Significant increase in nighttime 

noise leve

receptor locations 

Construct portable noise b

Maintenance of exhaust mufflers 

• Scheduling truck traffic to day time

hours 

• Blasting during daytime hours only 

Monitoring of construction noise 

levels at sensitive locations 

Cultural Resources • turbance of 

cultural resources 

Potential loss or dis • Consultation with the State Histor

Preservation Office and 

ic

implementation of mitigation plan 

Land Use, Planning, Zoning 

 embankments, 

perty 

• Land use change due to 

construction of new

flowage easements, or pro

acquisition 

• Construct flood protection berms 

to prevent inundation of private 

property 

• Acquire real estate rights 

(easement or fee title) of 

inundated properties 

Recreation • oss of visitor days and 

recreation revenues 

ts to 

d 

e-

•

 and 

•

le 

ation areas as is practical 

•

•

eriods 

Significant l • Construction related impac

recreation facilities will be 

replaced in kind by the lead 

construction agency and 

disturbed recreation areas an

facilities will be restored to pr

construction condition 

Prepare signage and 

announcements related to 

construction schedules

closures 

Replace trail staging area at

Folsom Point with comparab

parking capacity 

• Establish detours with signs for

roads/trails 

• Following borrow excavation, 

recontour beach areas for public

use 

• Construction, borrow, and staging

areas will be sited as far from 

recre

• Reconfigure entrances to Beal’s 

Point and Granite Bay to prevent 

conflict between recreation and 

construction traffic 

Use flagmen to control traffic 

Construction hours scheduled to

accommodate high use p

Public Services and Utilities • Potential for temporary disruptions 

• Damage to rest rooms and roads 

• Relocate Natoma Pipeline •

• ssible, select 

• Would create solid waste 

• Stage utility relocations and prior 

announcements 

Repair or relocate 

• Establish temporary water source 

Recycle when po

licensed landfills 

Hydropower • No impact 

ES-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

Table ES-2 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary- Folsom DS/FDER EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Population and Housing • Relocation of Displaced residents 

or businesses 

ng 

re work 

Locate comparable properties duri

location assistance

Public Health and Safety • Work site, roadway, and recreation Best management practices 

site safety control 

•

Indian Trust Assets • No impact 

Environmental Justice • No impact 

ater Q Groundwater 

n of any of the DS/FDR alternatives will in themselves not change the 

erations of the reservoir. 

r significant water quality impacts. Water quality impacts would 

he 

lies by 

t. 

 construction equipment and materials hauling trucks, 

roduced by construction equipment and haul trucks on disturbed 

te 

ding 

, 

ces. The majority of the fish species inhabiting the reservoir 

ificant requiring mitigation 

compensation. 

Hydrology, W uality, and 

Constructio

hydrology of the American River nor alter current op

Construction of the project would result in improved hydrologic control of the 

American River watershed flood flows, providing flood control benefits to the 

Sacramento region. 

Excavation of in-reservoir borrow sites and construction of earthen raises would

have the potential fo

result from soil erosion both during and after the excavation of borrow material. T

effect would be mitigated through use of best management practices. 

Water Supply 

Placement of excess material within the reservoir would reduce water supp

less than 1 percen

Air Quality 

Exhaust emissions from

fugitive dust p

ground, fugitive dust emissions from materials processing facilities and concre

batch plants would cumulatively produce a significant air quality impact. Depen

on the alternative, NOx emissions would trigger a General Conformity evaluation

from which mitigation measures would be developed to reduce air quality impacts. 

Aquatic Resources 

Construction of the DS/FDR actions would have less than a significant impact on inreservoir aquatic resour

are introduced game or prey species, and special status species are not known to 

inhabit the immediate vicinity of the project sites. 

Construction near Dike 6 would have the potential to remove a seasonal wetland.

Loss of the wetland would be considered to be sign

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-19 
Executive Summary 

 

Dewatering of the stilling basin would result in the removal of non-native fish 

species. 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

rsely 

cial status plant species, protected oak woodlands, result in loses of native 

pact elderberry 

y elderberry long-horn beetle. All 

il resources. This impact would be 

entation of best management 

 within the reservoir for the 

 of 

 the Folsom dams and dikes would result in a significant but 

 Lake State Recreation Area visitors and to the 

g the reservoir. The visual resource impairment would be an 

 

lation 

d not 

ficant impact on the Level of Service for most local roadways except for 

Construction of any of the project alternatives would have the potential to adve

affect spe

vegetation, result in a permanent loss of project area wetlands, and im

shrubs, which host to the endangered valle

vegetation impacts can be mitigated to non-significant levels. Construction activities 

could result in the alteration or loss of habitat for wildlife special status species. 

These impacts could be mitigated to non-significant level. Wetlands downstream of 

MIAD would be monitored through construction. 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

Construction activities, particularly in the area of auxiliary spillway, the wing dams, 

MIAD, and dikes, would result in the loss of topso

mitigated to non-significant levels through the implem

construction practices. Use of granitic material from

raising the dikes and dams represents a long-term commitment of this resource. The 

schist based bedrock comprising the borrow material east of dike 7 contains lowlevels of asbestos. Although the concentrations of asbestos are too low to be an 

economic mineral, the schist will need to be managed to reduce air borne release

the asbestos fibers. 

Visual Resources 

Establishment of the material processing facilities, excavation of borrow sites, and 

construction work on

temporary visual impact to Folsom

home owners borderin

unavoidable adverse impact until construction work was completed at each facility.

Construction of new flood protection embankments and security measures would 

permanently change the view and visual setting of residences along some areas of 

Folsom Lake, and from some areas of shoreline and trails. 

Agricultural Resources 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions would not impact local or regional agricultural 

resources. 

Transportation and Circu

The hauling of materials and supplies to the Folsom DS/FDR work sites woul

have a signi

ES-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

Scott Road north of White Rock, and East of Natoma Street. This impact could be 

ll 

increase noise levels within the project area. During the day time, there would be a 

ble increase in noise for the project area, but due to the distance between 

 as 

ed for staging, borrow 

development, and facility construction. Cultural resources would be disturbed or 

he action alternatives. Cultural resource impacts would be 

m staging, borrow site, and Facility improvements would be 

conducted in compliance with local planning and zone rules. New embankments, 

uisition could change zoning. Construction of 

of 

es within existing recreational use 

areas coupled with construction work at Folsom facilities and haul truck traffic 

nificant and unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation at Folsom. 

s 

ed so that existing utilities 

would not be impacted by Folsom DS/FDR construction activities. Mitigation 

measures would reduce interruptions in service. All roads and other utilities damaged 

from the project would be repaired or replaced. 

mitigated through the scheduling of construction vehicles to off-peak times. 

Noise 

Construction equipment, materials processing facilities, and haul trucks all wi

percepti

sensitive noise receptors and noise sources, the increase would not be considered

significant. However, nighttime noise increase at three residential receptor areas 

would exceed ambient noise criteria creating an unavoidable adverse impact, should

mitigation measures not be effective in reducing noise levels.

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are known to exist at many locations propos

destroyed under any of t

mitigated for under a programmatic agreement in consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office. 

Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

Construction of Folso

flowage easements, and/or property acq

raises would result in the potential for temporarily increasing the surface elevation 

the reservoir. This would result in the potential for flooding of non-government 

owned property along the current federal property boundary. This impact would be 

addressed by construction of flood protection embankments and/or acquisition of 

occasional flowage easements of affected lands. 

Recreation 

The establishment of staging areas and borrow sit

would have sig

State Parks, the entity managing the recreational aspects of Folsom, would be 

impacted by losing all public access at the Folsom Point recreation area, and portion

of Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation facilities. This would result in a 

significant loss of recreation revenue to the State. 

Public Services and Utilities 

Construction planning and sequencing will be perform

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-21 
Executive Summary 

 

Hydropower 

Construction of the Folsom DS/FDR actions would not impact hydropower 

operations at Folsom or Nimbus Dams. 

Population and Housing 

Actions taken under the Folsom DS/FDR could result in the relocation of residents or 

ncies would locate comparable properties during relocation 

Public Health and Safety 

clude construction planning and implementation 

Indian Trust Assets 

ts within the project area that would be affected by 

There are no ethnic or low income groups defined by Environmental Justice 

ect area that would be disproportionately impacted by 

Compliance With Applicable Laws and Regulations 

 NEPA and CEQA requirements. The Proposed Action, 

ity 

 the 

 American River impacts resulting from the inability to 

, 

s. 

pact than Alternative 3 

due to the large amount of earthen material handled under Alternative 2. Alternative 

businesses. Age

assistance work. 

The Folsom DS/FDR would in

elements providing safety considerations for local public and visitors to the Folsom 

Lake State Recreation Area. 

There are no Indian Trust Asse

Folsom DS/FDR construction activities. 

Environmental Justice 

guidance within the proj

Folsom DS/FDR activities. 

This EIS/EIR complies with

as defined herein, would comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and 

permitting requirements. 

Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The No Action Alternative, because it does not involve any construction activ

would have the least environmental effect to the project area, but it would not meet 

the project’s purpose and need. The No Action Alternative would also have

greatest potential for lower

control large storm events with the existing Folsom Facility. 

Alternative 1 would have the least environmental impact of the action alternatives

but it would not fully address the project’s purpose and need. Alternative 1 does not

adequately address the flood damage reduction goals of the Corps and state sponsor

Alternative 2 with the inclusion of the gated auxiliary spillway tunnel partially 

addresses flood damage reduction objectives, but at greater im

ES-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Executive Summary 

 

3 fully addresses the project’s purpose and need, although at greater impact than 

Alternative 1 due to the increased construction work at all facilities. 

Alternative 4 would meet the project’s purpose and need but would have greater 

environmental impact due to the increased amount of earthen material excavated, 

process and placed at the facilities. Alternative 5 would have the greatest 

environmental impact because it would require complete development of all 

potential in reservoir borrow sites to provide the earthen material necessary to 

construct the 17-ft raise. 

Base on this summary, Alternative 3 has been identified as the environmentally 

preferred alternative addressing the CEQA requirement to address such in an 

EIS/EIR. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 ES-23 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-1

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The proposed Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) actions 

reflect a cooperative effort by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the 

Corps non-federal sponsors, the State Reclamation Board (Reclamation 

Board)/Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Sacramento Area Flood 

Control Agency (SAFCA). This Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report (EIS/EIR) addresses proposed alternative measures for implementing 

Reclamation’s dam safety and security obligations and the Corps’ flood damage 

reduction structural modifications at Folsom Dam and appurtenant facilities. These 

facilities impound waters of the American River forming Folsom Reservoir and are 

collectively referred within this document as the Folsom Facility (Folsom Facility). 

The improvements being considered for the Folsom Facility, as addressed in this 

EIS/EIR, respond in varying degrees to certain objectives of each of the 

aforementioned agencies. Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program objectives focus 

on reducing the risk of failure under hydrologic (flood), seismic (earthquake), and 

static (seepage) loads. Folsom Dam has been designated as a National Critical 

Infrastructure Facility and any compromise of the facility could result in grave 

property damage and loss of life. Reclamation's Security Program objectives are to 

protect public safety by securing Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures and 

other Reclamation facilities, including the Folsom Powerplant, from attack or 

damage. The Corps' flood damage reduction objective is to improve the annual 

recurrence level of flood protection provided to the lower American River corridor. 

Similarly, SAFCA and DWR seek to improve the level of flood protection for the 

Sacramento region. 

This EIS/EIR presents an assessment of potential impacts for a comprehensive range 

of structural modification alternatives, which may be implemented under either a 

joint structural modification approach, which address both dam safety and flood 

damage reduction objectives, or through specific, separable dam safety, security and 

flood damage reduction structural modifications, which solely address the specific 

agency objective. From this range of alternatives, a comprehensive proposed and 

ultimately preferred alternative will be identified which addresses both the joint and 

separable structural modifications. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the roles of the federal, state, and local agencies 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

involved in the implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR are summarized in the table 

below. 

Agency NEPA/CEQA Role in Folsom DS/FDR 

Bureau of Reclamation NEPA Lead Agency 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Cooperating Agency under NEPA 

Reclamation Board, State of 

California/Department of 

Water Resources CEQA Lead Agency 

Sacramento Area Flood 

Control Agency Responsible Agency under CEQA 

1.1 Overview of the 

Folsom Facility 

The Folsom Facility is 

located approximately 23 

miles northeast of 

Sacramento, near the City of 

Folsom, in the State of 

California. There are 12 

retention facilities (4 dams 

and 8 dikes) that make up the 

Folsom Facility (see Figure 

1-1). These retention 

structures impound the 

waters of the North and 

South Forks of the American 

River forming Folsom 

Reservoir. The Folsom 

Facility is a multi-purpose 

facility operated by law for 

flood control, irrigation water 

supply, M&I water supply, 

power generation, fish and 

wildlife, recreation, and 

water quality purposes. 

The Folsom Facility was 

constructed by the Corps 

during the period 1948 to 

1956. As required by the 

original legislation, 

ownership of the Folsom 

Figure 1-1 

The Folsom Facility 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-3

Facility was transferred to Reclamation upon completion for operation and 

maintenance as an integrated feature of the Central Valley Project (CVP) 

(Reclamation 2005f). 

The following description of the Folsom Facility was taken from the Draft Folsom 

Dam, Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study Scoping Report, October 2005. The 

Folsom Facility has a total of 12 dams and dikes that impound approximately 

977,000 acre-feet (AF) at a reservoir water surface elevation of 466 feet (ft) on the 

American River to form the Folsom Reservoir, also commonly referred to as Folsom 

Lake. All retention structures of the Folsom Facility have a crest elevation of 480.5 

ft above mean sea level (483.1 ft in NAVD 88). The design surcharge pool is 

1,084,780 AF at an elevation of 475.4 ft with 5.1 ft of existing freeboard. 

Figure 1-1 presents the locations of the 12 retention structures that comprise the 

Folsom Facility including the Main Concrete Dam, the Left and Right Wing Dams, 

Dikes 1 through 8, and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam.

1.1.1 Main Concrete Dam 

The main dam is a concrete gravity dam made up of 28 individual monoliths1

 and is 

the only concrete retention structure at the Folsom Facility. Figures 1-2 and 1-3 

provide photos of the main dam. The main dam has a structural height of 340 ft and a 

crest length of 1,400 ft. The spillway of the main dam consists of eight tainter gates 

(i.e., a type of radial arm floodgate used to control water flow); five of which serve 

as the main spillway/service gates for the main dam and three that are emergency 

 

1

 Definitions of key terms are provided in Chapter 10, the Glossary. 

Source: Corps 2005 Figure 1-3

Releases from Folsom Dam 

Source: Corps 2005 Figure 1-2 

Main Dam Spillway 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

gates. The total release capacity of the eight gates is 567,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) at an elevation of 475.4 ft. Below the five main spillway/service gates are two 

rows of four river outlets that have a total release capacity of 24,800 cfs at an 

elevation of 418 ft. Releases at lower levels can also be made through three power 

penstocks (i.e., large-diameter pipes that convey water through the dam while 

driving hydroelectric turbines), which have a total release capacity of approximately 

8,000 cfs. Releases from the reservoir are restricted by the spillway capacity and by 

limits set on the rates at which water can be released through the dam structures. 

Downstream levees are designed to accommodate a sustained flow rate of 115,000 

cfs and a maximum capacity of 160,000 cfs for a short duration during emergencies, 

without resulting in levee failure and downstream flooding. 

1.1.2 Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam 

Two earthfill wing dams, the Left Wing Dam (LWD) and Right Wing Dam (RWD), 

flank the main dam. The LWD has a structural height of 145 ft and a length of 2,100 

ft, while the RWD has a structural height of 145 ft and a length of 6,700 ft. 

1.1.3 Dikes 1 through 8 and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

Eight earthfill dikes referred to as Dikes 1 through 8, and an earthen auxiliary dam 

called Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), make up the remainder of the 

retention structures at the Folsom Facility. The eight dikes range in height from 10 

to 100 ft and lengths of 740 to 2,060 ft. Dikes 1 through 6 are along the western side 

of the reservoir, while Dikes 7 and 8 are on the southeastern side of the reservoir 

between the LWD and MIAD. MIAD is an earthfill dam with a structural height of 

165 ft and a length of 4,820 ft. MIAD does not have any spillway or outlet works 

structures. MIAD is referred to as a dam because it is placed in one of the historical 

river channels. 

1.1.4 Folsom Powerplant 

Directly below and downstream of the Main Concrete Dam is the Folsom 

Powerplant, which was constructed from 1952 to 1956 by Reclamation. Three 15ftdiameter penstocks deliver water from the dam to three generators, which together 

produce approximately 198,207 kilowatts (kW) of power (CDPR 2004). Nimbus 

Dam is approximately 7 miles downstream and serves as a regulating reservoir for 

the Nimbus Powerplant. 

1.1.5 Folsom Facility Dam Safety and Flood Control Concerns 

During initial construction of Folsom Dam and immediately upon completion of 

construction, major storm and flood events occurred on the American River which 

were precursor events to an event which occurred in February 1986. At that time, a 

series of major storms, commonly referred to as a "Pineapple Express", occurred in 

the Sacramento region that brought approximately 10 inches of rain over a period of 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-5

11 days, and exposed considerable deficiencies in the flood control system of the 

region (SAFCA Undated). Dam operators at Folsom and Nimbus Dams were 

required to release approximately 130,000 cfs, 15,000 cfs more than the downstream 

levees were designed to accommodate at a sustained flow rate. Water levels rose 

well above the designated freeboard of the downstream levees, and although major 

failure of the dam and levees did not occur, questions arose about the level of 

protection the structures could actually provide. 

Also in the 1980s, seismic concerns were identified at MIAD by the Corps and 

Reclamation. The Corps and Reclamation jointly determined that liquefaction of the 

foundation and the subsequent failure of MIAD could occur during seismic 

(earthquake) activity. A phased structural modification program was rapidly 

undertaken in the early 1990s by Reclamation when reservoir levels were lower than 

normal as result of drought. These modifications partially, but not fully, reduced the 

risk of seismically induced liquefaction. 

In 2000, Reclamation identified the potential need for additional dam safety 

modifications to address other hydrologic, seismic and static risks. The hydrologic 

risk identified is the risk of any or all of the 11 earthen embankment dams and dikes 

being overtopped leading to rapid uncontrollable erosion and failure during a 

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event. 

In addition to the potential seismic-induced liquefaction of foundation materials at 

MIAD, it was also determined that modifications would be required to prevent the 

main dam from sliding along the dam rock foundation contact and deformation of 

main dam pier and gates elements leading to displacement and/or failure resulting in 

an uncontrollable breach. Additionally, it was determined that modifications would 

be required to reduce the static risk of a seepage path developing undetected within 

select earthen embankment dams and dikes leading also to uncontrollable erosion 

and subsequent failure. 

1.2 Existing Flood Control Operations at the Folsom 

Facility 

There is a high probability of a series of large storm events occurring within the 

American River Drainage Basin above Folsom Dam. Due to the limited capacity of 

the reservoir to safely contain these inflow volumes and the Dam to control releases 

within the safe carrying capacity of the downstream levees, structural modifications 

are required to reduce the probability of overtopping during a PMF event. Structural 

modifications are also required to improve the current level of flood protection 

during lesser flood events. 

The following summarizes the basic operational parameters under existing 

conditions for the Folsom Facility for a PMF or lesser flood event. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The Folsom Dam and Reservoir Water Control Manual (Water Control Manual) of 

1987 contains provisions for the current flood control operations at the Folsom 

Facility (Corps 2005a). Although flood space requirements (i.e., the volume of 

capacity available within the reservoir facility to temporarily store inflows during 

major storm events) override all other operational considerations, Reclamation plans 

normal operations to avoid fluctuations in flow and to maximize water released for 

hydropower generation whenever possible (Corps 2005a). Management of the 

reservoir space reserved for flood control is seasonal, as described in the bullets 

below. 

• “From June 1 through September 30 there is no space designated for flood 

control; 

• From October 1 through November 17, the amount of space reserved for flood 

control increases uniformly until February 7; 

• From February 8 through April 20 the flood reservation space is 400,000 AF, 

which can be reduced after March 15 if basin conditions are dry; and 

• From April 21 through May 31, the required flood space decreases uniformly 

until no flood space is required” (Reclamation 1992 in Corps 2005a). 

Reclamation generally plans releases to meet flood control storage space 

requirements by the end of each day. Releases from the dam increase until water 

levels in the reservoir have dropped low enough to achieve the required storage 

space for flood control. Reservoir operators must take into consideration several 

guidelines including those developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). These guidelines require strict release rates (ramping criteria) at certain 

times of the year under normal operations, to reduce the chances of stranding 

Chinook salmon and steelhead in the lower American River (Corps 2005a). Under 

emergency operations flood management becomes the overriding priority. 

If inflows to the Folsom Facility reduce the available flood control storage space, 

then releases must occur. Several conditions restrict the volume and timing of 

releases from Folsom Dam. The maximum release capacity from Folsom Dam is 

approximately 570,000 cfs. The normal operational maximum release is termed the 

“objective release” and is the normal, non-emergency flood management release 

maximum of 115,000 cfs. This release rate is based on the design capacity of the 

downstream levees to accommodate a sustained flow along the lower American 

River. 

In an emergency flood event, recent levee modifications allow for releases above 

145,000 cfs to a maximum of 160,000 cfs for a short period (approximately three 

days). Releases above the objective release of 115,000 cfs cannot be increased more 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-7

than 15,000 cfs or decreased more than 10,000 cfs during any two-hour period up to 

160,000 cfs (Corps 2005a). 

The existing elevation of the Main Dam spillway sill (i.e., horizontal bottom of the 

spillway gates) is 418 ft. Release capacity for reservoir water levels below this 

elevation is limited to the capability of the eight river outlets (24,800 cfs) and three 

power penstocks (i.e., 8,000 cfs) with a maximum release of approximately 32,800 

cfs. Above this elevation, releases can be made through the main spillway of the 

Main Dam. 

Folsom Dam does not have the capacity to release 115,000 cfs until the reservoir is 

substantially filled (approximately elevation 447 ft with approximately 775,000 AF 

of impoundment). Under normal reservoir operations with rising inflows, controlled, 

stepped normal operating releases of up to 115,000 cfs may occur and be maintained 

to remain within the objective release capacity of the downstream levees. As inflows 

begin to exceed the 115,000 cfs objective capacity, releases will occur at an 

increased but still highly controlled and stepped rate increasing to 160,000 cfs. If 

reservoir inflows continue to exceed 160,000 cfs, releases will be held to 160,000 cfs 

as long a possible to provide maximum evacuation time, but may be increased at 

much greater ramping rates up to the maximum release capacity of 570,000 cfs, 

which is well in excess of the current downstream channel capacity. If inflows 

exceed the maximum release capacity of 570,000 cfs, overtopping of the dam will 

occur, leading to erosion and potential uncontrollable catastrophic breach(s) at any 

earthen embankment dam or dike. 

For very large, extreme flood events with required releases above 160,000 cfs, 

releases are required to match expected inflows. For flows above 160,000 cfs 

downstream levee failures are expected to occur, resulting in substantial associated 

flood damage. Evacuation warnings and/or orders would be implemented based on 

expected flows. For flows above approximately 190,000 cfs, all downstream levees 

are expected to be overtopped. Releases up to the existing maximum release 

capacity of 570,000 cfs would induce major flooding with devastating consequences 

comparable to those of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Flows above 570,000 cfs into 

Folsom Reservoir at this point would result in overtopping of the earthen 

embankments leading to potential embankment failure with additional major 

consequences. 

In addition to flood control operations, Reclamation also has requirements for 

maintaining water releases that protect downstream fish. The steelhead temperature 

objectives in the lower American River, as provided by NOAA Fisheries, state: 

"Reclamation shall, to the extent possible, control water temperatures in the 

lower river between Nimbus Dam and the Watt Avenue Bridge (RM 9.4) 

from June 1 through November 30, to a daily average temperature of less 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

than or equal to 65°F to protect rearing juvenile steelhead from thermal stress 

and from warm water predator species. The use of the cold water pool in 

Folsom Reservoir should be reserved for August through October releases." 

1.2.1 Reclamation’s Interim Operation Agreement with SAFCA 

Prior to 1995, authorized flood storage space at the Folsom Facilities was fixed at 

400,000 AF above the normal operational pool elevation of 466 ft. In 1995, 

Reclamation and SAFCA entered into a 5-year Interim Agreement to provide a 

variable range of flood control storage space of 400,000 to 670,000 AF, depending 

upon storage conditions in existing reservoirs upstream of Folsom Facility (Corps 

2002, Corps 2005a). Upon expiration, the Agreement was extended for 2 one-year 

periods to 2002. From 2002 until 2004 there was no agreement in place. 

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 directed Reclamation to 

continue the variable 400,000 to 670,000 AF operation as a temporary flood damage 

reduction solution until the Folsom Dam Modifications are constructed by the Corps 

and a comprehensive flood damage reduction plan for the American River 

Watershed had been implemented (Corps 2005a). The current agreement to 

continue said variable operation was executed in December 2004 and extends 

through 2018, unless and until the Corps implements a new water control manual 

and associated new flood control diagram, which will provide the basis to define new 

operational requirements that will supersede and replace the existing agreement. 

Such action is contingent upon completion of appropriate environmental compliance, 

mitigation, other requirements of WRDA of 1996, and reconciliation of potential 

conflicts with pre-existing authorities. 

The Corps intended to implement a new water control manual and associated new 

flood control diagram under the Folsom Dam Modification Authorization and/or 

other relevant authorizations. The Corps has not currently identified a revised plan to 

implement a new water control manual and associated new flood control diagram 

based on the current status of the Folsom Dam Modification Authorization and/or 

other relevant authorizations. 

The environmental impact analysis presented in this EIS/EIR addresses the proposed 

structural modifications to the Folsom Facility only. Construction of any of the 

Folsom DS/FDR actions in themselves would not substantially alter current overall 

operations of the Folsom Facility. During construction and upon completion of 

structural modifications, the current operational parameters as summarized above 

and defined in appropriate agreements and authorities would remain in effect until 

either expiration or modification of existing interim operational agreements occurs, a 

new Flood Management Plan is approved, or new Congressional authorizations are 

established, directed or mandated. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-9

1.2.2 Updated Flood Management Plan 

As directed and/or authorized by Congress, the Corps and Reclamation, under the 

appropriate agency authorities and agreements, will update the existing Water 

Control Manual of 1987 or develop a new water plan and control manual. Upon 

selection of either a preferred joint Folsom DS/FDR alternative or stand-alone dam 

safety hydrologic risk reduction or flood damage reduction alternatives, the Corps 

and Reclamation will determine the basis for the updated/new plan based on either 

existing authorizations, reauthorizations, or new authorizations. 

The updated/new plan will analyze weather, basin wetness, precipitation, upstream 

reservoir storage, and reservoir inflow forecasts to help determine appropriate 

comprehensive flood control operations procedures as well as include a new water 

control manual with variable flood storage space of 400,000 to 600,000 AF during 

flood season on a permanent basis (Corps 2005a). The environmental effects and 

impacts on water supply, water quality, hydropower, and the other authorized 

functions of the system of the Updated Flood Management Plan will be evaluated in 

a separate environmental compliance document. The Water Control Manual will 

likely go through multiple revisions as the various structural modifications are 

completed at the Folsom Facility and a Final Updated Flood Management Plan is 

anticipated in 2009 (Corps 2005a). 

This Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR generally considers operations affected by proposed 

structural modifications; however, a detailed analysis of operational impacts cannot 

be determined at this time. Upon selection of a preferred alternative(s), Reclamation, 

the Corps, and SAFCA will fully coordinate and address relevant congressional 

directives to evaluate the existing requirements related to operations and consider 

possible changes as appropriate. The environmental impacts associated with 

proposed changes and operational impacts in required supplemental environmental 

compliance documentation. This required compliance documentation shall be 

completed in parallel with the Final Updated Flood Management Plan and is 

anticipated in 2009. 

1.3 Federal Agency Objectives 

1.3.1 Reclamation’s Objectives 

Reclamation’s core mission is to deliver water for all statutory and contractual 

purposes, generate power, and perform all other authorized and related programs 

including Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Program. The primary purpose of the 

Safety of Dams Program is to identify potential issues with existing dams and 

develop corrective actions to protect public safety, property, the environment and 

cultural resources. Reclamation’s main objective for the Folsom Facility under the 

Safety of Dams Program is to ensure that the Folsom Facility does not pose 

unacceptable risks to the public from hydrologic, seismic, and static loading 

conditions. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Reclamation has identified the need for expedited action at the Folsom Facility to 

reduce hydrologic, static, and seismic risks under its Safety of Dams Program. The 

identified risks are among the highest of all dams in Reclamation’s inventory and the 

Folsom Facility is among Reclamation’s highest priorities within its Safety of Dams 

Program. 

 

The hydrologic capabilities of the Folsom Facility must be increased to safely pass 

the PMF as updated in 2001. This PMF was developed assuming the upstream dams 

safely pass this flood. The PMF is defined as “the flood that may be expected from 

the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions 

that are reasonably possible in a particular drainage area” (Corps 2002). This means 

that during the most severe storm reasonably possible, the Folsom Facility must have 

the ability to safely contain and release PMF floodwaters through the dam without 

failure of the dams or dikes. Recent estimates indicate that a frequency of flood 

approximately the same size as the PMF would have a recurrence level somewhere 

between 1 in 7,100 years and 1 in 22,000 years. It is estimated that the PMF volume 

is nearly fully realized at the 1 in 7,000 recurrence level and additional incremental 

volume increases are relatively minor to undetectable. The total PMF inflow volume 

to the Folsom Facility is estimated to be approximately 3.2 million AF over 

approximately a 5 day (120 hours) period with a peak inflow rate of approximately 

906,000 cfs. Currently, the Folsom Facility could safely contain and pass 

approximately 70 percent of the PMF which would be equivalent in size to a 

frequency of flood with recurrence levels between 1 in 2,000 years and 1 in 5,000 

years. 

Reclamation recognizes the consequences of overtopping the facility during a major 

flood event with an approximate recurrence level greater than 1 in 2,000 years would 

be catastrophic, with potential Hurricane Katrina-like or greater consequences. 

Initial overtopping of the facility could occur at any retention feature and, if the 

structure is earthen, could erode leading to a breach of the retention structure 

exposing widespread population and property downstream of the structures to this 

catastrophic flood risk. The potential area of exposure is within both the immediate 

American River channel area and widespread areas downstream of peripheral 

Folsom Facility retention structures. Areas in the surrounding cities of Folsom, 

Granite Bay, Natomas, Roseville, Rocklin, Sacramento and West Sacramento could 

be significantly affected should a breach occur at Dikes 1 through 6 and the RWD. 

Areas in the surrounding cities of Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Natomas, Sacramento 

and West Sacramento could be significantly affected should a breach occur at the 

Main Concrete Dam, LWD, Dikes 7 and 8 and MIAD. 

Reclamation is working closely with the Corps and its partners to integrate 

Reclamation’s objective of expeditious hydrologic risk reduction and the Corps’ 

objective of providing incremental flood damage reduction benefits by optimizing 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-11

the construction sequencing and excavation of the spillway in conjunction with any 

needed physical raise of the retention structures. An integral component of the 

optimization is providing Reclamation the opportunity to integrate interim or 

permanent measures at the control section to meet the objective of expeditiously 

reducing the hydrologic risk. 

Reclamation has identified other expedited safety of dams risks related to potential 

seismic and static events. These risks are also significant and expose the populations 

surrounding the facility to a potential breach leading to catastrophic inundation 

downstream of various retention structures. These risks are to be reduced in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines, as stand-alone Safety 

of Dams modification elements of the overall Folsom DS/FDR actions, with 

optimized integration with Corps flood damage reduction elements, where 

appropriate. 

In the event that portions of the Folsom DS/FDR actions do not proceed as described 

in this EIS/EIR, Reclamation will identify a stand-alone modification to mitigate this 

risk in accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines. Also, the Corps 

would re-initiate the planning process for their current flood damage reduction 

project authorizations. 

1.3.2 Corps’ Objectives 

Flood damage reduction is one of the Corps’ many missions. Congress has 

authorized three projects for the American River Watershed Investigation: Common 

Features, the Folsom Dam Modification, and the Folsom Dam Raise. As authorized, 

the projects would increase flood protection to the Sacramento area along the main 

stem of the American River. The Common Features Project, as further described 

later in this chapter, will reduce the probability of flooding in Sacramento to 1 in 100 

for any given year. The Folsom Dam Modification Project, as authorized, would 

further reduce the probability of flooding in Sacramento in any one year to 1 chance 

in 140. Beyond these projects, the Folsom Dam Raise Project, as authorized, would 

reduce the probability of flooding to approximately 1 in 200 in any given year, which 

has been identified as the goal of the DWR/Reclamation Board and SAFCA 

(hereinafter, the "non-federal sponsors"). The objective of the Corps is to provide 

increased flood protection consistent with Federal planning principles and 

guidelines. 

1.4 Overview of Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage 

Reduction Actions Related to the Joint Federal 

Project 

Many of the Corps’ flood damage reduction and Reclamation’s dam safety activities 

planned or underway at the Folsom Facility are independent (stand-alone) projects 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

(i.e., specific to the needs and objectives of each agency). However, there are 

common actions that could, and should, be taken to address key objectives of both 

agencies. These actions primarily focus on control of hydrologic function of the 

American River. Additional hydrologic control is necessary to minimize flooding 

potential (improve flood protection) along the lower American River and at the same 

time address the dam safety hydrologic risk to the Folsom Facility (overtopping of 

the dams and dikes during a PMF or other major flood event). 

Beginning in 2004, Reclamation and the Corps established an Oversight 

Management Group, consisting of senior management from both agencies, to 

facilitate project coordination. Collaborative activities included a comprehensive 

value planning effort to identify a joint project that would meet the respective flood 

damage reduction and dam safety objectives. Congress formalized this effort in the 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act by 

directing the two agencies to continue progress toward a joint project that 

satisfactorily addressed the flood and dam safety hydrologic risks posed by the 

American River watershed and the existing Folsom Facility. This combined effort 

identified a gated auxiliary spillway, otherwise referred to as the Joint Federal 

Project (JFP) as the common feature addressing both objectives. The basic 

characteristics of JFP are summarized as follows: 

Project Description. The JFP at Folsom Dam and Reservoir will consist of 

six new 23-ft X 33-ft submerged tainter gates at invert (i.e., sill elevation of) 

368-ft combined with a concrete-lined auxiliary spillway approximately 170-

ft wide and 1,700-ft in length. Gate dimensions and invert elevation may be 

optimized during design to maximize performance and/or reduce costs. To 

achieve the objective of expedited feasibility level design, optimization of the 

spillway design will focus, to the extent feasible, upon varying the invert 

elevation of the new gates, but if necessary, may include varying the 

dimensions of the six tainter gates, approach channel or auxiliary spillway. 

The optimization will seek to improve upon the flood damage reduction 

objective of at least 1/200 year flood protection (i.e., flood protection 

sufficient to handle a major storm event of an intensity with the probability of 

occurring once in 200 years) while continuing to preserve and expedite 

completion of the dam safety objective of safely passing the PMF. 

Additions. Additional features to the JFP may be proposed later as mutually 

determined by participating agencies in order to: (1) achieve a minimum 

1/200 year flood protection; or (2) as incrementally justified through 

appropriate analysis and evaluation. Potential additional features may 

include a raise of up to 3.5 ft for all embankments, or modification or 

replacement of the existing service gates or emergency spillway gates. Any 

additions to the JFP, as justified, will be for flood damage reduction purposes 

only. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-13

Stand-Alone Projects. Other preferred alternatives selected to address other 

Reclamation Dam Safety and Security objectives of seismic, static and 

security risk reduction and the Corps' other related flood damage reduction 

objectives not specifically addressed in the JFP are separable, stand-alone 

projects and alternatives to be selected, implemented and managed by the 

respective agency, although the full suite of possible alternatives and their 

associated impacts have been comprehensively and collectively addressed in 

this Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR. 

This EIS/EIR addresses the effects of implementing a variety of measures that would 

increase the level of flood protection and dam safety currently offered by the Folsom 

Facility. The alternatives described in this EIS/EIR include numerous features that 

address dam safety and security, and flood damage reduction issues. The individual 

improvement project(s) that are ultimately implemented would likely include joint 

components reflecting the missions of both agencies. The project would also include 

other separate, stand-alone dam safety/security and flood damage reduction features 

previously authorized for completion by the respective agencies. Due to the fact that 

there are separate authorizations that each agency must follow, this EIS/EIR 

delineates actions that are dam safety- and security-specific or flood damage 

reduction-specific from those actions that could be implemented jointly by both 

agencies. 

1.5 Folsom Dam Security Enhancement Project 

The purpose of the Folsom Dam Security Enhancement Project (Security Project) is 

to protect public safety by securing Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures and 

other Reclamation facilities, including the Folsom Powerplant, from attack or 

damage. Folsom Dam has been designated as a National Critical Infrastructure 

Facility. Any compromise of the facility could result in grave property damage and 

loss of life. 

The objective of the Security Project is to have a completely integrated and centrallycontrolled Access Control, Intrusion Detection, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), 

and Lighting systems designed, constructed, and turned over to Reclamation in fully 

operational condition. The objective of the security system is to: 

1. Provide a security control center inside of the Folsom Powerplant. 

2. Allow Reclamation staff to take digital photographs of personnel and print 

proximity identification badges, which would be integrated into the system to 

recognize proximity badges and allow and track access as appropriate. 

3. Allow security staff to monitor site conditions via CCTV. The cameras would 

be remotely controlled and would provide video feed to security personnel. 

The existing anti-vehicle bollards would be upgraded with fixed CCTV 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

cameras that would monitor the area directly next to the bollards at Dikes 4, 

5, 6, and 7, and MIAD. 

4. Prevent unauthorized vehicle access onto Folsom Dam Road, the wing dams, 

and MIAD. 

5. Provide for supplemental lighting for the Main Concrete Dam, spillway 

gates, shutter structure, and other associated structures. 

1.6 Related Projects and Authorizations 

Many events, projects, and documents have contributed to the development of the 

Folsom DS/FDR, including Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Program and the Corps’ 

American River Watershed Investigations. The following section presents the 

history of the Folsom DS/FDR, including existing documents, reports, and projects 

that have contributed to its development. 

1.6.1 The Corps’ American River Watershed Studies and Projects 

1.6.1.1 1986 American River Watershed Investigation and the 1989 Creation of 

SAFCA 

After the storms in 1986, the Corps led a series of investigations along the American 

River Watershed and determined that the level of flood protection was severely 

inadequate. In 1988, the Continuing Appropriations Act (Public Law (P.L.) 100-

202) authorized the Corps to begin a feasibility phase study of the American River 

Watershed Investigation (ARWI) to identify methods to increase flood protection. 

Congress required the feasibility phase study to be completed on a cost-shared basis 

with the State of California (Corps 1996). 

At the beginning of the process, the State of California entered into an agreement 

with local agencies interested in acting as project sponsors. In 1989, the City of 

Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, the American River 

Flood Control District and Reclamation District 1000 created SAFCA through a 

Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (SAFCA Undated, Corps 1996). The purpose of 

SAFCA was to represent local interests during the flood protection planning process 

(SAFCA Undated, Corps 1996). 

1.6.1.2 1991 American River Watershed Investigation Feasibility Report 

In 1991, the Corps, the State Reclamation Board, and SAFCA completed a 

Feasibility Report for the main stem of the American River and Natomas Basin 

(Corps 2002). This report recommended levee improvements in Natomas and a 

flood detention dam at Auburn that would store up to 545,000 AF of floodwater 

(Corps 1996). Auburn Dam was not approved by Congress but levee improvements 

were authorized in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1993, Section 

9159 (P.L. 102-396). Congress also directed additional studies to be conducted to 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-15

identify other projects for increased flood control including offstream storage 

capacity along Deer Creek in the Consumnes River watershed, modifying Folsom 

Dam, and transferring flood control space to an upstream facility (Corps 1996). 

1.6.1.3 1995 Folsom Dam Existing Flood Management Plan 

In 1992, Section 9159(f)(2) of P.L. 102-396 required the Corps and Reclamation to 

prepare a flood management plan for Folsom Dam. Completed in 1995, the plan 

maximizes flood control capacity by improving the stream gage network and flood 

forecast system. The plan works in conjunction with the existing Folsom Dam and 

Lake Water Control Manual of 1987. 

1.6.1.4 1996 American River Watershed Project Supplemental Information 

Report and Supplemental EIS/Supplemental EIR 

In response to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1993, the Corps, the 

State Reclamation Board, and SAFCA developed the 1996 Supplemental 

Information Report (SIR) and Supplemental EIS/Supplemental EIR (SEIS/SEIR). 

This report provided additional information to the 1991 Feasibility Report. The SIR 

outlined three flood protection plans to increase flood protection of the Sacramento 

region: the Folsom Modification Plan, the Folsom Stepped Release Plan, and the 

Detention Dam Plan (Auburn Dam). Improvement features associated with each 

plan are identified below. 

Folsom Modification Plan 

• Adopt a new flood control diagram for Folsom Dam to increase flood storage to 

475,000 through 720,000 AF; 

• Lower the main spillway, replace five service gates, enlarge eight existing river 

outlets; 

• Modify surcharge storage space by strengthening embankments and other 

physical features at Folsom Dam to accommodate increased water-surface 

elevations, replace three emergency spillway gates, implement advanced warning 

system and flood plan evacuation plan; 

• Construct a slurry wall in 24 miles of levees along the lower American River; 

and 

• Strengthen and raise 12 miles of levees on the east side of the Sacramento River 

between Natomas Cross Canal and the mouth of the American River. 

Folsom Stepped Release Plan 

• Continue variable flood storage space at Folsom Dam of 400,000 to 670,000 AF; 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Lower the main spillway and replace five new service gates and enlarge eight 

existing river outlets; 

• Modify surcharge storage space by strengthening embankments and other 

physical features at Folsom Dam to accommodate increased water-surface 

elevations, replace three emergency spillway gates, implement advanced warning 

system and flood plain evacuation plan; 

• Construct a slurry wall in 24 miles of levees along the lower American River; 

• Increase objective release from Folsom Dam from 115,000 to 140,000 cfs and 

eventually to 180,000 cfs, depending on the estimated magnitude of inflows to 

Folsom Facility; 

• Construct levee, channel, and other improvements along the lower American 

River in order to convey the increased objective releases; 

• Lengthen Sacramento Weir 1,000 ft, widen Sacramento Bypass 1,000 ft, and 

raise or modify 52 miles of levees at various locations along Yolo Bypass to 

accommodate increased objective release; 

• Strengthen and raise 12 miles of levees on the east side of the Sacramento River 

between Natomas Cross Canal and the mouth of the American River; 

• Environmental/restoration/recreation improvements along lower reach of 

American River Parkway; and 

• Mitigate loss of 157 acres of vegetation. 

Detention Dam Plan 

• Construct a 508-foot-high flood detention facility with a maximum capacity of 

894,000 AF on the North Fork of the American River near Auburn; 

• Construct a slurry wall in 24 miles of levees along the lower American River; 

• Strengthen and raise 12 miles of levees on the east side of the Sacramento River 

between Natomas Cross Canal and the mouth of the American River; 

• Restore flood storage space of 400,000 AF in Folsom Facility and maintain 

objective release from Folsom Dam of 115,000 cfs; and 

• Mitigate for loss of 1,533 acres by implementing adaptive management plan for 

planting and resource management on 1,481 acres along North and Middle Forks 

of the American River and acquire and manage an additional 2,774 acres on 

Yuba River. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-17

A Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1996 American River Watershed Project SIR 

and SEIS/SEIR was signed in July 1997. 

1.6.1.5 The 1996 Common Features Project 

The Detention Dam Plan described above was the National Economic Development 

(NED) Plan and was the plan submitted to Congress (Corps 2002, Corps 1996). The 

Detention Dam Plan was rejected by Congress for a second time. In Section 101 of 

the WRDA of 1996, Congress authorized levee improvement features common to the 

three plans identified in the 1996 SIR, including installation of slurry walls along the 

lower American River, levee modifications along the east bank of the Sacramento 

River downstream from Natomas Cross Canal, installation of streamflow gauges 

upstream from Folsom Facility, and modifications to a flood warning system of the 

lower American River (Corps 2002). This project is referred to as the “Common 

Features” project. The WRDA of 1996 also authorized the continued reoperation of 

Folsom Dam to achieve additional flood storage space. Construction of these 

features is ongoing (Corps 2002). 

1.6.1.6 The 1999 Folsom Dam Modification Project 

The Folsom Modification Plan of the 1996 SIR included two key features: increasing 

the release capacity of the dam through modification of the eight existing river 

outlets, and modifying the use of surcharge storage through physical and operational 

changes to increase flood storage capacity and maintain the objective release of 

115,000 cfs (Corps 2001). This plan would take approximately six years to complete 

and originally required lowering the reservoir during construction. 

In 1995, before the 1996 SIR was completed, a spillway tainter gate at Folsom Dam 

failed (Corps 2001). Reclamation spent several years working to fix the problems 

resulting from the gate failure, but the Folsom Modification Plan project was delayed 

because of public concerns over the closing of Folsom Dam Road during 

construction. In response to this, SAFCA prepared an Information Paper on two 

additional plans to the Folsom Modification Plan that would reduce traffic and other 

construction effects (Corps 2001). The 1998 report entitled Folsom Dam 

Modification Report, New Outlets Plan, presented two new alternatives to enlarge 

existing outlets, add five new outlets to the emergency spillway and construct a new 

emergency spillway stilling basin. 

Although the “Common Features” project was authorized under WRDA in 1996, 

Section 101 of WRDA of 1999 authorized the design and construction of the Folsom 

Modification Plan as it was described in the 1996 SIR and modified by SAFCA's 

1998 Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets Plan (Corps 2002). The actual 

features of the plan authorized for construction included five new sluice ways 

through the main dam, a new stilling basin, an increase in surcharge elevation, and a 

reduction in variable storage. These features would be slightly altered in the Corps 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

2001 Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for the Folsom Dam 

Modification Project. 

1.6.1.7 1999 Modifications to the Common Features Project 

In 1999, the Corps developed an Information Paper entitled American River 

Watershed, California, Information Paper, to provide additional information to the 

1996 SIR. In response to this paper, Section 366 of the 1999 WRDA authorized 

several modifications to the Common Features Project. The scope of work was 

broadened from the previous Common Features Project and the new modifications 

included additional strengthening and raising of levees along the American River and 

Natomas Cross Canal (Corps 2002). The project was intended to reduce flood risk in 

Sacramento to a 1-in-100 probability in any given year, while waiting for the 

physical improvements to Folsom Dam that would further reduce the risk (Corps 

2005a). This project is currently ongoing. 

1.6.1.8 2001 Final EA/IS American River Watershed, Folsom Dam Modification 

Project 

The American River Watershed, California, Folsom Dam Modification Project Final 

EA/IS was prepared by the Corps for the Folsom Dam Modification Project in 

August 2001. The document presented alternatives with the following main features: 

• Enlarging the eight existing river outlets; 

• Reducing the range of flood control storage space from 400,000-670,000 AF to 

400,000-600,000 AF; 

• Cooperating with Reclamation to update the Folsom Dam Flood Management 

Plan to take advantage of improved weather forecasting and the new operational 

capabilities with the modification of the outlets; and 

• Completing a revised water control manual for Folsom Dam that modifies the 

variable flood control space originally instituted by Folsom reoperation (Corps 

2002). 

The document determined that there would be no significant adverse impacts and a 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Negative Declaration accompanied 

the 2001 Final EA/IS (Corps 2005b). 

During the finalization of the Folsom Dam Modification Project EA/IS, the Corps 

also began work on the American River Watershed Long-Term Study. There were 

several conflicts with the features proposed in the Long-Term Study and those 

proposed in the Folsom Dam Modification Project. In one particular instance, if the 

modified use of surcharge was implemented under the Folsom Dam Modification 

Project, then the Long-Term Study features such as the new emergency spillway 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-19

tainter gates and dikes would have to be modified again during the Long-Term Study 

construction. The American River Watershed, California, Folsom Dam Modification 

Project Final Limited Reevaluation Report of 2001 provided refinements to the 

design elements of the authorized Folsom Dam Modification Project and updated the 

costs, benefits, and effects, in order to reduce conflicts with the Long-Term Study. 

1.6.1.9 2002 American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental 

Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR 

Section 566 of the WRDA of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) directed the Corps to complete a 

study for increasing surcharge flood control storage space at the Folsom Dam and 

Reservoir, with the assumption that there would be no increase in water supply 

storage (Corps 2002). It also required the Corps to conduct a study of levees on the 

American and Sacramento Rivers to increase potential flood protection through levee 

modification. 

In February of 2002, the Corps, along with the State Reclamation Board and 

SAFCA, completed the American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final 

Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR (LTS EIS/EIR). This document was 

a supplement to the 1991 Feasibility Report and the 1996 Supplemental Information 

Report and fulfilled the requirements of Section 566 of the WRDA of 1999. The LTS 

EIS/EIR evaluated eight alternatives that included various dam raise options, 

modifications to the Folsom Dam spillway, and stepped release plans. Alternative 3, 

the Federally-supportable plan, consisted of: 

• A 7-ft dam raise, which would raise the maximum design flood pool elevation to 

482 ft; 

• Widening of the spillway at L.L. Anderson Dam (French Meadows Reservoir) to 

safely pass the PMF; thus reducing the PMF to the Folsom Facility; 

• Replacement of eight tainter spillway gates, modification of spillway bridge 

piers; 

• Extension of the stilling basin; 

• Property easements, construction of a new dike, or construction of a new 

retaining wall at Mooney Ridge; and 

• A temporary construction bridge southeast of the dam. 

1.6.1.10 2004 Dam Raise Project Authorization 

In response to the 2002 LTS, Section 128 of the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-137) gave authorization for a 7-ft dam raise to 

increase reservoir storage and expand the range of storage space allocated for flood 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

control to 495,000 through 695,000 AF (Corps 2005a). The Act also authorized 

widening the spillway of L.L. Anderson Dam (French Meadows Reservoir), 

construction of a new permanent bridge downstream of Folsom Dam, and the 

modification of Folsom Dam’s emergency release operation plan to allow for 

surcharge storage to an elevation of 484.5 ft without overtopping the emergency 

spillway gates while closed. This project is generally referred to as the “Dam Raise” 

project. 

1.6.1.11 2005 American River Watershed Folsom Dam Modification Project 

Final EA/IS 

Since the preparation of the 2001 Final EA/IS for the Folsom Dam Modification 

Project, new information and the development of additional projects led to more 

refinements of the Folsom Dam Modification Project. These refinements included 

paving access roads and construction of a Corps’ resident office. Several actions in 

the previous 2001 Final EA/IS have been deferred as they are likely to be addressed 

in other projects (Corps 2005b). The environmental impacts of the Folsom Dam 

Modification Project refinements were addressed in the American River Watershed, 

California, Folsom Dam Modification Project Final EA/IS, dated October 2005. A 

FONSI was issued on October 19, 2005. 

1.6.1.12 Folsom Bridge Supplemental EIS/EIR 

The Folsom Bridge Project is a part of the Folsom Dam Raise Project. Section 128 

of the Energy and Water Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-137) authorizes the 

building of a permanent bridge downstream of Folsom Dam. The Corps released the 

final Supplemental EIS/EIR for this project in September 2006 (Corps 2006). 

1.6.1.13 Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects Post 

Authorization Change (PAC) Report 

This is a report currently being prepared by the Corps documenting recommended 

changes to Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise authorized projects. It 

is anticipated that these changes will include: (1) reducing flood risk to areas along 

the American River generally equivalent to the flood protection intended to be 

provided by the Folsom Dam Modification Project; and (2) at minimum, retaining 

opportunities to further flood protection provided by the Folsom Dam Raise Project. 

It is also anticipated that the recommended changes will include provisions to meet 

the Reclamation’s objective of safely passing the PMF at Folsom Dam. 

The updated information to be presented in the PAC report is necessary to 

accomplish the following: 

• Demonstrate consistency of recommended changes with existing Congressional 

project authorizations; 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-21

• Report on changes to project accomplishments and benefits, and Federal interest 

in the Project; and 

• Serve as the basis for a new Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between 

Federal government and non-federal sponsors. 

As a companion to the PAC report, Reclamation will prepare a Modification Report. 

The Modification Report will discuss the feasibility of dam safety improvements at 

Folsom Dam as part of Reclamation’s Nationwide Safety of Dams Program. 

Besides the Folsom DS/FDR, the Modifications Report will discuss other dam 

safety actions outside the Folsom DS/FDR. These include structural modifications 

to improve static and seismic stability. 

1.6.2 Reclamation’s Safety of Dams 

1.6.2.1 MIAD Seismic Issues 

In the 1990’s, Reclamation, in cooperation with the Corps, began a program to 

correct the seismic issues previously identified at MIAD. Phase I was initiated in 

1990 and involved treatment of the upstream foundation materials of MIAD. Phase 

II occurred from 1993 to 1994 and involved the treatment of the downstream 

foundation of MIAD. After Phase II, testing by Reclamation revealed that methods 

to densify the foundation at MIAD did not fully treat the lower portion of the 

foundation and the risk of potential liquefaction of the foundation during seismic 

activity remains great enough to justify further actions (Reclamation 2005). 

1.6.2.2 Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Program 

The Safety of Dams Act (P.L. 95-578) was enacted in 1978, and later amended in 

1984 (P.L. 98-404). According to this Act, Reclamation is responsible for 

identifying potential risks with all existing Reclamation-owned dams. If 

unacceptable risks are identified, Reclamation is authorized to take corrective actions 

to reduce these risks. Section 2 of P.L. 98-404 states: 

“In order to preserve the structural safety of Bureau of Reclamation dams and 

related facilities, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform such 

modifications as he determines to be reasonably required” (Reclamation 2003). 

The objective of Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Program is “To ensure Reclamation 

dams do not present unacceptable risk to public safety and welfare, property, the 

environment, or cultural resources” (Reclamation 2003). The program includes an 

in-depth risk analysis that is performed on Reclamation dams to identify and address 

unacceptable risks. 

The risk analysis process by Reclamation has several key steps. First, a baseline risk 

analysis is performed to determine the risks of the existing structure as it is currently 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

operated. Risk from any failure mode is expressed as the product of the loading, 

likelihood of failure (among the loading categories – static, seismic, or hydrologic), 

and the consequences. Risk at any facility is the sum of the risk for all the failure 

modes. Facilities with higher risks have increased justification to take actions to 

reduce risk (Reclamation 2005). There are generally two different types of baseline 

risk analysis; the Comprehensive Facility Review (CFR) and the Issue Evaluation 

Risk Analysis. The CFR, the initial method that was used to evaluate the risks at the 

Folsom Facility, identified the baseline risks by defining the loading conditions, 

failure modes, and consequences for seismic, static, and hydrologic load categories. 

Due to the risks identified in the CFR conducted in 2000 for the Folsom Facility, an 

Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis was performed to more rigorously establish the 

baseline risk. Following this analysis, a risk reduction analysis was performed, 

where various alternatives were compared to the baseline condition outlined above to 

evaluate their potential to reduce the identified risks (Reclamation 2003). This step is 

only taken when the baseline risk analysis indicates that unacceptable risks have 

been identified and corrective actions are necessary. First, there is a Corrective 

Action Alternatives Analysis to develop alternatives that could reduce risks to 

acceptable levels. The effectiveness of the alternatives is generally not quantified at 

this level. This is followed by an Alternative Evaluation Analysis, which fully 

examines the alternatives and their ability to reduce risks. At this stage, the risks are 

quantified using all available information. 

The following describes how Reclamation’s Safety of Dams risk analysis process has 

been applied to the Folsom Facility, as outlined in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1 

Overview of Reclamation’s Safety of Dams Risk Analysis Process(1)

Category Type

Analysis Completed 

at Folsom Facility? Corresponding Document 

1. Portfolio Risk Analysis Ongoing 

2.Comprehensive Facility 

Review 

YES, 

Completed in 2000(2) Completed in 2000. Baseline 

Risk 

Analysis 3.Issue Evaluation Risk 

Analysis Ongoing 

Alternative Identification YES, Completed in 2005 

1) Folsom Dam Safety of Dams - Corrective 

Action Study Scoping Report, Oct. 2005. 

2) Folsom Facility Safety of Dams - 

Requirements and Concepts, Feb. 2005. Risk 

Reduction 

Analysis 

Alternative Evaluation Ongoing 

1) Project Alternatives Solutions Study 

(PASS I), Oct. 2005. 

2) Project Alternatives Solutions Study 

(PASS II), April 2006. 

(1)Source: Reclamation 2003 

(2)Source: Corps et al. 2006a 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-23

1.6.2.3 2000 Comprehensive Facility Review 

As part of their Safety of Dams Program, Reclamation completed a CFR and 

analysis of risk at the Folsom Facility in 2000. Several potential hydrologic, seismic 

and static failure modes were identified during the review as having a high likelihood 

of occurring. Hydrologic issues at the Folsom Facility include ability of the Folsom 

Facility to safely contain and pass a major flood event. Seismic, or earthquake, issues 

at the Folsom Facility include the instability of the Main Concrete Dam leading to 

the potential failure of the spillway gates and piers (Reclamation 2005f). The 

instability of the foundation of MIAD is also a seismic concern because the 

foundation has been constructed on mine and dredge tailings and could have the 

potential to liquefy during seismic activity. Static issues, which are those that occur 

during normal daily operations, include potential seepage and piping of the wing 

dams and dikes (Reclamation 2005f). Reclamation's Draft Folsom Dam, Safety of 

Dams Corrective Action Study Scoping Report, October 2005, provides an overview 

of the various hydrologic, seismic, and static failure modes identified at the Folsom 

Facility. 

Results of Reclamation’s analyses have determined that several of the risks 

associated with the hydrologic, seismic, and static failure modes are so high, action 

is required to reduce risk in an expedited fashion. Although the probability of dam 

and dike failure is low, the consequences of failure are extremely high because of the 

large downstream population and the volume of water that would be released 

(Reclamation 2005f). 

1.6.2.4 2004 Corrective Action Study 

Reclamation began a corrective action study (CAS) in 2004 to develop corrective 

action alternatives to address all dam safety issues identified in the CFR and the 

concerns previously identified at MIAD. During development of the CAS, 

Reclamation worked with the Corps Modification and Raise Projects to share 

information and develop actions to reduce hydrologic risk (Reclamation 2005). The 

CAS is currently underway and is scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2006. 

1.6.2.5 2005 Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction EIS 

On February 8, 2003, Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road indefinitely pending a 

final decision through a public involvement process. Reclamation cited national 

security concerns as the basis for this action. The 2005 Folsom Dam Road Access 

Restriction EIS outlines the potential impacts of a permanent closure. Considering 

these impacts, Reclamation’s final ROD was partial road opening conditioned upon 

security upgrades funded by the City of Folsom. 

1.6.3 Folsom DS/FDR 

Plans and specifications for the Corps' Folsom Dam Modification Project were 

prepared in 2003 and 2004, and contractor bids solicited in 2005. The returned bids 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

were nearly three times higher than the government estimate. The high bid estimates 

were largely due to costly non-standard construction methods that would need to be 

employed to safely enlarge the existing outlets without taking the reservoir out of 

service during the construction period. 

Consequently, dam operations and performance and alternate structural methods to 

achieve the flood protection provided by the outlet modifications were reexamined. 

Subsequent studies also found that modification of the two outboard lower tier 

outlets was infeasible, and offered only a marginal increase in performance. Because 

of delays and technical problems associated with implementing the Folsom Dam 

Modification Project authorized in the WRDA of 1999, and compatibility with the 

potential to raise Folsom Dam and ongoing dam safety issues at the Folsom Facility, 

there is now an emphasis on considering these individual projects together, which is 

the subject of this EIS/EIR. 

Reclamation and the Corps had previously been working together to develop 

alternatives to address the multiple issues at the Folsom Facility, while meeting each 

agency’s objectives. In response to the Folsom Modification bids issue, the agencies 

initiated a comprehensive value planning process in September of 2005, referred to 

as the Project Alternatives Solutions Study (PASS). The purpose of the PASS 

process was to identify potential alternatives for a common project that provided 

minimum 1/200 year flood protection and addressed the hydrologic risk reduction for 

the Folsom Facility (Reclamation et al. 2005). The PASS process consisted of three 

separate phases: PASS I reported in October 2005 identified 5 potential alternatives. 

Following a detailed examination of the most probable PASS I alternatives, PASS II 

(April 2006 ) reported the results of a gated spillway and raise combinations 

according to very specific criteria established by the Oversight Management Group. 

The tertiary effort, directed by the Oversight Management Group, focused on 

maximizing the spillway potential and minimizing the amount of raise required. This 

PASS II Optimization effort, which further refined the gated spillway alternative to 

the JFP (as defined in Section 1.4), is the result of this three stage process. 

1.6.4 Joint Federal Project Coordination 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 included language 

supporting Reclamation’s and the Corps’ collaboration in determining a joint dam 

safety and flood damage reduction project. According to Section 128 of the Act: 

“American River Watershed, California (Folsom Dam and Permanent 

Bridge)- 

(a) COORDINATION OF FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND 

DAM SAFETY- The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the 

Interior are directed to collaborate on authorized activities to maximize 

flood damage reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-25

Folsom Dam and Reservoir, California. The Secretaries shall expedite 

technical reviews for flood damage reduction and dam safety 

improvements. In developing improvements under this section, the 

Secretaries shall consider reasonable modifications to existing 

authorized activities, including a potential auxiliary spillway. In 

conducting such activities, the Secretaries are authorized to expend 

funds for coordinated technical reviews and joint planning, and 

preliminary design activities.” 

The Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR will meet the requirements of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act of 2006 by evaluating the JFP and other 

alternatives that meet Reclamation’s dam safety hydrologic objective and the Corps' 

flood damage reduction objective. In addition, this EIS/EIR evaluates a range of 

alternatives that address other stand-alone flood damage reduction and dam safety 

(seismic and static) and security actions at the Folsom Facility. 

1.6.5 Related Authorized Projects 

Table 1-2 below presents a list of current authorized projects as they pertain to the 

Folsom Facility. The table includes: (1) projects that are evaluated in this document 

as part of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives addressed in this EIS/EIR; and (2) 

projects that are not evaluated as part of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives, because 

they will be completed by their respective agencies independent of the Folsom 

DS/FDR, but are considered in the EIS/EIR relative to cumulative effects. 

1.7 Folsom DS/FDR Purpose and Need and Project 

Objectives 

As described in Section 1.1 above, the Folsom Facility consists of 4 dams and 8 

dikes, which impound flows on the American River forming Folsom Reservoir, and 

is a critical component of the CVP. The Folsom Facility was constructed between 

1948 and 1956 by the Corps as a multi-purpose facility operated for flood control, 

M&I water supply, agricultural water supply, power, fish and wildlife, recreation, 

and water quality benefits. Upon completion of construction of the dams and dikes, 

ownership of the Folsom Facility was transferred to Reclamation for operation and 

maintenance as a financially and operationally integrated feature of the CVP. The 

Folsom Powerplant construction, which began in 1952 and was completed in 1956, 

was supervised by Reclamation. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 1-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 1-2 

Related Authorized Projects

Agency Project Name Brief Description Authorization 

Current Document 

or Report for Project 

Corps Dam Raise 

Dam raise of 7 ft to dams and dikes, ecosystem restoration. 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-137) 

American River Watershed Long-Term Study (LTS) Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR, February 2002 

i

D

Corps 

Upstream and Downstream Levee Modifications ("Common Features Project") 

Strengthening Levees along American and Sacramento Rivers. 

1) Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act of 1993, Section 9159 (P.L. 102-396), 

2) Section 101 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996, 

3) Section 366 and 102 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) 

1) 1996 American River Watershed Project Supplemental Information Report,  2) Corps 1999 American River Watershed, California, Information Paper 

Corps 

Folsom Dam Modification Project 

Modify existing outlets, create new outlets, modify surcharge storage. 

Section 101 (a) (6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) 

American River Watershed, California, Folsom Dam Modification Project EA/IS, (and 2002 LTS EIS/EIR) 

i

D

Reclamation 

Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study 

Potential dam raise, static, seismic, and security fixes, tunnel, new auxiliary spillway. 

Safety of Dams Program - P.L. (95-578) November 1978, as amended by P.L. (98-404) August 1984 

Draft Folsom Dam, Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study Scoping Report, October 2005 

i

s
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-27

Both Reclamation and the Corps share in the responsibility of ensuring that the 

Folsom Facility is maintained and operated under their respective agency's dam 

safety regulations and guidelines, as defined by Congress. Reclamation is 

responsible for dam safety, operations, and maintenance at Folsom Dam. 

Reclamation operates and maintains the Folsom Facility to supply agricultural, M&I 

water users, hydroelectric power, and recreational opportunities and is responsible 

for the dam safety program. The Corps is responsible for flood damage reduction 

capitol improvements and establishing flood operation requirements at Folsom. The 

Corps provides regulations governing the flood damage reduction operations of the 

dam by setting release criteria and flood storage requirements during critical seasons. 

As a part of their responsibilities, Reclamation and the Corps have determined that 

the Folsom Facility requires structural improvements to increase overall public 

safety above existing conditions by improving the facilities’ ability to reduce flood 

damages and address dam safety issues posed by hydrologic (flood), seismic 

(earthquake), and static (seepage) events and security issues at the facility. These 

events have a low probability of occurrence in a given year, however due to the large 

population downstream of Folsom Dam, modifying the facilities is prudent and 

required to improve public safety above current baseline conditions. 

Reclamation has identified the need for expedited action to reduce hydrologic, static, 

and seismic risks under its Safety of Dams Program and security issues under its 

Security Program. The identified risks are among the highest of all dams in 

Reclamation’s inventory and the Folsom Facility is among Reclamation’s highest 

priorities within its Safety of Dams Program. Additionally, there is a need to 

upgrade security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility under Reclamation’s Safety, 

Security and Law Enforcement (SSLE) Program. Reclamation’s primary interest for 

participating in the Folsom DS/FDR is to realize an expedited improvement in 

overall public protection and cost sharing benefits of a combined project. 

The Corps, in partnership with the non-federal sponsors, has determined that Folsom 

Reservoir does not have sufficient release capacity to adequately manage severe 

flood flows nor do the downstream levees have sustained capacity to exceed base 

flood event flows of 145,000 cfs (Corps letter to SAFCA dated December 9, 2004). 

The non-federal sponsors have identified the need to reduce the risk of flooding in 

the Sacramento area. Due to the number and value of the exposed structures and the 

size of the population at risk, Sacramento has been identified as one of the most at 

risk communities in the nation. Consequently, there is a need to expeditiously reduce 

this risk through interim and permanent flood damage reduction measures. The goal 

of non-federal sponsors is to achieve at least a 200-year level of flood protection 

(same as 1/200 year flood protection) for the Sacramento area as anticipated in the 

Congressionally authorized Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Projects. Pursuit of this goal constitutes non-federal sponsors’ primary interest for 

participating in the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Both Reclamation and the Corps have conducted engineering studies to identify 

potential corrective measures for the Folsom Facility to alleviate seismic, static, and 

hydrologic dam safety issues, and flood management concerns. These two federal 

agencies have combined their efforts resulting in (1) a Joint Federal Project for 

addressing Reclamation’s dam safety hydrologic risk and the Corps’ flood control 

objectives and (2) other stand-alone flood control and dam safety actions to be 

completed by the respective agencies in a coordinated manner. Among the latter are 

separate, but related, downstream levee projects that are underway to increase flood 

protection along the lower American River. 

1.7.1 Statement of Purpose and Need 

There is a need to expeditiously implement engineering measures for the Folsom 

Facility in order to reduce potential failure due to seismic, static, and hydrologic 

conditions. There is also a need to incrementally increase minimum flood protection 

via flood storage capacity and/or reservoir pool release mechanisms. Furthermore, 

there is a need to implement security improvements at the Folsom Facility consistent 

with designation as a National Critical Infrastructure Facility. The purpose of the 

Folsom DS/FDR is to increase overall public safety, ensure the reliability of local 

power and water supply, and maintain an important recreational resource by: (1) 

expediting corrective action to address risks identified with the structural integrity of 

Folsom Dam and appurtenant structures in accordance with Reclamation’s Public 

Protection Guidelines; (2) incrementally improving the flood management capacity 

of the Folsom facility to meet or exceed the 200-year recurrence level; and (3) 

upgrading security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility. 

1.7.2 Project Objectives 

In addition to the underlying purpose of the project above, specific project objectives 

were developed to meet CEQA guidelines. The CEQA-related project objectives 

are: 

• Expeditiously reduce hydrologic (flooding) risk of overtopping-related failure of 

any retention structure during a PMF event in accordance with Reclamation’s 

Public Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any retention structure 

during a potential seismic (earthquake) event in accordance with Reclamation’s 

Public Protection Guidelines; 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-29

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any retention structure 

during a potential static (seepage) event in accordance with Reclamation’s Public 

Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously improve the security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; and 

• Expeditiously improve the flood management capacity of the facilities in a 

manner functionally equivalent to the Corps authorized projects. 

1.8 Study Area 

The Folsom DS/FDR study area 

includes the area surrounding the 

Folsom Facility. The Folsom 

Facility falls within the borders of 

Placer, Sacramento, and El Dorado 

Counties, in the State of California. 

The study area mainly consists of 

Federally-owned lands that are 

currently leased to and managed by 

the California Department of Parks 

and Recreation. Figure 1-4 shows 

the location of the Folsom DS/FDR 

general study area within central 

California. Several resource 

categories have expanded the study 

area of their impacts analysis to 

include local roads, highways, and 

other areas that occur outside the 

Federally-owned lands. 

The actions evaluated in this 

EIS/EIR include five project 

alternatives as well as the 

alternative of not implementing the 

Folsom DS/FDR actions, the No Project/No Action Alternative. Direct and indirect 

effects and cumulative impacts are evaluated, as appropriate, for each resource area. 

1.9 Summary of Scoping Activities and Issues 

Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested parties have participated in 

the NEPA and CEQA process leading to the development of the Folsom DS/FDR 

alternatives presented in this EIS/EIR. In 2005, Reclamation, the Corps, 

DWR/Reclamation Board, and SAFCA held three public scoping meetings in the 

Figure 1-4 

Location of Folsom DS/FDR Study Area 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

City of Granite Bay, the City of Folsom, and the City of Sacramento, respectively. 

The results of these scoping meetings, including comments and concerns raised 

during the meetings, as well as public comments obtained during the public comment 

period, are presented in the Folsom Dam Combined Federal Effort Scoping Meeting 

Summary Report, 2006 (See Appendix A). Major issues and concerns raised during 

the public scoping process include: 

• What is the role of each of the agencies and how will the two Federal agencies 

interact in completing the project? 

• What are the major impacts from this project and how will they be mitigated? 

• How will traffic be affected? 

• What level of safety will the new dam features provide? 

• What downstream effects will the new facilities have? 

• How will agencies keep the public informed about future meetings and other 

project updates? 

• What will the impacts be on local homeowners during construction? 

• What are the recreational, cultural, and natural resource impacts and how will 

they be mitigated? 

1.10 Federal, State, and Local Requirements 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions must fulfill or comply with the Federal, State, regional, 

and local environmental requirements as described below. Chapter 3 provides 

additional details on regulations specific to each environmental resource, and 

Chapter 6 provides details on compliance efforts for applicable regulations. 

1.10.1 Federal Requirements 

1.10.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA (42 USC 4321; 40 CFR 1500.1) applies to all Federal agencies and to most of 

the activities they manage, regulate, or fund that affect the environment. It requires 

all agencies to disclose and consider the environmental implications of their 

proposed actions. NEPA establishes environmental policies, provides an 

interdisciplinary framework for preventing environmental damage, and contains 

“action-forcing” procedures to ensure that Federal agency decision-makers take 

environmental factors into account. 

NEPA requires the preparation of an appropriate document to ensure that Federal 

agencies accomplish the law’s purposes. The President’s Council on Environmental 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-31

Quality (CEQ) has adopted regulations and other guidance, including detailed 

procedures that Federal agencies must follow, to implement NEPA. CEQ 

regulations, Section 1506.6 includes provisions for public involvement. Agency 

pursuit of public involvement may include: 

• Providing public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the 

availability of environmental documents; 

• Holding or sponsoring public hearings or public meetings; 

• Soliciting appropriate information from the public; 

• Explaining in its procedures where interested persons can get information or 

status reports on EISs and other elements of the NEPA process; and 

• Making EISs, the comments received, and any underlying documents available to 

the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 

U.S.C. 552). 

Reclamation and the Corps will use this EIS/EIR to comply with CEQ regulations 

and document NEPA compliance. 

1.10.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that both United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS maintain lists of threatened species and 

endangered species. “Endangered species” are defined as “any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”; “threatened 

species” are defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 

U.S.C.A. §1532). Section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to “take” (harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such 

conduct) any endangered species of fish or wildlife and most threatened species of 

fish or wildlife (16 U.S.C.A. §1538). Section 7 of the ESA requires that Federal 

agencies consult with the USFWS and NMFS on any actions that may directly or 

indirectly affect a listed species (i.e., a species specifically recognized by USFWS or 

NMFS as being endangered or threatened), including as related to whether the action 

may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as the 

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is 

listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the ESA, on which are found 

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 

and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and 

specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination 

by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

U.S.C.A. §1532). NMFS’ jurisdiction under the ESA is limited to the protection of 

marine mammals and fishes and anadromous fishes (i.e., fish born in fresh water that 

migrate to the ocean to grow into adults and then return to fresh water to spawn); all 

other species are within the USFWS’ jurisdiction. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires that all Federal agencies ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat critical to 

such species’ survival. To ensure against jeopardy, each Federal agency must 

consult with the USFWS or NMFS, or both, regarding Federal agency actions. The 

consultation is initiated when the Federal agency determines that its action may 

affect a listed species and submits a written request for initiation to the USFWS or 

NMFS, along with the agency’s biological assessment of its proposed action. If the 

USFWS or NMFS concurs with the action agency that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect a listed species, the action may be carried forward without further 

review under the ESA. Otherwise, the USFWS or NMFS, or both, must prepare a 

written biological opinion describing how the agency action will affect the listed 

species and its critical habitat. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, a draft biological opinion from USFWS will be 

obtained prior to completion of the Final EIS/EIR. 

1.10.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act) establishes a management system for national marine and estuarine 

fishery resources. This legislation requires that all Federal agencies consult with 

NMFS regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken 

that may adversely affect “essential fish habitat.” Essential fish habitat is defined as 

“waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity.” The legislation states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish 

spawning grounds are considered essential fish habitat. The phrase “adversely 

affect” refers to the creation of any impact that reduces the quality or quantity of 

essential fish habitat. Federal activities that occur outside of an essential fish habitat 

but that may, nonetheless, have an impact on essential fish habitat waters and 

substrate must also be considered in the consultation process. Under the MagnusonStevens Act, effects on habitat managed under the Pacific Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan must also be considered. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that consultation regarding essential fish habitat 

should be consolidated, where appropriate, with the interagency consultation, 

coordination, and environmental review procedures required by other Federal 

statutes, such as NEPA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the Clean 

Water Act, and the ESA. Essential fish habitat consultation requirements can be 

satisfied through concurrent environmental compliance if the lead agency provides 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-33

NMFS with timely notification of actions that may adversely affect essential fish 

habitat and if the notification meets requirements for essential fish habitat 

assessments. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR actions, compliance with this act will be 

accomplished through consultation with NMFS. Consultation had been initiated at 

the time of release of this Draft EIS/EIR. 

1.10.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The FWCA (16 USC 661 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consult with USFWS, 

or, in some instances, with NMFS and with State fish and wildlife resource agencies 

before undertaking or approving water projects that control or modify surface water. 

The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that wildlife concerns receive equal 

consideration during water resource development projects and are coordinated with 

the features of these projects. The consultation is intended to promote the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources by preventing their loss or damage and to 

provide for the development and improvement of fish and wildlife resources in 

connection with water projects. Federal agencies undertaking water projects are 

required to fully consider recommendations made by USFWS, NMFS, and State fish 

and wildlife resource agencies in project reports and to include measures to reduce 

impacts on fish and wildlife in project plans. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, a draft Coordination Act Report and 

incremental analysis of potential mitigation have been completed and are included as 

appendices to this EIS/EIR. 

1.10.1.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act and Memoranda on Farmland 

Preservation 

Federal agencies are required to assess the potential effects of proposed Federal 

actions on prime and unique farmland under the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

(FPPA) of 1981 and the Memoranda on Farmland Preservation, dated August 30, 

1976, and August 11, 1980, respectively. Federal agencies must examine potential 

effects before taking any action that could result in converting designated prime or 

unique farmland for nonagricultural purposes. If there are potentially adverse effects 

on farmland preservation, the Federal agencies may consider alternative actions to 

lessen those effects. To the extent practicable, Federal agencies may create 

programs that are compatible with State, local, and private programs to protect 

farmland. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is responsible for identifying 

prime or unique farmland that might be affected. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, the potential impacts to farmlands have been 

addressed within the context of the EIS/EIR analysis, and is presented in Section 3.8. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

1.10.1.6 National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, is the 

principal legislation that guides cultural resource management for Federal agencies. 

Section 106 of NHPA requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of 

an undertaking on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity for comment. 

The Section 106 review process is described in 36 CFR 800. The five steps in this 

process include: 1) initiation of the Section 106 process by identifying interested 

parties and determine an area of potential effect; 2) identify historic properties; 3) 

assessments of the effects of the undertaking on historic properties; and 4) 

preparation of an agreement document to resolve adverse effects on historic 

properties. The ACHP is notified of any adverse effects to historic properties and 

invited to participate in the agreement document. The Section 106 process requires 

consultation throughout each phase with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), Indian tribes, and interested parties. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, consultation with SHPO has been initiated and 

various cultural resource surveys have been conducted, as described in Section 3.11. 

1.10.1.7 Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates alteration of (and 

prohibits unauthorized obstruction of) any navigable waters of the United States. 

Construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways 

of the U.S. is prohibited without Congressional approval. Construction plans for a 

bridge or causeway must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of 

Transportation, while construction plans for a dam or dike must be submitted to and 

approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army. Excavation or fill 

within navigable waters requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers and the 

Secretary of the Army. 

As a cooperating agency with specific responsibilities for completion of portions of 

the Folsom DS/FDR actions, the Corps will also be responsible for ensuring 

compliance with this Act. 

1.10.1.8 Clean Air Act 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) established national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in 1970 for six pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, 

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Areas that do not meet the ambient air 

quality standards are called nonattainment areas. The CAA requires states to submit 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for nonattainment areas. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) reviews the SIP and must delineate how the Federal 

standards will be met. States that fail to submit a plan or to secure approval may be 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-35

denied Federal funding and/or required to increase emission offsets for industrial 

expansion. The 1990 Amendments to the CAA established categories of air 

pollution severity for nonattainment areas, ranging from “marginal” to “extreme.” 

SIP requirements vary, depending on the degree of severity. 

The conformity provisions of the CAA are designed to ensure that Federal agencies 

contribute to efforts to achieve the NAAQS. USEPA has issued two regulations 

implementing these provisions. The general conformity regulation addresses actions 

of Federal agencies other than the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal 

Transit Administration. General conformity applies to a wide range of actions or 

approvals by Federal agencies. Projects are subject to general conformity if they 

exceed emissions thresholds set in the rule and are not specifically exempted by the 

regulation. Such projects are required to fully offset or mitigate the emissions 

caused by the action, including both direct emissions and indirect emissions over 

which the Federal agency has some control. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, a General Conformity Determination will be 

completed prior to issuance of the ROD. Section 3.3 of the EIS/EIR addresses CAA 

considerations. 

1.10.1.9 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations,” requires that Federal agencies identify and 

address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of Federal actions on minority and low-income populations and assure that 

Federal actions do not result directly or indirectly in discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, or income. Federal agencies must provide opportunities 

for input by affected communities into the NEPA process and must evaluate the 

potentially significant and adverse environmental effects of proposed actions on 

minority and low-income communities during environmental document preparation. 

Even if a proposed Federal project would not result in significant adverse impacts on 

minority and low-income populations, the environmental document must describe 

how the NEPA process addressed Executive Order 12898. 

With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, an environmental justice evaluation has been 

completed within the context of the EIS/EIR analysis, and is presented in Section 

3.19. 

1.10.1.10 Clean Water Act 

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA 

establishes regulations for the discharge of pollutants into United States waters. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Section 401 

Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.) requires that proposed actions with 

federal agency involvement that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters 

of the United States must not violate federal or state water quality standards. In 

addition, Section 401 states that any applicant for a Federal license or permit to 

conduct any activity including construction or operation of facilities which may 

result in discharge to navigable waters must provide the licensing or permitting 

agency a certification from the state in which the discharge originates stating that the 

discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301 Effluent 

Limitations, 302 Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations, 303 Water Quality 

Standards and Implementation Plans, 306 National Standards of Performance, and 

307 Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards of the CWA. With respect to the 

Folsom DS/FDR, Section 401 certification will be completed prior to initiation of 

construction activities. 

Section 402 

Section 402 of the CWA requires that all point sources that discharge pollutants into 

the waters of the United States must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits are issued by the state and 

contain industry specific standards and limits and establish pollutant monitoring and 

reporting requirements. With respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, NPDES permits will 

be obtained, as necessary, prior to construction. 

Section 404 

Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit to be obtained from the Corps for the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. A section 

404 permit for the Folsom DS/FDR will be obtained, as necessary, prior to any 

action involving placement of materials within waters of the United States. 

Appendix D of this EIS/EIR introduces requirements for the Section 404 permit. 

1.10.1.11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) is the domestic law that implements 

four international treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and Russia, providing protection of migratory birds. Each of the 

conventions protects selected species of migratory birds that are common to both the 

U.S. and one or more of the other involved countries. This act makes it unlawful for 

any person to hunt, kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, purchase, import, export, 

or barter any migratory bird, including the feathers, parts, nests, eggs, or migratory 

bird products. The MBTA does not protect the habitat of migratory birds. With 

respect to the Folsom DS/FDR, compliance with the MBTA will be stipulated as part 

of the construction requirements of the selected alternative. Mitigation measures 

reflecting compliance with this act are provided in Section 3.5.4. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-37

1.10.1.12 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended, known as the "Uniform Act" (P.L. 91-646), provides for the 

uniform and equitable treatment of people displaced from their residences, 

businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations as a result of Federal programs and 

projects. The Uniform Act sets the minimum standards for compensation and 

relocation assistance for the appraisal and acquisition of real property and sets the 

minimum standards for relocation advisory services and financial assistance for 

persons that must relocate as a result of the public acquisition of real property. Any 

displaced person or entity must be offered relocation assistance services for the 

purpose of locating suitable replacement property. The Corps, should a raise be 

implemented as part of a flood damage reduction action, would be responsible for 

compliance with this act. 

1.10.1.13 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542; 16 USC 1271-1287) was 

established to preserve the free flowing condition and outstanding values of the 

nation’s rivers. Rivers with unique scenery, recreational opportunities, cultural 

features, or other similar values are designated under this Act. Section 7 of the Act 

prohibits federal licensing of new hydroelectric developments on all rivers 

designated under the Act. It also prohibits federal funding or construction of projects 

that would inhibit the free flowing condition and outstanding values of designated 

rivers. The Act requires federal agencies to manage each river in a way that protects 

and enhances the values for which the river was originally designated. The 

management of each river is based on the level of development at the time of 

designation. The lower American River is designated a wild and scenic river. The 

Folsom DS/FDR would not affect flows or the wild and scenic designation of the 

lower American River. 

1.10.2 State Requirements 

1.10.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act 

CEQA (Public Resource Code 21000 et seq.) is regarded as the foundation of 

environmental law and policy in California. CEQA’s primary objectives are to: 

• Disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects 

of proposed activities; 

• Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage; 

• Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible 

alternatives or mitigation measures; 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Disclose to the public the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant 

environmental effects; 

• Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects; and 

• Enhance public participation in the planning process. 

CEQA applies to all discretionary activities that are proposed or approved by 

California public agencies, including State, regional, county, and local agencies, 

unless an exemption applies. CEQA requires that public agencies comply with both 

procedural and substantive requirements. Procedural requirements include the 

preparation of the appropriate environmental documents, mitigation measures, 

alternatives, mitigation monitoring, findings, statements of overriding considerations, 

public notices, scoping, responses to comments, legal enforcement procedures, 

citizen access to the courts, notice of preparation, agency consultation, and State 

Clearinghouse review. 

CEQA’s substantive provisions require that agencies address environmental impacts, 

disclosed in an appropriate document. When avoiding or minimizing environmental 

damage is not feasible, CEQA requires that agencies prepare a written statement of 

the overriding considerations that resulted in approval of a project that will cause one 

or more significant effects on the environment. CEQA establishes a series of actionforcing procedures to ensure that agencies accomplish the purposes of the law. In 

addition, under the direction of CEQA, the California Resources Agency has adopted 

regulations, known as the State CEQA Guidelines, which provide detailed 

procedures that agencies must follow to implement the law. 

This EIS/EIR is intended to document compliance with all relevant CEQA guidelines 

and CEQA requirements, including as related to approvals and actions by SAFCA 

and DWR/Reclamation Board for improvements under the Folsom DS/FDR. 

1.10.2.2 California Endangered Species Act 

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Sections 

2050 to 2097) is similar to the ESA. California’s Fish and Game Commission is 

responsible for maintaining lists of threatened and endangered species under the 

CESA. CESA prohibits the “take” of listed and candidate (petitioned to be listed) 

species. “Take” under California law means to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, 

or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch capture, or kill.” (California Fish and Game Code, 

Section 86.) Since CDFG may authorize incidental take of listed species pursuant to 

a CDFG approved Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (See Section 

1.10.2.3, below, for a description of the NCCP Act.). The mitigation measures 

presented in Section 3.5.4, when implemented, will comply with this act. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-39

1.10.2.3 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 

The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA), California Fish and 

Game Code, Section 2800, et seq., was enacted to form a basis for broad-based 

planning to provide for effective protection and conservation of the State’s wildlife 

heritage, while continuing to allow appropriate development and growth. The 

purpose of natural community conservation planning is to sustain and restore those 

species and their habitat identified by California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) that are necessary to maintain the continued viability of biological 

communities impacted by human changes to the landscape. A NCCP identifies and 

provides for those measures necessary to conserve and manage natural biological 

diversity within the plan area while allowing compatible use of the land. CDFG may 

authorize the take of any identified species, including listed and non-listed species, 

pursuant to Section 2835 of the NCCPA, if the conservation and management of 

such species is provided for in an NCCP approved by CDFG. The mitigation 

measures presented in Section 3.5.4, when implemented, will comply with this act. 

1.10.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) established the 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine regional water 

quality control boards (RWQCBs) as the primary State agencies with regulatory 

authority over California water quality and appropriative surface water rights 

allocations. The SWRCB administers the Porter-Cologne Act, which provides the 

authority to establish Water Quality Control Plans (WQCPs) that are reviewed and 

revised periodically. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides the SWRCB with 

authority to establish statewide plans. 

The nine RWQCBs carry out SWRCB policies and procedures throughout the State. 

The SWRCB and the RWQCBs also carry out sections of the Federal CWA -

administered by USEPA, including the NPDES permitting process for point source 

discharges and the CWA Section 303 water quality standards program. 

WQCPs, also known as basin plans, designate beneficial uses for specific surface 

water and groundwater resources and establish water quality objectives to protect 

those uses. These plans can be developed at the SWRCB or the RWQCB level. 

RWQCBs issue waste discharge requirements for the major point-source waste 

dischargers, such as municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities. 

In acting on water rights applications, the SWRCB may establish terms and 

conditions in a permit to carry out WQCPs. 

To comply with this act, the Folsom DS/FDR will complete a Storm Water 

Management Plan to control construction-related runoff and submit permit 

applications for any planned discharge to waters of the state. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-40 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

1.10.2.5 Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

The Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) have been developed by the 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) to reduce the potential health and safety and 

environmental issues associated with various airborne toxics. The air pollution 

control and air quality management districts in the State of California are generally 

the agencies responsible for enforcement of the ATCMs. The ATCM regulations are 

found in Title 13 (Mobile Sources and Fuels) and Title 17 (All Other Sections) of the 

California Code of Regulations (CCR). 

The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, 

Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (See Title 17 CCR Section 93105) 

contains the requirements for construction operations that will disturb any portion of 

an area that is located in a geographic ultramafic rock (igneous rock with very little 

silica content) unit or that has naturally-occurring asbestos, serpentine, or ultramafic 

rock. Construction or grading operations on property where the area to be disturbed 

is greater than one acre require an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to be submitted and 

approved by the air quality management district before the start of construction. The 

Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must be implemented at the beginning and must be 

maintained throughout the duration of the operation. In order to receive an 

exemption from this ATCM, a registered geologist must conduct a geologic 

evaluation of the property and determine that no serpentine or ultramafic rock is 

likely to be found in the area to be disturbed. This report must be presented to the 

executive officer or air pollution control officer of the air pollution control or air 

quality management district, who may then grant or deny the exemption. 

The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Surfacing Applications (17 CCR 

Section 93106) applies to any person who produces, sells, supplies, offers for sale or 

supply, uses, applies, or transports any aggregate material extracted from property 

where any portion of the property is located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit or 

the material has been determined to be ultramafic rock, or serpentine, or material that 

has an asbestos content of 0.25 percent or greater. Unless exempt, the use, sale, 

application, or transport of material for surfacing is restricted, unless it has been 

tested using an approved asbestos bulk test method and determined to have 

an asbestos content that is less than 0.25 percent. Any recipient of such materials 

may need to be provided a receipt with the quantity of materials, the date of the sale, 

verification that the asbestos content is less than 0.25 percent, and a warning label. 

Anyone involved in the transportation of the material is required to keep copies of all 

receipts with the materials at all times. 

Compliance with this act is discussed in Section 3.6, Soils, Minerals, and Geological 

Resources. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-41

1.10.2.6 Environmental Justice 

State law defines environmental justice in Government Code Section 65040.12(e) as 

the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the 

development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Government Code Section 65040.12(a) designates the 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as the coordinating agency in 

State government for environmental justice programs, and requires OPR to develop 

guidelines for incorporating environmental justice into general plans. While there is 

no existing state requirement that environmental justice be addressed as part of the 

environmental (CEQA) review for individual projects, Section 3.19 of this EIS/EIR 

discusses environmental justice considerations associated with the Folsom DS/FDR. 

1.10.3 Local Requirements 

A number of local requirements relate to the Folsom DS/FDR. The applicability of, 

and the project's compliance with, those requirements are considered in relevant 

sections of this EIS/EIR. The following lists such requirements and indicates, in 

parentheses, the EIS/EIR section(s) that addresses the requirements. 

Placer County 

• Placer County General Plan, August 19, 1994 

• Placer County Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust and Asbestos Rules 

Sacramento County 

• Sacramento County General Plan, December 15, 1993 

• City of Folsom General Plan, October 31, 1988 

• Transportation Management Plan 

• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Fugitive Dust and 

Asbestos Rules 

El Dorado County 

• 2004 El Dorado County General Plan - A Plan for Managed Growth and Open 

Roads; A Plan for Quality Neighborhoods and Traffic Relief, July 19, 2004 

• El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Fugitive Dust and Asbestos 

Rules 

1.11 Scope of this EIS/EIR 

The impact analysis in this EIS/EIR includes all reasonably foreseeable Folsom 

DS/FDR construction actions that may occur from the time that the Folsom DS/FDR 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-42 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

ROD(s) is signed (anticipated May 2007) through the end of the construction period 

(potentially 2015, depending on funding level and availability). 

In addition to the No Action/No Project Alternative, this EIS/EIR presents five 

action alternatives for implementing the types of improvements contemplated under 

the Folsom DS/FDR, termed Alternatives 1 through 5. The alternatives incorporate 

differing measures related to construction actions that could occur at each structure 

of the Folsom Facility during each phase of construction. This EIS/EIR analyzes the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative. Within the evaluation of 

each alternative, the impacts of each construction action (see Chapter 3) are analyzed 

separately. The proposed Folsom DS/FDR structural modifications and their 

associated impacts are addressed to a level of detail considered reasonable and 

appropriate given existing project design and construction information and current 

data. It is possible, however, that the future resolution of current uncertainties 

related to final design, construction contract awarding and post-construction 

operation may result in changes and refinements to the project characteristics 

assumed in this EIS/EIR. Such changes and refinements, if material in nature, to the 

proposed actions may require further analyses, which would be provided in 

supplemental environmental compliance documentation, as required. 

1.12 Scope of Effects Analysis 

This EIS/EIR presents the impacts of the five action alternatives described in 

Chapter 2 and also considers the environmental implications of the No Action/No 

Project Alternative. The action alternatives incorporate proposed modifications to the 

12 structures that comprise the Folsom Facility, borrow material development, 

processing of materials, stockpiling, and staging area development and use. The 

resource area analyses (Chapter 3) present the environmental effects of these 

alternatives to the level of detail possible with the current available information. As 

indicated above, supplemental environmental analyses may be required in the 

subsequent review and approval of any project changes or refinements that are 

material in nature and have the potential to result in environmental effects that are 

not addressed in this EIS/EIR. 

Construction of the improvements under any of the five Folsom DS/FDR alternatives 

would not take place all at once, but would occur in several construction phases, 

some of which would overlap. The effects analysis takes into consideration these 

separate construction phases, which are described in detail in Chapter 2, Project 

Description and Project Alternatives. 

The Folsom DS/FDR agencies recognize that any potential raise of the main dam and 

dikes could require the construction of numerous small flood protection berms in 

areas of low elevation. At this stage, details regarding the locations for additional 

flood protection berms and quantities of materials to construct them are in the 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-43

formulation stage; therefore, the berms are analyzed at a general, programmatic level 

in this document. Supplemental documents will be completed, as appropriate. 

Additionally, determining the need for, and specific locations of, cofferdams 

facilitating in-reservoir construction and the specific locations for materials staging 

and stockpiling related to avoiding impacts to recreation areas is dependent upon the 

project design and construction specifications that will be developed at future more 

detailed levels of planning for the selected alternative. As such, a detailed analysis 

of those types of improvements and construction activities is not possible for this 

EIS/EIR; supplemental environmental review and documentation will be completed 

in conjunction with any future discretionary approvals for those improvements, 

pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. 

This document addresses reoperation of the Folsom Facility only at a general 

programmatic level and will not be used to initiate a change to current operations. 

Structural modification to any of the Folsom Facility requiring operational changes 

to fully realize project benefits, will not be fully utilized until operations are fully 

coordinated (i.e., the exact need for, and nature of, changes to the existing operations 

requirements of the Folsom Facility has been determined by, and between, the 

affected jurisdictional agencies based on the specific improvements approved as part 

of the selected Folsom DS/FDR alternative) and addressed in a supplemental 

EIS/EIR, and a separate ROD allowing such reoperation is signed. 

1.13 Decisions to be Made 

Reclamation, the Corps, DWR/Reclamation Board, and SAFCA decision-makers 

will use the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR to help decide on the optimal alternative for 

meeting the Folsom DS/FDR objectives, based on a full understanding of the 

environmental consequences of each of the alternatives. Possible decision outcomes 

are: 

• Take no action; 

• Select Alternative 1, which includes a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway, 0-ft raise of 

the concrete dam and strengthening the crest of key embankment structures; 

• Select Alternative 2, which includes a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with a tunnel, 

and a 4-ft raise of all structures;

• Select Alternative 3, which includes a gated Auxiliary Spillway with a potential 

3.5-ft parapet wall raise of all structures as incrementally justified for flood 

damage reduction purposes;
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-44 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Select Alternative 4, which includes a gated Auxiliary Spillway and a potential 7-

ft raise of all structures as incrementally justified for flood damage reduction 

purposes; or

• Select Alternative 5, which includes a 17-ft raise of all structures but no auxiliary 

spillway.

• Select a subset and/or recombination of the alternative features listed above.

1.14 Uses of this Document 

Agencies are also expected to use this document as the environmental analysis for: 

• Approving permits. The permits anticipated for construction the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions include: 

- Air quality 

- Water discharge 

- Traffic Plan approval 

- 404 Dredge and Fill of wetlands 

• Public review and to solicit public comments; 

• Determining the environmentally preferred alternative; 

• Helping to identify the Preferred Alternative; 

• Developing Reclamation’s Modifications Report for submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget – Reclamation is required to submit this report if the 

costs for actual construction on Safety of Dams work will exceed $1,250,000; 

• Developing the Corps’ Post-Authorization Changes (PAC) Report – The Corps is 

required to submit this document to gain approval for changes made to the 

previously authorized project addressed in the Corps 2002 Long-Term Study 

Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR and the Folsom Dam 

Modification Project EA/IS; and 

• Obtaining funding (SAFCA). 

As indicated above, this document is not intended to initiate any formal change to 

current operations of the Folsom Facility, nor is it intended to provide the necessary 

NEPA/CEQA review for authorization of future reoperation of the Folsom Facility. 

Such reoperation of the Folsom Facility will be addressed in a supplemental EIS/EIR 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 1-45

at such time as the proposed changes in operations are fully formulated, analyzed, 

and coordinated. 

1.15 Report Organization 

The remaining chapters of this document are as follows: 

• Chapter 2 – Project Description and Project Alternatives - Chapter 2 

describes five action alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR, plus the No Action/No 

Project Alternative, and explains how the agencies would complete construction 

work to address the issues at the Folsom Facility. 

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, Impacts Analysis, and Mitigation 

Measures - Chapter 3 describes the affected environment, impacts analysis, and 

mitigation measures for resource areas including: hydrology, water quality and 

groundwater, water supply, air quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial vegetation 

and wildlife, soils, minerals, and geological resources, visual resources, 

agricultural resources, transportation and circulation, noise, cultural resources, 

land use, planning, and zoning, recreation, utilities and public services, 

hydropower, population and housing, public health and safety, Indian Trust 

Assets, and environmental justice.

• Chapter 4 – Socioeconomics - Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the economic 

effects associated with implementing the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives.

• Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects - Chapter 5 addresses for each alternative the 

potential cumulative effects associated with the combination of the Folsom 

DS/FDR alternatives and other proposed projects. This chapter also addresses 

other topics required by NEPA and/or CEQA, including significant unavoidable 

impacts, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term environmental 

changes, and growth inducement.

• Chapter 6 – Consultation and Coordination - Chapter 6 describes the persons 

and agencies consulted in the preparation of this EIS/EIR and provides details on 

compliance efforts for applicable regulations.

• Chapter 7 – References - Chapter 7 provides a list containing a bibliography of 

documents used in preparation of this EIS/EIR.

• Chapter 8 – List of Preparers and Contributors - Chapter 8 provides a list of 

the individuals from agencies and contractors that performed key roles in the 

preparation and development of this EIS/EIR.

• Chapter 9 – Document Recipients - Chapter 9 identifies the parties to whom 

this EIS/EIR was provided or received a notification of document availability.
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1-46 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Chapter 10 – Glossary - Chapter 10 provides a list containing the various 

terminology used in this EIS/EIR.

• Appendices
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project 

Alternatives 

2.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process 

2.1.1 Alternatives Formulation 

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) require that environmental documents identify and analyze a 

reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could meet the project objectives to 

varying degrees. In addition, CEQA focuses on alternatives that would avoid or 

substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. NEPA and CEQA 

also require that a no-project/no-action alternative be analyzed. The Folsom Dam 

Safety/Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) EIS/EIR evaluates 5 action alternatives 

and a No Action/No Project Alternative. 

2.1.2 Alternatives Identification 

The range of action alternatives that are assessed in this EIS/EIR were developed 

from a series of engineering measures addressing both Reclamation’s Safety of 

Dams objectives of hydrologic, seismic, and static risk reduction; and the Corps 

flood damage reduction objectives. The features of the alternatives were compiled 

from the documents listed below. These features were presented at public scoping 

meetings intended to solicit comments and additional alternative details. Appendix A 

contains a public scoping report summarizing input received during the scoping 

period for the EIS/EIR. 

• American River Watershed Project Final Supplemental EIS/EIR Part I Main 

Report. Corps, March 1996. 

• American River Watershed Project Final Supplemental EIS/EIR Part II Final 

Supplemental EIS/EIR. Corps, March 1996. 

• American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan 

Formulation Report. Corps, February 2002. 

• Preliminary Borrow Materials Report for Corrective Action Study. Reclamation, 

August 2004. 

• Folsom Facility – Safety of Dams Requirements and Concepts. Reclamation, 

February 2005. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-1 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Folsom Dam – Draft Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study Scoping Report. 

Reclamation, October 2005. 

• Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study 

(PASS I). Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

• Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study 

(PASS II). Reclamation and Corps, February 8, 2006. 

• Folsom Dam Modifications Limited Reevaluation Report. Corps, 2003. 

• Folsom Dam Modifications Environmental Assessment. Corps, 2005 

• Environmental Site Assessment Folsom Dam Modification. Corps, 2005. 

• Draft American River Watershed Project Folsom Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Corps, 2006. 

2.1.3 Scoping of Alternative Measures and Pre-Screening Process 

Teams comprised of Reclamation and Corps engineers and environmental planners 

participated in a series of engineering scoping meetings to identify, develop, refine, 

screen, and describe measures that would achieve Reclamation’s dam safety and 

Corps’ flood damage reduction objectives. A significant portion of the efforts 

centered on independent identification of stand-alone dam safety and flood damage 

reduction alternatives that would serve as a functionally equivalent project to the 

Corps authorized Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise projects. 

Additional efforts were focused on developing alternatives to meet both the dam 

safety and the flood damage reduction objectives. 

The alternative development process commenced with the initial identification of a 

range of stand-alone engineering measures, followed by their further refinement and 

the identification of alternatives that met both objectives. Each measure was 

evaluated for its engineering effectiveness and relative environmental benefits and 

effects. The result of the initial evaluation of engineering measures was the 

identification of specific measures to be addressed as part of a subsequent feasibility 

phase. The feasibility phase was used to define the proposed project/action by 

combining measures into comprehensive alternatives. 

Conceptual design measures identified during initial engineering scoping efforts 

were reduced to those determined by engineering and environmental staff with 

specific dam safety expertise and environmental planning skills to have the greatest 

potential to provide practical, implementable, cost effective, and least 

environmentally damaging aspects of achieving the required project objectives. 

Because scoping resulted in the identification of a wide range of conceptual 

2-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

measures with multiple design variations, some measures were eliminated that 

essentially accomplished the same objective of more effective measures. This 

resulted in a manageable array of representative measures being selected for more 

detailed evaluation relative to addressing project objectives. Section 2.2.4 provides 

descriptive details of the measures addressed in this EIS/EIR. 

The hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood control measures evaluated by 

Reclamation and Corps engineering and planning staff included alternatives that 

jointly addressed both the dam safety and flood damage requirements, as well as 

stand-alone alternatives that addressed either specific dam safety or flood damage 

requirements at the Folsom Facility. A comprehensive list of potential alternatives 

considered during initial screening, along with a brief comment on why the measure 

was dropped from further consideration, is presented in the following section. 

Reclamation is preparing a Modification Report, which would outline a 

recommended joint alternative to meet dam safety and flood damage reduction 

objectives as well as specific, stand-alone dam safety alternative recommendations. 

There are several potential structural and non-structural measures associated with 

modifications to the Folsom Facility that have been identified in previous studies 

which have the potential to benefit flood damage reduction and/or dam safety. 

The Corps is preparing a Post Authorization Change (PAC) Report that describes 

recommended alternatives to address Flood Damage Reduction needs as well as 

proposed changes to the existing Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise 

Project authorizations. To help identify recommended changes to the Corp’s existing 

authorizations, the PAC compares four action alternative plans that address the study 

objectives and constraints for completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and 

acceptability. 

The alternative plans presented in the respective Modification and PAC Reports are 

encompassed within the alternatives analysis of this EIS/EIR. The scope of this 

EIS/EIR includes the integration of the majority of the information on the 

alternatives from both Reclamations’ and the Corps’ Modification Report and the 

PAC. The alternatives in this document are joint alternatives which address 

Reclamations’ stand-alone dam safety and security alternatives, as well as the Corps’ 

potential flood damage reduction measures. 

2.1.4 Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Measures Evaluated as 

Part of Alternatives Development 

Reclamation and the Corps initiated a comprehensive value planning process in 

September of 2005, referred to as the Project Alternatives Solutions Study (PASS). 

The PASS process identified and evaluated a large number of potential measures that 

would meet the objectives of both agencies responsibilities for the Folsom Facility. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-3 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Tables 2-1 through 2-7 summarize the dam safety and flood damage reduction 

measures evaluated for incorporation into an action alternative. The general 

rationale for elimination of a measure from further detailed evaluation is summarized 

in the tables. The measures were evaluated as part of the PASS process. The 

rationale for elimination is discussed within the PASS documents listed in Section 

2.1.2. 

The purpose of the PASS process was to identify potential alternatives for a common 

project that provided minimum 1/200 year flood protection and addressed hydrologic 

risk reduction for the Folsom Facility. The PASS process consisted of three separate 

phases: (1) A cursory examination of possible alternatives; (2) completion of PASS 

I, reported in October 2005; and, (3) identification of five potential alternatives. 

Following a detailed examination of the most probable PASS I alternatives during 

the PASS I evaluation, select stand-alone dam safety and flood damage reduction 

alternatives were evaluated for applicability to jointly address dam safety and flood 

damage reduction. In this additional scoping process, stand-alone alternatives were 

combined and/or reformulated to create an initial array of joint alternatives. 

Table 2-1 

 List of Potential Flood Protection and Hydrologic Risk Reduction Measures for Concrete Dam & 

Embankment Dams/Dikes

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1 

Facility Alternatives 

1 Restrict Reservoir Elevation No P&N, IF, Not effective 

2 Remove Dam and Reservoir No P&N, IF, EI 

3 Relocate the population No IF, EF, Too expensive and not practical 

4 Build New Upstream/Down Stream 

Dam under Corps Authorized Projects 

No IF, P&N, EI, Beyond the scoping study, 

not authorized under Dam Safety 

Program or Corps authorized projects 

5 Enlarging the Levees Downstream No IF, P&N, EI, Beyond the scoping study 

Embankment Alternatives 

Reinforced Earthfill Wall Raise 

6 Geogrids and soil No TF 

7 Concrete facings w/ steel straps No TF 

Structural Wall Alternatives 

8 Pre-cast Wall Yes 

9 Concrete Wall (T-wall)1 Yes 

10 Jersey Barrier with Earth Raise No TF, Earth raise alone is a better 

alternative

11 Sheet Piles (concrete or steel) No TF, IF, Restricts recreation and 

maintenance access, unsightly, 

obstructs views, subject to graffiti 

12 Earth Raise and Concrete Wall Yes 

2-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-1 

 List of Potential Flood Protection and Hydrologic Risk Reduction Measures for Concrete Dam & 

Embankment Dams/Dikes

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1 

Crest Raise Alternatives 

13 Soil Cement Raise No TF 

14 Earth Raise Yes 

15 Rolled compressed concrete (RCC) 

Raise

No Earth raises equally effective at less 

cost 

16 Asphalt Concrete No Asphalt cement is more expensive than 

other materials 

Concrete Dam Outlet Modification Alternatives 

17 Enlarge/Replace Existing Gates Yes 

18 Enlarge Existing Spillway Yes 

19 Enlarge Existing Outlets/Construct New 

Outlets 

Yes 

New Outlet Alternatives 

20 New Auxiliary Spillway Yes 

21 New Tunnel Yes 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

EI - Environmental Impact 

IF - Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N - Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

Table 2-2 

List of Potential Static Risk Reduction Measures for Embankment Dams/Dikes

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1

1 Downstream (D/S) Overlay Yes 

2 Cutoff Wall (crest) No TF, May damage embankments 

3 Vertical Filter Yes 

4 Vertical Geo membrane No TF, Difficult to construct, difficult to 

verify long-term performance 

5 Geo membrane U/S Face No May work well on small dikes that 

typically do not store water 

6 Asphalt Up Stream (U/S) Barrier No More expensive than other measures 

7 Slurry Wall D/S No TF, Not a good design 

8 Slurry Wall U/S No TF 

9 Filter Cutoff Combo. (Slurry Wall & 

Overlay) 

No TF, EI 

10 Install Drain on D/S side with outfalls Yes 

11 Excavate and Overlay Yes 

12 Horizontal Drains No TF, may cause harm to embankment 

and seepage conditions 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

EI - Environmental Impact 

IF - Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N - Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-5 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-3 

List of Potential MIAD Seismic Risk Reduction Measures

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1

1 Downstream Overlay Yes 

2 Stone Columns No TF, Difficult to verify, low confidence 

3 Compaction Grouting No TF, Difficult to verify, low confidence 

4 Compaction Piles No TF, Difficult to verify, low confidence 

5 Trench Walls No TF, Might not cutoff seepage 

6 Slurry Walls No TF, Might not cutoff seepage 

7 Excavate and Replace Foundation Yes 

8 Permanent Freezing No TF, Unproven technique, O&M 

problems 

9 Soil Vitrification No TF, Unproven technique 

10 New Earth Dam Downstream No EI, TF, Similar to Overlay 

11 New RCC Dam Downstream No TF 

12 Replace the Dam in Place No EI, TF, Requires cofferdam, effects 

Res. Operation 

13 Replace the Dam in Place with RCC 

Dam 

No EI, TF, Requires cofferdam, effects 

Res. Operation 

14 Jet Grouting Yes 

15 Blast Compaction No EI, TF, Difficult to verify, low confidence 

16 Continuously Dewater No TF 

17 Reservoir Restriction No IF, P&N, Not practical 

18 More Downstream Berm No EI, TF, Difficult to quantify increase in 

strength 

19 Dynamic Compaction No TF, Depth prohibitive 

20 Increase Drainage with stone columns No TF 

21 Wick Drains No TF 

22 Rockfill Dam Downstream No EI, TF, Doesn’t adequately address 

concern 

23 Increase Release Capacity No EI, TF, IF, P&N, Downstream conditions 

restrict this (safe channel capacity) 

24 Series of Concrete walls in fdn. 

perpendicular to the crest 

No TF 

25 Overlay with RCC foundation No TF, similar to others 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EI – Environmental Impact 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

IF - Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N - Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

2-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-4 

List of Concrete Dam Foundation Wedge Sliding Seismic Risk Reduction Measures

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1

1 Anchor-Bar Halo No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

2 Instrument the contact (uplift 

piezometers) 

Yes 

3 Drain water loading the wedge Yes 

4 Adit installed shear keys No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

5 Post-tensioned anchors No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

6 Caisson crossing joint (shear pin) No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

7 Add weight No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

8 Excavate and drift block No TF, EF, May not be necessary, depend 

on No.2, too expensive for level of risk 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

IF – Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N – Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

Table 2-5 

List of Concrete Dam Foundation Contact Risk Reduction Measures

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1

1 Post -tensioned anchors Yes 

2 U/S, D/S Shear Keys Yes 

3 Toe Block Yes 

4 Caissons (steel fiber reinforced look at 

alternative types of reinforcement) 

No TF 

5 Downstream Buttress Yes 

6 Add weight upstream (cantilevered) No TF, Not practical. 

7 Drainage and monitoring (in conjunction 

with another alternative) 

Yes 

8 Revisit uplift assumptions No TF 

9 Tie-down at downstream toe (caissons 

or post tensioned anchors) 

No TF 

10 Construction joint Shear Keys Yes 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

IF – Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N – Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-7 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-6 

List of Concrete Dam Potential Sliding Along Lift Lines Risk Reduction Measures

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Primary Reason for Elimination of 

Measure1

1 Post-tensioned anchors Yes 

2 Post-tensioned anchors (composite 

fiber reinforced) 

No TF 

3 Caissons (steel fiber reinforced look at 

alternative types of reinforcement) 

No TF, Not practical at non-overflow 

section (may work for overflow sections) 

4 Counterfort upper throat of the dam No TF, EF, Not practical 

5 Put weight on top of dam (this would be 

isolated during a seismic event) 

No TF, Not practical. 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

IF – Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N – Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

Table 2-7 

 List of Concrete Dam Potential Gate and Piers Improvement Measures

Measure 

No. 

Measure Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Reason for Elimination of A 

Measure1

Gates 

1 Additional steel plates to flanges of gate 

arm structural members and/or replace 

gate arm beams with new members 

Yes 

2 Additional bracing Yes 

3 Box in lower structural members 

(increase section modulus) 

No EF, Much more costly that Measure No. 

1 

4 Steel Wrap at Pier ends to mitigate 

shear failure near trunnion 

Yes 

Piers 

1 Struts across the top of gate openings 

between piers 

Yes 

2 Steel plates for external shear 

reinforcement 

No TF 

3 Steel reinforcing bars and/or post 

tensioned anchors for pier base 

stabilization 

No TF 

4 Use the bridge as the strut to stiffen 

piers 

Yes 

5 Provide additional internal moment 

reinforcing with drilled steel columns 

No TF 

TF - Technical Infeasibility 

EF - Economic Infeasibility 

IF – Institutional Infeasibility 

P&N – Inability to meet Purpose & Need 

1

 Source for determination: Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Project Alternative Solution Study (PASS I). 

Reclamation and Corps. October 2005. 

 

2-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Criteria 

Viable measures retained at the completion of the initial PASS process were 

combined to create preliminary alternatives for further evaluation and screening. 

Both NEPA and CEQA contain guidance regarding screening to determine which 

alternatives should be carried forward for detailed analysis. The screening criteria 

applied to determine which alternatives should move forward are described in the 

text below. The screening criteria are based on NEPA and CEQA guidance as well as 

Reclamation guidelines for screening. 

• Reclamation (2000)1 explains, “Examples of reasons for elimination are: (1) 

failure of the alternative to meet the requirements of the purpose of and need for 

the action, (2) the alternative cannot be technically implemented, (3) the 

alternative is prohibitively greater in cost or in environmental impacts than the 

other alternatives, or (4) the alternative cannot be reasonably implemented.” 

• CEQA §15126.6 (c) states, “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate 

alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of 

the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant 

environmental effects.” 

Using this guidance, the alternatives were judged based on the following list of 

screening criteria. 

• Ability to meet purpose and need/project objectives: the degree to which an 

alternative meets elements of the purpose and need/project objectives. 

• Technical feasibility: the engineering and technical feasibility of an alternative. 

• Institutional feasibility: the ability of an alternative to be implemented within a 

reasonable timeframe, considering political, regulatory, permitting, and public 

acceptability constraints. 

• Economic feasibility: the ability of an alternative to be funded, given the 

constraints of the state and federal budgets. 

• Environmental impacts: the magnitude of potential environmental effects of an 

alternative, including biological, physical (air quality, water supply, geology and 

soils, groundwater, water quality, and visual resources), and social effects. 

A last consideration for screening was identification of measures that would be 

functionally equivalent to the objectives of the Corps authorized Folsom Dam 

Modification and Folsom Dam Raise projects. 

 

1

 Draft, not approved as formal guidance. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-9 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.1.6 Alternatives Eliminated as Part of Pre-Screening Process 

Several groups of alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EIS/EIR 

primarily due to their not meeting basic purpose and need requirements. These 

alternatives include siting of the Folsom Facility at a new location, restriction of 

operations of the Folsom Facility, and removal of the Folsom Facility. 

2.1.6.1 Siting of a New Folsom Facility 

The preliminary identification and screening of measures to consider for alternatives 

to include in the EIS/EIR did not include evaluation of alternative locations for the 

Folsom Facility, as otherwise required under Section 15126.6(f) (2) of the State 

CEQA Guidelines. Based on the importance of the Folsom Facility in supplying 

water and power to the Central Valley Project, and the fact that the project objectives 

and statement of purpose and need are very particular to the Folsom Facility, the 

concept of planning and implementing a replacement facility at an alternative 

location in order to address the risks posed with the Folsom DS/FDR was considered 

infeasible and inappropriate. Given the function, size, location, and regional nature 

of the Folsom Facility, it is not feasible to consider that a new replacement facility 

could be constructed elsewhere in a timely manner (i.e., by 2014, which is the 

completion timeframe for the currently proposed project), notwithstanding the fact 

that the construction of such a replacement facility would very likely have extensive 

significant environmental impacts of its own. Although development of the Auburn 

Dam was suggested as an alternative in the Scoping Process for the Folsom DS/FDR 

EIS/EIR, completion of that project would not occur anywhere near the timeframe 

proposed for the Folsom DS/FDR project and development of that facility would not 

address the risk issues particular to the Folsom Facility. Based on the reasons 

presented above, an alternative location scenario was not carried forth into the 

EIS/EIR analysis. 

2.1.6.2 Restriction of Reservoir Operations 

Restriction of reservoir operations (e.g., restricting the reservoir pool to a lower 

elevation) was considered but eliminated because it would not reduce dam safety or 

flood control risk. Evaluation of dam safety seismic, static, and hydrologic risks 

indicates that the risks remain approximately the same regardless of reservoir surface 

elevation. Because the basic flood control issue is the inability to safely release the 

reservoir pool prior to a major storm, the flood damage reduction risk would also 

remain unacceptably high regardless of reservoir pool elevation. 

2.1.6.3 Removal of Folsom Facility 

The removal of the Folsom Facility was considered by eliminated as a potential 

alternative due to the importance of Folsom to water supply, hydropower, and as 

recreation facility for the region. At present, no studies have been initiated on how 

the water and power provided by the Folsom Facility could be replaced if the Folsom 

were to be removed. Although CalFed is evaluating new water storage projects, 

2-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

these project assume that the Folsom Facility would remain in place and meeting its 

water supply obligations. The loss of Folsom would significant adversely impact the 

region’s economy and therefore is not being considered as an option to the Folsom 

Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction issues. 

2.1.7 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Alternatives 

The primary outcome of the PASS process was the identification of alternatives that 

combined dam safety and flood damage reduction measures into overall actions. The 

initial grouping of alternatives is presented in Table 2-8. 

Table 2-8 

 List of Project Alternatives Addressed in PASS I Evaluations

Alternative 

Name 

Alternative Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Reason for Elimination of Alternative 

Bravo Interim 500-ft wide fuseplug Auxiliary 

Spillway (phase 1) to be replaced by 5-

gated spillway (phase 2). Replace 8 

existing spillway gates on Main 

Concrete Dam, 5.5-ft raise of Main 

Concrete Dam and all earthen 

embankments. 

Yes 5.5-ft raise eliminated as technically not 

necessary; remaining portions of 

alternative incorporated into DS/FDR 

alternatives 

Delta Four-gated Auxiliary Spillway. Replace 

8 existing spillway gates on Main 

Concrete Dam, 6.5-ft raise of Main 

Concrete Dam and all earthen 

embankments. 

Yes 6.5-ft raise eliminated as technically not 

necessary; remaining portions of 

alternative incorporated into DS/FDR 

alternatives; evaluation of the six-gated 

spillway proved to have superior flood 

control aspects. 

Echo Six-gated Auxiliary Spillway. Replace 8 

existing gates on Main Concrete Dam, 

5.5-ft raise of Main Concrete Dam and 

all earthen embankments, 

Yes 5.5-ft raise eliminated as technically not 

necessary; remaining portions of 

alternative incorporated into DS/FDR 

alternatives 

Zulu Permanent 400-ft wide fuseplug 

Auxiliary Spillway. Upper tier outlet 

modifications on Main Concrete Dam, 

replace 8 existing spillway gates, new 

outlets 5 and 10 and enlarging outlets 6 

through 9.3-ft raise of Main Concrete 

Dam and all earthen embankments. 

Yes 9.3-ft raise and installation of new 

outlets eliminated as technically not 

necessary; remaining portions of 

alternative incorporated into DS/FDR 

alternatives 

Juno Permanent 550-ft wide fuseplug 

Auxiliary Spillway. Upper tier outlet 

modifications, new outlets 5 and 10 and 

enlargement of outlets 6 through 9, 

enlarging existing outlets 2 and 3, 

constructing 2 new outlets under the 

existing emergency spillway flip bucket. 

1.5-ft raise of Main Concrete Dam of all 

earthen embankments. 

Yes 1.5-ft raise and installation of new 

outlets eliminated as technical not 

necessary; portions of alternative 

incorporated into DS/FDR alternatives 

During further evaluations termed PASS II and PASS II Optimization, further 

engineering evaluation and optimization of highly probable joint alternatives was 

accomplished. In parallel, further engineering evaluations of stand-alone dam safety 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-11 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

and flood damage reduction alternatives also occurred. PASS II reported the results 

in April 2006 of a gated spillway and raise combination according to very specific 

criteria established by a joint agency Oversight Management Group. A tertiary effort, 

as directed by the Oversight Management Group, was to focus on maximizing the 

spillway potential and minimizing the height of any raise necessary to meet flood 

damage reduction objectives. The PASS II Optimization effort further refined the 

gated spillway alternative to the current description of the Joint Federal Project 

Auxiliary Spillway, as defined in Section 1.4 and 2.6. 

Within the comprehensive range of alternatives presented in this EIS/EIR, additional 

consideration was made for the development of and potential implementation of 

stand-alone alternatives in conjunction with a joint alternative, for dam safety, as 

well as potential additional flood damage reduction alternatives. The flood damage 

reduction alternative would serve as functional equivalents to the Corps authorized 

Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise projects. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

presented in Table 2-9 formed the basis of the Corp’s functional equivalency 

determination. 

The range of probable PASS I alternatives that were refined in parallel with the 

PASS II evaluation in preparation of this EIS/EIR, in order to identify a 

comprehensive range of dam safety and flood damage reduction alternatives 

consisting of probable joint alternatives in combination with probable stand-alone 

alternatives for further environmental impact analysis, are analyzed within this 

EIS/EIR, and presented in Table 2-10. 

2.2 Project Alternatives 

2.2.1 Introduction to Folsom DS/FDR Alternatives 

From the various engineering measures determined to best address the screening 

criteria relative to each Folsom Facility structure, five comprehensive action 

alternatives were developed. These alternatives incorporate, as a package, the 

measures necessary to modify the existing Folsom Facility features that are shown in 

the Project Base Map, Figure 1-1. Overall, it was determined that the five action 

alternatives would, to varying degrees, meet the purpose and need/project objectives, 

and are technically, institutionally, and economically feasible. The basic features of 

the five action alternatives are shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-5. The characteristics 

of all the alternatives are summarized in Table 2-10 and described in greater detail in 

Section 2.2.3 through Section 2.2.8 (the No Action/No Project Alternative 

description is Section 2.2.2). The corrective actions were developed on a structureby-structure basis; therefore, the project features are described in the same manner. 

A more detailed description of each engineering measure can be found in Section 

2.2.4. 

2-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-13 

Table 2-9 

 List of Corps Project Alternatives Addressed in American River Long-Term Study Supplemental EIS 

(2002) Alternative Name Alternative Description Retained 

for Further 

Evaluation? 

Reason for Elimination of 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

No action to improve dam safety or flood 

protection beyond existing constructed 

authorized projects 

Yes Required for analysis to serve as 

baseline for action alternatives 

2 

3.5-ft Dam 

Raise/478-ft Flood 

Pool Elevation 

Strengthening of Main Concrete Dam, 

lowering of main and existing Auxiliary 

Spillway crests, replacement of 8 spillway 

gates, modification of spillway bridge piers, 

replacement of spillway bridge, extension of 

stilling basin, and 3.5-ft concrete crest wall 

on all earthen embankments. 

Yes Elements retained to reflect 

functionally equivalent measures to 

potential DS/FDR actions 

3 

7-ft Dam Raise/482-

ft Flood Pool 

Elevation 

Strengthening and raising of Main Concrete 

Dam, lowering of main and existing 

Auxiliary Spillway crests, replacement of 8 

spillway gates, modification of spillway 

bridge piers, replacement of spillway 

bridge, extension of stilling basin, combined 

3.5-ft earthen raise and 3.5-ft concrete crest 

wall on all earthen embankments. 

Yes Elements retained to reflect 

functionally equivalent measures to 

potential DS/FDR actions 

4 

12-ft Dam 

Raise/487-ft Flood 

Strengthening and raising of Main Concrete 

Dam, lowering of main and existing 

Auxiliary Spillway crests, replacement of 8 

spillway gates, modification of spillway 

bridge piers, replacement of spillway 

bridge, extension of stilling basin, combined 

8.5-ft earthen raise and 3.5-ft concrete crest 

wall on all earthen embankments. 

Yes 12-ft raise eliminated as technically 

not necessary; remaining portions 

retained to reflect functionally 

equivalent measures to potential 

DS/FDR actions. 

5 

Stepped Release to 

160,000 

No structural modifications. Stepped 

release from 115,000 to 145,000 cfs, and 

then stepped to 160,000 cfs emergency 

release. 

No Does not address Safety of Dams 

concerns 

6 

Stepped Release to 

160,000 and New 

Outlets at Folsom 

Dam 

A new outlet to Folsom Dam to increase the 

early release from 115,000 cfs to 145,000. 

Release up to 160,000 same as Alternative 

5 

No Does not address Safety of Dams 

concerns 

7 

Stepped Release to 

180,000 cfs 

No structural modifications. Stepped 

release from 115,000 to 145,000 cfs, with 

emergency release stepped to 180,000 cfs. 

No Does not address Safety of Dams 

concerns 

8 

Stepped Release to 

160,000 cfs and 7-ft 

Dam Raise/482-ft 

Flood Pool 

Elevation 

Combines features of Alternative 3 with 

features of Alternative 5 

Yes Portions of alternative incorporated 

into Folsom DS/FDR alternatives per 

discussion for Alternatives 3 and 5 

above 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-10 

Summary of Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives

Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 

Main Alternative 

Features 

Dam Safety & 

Flood Damage Reduction

Fuseplug Auxiliary 

Spillway with No 

Dam 

Raise/Embankment 

Crest Protection 

Fuseplug Auxiliary 

Spillway with 

Underlying Tunnel, 4-

ft Dam/ Embankment 

Raise 

JFP Gated Auxiliary 

Spillway (6STG) with 

Potential 3.5-ft 

Parapet Wall Raise 

Gated Auxiliar

Spillway (4STG) 

7-ft Dam/ 

Embankment Ra

All alternatives include the main alternative features above plus seismic and static design eleme

at Main Concrete Dam and earthen embankment dams/dikes as outlined below 

Principle Spillway vs. Raise tradeoffs in relation to PMF/FDR and relative outlet elevation

Maximum PMF capacity w/o raise element, minimal FDR benefit, highest outlet elevation

Raise required for full PMF capacity plus full FDR benefit with lowest outlet elevation

No required raise element, Maximum PMF capacity w/ full FDR benefit, lower outlet elevation, potential raise as incrementally justified for FDR only

Required raise and gamodification elements pass PMF w/ full FDR benefit with smaller gaspillway, higher outlet elevation

Existing Main Concrete Dam

No Dam Raise 

No Dam raise - Existing parapet wall (3.5 ft) sufficient with minor modifications to 4.0 ft 

No Dam raise - Existing parapet wall (3.5 ft) sufficient with minor modifications 

Dam monolith raise - noverflow sections of da7 ft 

Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, and/or toe blocks 

Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, and/or toe blocks 

Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, and/or toe blocks 

Post-tensioned anchoshear key elements, atoe blocks 

Concrete Monoliths 

Foundation drain enhancements 

Foundation drain enhancements 

Foundation drain enhancements 

Foundation drain enhancements 

Spillway pier reinforcement comprised of bracing, post tensioned anchors and/or pier wraps 

Spillway pier reinforcement comprised of bracing, post tensioned anchors and/or pier wraps 

Spillway pier reinforcement comprised of bracing, post tensioned anchors and/or pier wraps 

Spillway pier reinforcecomprised of bracing, tensioned anchors andpier wraps 

No spillway bridge improvements 

No spillway bridge improvements 

Potentially modify/replace existing spillway bridge 

Replace existing spillwbridge 

Existing Spillway 

Additional bracing or replacement of structural members to spillway gates 

Additional bracing or replacement of structural members to spillway gates 

Potentially modify as in Alts 1 or 2 or replace 3 emergency gates as incrementally justified for FDR 

Replace all spillway gaincrementally justified FDR 

Main Concrete Dam 

Existing Stilling Basin No modifications No modifications 

Extend the Stilling Basin 50-75 ft as incrementally justified for FDR 

Extend the Stilling Bas75 ft as incrementally justified for FDR 

2-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft 
Project Description and 

Table 2-10 

Summary of Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives

(continued)

Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 

New Auxiliary Spillway

Auxiliary Spillway 

Maximum width PMF fuseplug spillway w/partiallylined chute 

Smaller width PMF fuseplug spillway w/partially- or completely-lined chute 

Joint (PMF/Flood control) 6 STG Auxiliary Spillway w/fullylined chute, stilling basin, and approach channel 

Smaller Gated AuxiliarSTG spillway w/fully-linchute, stilling basin, anapproach channel 

Control Structure 520-ft wide fuseplug 350- to 400-ft wide fuseplug 

6 submerged tainter gates, plus potential redundant water supply outlet connection 

4 submerged tainter gaplus possible redundanwater supply outlet connection 

New Auxiliary Spillway 

Tunnel No Tunnel Tunnel w/3 submerged tainter gates No Tunnel No Tunnel 

Existing Embankment Dams/Dikes 

Embankments raise height with incorporation of various seismic and static elements. Increased raise heights assumes increased impacts 

None to minimal to accommodate crest protection. No FDR benefit 

Low to Moderate to accommodate required for achieving PMF, FDR, freeboard, crest strengthening 

Low to Moderate to accommodate required freeboard, crest resurfacing and potential incremental flood surcharge as incrementally justified 

Moderate to High to accommodate required PMF, FDR, freeboard, resurfacing and freebopotential incremental fsurcharge as incremenjustified 

<4 ft earthen raise for crest protection 

0.5-ft earthen, 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 

Potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 

3.5-ft parapet wall and earthen raise 

None Toe drains None Toe drains None None Training wall between LWD and spillway Training wall between 

and spillway 

Left Wing Dam 

Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with concrete dam 

Half-height filters 

Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with concrete dam 

Full-height filters 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-10 (continued) 

Summary of Folsom DR/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives

Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

<4 ft earthen raise for crest protection 

0.5-ft earthen, 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 

Potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 

3.5-ft parapet wall and 3.5earthen raise 

Right Wing Dam None Toe drains None Toe drains 

Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with concrete dam 

Half-height filters 

Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with concrete dam 

Full-height filters 

<4-ft earthen raise for crest protection 4-ft earthen raise Potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 7-ft earthen raise Toe drains Toe drains Toe drains Toe drains Full-height filters Full-height filters Full-height filters Full-height filters Jet grouting downstream foundation 

Excavation & replacement of downstream foundation 

Jet grouting downstream foundation 

Jet grouting downstream foundation 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

Downstream overlay Downstream overlay Downstream overlay Downstream overlay 

4-ft earthen raise Potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 7-ft earthen raise Toe drains None Toe drains 

Dikes 1,2 3,7, & 8 No activity 

No Filter 

Full-height filter at Dike 7. Replace filter material removed at Dikes 1-3, 8 for parapet wall construction 

Full-height filters 

<4 ft earthen raise for crest protection 4-ft earthen raise Potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall 7-ft earthen raise Toe drains Toe drains Toe drains Toe drains 

Dikes 4, 5 & 6 

Full-height filters Half-height filters Full-height filters Full-height filters 

2-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft 
Project Description and 

Table 2-10 (continued) 

Summary of Folsom DR/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives

Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Miscellaneous and Overarching Features

New embankment protection New embankment protection New embankment protect

Non-Federal Property Protection No Action Acquisition of real estate 

rights (easements or fee title) 

Acquisition of real estate rights (easement or fee title) 

Acquisition of real estate rights (easement or fee tit

Borrow Sites Auxiliary Spillway Beal’s Point Auxiliary Spillway Tunnel excavation Beal’s Point Auxiliary Spillway Beal’s Point Auxiliary Spillway Beal’s Point Granite Bay Contractor Use Area – Staging, Material Processing, Concrete Batch Plant 

Main Concrete Dam - Concrete Folsom Point - Processing Beal’s Point - Processing MIAD - Jet Grout Plant 

Main Concrete Dam - Concrete Folsom Point - Processing Beal’s Point - Processing Granite Bay - Staging MIAD – Staging 

Main Concrete Dam - Concrete Folsom Point - Processing Beal’s Point - Processing Granite Bay - Staging MIAD - Jet Grout Plant 

Main Concrete Dam - Concrete Folsom Point - Processing Beal’s Point - Processing Granite Bay - Processing MIAD - Jet Grout Plant 

Disposal Sites 

Dike 7 MIAD D1/D2 Folsom Point LWD Beal’s Point 

Dike 7 MIAD D1/D2 Folsom Point LWD Beal’s Point 

Dike 7 MIAD D1/D2 Folsom Point LWD Beal’s Point 

Dike 7 MIAD D1/D2 Folsom Point LWD Beal’s Point 

Utility relocations Utility relocations Utility relocations Utility relocations Security Upgrades Security Upgrades Security Upgrades 

No security features associated with the FDR alternatives 

Road relocations Road relocations Road relocations Road relocations Haul road construction Haul road construction Haul road construction Haul road construction 

Other Project Features 

Excavation blasting Excavation blasting Excavation blasting; 

Underwater blasting and dredging 

Excavation blasting; underwater blasting and dredging 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
pter 2 

ct Description and Project Alternatives 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft 

ChaProje2-18this page intentionally left blank.
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

400 

42

40

5 

425 400

400

4 25 465 

465 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

PROPOSED 

AUXILIARY 

SPILLWAY 

MIAD 

MIAD 

LEFT 

MIAD 

RIGHT 

D2 

D1 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-1

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Alternative 1

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Potential Construction Zones 

Potential Borrow Areas 

Potential Contractor Use / Staging Areas 

Potential Borrow Areas and Potential 

Contractor Use/ Staging Areas 

Coffer Dam 

Processing Only 

(Approximate Location) 

Concrete and Processing 

(Approximate Location) 

465ft 

500ft 

425ft 

400ft 

Contours 

Folsom

Reservoir
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 This page is left intentionally blank
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

400 

42

40

5 

425 400

400

4 25 465 

465 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

PROPOSED 

AUXILIARY 

SPILLWAY 

MIAD 

MIAD 

LEFT 

MIAD 

RIGHT 

D2 

D1 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-2

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Alternative 2

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Potential Construction Zones 

Potential Borrow Areas 

Potential Contractor Use / Staging Areas 

Potential Borrow Areas and Potential 

Contractor Use/ Staging Areas 

Coffer Dam 

Processing Only 

(Approximate Location) 

Concrete and Processing 

(Approximate Location) 

465ft 

500ft 

425ft 

400ft 

Contours 

Folsom

Reservoir
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 This page is left intentionally blank
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

400 

42

40

5 

425 400

400

4 25 465 

465 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

PROPOSED 

AUXILIARY 

SPILLWAY 

MIAD 

MIAD 

LEFT 

MIAD 

RIGHT 

D2 

D1 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-3

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Alternative 3

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Potential Construction Zones 

Potential Borrow Areas 

Potential Contractor Use / Staging Areas 

Potential Borrow Areas and Potential 

Contractor Use/ Staging Areas 

Coffer Dam 

Processing Only 

(Approximate Location) 

Concrete and Processing 

(Approximate Location) 

465ft 

500ft 

425ft 

400ft 

Contours 

Folsom

Reservoir
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 This page is left intentionally blank
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

400 

42

40

5 

425 400

400

4 25 465 

465 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

PROPOSED 

AUXILIARY 

SPILLWAY 

MIAD 

MIAD 

LEFT 

MIAD 

RIGHT 

D2 

D1 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-4

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Alternative 4

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Potential Construction Zones 

Potential Borrow Areas 

Potential Contractor Use / Staging Areas 

Coffer Dam 

Processing Only 

(Approximate Location) 

Concrete and Processing 

(Approximate Location) 

465ft 

500ft 

425ft 

400ft 

Contours 

Folsom

Reservoir
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 This page is left intentionally blank
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

400 

42

40

5 

425 400

400

4 25 465 

465 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

500 

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

MIAD 

MIAD 

LEFT 

MIAD 

RIGHT 

D2 

D1 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-5

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Alternative 5

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Potential Construction Zones 

Potential Borrow Areas 

Potential Contractor Use / Staging Areas 

Coffer Dam 

Processing Only 

(Approximate Location) 

Concrete and Processing 

(Approximate Location) 

465ft 

500ft 

425ft 

400ft 

Contours 

Folsom

Reservoir
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 This page is left intentionally blank
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The various components of the Folsom Facility are located along an 8-mile stretch of 

the western and southern edges of Folsom Reservoir. Facilities to the east of the 

LWD are separated from all other facilities to the west and north by the American 

River and the Main Concrete Dam. 

Figure 1-1 provides a base map that illustrates the main features of the Folsom 

Facilities. The existing facilities include the Main Concrete Dam (Folsom Dam), 

wing dams, MIAD, and the eight dikes. Figures 2-1 through 2-5 show the basic 

nature and locations of the improvements to those main features as envisioned under 

each of five action alternatives, as overlaid on the base map. The following describes 

the color coding scheme used to identify improvements on the figures for the action 

alternatives. 

The approximate alignment for the new Auxiliary Spillway and/or tunnel is outlined 

in orange. The proposed contractor work areas illustrating the maximum area of 

consideration for potential effects due to construction are shown in blue. Locations 

where earthen materials processing and concrete mixing (batch plants) could occur 

are shown with blue and red dots. Contractor use areas, which could include offices, 

parking, materials storage, and borrow material stockpiling, are identified by the 

fuchsia color. The maximum area of consideration for potential borrow sites, within 

and adjacent to the reservoir, are shown in green. 

It is important to note that: 

1) The proposed construction, contractor use areas and borrow areas are 

conservative estimates of the actual area that would be impacted by project 

construction. The outlined areas reflect the maximum project footprint that 

was analyzed for potential impacts to all resources. Once all of the potential 

features of the project have been optimized, the actual area impacted by the 

project would, in most cases, be much smaller than what was analyzed. 

2) The borrow site locations reflect potential construction areas. Borrow would 

only be taken from these areas if the quantity of borrow material from the 

Auxiliary Spillway is inadequate for project purposes at the wing dams and 

dikes. If borrow material is actually required for construction, it is most 

likely that the only sites that would be developed are located at Folsom Point 

and MIAD (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3). 

The features incorporated into the comprehensive range of alternatives listed in 

Table 2-10 were developed so that all viable joint and stand-alone dam safety and 

flood damage reduction alternatives retained during screening could be assessed for 

environmental effects within at least one alternative. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-29 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The two principle ways that alternatives achieve the joint dam safety and flood 

damage reduction objectives is either by increasing the facilities release capacity, 

where a higher volume of water is released sooner during an event, and/or if the 

alternative increases the facilities ability to contain inflows longer, and thereby 

safely pass the event. The structural modifications described in the proposed 

alternatives are designed to achieve these objectives. 

Optimization of the project measures, and potential “repackaging” of the 

alternatives, was an ongoing engineering review task being conducted at the time of 

development of this EIS/EIR. The five action alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 5) 

presented and evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR represent a reasonable range of 

alternatives for the proposed Folsom DS/FDR project, based on the facts, 

circumstances, and information available at the time. It is very possible, however, 

that the final project identified in the Record of Decision, as determined through 

ongoing engineering reviews and concept refinements and through the results of the 

NEPA and CEQA review processes for this EIS/EIR, would recombine measures 

taken from two or more of the alternatives. Inasmuch as the analyses presented in 

this EIS/EIR evaluate, to varying degrees, the improvements currently envisioned 

under each alternative on both an individual basis and a collective basis (i.e., 

examining the impacts particular to the key components of each action alternative as 

well as disclosing the overall collective impacts of the alternative), it is likely that the 

environmental consequences of a potential hybrid alternative would have, to some 

degree, already been addressed within the Draft EIS/EIR. Any such "repackaging" 

of the alternatives would be examined in light of the analysis presented in this 

EIS/EIR to determine whether the potential associated environmental impacts have 

been sufficiently addressed and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA and CEQA. That review would determine the extent to which the 

components of the preferred alternative, be it one of the original five action 

alternatives or some combination thereof, have been sufficiently addressed so as to 

allow decision-makers to proceed with an approval action (i.e., issuance of a ROD). 

The review would also determine whether supplemental environmental 

documentation is necessary and, if so, define the nature, scope, and timing of such 

additional environmental review specific to those components that were not yet 

adequately addressed. This evaluation and determination process would be 

conducted in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as appropriate. 

2.2.2 Corps Folsom Dam Flood Damage Reduction Related 

Alternatives 

Table 2-11 presents a listing of projects, some of which are included under the Corps 

Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Project Authorizations that are 

not a part of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR. 

2-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-11 

Folsom Area Projects Addressed by Corps in Other 

Planning/Environmental Disclosure Documents

Corps Project Feature Corps Project Activity Documents 

Main Concrete Dam Existing outlet 

modifications 

Addition of 2 new outlets 

Folsom Dam Modification Environmental 

Assessment/Initial Study 2001 

Folsom Dam Modification Limited Reevaluation 

Report, 2003 

Folsom Dam Modification Environmental 

Assessment /Initial Study 2005 

Ecosystem Restoration Temperature Control 

Shutters 

American River Watershed, California Long-Term 

Study, 2002 

Ecosystem Restoration American River Watershed, California Long-Term 

Study, 2002 

Miscellaneous New Folsom Bridge and 

approach 

American River Watershed, California Long-Term 

Study, 2002 

As mentioned, the Folsom Dam Modification Project was authorized in the WRDA 

1999. The authorized plan included the elements of the Folsom Modification Plan 

described in the 1996 SIR, as modified in the SAFCA Information Paper Folsom 

Dam Modification Report, New Outlets Plan of 1998. Because the project 

authorized in WRDA 1999 differed from the plan presented in the 1996 SIR, the 

Draft Folsom Modification Project Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) 

was prepared in 2001 (2001 EA/IS) to document environmental effects of the 

authorized elements. At the same time, additional studies were conducted, as 

directed by WRDA 1999, which were documented in the February 2002 American 

River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation 

Report/EIS/EIR (2002 Long-Term Study). 

The Folsom Modification Project originally authorized in the 1999 WRDA would 

enlarge the Folsom Dam outlet works and improve the use of surcharge storage 

space. On completion, the project would allow operators to evacuate flood storage 

space earlier in a flood event in anticipation of the need to store additional water in 

the reservoir to reduce downstream flood damages. In combination, the outlet and 

spillway modifications would achieve an objective release capacity of 115,000 cfs 

earlier than under without-project conditions. 

To reconcile differences between the Folsom Dam modification elements presented 

in the 2001 EA/IS and the 2002 Long-Term Study, the Folsom Dam Modification 

Project Limited Reevaluation Report and EA/IS was prepared in 2003 (2003 LRR). 

Proposed changes to the Folsom Modification Project that were identified in the 

2003 LRR included the following: 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-31 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Construct two new upper tier river outlets (instead of constructing five new 

outlets) 

• Enlarge the four existing upper tier outlets to 9 feet, 4 inches by 14 feet, and the 

four existing lower tier outlets to 9 feet, 4 inches by 12 feet (instead of enlarging 

all eight outlets to 6 feet by 12 feet) 

• Construct the new stilling basin as previously authorized, but provide additional 

anchorage for the apron slab 

Since preparation of the 2003 LRR, and completion of construction plans for those 

elements, additional studies and authorization of the Folsom Dam Raise Project have 

identified further changes to the Folsom Modification Project. Plans and 

specifications for the Folsom Modification Project were prepared in 2003 and 2004, 

and contractor bids were solicited in 2005. The returned bids were nearly three times 

higher than had previously been estimated. This new cost significantly exceeded the 

PL 99-662 Section 902 authorization and appropriations limit. The high bid 

estimates were largely due to costly non-standard construction methods that would 

need to be employed to safely enlarge the existing outlets without taking the 

reservoir out of service during the construction period. Consequently, dam 

operations and performance and alternate structural methods to achieve the flood 

protection provided by the outlet modifications were reexamined. 

Subsequent studies to the 2003 LRR found that modification of the two outboard 

lower tier outlets was infeasible, and offered only a marginal increase in 

performance. The design was been further refined, consisting of enlarging six river 

outlets (four upper tier outlets and two lower tier outlets) and constructing two new 

outlets as a result of hydraulic, geotechnical and structural assessment associated 

with enlarging the two outside lower tier outlets. Environmental impacts of this plan 

would be less than disclosed in the 2001 EA/IS, 2003 LRR and 2005 EA/IS, since 

lower tier construction would be limited to two, rather than four, and thus debris 

removal and dredging limits would be confined to a smaller area and construction 

would be accomplished in a shorter amount of time. 

Most recently, a gated Auxiliary Spillway has been identified as a viable 

“functionally equivalent” alternative to outlet modifications. The Auxiliary Spillway 

is anticipated to be less costly than modifying the Main Concrete Dam outlets 

because it would not entail the construction risk associated with the outlet 

modifications. In addition, the material excavated from the Auxiliary Spillway site 

could be used for static and seismic dam safety improvements proposed by 

Reclamation. 

As authorized, the Folsom Dam Raise Project included modifications to the LL 

Anderson Dam Spillway for dam safety purposes. Modifications to the LL Anderson 

2-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Dam, a non federal, privately-owned and operated dam, located on the Middle Fork 

of the American River at French Meadows Reservoir, upstream of the Folsom 

Facility, would involve enlarging the spillway to allow safe passage of the Probable 

Maximum Flood (PMF). These improvements would reduce the risk of impacts to 

Folsom Dam of a potential failure of LL Anderson Dam. However, since the initial 

authorization, modifications to LL Anderson Dam have been dropped from further 

consideration in the Folsom DS/FDR Action. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) and the owner/operator of the dam (Placer County Water 

Agency) have agreed to resolve the dam safety issues as a separate project. 

2.2.3 Relationship of Safety of Dams and Flood Damage Reduction to 

the Joint Federal Project 

As presented in Chapter 1, Reclamation and the Corps have separate missions related 

to the function of Folsom Reservoir based upon their federal authorizations. 

Reclamation is focused on water delivery, power generation, and related programs 

including dam safety, while the Corps is focused on flood control and flood damage 

reduction. One overlapping issue for dam safety and flood damage reduction is 

management of the hydrology of the American River watershed. Reclamation’s dam 

safety concerns focus on preventing overtopping of the dam structures during a 

major flood event. The Corps’ mission focus is flood damage reduction, which is 

achieved by controlling releases from the reservoir at levels that maintain the 

integrity of the downstream levees 

Congress has requested that Reclamation and the Corps develop a common solution 

to the overlapping issues related to Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Both 

agencies have identified that a gated Auxiliary Spillway would address both agencies 

concerns, which is now referred to as the “Joint Federal Project” (JFP). Separate 

stand-alone dam safety and flood damage reduction alternatives to be independently 

implemented concurrently by each agency are explicitly distinct form the joint effort 

although they collectively are analyzed within this EIS/EIR to address the potential 

cumulative effects at the Folsom Facility. When used in this document, JFP refers 

specifically to the following: 

The JFP at Folsom Dam and Reservoir would consist of six new 23-ft X 33-ft 

submerged tainter gates at invert 368 ft combined with a concrete lined 

Auxiliary Spillway approximately 170 ft wide and 1700 ft in length. Gate 

dimensions and invert elevation may be optimized during design to maximize 

performance and/or reduce costs. To achieve the objective of expedited 

feasibility level design, optimization of the spillway design would focus, to 

the extent feasible, upon varying the invert elevation of the new tainter gates, 

but if necessary, may include varying the dimensions of the gates, approach 

channel or Auxiliary Spillway. The optimization process would endeavor to 

improve upon the flood damage reduction objective of at least 1/200 year 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-33 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

flood protection while continuing to preserve and expedite completion of the 

dam safety objective of safely passing the PMF. 

Additional features may be added to the JFP at a later point in the 

development of the project, if the features are mutually determined to be 

necessary by participating agencies in order to (1) achieve a minimum 1/200 

year flood protection, or (2) as incrementally justified through appropriate 

analysis and evaluation. Potential additional features may include a raise of up 

to 3.5 feet for all embankments, or modification or replacement of the existing 

service gates or emergency spillway gates. Any additions to the JFP, as 

justified, would be for flood damage reduction purposes only. 

Most of the remaining Folsom DS/FDR actions would be implemented separately as 

stand-alone modifications, by each agency, depending upon their respective Safety 

of Dams and flood damage reduction authorities. The appropriate level of 

environmental documentation would be completed before any features not fully 

described and evaluated in this document are constructed. 

2.2.4 Description of the Engineering Measures 

This section describes measures that increase the capability of the Folsom Facility to 

address Safety of Dams hydrologic, seismic, and static concerns, and to better 

manage floods in order to safely pass the PMF, and lesser floods up to a 1 in 200 

year event. This section also describes supplemental measures to provide an 

integrated security system that includes appropriate physical security components 

and electronic security systems to provide a complete and useable protection system 

for the Folsom Facility. These engineering measures include several different 

structural modification alternatives to upgrade the overall system. It is important to 

note that the engineering measures described in this section represent the full range 

of improvements to the Folsom Facility that are reflected in different degrees and 

combinations within the five action alternatives currently being considered for the 

Folsom DS/FDR Project. Table 2-10 in the preceding section provides a summary of 

which measures are included in which action alternative(s), and Sections 2.4 through 

2.8, which follow later in this chapter, provide a detailed description of how each 

action alternative includes a specific combination of measures. The discussion 

provided below in this section describes the basic nature, design, function, and 

construction characteristics of each of the measures contemplated within the range of 

action alternatives. This comprehensive description of all the measures is intended 

help the reader better understand how the characteristics of each of the action 

alternatives compare and contrast, and also helps set the context for understanding 

how the construction characteristics associated with each alternative relate to the 

impacts discussion presented in Chapter 3. 

2-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The Folsom facilities to be addressed by one or more of the proposed structural 

modification alternatives includes the Main Concrete Dam, the RWD and LWD, the 

MIAD, and Dikes 1 through 8 (See Figure 1-1). The concrete dam and earthen wing 

dams serve to impound water associated with the main stem of the American River. 

MIAD serves to dam water within the historic Blue Ravine river channel, while the 

earthen dikes serve to contain water at low spots in the topography during periods 

when the reservoir is at or near capacity. 

Not all of the proposed structural modification alternatives are applicable to all 

Folsom facility structures. Although the alternatives may be similar in nature from 

structure to structure, each structure is unique unto itself and requires distinct 

consideration. For example, construction of shear keys or post tensioned anchors 

would only be applicable to the Main Concrete Dam since it is the only concrete 

structure. All of the earthen structures, however, could have static and seismic 

elements that would be similar to all earthen embankment dams/dikes, with slight 

unique variations due to unique consideration applicable to an individual structure. 

The basic details of the proposed structural modification alternatives are provided in 

the text below. 

2.2.4.1 Auxiliary Spillway 

The current dam spillway and outlets do not have sufficient discharge capacity for 

managing the predicted PMF and lesser event flood inflows above a 1 in 100 year 

event. The Folsom Facility has insufficient capacity to safely pass the PMF event, 

and therefore Reclamation has proposed structural modification alternatives to 

address increasing discharge capability and/or increasing storage during extreme 

flood events above the 1 in 200 year event up to the PMF. The Folsom Facility 

currently can safely release flood flows above 115,000 cfs and below 160,000 cfs for 

a duration which provides a level of protection provided by downstream levees 

associated with a 1 in 100 year event. Proposed Flood Damage Reduction structural 

modification alternatives address increasing discharge capability and/or increasing 

storage (reservoir surface elevation of 388.6 ft) for extreme flood events above the 

existing conditions. The proposed features would be able to safely release flood 

flows above 115,000 cfs and below 160,000 cfs for a longer duration equivalent to a 

1 in 200 year event level. 

Various combinations of Auxiliary Spillways (fuseplug, fusegate, gated), tunnels and 

potential dam raises have been considered to address overtopping of the dam during 

extreme flood events and increase the duration lesser events can be held to releases 

of 160,000 cfs or below. A new Auxiliary Spillway is the major feature being 

considered to address the dam safety hydrologic risk of safely passing part or the 

entire PMF event. One goal of this new structure would be potentially achieving a 

greater than 1- in 200-year flood protection objective. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-35 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The Auxiliary Spillway design alternatives increase the flood control capability of 

the Folsom Facility by increasing the outflow capacity at lower lake levels, resulting 

in reduced maximum pool elevations when large flood events occur and proper 

reservoir operations are followed. The purpose of the Auxiliary Spillway would be to 

provide better hydrologic control of the reservoir capacity during large flood events. 

Based on reservoir levels and anticipated and observed reservoir inflows, the 

Auxiliary Spillway would be used to safely and quickly lower the reservoir level to 

withstand the expected storm runoff. 

In general, all Auxiliary Spillway alternatives would consist of the construction of 

new spillway on the south abutment and downstream of the LWD. It would include 

an approach channel on the water side of the control section, a control structure 

section consisting of either a segmented earthen fuseplug control structure or a gated 

control structure and a discharge chute to convey water to the river. Beyond the 

control section, the discharge chute would lead to an energy dissipating structure and 

exit channel that would channel spillway flows to the river. The principle differences 

in the various spillways are the type of control structure, the depth and width of the 

channel, and the length of the approach channel. 

Concrete for construction of the Auxiliary Spillway would be produced at an onsite 

batch plant, with cement and aggregate hauled to the site from Sacramento area 

commercial suppliers. The discharge chute linings would be either a short linedchute option, constructed in the upper portion of the spillway, or a fully-lined chute 

option constructed completely to the river discharge point. The spillway chute would 

be lined either with roller compacted concrete, or structural, formed, and poured 

concrete. 

The spillway would be constructed in phases to obtain an interim ability to safely 

pass the PMF as expeditiously as possible followed by incremental phases to achieve 

the full flood damage reduction objectives. 

The Auxiliary Spillway would be constructed by excavating an elongated trench in 

the area adjacent to and below the LWD. Decomposed granite and surficial soils 

would be removed and stockpiled using standard construction equipment. The 

underlying competent rock foundation would be excavated using standard drill and 

blast techniques. Material excavated from the trench would be utilized as borrow 

material for the raising and strengthening of earthen structures, particularly MIAD. 

Excess material would be permanently stockpiled on site. 

The spillway chute when complete would convey the spillway discharge to the 

American River channel without impact to the LWD. It is expected that the 

excavation of the approach and discharge chutes would be done in multiple stages. 

The initial stages would include removing common material and some excavation of 

the rock. A rock plug and/or cofferdam would be used to close off the partially 

2-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

excavated spillway during construction and could be used to partially pass a large 

flood event should one occur during construction. Subsequent stages would involve 

excavation of the approach and discharge chutes to the final grade, and the Auxiliary 

Spillway control structure would be completed. It is anticipated that blasting would 

be used as the primary means of rock excavation. Construction of the approach 

channel to the spillway gates could involve underwater blasting, dredging, and 

barging of material from within the reservoir to the shoreline, where the material 

would be stockpiled. It is anticipated that the material excavated from the approach 

chute would be put to beneficial use. 

The Auxiliary Spillway would be controlled by either an earthen fuseplug control 

structure that would meet the dam safety objectives of passing the PMF or 

submerged tainter gates that would meet both dam safety and flood control 

objectives. Features of the fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway and tainter gate spillway are 

provided in the following sections. 

2.2.4.2 Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway 

A control structure consisting of an earthen fuseplug embankment sections would 

serve as the Auxiliary Spillway control on an interim basis or permanent basis. On an 

interim basis, the fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway would address Reclamation’s Safety 

of Dams objective while flood damage reduction elements are being designed and 

constructed. The fuseplug control structure could serve on a permanent basis if it 

were to be determined through future analysis that flood damage reduction objectives 

were met by another alternative or indefinitely deferred. The spillway would be 

principally excavated and constructed as described above. The fuseplug section 

would consist of a zoned embankment with an impervious core, an internal coarse 

shell zone, and erosion protection material would be placed on the upstream face of 

the fuseplug. The fuseplug control structure would be designed with multiple 

segments to allow for the progressive passage of smaller floods up to the PMF flow, 

without affecting the complete fuseplug control structure. The fuseplug embankment 

sections would be segmented with concrete divider walls to insure that no single 

segments operational flows would exceed downstream levee capacity. The fuseplug 

embankment sections would be designed to erode in a controlled manner when the 

reservoir elevation exceeds the elevation of a pilot channel (by approximately 1 foot) 

and would be 2 feet below the fuseplug embankment crest. 

The fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway alternative with the largest width is identified in 

Alternative 1. A mostly unlined rock approach channel would extend from the 

control structure into the reservoir. The last 150 ft of the approach channel would be 

lined with roller compacted concrete. The 520-ft wide, 400-ft long approach channel 

would convey water to the control structure. The spillway would have a 520-ft wide 

control structure at the upstream end of a 1,100-ft long, 520- to 300-ft wide rollercompacted concrete-lined channel. This channel would lead to a 1,700-ft unlined 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-37 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

channel discharging into the American River. This alternative fully passes the PMF 

but provides limited achievement of flood damage reduction objectives. Since the 

fuseplug alone does not meet the dual objectives, the fuseplug alternative could be 

implemented on an interim basis as flood elements are further designed and 

constructed. A fuseplug could also be implemented on a permanent basis if it were to 

be determined through future analysis that flood damage reduction objectives were 

better met by other alternative combinations or indefinitely deferred. A smaller 

fuseplug control structure (approximately 400 feet wide) is considered under 

Alternative 2 in conjunction with an underlying tunnel and dam raise to achieve both 

dam safety and flood damage reduction objectives. 

The approach channel would have a trapezoidal cross-section, with a flat-bottom at 

elevation 435 ft. Both unconsolidated (soil and loose rock) and consolidated 

(bedrock) material would be excavated. For common excavation, it is anticipated 

that scrapers, bulldozers, and dump trucks would be used. For bedrock excavation, 

blasting would be required to breakup the material into adequate size for excavation. 

Blasting would occur above and below the reservoir water line. Within reservoir 

excavation would be accomplished by using a dragline. Within reservoir water 

quality impacts would be mitigated through sediment control actions. 

2.2.4.3 Gated Spillway 

Another option for the Auxiliary Spillway control section would be the use of 

mechanical gates (submerged tainter gates) housed in a concrete structure to meet 

both dam safety and flood damage reduction objectives. Overall, the gated Auxiliary 

Spillway is similar to other spillway alternatives and would consist of an approach 

channel on the waterside of the gate, a control structure consisting of six submerged 

tainter gates, and a concrete-line chute leading to an energy dissipating structure and 

exit channel. Concrete for construction of the spillway would be produced at an 

onsite batch plant, with cement and aggregate hauled to the site from Sacramento 

area commercial suppliers or onsite aggregate. The discharge chute would be fully 

lined with formed concrete and is inclusive of an energy-dissipating structure 

(stilling basin) at the river. 

The 6 STG gated spillway as proposed in Alternative 3, would have a 190-ft wide 

control structure at the head of a 1,100-ft long, 190-ft wide concrete-lined channel. 

The approach channel would be similar to that of the fuseplug spillway, but would be 

excavated deeper into the bedrock to an elevation of 364 ft. This approach channel 

and gate would lead to a 1,700-ft concrete-lined channel discharging into the 

American River. The 6 STG gated Auxiliary Spillway has a discharge capacity of 

approximately 280,000 cfs at pool elevation 477 ft. Gate dimensions and invert 

elevation may be optimized during design to maximize performance and/or reduce 

costs. The gated sections would be designed to allow safe passage of more frequent, 

smaller flood events and maintain the capability of the structure to safely pass part of 

2-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

or all of the PMF without a dam raise of any height to prevent overtopping the other 

retention structures. A raise could be included if additional flood damage reduction 

benefits are incrementally justified as presented in Alternative 3. A smaller, narrower 

4 STG spillway is proposed in Alternative 4 which would require a raise of 7 feet to 

meet both dam safety and flood damage reduction objectives. 

The approach channel would have a trapezoidal cross-section, with a flat-bottom at 

elevation 364 ft. Both unconsolidated (soil and loose rock) and consolidated 

(bedrock) material would be excavated. For common excavation, it is anticipated 

that scrapers, bulldozers, and dump trucks would be used. For bedrock excavation, 

blasting would be required to breakup the material into adequate size for excavation. 

Blasting would occur above and below the reservoir water line. Within reservoir 

excavation would be accomplished by using a dragline. Within reservoir water 

quality impacts would be mitigated through sediment control actions. 

2.2.4.4 Concrete Dam Structural Modifications 

Foundation, Gate and Pier Improvements 

Structural modifications to the existing Main Concrete Dam foundation, exiting gates 

and gate piers are being considered to reduce dam safety seismic risks. The existing 

concrete dam spillway gates are proposed for replacement under flood damage 

reduction objective dam raise options because structural members for the existing 

gates would be impacted during the passage of large flood releases. To address flood 

damage reduction objectives for dam raise options, replacement of the existing 

bridge over the spillway gates on top of the Main Concrete Dam would be raised or 

replaced. 

2.2.4.5 Main Concrete Dam Seismic Improvement Options 

The Main Concrete Dam was constructed of concrete monoliths that may have the 

potential to slide on horizontal lift lines within the dam during a large earthquake 

event. In addition, evaluation of the dam’s original construction details and stability 

analysis indicates that the dam monoliths may slide along the dam-foundation 

contact during a large earthquake. Engineering options being considered to reduce 

the probability of Main Concrete Dam movement include upper and lower post 

tensioned anchors, shear keys, and a toe-block. Existing gate and gate pier 

reinforcement is also required to reduce dam safety seismic risks. Spillway pier 

reinforcement is comprised of bracing post tensioned anchors and/or pier wraps 

along with additional bracing or replacement of structural members to the existing 

spillway gates. No existing spillway bridge improvements are required with these 

modifications. 

Post-Tensioned Anchors in Upper Portion of Dam (Upper Post tensioned anchors) 

There are two monoliths on either end of the Main Concrete Dam (monoliths 1 and 

28) that may require anchoring within the Main Concrete Dam to prevent earthquake 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-39 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

induced sliding of the concrete blocks. Upper post tensioned anchors would be 

installed by boring vertical holes within the two monoliths and anchoring the 

monolith blocks with post tensioned anchors. The design calls for the post tensioned 

anchors to be 87.5 ft in length, anchored 25 ft below the lift line at approximate 

elevation 418. The design requires six post tensioned anchors for each monolith for a 

total of 24 post tensioned anchors. Figure 2-6 illustrates the post-tensioned tendon 

concept where the connection between concrete lift lines is reinforced. 

Lower Post-tensioned anchors 

There are eight dam monoliths requiring anchoring to mitigate potential earthquake 

induced sliding along the foundation contact. Lower post-tensioned anchors would 

be installed by drilling boreholes at 45-degree angles through the downstream face of 

the concrete dam monoliths blocks into underlying foundation (i.e., crossing the dam 

foundation contact). Steel post tensioned anchors passing through the monoliths into 

the foundation would be anchored into rock foundation with cement grout, which 

would tie the base of the concrete dam to the foundation. Figure 2-7 illustrates the 

post-tensioned concept where the connection between concrete and rock foundation 

is reinforced. 

Post-tensioned tendon installation in the Main Concrete Dam would be limited to 

monoliths 15 through 22. Construction would be performed on work-platforms 

constructed on the downstream face of the Main Concrete Dam, including 

excavation of small blockouts on the downstream face of the concrete dam face for 

tendon installation, followed by drilling diagonally upstream through the monoliths 

into the foundation. Following drilling, post tensioned anchors would be installed, 

then anchored with cement grout, followed by tensioning. The remaining drill hole 

above the anchored portion would then be filled with grout. The blockouts would 

then be filled with concrete to conform with the original concrete dam face profile. 

Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of earthen material would be excavated from 

LWD to enable installation of post tensioned anchors into the lower portions of 

monoliths 20 through 22. This excavated material would be stockpiled and replaced 

after post tensioned anchors are installed. Water produced during drilling of the 

tendon holes would be captured, contained, and disposed of in accordance with the 

construction water quality permit. 

Shear Keys 

Shear keys are another option to prevent the sliding of the concrete monoliths along 

the foundation contact (i.e., dam/foundation contact). For this option, 10-foot 

diameter tunnels would be excavated along the contact of the foundation and the 

base of the dam. The tunnels would be backfilled with reinforced concrete to provide 

the shear resistance along the contact sliding plane. Figure 2-8 illustrates the concept 

of the shear key. 

2-40 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Contact Between 

Concrete (lift line) 

@ El. 418.0

Anchor Head

Post-Tensioned

Strand Anchor

Cable Spacer With 

Centralizer

Primary Grout

Secondary Grout

 Figure 2-6

Post-Tensioned Anchors Across Lift Line at El. 418.0
Concrete Dam

Post-Tensioned

Strand Anchor

Secondary Grout

 Anchor Head

Cable Spacer With Centralizer

Dam-Foundation Contact

Primary Grout

Bedrock

 Figure 2-7

Post-Tensioned Anchors Across Foundation Contact
12' Diameter Tunnels Filled with 

Reinforced Concrete to Anchor Dam 

Foundation

Shear Key Element Concept

Bedrock

Bedrock

Concrete Dam

 Figure 2-8

Shear Key Element Concept
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

 Toe Block 

A toe block is another option to prevent the sliding of the concrete monoliths along 

the contact. For this option, a toe block would be excavated along the downstream 

toe of the dam into the underlying rock foundation. The excavation would be 

backfilled with concrete to provide the shear resistance along the contact sliding 

plane. 

For the installation of shear keys or toe blocks, the stilling basin would be dewatered, 

allowing access to the contact between the dam and its foundation. Excavation 

methods at the dam base would likely include controlled blasting in the foundation 

rock and mechanical methods for cutting into the concrete. Water used in 

installation of the shear keys and toe blocks would be captured, contained, and 

disposed of in accordance with the construction water quality permit. 

Contraction Joint Shear Key 

A contraction joint or vertical shear key is being considered for the anchoring the 

vertical contraction joints between dam monoliths 20-21, 21-22, and 22-23. The 

vertical shear keys would be 3-ft in diameter, vary in length between 100 and 140 ft, 

and receive vertical and horizontal reinforcement. The contraction joint shear keys 

would bisect each contraction joint in two locations on the downstream face of the 

dam and act to tie monoliths 21 and 22 to monoliths 20 and 23. Monoliths 15 

through 22 are founded on the channel fault and could slide during a seismic event. 

The full base of monoliths 15 through 19 and half the base of monolith 20 would be 

anchored to the foundation. The vertical shear keys would bridge the unbonded 

vertical contraction joints and allow the adjacent monoliths to help anchor monoliths 

21 and 22. 

Drainage of Dam Foundation 

Foundation drainage improvements could be used to reduce uplift pressures and 

reduce the risk of sliding of foundation wedge. To accomplish this, additional drains 

would be drilled from the existing dam drainage gallery between the spacing of the 

existing drains. Piezometers would be installed to monitor the uplift pressures within 

the foundation. 

Gate and Pier Reinforcement

The spillway gate arms would be either be replaced or reinforced with welded steel 

plates and additional cross bracing to reduce the potential for a buckling failure 

during a large earthquake. Spillway piers would be braced with structural members 

and reinforced with steel wraps and tendons to inhibit pier lateral swaying during an 

earthquake and/or cable post tensioned anchors would be installed through the pier 

into the mass concrete of the dam to prevent shearing along the pier base. Also to 

prevent failure of the spillway piers during a seismic event, a steel plate would be 

wrapped around the downstream portion of the pier and cross anchored with bolts. 

2-44 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

This band, or pier wrap, would carry the gate trunnion stress placed on it should a 

large magnitude earthquake occur. 

2.2.4.6 Existing Stilling Basin 

The existing stilling basin was designed so that it could contain hydraulic jump 

action for flows up to 200,000 cfs and prevent major damage during the existing 

spillway design flood. Flows above 200,000 cfs would result in hydraulic jump 

further downstream. Since total releases from the Main Concrete Dam, with existing 

Auxiliary Spillway, could be increased from the original design discharge of 567,000 

cfs maximum to 920,000 under this project, modifications to the stilling basin are 

warranted. To address this concern, the existing stilling basin would be extended 50-

75-ft. downstream as incrementally justified for flood damage reduction. 

2.2.4.7 Embankment Raises (Dikes and Wing Dams) 

Various combinations of raise heights in conjunction with increased outlet capacity 

modifications, Auxiliary Spillways (fuseplug, fusegate, gated), and tunnels and have 

been considered to avoid overtopping the dam during extreme flood events and 

increase the duration lesser events can be held to 160,000 cfs or below. The existing 

Main Concrete Dam has a parapet wall 4.0 ft above the crest elevation of the 

remaining embankment dams/dikes of 480.5. Some minor modifications to gaps 

along this parapet wall would be needed for raises of 4 feet or less. Significant dam 

modifications would be required for raises greater than 4 feet. 

To temporarily increase the capacity of the reservoir and improve flood damage 

reduction, all earthen structures could be raised through the placement of additional 

earthen material, construction of concrete walls, or a combination of the two 

measures, along the crest of the facilities. The purpose of the raises would be to: 

1) Small heights of less than 4 feet to accommodate resurfacing, security and/or 

crest hardening or small freeboard requirements following other 

embankment/dike structural modifications or under both safety of dams, 

security and flood damage reduction objectives as incrementally justified. 

2) To provide additional freeboard or surcharge capacity up to greater heights of 

7 ft under flood damage reduction objectives as incrementally justified. 

3) A maximum raise height of 17 ft was analyzed as an alternative to contain the 

PMF without any increased discharge capacity from any combination of new 

or existing spillway, tunnel, and gate or existing outlet modifications. 

Additional modifications would be required to achieve flood damage 

reduction objectives. 

Several options exist for the raising of existing dikes and wing dams. Embankment 

raise are described below. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-45 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Conventional Earthfill Raise. 

The earthfill dikes (Dikes 1 through 8), LWD, RWD, and MIAD would be raised and 

strengthened using earthen materials similar to their current construction. The cores 

of the existing dam/dike embankments consist of decomposed granite and have 

performed well since construction. Soil material required for the dam/dike raises 

would include shell material (impervious soil and miscellaneous shell soil), coarse 

filter (slope protection bedding), and slope protection (riprap). Installed within the 

downstream shell would be a filter zone (see Section 2.2.4.). 

The materials for the shell would be produced locally at borrow sites developed on 

Reclamation property. The materials for filters would most likely be hauled to the 

site from local commercial sources or produced onsite by processing granitic borrow 

material obtained during the Auxiliary Spillway excavation or an alternate onsite 

location. Shell and filter production would involve screening and crushing of 

excavated rock to sizes meeting the specifications for each of the project sites. 

Standard earth moving equipment would be used to excavate the material, haul it to 

processing sites, and then place the material at the project sites. 

Earthfill raises would only involve the modification of the crest and downstream face 

of the structure (see Figure 2-9). Necessary seismic and static elements would also 

be incorporated into the overall design. An earthfill raise would be accomplished 

first by stripping a nominal 2-ft of existing cover from the downstream face prior to 

placement of new material. Stripping would most likely involve the pushing of 

material down the slope of the embankment by a bulldozer. At the bottom of the 

embankment, the material would be picked up by a bottom scraper hauler and 

transported to the storage site. 

The material to be replaced on the downstream side would not be required to be 

impermeable and could be constructed of local materials. Following removal of the 

2-ft layer, the raise would be accomplished by building up the downstream slope and 

raising dam/dike crests through the placement of appropriate soil materials 

developed at the borrow sites. The existing dam/dike crest would be excavated as 

necessary to key the new impermeable fill material to impermeable core of the 

existing embankment. The upstream (reservoir side) face and crest would not be 

altered below the point of the raise; upstream and downstream erosion protection 

would be extended to the crest height of the new raise. A slope stability analysis 

would be conducted to optimize the slope of the downstream dam/dike face. 

Placement of additional earthen material would serve two primary functions: (1) the 

material could be used to raise the elevation of the structures, providing additional 

hydrologic control and temporary flood storage capacity, and (2) the material would 

provide additional mass to the existing earthen structures improving their static 

capabilities.

2-46 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Earthfill Rise

2:1 Slope

Dam Profile

Outer Shell

Toe Drain

Filter Sand

Limit of 

Excavation

Drain Gravel

Dam Profile After Raise

Existing Dam or Dike

 Figure 2-9

Typical Dike Raise

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Typical Dike Raise_Fig2-4.ai 07/11/06 JJT

Core

Fill

Native Bedrock
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Reinforced Earth Wall Raise 

The reinforced earth wall would consist of a concrete-formed box section 

constructed adjacent to the upstream and downstream crests of the dikes or wing 

dams. The walls would be tied together and then backfilled with soil. The whole 

feature would be keyed into the existing embankment, with a water-stopping element 

integrated into the embankment core. Concrete for the walls would be mixed at a 

portable batch plant from cement and aggregate hauled to the site, and then poured 

into forms at the construction sites. Figure 2-10 illustrates the concept of a reinforced 

earth wall. 

Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall Raise 

A reinforced concrete retaining wall (also termed a parapet wall) with footing 

embedded in the earthfill of the embankment (See Figure 2-11) would be constructed 

along the embankment crest to the required height. This would require excavating a 

portion of the dam or dike crest to place the footing and to replace the embankment 

fill along with a drainage element to control pore pressures. 

Dual Parapet Concrete Wall 

This feature would be similar to the concrete retaining wall except the elevated wall 

would be constructed along the upstream edge of the dam or dike. A second lower 

wall would be constructed along the downstream edge to provide edge protection. 

The parapet wall would be constructed by excavating a portion of the dam or dike 

crest to place the footing and then replace the material to the proposed earthen 

material height. Figure 2-12 shows the concept of a dual parapet wall. 

Combination Earthen Raise and Concrete Wall 

Engineering options involving the raising of the earthen structures could involve the 

use of both earthen materials and a parapet wall. For example, a 7-ft raise could be 

accomplished through an initial raise of 3.5 ft using earthen material and a 3.5-ft 

parapet wall constructed on top of the earthen raise element. Combining the two 

options reduces the amount of borrow material to be processed and transported and 

accomplishes the same hydrologic control needed to protect public safety. 

2.2.4.8 Filters and Drains

Filters 

The existing earthen structures (RWD, LWD, MIAD, and 8 dikes) were constructed 

of a dense earthen core as the primary feature containing the reservoir, with outer 

shells protecting the core. However, the shell material for Dikes 1 to 8 is essentially 

the same as the core material, so these embankments can be considered homogenous 

dikes. To better control seepage and piping (movement of water through the core that 

carries soil material), processed material (processed material and gravel) filters are 

proposed to be constructed within downstream portions of the earthen structures. The 

filters would be constructed by first excavating and stockpiling a portion of the outer 

2-48 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Straps

Saftey Rail

Concrete Wall

Water Dike / Wing Dam

Earth Fill

Core

Bedrock

 Figure 2-10

Reinforced Earth Wall
” 6 - ’ 8 

” 6 - ’ 3 

Concrete Parapet Wall 

Roadway 

Replaced Fill 

Replaced Sand Filter 

Rip-Rap 

 
a p p r R i g i n s t x i E 

Reinforced Concrete Wall (Upstream) 

Earthen or Manufactured Material Fill Reinforced Concrete Wall (Downstream) 

Core p a r p i R gn i t s i x E 

l l i F 

l l i F 



Figure 2-12

Dual Parapet Wall
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

shell, placing a layer of processed material with a specific gradation over the 

exposed slope of the earthen structure, and then replacing the outer shell. Processed 

material for construction of the filters would either come from a local (Sacramento 

area) commercial source or it would be manufactured on site using granitic material 

taken from borrow sites. Competent granite rock at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay has 

shown promise as a processed material source for filter material. 

Any water collected by the filter would be carried to the toe of the earthen structure 

for discharge away from the dam through the toe drain. The processed material 

filters would reduce the risk of failure of the embankments by piping. 

Two alternatives for types of filters are being considered for the downstream face. 

The full-height filter would extend upward from the downstream toe of the facility to 

the crest of the dam or dike. The half-height filter would extend from the 

downstream toe to half the vertical distance to elevation 466 ft. 

Due to concerns about piping along the embankment interface with the concrete 

dam, filter zones are required along these contacts. This would be accomplished by 

excavating a portion of the outer zones of the LWD and RWD so that filter material 

could be placed against the core materials of these dams. The filter zones would 

provide protection against both static and seismic loading conditions. 

Crest Filters and Toe Drains 

At the LWD and RWD, filter zones are required only in the upper portion of the 

dams. Processed material filter zones would be constructed from the crest to an 

elevation approximately 20 to 40-ft below the dam crest. This filter zone would be 

constructed by excavating a 20 to 40-ft portion of the downstream shell and placing 

the filter material against the core. The filter zone would then be covered by a layer 

of excavated shell material. This filter zone would exit into the downstream shell 

material of the embankment. 

2.2.4.9 MIAD Seismic Fixes

Part of MIAD is constructed over an historic river channel, Blue Ravine. This 

portion of the dam, towards the left end of the dam, is at risk of significant 

deformations should the foundation of the dam liquefy during a severe earthquake 

event. Two design alternatives, in conjunction with a downstream overlay, are being 

considered to prevent these deformations from occurring. The alternatives to address 

the downstream lower zones of liquefiable foundation material are jet grouting and 

excavation and replacement of the material at the downstream toe. Another 

alternative to be constructed in conjunction with one of the downstream alternatives 

is the construction of a downstream overlay to address the upstream liquefiable 

foundation material. Figure 2-13 shows the cross section of the dam with the 

unstable liquefiable zones proposed for treatment. 

2-52 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Remove Existing 

Shell 

Remove Unstable 

Material 

Construct Overlay 

Existing Condition 

Step 1 - Excavate and Remove 

Unstable Base Material 

Step 2 - Construct New 

Overlay Downstream 

Green Valley 

Road 

Green Valley 

Road 

Green Valley 

Road 

Core 

Existing Fill 

Unstable Base 

Alluvium 

Berm 

Core 

Existing Fill 

Unstable Base 

Alluvium 

Berm 

Core 

Existing Fill 

Overlay 

Alluvium 

Berm 

 Figure 2-13

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Excavate and Replace Concept
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Jet Grouting 

Jet grouting is a method of increasing the strength of weak or loose materials in the 

foundation of structures or dams. In the case of MIAD, significant densification of 

the downstream foundation has previously been accomplished with the use of stone 

columns. The jet grouting would be used to increase the shear strength of the lower 

foundation that is still susceptible to liquefaction. Jet grouting consists of drilling to 

the lower zone to be strengthened, and injecting a grout mixture through a rotary 

nozzle that once sets up, solidifies the material to the foundation. It is anticipated 

that the grout would be mixed at the site of MIAD. The cement and other 

components for the grout would be transported to the site from local suppliers in the 

Sacramento area. Figure 2-14 provides conceptual illustrations of jet grouting. 

Upon completion of the Jet grouting the downstream overlay would be constructed. 

Excavate and Replace 

The second option to address MIAD downstream foundation seismic issues is the 

removal and replacement foundation material. This would involve the removal of the 

downstream outer dam shell materials and excavation of the downstream foundation 

alluvium at the toe of the embankment down to the rock foundation contact. These 

materials would be stockpiled, processed, and supplemented, as required prior to 

compacted replacement into the foundation. 

The unsuitable structural (liquefiable) material would be removed down to the rock 

foundation and replaced with high strength material (Figure 2-13). This would 

include cement-modified soil to provide the high strength. Suitable materials 

excavated as part of the foundation removal would be stockpiled locally for reuse in 

rebuilding the foundation and shell. Non-suitable soils would be disposed of within 

the boundaries of Folsom Reservoir. Compacted soils would be placed on top of the 

high strength material prior to reconstructing the shell. Following foundation 

replacement, the outer shell of the dam would be reconstructed. As part of shell 

reconstruction, a full-height filter and a gravel drainage zone would be installed and 

integrated into the overlay construction. 

Dewatering of the historic river channel would be necessary in order to excavate and 

replace the foundation materials. The water pumped from the foundation would be 

tested for turbidity, released to a settling pond, and discharged in accordance with the 

project’s water quality control permit. 

Downstream Overlay 

An additional component of the structural modifications proposed at MIAD would 

be to increase the mass of MIAD by placing an overlay over the downstream side 

(Figure 2-13). Although the upstream toe of MIAD was treated with dynamic 

compaction in the 1990s, the lower portion of MIAD was too deep to have been 

effectively treated by that procedure. Therefore there still is some risk for large 

2-54 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Green Valley

Road

Green Valley

Road

Green Valley

Road

Construct

Overlay

Existing Condition

Step 1 - Stabilize Base with

Jet Grouting

Step 2 - Construct New

Overlay Downstream Core

Existing Fill

Overlay

Stabilized Base

Alluvium

Berm

Core

Existing Fill

Unstable Base

Alluvium

Berm

Core

Existing Fill

Unstable Base

Alluvium

Berm



Jet Grouting

Stabilized Base

Figure 2-14

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Jet Grouting of

Unstable Base Material Concept
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

sliding or deformation to occur due to upstream liquefaction. Because the presence 

of the reservoir makes it difficult to treat the upstream toe, a downstream overlay is 

being proposed. The downstream overlay would not prevent upstream sliding and 

deformation, but it would afford MIAD with adequate mass to withstand a seismic 

event. 

The overlay would be accomplished following either jet grouting or replacement of 

the downstream foundation by widening the crest and downstream portion of the 

dam with large quantities of soil material. The most likely source of material would 

be that excavated from the site of the proposed Auxiliary Spillway. The material 

would be processed at a local facility, stockpiled, and then transported to MIAD for 

placement as the overlay. The material would be compacted as it is placed and would 

extend the downstream slope of MIAD to near Green Valley Road. The overlay 

would also incorporate the installation of a processed material filter zones. The 

purpose of the overlay is strictly for seismic and static concerns, and would not 

provide additional hydrologic control. 

2.2.4.10 New Embankment/Dike Construction 

All of the alternatives involving modifications of the existing flood storage pool 

elevations and/or raise of the Folsom Facility could result in a temporary increase in 

the reservoir water elevation over existing conditions during periods of maximum 

flood flows into the reservoir. These conditions are expected to occur at a frequency 

of hundreds to thousands of years. The actual level and duration of inundation is 

dependent on the modification alternative. 

Increasing the reservoir flood storage pool would have the potential to flood property 

beyond the existing boundaries of Folsom Reservoir at locations with elevations that 

are below any potentially revised flood pool elevation. 

A new embankment or other containment alternative, or obtaining flood easements, 

may be necessary in order to protect adjacent properties from flooding during these 

rare occurrences. The potential number of new embankments ranges from zero for 

the no-raise alternative, to an estimate of 45 new embankments around the lake 

perimeter under the 7-ft raise alternative. The potential number of new embankments 

required for raises above 7 ft has not been determined. 

2.2.4.11 Miscellaneous Construction 

Miscellaneous construction involves: 

• Construction of staging, materials processing, and contractor work areas (See 

Figures 2-1 through 2-5)

- Corps Main Concrete Dam Staging – The Corps would stage its project 

activities using the dam staging site developed under the Folsom Mods 

2-56 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Project authorization. This would include contractor’s offices, parking, and 

storage of materials. 

- Folsom Point – Folsom Point would be the main staging area along the 

reservoirs southern edge. Folsom Point would include contractor’s offices, 

parking, staging of material, and processing and stockpiling of borrow 

materials, as well as other staging area-related activities. Borrow 

development from the MIAD, D1/D2, and Folsom Point areas would be 

staged at Folsom Point. The majority of the Folsom Point recreation area 

would most likely be used to support activities related to improvements 

planned for the LWD, Dikes 7 and 8, and MIAD. 

- Beal’s Point – Beal’s Point would be the primary staging area along the 

western edge of the reservoir. Beal’s point would include contractor’s offices, 

parking, staging of material, processing and stockpiling of borrow materials, 

and concrete production, as well as other staging area-related activities. The 

southern portion of Beal’s Point would be used as a staging area to support 

construction activities in the area. Beal’s Point would support improvements 

to Dikes 4, 5, 6, and the RWD. Beal’s Point could also support development 

of a borrow site. The Beal’s Point staging area would be occupied during the 

period required to completion construction on the RWD; Dikes 4, 5, and 6. 

- Granite Bay – The Granite Bay staging area would support the development 

of a borrow site at Granite Bay, as well as the construction at Dikes 1, 2, and 

3. Activities at Granite Bay would include contractor’s offices, parking, 

construction, materials storage, borrow material processing and stockpiling, 

as well as other staging area-related activities. Depending on the features of 

the alternative and the amount of processed material quantities required for 

filters, the utilization of the Granite Bay staging area could be minimal during 

the period of work on Dikes 1, 2, and 3. Under the earthen raise alternatives, 

the Granite Bay staging area would be occupied until adequate borrow and 

processed material was produced and transported to other project sites. 

- MIAD – The MIAD staging area would support the jet grouting option as 

well as the excavate and replace option. It would include a contractor office, 

parking materials storage, and a portable concrete batch mixing plant. The 

MIAD staging area would be utilized through completion of the placement of 

the downstream overlay. 

- Main Concrete Dam Overlook Parking Lot – The overlook parking lot 

staging area would include contractor offices and parking, materials storage, 

and a concrete mixing plant. This area is currently inaccessible to the public 

and would be occupied for the duration of the entire project. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-57 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Development of borrow sites –Borrow sites could be developed, if required, 

Reclamation property upstream and downstream of the Folsom Facilities. 

The number and extent of borrow sites to be developed would be dependent on 

how much material the construction of the selected alternative requires, the types 

of material that can utilized from the Auxiliary Spillway excavation, the amount 

and types of earthen material available at each borrow site, proximity to proposed 

work, and the ability of local commercial suppliers to meet project needs. The 

projected amounts of borrow material available at each identified site is included 

in the descriptions below. 

- Auxiliary Spillway – Excavation at the Auxiliary Spillway site would 

produce between 2 and 4.2 million cubic yards of rock depending on the 

alternative. The majority of all on site borrow would be considered from this 

site and all other sites would be considered supplemental as needed. This 

material would be processed locally (screened and crushed) prior to transport 

to MIAD, D1/D2, or the Dike 7 stockpile site. 

- D2 – the D2 borrow site is within federal property outside of the reservoir, 

south of MIAD. This area contains one of the better sources for impermeable 

(clay-like soil) materials for raising and strengthening the cores of all earthen 

facilities. It could be developed to support construction of the MIAD 

downstream overlay. Staging, including a materials processing facility, could 

occur within the D2 borrow site area. 

- MIAD Right Abutment (Folsom Point) – This borrow site is adjacent to 

Folsom Point. Borrow at this location would be processed at Folsom Point 

(screened and crushed) prior to being stockpiled within the Folsom Point and 

Dike 7 areas. 

- Granite Bay – Borrow material development would occur along the low 

water shoreline north of the Granite Bay recreation site. The amount of 

material to be excavated varies by alternative but current estimates identify 

913,000 cubic yards of earthen material available at the site. Excavated 

material would be processed at portable facility located at Granite Bay which 

would include screening for sizing and crushing to produce overlay material 

and processed material. Borrow material would be temporarily stored at the 

processing facility site prior to transport to project sites. 

- Beal’s Point – Borrow material development would occur along the low 

water shoreline opposite the Beal’s Point recreation area and to the north, 

along the shore line below Mooney Ridge. The amount of material to be 

excavated varies by alternative, with estimates identifying 1,250,000 cubic 

yards of earthen material available at this site. Excavated material would be 

2-58 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

processed locally including screening for sizing and crushing to produce 

overlay material and processed material. Processed material would be washed 

to remove fine-grained (silt-sized) material. Borrow material would then be 

temporarily stored at the processing facility site prior to transport to the 

various project sites. 

- MIAD Left Abutment (Brown's Ravine) – This borrow site is located along 

the in reservoir shoreline north of MIAD. Borrow at this location would be 

transported to Folsom Point for processing. 

- D1 – the D1 borrow site is within federal property outside of the reservoir, 

south of MIAD. This area would be developed to support construction of the 

MIAD downstream overlay. Staging, including a materials processing 

facility, would occur at D2. 

• Filter Material Production – Filter material may be developed from excavated 

and processed granite or decomposed granite. The material would be crushed, 

ground, and screened in on-site, in mills to produce materials with the proper 

properties and gradations for filters. At the processing plant site, the material 

would be crushed, screened and washed repeatedly to remove over-sized 

particles until the proper sizing is achieved. The processed material would be 

transported via conveyor belt to a temporary stockpile location while the waste 

material would be dewatered under the proper conditions prior to transportation 

to a structure for placement, or a permanent stockpile. Filter material would be 

developed at the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay material production sites. 

• Development of stockpile sites – Stockpile sites for temporary storage of raw or 

processed borrow material would be established adjacent to each processing 

facility. The major exception would be the Dike 7 stockpile site, which could 

receive material from the Auxiliary Spillway excavation. In reservoir sites may 

require construction of a coffer dam within the reservoir, behind which stockpile 

material would be placed. In some instances, stockpiles would be temporarily 

used as processing site platforms. This is most likely to occur at Beal’s Point, 

Folsom Point, Dike 7, and at the Overlook Parking lot. Following processing the 

borrow material would be removed for placement at the dikes, wing dams, and 

MIAD. 

• Additional Explorations and Investigations – All areas identified within the 

project footprint as probable construction areas, contractor use areas, and borrow 

stockpile and/or disposal sites, may require additional geotechnical exploration 

or other investigation prior to construction to provide valuable information for 

final designs. This work could include drilling, test pits, trenches, test 

excavations, blasting, dewatering, unwatering, test constructions and expedited 

remediation activities. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-59 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Disposal of excess materials – Depending on the alternative, the excavation of 

the Auxiliary Spillway site could result in between 1 and 2.5 million cubic yards 

of excess material not needed for dike reconstruction or the MIAD overlay. This 

material may be permanently disposed of at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point, at Dike 

7, at D1/D2, and/or on MIAD as additional overlay, or utilized to fill areas inreservoir to create additional space for staging, stockpiling, and other 

construction activities. 

Dredging and excavation of approach chute – The length of the approach 

channel, or the approach chute varies from 300-ft to 900-ft, depending on the 

alternative. The majority of the construction required to excavate the approach 

channel would take place in the wet. It is assumed that the work would require a 

barge or floating platform to work from, a crane, dredging equipment, 

containment measures, and another barge or suitable method of transporting the 

excavated material. 

Material would be excavated from the lakebed mechanically until refusal. The 

substrate would be removed mechanically with a clamshell, suction dredge, or 

another suitable method. Once the material cannot be removed with a clamshell, 

or other means, the excavation would require controlled blasting. The majority of 

the blasting would take place under water. The material that is excavated by 

blasting would be placed on a barge or floating platform, with containment in 

place to reduce or eliminate sedimentation. All material excavated from the 

reservoir would be transported to a containment area onshore, where the material 

would dry. Once the material dries, it would either be processed, stockpiled for 

future use, or transported to a disposal area. 

Previous exploration by Reclamation has shown that there is a thin layer of 

sediment on top of weathered bedrock within the chute alignment. Reclamation 

and the Corps do not anticipate problems with water quality and sedimentation 

due to the minimal amount of sediment that would need to be removed. 

Construction methods would comply with all water quality regulations and 

would be fully permitted before construction starts. Best management practices 

and the employment of silt curtains, or other containment methods would reduce 

the impacts to less than significant. 

The sediments within the chute alignment are known to contain elemental 

mercury from historic mining operations, as well as other metals from historic 

activities or geology in the American River drainage. The screening level for 

mercury was obtained from the California Central Valley Regional Water 

Quality Control Board. This standard of 0.2 mg/kg is intended to define the 

fractional portion of the mercury that can easily be re-suspended and stay in 

suspension. Of the 18 samples that were collected by Reclamation in 2006, only 

two reached the threshold of 0.2 mg/kg hg The mean of all sites was 0.16 mg/kg 

2-60 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Of all the samples analyzed for metals, no results met or exceeded any of the 

sediment standards, and as a result would be suitable for unconfined aquatic 

disposal. 

Sediment containing mercury would be temporarily suspended during 

construction, but the amount of material that would be suspending is assumed to 

be minimal. Reclamation and the Corps would be required to minimize the 

amount of material that is suspended in order to meet water quality standards. 

The majority of the material that would be suspended would drop out of 

suspension almost immediately. Unless releases are being made from the outlets, 

the majority of the rest of the material should fall out of suspension within 

Folsom Reservoir. Any material that stays suspended would be minor and would 

not represent a hazard or significantly impair water quality. 

During construction, a detailed water quality monitoring plan would be 

implemented to ensure that the dredging would be conducted without adversely 

impacting the waters in the vicinity of the municipal water intake. Routine water 

samples would be taken at the start and completion of each dredging or 

controlled blasting period. If turbidity readings exceed predetermined values, 

corrective actions would begin immediately to correct any construction-related 

problems. If necessary, dredging operations would be shut down until values at 

the monitoring site return to acceptable levels. 

In-reservoir fill – There are several locations within the reservoir that could be 

enhanced for construction purposes with the placement of material excavated 

from the Auxiliary Spillway site. In order to avoid the majority of recreation 

impact at the Beal's Point area, the area south of the parking lot would be 

elevated to the level of the parking lot. This area would be used for staging, 

stockpiling and potentially for processing materials. Fill material would also be 

used at Folsom Point for the same purposes. 

Material would also be placed at the Observation Point area adjacent to the LWD 

to create more space for construction activities. A need has also been identified 

for material to be added to this area to reconfigure the topography in order to 

facilitate the eventual movement of water to the new Auxiliary Spillway. 

The area upstream of Dike 7 would be used as a permanent stockpile area. Up to 

400 cubic yards of material would be placed immediately upstream of the dike. 

In order to avoid or eliminate water quality impacts during the placement of 

material within the reservoir, best management practices would be employed. If 

at all possible, material would be placed in the dry. Silt curtains or other physical 

methods would also be employed to reduce to eliminate water quality issues 

during construction. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-61 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Development of internal roadways – To reduce construction traffic on city streets 

and to allow the use of oversized construction equipment, internal haul roads 

would be developed. The approximate routes of the construction roads are shown 

on Figure 2-15. The internal roadways would be sized to allow passage of 

oversized equipment. The crests of the wing dams and MIAD would be included 

as part the internal road network. Given the space limitations of the crests, one 

way traffic may be required. The internal haul roads routes being considered 

include: 

- Beal’s Point to Granite Bay – This route would be used for construction at 

Dikes 4 and 5, access below Mooney Ridge, and Dikes 1, 2, and 3. The route 

would also allow transport of borrow material from Granite Bay to the RWD. 

- RWD – The RWD dam route would allow transport of material to the right 

abutment of the Main Concrete Dam. 

- Dam Staging to Folsom Point – A construction haul road would be 

constructed from the Auxiliary Spillway site to a Dike 7 stockpile site and 

then on to Folsom Point. This would allow for transportation of materials 

between these project facilities. The haul road would only be available when 

the reservoir was well below capacity. The use of this haul route would also 

necessitate re-initiation of consultation with the Service due to potential 

impacts that are not be accounted for in this document. 

- Folsom Point to Brown's Ravine – This haul route could involve use of the 

MIAD crest as a construction road. Material from the MIAD left abutment 

borrow site would be transported to Folsom Point for processing. 

- Folsom Point to D1/D2 Borrow sites – This haul route would transport 

materials to Folsom Point. 

• External Haul Roads – Equipment, materials and supplies, and hauling of 

materials from the west to east side construction sites would be conducted on city 

streets. The primary proposed construction traffic routes are shown in Figure 

2-16. Typical materials to be hauled on city streets include cement and aggregate, 

processed material, reinforcement steel, and general supplies. 

• Construction Equipment – The following types of construction equipment would 

be used to excavate, haul, stockpile, and place earthen material and concrete. 

- Drill rigs – For installation of blasting agents for the excavation of the 

granitic rock foundation. Drill rigs would also be used for preconstruction 

geotechnical exploratory work by the Corps and Reclamation. 

2-62 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

MOONEY RIDGE 

Proposed Dike 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

CORPS 

STAGING 

MIAD 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 2-15

Folsom DS/FDR

Proposed Internal Construction Roads

0 3000 

FEET 

1:36,000 

NORTH 

Proposed Internal Construction Roads 

Folsom

Reservoir
Cha

Proje2-64

pter 2 

ct Description and Project Alternatives 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

This page is left intentionally blank
Rocklin Rocklin 

Roseville Roseville oseville 

Folsom 

F-A Rd A-F Rd 

E Bidwell St 

I-80 

US-50 

Douglas Blvd 

Greenback Ln 

E 

Green Valley 

Rd 

Natoma 

St 

Folsom 

Blvd 

Sierra College College College 

Blvd 

From Sacramento

From El Dorado



Figure 2-16

General Folsom DS/FDR Area Transportation Routes

NORTH 

NO SCALE 

LEGEND 

Segment Interchange/ 

Intersection 

Possible Routes 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

- Crawler tractors (bull dozers) – For earth movement and stockpiling, and 

pushing bottom excavators. 

Bottom excavators – For excavation of ripped, stripped, or other loose material 

for transport to stockpiles. 

- Rippers – For breaking up weathered rock foundation and blasted material in 

preparation for excavators. 

- Excavators and Loaders – For excavation and truck loading of excavated 

materials. 

- Graders – For haul road construction and maintenance, site restoration. 

- 30-cy haul truck – For within reservoir hauling of excavated materials to 

processing plants and from processing plants to stockpile areas. 

- 20-cy haul trucks – For hauling of materials on city streets and between 

Folsom processing, staging, and work sites. 

- All terrain crane – For placement of forms, pre-cast walls, reinforcement 

steel, and other heavy materials. 

2.2.4.12 Existing American River Operations 

Congress authorized the Corps to construct major portions of the American River 

Division. The American River Basin Development Act of 1949 subsequently 

authorized it to be owned, operated and maintained by Reclamation and financially 

and operationally integrated into the Central Valley Project (CVP). The American 

River Division includes facilities that provide conservation of water in the American 

River for flood control, fish and wildlife protection, recreation, protection of the 

Delta from intrusion of saline ocean water, irrigation and municipal and industrial 

(M&I) water supplies, and hydroelectric power generation. Initially authorized 

features of the American River Division included Folsom Dam, Lake, and 

Powerplant; Nimbus Dam and Powerplant; and Lake Natoma. 

Current flood control requirements and regulating criteria are specified by the Corps 

and described in the Folsom Dam and Lake, American River, California Water 

Control Manual (Corps, 1987). Flood control objectives for Folsom require that the 

dam and lake are operated to:

2-66 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Protect the City of Sacramento and other areas within the lower American River 

flood plain against reasonable probable rain floods. 

• Control flows in the American River downstream from Folsom Dam to existing 

channel capacities, insofar as practicable, and to reduce flooding along the lower 

Sacramento River and in the Delta in conjunction with other CVP projects. 

• Provide the maximum amount of water conservation storage without impairing the 

flood control functions of the reservoir. 

• Provide the maximum amount of power practicable and be consistent with required 

flood control operations and the conservation functions of the reservoir. 

From June 1 through September 30, no flood control storage restrictions exist. From 

October 1 through November 16 and from April 20 through May 31, reserving 

storage space for flood control is a function of the date only; with full flood 

reservation space required from November 17 through February 7 and is fixed at 

400,000 acre-feet. Beginning February 8 and continuing through April 20, flood 

reservation space is a function of both date and current hydrologic conditions in the 

basin. 

If the inflow into Folsom Reservoir causes the storage to encroach into the space 

reserved for flood control, releases from Nimbus Dam are increased. Flood control 

regulations prescribe the following releases when water is stored within the flood 

control reservation space: 

• Maximum inflow (after the storage entered into the flood control reservation space) 

of as much as 115,000 cfs but not less than 20,000 cfs when inflows are increasing. 

• Releases would not be increased more than 15,000 cfs or decreased more than 

10,000 cfs during a 2-hour period. 

• Flood control requirements override other operational considerations in the fall and 

winter period. Consequently, changes in river releases of short duration may occur. 

In February 1986, the American River Basin experienced a significant flood event. 

Folsom Dam and Reservoir moderated the flood event and performed the flood 

control objectives, but with serious operational strains and concerns in the lower 

American River for the overall protection of the communities in the floodplain areas. 

A similar flood event occurred in January 1997. Since then, significant review and 

enhancement of lower American River flooding issues has occurred and continues to 

occur. A major element of those efforts has been the SAFCA sponsored Interim 

Flood Control Plan Diagram for Folsom Reservoir (Interim Flood Operations). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-67 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Since 1996, Reclamation has operated according to Interim Flood Operations 

criteria, which reserves a variable 400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet of flood control 

space in Folsom Reservoir and a combination of upstream reservoirs during the flood 

on for 

up to 

crease on March 1. Between March 1 and April 20, the rate of 

filling is a function of the date and available upstream space. As of April 21, the 

he 

 set to 

ide a temporary interim flood damage 

reduction benefit until such time that the Corp’s outlet modification project was 

season. The Interim Flood Operations plan, which provides additional protecti

the lower American River, is implemented through an agreement between 

Reclamation and SAFCA. The terms of the agreement allow some empty reservoir 

space in Hell Hole, Union Valley, and French Meadows to be treated as if it were 

available in Folsom. The interim operations plan release criteria are generally the 

same as the 1987 Corps plan, except the interim operations plan diagram may 

prescribe flood releases earlier than the Corps plan. The Interim Flood Operations 

plan diagram also relies on Folsom Dam outlet capacity to make the earlier flood 

releases with out restrictions. The outlet capacity at Folsom Dam is limited to 

32,000 cfs based on lake elevation. In general, the interim operations plan provides

flood protection from the 1 in 100 year design flood up from 1 in 80 year design 

flood protection realized by the existing Corps plan for communities in the American

River floodplain. 

Required flood control space under the Interim Flood Operations plan diagram 

would begin to de

required flood reservation is about 225,000 acre-feet. From April 21 to June 1, t

required flood reservation is a function of the date only, with Folsom storage 

permitted to fill completely on June 1. 

The Interim Flood Operations agreement between SAFCA and Reclamation is

expire in 2018 and was intended to prov

completed. 

Without Project Conditions – As described above, prior to 1995 authorized flood

storage space was fixed at 400,000 acre-feet above the normal operational pool 

elevation of 466 feet. In 1995, Reclamation and SAFCA entered in to an 5 year 

on to 

00,000 to 670,000 acre-feet operation and enter into an 

agreement with SAFCA until a comprehensive flood damage reduction plan for the 

led to 

Interim Agreement to provide a variable range of flood control storage space of 

400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet, depending upon storage conditions in existing 

reservoirs upstream of Folsom Facility. Upon expiration, the agreement was 

extended for 2 one year periods to 2002. From 2002 until 2004 there was no 

agreement in place. 

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 directed Reclamati

continue the variable 4

American River Watershed has been implemented. The current agreement to 

continue said variable operation was executed in December 2004 and is schedu

expire in 2018, unless and until the Corps implements a new water control manual 

2-68 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

and associated new flood control diagram, which would provide the basis to d

new operational requirements that would supersede and replace the existing 

agreement. Completion of a new flood control diagram and a water control manual 

contingent upon completion of the appropriate level of environmental compliance, 

the requirements of WRDA 1996, and the reconciliation of potential conflicts

pre-existing authorities. 

The Corps intended to implement a new water control manual and a new flood 

control diagram for the Fo

efine 

is 

 with 

lsom Dam Modification Project, or another relevant 

authorization associated with flood damage reduction at the Folsom Facilities. The 

od 

e 

uring construction and upon completion of 

structural modifications current operational parameters as summarized above and 

ncy authorities and agreements would update the existing 

Water Control Manual of 1987 or develop a new water plan and control manual. 

one 

sts to help determine appropriate 

comprehensive flood control operations procedures. The environmental impacts on 

ntrol 

Corps has not identified a plan to implement a new water control manual and flo

control diagram based on the current status of the Folsom Dam Modification 

Authorization and/or other relevant authorizations. However, the Corps has initiated

efforts to address a new flood control manual and water control plan for the current 

joint effort. The Corps has estimated that the new documentation to address th

current dam safety and flood damage reduction action would be available in 2012. 

The new documentation would be in place well before the any new features would 

be fully constructed or operational. 

Construction of any of the Folsom DS/FDR actions would not significantly alter 

current Folsom Facility operations. D

defined in appropriate agreements and authorities would remain in effect until the

current flood operations agreement expires, or a new Flood Management Plan is 

developed and implemented, or if there are new Congressional authorizations, 

directives or mandates. 

The Corps and Reclamation as directed by, and/or authorized by Congress, and

under the appropriate age

Upon selection of either a preferred joint Folsom DS/FDR alternative or stand-al

dam safety hydrologic risk reduction or flood damage reduction alternatives, the 

Corps as the lead agency, in cooperation with Reclamation, would determine the 

basis for the updated/new plan. Decisions would be based on existing authorizations, 

or reauthorizations, or new authorizations. 

The updated/new plan would analyze weather, basin wetness, precipitation, upstream 

reservoir storage, and reservoir inflow foreca

all pertinent aspects of the human environment, and the natural environment would 

be evaluated in a separate environmental compliance document. The Water Co

Manual would likely go through multiple revisions as the various structural 

modifications are completed at the Folsom Facility, but it is expected that a Final 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-69 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Updated Flood Management Plan and Flood Control Manual would be comp

before construction on the Folsom DS/FDR project is completed. 

This Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR generally considers operations affec

leted 

ted by proposed 

structural modifications; however, a detailed analysis of operational impacts cannot 

ting 

The 

d 

 Wildlife Requirements in the Lower American River - 

be determined at this time. Upon the selection of a preferred alternative(s), 

Reclamation, the Corps, SAFCA, and the DWR/Reclamation Board would fully 

coordinate and address relevant congressional directives to evaluate the exis

requirements related to operations and consider possible changes as appropriate. 

environmental impacts associated with proposed changes and operational impacts

required for supplemental environmental compliance documentation. The required 

compliance documentation shall be completed in parallel with a Final Updated Floo

Management Plan and Water Control Manual, and is anticipated to be completed in 

2010. 

Fish and The minimum 

allowable flows in the lower American River are defined by the State Water 

at, in 

 cfs 

rtions 

ation and management needs occasionally control Nimbus Dam releases. 

Nimbus Dam releases are expected to exceed the D-893 minimum flows in all but 

ent 

ure control operations in the lower American River are affected by 

many factors and operational tradeoffs. These include available cold water resources, 

 TCD 

amation designed a modification to the trashrack 

structures to provide selective withdrawal capability at Folsom Dam. Folsom 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Decision 893 (D-893), which states th

the interest of fish conservation, releases should not ordinarily fall below 250

between January 1 and September 15 or below 500 cfs at other times. D-893 

minimum flows are rarely the controlling objective of CVP operations at Nimbus 

Dam. Nimbus Dam releases are nearly always controlled during significant po

of a water year by either flood control requirements or are coordinated with other 

CVP and State Water Project (SWP) releases to meet downstream Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta Water Quality Control Plan requirements and CVP water supply 

objectives. 

Power regul

the driest of conditions. Until such an action is presented to and adopted by the 

SWRCB, minimum flows would be limited by D-893. Releases of additional water

are made pursuant to Section 3406 (b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvem

Act (CVPIA). 

Water temperat

Nimbus release schedules, annual hydrology, Folsom power penstock shutter 

management flexibility, Folsom Dam Urban Water Supply Temperature Control 

Device (TCD) management, and Nimbus Hatchery considerations. Shutter and

management provide the majority of operational flexibility used to control 

downstream temperatures. 

During the late 1960s, Recl

2-70 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Powerplant is located at the foot of Folsom Dam on the right abutment. Three

foot-diameter steel penstocks for delivering water to the turbines are embedde

the concrete section of the dam. The centerline of each penstock intake is at elevat

307.0 feet and the minimum power pool elevation is 328.5 feet. A reinforced 

concrete trashrack structure with steel trashracks protects each penstock intake. 

The steel trashracks, located in five bays around each intake, extend the full heig

 15-

d in 

ion 

ht of 

the trashrack structure (between 281 and 428 feet). Steel guides were attached to the 

er 

n in 

 temperatures in the lower American River address 

the needs for steelhead incubation and rearing during the late spring and summer, 

d temperature objectives in the lower American River, as provided by 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, state: 

in the 

lower river between Nimbus Dam and the Watt Avenue Bridge (RM 9.4) 

ess 

Prior to

operations, the cold water resources in Folsom Reservoir were used to lower 

wer 

of the 

e objective is met. 

Establishing the start date requires a balancing between forecasted release rates, the 

upstream side of the trashrack panels between elevation 281 and 401 feet. Forty-five 

13-foot steel shutter panels (nine per bay) and operated by the gantry crane, were 

installed in these guides to select the level of withdrawal from the reservoir. The 

shutters were initially installed in a 1-7-1 configuration which allowed some 

flexibility to maintain lower American River temperature requirements during pow

releases. The shutter panels were modified by SAFCA to a 3-2-4 configuratio

the early 1990s to improve their performance in conjunction to the interim operation 

of Folsom Dam and Reservoir. 

The current objectives for water

and for fall-run Chinook spawning and incubation starting in late October or early 

November. 

The steelhea

“Reclamation shall, to the extent possible, control water temperatures 

from June 1 through November 30, to a daily average temperature of less 

than or equal to 65°F to protect rearing juvenile steelhead from thermal str

and from warm water predator species. The use of the cold water pool in 

Folsom Reservoir should be reserved for August through October releases.” 

 the ESA listing of steelhead and the subsequent Biological Opinions on 

downstream temperatures in the fall when fall run Chinook salmon entered the lo

river and began to spawn. The flexibility once available is now gone because 

need to use the cold water to maintain suitable summer steelhead rearing conditions. 

The operational objective in the fall spawning season is to provide 60°F or less in the

lower river, as soon as available cold water supplies can be used. 

A major challenge is determining the starting date at which time th

volume of available cold water, and the estimated date at which time Folsom 

Reservoir turns over and becomes isothermic. Reclamation would start providing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-71 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

suitable spawning temperatures as early as possible (after November 1) to avo

temperature related pre-spawning mortality of adults and reduced egg viability. 

Releases would be balanced against the possibility of running out of cold water an

increasing downstream temperatures after spawning is initiated and creating 

temperature related effects to eggs already in the gravel. 

A temperature control management strategy must be deve

id 

d 

loped that balances 

conservation of cold water for later use in the fall, with the more immediate needs of 

 of the 

te 

• Forecasted inflow and outflow quantities 

perations 

corporated into the model to 

er steelhead and 

ut 

ng other CVP project purposes requires the final shutter pull be 

on 

ility 

steelhead during the summer. The planning and forecasting process for the use

cold water pool begins in the spring as Folsom Reservoir fills. Actual Folsom 

Reservoir cold water resource availability becomes significantly more defined 

through the assessment of reservoir water temperature profiles and more defini

projections of inflows and storage. Technical modeling analysis of the projected

lower American River water temperature management can begin. The significant 

variables and key assumptions in the analysis include: 

• Starting reservoir temperature conditions 

• Assumed meteorological conditions 

• Assumed inflow temperatures 

• Assumed Urban Water Supply TCD o

A series of shutter management scenarios are then in

gain a better understanding of the potential for meeting both summ

fall salmon temperature needs. Most annual strategies contain significant tradeoffs

and risks for water temperature management for steelhead and fall-run salmon goals

and needs due to the frequently limited cold water resource. The planning process 

continues throughout the summer. New temperature forecasts and operational 

strategies are updated as more information on actual operations and ambient 

conditions is gained. This process is shared with the American River Operations 

Group (AROG). 

Meeting both the summer steelhead and fall salmon temperature objectives witho

negatively impacti

reserved for use in the fall to provide suitable fall-run Chinook salmon spawning 

temperatures. In most years, the volume of cold water is not sufficient to support 

strict compliance with the summer temperature target at the downstream end of the

compliance reach (Watt Avenue Bridge) and reserve the final shutter pull for salm

or, in some cases, continue to meet steelhead objectives later in the summer. A 

strategy that is used under these conditions is to allow the annual compliance 

location water temperatures to warm towards the upper end of the annual water 

temperature design value before making a shutter pull. This management flexib

is essential to the annual management strategy to extend the effectiveness of cold

water management through the summer and fall months. 

2-72 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The goal is to maintain the health of the hatchery fish while minimizing the loss of 

the cold water pool for fish spawning in the river during fall. This is done on a cas

by-case basis and is different in various months and year ty

epes, Temperatures above 

70°F in the hatchery usually mean the fish need to be moved to another hatchery. 

t. 

The real time implementation needs for the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Program (AFRP) objective flow management and SWRCB D-1641 Delta standards 

from the limited water resources of the lower American River has made cold water 

resource management at Folsom Lake a significant compromise coordination effor

Reclamation consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA 

Fisheries, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) using the B2IT 

process (see CVPIA discussion below) when making the difficult compromise 

decisions. In addition, Reclamation communicates and coordinates with the AROG 

on real time decision issues. 

CVPIA 3406(b)(2) operations on the Lower American River - Actual minimum

flows below Nimbus Dam would be determined in accordance with the Department 

of the Interior Decision on Implementation of Section 3406 (b)(2) of the CVPIA 

(Appendix A). Instream flow objectives below Nimbus Dam for October through 

April would be based on recommendations of USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and CDFG 

pursuant to annual B2IT coordination. 

Hydropower Operations - Folsom Powerplant contains three generating units, whic

have a maximum powerplant operating capability of 198,000 kW. Maximum 

powerplant release is 8,603 cfs. 

h 

powerplant operating capability of 17,000 kW. 

Maximum powerplant release is 5,100 cfs. 

te 

upplemental lighting and Closed 

Circuit television (CCTV) components throughout the Folsom Dam facilities. 

Nimbus Dam backs up Lake Natoma, controlling flow fluctuations from Folsom 

Powerplant. Nimbus Powerplant is housed within the dam and includes two 

generating units with a maximum 

2.2.4.13 Security Features 

To provide the necessary level of security, Reclamation would install an appropria

level of access controls, intrusion detection, s

• Security Features Overview - One of the objectives of this project is to have a 

completely integrated security system. The system would be designed, 

constructed, and turned over to Reclamation in a fully operational condition. The 

intent of the security system is to: 

- Security Control Center - Provide a security control monitoring cente

the existing facility. 

r within 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-73 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

- Access Control - Allow the Bureau of Reclamation to issue access control 

cards to authorized personnel that would allow controlled access as 

appropriate. 

- Security Cameras - Allow security personnel to monitor site conditio

CCTV. These 

ns via 

improvements require the construction of 30-ft steel towers on 

concrete foundation bases on each end of Dikes 4, 5, 6, and 7, and MIAD. 

-

-

There would be two sizes of foundations for the steel towers; 5-ft- x 5-ft x 5

ft and 7-ft x7-ft x 7-ft. Once installed the cameras would be able to only 

monitor critical access control devices. 

Prevent unauthorized vehicle access to critical areas on the project - The 

system would allow controlled access to authorized vehicles along all vehicle 

access points throughout the project. 

- Observation Post - Retrofit/remodel and upgrade the existing enclosed 

observation post on top of Folsom Dam. 

- Supplemental Lighting – The upgrades would provide supplemental lig

for the Main Concrete Dam, spillway gates

hting 

, shutter structure, and all 

associated structures. 

• L ation of Security Components oc - The installation of physical and electr

urity components would

onic 

sec take place on several features of the Folsom Dam 

complex. Specifically the project would augment security on the left and right 

f 

 Vehicle Barrier at Dike 6 

ing Dam 

ain Concrete Dam) 

ng Dam 

am 

D

ends of MIAD, and Dikes 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. There would also be work on top o

the dam as well as the Beal’s Point portion of the Folsom SRA. 

The new security system would provide sufficient access control and parallel

monitoring capability. The key system components include: 

 Vehicle Barrier at Dike 4 

 Vehicle Barrier at Dike 5 

 Vehicle Barrier at Right W

 Concrete Gravity Dam (M

 Vehicle Barrier at Left Wi

 Vehicle Barrier at Dike 7 

 Vehicle Barrier at Dike 8 

 Vehicle Barrier at Mormon Island D

am Observation Post – The existing observation post located on Folsom 

D deled to provide a more 

efficient and functional viewing location for security personnel. 

am would be upgraded, retrofitted, and remo

2-74 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Installation of Security Measures

The following is a breakdown of the security installation measures by location. 

- Installation at the East Gate of the Dam

Two stop lights – 2 four-ft tall mono poles 

tional floodlights 

 One camera – mounted on 1 stoplight mono pole 

nted on concrete pedestals 

-

 Vehicle barrier (existing) 



 Four lights – 2 mono poles with direc

 Two 30-ft mono poles mou

Installation at the West Gate of the Dam

 One vehicle barrier (bollards, or pipe gates) 

 wo stop lights – two 4-ft tall mono poles 

ectional floodlights 

 One camera – mounted on 1 stoplight mono pole 

edestals 

-

T

 Four lights – twp mono poles with dir

 Two 30-ft mono poles mounted on concrete p

Installation at the Folsom Dam Complex Entrance

 One 30-ft mono pole mounted on concrete pedestal 

 One camera mounted on one stoplight pole 

-

 One vehicle barrier 

Installation at MIAD

 One Camera – Barrier gate on the left abutment 

 One camera – Barrier gate on the right abutment 

ier gate on the right abutment (Camera would monitor 

controlled access points) 

ocated at each the left 

-

 One camera – Barr

 Two 30-ft tall truss-type steel camera towers – L

and right abutment 

 One vehicle barrier (bollards, or pipe gates) 

Installation at Dike 7

 One 30-ft tall truss-type steel tower for communication system – Installed 

to avoid impacts to wetlands 

-type steel tower for camera – located at barrier gate 

location 



 One vehicle barrier (bollards, or pipe gates) 

 One 20-ft tall truss

 Communication shed 

One fixed camera 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-75 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

- Ins t the Folsom Pumping Plant tallation a

led on existing pole 

- Installation at the Left Wing Dam

 One camera – instal

 One camera monitoring the access control points along the LWD and the 

 One 30-ft truss-type tower – constructed at the left end of the concrete 

-

RWD 

section of Dam 

Installation at the Right Wing Dam

 One camera monitoring the access control points of the LWD and the 

RWD 

 One 30-ft truss-type tower – constructed at the right end of the concrete 

-

section of Dam 

Installation at Beal's Point Recreation Area

 One 30-ft truss-type tower – Constructed at the southern edge of the 

public parking area adjacent to the RWD, or another area that does not 

impact recreation 

rol points of Folsom Dam and 

the Right Wing Dam 

- Ins

 Two cameras monitoring the access cont

tallation at Dike 4

 Two 30-foot truss-type towers - One each constructed at each barrier ga

location 

te 

 One camera installed on each tower monitoring access control points 

r (bollards, or pipe gates) 

-

 One vehicle barrie

Installation at Dike 5

 Two 30-foot truss-type towers - One each constructed at each barrier gate 

 One camera installed on each tower monitoring access control points 

r (bollards, or pipe gates) 

-

location. 

 One vehicle barrie

Installation at Dike 6

 Two 30-foot truss-type towers - One each constructed at each barrier gate 

location 

2-76 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

 One camera installed on each tower monitoring access control points. 

r (bollards, or pipe gates) 

• Clo

 One vehicle barrie

sed Circuit Television System - The system would provide information that 

would rds to monitor site conditions. allow gua

 Closed circuit cameras - Cameras would be located at Dikes 4, 5, 6, and 7 

and MIAD. One additional camera would be located within the Beal's Point 

• Vehicle Barriers Folsom Dam Road - 

recreational area. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has installed 

Req

inst access to the roadway. 

vehicle barriers on either end of the concrete portion of Folsom Dam Road. 

uired signage would be installed to inform motorist of the barrier system and

ruct them to request

• Power for all Security and Communication Components - It would be necessary

to provide power to all security components. All work would be on Reclama

property in areas that minimize or avoid habitat impacts. Due to the complexity 

of coordinating the overall large-scale construct

tion 

ion at several locations within 

and around the reservoir, it is not efficient to predetermine all of the alignments 

- Earth Embankment Dams

that would be required to provide necessary power to the security components. 

The known alignments are listed below. All alignments are subject to reasonable 

adjustments to accommodate project needs. 

It may be necessary to provide an interim source of power to the security 

components on the dikes as permanent power would require coordination with 

the upgrades to the dikes. 

 - The original plan for providing power to the 

els. 

y 

tly impacted the effectiveness of this system. 

Consequently, there are now two plans being evaluated for providing 

lled 

tegrity 

f the embankment dams 

is currently in design under the Safety of Dams Project. It is possible that 



security system at the earth embankment dams was to utilize solar pan

Unfortunately the climate of the Folsom area and extended duration of cloud

or foggy days significan

permanent power to the controlled access locations: 

 Underground Power: Trenching along the top of the earth embankment 

dikes and placing underground power along the trench to the contro

access locations. This plan has potential negative impact on the in

of the embankment dams. Major reconstruction o

underground power may be incorporated into that reconstruction effort. 

Overhead Power: Concrete poles would be placed approximately 300-

feet apart at the downstream toe of the earth embankment dams with 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-77 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

typical overhead power lines utilized to bring permanent power to the 

controlled access locations. 

- Right and Left Wing Dams - There are currently two plans for providing 

manent power and camera communication signal to the existing vehicl

riers located on Folsom Dam Road atop the Right and Left Wing Dams

h plan would terminate at the 

per e 

bar . 

Eac existing concrete dam where exposed 

conduit would then be installed directly onto the face of the dam to the 

- e 

 Power: Trenching along the east (upstream) shoulder of the 

road and continue along the roadway to the interface with the concrete 

n be installed in an existing utility tunnel going across 

Folsom Dam Road to the downstream face of the dam. 



-

elevator tower. 

The two plans being evaluated for providing power and communication to th

vehicle barriers are: 

 Underground

portion of Folsom Dam, where a camera tower would be installed. The 

conduit would the

Above ground power: Conduit would be installed along the backside of

the existing guardrail located along Folsom Dam Road. This exposed 

conduit would terminate at the concrete portion of the dam and continue 

as previously described. 

Folsom Dam Industrial Area - The current plan is to provide permanent 

er to facilities located within the Folsom Dam Complex from the existi

er transfer facilities located within the Folsom Dam Industrial area. 

pow ng 

pow

• Power Alignments 

terminating at the right abutment of Dike 4. Power lines would either be 

e toes of the structures or installed utilizing 30-ft high 

concrete poles along the tops of the embankment structures at 300-ft 

- ing 

 be 

e interface with the concrete portion of Folsom Dam, where 

another camera tower would be installed. The conduit would then be 

installed in another excavated trench going across Folsom Dam Road to the 

- The alignment for power to Dikes 4-6 begins at the left barrier of Dike 6, and 

runs along the downstream face of the embankments of Dikes 6, 5, and 4,

trenched along th

intervals, or 30-ft poles at 300-ft intervals at some distance from the toe of 

the structures. 

A second trench would be excavated and conduit installed from the exist

vehicle barriers located on the RWD embankment. This trench would

excavated along the east (upstream) shoulder of the road and continue along

the roadway to th

2-78 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

downstream face of the dam. Exposed conduit would then be installed 

directly onto the face of the dam to the elevator tower where a hole would 

drilled and the conduit run into the Elevator Tower. Instead of trenching, 

conduit may be fixed to the back of the existing guardrails. 

A third trench would be excavated and conduit installed from the existing 

elevator tower south along Folsom Dam Road. This conduit would be 

installed along the upstream face of the dam up to the end of the concrete 

section of the dam then a trench would be excavated along the upstream sid

of the existing roadway. This trench and conduit would conti

be 

-

e 

nue south along 

Folsom Dam Road to the Overlook Parking Area and tie into a camera 

. 

• Sta

located on a 30-foot tall tower to be installed at the Overlook Parking Area

Instead of trenching, conduit may be fixed to the back of the existing 

guardrails. 

ging Areas - Overnight staging would take place in several potential locations 

t have been identified for the overall project, or other areas downstream 

 in vacant areas on Reclamation property. During construction, equipment 

uld be staged on the dam road, or other paved areas. It may also be nec

tha of the 

dam

wo essary 

to stage some equipment in the Overlook Parking Area. Staging would occur in 

previously identified areas for the Joint Federal Project. Staging areas would be 

•

located adjacent to the embankments, and would be used to store power poles, 

and all of the equipment required to construct this piece of the project, including, 

but not limited to portable restrooms, and a temporary construction office. Two 

or more contractors working on related or unrelated project work may use 

staging areas concurrently. 

Gates and Vehicle Barriers – Folsom Dam Road - Folsom Dam Road is 

approximately 2.3 miles in length and crosses over the LWD, the concrete 

gravity dam and a portion of the RWD. In order to prevent unauthorized access 

of large vehicles, Reclamation has installed vehicle barriers at either end of

Folsom Dam. 

• Project Lighting - Additional lighting would be installed for the Main Co

Dam, spillway gates, shutter structure, and all dikes. Appropriate lighting w

be installed to support monitoring of the barrier system. 

ncrete 

ould 

2.3 No Action/No Project Alternative 

imp

the ccur during the life of 

the project without any action alternatives being implemented” (Reclamation 2000). 

The No Action/No Project (No Action) Alternative serves, under NEPA, as the 

baseline against which the action alternatives are compared to determine the level of 

acts. The No Action Alternative “represents a projection of current conditions to 

 most reasonable future responses or conditions that could o

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-79 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

For the purposes of the No Action/No Project Alternative, the “life of the project” 

idction. 

 as 

 if 

lopment or improvement project on an identifiable property, the "no 

o 

c, seismic, static, and flood management risks would go 

he 

lowing projects 

(i.e., construction work on Folsom facilities) is 8 years from late 2007 through m

2014. 

Under NEPA, No Action has two interpretations. The first “may be thought of in 

terms of continuing with the present course of action until the action is changed” 

(CEQ 2006). The second includes cases where the proposed action would not take 

place and environmental effects of not taking action are compared to effects from 

taking action. The Folsom DR/FDR No Action Alternative uses both interpretations 

of No A

Under CEQA, the "no project" alternative should describe the existing conditions,

modified by "what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future

the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available 

infrastructure and community services." (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 

15126.6(e)). If the project is other than a land use plan or regulatory plan, for 

example a deve

project" alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. 

Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property 

remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the 

project is approved. 

Because of the current level of risk, Reclamation has determined that no significant 

risk reduction benefit is obtained by altering operations in order to avoid the 

hydrologic risks associated with the Folsom Facilities. Therefore, the No Action/N

Project Alternative includes continuing with the current Folsom Dam and Lake 

Water Control Manual of 1987. However, under the No Action/No Project scenario, 

the current hydrologi

unabated into the future. Additionally, the action alternatives include various 

construction measures that would not occur under the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. The No Action/No Project Alternative consists of the environmental 

effects of not implementing construction on the Folsom DR/FDR. 

Finally, the No Action/No Project Alternative takes into account changes in the 

future such as land use changes; therefore, this alternative is often also called t

Future without Project alternative. The period of analysis for this project is the

construction window of 2007-2014. Future without project conditions for the No 

Action/No Project Alternative would take into account future changes within this 

period of analysis. Future-without-project conditions include the fol

planned to be implemented by other agencies during the period: 

• Construction of a new, permanent Folsom Bridge by the Corps. 

2-80 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.4 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 includes a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with no dam or embankment 

raise; crest reinforcement for selected the RWD, LWD, MIAD, and selected dikes; 

 Concrete Dam 

and selected em

dresses only hydrologic, seismic, and static concerns. 

es 

along with additional seismic and static design elements at the Main

bankments. Alternative 1 and its features reflect a stand-alone Safety 

of Dams alternative which ad

Although the wing dams, MIAD, and some dikes may be subject to an minimal 

increase in height as part of crest reinforcing, resurfacing and protection of some of 

the structures, the height increase relates to the need to protect the structural integrity

of the facilities during a PMF, seismic or static event, and not to increase temporary 

flood storage capacity, as would be accomplished by the other alternatives. 

Alternative 1 includes the features summarized in Table 2-12. Table 2-13 provid

the estimate quantities of materials required to construct the alternative. 

Table 2-12 

Features of Alternative 1 

Feature Project Component 

Main Concrete Dam • No Dam raise 

• Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, an

blocks 

d or toe 

• Found hancements 

• Sig nforcement 

ments 

ts 

ation drain en

nificant pier rei

• No spillway bridge improve

• Minor to moderate spillway gate Improvemen

Auxiliary Spillway • PMF -520-ft wide fuseplug, partially-lined spillway 

Left and Right Wing Dams • ≤4-ft earthen raise crest protection 

• Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with 

concrete dam 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam • ≤ 4-ft earthen raise for resurfacing, reinforcement and/or crest 

protection 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

• Jet grouting downstream foundation 

• Downstream overlay 

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, & 8 • No activity 

Dikes 4, 5 & 6 • ≤ cing, reinforcement and/or crest 

 

 4-ft earthen raise for resurfa

protection 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

Non-Federal Property Protection • No activity 

Staging and Site Development 

C tch Plant and Jet Grout Processing 

• Utility and Road Reloca

onstruction

tions 

• Haul Road C

• Borrow Site and Staging Area Development 

• Stockpiling and Borrow Material Processing 

• oncrete Ba

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-81 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-13 

Estimated Quantities – Alternative 1

Estimated Quantities (cy) Embankment 

ation lter phalt 

Pavement Feature Excav Concrete Shell Slope Fi Material Protection 

As

Main Concrete Dam 50,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 

Auxiliary Spillway 3,152,000 55,000 1400 14,700 1,100 124,809 

Right Wing Dam 306,640 227,259 0 65,495 2,000 0 

Left Wing Dam 97,075 66,128 0 20,662 600 0 

MIAD 235,300 905,000 0 333,000 1,520 0 

Dike 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dike 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dike 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dike 4 11,757 3,719 0 15,311 460 0 

Dike 5 70,984 99,332 0 31,202 600 0 

Dike 6 26,311 14,520 0 18,340 430 0 

Dike 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dike 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTALS 3 ,950,067 1,370,958 1,400 498,710 6,710 149 09 ,8

Each of the project components is described in greater detail in the following 

sectio

2.4.1 Main Concrete Dam 

Under Alternative 1, there would be no raise to the concrete dam, an nor to 

moder provements to the spillway gates an ignifica improve nt to the

spillw ity rnative 1 would be installation of

nsioned anchors, shear key, or toe block elements. A staging area would be 

a from 

mento area suppliers. Standard construction equipment would be used to 

r 

ay site would be developed by excavating up 

ds of material. The material would be placed in haul trucks 

ns. 

d i m

ate im d s nt me

ay piers. The major activ under Alte post 

te

developed near the dam for contractor office and parking, materials storage, and for a 

concrete batch plant. Cement and aggregate would be hauled to the staging are

local Sacra

install the elements of Alternative 1.

2.4.2 Stilling Basin 

There would be no modifications to the existing stilling basin under Alternative 1. 

However, the stilling basin would need to be dewatered to allow installation of shea

keys and toes blocks. 

2.4.3 Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway 

The fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway would be a 520-ft wide, fuseplug control structure, 

with a partially-lined chute. The spillw

to 3.2 million cubic yar

and taken to a processing plant site at the overlook parking area, Folsom Point and/or 

Beal's Point. At the processing plant site, the material would be screened and crushed

to size required to reinforce the shells of MIAD, the wing dams, and the dikes. 

2-82 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Following processing, the material would be hauled to Dike 7, Folsom Point, or 

y 

offerdam or rely on a rock plug within the reservoir area 

ms 

lso be installed along 

the embankment, concrete contact. Construction of the filters would involve removal 

piling the material. Processed material from 

et 

IAD, would be 

used as access points to inject grout. Raw cement to produce the grout would be 

mmercial sources. 

om 

terial) or D2 borrow 

MIAD for stockpiling. 

The fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway for the partially lined chute option would have a 

520-ft wide control structure at the head of a 1,100-ft long, 520- to 300-ft wide roller 

compacted, concrete-lined channel. This channel would lead to a 1,700-ft unlined 

channel discharging into the American River. The fuseplug control structure would 

be designed with multiple embankment sections to allow passage of progressively 

larger floods up to helping pass the PMF. To construct the control structure, it ma

be necessary to place a c

near the approach channel entrance to preclude reservoir water from flooding the 

work site during periods of maximum reservoir water storage. 

2.4.4 Left and Right Wing Dams 

The LWD and RWD would be subject to similar static and hydrologic treatments. 

The existing shell would be stripped to allow placement of new filters. To provide 

drainage control, crest filters would be installed on the downstream side to a depth

between 20 and 40 ft. In order to prevent piping along the interface of the wing da

with the Main Concrete Dam, processed material filters would a

of a portion of the outer shell and stock

either a local commercial source or manufactured from local granitic material would

be placed in a layer across the excavated face of the dike. The excavated shell 

material would then be replaced and recompacted. Earthen material for the LWD 

would be taken from one of the nearby stockpiles. Earthen material for the RWD 

would be taken from the Beal’s Point borrow and processing site. 

2.4.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

MIAD would undergo several treatments to address seismic, static, and hydrologic 

concerns. To address the seismic concerns related to the foundation of MIAD, j

grouting would be used to solidify the base. Staging for the work on MIAD would

occur on site. A mobile concrete production plant would be used to mix the grout 

material. Pilot holes, drilled into the cobbles present at the base of M

trucked to the site from Sacramento area co

To address static concerns, full-height filters and drains would be installed. The 

filters would be installed in the same manner as the dikes. A layer of shell material 

would be excavated for the placement of a layer of filter processed material. The 

shell material would be replaced, following by additional shell material. 

The downstream overlay would be constructed using borrow material obtained fr

one of the local storage sites (Auxiliary Spillway excavation ma

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-83 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

site. The material would be transported locally for placement at MIAD. Addition

shell material would be added to MIAD to increase its mass (static) and to raise the 

height to address hydrologic concerns. Increasing the height of MIAD would prev

it from being over topped during extreme runoff events from the upper Am

al 

ent 

erican 

River watershed. MIAD would not be raised to increase the flood storage capacity of 

ilar static and hydrologic treatments, with 

that of the wing dams. The existing shell would be 

Beal’s Point, which would include a materials processing 

ranitic materials to sizes adequate for construction of shell 

ent of additional shell material would be developed at 

lopment 

s follows: 

Beal’s Point Staging and Borrow 

terials processing plant. Borrow 

d crushing 

plant. It is anticipated that borrow development along the reservoir shoreline would 

e. Borrow material would be stored locally prior to 

Lot Staging 

would 

l 

Folsom Reservoir. 

2.4.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 

There would be no dam safety improvement activities conducted for Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, 

and 8 under Alternative 1. 

2.4.7 Dikes 4, 5, and 6 

Dikes 4, 5, and 6 would be subject to sim

construction practices similar to 

stripped to allow placement of new filters. In addition to construction of toe drains 

the dikes would be upgraded with full-height filters. Construction work for Dikes 4, 

5, and 6 would be staged at 

plant to screen and crush g

material. Borrow for placem

the Beal’s Point borrow site. 

2.4.8 Non-Federal Property Protection 

There would not be a need for non-government property protection actions under 

Alternative 1 as there would be no raise in reservoir surface elevation from existing 

conditions. 

2.4.9 Staging and Site Deve

The staging areas being considered for Alternative 1 are a

Granite Bay Staging and Borrow 

Staging at Granite Bay would not be required under Alternative 1. 

Staging at Beal’s Point would include a ma

developed at Beal’s Point would be processed at a local screening an

be to 30 ft below existing surfac

use at Dikes 4, 5, and 6, and the RWD. 

Main Concrete Dam Overlook Parking 

A construction office, parking, materials storage, and a concrete batch plant 

be staged near the Main Concrete Dam, extending the area into the reservoir. Fil

from the Auxiliary Spillway excavation would be use to accomplish the fill. The 

2-84 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Main Concrete Dam staging area would also be used to support all construction 

activities related to the Auxiliary Spillway. A mobile processing plant to screen and 

crush materials excavated from the Auxiliary Spillway site would be placed at the 

ion would be hauled to the Dike 7 

w 

A staging site would be constructed near MIAD to support the production of grout 

 and placement of the downstream overlay, as well as other 

Soil with low permeability properties would be excavated at the D2 borrow site for 

ures subject to an earthen raise. 

 the Auxiliary Spillway site could be temporarily 

stored at Dike 7, within the reservoir, or downstream of the structure. A temporary 

be constructed using borrow material at the 400-ft contour when the 

. 

ns in most water years. 

alone Safety of Dams alternative, and was designed 

emented, Reclamation would independently 

ternative was implemented, it is anticipated 

This alternative includes a fuseplug that would be designed to operate in the above 

overlook parking. Material processed at this locat

materials stockpile site, Folsom Point, or MIAD. 

Folsom Point Staging 

A contractor work area, construction materials and equipment storage, and borro

material storage would occur at Folsom Point. A crushing plant could also be set up 

to process materials from the Auxiliary Spillway. 

MIAD Staging 

(concrete batch plant)

construction-related activities. 

D2 Borrow Site 

use at all struct

Dike 7 Borrow Material Storage 

Borrow material excavated from

cofferdam may 

reservoir is at its lowest water elevation. Borrow material would then be placed 

behind the cofferdam for storage until it is needed

Internal Haul Routes 

Internal haul routes would be used as described in Section 2.2.4. 

2.4.10 Alternative 1 Operations 

Construction and utilization of the project features in Alternative 1 would not 

significantly alter current Folsom Reservoir operatio

Alternative 1 is primarily a standto pass the PMF and address the seismic and static risks. If the current version of the 

JFP were not to be expeditiously impl

proceed with this alternative. If this al

that the features would only be operated once every 300 years or greater. 

scenario. Once the fuseplug has operated, it would be necessary to rebuild the 

fuseplug to refill the reservoir once the PMF has been passed. It would take 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-85 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

approximately one month to rebuild the fuseplug. The materials required to rebuil

the fuseplug would be stockpiled onsite. 

d 

Downstream Effects –The Auxiliary Spillway with a fuseplug would only operate a

a point when over 500,000 cfs was already being released downstream through 

existing spillway. The fuseplug spillway in conjunction with the existing spill

could release a total discharge between 850,000 and 900,000 cfs. 

t 

the 

way 

At releases above 160,000 cfs, multiple levee failures would be probable. Above 

r 

ses associated 

with this alternative would come at a point where all of the downstream impacts 

this 

wer the cameras, lights, bollards and other 

ent power source can be 

ed for a temporary power 

t 

 at 

 during construction to accommodate problem areas, structural issues, 

or other factors that would require a different spacing. The entire project would 

t 

190,000 cfs, the levees have all been overtopped and the communities downstream 

have been evacuated. In all probability, all of the gravel in the lower American Rive

would have been mobilized prior to fuseplug operation, and all aquatic habitat 

including salmonid habitat, would have been fully impacted. Relea

from operations-related actions had already occurred. Therefore, the operation of 

feature under Alternative 1 would not result in a notable change to the downstream 

impacts that would otherwise occur. 

2.4.11 Alternative 1 Security Upgrade Features 

It would be necessary to hardwire power to all security components. A permanent 

source of power would be considered first. If it is not possible to install permanent 

power for whatever reason, it would then be necessary to install a temporary power 

source. Power would be required to po

equipment on each dike, and the wing dams. If a perman

constructed from the outset, then there would not be a ne

source. Temporary power sources would only be utilized until a permanent power 

source can be constructed. 

All work would be on Reclamation property in areas that minimize or avoid habita

impacts. Due to the complexity of coordinating the overall large-scale construction

several locations within and around the reservoir, it is not efficient to predetermine 

all of the alignments that would be required to provide power to all of the security 

components. 

Power poles, one potential for delivery of permanent power, would be installed 

downstream of Dikes 4-6, at Dike 7, and at MIAD. The power poles would be 

installed at a distance, up to 50-ft. from the toe of the structures. In general, the 

power poles would be placed at 300-ft. intervals, plus or minus 30-ft. Adjustments 

would be made

require approximately 88 poles. 

Generators and upgraded solar panels are the two temporary sources of power tha

are being considered for project purposes. Two to three generators would be 

2-86 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

required to provide temporary power to Dikes 4-6. Two more generators would be 

required to provide power to Dike 7 and MIAD. The generators would be runnin

hours a day. The size (horsepowe

g 24 

r) of the generators has yet to be determined. The 

generators would be housed to reduce noise impacts, and placed to avoid conflict 

m. 

d areas for the DS/FDR actions. Staging 

areas would be located adjacent to the embankments, and would be used to store 

office. 

staging areas concurrently. 

reflect both Safety of Dams hydrologic, seismic, and 

ent to meet flood damage reduction objectives. 

ay 

r 

the raise were significantly reduced or eliminated by substitution of the larger 

g the crest 

d to 

r 

he 

R objective. Under this or any alternative with a raise component, 

the additional storage is for flood control only and not for increasing the storage 

with the public. The generators would be fenced and or secured in another way to 

secure the equipment from public access. 

If solar panels prove to be the superior alternative, then large enough panels would 

be employed to power all of the hardware at each of the structures. It may be 

necessary to utilize a combination of solar panels and generators as a backup syste

Staging would occur in previously identifie

power poles, and all of the equipment required to construct this piece of the project, 

including, but not limited to portable restrooms, and a temporary construction 

Two or more contractors working on related or unrelated project work may use 

2.5 Alternative 2 

The principle features of Alternative 2 are a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with an 

underlying tunnel, an embankment raise of up to 4 feet along with additional seismic 

and static design elements at the Main Concrete Dam and select embankments. 

Alternative 2 and its features 

static concerns with a tunnel elem

The raise component is dependent on assumptions made about the fuseplug spillw

width. The alternative as analyzed assumes a narrower fuseplug spillway 

approximately 350-400 feet wide at the control section. Substitution of the large

fuseplug spillway described in Alternative 1 would reduce the amount of any 

required raise to that as incrementally justified for flood damage reduction only. If 

fuseplug spillway, the wing dams, MIAD, and some dikes would be subject to only a 

minimal increase in height as part of reinforcing, resurfacing and protectin

of the structures. The height increase relates to the need to protect the structural 

integrity of the facilities during a PMF, seismic or static event, and not to a nee

increase temporary flood storage capacity, which is the reason for a raise in the othe

alternatives. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be a 4-ft raise to all facilities except for the Main 

Concrete Dam crest. The Main Concrete Dam already has a 4 foot parapet wall. T

raise in Alternative 2 has been designed to allow for safe passage of the PMF. The 

alternative also has the additional required flood surge storage capacity to reach the 1 

in 200 event FD

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-87 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

capacity of the reservoir. Alternative 2 includes the features provided in Table 2-14.

Table 2-15 provides the estimated quantities for construction of this alternative. 

Each of the project components is described in greater detail in the following 

sections. 

Table 2-14 

Features of Alternative 2 

Feature Project Component 

Main Concrete Dam • In filling of existing parapet wall gaps across non-overflow

• Post-tensioned anchors, shear key, and/or toe block elem

 section 

ents 

• Foundation Drain Enhancements 

• Significant spillway pier reinforcements 

• No spillway bridge improvements

• Minor to moderate spillway gate modifications 

Auxiliary Spillway fully-lined chute 

-ft wide Fuseplug 

• Tunnel with 3 Subme Fully-Lined Discharge 

• PMF fuseplug with partially- or

• Control Structure – 350 to 400

rged Tainter Gates and

Channel 

Left and Right Wing Dams • 0.5-ft Earthen, 3.5-ft Parapet Concrete Wall 

• Toe Drains 

• 1⁄2 Height Filters 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

ndation 

• 4-ft Earthen Raise 

• Toe Drains 

• Full-height Filters 

• Excavation and Replacement of Downstream Fou

• Downstream Overlay 

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 • 4-ft earthen raise 

• Toe Drains 

Dikes 4, 5 & 6 • 4-ft earthen raise 

• Toe Drains 

• Half-height Filters 

Non-Federal Property Protection ent Protection 

rty Rights (easements or fee title) 

• New Embankm

• Acquisition of Prope

Staging and Site Development 

taging Area Development 

d Borrow Material Processing 

ant 

• Utility and Road Relocations 

• Haul Road Construction

• Borrow Site and S

• Stockpiling an

• Concrete Batch Pl

• Excavation Blasting 

Table 2-15 

Estimated Quantities – Alternative 2

Estimated Quantities (cy) 

Embankment Feature Excavation phalt 

ement Concrete Shell Slope 

on 

Filter As

Material Protecti Pav

Main Concrete Dam 50,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 

Auxiliary Spillway 3,190,000 55,000 0 14,700 1,100 124,650 

Spillway Tunnel 1,656,330 0 0 134,570 

Right Wing Dam 268,500 189,500 5,712 94,615 2,550 1,173 

Left Wing Dam 371,800 254,400 1,734 90,808 816 367 

MIAD 3,815,715 905,000 5,600 333,852 1,520 46,960 

Dike 1 10,890 30,000 1,785 870 673 0 

Dike 2 8,525 21,000 1,734 840 500 0 

Dike 3 6,830 13,500 1,479 730 439 0 

Dike 4 8,580 23,000 1 ,428 1,380 510 0 

Dike 5 26,400 94,000 1,887 5,554 551 0 

Dike 6 13,750 44,000 1,428 1,673 520 0 

Dike 7 7,150 23,000 847 1,451 255 0 

Dike 8 4,070 10,500 734 360 224 0 

T 9 1 OTALS ,438,540 ,953,900 2 54 3 9,658 332 4,,368 6,89 ,450 

2-88 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

 

2.5.1 Main Concrete Dam 

Under Alternative 2, the existing parapet wall would be strengthened to serve as a 4-

ft raise non-spillw rtion dam structure; the existing spillway crest 

ain O m e a

lternative 1. 

ay 

ould be developed by excavating up to 3.5 million cubic yards of 

 The material would be placed in haul trucks 

nt site at the overlook parking area. 

ltiple embankment 

sections to allow passage for progressively larger floods up to helping pass the PMF 

e 

d 

the Auxiliary Spillway 

y, 

diameter intakes and tunnels, a 45-ft diameter concrete-lined upstream pressure 

 to the ay po of the 

height would rem

A

the same. ther dam i provements would be the sam s 

2.5.2 Stilling Basin 

There would be no modifications to the stilling basin under Alternative 2. However, 

the stilling basin would need to be dewatered to allow installation of shear keys and

toes blocks. 

2.5.3 Auxiliary Spillw

The new fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway would be a 350- to 400-ft wide fuseplug 

control structure, with a partially-lined or fully-lined chute options. Spillway width is

ultimately dependent on optimal tunnel discharge capacity and raise component. The

spillway site w

material (for the spillway and tunnel).

and taken to a processing pla

The fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway (for the partially-lined option) would have a 350- to 

400-ft wide control structure at the head of a 1,100-ft long, 350- to 400-ft roller 

compacted concrete-lined channel, which would narrow to 300 ft in width. This 

channel would lead to a 1,700-ft unlined channel discharging into the American 

River. The fuseplug control structure would be designed with mu

without discharging more than the maximum inflow. To construct the control 

structure, it may be necessary to place a cofferdam or leave a rock plug within th

reservoir area near the approach channel entrance to preclude reservoir water from

flooding the work site during periods of maximum storage. 

2.5.4 Auxiliary Spillway Tunnel 

The main differentiating feature for Alternative 2 would be the construction of an 

Auxiliary Spillway tunnel. The tunnel would be excavated in an area adjacent to an

beneath the proposed Auxiliary Spillway using standard excavation, tunneling and 

earth moving equipment and handled in the same manner as 

materials. 

To construct the tunnel opening and control structure on the waterside of the facilit

a cofferdam or rock plug may be constructed to control reservoir water during 

periods of maximum storage. The tunnel spillway would consist of three 26-ft 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-89 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

tunnel, and a 50-ft diameter concrete-lined modified horseshoe downstream tunnel 

located through the left abutment of the LWD. Flow through the tunnel spillway 

would be regulated by three 14- by 25-ft submerged tainter gates. In addition, 14- by 

. 

sting concrete dam spillway and outlets at a 

maximum water surface elevation of 477.0 ft. Once the tunnel was completed, the 

rol, 

l 

ss 

aterial would be removed and the 

trength compacted fill. As part of 

ft 

Dikes 7 and 8 would receive treatments similar to Dikes 1, 2, and 3. However, 

because Dike 8 is located along the southern shore of the reservoir, work at Dike 8 

25-ft wheel mounted guard gates would be provided upstream of each tainter gate to 

provide for additional security. 

The tunnel would discharge into a spillway chute shared by the fuseplug spillway

The fuseplug spillway would be constructed first and would provide for expedited 

hydrologic risk reduction for the dam overtopping concern. The initial fuseplug 

spillway configuration would consist of a 500-ft wide fuseplug (divided into 

segments) with a crest at elevation of 477 ft. The fuseplug in this configuration 

would pass the PMF with the exi

fuseplug width would be reduced to 350-ft and the crest raised to 480-ft. 

2.5.5 Left and Right Wing Dams 

The LWD and RWD would require similar treatments. To provide drainage cont

toe drains and full-height filters would be installed on the downstream side. 

Additional shell material would be placed in the wing dams to raise their elevation 

approximately 4 ft. Construction would be similar to that of Alternative 1. 

2.5.6 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

Under Alternative 2, MIAD would undergo several treatments to address seismic, 

static, and hydrologic concerns. To address static concerns, toe drains and full-height

filters would be installed. The filters would be installed before placement of the fina

layer of the overlay. To address the seismic concerns related to the foundation of 

MIAD, the foundation would be excavated from the downstream side to acce

foundation material. Unstable foundation m

downstream foundation rebuilt with high s

reconstruction, a downstream overlay would be built that would raise the height of 

MIAD by approximately 4-ft. The overlay shell material would be obtained from the 

Dike 7 storage site, Folsom Point, or MIAD (Auxiliary Spillway excavation 

material). The material would be transported locally for placement at MIAD. 

2.5.7 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 

Dikes 1, 2, and 3, adjacent to the Granite Bay staging area, would be subject to a 4-

earthen raise. Borrow material for constructing the earthen raise to Dikes 1, 2, and 3 

would be developed at Granite Bay. Toe drains would be installed at the base of each 

dike. 

2-90 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

would be staged from Folsom Point. Borrow material for the Dike 8 construction 

, 5, and 6 would be subject to a 4-ft earthen raise. In addition to construction 

of toe drains and placement of more shell material, the dikes would be upgraded with 

f the 

n a 

 material would then be replaced 

with additional shell material added to accomplish the 4-ft earthen raise. 

s 4, 5, and 6 would be staged at Beal’s Point with borrow 

tial flooding issue, the government would either construct 

additional embankments at locations where developed property was threatened or 

 The embankments would be 

ls 

 and strengthening structures 

(Dikes 1, 2, and 3), granitic material from along the shoreline would be excavated 

petent rock foundation at this location 

would be taken from the closest stockpile area. 

2.5.8 Dikes 4, 5, and 6 

Dikes 4

1⁄2-height filters. Construction of the filters would involve removal of a portion o

outer shell and stockpiling the material. Processed material from either a local 

commercial source or manufactured from local granitic material would be placed i

layer across the excavated face of the dike. Shell

Construction work for Dike

developed locally. 

2.5.9 New Embankments/Flood Easements 

The raising of the reservoir pool elevation during a PMF event could potentially

flood areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom facilities. The areas of concern are 

primarily located along Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and along the eastern

shoreline. 

To address the poten

obtain flood easements for non-developed property.

constructed from earthen material excavated at the specific site. Because the detai

and requirements for the embankments are not known at the time of development of 

this EIS/EIR, supplemental environmental documentation to describe construction 

effects would be produced once the details are known. 

2.5.10 Staging and Site Development 

Four staging areas are proposed to address Alternative 2 construction as follows: 

Granite Bay Staging and Borrow 

Staging at Granite Bay would include contractor offices and parking, construction 

materials storage, a borrow material processing (screening and crushing) plant, and 

borrow materials storage. To develop borrow for raising

using standard construction equipment. Com

has the potential to be crushed into processed material. Excavation up to 50 feet 

below the existing surface is possible. Excavation of rock foundation would require 

the use of blasting agents. 

Excavated borrow material would be transported locally to the processing plant for 

screening and crushing and stored locally until used. Processed material produced at 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-91 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Granite Bay would be transported on internal construction haul roads to Beal’s Poin

or by city streets to Folsom Point/MIAD. 

Beal’s Point Staging and Borrow 

Staging at Beal’s Point wou

t 

ld be similar to that at Granite Bay, with the exception of 

the potential for a concrete batch plant. Borrow developed at Beal’s Point would be 

sing plant to screen and crush materials excavated from the 

Auxiliary Spillway site could be placed at the overlook parking lot east of the LWD. 

cation would be hauled to Dike 7, Folsom Point, or the 

A contractor work area, construction materials and equipment storage, and borrow 

ould occur at Folsom Point. A crushing and sorting operation 

e established near MIAD for excavation and shell 

replacement activities. 

or 

n raise. 

aterial Storage 

m of the structure. A temporary cofferdam would be 

constructed using borrow material at the 400-ft contour when the reservoir is at its 

vation. Borrow material would then be placed behind the cofferdam 

Internal Haul Routes 

Internal haul routes would be as described in Section 2.2.4. 

processed at a local screening and crushing plant. It is anticipated that borrow 

development along the reservoir shoreline would be up to 30 ft below existing 

surface. Borrow material would be stored locally prior to use at Dikes 4, 5, and 6, 

and the RWD. 

Main Concrete Dam Staging 

A construction office, parking, materials storage, and a concrete batch plant would 

be staged near the Main Concrete Dam. The Main Concrete Dam staging would also

be used to support construction of the Auxiliary Spillway. 

Auxiliary Spillway 

A mobile proces

Material processed at this lo

MIAD materials storage site. 

Folsom Point Staging 

material storage w

could also be set up at Folsom Point. 

MIAD Staging 

A contractor work area would b

D2 Borrow Site 

Soil with low permeability properties would be excavated at the D2 borrow site f

use at all structures subject to an earthe

Dike 7 Borrow M

Borrow material excavated form the Auxiliary Spillway site could be temporarily 

stored at Dike 7, upstrea

lowest water ele

for storage until it is needed. 

2-92 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.5.11 Alternative 2 Operations 

Construction and utilization of the project features in Alternative 2 would not 

significantly alter current Folsom Reservoir operations. Alternative 2 is a Flood 

Damage Reduction alternative, and was designed to pass the PMF. If this alternative

was implemented, it is anticipated that the features would be operated as necessary to

control flood flows. 

Downstream Effects – The fuseplug spillway features of this

operate at a point when over 500,000 cfs was already being r

 alternative would only 

eleased downstream as 

 would provide a significantly lower level of 

itiation of earlier releases, and maintaining 

nt. T. 

described in Alternative 1. The tunnel

discharge capacity, allowing for the in

flows at 160,000 cfs or below for duration’s equivalent to the 1 in 200 year eve

Cumulative Effects – Joint flood releases from the fuseplug spillway and tunnel 

would be made only during large, rare, infrequent flood events occurring on the 

order of greater than 1 in 300 years for the fuseplug spillway and tens to hundreds of 

years for the tunnel. Releases above 160,000 cfs would come at a point in the flood 

event where the vast majority of the impacts have all ready occurred, as previously 

described in Alternative 1. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from Alternative 2 

would be not be significant. 

Reservoir Vicinity Effects – A 4-ft raise could result in a short-term temporary 

increase in the maximum reservoir pool elevation during extreme flood flow events. 

a 

pacted non-federal property owners. Probable actions 

in lower elevation areas would include construction of new flood protection berms 

ted 

is 

This would result in inundation of land surrounding the reservoir and could flood

lower elevation areas adjacent to the federal property boundary. The lower elevation 

areas are primarily in the Mooney Ridge, Granite Bay, and eastern shoreline areas. 

Land use actions would be necessary to address the potential for flooding related to 

4 ft raise. Structural or real estate remedies, or a combination of both, would be 

pursued in cooperation with im

(and associated access and flood protection structure easements if berms are loca

on non-federal property) and/or acquisition of flood easements on impacted nonfederal parcels. With a 4 ft raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analys

also indicates the acquisition of fee title of approximately four non-federal properties 

as a possible scenario, including one residential property. In the event that 

acquisition of fee title of non-federal property is required, impacted property 

owner(s) will be entitled to fair market value, assistance with replacement housing, 

and relocation benefits and services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. 

However, efforts would be made to design and construct flood protection structures 

that will reduce or eliminate the need for building flood protection berms and/or 

acquiring real estate rights (easements or fee title), including potential relocation of 

residents, on impacted non-federal parcels. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-93 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.5.12 Alternative 2 Security Upgrade Features 

Delta barriers or swing gates may be installed to achieve the projects goal to u

security at each of the structures associated with Folsom Reservoir. This alternative 

would still require a permanent source of power. Power would be required for the 

cameras, lights, and other hardware that would be installed. No power would be 

required for the Delta barriers or the swing gates. 

This alternative would employ underground power: Trenching would take place 

along the top of the dikes and underground po

pgrade 

wer would be placed along the trench 

egative impact on the 

 of the embankment dams is 

at 

 overall large-scale construction 

at several locations within and around the reservoir, it is not efficient to predetermine 

ruct this piece of the 

project, including, but not limited to portable restrooms, and a temporary 

ombines four distinct groupings of alternatives for the purpose of 

t 

h a 

uction features, and the majority of the 

d 

to the controlled access locations. This plan has a potential n

integrity of the embankment dams. Major reconstruction

currently in design under the Safety of Dams project. It is possible that underground 

power may be incorporated into that reconstruction effort. 

All work would be on Reclamation property in areas that minimize or avoid habit

impacts. Due to the complexity of coordinating the

all of the alignments that would be required to provide power to all of the security

components. 

Staging would occur in previously identified areas for the SD/FDR action areas. 

Staging areas would be located adjacent to the embankments, and would be used to 

store power poles, and all of the equipment required to const

construction office. Two or more contractors working on related or unrelated project

work may use staging areas concurrently. 

2.6 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 c

analyzing the cumulative effects of the project features, that when combined, mee

all of Reclamation’s Safety of Dams needs, as well as the Corp’s Flood Damage 

Reduction needs. Specifically, Alternative 3 includes all of the features of the Joint 

Federal Project, which is strictly defined as gated Auxiliary Spillway structure wit

900-ft. approach, control structure with 6 submerged tainter gates, and a fully lined 

spillway channel. Alternative 3 also include the Safety of Dams features from 

Alternative 1, the Corp’s Flood Damage Red

Security Upgrade features. 

The stand-alone Flood Damage Reduction feature of the alternative – as 

incrementally justified - is a potential 3.5-ft parapet concrete wall raise to all 

facilities, except for the concrete dam where the existing 3.5-ft parapet wall woul

require minor modification to serve as a water barrier. The raise would allow for 

additional flood surge storage capacity, on a temporary basis, and not for increasing 

2-94 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

the storage capacity of the reservoir. Alternative 3, which would serve as a 

functionally equivalent project to the Corps’ authorized Folsom Dam Mods and

Folsom Dam Raise Projects, includes the features outlined in Table 2-16. 

 

Table 2-16 

Features of Alternative 3

Feature Project Component 

Main Concrete Dam • No Dam raise – minor modifications to existing parapet wall (3.5

ft) 

• Modify/Replace Existing Spillway Bridge 

• Modify/Replace 3 emergency gates; main spillway/servic

modification 

• Significant spillway pier modification 

• Post-tensioned anchors 

• Shear Key Elements 

e gate 

• Toe Blocks 

• Foundation Drain Enhancements 

• Stilling Basin Extension (50-75 ft) 

Auxiliary Spillway • Joint ntrol) Auxiliary Spillway w/ Fully-lined Chute 

rged Tainter Gates plus redundant 

water supply outle

 (PMF/Flood Co

and approach channel 

• Control Structure – 6 Subme

t option 

• The Control Structure incorporates a bridge over the structure 

• Fully-lined stilling basin 

Left and Right Wing Dams • Potential 3.5-ft Parapet Concrete Wall 

• Training wall between Left Wing Dam and Auxiliary Spillway 

• Crest filters in upper portion of dam and along contact with 

concrete dam 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

ion 

• Potential 3.5-ft Parapet Concrete Wall 

• Toe Drains 

• Full-height Filters 

• Jet Grouting Downstream Foundat

• Downstream Overlay 

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8

•

• Potential 3.5-ft Parapet Concrete Wall 

Replace filter material removed at Dikes 1-3, 7 & 8 for parapet 

wall construction 

Dikes 4, 5 & 6 • Potential 3.5-ft Parapet Concrete Wall 

• Toe Drains 

• Full-height Filters 

Non-Federal Property Protection • New Embankment Protection 

• Acquisition of Property Rights (easements or fee title) 

Miscellaneous 

• S ns option 

d Disposal Site Development 

terial Processing, Concrete Batch Plant and 

derwater Blasting and Dredging 

• Utility and Road Relocations 

ecurity Provisio

• Haul Road Construction 

• Borrow Site an

• Staging, Borrow Ma

Jet Grout Processing 

• Excavation Blasting; Un

Each of the project componen etail in the following 

sections. 

Concrete Dam

Under Alternative 3, there wo d ns to the existing upstream 

parapet wall on the concrete m serve as a water 

barrier and the equivalent of th

ts would be described in greater d

2.6.1 Main 

ul be minor modificatio

onoliths of the Main Concrete Dam to

e parapet wall raise on the other structures. Upgrades

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-95 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

could include the addition of rebar and concrete, both to strengthen and increase the 

height of the structure, as wel pletely seal the parapet. The 

existing spillway crest height would remain the 

s a potential enhancement, t laced 

r modified because structural components of the existing emergency gates would be 

ergency gates is to increase the pool elevation (the tops of the three 

tes, when closed, are at elevation 471 feet). This 

duce seismic risks under 

ice 

oncrete batch plant. 

cal 

ay 

encroach on the excavation site of the Auxiliary Spillway stilling basin (described in 

l as other materials to com

same. 

A

o

he three emergency spillway gates would be rep

impacted during passage of large flood releases. When replaced, the new gates 

would be higher with the tops of the three gates raised to 487.5 ft. The advantage of 

replacing the em

existing emergency spillway ga

effectively limits the flood control operation to that elevation. 

Either a new spillway bridge would be constructed at the top of the piers on the 

upstream side of the new or modified emergency spillway gates, or the existing 

spillway bridge would be modified to accommodate the new or modified emergency 

spillway gates. In addition to modifying or replacing the three emergency gates, the 

five main spillway/service gates would be modified to re

Alternative 3. Significant spillway pier modifications would include pier wraps cross 

bracing with structural members and installation of tendons in the piers. Foundation 

drain enhancements, post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, and/or toe blocks 

would be installed to anchor the concrete structure. 

Standard construction equipment would be used to install the project features of 

Alternative 3. A staging area would be developed near the dam for contractor off

and parking, materials storage, a rock crushing plant, and for a c

Cement and aggregate would be hauled to the staging area from local Sacramento 

area suppliers. If the aggregate cannot be produced onsite, or purchased from a lo

supplier, then it would be necessary to truck the material in from a longer distance. 

No alternate sources outside of Sacramento have been identified at this point. 

2.6.2 Stilling Basin 

The stilling basin would be dewatered, and then extended 50 to 75 ft under 

Alternative 3 as incrementally justified under flood damage reduction objectives. A 

new stilling basin would also be constructed to accept full discharge from the 

proposed Auxiliary Spillway. 

The existing stilling basin would be dewatered using pumps. Water would be 

pumped from the stilling basin into the river channel. Leakage from the dam makes it

necessary to pump water out of the stilling basin for the duration of construction in 

the stilling basin. A fish recovery program would be developed prior to dewatering, 

and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. 

A small stream from the existing stilling basin cascades towards the river and m

2-96 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Auxiliary Spillway section). A small channel sufficient to handle the drainage flows 

ere 

s 

mped back into the river. 

ith a sill elevation 

of 368 ft, and an approximately 170-ft wide by 1700-ft long rectangular chute that 

be 

e JFP Auxiliary 

Spillway at the downstream end of the chute, just upstream from where the Auxiliary 

can River. 

 to 

to 

.5 

from the main stilling basin may be excavated through rock. Furthermore, th

would be seepage into the excavation channel through fissures in the rock. 

Depending upon water quality permitting, fissures would be grouted or, if grouting i

not an acceptable means of cutting off the fissure flow, then this water would be 

directed into sumps, filtered, and pu

2.6.3 JFP Auxiliary Spillway 

The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would be built adjacent to the LWD (within the current

overlook parking lot) and consist of a 900-ft approach channel, a control structure 

with six submerged tainter gates (each 23 ft wide by 33 ft high), w

leads to an energy dissipation structure and an exit channel. The entire discharge 

chute would be reinforced-concrete-lined and extend downstream from the control 

structure southwest at approximately 30 degrees diagonally to the LWD towards the 

downstream end of the exit channel for the Main Concrete Dam (entering the 

American River in almost a direct line). The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would 

aligned to minimize impact on the approach road for the new permanent bridge at 

Folsom Dam. A separate hydraulic jump reinforced-concrete-lined stilling basin 

(265 ft long, 90 ft wide, 66-ft deep) would be constructed for th

Spillway flows re-enter the Ameri

The 900-ft long approach channel invert and vertical sides would be reinforcedconcrete-lined for a distance of 50 feet upstream from the face of the control 

structure. The invert elevation for this concrete lining would be at the 368 ft sill 

elevation for the gates. Most of the approach channel would be excavated in rock

be resistant to erosion. Construction of the approach channel would require 

underwater blasting, dredging and excavating approximately 250,000 cubic yards of 

material. 

Construction of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway control structure would include the 

installation of a separate, M&I outlet that would create flexibility for Reclamation 

meet water delivery needs. One use for the outlet would be to provide a backup 

system for the delivery of water in emergency situations. If a pipeline were to be 

built for the delivery of water to a specific entity, that action would be analyzed in a 

supplemental environmental document. 

The Auxiliary Spillway site would be developed by excavating approximately 3

million cubic yards of material. The material would be placed in haul trucks and 

taken to a processing plant site on site, at the dam overlook parking lot, or Folsom 

Point. Some of the material may be utilized as riprap where needed. At the 

processing plant site, the material would be screened and crushed to sizes required to 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-97 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

reinforce MIAD (MIAD overlay), the wing dams, and Dikes 4, 5 and 6. Following 

processing, the material would be hauled to a given structure for immediate use, or it 

would be stockpiled, or the material would be stored at Folsom Point, Dike 7, or near 

may 

, the 

to 

ld significantly decrease impacts to 

 a 

el 

for each embankment is indicated in Table 2-17. 

MIAD including D2. At Dike 7 and Dike 8/Folsom Point, some of the material 

be placed permanently in the reservoir to create staging areas upstream of the 

structure. These areas would remain once construction is complete. Specifically

areas north and south of the parking lot at Beal’s Point would receive fill material 

create staging and stockpiling space. Increasing staging and stockpiling space out of 

the major traffic and recreation areas wou

recreation. 

In order to construct the control structure, a rock plug may be left in place, and/or

cofferdam would be placed within the reservoir downstream of the approach chann

to preclude reservoir water from inundating the work site during periods of 

maximum reservoir storage. 

2.6.4 Left and Right Wing Dams 

Under Alternative 3, the LWD and RWD would be raised 3.5 ft using a parapet 

concrete wall. 

Parapet Concrete Wall – The potential 3.5-ft parapet wall raise for flood control 

purposes would involve construction of a reinforced concrete parapet (flood) wall. 

The parapet wall would be located along the upstream edge of the existing crest for 

the LWD, RWD, MIAD and Dikes 1 through 8. The approximate length of the

parapet wall 

Table 2-17 

Parapet Wall Lengths

Embankment Wall Length (ft) 

Left Wing Dam 2,150 

Right Wing Dam 6,850 

MIAD 4,925 

Dike 1 2,600 

Dike 2 2,600 

Dike 3 1,900 

Dike 4 1,400 

Dike 5 2,100 

Dike 6 1,610 

Dike 7 915 

Dike 8 910 

Total 27,960 

Estimated quantities to construct the 3.5-ft parapet wall raise are indicated in Ta

2-18. Due to the small volume of concrete placement, an on-site batch plant is not 

ble 

required. Concrete would be locally pro it-mix delivery). If justified, the 

potential parapet wall would be co h dike. The number of 

vided (trans

nstructed on site at eac

2-98 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-18 

Estima antities – Parapet (Flo ll ted Qu od) Wa

Estimated Quantities (cy) Embankment 

Feature Excava renching Riprap Backfill 

(common) tion T Filter Concrete 

Right Wing Dam 9,89 507 3,552 4 837 3,920 3,171 

Left Wing Dam 3,10 159 1,115 6 263 1,230 995 

MIAD 7,114 365 2,554 602 2,818 2,280 

Dike 1 3,75 193 1,348 6 317 1,488 1,203 

Dike 2 5,778 148 2,407 1,681 1,144 926 

Dike 3 2,744 141 985 232 1,087 880 

Dike 4 2,022 104 726 171 801 648 

Dike 5 3,033 156 1,089 257 1,202 972 

Dike 6 2,326 119 835 197 921 745 

Dike 7 1,322 68 474 112 524 424 

Dike 8 1,314 67 472 111 521 421 

TOTALS 42,409 2,027 15,557 4,780 15,656 12,665 

loads of concrete to c tem would be about 

1,6 8 cubic yards per load, o t bic yards 

placed hree da le tire ret

sy about ys, or 2.5 y lthou onstr dura

cou ss if w e built urrently at different emban t loca 

Construction of a potential parapet wall would e th oval sposa

materi ssary to fa place of the l. Due he var ypes o

material involved, i.e., riprap, fine and coarse f ateri road b sphal

pavem common kment it is a ated these m ials w

be was

There actions th ld ne

d Flood Control concerns at the LWD and RWD. First, the downstream slope of 

ll 

y 

r 

omplete the entire concrete parapet wall sys

00, assuming

 every t

r about 5 truck loads for he 40 cu

ys. Total time to comp te the en conc e parapet wall 

stem would be 950 da over ears, a gh c uction tion 

ld be much le alls ar conc kmen tions.

 involv e rem and di l of 

al nece cilitate ment wal to t ious t f 

i

n

lter m als, ase, a tic 

ent and emban fill, ticip that ater ould 

ted. 

 are two at wou ed to be completed to address Safety of Dams 

an

these embankments would be stripped and a new filter installed as described for 

Dikes 4, 5 and 6. The new filter would be covered by a new shell overlay. Second, 

the parapet wall would be installed as described in Section 2.2.4. Filter material that 

is disturbed and removed during placement of the parapet walls on the LWD and 

RWD would be replaced on the upstream side only of the dam crests and would be 

followed by the crest filters. 

To provide drainage control, crest filters in the upper portions of the LWD and RWD

and along contact with the concrete dam would be installed as well as a training wa

between the LWD and Auxiliary Spillway. The training wall would be constructed to

prevent damage to the LWD from spillway overflow. 

The LWD would be constructed from the Main Concrete Dam staging area, with 

concrete produced locally, and utilizing borrow material stockpiled from the spillwa

excavation. Material for construction would come from the Dike 7, Folsom Point, o

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-99 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

MIAD stock pile locations. The RWD would be constructed using both the Main

Concrete Dam and staging areas located downstream from the RWD, or from the 

Beal’s Point staging areas. Borrow material would be taken from Beal’s Point, Dike 

7, Folsom Point, or MIAD. The average haul distance is assumed to be 

approximately 0.5 mile. New riprap and backfill would be imported from a local 

stockpile. Filter material would be imported from an off-site source, unless it can be 

produced onsite. 

 concerns related to the 

es 

er of filter processed material. Shell material may include 

1/D2 borrow site. The shell material 

 creating a downstream overlay. 

y 3.5 

t 

 would 

e outer 

2.6.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

Under Alternative 3, MIAD would undergo several treatments to address seismic, 

static, and hydrologic concerns. To address the seismic

foundation of MIAD, jet grouting would be used to solidify the base. Work on 

MIAD would be staged at the site. A mobile concrete production plant would be 

used to mix the grout material. Pilot holes would be drilled into the cobbles present 

at the base of MIAD and used as access points to inject grout. Cement to produce 

the grout would be trucked to the site from Sacramento area commercial sources. 

To address static concerns, toe drains and full-height filters would be installed 

following jet grouting. The filters would be installed in the same manner as at Dik

4, 5 and 6. Lastly, a layer of shell material transported from a local stockpile (such 

as Dike 7, D1/D2, or material that was stockpiled previously at MIAD) would be 

placed over the lay

impervious materials excavated from the D

would be replaced with additional material

If needed, a parapet concrete wall would be added to MIAD to raise the height b

ft. Filter material that is disturbed and removed on the upstream side of the dam

crest during placement of the parapet wall on MIAD would be replaced. 

2.6.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 

Dikes 1, 2, and 3, located adjacent to the Granite Bay staging area, would be subjec

to a potential 3.5-ft parapet wall raise, as described in Section 2.2.4. Filter material 

that is disturbed and removed on the upstream side of the dike crest during 

placement of the parapet wall on the dike would be replaced. 

Dike 7 and 8 would receive similar treatments as Dikes 1, 2 and 3. However, 

because these dikes are located along the southern shore of the reservoir, work

be staged from Folsom Point, D2, or MIAD. 

2.6.7 Dikes 4, 5 and 6 

Dikes 4, 5 and 6 would be subject to a potential 3.5-ft parapet wall raise following 

placement of toe drains, full-height filters, and replacement of their downstream 

shells. Construction of the filters would involve removal of a portion of th

2-100 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

shell and stockpiling the material onsite. Processed material from either a local 

ent of shell material. 

d at the Beal’s Point borrow site. 

s 

 of 

pacts of new 

l 

The Folsom facilities are located along an 8-mile stretch of the western and southern 

ast of the LWD are separated from all 

 Staging 

 approximately one year for the 3.5-ft 

nclude contractor offices and parking, 

commercial source (or manufactured from local granitic material) would be placed in

a layer across the excavated face of the dike. The original shell material would then 

be replaced. Since the parapet walls would be added after the full-height filters on 

these dikes, filter material that is disturbed and removed during placement of the 

parapet walls on these dikes would be replaced. 

Construction work for Dikes 4, 5 and 6 would be staged at Beal’s Point, or a 

downstream staging area, which would include a materials processing plant to screen 

and crush granitic materials to sizes adequate for replacem

Borrow would be develope

2.6.8 Non-Federal Property Protection 

As a result of a potential 3.5 ft parapet wall raise, residential properties along the 

boundary of Folsom Reservoir would potentially be subject to temporary flooding 

during extreme flood events. To address the potential for property damage related to 

the parapet wall raise, the government would acquire flood easements from each of 

the property owners potentially affected. Structures to reduce or eliminate the chance

that private property is flooded are also being considered. The most likely solution

would be a small embankment, a parapet wall of unknown height, or another type

suitable structure. The need for, location, number, and im

embankments/easements would be addressed in a supplemental environmenta

document. 

2.6.9 Staging and Site Development 

edges of Folsom Reservoir. Facilities to the e

other facilities to the west by the Main Concrete Dam. If the concrete dam was 

closed to construction traffic and there is a need to minimize local construction 

traffic, the project would involve staging near each of the facility groupings. Borrow 

site development and processing would be located at the Auxiliary Spillway and 

Beal’s Point. However, if the concrete dam was open to construction traffic, the 

project would involve staging near each of the facility groupings but borrow 

extraction and processing would occur primarily at the Auxiliary Spillway. 

Staging and borrow areas for Alternative 3 are proposed as follows: 

Granite Bay

Staging at Granite Bay would be needed for

parapet wall raise of Dikes 1-3 and would i

construction materials storage as well as other routine staging area activities. 

Material for the 3.5 ft parapet walls would be transported on city streets to the 

Granite Bay staging area. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-101 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Beal’s Point Staging and Borrow 

Staging areas south and north of Beal’s Point would be created in reservoir, utiliz

material from the spillway excavation or other excess material, to minimize impac

at this recreation site. Staging facilities would include borrow material proce

addition to activities similar to those at Granite Bay; staging would be for a lo

ing 

ts 

ssing in 

nger 

duration however. Staging at Beal’s Point would be for at least four years, if the area 

would be 

processed at a local screening and crushing plant. It is anticipated that borrow 

ing, materials storage, and a concrete batch plant would 

The Main Concrete Dam staging area would 

rk area, construction materials and equipment storage, borrow 

material storage, and a crushing and processing plant would all occur at Folsom 

a would be closed to the public for up to six years for 

The 3.5-ft raise for MIAD would more than likely require a greater quantity of 

d be produced from the Auxiliary Spillway excavation. Borrow 

s 

aise 

 height. The sites could also be used to store material if the raise were to be 

implemented further along in the project schedule. 

was used for processing material. Borrow developed at Beal’s Point 

development along the reservoir shoreline would be up to 30 ft below the existing 

surface. Borrow material would be stored locally prior to use at Dikes 4, 5, and 6, 

and the RWD. 

Main Concrete Dam Staging 

A construction office, park

be staged near the Main Concrete Dam. 

also be used to support construction of the Auxiliary Spillway. 

Auxiliary Spillway 

A mobile processing plant to screen and crush materials excavated from the 

Auxiliary Spillway site would be placed at the overlook parking lot east of the LWD, 

or at Folsom Point. Material excavated from and processed at this location would be 

hauled to and processed at the Dike 7/Folsom Point, D1/D2, or MIAD materials

sites. 

Folsom Point Staging 

A contractor wo

Point. The Folsom Point are

staging, materials processing, stockpiling and other staging-related activities. 

D1/D2 Borrow Site and/Stockpiling Site 

material than woul

sites would be developed at either or both the D1 and D2 sites, or the Brown'

Ravine area for the earthen overlay at MIAD. This material would be processed at 

Folsom Point prior to transport to MIAD. D1 and D2 would be utilized for 

stockpiling if it was determined that the project would not move forward with a r

of any

MIAD Staging and Jet Grout Plant 

A staging area would be constructed near MIAD to support production of grout 

(concrete batch plant), as well as other construction-related activities. The staging 

2-102 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

area would include, but would not be limited to, areas for contractor and equipment 

r 

y be 

torage areas 

f 

IAD have also been identified for the storage of 

materials. Dike 7, D2, and MIAD are the only locations where permanent storage of 

 

d to 

ial would form the primary road 

surface. Internal haul roads would be constructed to connect Beal’s Point with 

f the in reservoir haul roads would 

area would be analyzed for mercury or other constituent that 

id 

e 3, the security provisions would be the same as for Alternative 1. 

ons 

all 5 ft x 9 ft), five service and three emergency tainter 

spillway gates set near the main spillway crest, and six submerged tainter gates in the 

parking, and a contractor’s office. 

Dike 7 Borrow Material Storage 

Borrow material excavated from the Auxiliary Spillway site would be temporarily o

permanently stored at Dike 7, D1/D2, or MIAD. A temporary cofferdam ma

constructed upstream of Dike 7 using borrow material at the 400-ft contour when the 

reservoir is at its lowest water elevation. Borrow material would then be placed 

behind the cofferdam for storage until it is needed. 

Permanent and temporary material s

Several sites have been identified for potential permanent or temporary storage o

excavated materials. The primary location would be upstream of Dike 7. Up to 

500,000 cubic yards of material may be stored upstream of Dike 7. Beal’s Point, 

Folsom Point, Dike 8, D1, D2 and M

excess material is highly likely.

Internal Haul Routes 

As part of site development, internal (i.e., within reservoir boundaries) haul roads 

would be constructed as needed. Standard construction equipment would be use

cut and fill the construction road. A road base mater

Granite Bay, and the LWD with MIAD. Most o

be 40-ft wide. 

Approach Channel Construction 

The 900-ft approach channel would require dredging, and underwater blasting to 

construct. Standard industry techniques would be employed to accomplish this 

requirement of the project. 

The sediments in the 

would be mobilized during construction. Precautions would need to be made to avo

damaging fish in the vicinity of the blasting. Resource agencies would be consulted 

on the best way to avoid these types of impacts. 

2.6.10 Alternative 3 Security Upgrade Features 

Under Alternativ

2.6.11 Alternative 3 Operati

Under Alternative 3, Folsom Dam would then have four methods of discharging 

flows from the reservoir: three power penstocks, eight flood control outlets (four

upper tier and four lower tier, 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-103 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

proposed Auxiliary Spillway. To ensure adequate tailwater, the three emergency 

spillway gates may not be used unless the total outflow from the dam exceeds 

240,000 cfs. This restriction makes the emergency gates unusable for normal flood 

control purposes and limits the use of the gates to dam safety outflows. 

ative 3 would involve greater 

ent, and would lessen peak flows for large, 

 the 

be raised to 

In general, utilization of the features described in Altern

releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that closely match downstream channel 

capacity. The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would allow the objective release of 115,000 

cfs to be achieved sooner in a flood ev

infrequent hydrologic events. A maximum flood release of 160,000 cfs, which is

emergency downstream channel capacity, would be made through the Auxiliary 

Spillway when necessary based on observed and anticipated reservoir inflows. 

Emergency releases of 160,000 cfs or above would not be made any sooner with the 

JFP spillway features completed than would occur under the existing condition. 

Maximum releases utilizing project features would not be any larger than those 

allowed under the existing conditions. These larger, earlier flows would conserve 

flood storage space. In addition, the top of the flood control pool could 

increase the flood storage space. The top elevation of the flood space and the release 

diagram would be specified after the Corps and Reclamation are in agreement on the 

rate of increase in flows and dam safety freeboard. 

It is anticipated that a revised Water Control Manual, and the supporting 

environmental compliance coordination and documentation would be completed one 

year prior to completion of construction of the project. However, if this does not

occur, the project features would be operated under existing operating criteria. 

Under this scenario, the same amount of water would ultimately be released with and

without the project features (due to operational constraints), but operators would 

have the ability to release more water sooner in a hydrologic event. 

It is recognized that the full flood damage reduction benefits of the JFP spillway 

would not be fully realized until revision of the Water Control Manual and 

optimization of operation of the JFP spillway is in place. 

Downstream Effects – Downstream impacts would remain the same as the Without 

Project Conditions. Releases would be made according to the Interim Flood Control 

Diagram until the new diagram was in place. 

Reservoir Vicinity Effects – The need to protect non-government property from 

short-term temporary flooding and the actions available to the government woul

similar those described for Alternative 2. 

d be 

2-104 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.7 Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 includes the combined flood damage reduction hydrologic con

the PMF by incorporating the JFP Auxiliary Spillway with

trol of 

 4 (rather than 6) 

ed for additional 

plished two different ways. First, the raise of the 

 

submerged tainter gates. Alternative 4, the 7-ft Dam and Embankment Raise, would

provide additional freeboard to all Folsom facilities, providing an additional margin 

of safety during a PMF event and would provide additional flood storage capacity, 

temporarily on an as-needed basis. The raise would not be us

reservoir water storage capacity. Alternative 4 includes the features presented in 

Table 2-19. The estimated quantities of materials required to construct Alternative 4 

are provided in Table 2-20. 

A 7-ft raise could be accom

embankments could be accomplished using earthen material. Secondly, the raise 

could be accomplished through a combination of parapet walls and earthen material

(essentially combining Alternatives 2 and 3). Each of the project components are 

described in greater detail in the following sections. 

Table 2-19 

Features of Alternative 4

Feature Project Component 

Main Concrete Dam • 7-ft Raise to Non-overflow Sections 

• Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements, toe blocks 

• Foundation drain enhancements 

• Significant spillway pier reinforcement 

• Replace existing spillway bridge 

• Spillway gate replacements 

• Stilling basin extension (50-75 ft) 

Auxiliary Spillway • Joint (PMF/Flood Control) fully-lined spillway 

• Control structure – 4 submerged Tainter gates 

Left and Right Wing Dams • 3.5-ft earthen raise; 3.5-ft parapet wall raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam • 7-ft earthen raise 

• To

• Fu

undation 

e Drains 

ll-height Filters

• Jet grouting downstream fo

• Downstream overlay

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 • 7-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height Filters 

Dikes 4, 5 and 6 • 7-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drain 

• Full-height filters 

Non-Federal Property Protection 

fee title) 

• New Embankment Protection

• Acquisition of Property Rights (easements or 

Miscellaneous • Utility and road relocations 

• Haul road construction 

• Borrow site and staging area development 

• Stockpiling and borrow

• Concrete batch plan

 material processing 

t and jet grout processing 

• Excavation Blasting; Underwater blasting and dredging of material 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-105 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-20 

Estimated Quantities – Alternative 4

Estimated Quantities (cy) Embankment 

Feature Excavation M

ope Filter lt 

Pavement Concrete Shell Sl Aspha

aterial Protection

Main Concrete Dam 50,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 

Auxiliary Spillway 3,425,057 58,135 0 14,700 1,100 124,650 

Right Wing Dam 268,500 23,000 3,300 71,000 2,000 7,200 

Left Wing Dam 370,200 13,500 1,900 22,260 600 4,200 

MIAD 235,300 905,000 5,600 246,450 1,520 0 

Dike 1 23,000 75,900 4,600 0 900 0 

Dike 2 20,400 56,300 4,100 0 960 0 

Dike 3 11,800 37,500 2,600 0 660 0 

Dike 4 14,200 48,000 3,100 3,060 380 0 

Dike 5 40,500 140,700 4,500 53,420 510 0 

Dike 6 35,700 98,300 3,200 16,140 450 0 

Dike 7 2,400 64,500 1,700 11,520 440 0 

Dike 8 4,700 21,500 1,500 6,100 210 0 

TOTALS 4,501,757 1,542,235 36,100 444,650 11,030 161,050 

2.7 ncre

Under Alternative 4, there would be a 7-ft concrete raise to the no p

of cr t eleva uld n th

E gate be r wit r ga ause ural 

me exist wo mpa urin ssag arge 

releases. The proposed gates would be higher with the tops of

to 487

The ei sting spil tes w e rep with gate art of t 7-

ft rais ative. A llwa wo con d at t p of the

piers on the upstream s the n lway to r he ex g bridge. 

Install f the large s wou ire m ation of the piers to prevent 

spillw s from i th ti . T wo t ne

e widened. The proposed gates would be taller, and the new trunnions would be out 

of the flow stream for large floods. Secondly, the tops of the three existing 

n closed, are at elevation 471 feet. This effectively 

lternative 4. A staging area would be developed near the dam for a 

contractor’s office and parking, materials storage, a concrete batch plant, and various 

.1 Main Co te Dam 

n-sp lway il ortion 

 the dam structure and the existing spillway es tion wo remai e same. 

xisting spillway s would eplaced h large tes bec struct

mbers for the ing gates uld be i cted d g the pa e of l flood 

 the three gates raised 

.5 ft. 

ght exi lway ga ould b laced larger s as p he 

e altern new spi y bridge uld be structe he to

ide of ew spil gates eplace t istin

ation o r gate ld requ odific

ay flow mpacting e trunnion e beams he piers uld no ed to 

b

emergency spillway gates, whe

limits the flood control operation to that elevation. Since it is proposed that the dam 

be raised to elevation 487.5, it is necessary to replace the existing spillway gates to 

allow water to be stored against the closed gate up to lake elevation 483 ft. Post

tensioned anchors, shear key, or toe block elements would be installed to anchor the 

concrete structure. Standard construction equipment would be used to install the 

elements of A

construction-related activities. Cement and aggregate would be hauled to the staging 

area from local Sacramento area suppliers. 

2-106 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.7.2 Stilling Basin 

The stilling basin would be dewatered and extended 50 to 75 ft under Alternative 4. 

2.7.3 4-Gate Auxiliary Spillway 

The Auxiliary Spillway would be the same as under Alternative 3. 

2.7.4 Left and Right Wing Dams 

Under Alternative 4, the LWD and RWD would be raised 7-ft using earthen material.

Construction would be similar to that described for Alternative 2 except full-heig

filters would be installed prior to placement of the earthen material 

2.7.5 Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

Under Alternative 4, MIAD would be subje

ht 

ct to seismic, static, and hydrologic 

concerns in the same manner as Alternative 1. 

Dikes 1, 2, and 3, adjacent to the Granite Bay staging area, would be subject to a 7-ft 

nstructing the earthen raise would be developed 

ase of each dike 

to address static concerns. 

ed at Folsom 

en raise. In addition to the 

 placement of more shell material, the dikes would 

rs. Construction would be the same as described for 

pool elevation during a PMF event would have the 

2.7.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 

earthen raise. Borrow material for co

at Granite Bay or Beal’s Point. Toe drains would be installed at the b

Dikes 7 and 8 would receive treatments similar to Dikes 1, 2, and 3. However, since 

the dikes are located along the southern shore of the reservoir, work would be staged 

from Folsom Point. Borrow material for their construction would be taken from the 

Dike 7 stockpile area, D1/D2, MIAD, or materials that were stockpil

Point. 

2.7.7 Dikes 4, 5, and 6 

Dikes 4, 5, and 6 would be subject to a 7-ft earth

construction of toe drains and the

be upgraded with full-height filte

Alternative 2. 

2.7.8 New Embankments/Property Acquisitions 

The raising of the reservoir 

potential for flooding areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The 

primary areas of concern are located along Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay and 

along the eastern shoreline. The requirements for new embankments/flood easement 

are still under evaluation. A supplemental document would be required should 

Alternative 4 be selected. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-107 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.7.9 Staging and Site Development 

erlook 

 as presented in Section 2.2.4. 

e 1. 

nd 

t), five service and three emergency tainter spillway gates 

erged tainter gates in the Auxiliary 

l 

 the objective release of 115,000 cfs to 

be achieved sooner in a flood event, and would lessen peak flows for large, 

 of 160,000 cfs, which is the 

 above would not be made any sooner with the 

e space. The top elevation of the flood space and the release 

To construct Alternative 4, four staging areas (Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, Ov

Parking Lot, Folsom Point) and two support areas (Main Concrete Dam and MIAD) 

would be proposed. Use of these areas would be the same as Alternative 2. Haul 

routes would be

2.7.10 Alternative 4 Security Upgrade Features 

Under Alternative 3, the security provisions would be the same as for Alternativ

2.7.11 Alternative 4 Operations 

Alternative 4 would provide Folsom with four methods of discharging flows from 

the reservoir: three power penstocks, eight flood control outlets (four upper tier a

four lower tier, all 5 ft x 9 f

set near the main spillway crest, and four subm

Spillway. 

In general, utilization of the features described in Alternative 4 would involve greater

releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that closely match downstream channe

capacity. The Auxiliary Spillway would allow

infrequent hydrologic events. A maximum flood release

emergency downstream channel capacity, would be made through the Auxiliary 

Spillway when necessary based on observed and anticipated reservoir inflows. 

Emergency releases of 160,000 cfs or

project features completed than would occur under the existing conditions. 

Maximum releases utilizing project features would not be any larger than those 

allowed under the existing conditions. These larger, earlier flows would conserve 

flood storage space. In addition, the top of the flood control pool could be raised to

increase the flood storag

diagram would be specified after the Corps and Reclamation are in agreement on the 

rate of increase in flows and dam safety freeboard. 

It is anticipated that a revised Water Control Manual, and the supporting 

environmental compliance coordination and documentation would be completed one 

year prior to completion of construction of the project. However, if this does not 

occur, the project features would be operated under existing operating criteria. 

Under this scenario, the same amount of water would ultimately be released with and

without the project features (due to operational constraints), but operators would 

have the ability to release more water sooner in a hydrologic event. 

2-108 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

It is recognized that the full flood damage reduction benefits of the alternative would

not be fully realized until revision of the Water Control Manual and optimization of 

operation of the JFP is in place. 

Downstream Effects – Downstream impacts would remain the same as the Without 

Project Conditions. Releases would be made according to the Interim Flood Control 

Diagram until the new diagram was approved. 

Reservoir Vicinity Effects – The need to protect non-government property from 

short-term temporary flooding and the actions available to the government would be 

similar to that described for Alternative 2, except for the following: 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 7-ft raise height. Additional 

rty). 

• Potential acquisition of fee title of approximately nine non-federal properties, 

rete 

afety of dams 

s he 

esti

Table 2-22. Each of the project components 

ould be a 17-ft raise to the non-spillway portion of the 

acquisition of flood easements and/or larger flood protection berms (and 

associated flood protection structure and access easements acquired if berms are 

located on non-Federal prope

including approximately six residential properties. 

 

2.8 Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would safely accommodate the PMF event by using the Main Conc

Dam spillways, including some overtopping of the center portion of the concrete 

dam, and increasing the flood surcharge without the need for an Auxiliary Spillway. 

The increased capacity would be used only to address flood control/s

considerations and not to increase the permanent storage capacity of Folsom 

Re ervoir. Alternative 5 would include the features presented in Table 2-21. T

mated quantities of materials required to construct Alternative 5 are provided in 

are described in greater detail in the 

following sections. 

2.8.1 Main Concrete Dam 

Under Alternative 5, there w

dam structure; the existing spillway crest elevation would remain the same. Existing 

spillway gates would be replaced with larger gates because trunions for the existing 

gates would interfere with the passage of large flood releases. The proposed gates 

would be higher with the tops of the three gates raised to 487.5 ft. A new spillway 

bridge would be constructed at the top of the piers on the upstream side of the new 

spillway gates. Other features would be similar to Alternative 4. 

2.8.2 Stilling Basin 

There would be no change to the stilling basin under Alternative 5. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-109 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Table 2-21 

Features of Alternative 5 

Feature Project Component 

Main Concrete Dam • 17-ft raise to non-overflow section 

• Post-tensioned anchors, shear key elements and/or toe blocks 

• Foundation drain enhancements 

• Replace existing spillway bridge 

• Spillway gate replacements 

• Gate and pier reinforcement 

• No change to stilling basin 

Auxiliary Spillway • None 

Left and Right Wing Dams • 17-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam • 17-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

• Excavation and replacement of downstream foundation 

• Downstream overlay 

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 • 17-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

Dikes 4, 5 and 6 • 17-ft earthen raise 

• Toe drains 

• Full-height filters 

Non-Federal Property Protection 

sements or fee title) 

• New Embankment Protection 

• Acquisition of Property Rights (ea

Other Project Features 

 development 

rial processing 

• Utility and road relocations 

• Haul road construction 

• Borrow site and staging area

• Stockpiling and borrow mate

• Concrete batch plant 

Table 2-22 

Estimated Quantities – Alternative 5

Estimated Quantities (cy) Embankment 

Feature Excavation

n Pavement rete Material Protectio

Shell Slope Filter Asphalt Conc

Main Concrete Dam 50,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 

Auxiliary Spillway 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Right Wing Dam 156,000 1,900,000 28,400 74,600 10,500 0 

Left Wing Dam 66,000 590,000 9,400 23,900 31,000 0 

MIAD 932,300 1,130,000 126,150 221,150 1,520 0 

Dike 1 44,000 210,000 13,600 16,500 3,700 0 

Dike 2 61,000 175,000 17,400 22,000 2,200 0 

Dike 3 70,000 160,000 17,300 21,300 2,500 0 

Dike 4 25,000 127,000 7,400 7,400 2,000 0 

Dike 5 48,000 350,000 10,000 10,000 2,200 0 

Dike 6 24,000+ 190,000 7,400 7,400 2,000 0 

Dike 7 14,500 105,000 4,600 10,200 1,050 0 

Dike 8 26,000 75,000 9,600 13,000 950 0 

TOTALS 1,516,800 5,012,000 94,700 537,650 63,400 25,000 

2-110 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.8.3 Auxiliary Sp

The Auxiliary Spillway would not be compone of Alte tive 5. 

2. igh Da

Under ative 5, t an o ise sin hen 

mater struction be s tha ern , 3, 

2.8.5 on Islan iliar

Under Alternative 5, MIAD would undergo se eat o ad seismi

static, drologic s, in e m as A ive 2 existin

foundation would be excavated to remove pote nst er co and the

replaced with more competent m ad tati ns, ins

ll-height filters would be installed. A layer of existing shell material would be 

excavated and replaced with a layer of processed filter material. The original shell 

ced, followed by the addition of more shell material 

r as 

nd 

bankments/flood easement 

are still under evaluation. A supplemental document would be required should 

 and Site Development 

Staging and site development would be the same as described for Alternatives 2, 3, 

 would be the same as described in Section 2.2.4. 

tive 5 Security Upgrade Features 

Under Alternative 5, the security provisions would be the same as for Alternative 1. 

illway 

 a nt rna

8.4 Left and R t Wing ms 

 Altern he LWD d RWD w uld be ra d 17-ft u g eart

ial. Con would imilar to t of Alt atives 2 and 4.

Morm d Aux y Dam 

veral tr ments t dress c, 

 and hy concern the sam anner lternat . The g 

ntial u able riv bble n 

aterial. To dress s c concer toe dra and 

fu

material would then be repla

creating the overlay. See Alternative 2 for more details. 

2.8.6 Dikes 1, 2, 3, and 8 

Dikes 1, 2, 7 and 8 would be subject to a 17-ft earthen raise in the same manne

Alternative 4. 

2.8.7 Dikes 4, 5 and 6 

Dikes 4, 5 and 6 would be subject to a 17-ft earthen raise in the same manner as 

Alternative 4. 

2.8.8 New Embankments/Property Acquisitions 

The raising of the reservoir pool elevation during a PMF event would have the 

potential for flooding areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The 

primary areas of concern are located along Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay a

along the eastern shoreline. The requirements for new em

Alternative 5 be selected. 

2.8.9 Staging

and 4. Internal haul routes

2.8.10 Alterna

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-111 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.8.11 Alternative 5 Operations 

Alternative 5 was maintained and carried through the entire NEPA process beca

is the only alternative that could contain and then pass the PMF without a spillw

The 17-ft raise was designed to contain to contain the design flood and pass it 

without overtopping the downstream levees. Variations in releases utilizing project 

features would not be any larger than those allowed under the existing condition

addition, the top of the floo

use it 

ay. 

s. In 

d control pool would be raised significantly to increase 

the flood storage space. Alternative 5 would allow significantly larger timeframe for 

the evacuation of downstream communities. 

Downstream Effects – Downstream impacts would remain the same as the Without 

Project Conditions. Releases would be made according to the Interim Flood Control 

Diagram. 

Reservoir Area Effects – The need to protect non-government property from shortterm temporary flooding and the actions av

similar to those described for Alternat

ailable to the government would be the 

ive 2 except for the following: 

2.9 Construction Sequencing and Other Construction 

 at the same 

p o

The

providing the greatest risk entally 

p d. 

The phased construction approach also allows for developm

of specific manageable “work packages” addressing both construction logistics and 

thro age would be 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 17 ft raise height. Additional 

acquisition of flood easements and/or larger flood protection berms (and 

associated flood protection structure and access easements acquired if berms are 

located on non-Federal property). 

• 45 parcels potentially affected by acquisition of fee title, including 37 possible 

residential relocations. 

• The acquisition of fee title and residential relocations of some impacted nonfederal parcel(s) under Alternative 5 is probably unavoidable. 

Details 

Project staging, area development, borrow development, and facility construction 

would be phased over an 8-year period. Not all activities would occur

time, with the most significant risk issues being addressed first. A preliminary 

r posal for project sequencing is presented in Table 2-23. 

 priorities for project sequencing would be to initiate work on those facilities 

reduction benefit. This strategy would increm

im rove dam safety and flood benefits until the final project feature was constructe

ent and implementation 

federal budgetary considerations. The work packages would be accomplished 

ugh the issuance of separate construction bids. Each work pack

2-112 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

sized to optimize meeting project objectives and priorities along with the availab

of on-site and off-site materials necessary to construct the phased project feature. 

ility 

Table 2-23 

Folsom Project Generalized Sequencing of Construction

Construction Year 

Project Feature 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Folsom Point Staging X X X X X X X X

Auxiliary Spillway Excavation X X X X 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction X X X X X 

MIAD Jet Grouting X X X 

MIAD Overlay X X 

Beal’s Point Staging X X X X X X X

Beal’s Point Borrow 

Development X X X 

Dikes 5 & 6 Construction X 

LWD Construction X X 

RWD Construction X X X 

Dikes 7 & 8 Construction X X 

Granite

Develop

 Bay Borrow 

ment X X 

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 4 Construction X X 

Main Concrete Dam Seismic 

Upgrade X X X X 

Main Concrete Dam Gates 

Reinforcement X X 

Security Features X X X X X X X 

 

2.10 Environmental Commitments 

vironmental commitments w ple ented where applicable, 

th construction activities for the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Dam ge 

project. T ese m asures are consistent with the im t 

easures for those impacts presented in Chapter this 

vironmental commitments section was developed by Reclamation 

the co mitm ts wo ld be implem

ency's policy, guidance, and authorities. Final de ination 

n actu mitig tion m asure will spec ed in e Re rd 

The following en ould be im m

in association wi a

Reduction (DS/FDR) h e pac

analyses and mitigation m 3 of

EIS/EIR. The en

and the Corps, however, m en u ented by each agency in 

accordance with each ag

by the federal agencies o

term

al a e s be ifi th co

of Decision (ROD). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-113 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.10.1 Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness 

ill be required to participate in 

ll as 

2) 

 training session, each employee would be required to sign a 

statement indicating that he/she has received the training. 

ain and Implement the Conditions of the Environmental 

ay 

ant Discharge 

Elimination system permit, 

tion 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and 

ensitive resources. Construction equipment would 

be confined to a designated work zone would be fenced to clearly delineate the zone 

as w l xclusion zone during construction. 

Exc d fenced at 

the a p All fences would have signs attached that 

ide y ld be 

Program 

Construction contractor and subcontractor personnel w

and comply with an environmental awareness program provided by Reclamation and 

the Corps. This program would include, but is not limited to (1) awareness regarding 

federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and permits, as we

the penalties for noncompliance with environmental requirements and conditions: (

special-status species, as well as their habitats; (3) required avoidance areas; (4) 

environmental commitments, mitigation, compensation, and restoration. A member 

of the contractor’s management staff would participate in the training sessions to 

discuss the contractor’s environmental commitment plans. If deemed necessary, after 

the completion of each

2.10.2 Obt

Permits 

Reclamation and the Corps will obtain their respective required state and federal 

permits, unless the contractor will be required to obtain some of the permits, for the 

Folsom DS/FDR actions and will comply with all conditions included in those 

permits. Where appropriate, the permit conditions would be incorporated into the 

project engineering plans and specifications. These permits would include, but m

not be limited to, the following: 

• Section XXX of the Clean Air Act, 

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

• Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. National Pollut

• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Water Quality Certification, 

• Sec

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

2.10.3 Designate Work and Exclusion Zones 

Reclamation, the Corps and/or their construction contractor(s) would ensure that 

construction equipment and associated activities would be confined to the designated

work zone in areas that support s

el as keep unauthorized entry into the e

lusion zones would be delineated in the field by qualified biologists an

p ropriate or required distance.

ntif each area as an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The fencing wou

2-114 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

inst e ntained throughout the 

onstruction period. 

s). 

tractor use area limits. 

 would prepare a fish 

removal plan that would be reviewed by a qualified fish biologist. The fish removal 

pla

Game ( plan in advance of dewatering the 

stil h 

CDFG, plement a fish rescue 

ope i

recover

Fish would be counted and recorded by speci

ve cha stream of the construction area unless it is determined these fish 

ed downstream of the affected areas. 

all d before construction activities begin and would be mai

c

During the environmental education program, construction personnel would be 

informed about the importance of avoiding ground-disturbing activities outside of 

the designated work zone. During construction, the constructions monitors and 

resource monitors would ensure that construction equipment and associated activities

avoid any disturbance of sensitive resources outside the designated work zones (e.g., 

riparian zones, including root zones under drip lines, wetlands, springs, and seep

Environmental monitors would conduct surveys as appropriate for threatened and 

endangered species and special-status species. The Plans and Specifications for each 

agency would include the following or similar measures: 

• Use and storage of construction equipment would be confined to within the 

designated con

• Existing roads and access points would be used to the extent possible to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and their habitats. 

• Staging areas, borrow material sites, parking locations, stockpile areas, and 

storage areas would be clearly marked and monitored. 

• To the extent feasible, these facilities would be located outside of sensitive 

habitats. 

2.10.4 Dewatering of the Stilling Basin 

The contractor responsible for dewatering the stilling basin

n would be developed in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and

CDFG), would develop a fish recovery 

ling basin. During dewatering and construction, the Corps, in consultation wit

 would ensure that a qualified biologist is on site to im

rat on. Fish would be removed in accordance with the CDFG approved fish 

y plan. 

es. All fish would be released in the 

li nnel down

are downstream migrants that should be releas

2.10.5 Implement Environmental Timeframes 

When possible and practicable, habitat removal would occur during the non-breeding

season and at times when protected species are not present. Construction activities 

that could adversely affect nesting birds and their habitat would be limited to the 

nonbreeding period, per the Migratory Bird Act. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-115 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.10.6 Develop an Environmental Mitigation, Monitoring, Restoration 

Plan 

As part of the environmental commitments, Reclamation and the Corps would 

develop a Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Plan 

the environmental commitments, mitigation, and repor

(MMRP) that would describe 

ing the preconstruction, 

ion 

2.1 .

Reclam ction contractor(s) would prepare 

and im llutant Discharge Elimination 

System

Construction Activities (General Permit). The SWPPP would include measures to 

min i ude: 

eness of BMPs; 

Con

may in

ting requirements of the 

Folsom DS/FDR Action. The document would be developed through coordination 

with the state and federal agencies responsible for oversight of the Folsom DS/FDR

Action. This plan would provide detailed information on how each mitigation 

measure would be implemented and monitored dur

construction, and post-construction periods, as is required. The plan would contain 

the following documents to be implemented during the construction phase: 

• Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) (including specific eros

control and site reclamation measures), 

• Spill prevention and countermeasure plan, 

• Habitat mitigation plan, including a wetland and riparian mitigation and 

monitoring plan, 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) compliance program, and 

• Environmental compliance monitoring program. 

General information describing each plan is provided in the following sections. 

0.6 1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

ation and the Corps and /or their constru

plement a SWPPP as part of the National Po

 (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with 

im ze erosion and sediment transport to Battle Creek. It would incl

• Best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., sediment containment devices 

protection of construction spoils, proper installation of cofferdams); 

• Site restoration; 

• Post-construction monitoring of the effectiv

• Contingency measures; 

• Details about contractor responsibilities; 

• A list of responsible parties; and 

• A list of agency contacts. 

tingent upon the conditions and the type of construction, measures in the plan

clude, but are not limited to: 

2-116 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Avoiding work or equipment operation in water during in-reservoir activities 

ms and diverting all water around construction sites; 

ng to site-specific construction 

ent input to the aquatic system, 

s immediately downstream of the 

izing disruption of the reservoir bed at and 

er 

•

•

The e would 

monito a waste 

disc r

mon

2.10.6.

Bef r their construction 

con c that 

incl e rials 

ut of d plan would be to: 

; 

il or 

CB immediately of any spill 

 equipment, 

construction materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible 

contaminants; 

by constructing cofferda

• Conducting all construction work accordi

plans that minimize the potential for sedim

including constructing silt barrier

construction site and minim

adjacent to the construction site; 

• Using sedimentation fences, hay bales certified as weed-free, sandbags, wat

bars, and baffles as additional sources of protection for waters, ditches, and 

wetlands; 

• Identifying all areas requiring clearing, grading, revegetation, and 

recontouring and minimizing the areas to be cleared, graded, and 

recontoured; 

Storing construction borrow and excavated material out of the reservoir 

(above the ordinary high-water mark) and protecting receiving waters from

these erosion source areas with sedimentation fences or other effective 

sediment control devices; 

• Grading spoil sites to minimize surface erosion; and 

Covering bare areas with mulch and revegetating all cleared areas with 

appropriate native, noninvasive species. 

 C ntral Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) 

r compliance with the NPDES General Permit. An application for

ha ge permit would be filed with the CVRWQCB, and compliance with the 

itoring and reporting requirements for project construction is necessary. 

2 Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan 

ore construction begins, Reclamation and the Corps and/o

tra tor(s) would prepare a spill prevention and countermeasure plan (SPCP)

ud s strict on-site handling rules to keep construction and maintenance mate

o rainages and the waterway. Goals of this 

• Prevent contamination of streamside soil and the water course from cement

concrete or concrete washing; asphalt; paint, or other coating materials; o

cleanup procedures; 

• Clean up spills immediately and notify the RWQ

and cleanup procedures; 

• Prepare, prior to construction, a spill control and response plan and restrict 

the volume of petroleum products allowed on site to the volume that can be 

addressed by the spill control and response measures included in the plan; 

• Provide staging and storage areas outside the stream zone for

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-117 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

• Store hazardous substances in staging areas at least 100 feet from the 

reservoir normal high water mark and other water surfaces; 

• Perform refueling and vehicle maintenance at least 100 feet from receiving 

• ations in flowing water and remove vehicles from 

•

The me

contam p spills, provide staffing and storing areas, and minimize 

equipm r 

compli

2.10 .

Reclam

tempor n site with 

app

DS/FDR actions would be com

AR). The mitigation approach for permanent impacts presented herein includes 

etland, 

f habitat on site to the extent 

project construction 

ents 

ecified in the Draft Fish and Wildlife 

 and Wildlife 

to 

waters 

Minimize equipment oper

the normal high-water area before refueling and lubricating; and 

Inspect equipment to ensure that seals prevent any fuel, engine oil, or other 

fluids from leaking. 

asures listed above would be implemented, as appropriate, to prevent 

ination, clean u

ent operations in flowing water. The State Water Board would monito

ance with these measures and the SPCP. 

.6 3 Habitat Mitigation Approach 

ation and the Corps, in consultation with USFWS and DFG, would mitigate 

ary habitat impacts associated with the Folsom DS/FDR actions o

ropriate habitat mitigation. Permanent impacts associated with the Folsom 

pensated for based on the Coordination Act Report 

(C

consideration of the CAR requirement for compensation needs for seasonal w

riparian, and upland (oak woodland) habitats. 

The Folsom DS/FDR MMRP would address those actions that would avoid and

minimize adverse effects and mitigates the loss o

possible. 

2.10.6.4 Wetland and Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 

Reclamation and the Corps, in consultation with USFWS and CDFG, would prepare

and implement as part of the MMRP a wetland and riparian mitigation plan to 

mitigate impacts on wetlands subject to Corps 404 jurisdiction in the Folsom 

DS/FDR action area. The plan would provide the Corps and USFWS with sufficient 

information to determine the adequacy of the proposed mitigation and to issue a 

Section 404 permit. The Corps would approve the plan prior to 

activities that affect the Corps jurisdictional areas in the project area. 

The plan would be prepared to meet the specifications and mitigation requirem

pertaining to Corps jurisdictional areas sp

Coordination Act (FWCA) report prepared for the project (U.S. Fish

Service 2005). 

To the degree required, a plan would also be provided to the state Water Board 

determine the adequacy of the proposed mitigation with respect to water quality and 

to issue a Section 401 water quality certification for the project. 

2-118 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

The goal of the mitigation effort is to avoid and minimize adverse effects on wetl

and riparian habitat, as well as replace the acreage and function and values of 

wetlands and riparian habitat permanently affected by the project. To su

and 

pport this 

goal, the wetland and riparian mitigation plan would meet the following objectives: 

abitats that have been temporarily affected by Folsom DS/FDR 

action to construction to predisturbance conditions if appropriate; 

n 

• If possible, design the mitigation wetlands so that, once established, they 

summarize monitoring m

per m

2.1 .

Reclam plement 

the l

1. ial nesting and roosting sites, such as live trees with cavities 

2. would be managed per the Migratory Bird 

Act. 

irds, such as grassland, 

chaparral, oak woodland, and riparian that must be removed for construction 

d February 1 prior to 

ng the 

breeding season to the extent possible. 

ect 

7. ential nesting habitat can not be avoided during the breeding season, a 

nce 

• Provide compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts; 

• To the extent practicable, provide in-kind replacement of habitat; 

• Restore h

• Integrate concerns for special-status species (e.g., valley elderberry longhor

beetle; vernal pool fairy shrimp) into the mitigation design to the degree 

practicable; and 

would require no maintenance. 

Reclamation and the Corps would submit a performance monitoring report to the 

Corps regulatory branch at the end of each monitoring year. The report would 

ethods, results, progress toward meeting the final 

for ance standards, and corrective actions taken. 

0.6 5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program 

ation and the Corps and/or their construction contractor(s) would im

 fol owing mitigation measures as practical for all project construction: 

Known or potent

and all snags and stumps, would be avoided to the extent practicable. 

Nests of raptors or any other bird

3. To the extent possible, construction activities that could adversely affect 

nesting birds and rearing of young would be avoided during the period 

between September 1 and February 1, per the Migratory Bird Act. 

4. If possible, habitat providing nesting cover for b

purposes, would be removed between September 1 an

construction. 

5. Construction sites would be monitored for bird nesting activity duri

6. If disturbance of a nest with eggs or young appears unavoidable, or nesting 

activity such as incubation of feeding of young may be affected, a proj

contact at USFWS and CDFG would be consulted before disturbance occurs.

If pot

project contact at USFWS and CDFG would be consulted before disturba

occurs. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-119 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.1

Reclam

constru

com n

in a

prog m

arc

includi

mig o

cro

onstru le for regular preconstruction surveys, 

taking resources, on-site monitoring, clearing equipment and vehicle staging areas, 

h construction 

d be 

and 

ur. 

nd traffic 

ento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District outlining 

 regulations for the Folsom DS/FDR actions. The plan 

0.6.6 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program 

ation and the Corps would develop an environmental compliance 

ction monitoring program to ensure that the mitigation measures and 

pe sation measures identified in the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR are implemented 

n appropriate and timely manner. As part of this construction monitoring 

ra , the need to have qualified biologists, environmental resource specialists, or 

heologists to monitor construction activities near environmentally sensitive area,

ng areas that support threatened, endangered, and special-status species; 

rat ry bird nesting; woody riparian vegetation; wetlands and perennial drainage 

ssings; and cultural sites, would be addressed. 

C ction monitors would be responsib

s

documentation of violations and compliance, coordination wit

inspectors, and post-construction documentation. Resource monitors woul

responsible for various activities, which may include monitoring work zones 

communicating regularly with construction inspectors to ensure that barrier fencing, 

stakes, required setback buffers, and all other measures are maintained. 

The roles and responsibilities of the resource monitors and other individuals on the 

project compliance documentation, and the elements of the environmental 

compliance monitoring program would be clearly outlined in the implementation 

plan. 

2.10.7 Transportation 

The lead construction agency would develop a traffic management plan for all public

roads within the recreation areas where both public and construction traffic occ

The plan would include measures such as flagmen and appropriate signage. The 

traffic plan would be submitted to the appropriate entities, or included in the Plans 

and Specifications for construction. An appropriate mile per hour speed limit would 

be imposed in all public areas close to construction. Construction crews a

would utilize internal haul routes, to the extent practical. 

2.10.8 Air Quality 

Reclamation and the Corps would develop an Air Quality Compliance Plan for 

approval by the Sacram

compliance with air quality

would demonstrate that heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in 

the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, would 

achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent 

particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average at time of 

construction. The plan would include a comprehensive inventory of all off-road 

construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that would be used 

2-120 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The

inventory would include the horsepower rating, engine production year, and 

projected hours of use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory 

 submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, 

ude 

e 

l 

2.10.10 Recreation 

dance 

Final determination by the 

 measures will be specified in the Record of 

itigation measures could include but are not limited to 

y 

The lead construction agency, would post signage and public announcements to 

nstruction activities, facility closures at Folsom Point, and 

. 

ate 

would be updated and

except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no

construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty 

off-road equipment, Reclamation and the Corps shall provide SMAQMD with the 

anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of 

the project manager and on-site foreman. 

The Air Quality Compliance Plan would also describe all air quality mitigation 

measures and actions taken to comply with the requirements. The Plan would incl

a discussion of locations for points of compliance and monitoring necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with air quality regulations. 

2.10.9 Noise Abatement 

Reclamation and the Corps would develop a Noise Abatement Plan addressing th

measures to reduce construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. 

Including in the plan would be the proposed noise monitoring locations, discussion 

of noise mitigation measures, and a construction contact phone number for the loca

populace to present noise issues. 

Reclamation and the Corps would continue to coordinate with DPR to identify 

opportunities to, avoid significant recreation impacts at FLSRA. If significant 

recreation impacts cannot be avoided, the agencies would work within their gui

and authority to provide mitigation for these impacts. 

federal agencies on actual mitigation

Decision (ROD). Potential m

the measures listed below. 

All construction-related damages to recreation facilities would be replaced in kind b

the appropriate agency, in accordance with policy and guidance. 

inform the public of co

potential increased crowding and waiting times at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay

Construction, borrow and staging areas would be sited as far away from recreation 

areas as practical in order to minimize recreation impacts, as determined by the lead 

construction agency. When a staging area cannot be moved or relocated, appropri

measures would be taken for noise and safety considerations. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-121 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Borrow development, staging and construction activities would be re-contoured by 

the lead constructing agency, as appropriate, to pre construction conditions, or to 

contours which do not pose a safety hazard. 

ly 

as possible to pre-construction conditions. 

nts during 

construction. 

n 

actical. 

public 

gmen and appropriate signage. The 

traffic plan would be submitted to the appropriate entities, or included in the Plans 

ould 

Suitable detours would be established, with appropriate signage, for any bike, 

ld also be distributed and 

d 

y 

g the five Folsom 

s, 

ajor factors related to the 

ects resulting from each alternative. In natural resources, the effects 

on aquatic, vegetation, and wildlife resources are evaluated for each alternative. 

After all construction activities are complete at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point, or 

Granite Bay, all disturbed recreation areas and facilities would be restored as close

The lead construction agency would include in the plans and specifications, if 

appropriate, a plan to ensure that the entrance stations at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point 

and Granite Bay would meet public safety and traffic requireme

Construction hours would be scheduled to minimize impacts during peak recreatio

use periods, holidays, and special events, as pr

The lead construction agency would develop a traffic management plan for all 

roads within the recreation areas where both public and construction traffic occur. 

The plan would include measures such as fla

and Specifications for construction. An appropriate mile per hour speed limit w

be imposed in all public areas close to construction. Construction crews and traffic 

would utilize internal haul routes, to the extent practical. 

equestrian, or pedestrian trails that are interrupted by construction, per agency 

guidance and policy. Public service announcements wou

posted to inform the public of route changes. 

Any damage to existing improved trails from construction would be repaired in kin

after construction is completed by the lead construction agency, per agency polic

and guidance. 

2.11 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Table 2-24 provides a relative comparison of impacts amon

DS/FDR action alternatives. Aggregated in this table are the resource impacts 

evaluated in Chapter 3, which provide the basis of comparison among the 

alternatives. The four major categories used to assess relative impacts include the 

degree the alternative meets the Purpose and Need, and effects to physical resource

natural resources, and sociological resources. The two m

Purpose and Need are dam safety and flood damage reduction. The physical 

resources category incorporates the air quality, noise, water quality/supply, and 

geology/soils eff

2-122 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Sociological resources were characterized the impacts of each alternative on cultural 

resources, land use, recreation, transportation, and public utilities. 

Table 2-24 

Comparison of Alternatives and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Evaluation 

Category 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Purpose and 

Need 5 4 1 2 3 

Physical 

Resources 1 3 2 4 5 

Natural 

Resources 1 3 2 4 5 

Sociological 

Resources 1 2 3 4 5 

Total 8 12 8 14 18 

Rankings within eac esource category are based on a relative scale of 1 through 5. 

ternative that best meets the Purpose and Need of the 

 alternatives and/or the alternative with the least impact(s) for that 

e category. A score of 5 represents the alternative that least meets the Purpose 

or for that source categ y having the rgest adverse impact(s). The total 

ents the sum of the resource category rankings for 

 indicating the environmen lly preferred

alternative. 

The No Action Alternative is the least environmentally damaging of all the 

lternatives, but the No Action Alternative does not meet any of the requirements in 

d 

ternative 3 is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. 

h r

A score of 1 indicates the al

five action

resourc

and Need re or la

score for each alternative repres

the alternative, with the lowest scores ta

a

the Purpose and Need for the Folsom DS/FDR actions. Based on the comparative 

analysis, Alternatives 1 and 3 scored equally as the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Under Alternative 1, there would be fewer overall physical, natural, an

sociological resources impacts due to the more limited actions taken for the majority 

of dikes. However, the fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway has been designed for dam 

safety purposes only to operate for a PMF or extreme flood event to maintain the 

integrity of the Folsom Facilities, and not to minimize flood damage reduction. The

JFP spillway fully addresses the Purpose and Need with slightly more impacts. 

Therefore, Al

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-123 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

2.12 Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues 

This section presents aspects of the Folsom Joint Federal Project that could not be 

addressed in detail in this EIS/EIR. The issues described below require greater detail 

development or better definition before they can be incorporated into the detailed 

environmental analysis. Some of the areas discussed herein may need to be 

addressed in supplemental environmental documents. 

• Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel Dredging and Barging of Dredge Material

ted using 

he 

- Shore/docking facilities, location, and sizing 

t of dredged materials 

•

– Portions of the Auxiliary Spillway approach channel would be excava

a barge mounted dredge, with the spoils placed on barges. In order for t

impacts of dredging and barging to be fully described, the following details 

would need to be developed. 

- Size of barges and types of tug boats 

- Mechanisms for dredging, loading, and off-loading materials 

- Seasonality and expected volume of barge traffic 

- Dewatering and placemen

Cofferdams – The potential requirement of cofferdams for construction of the 

aterial, and for the expansion of 

g alyzed at a programmatic 

s, details are 

uired as to: 

Type of dam 

•

Auxiliary Spillway inlet, the storage of borrow m

sta ing areas is introduced in this EIS/EIR and is an

level. However, in order to fully disclose impacts of the cofferdam

req

-

- Dam construction materials 

- Restoration of cofferdam site after it is not longer required 

New Embankments/Flood Easement Requirements – Each alternative that 

involves increasing the reservoir’s water surface elevation would need additiona

measures to retain reservoir water. The general locations of new embankments 

have been ident

l 

ified and are evaluated on a programmatic level in this EIS/EIR. 

 determined is the number of dikes required for each 

struction methods, access for maintenance, etc. 

ure is identified as the Proposed Project, then the 

nd reported in a 

ental environmental compliance document. 

What has not been

alternative, size of the dikes, con

If an alternative with a raise feat

analysis of the new embankments would need to be conducted a

supplem

2-124 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Chapter 2 

Project Description and Project Alternatives 

Extension of Dike 1 for Hydrologic Dam Safety. Recent evaluation of 

effectiveness of Dike 1 to retain reservoir water during an extremely large flood 

event, under existing conditions, indicates that Dike 1 may not be able to

the reservoir at its location. Extension of Dike 1 may be warranted. Details 

regarding its extension were not available at the time of development of this 

EIS/EIR. Effects of the project would be discussed in a supplemental document 

by the Corps. 

•

 retain 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 2-125 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3-1 

Chapter 3 

Affected Environment, Impacts 

Analyses, and Mitigation Measures 

 

Introduction 

This chapter presents an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with 

each of the six alternatives currently being considered for the Folsom DS/FDR, 

specifically the No Action/No Project Alternative and the five action alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. This chapter describes the existing physical environment at 

and about the Folsom DS/FDR site, and delineates the potential impacts that may 

result from construction of the various improvements proposed under each 

alternative. Also included is a discussion of mitigation measures, as well as a 

description of potential cumulative effects associated with implementation of the 

Folsom DS/FDR and other projects nearby. 

Organization of the Chapter 

Each of the 19 environmental topics addressed in this chapter is discussed in a 

separate section using a common organization, as follows: 

• The Affected Environment/Existing Conditions subsection discusses the 

affected environment within a defined geographic area (i.e., Area of Analysis) 

relative to the Folsom DS/FDR site, and includes an overview of pertinent 

environmental regulations (i.e., Regulatory Setting) and a description of the 

existing conditions (i.e., Environmental Setting). 

• The Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts subsection 

presents the analysis of impacts associated with implementation of each 

alternative. The subsection begins with an explanation of the assessment 

method(s) used to identify and address potential impacts and then presents the 

basis and criteria for determining whether the potential impacts are significant. 

The need for determining whether or not a potential impact is significant is 

particular to the requirements of CEQA, and provides the basis for subsequently 

determining, under CEQA, whether mitigation of that impact is warranted (i.e., 

under CEQA, impacts determined to be less than significant do not require 

mitigation). Under NEPA, there is not the same emphasis to determine whether 

the impact is significant or not, but rather the focus is on disclosing the overall 

nature and magnitude of environmental impacts associated with each of the 

alternatives considered, which, when compared amongst and between the 

individual alternatives, will assist decision-makers in choosing a course of action. 

The impacts analysis presented in this chapter of the Folsom DS/FDR joint 
Section 3.0 

Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and Mitigation Measures 

3-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

EIS/EIR serves to meet the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. The 

analysis presented herein discloses and compares the environmental impacts 

associated with each of the alternatives, identifies those impacts that are 

considered significant, and provides recommended mitigation measures where 

appropriate. The analysis presented in this chapter also meets the requirements 

of both NEPA and CEQA relative to the baseline from which impacts are 

measured. Under NEPA, the environmental impacts of each action alternative 

are measured against the environmental conditions that would otherwise occur if 

no action was taken (i.e., the impacts of each action alternative are measured 

from the conditions anticipated for the No Action Alternative). Under CEQA, 

the impacts of a proposed project are measured against the environmental 

conditions that currently exist. In the case of the Folsom DS/FDR, no notable 

changes in existing environmental conditions are anticipated to occur under the 

No Action Alternative because no substantial improvements to the Folsom 

Facility are expected to occur under that scenario (see Chapter 2). As such, the 

impacts associated with each action alternative as measured from the No Action 

Alternative would be the same as measured from existing conditions. 

• The Comparative Analysis of Alternatives subsection is based on the 

conclusions of the analysis described above and focuses on how certain impacts 

associated with the subject environmental topic are greater, less, or the same 

between the individual alternatives. 

• The Mitigation Measures subsection provides recommended mitigation 

measures based on the results and conclusions of the impacts analysis. 

• The Cumulative Effects subsection addresses the impacts of the project in 

conjunction with past, present, and probable future projects (under CEQA), or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects (under NEPA), in or near the area. In 

general, the environmental impacts of the project may be individually minor, but 

collectively significant when considered in conjunction with other projects or 

other environmental effects of the project. Of particular note relative to CEQA is 

whether the project's contribution to such impacts is cumulatively considerable. 

Chapter 5 provides the more detailed explanation of how cumulative effects are 

addressed in this EIS/EIR, and describes the other projects, which in conjunction 

with the proposed Folsom DS/FDR, form the basis of the cumulative projects. 

Those other projects include: (1) construction of the New Folsom Bridge 

downstream of the Folsom Main Concrete Dam; (2) the Future Redundant Water 

Supply Intake and Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom, and San Juan Water District, 

which is a new 84-inch-diameter inlet water pipe connected to the proposed 

Auxiliary Spillway side approach channel; (3) the Folsom Dam Road Closure, 

which occurred in 2003; (4) the L.L. Anderson Dam, which will widen the 

spillway of French Meadows Reservoir; (5) the Lower American River Common 

Features Project, which includes a number of levee stabilization projects; (6) the 
Section 3.0 

Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and Mitigation Measures 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3-3 

Long-Term Reoperation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, which would provide for 

reoperation of Folsom Reservoir, the specifics of which would be defined and 

addressed as part of a separate future EIS/EIR; and (7) the Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District 230 kV Transmission Line Relocation, which calls for relocation 

of existing electricity transmission lines and towers due to the construction of the 

New Folsom Bridge. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-1 

3.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

This section discusses the effects that construction of any of the Folsom DS/FDR 

alternatives may have on hydrology, water quality, groundwater resources, and 

jurisdictional wetlands in the construction area. 

3.1.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section describes the hydraulic features and hydrologic conditions, including the 

groundwater setting and jurisdictional wetlands, in the construction area. Existing 

hydrologic conditions and groundwater resources potentially affected by the 

alternatives are also identified in this section, along with regulatory settings and 

regional information pertaining to hydrologic and groundwater resources in the area 

of analysis. 

3.1.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis for this section includes Folsom Reservoir and the area 

surrounding the reservoir. Lake Natoma is evaluated as a receiving body of water in 

regards to water quality impacts. 

3.1.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal Regulations 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges 

of pollutants into the waters of the U.S. and gives the USEPA the authority to 

implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for 

industries (USEPA 2002). In certain states such as California, the USEPA has 

delegated authority to state agencies. 

Section 303(d) of the 1972 CWA requires states, territories and authorized tribes to 

develop a list of water quality-impaired segments of waterways. The list includes 

waters that do not meet water quality standards necessary to support the beneficial 

uses of that waterway, even after point sources of pollution have installed the 

minimum required levels of pollution control technology. 

The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water on the 

lists and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to 

improve water quality (USEPA 2002). A TMDL is a tool for implementing water 

quality standards and is based on the relationship between pollution sources and instream water quality conditions. The TMDL establishes the allowable daily pollutant 

loadings or other quantifiable parameters (e.g., pH or temperature) for a waterbody 

and thereby provides the basis for the establishment of water quality-based controls. 

These controls should provide the pollution reduction necessary for a waterbody to 

meet water quality standards. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single 

pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation for 

establishment of TMDLs for each waterbody must include a margin of safety to 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

ensure that the waterbody can be used for the purposes the State has designated. 

Additionally, the calculation also must account for seasonal variation in water 

quality (USEPA 2002). 

Sedimentation/siltation impacts are the primary water quality parameters of concern 

with construction of the alternatives. The lower American River and Folsom 

Reservoir are not listed on the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(CVRWQCB) 2002 303(d) list of water quality impaired segments for 

sedimentation/siltation. Therefore, there has not been a TMDL developed for this 

area concerning sediment impacts. 

Water quality of waters of the United States subjected to a discharge of dredged or 

fill material is regulated under Section 401 of the CWA. These actions must not 

violate federal or state water quality standards. Specifically in the State of California, 

the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers Section 

401 and either issues or denies water quality certifications depending upon whether 

the proposed discharge or fill material complies with applicable State and Federal 

laws. In addition, policies and regulations governing the protection of the beneficial 

uses of the State’s water resources must also be followed. 

In addition to complying with state and federal water quality standards, all point 

sources that discharge into waters of the United States must obtain a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under provisions of 

Section 402 of the CWA. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for the implementation of the NPDES 

permitting process at the state and regional levels, respectively. 

The NPDES permit process also provides a regulatory mechanism for the control of 

non-point source pollution created by runoff from construction and industrial 

activities, and general and urban land use, including runoff from streets. Projects 

involving construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, or excavation) involving 

land disturbance greater than one acre must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the 

CVRWQCB to indicate their intent to comply with the State General Permit for 

Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). 

The General Permit establishes conditions to minimize sediment and pollutant 

loadings and requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The SWPPP is intended to help 

identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants, and to establish Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water and non-storm water source control 

and pollutant control. 

The CWA also requires that a permit be obtained from the USEPA and the Corps 

when discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United 

States occurs. Section 404 of the CWA requires the USEPA and Corps to issue 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-3 

individual and general permits for these activities. When performing its own civil 

works projects, the Corps does not issue itself these permits, rather, the Corps must 

apply the guidelines and requirements of Section 404 as stated in Corps regulations. 

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality 

of drinking water in the United States. This law focuses on all waters actually or 

potentially designated for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground 

sources. The SDWA authorized the USEPA to establish water quality standards and 

required all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with primary 

(health-related) standards. State governments, which assume this power from the 

USEPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance-related). 

Contaminants of concern in a domestic water supply are those that either pose a 

health threat or in some way alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These 

types of contaminants are currently regulated by the USEPA as primary and 

secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). As directed by the SDWA 

amendments of 1986, the USEPA has been expanding its list of primary MCLs. 

MCLs have been proposed or established for approximately 100 contaminants. 

The federal Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) became effective on June 19, 

1989. The California Surface Water Treatment Rule (California's SWTR), which 

implements the federal SWTR within the state, became effective in June 1991. The 

California SWTR satisfies the following 3 specific requirements of the SDWA: 

• Establishes criteria for determining when filtration is required for surface waters; 

• Defines minimum levels of disinfection for surface waters; and 

• Addresses Giardia lamblia, viruses, Legionella, turbidity, and heterotrophic plate 

counts by establishing treatment techniques in lieu of MCLs due to high 

treatment costs and technological requirements in measuring these contaminants. 

State Regulations 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 established the SWRCB and 

nine RWQCBs within the State of California. These groups are the primary state 

agencies responsible for protecting California water quality to meet present and 

future beneficial uses and regulating appropriative surface rights allocations. The 

preparation and adoption of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, and 

statewide plans, is the responsibility of the SWRCB. State law requires that Basin 

Plans conform to the policies set forth in the California Water Code beginning with 

Section 13000 and any State policy for water quality control. These plans are 

required by the California Water Code (Section 13240) and supported by the Federal 

CWA. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards 

which "consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water 

quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." According to Section 13050 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

of the California Water Code, Basin Plans consist of a designation or establishment 

for the waters within a specified area of beneficial uses to be protected and water 

quality objectives to protect those uses. Adherence to Basin Plan water quality 

objectives protects continued beneficial uses of waterbodies. 

Because beneficial uses, together with their corresponding water quality objectives, 

can be defined per Federal regulations as water quality standards, the Basin Plans are 

regulatory references for meeting the State and Federal requirements for water 

quality control (40 Code Federal Regulations [CFR] 131.20). 

One significant difference between the State and Federal programs is that 

California's Basin Plans establish standards for groundwater in addition to surface 

water. The Basin Plans include provisions to prevent degradation and require clean 

up of groundwater quality problems. These provisions address local problems such 

as underground storage tanks and associated issues. Basin Plans also address 

groundwater degradation due to elevated nitrate and salt concentrations caused by 

leaching from nearby urban developments, agricultural fields, confined animal 

feeding operations, and municipal sources. 

Basin Plans are adopted and amended by regional water boards under a structured 

process involving full public participation and State environmental review. Basin 

Plans and amendments thereto, do not become effective until approved by the 

SWRCB and regulatory provisions must be approved by the Office of Administrative 

Law (OAL). Adoption or revision of surface water standards is subject to the 

approval of the USEPA. It is the intent of the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to 

maintain Basin Plans in an updated and readily available edition that reflects the 

current water quality control program. This is accomplished by reviewing water 

quality standards for each Basin Plan every three years. 

The CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San 

Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB Basin Plan) regulates waters of the state located 

within the area of analysis for the Folsom DS/FDR. The CVRWQCB Basin Plan 

covers an area including the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, 

involving an area bound by the crests of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast 

Range and Klamath Mountains on the west. The area covered in the CVRWQCB 

Basin Plan extends some 400 miles, from the California – Oregon border southward 

to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River. 

Local Regulations 

General Plans for El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties each have provisions 

aimed at protecting local water resources for future and current use. The El Dorado 

County General Plan establishes a county-wide water resources program to conserve, 

enhance, manage, and protect water resources and their quality from degradation. 

These objectives consist of the following: ensuring an adequate quantity and quality 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-5 

of water is available; protection of critical watersheds, riparian zones, and aquifers; 

improvement and subsequent maintenance of the quality of both surface water and 

groundwater; wetland area protection; utilization of natural drainage patterns; and 

encouraging water conservation practices including re-use programs for applicable 

areas such as agricultural fields (El Dorado County 2004). 

The Placer County General Plan’s main goal pertaining to local water resources 

states that the natural qualities of its streams, creeks and groundwater should be 

protected and enhanced. To accomplish this goal, the County has enacted policies 

such as requiring various setbacks and easements from sensitive habitat areas or 

creek corridors, requiring mitigation measures for developments encroaching 

waterbodies, implementing BMPs to protect streams from runoff during construction 

activities or due to agricultural practices, and protecting groundwater resources from 

contamination (Placer County 1994). 

The Conservation Element of Sacramento County’s General Plan contains measures 

to implement water conservation and to protect surface water supplies, surface water 

quality, and groundwater resources. Specific goals include the following: conjunctive 

use of surface water and groundwater to ensure long-term supplies exist for residents 

while providing recreational and environmental benefits; protecting surface water 

quality for both public use and support of aquatic environment health; maintaining 

quality and quantity of groundwater for the benefit of humans and the natural 

environment; and promoting water conversation and reuse measures. 

Besides the three individual Counties’ General Plan stipulations, groundwater in the 

construction area may also be regulated by local groundwater management plans and 

county ordinances. These plans typically involve provisions to limit or prevent 

groundwater overdraft, regulate transfers, and protect groundwater quality. 

Assembly Bill 3030 (AB3030), Water Code Section 10750 (commonly referred to as 

the Groundwater Management Act) encourages local water agencies to establish 

local Groundwater Management Plans. Subsequent legislation has amended this 

chapter to make the adoption of a management program mandatory if an agency is to 

receive public funding for groundwater projects, creating an incentive to implement 

plans. The act lists various elements that should be included within the plans to 

ensure efficient use, good groundwater quality, and safe production of water (State 

Water Code, Section 10753). 

Beneficial Uses 

Beneficial uses are critical to water resource management in California. State law 

defines beneficial uses of California's waters that may be protected against quality 

degradation to include (but not limited to) "...domestic; municipal; agricultural and 

industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and 

preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or 

preserves" (Water Code Section 13050(f)). Protection and enhancement of existing 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

and potential beneficial uses are primary goals of water quality planning. Significant 

points concerning the concept of beneficial uses are: 

• All water quality problems can be stated in terms of whether there is water of 

sufficient quantity or quality to protect or enhance beneficial uses (Regional 

Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (RWQCB) 1998). 

• Beneficial uses do not include all of the reasonable uses of water. For example, 

disposal of wastewaters is not included as a beneficial use. This is not to say that 

disposal of wastewaters is a prohibited use of waters of the State; it is merely a 

use, which cannot be satisfied to the detriment of beneficial uses. Similarly, the 

use of water for the dilution of salts is not a beneficial use although it may, in 

some cases, be a reasonable and desirable use of water (RWQCB 1998). 

• The protection and enhancement of beneficial uses require that certain quality 

and quantity objectives be met for surface and ground waters (RWQCB 1998). 

• Fish, plants, and other wildlife, as well as humans, use water beneficially. 

3.1.1.3 Environmental Setting 

This section describes the hydrology and hydraulic features, water quality, 

groundwater setting, and jurisdictional wetlands within the construction area. 

Hydrology 

The American River Basin covers an area of approximately 2,100 square miles, and 

has an average annual unregulated runoff of 2.7 million acre-feet; however, annual 

runoff has varied in the past from 900,000 acre-feet to 5,000,000 acre-feet. The 

major tributaries in the American River system include the North Fork American 

River, Middle Fork American River, and South Fork American River. These 

tributaries drain the upper watershed carrying runoff from precipitation and 

snowmelt into Folsom Reservoir. Figure 3.1-1 shows the hydrology of Folsom 

Reservoir including tributaries and streams. 

Folsom Dam and Reservoir is a multipurpose water project constructed by the Corps 

and operated by Reclamation as part of the Central Valley Project (CVP). At an 

elevation of 466 feet above mean sea level (msl), Folsom Reservoir is the principal 

reservoir on the American River impounding runoff from a drainage area of 

approximately 1,875 square miles. Folsom Reservoir has a normal full-pool storage 

capacity of approximately 975,000 acre-feet, with a seasonally designated flood 

management storage space of 400,000 acre-feet. An interim agreement between the 

SAFCA and Reclamation provides variable flood storage ranging from 400,000 to 

670,000 acre-feet. 

Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Flood-producing runoff occurs primarily during the months of October through April 

and is usually most extreme between November and March. From April to July, 

runoff is primarily generated from snowmelt from the upper portions of the 

American River watershed. Runoff from snowmelt usually does not result in floodproducing flows; however, it is normally adequate to fill Folsom Reservoir’s 

available storage. Approximately 40 percent of the runoff from the watershed results 

from snowmelt. 

Lake Natoma is downstream of Folsom Dam and serves as an afterbay to Folsom 

Reservoir. Formed and controlled by Nimbus Dam, the lake is operated to reregulate the daily flow fluctuations created by the Folsom Powerplant. Consequently, 

water surface elevations in Lake Natoma may fluctuate between four and seven feet 

daily. Lake Natoma has a storage capacity of approximately 9,000 acre-feet and a 

surface area of 500 acres. Nimbus Dam, combined with Folsom Dam, regulates 

water releases to the lower American River. 

The lower American River extends 23 miles from Nimbus Dam to the confluence 

with the Sacramento River. The upper reaches of the lower American River are 

unrestricted by levees and are hydrologically controlled by natural bluffs and 

terraces. Downstream, the river is leveed along its north and south banks for 

approximately 13 miles from the Sacramento River to the Mayhew drain on the 

south and to the Carmichael Bluffs on the north. 

Hydraulics 

Folsom Dam’s current configuration has three general types of outlet structures 

including: 1) three power penstocks, 2) eight gated outlets (four upper and four 

lower), and 3) eight spillway gates (five operational service gates and three 

emergency gates). Reservoir releases are restricted by both the capacity of the 

discharge structures and regulatory limits on the increases in release rates. The 

maximum capacity of the low-level outlets is 34,000 cfs (8,000 cfs total capacity 

through the three power penstocks and 26,000 cfs maximum total capacity through 

the eight gated river outlets). During a flood event, releases are made through the 

low-level outlets until water levels in the reservoir reach the spillway crest and 

releases can be made from the main spillway gates. Once water is above the spillway 

crest, releases can then be raised incrementally to 115,000 cfs (design release), which 

represents the maximum safe carrying capacity of the lower American River. The 

maximum rate of increase in flows is limited to 15,000 cfs per hour until outflow 

reaches 115,000 cfs. As inflows continue to increase, more water is released from the 

spillways to protect the dam. A maximum of 160,000 cfs can be released on a limited 

emergency basis without causing a downstream levee failure and flooding in the 

Sacramento area. The three emergency spillway gates may not be used unless the 

total outflow from the dam exceeds 300,000 cfs. This restriction makes the 

emergency gates unusable for normal flood management purposes and limits the use 

of the gates to dam safety outflows. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-9 

During a flood event with a 1 in 2 chance of occurring in any 1 year (e.g., 2-year 

recurrence interval), flows would be expected to reach 25,000 cfs under existing 

conditions and 40,000 cfs if unregulated. Flows during flood events with between a 1 

in 18 and 1 in 120 chance of occurring in any 1 year would peak at approximately 

115,000 cfs under existing conditions and would range between 160,000 cfs and 

375,000 cfs if unregulated. 

Water Quality 

As stated above, snowmelt and precipitation from the upper American River 

Watershed discharges water into Folsom Reservoir. In general, runoff from the 

relatively undeveloped watershed is of very high quality, rarely exceeding the State 

of California’s water quality objectives (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). 

The following beneficial uses have been defined by the CVRWQCB for Folsom 

Reservoir and Lake Natoma: municipal and domestic water supply; irrigation; 

industrial power; water contact and non-contact recreation; warm and cold 

freshwater habitat, warm freshwater spawning habitat; and wildlife habitat, along 

with potential beneficial uses for industrial service supply (RWQCB1998). Water 

quality within Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma is generally acceptable to meet 

the beneficial uses currently designated for these waterbodies. However, in the past, 

occasional taste and odor problems have occurred in municipal water supplies 

diverted from Folsom Reservoir. Blue-green algal blooms that occasionally occur in 

the reservoir due to elevated water temperatures were identified as the cause of these 

problems. 

Water Quality Data for Construction Area 

This section presents data describing general water quality parameters including pH, 

turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen, phosphorus, 

electric conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and fecal coliform for Folsom 

Reservoir. 

The minimum, maximum, and average levels of pH, turbidity, DO, TOC, nitrogen, 

phosphorous, and electric conductivity within Folsom Reservoir are presented in 

Table 3.1-1. All of the data were collected over a six year period from 1992 to 1998; 

104 samples were taken for both pH and turbidity; 47 samples were taken for TOC; 

and 101 samples were taken for electric conductivity (Larry Walker Associates, 

1999). 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.1-1 

Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Folsom Reservoir – 1992 to 1998

Water Quality Parameter Minimum Maximum Average 

pH (standard units) 5.82 8.46 7.09 

Turbidity (mg/L) 1 68 1.2 

DO (mg/L) 6.1 13.6 10.3 

TOC (mg/L) 2.0 3.5 N/A 

Nitrogen (mg/L) N/A N/A N/A 

Phosphorus (mg/L) N/A N/A N/A 

Electric Conductivity (μS/cm) 18.5 123 52.2 

Source: Larry Walker Associates 1999; N/A – Not Available 

Table 3.1-2 presents the minimum, maximum, and average levels of pH, electric 

conductivity, DO, turbidity, TOC, nitrogen, phosphorus, and TDS within Folsom 

Reservoir. The pH, electric conductivity, DO, and turbidity data were collected on 

June 28, 2005; a total of 47 samples were taken. The TOC data were collected on 

June 11, 2003; a total of 6 samples were taken. The nitrogen, phosphorus, and TDS 

data were collected over a 13-month period from February 2001 to February 2002; 

5 samples were taken for each of these parameters. 

Table 3.1-2 

Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Folsom Reservoir – 2001 to 2005 

Water Quality Parameter Minimum Maximum Average 

pH (standard units)1 6.60 8.23 6.94 

Turbidity (NTU)1 1.0 126.9 8.4 

DO (mg/L)1 4.95 7.93 6.88 

TOC (mg/L)2 1.5 1.8 1.6 

Nitrogen (mg/L)3 <0.050 0.110 0.062 

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)3 <0.010 <0.050 0.0212 

TDS (mg/L) 3 39 44 41.8 

Electric Conductivity (μS/cm)1 32.5 61.6 46.2 

Sources: Reclamation 2005d1 ; MWH 20032 ; Wallace, Roberts and Todd et. al. 20033

Fecal coliform bacteria levels within Folsom Reservoir are presented in Table 3.1-3. 

The values for Granite Bay and Beal's Point represent data collected over a fivemonth period (May 2003 to September 2003); 19 samples were taken at each 

location. The values for Folsom Dam represent data collected over a 13-month 

period from February 2001 to February 2002; 5 samples were taken (Reclamation 

2003; Wallace, Roberts and Todd et al. 2003). 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-11 

 Table 3.1-3 

Folsom Reservoir Coliform Sampling – 2001 to 2003 

Fecal Coliform Concentrations (MPN/100mL) 

Site Minimum Maximum Geometric Mean 

Granite Bay1 2 300 9 

Beal's Point1 2 900 18 

Folsom Dam2 2 30 12.2 

Sources: Reclamation 20031; Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et. al. 20032

MPN: Most Probable Number 

In general, water released from Lake Natoma is of good quality and meets California 

Basin Plan standards. Table 3.1-4 summarizes water quality data in Lake Natoma 

from February 2001 to February 2002. 

Table 3.1-4 

Water Quality Parameters Sampled at Lake Natoma – 2001 to 2002

Water Quality Parameter Units Minimum Maximum Average 

Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 4 300 75 

Nitrate & Nitrite as N mg/L <0.050 0.08 0.05 

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L <0.010 0.18 0.05 

Tot. Dissolved Solids mg/L 34 39 36.6 

Mercury (dissolved) μg/mL <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 

MTBE μg/mL <3 <3 <3 

Source: Wallace, Roberts and Todd et. al. 2003 

Water Quality Objectives for Construction Area 

The CVRWQCB Basin Plan defines specific water quality objectives that should be 

attained in order to protect and maintain the beneficial uses of Folsom Reservoir as 

described above. As indicated prior, although not required under the CWA, the 

CVRWQCB Basin Plan also presents objectives for all groundwater in the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Groundwater regulations do not 

encompass as many constituents as surface water in the CVRWQCB Basin Plan, but 

do include bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, tastes and odors, and 

toxicity. 

The following section presents surface water objectives for bacteria, TDS, DO, 

turbidity, and pH, and groundwater objectives for bacteria for the construction area. 

Although data from Folsom Reservoir were previously presented for various 

parameters, only bacteria, TDS, DO, turbidity, and pH are discussed in relation to 

their particular water quality objectives as stated in the CVRWQCB Basin Plan. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

There are no available groundwater data associated with the construction area; 

therefore, only the groundwater quality objective for bacteria is presented below. 

Bacteria 

The CVRWQCB Basin Plan has established fecal coliform bacteria standards for 

Folsom Reservoir that are twice as rigorous as other waters designated for water 

contact recreation. For Folsom Reservoir, the fecal coliform concentration is 

based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, should 

not exceed a geometric mean of 100 Most Probable Number (MPN)/100 ml, nor 

should more than ten percent of the total number of samples taken during any 30-

day period exceed 200/100 ml. For groundwater used for municipal or domestic 

supply, the fecal coliform most probable number should be less than 2.2/100 ml 

over any seven-day period. As indicated in Table 3.1-3, the geometric mean for 

bacteria for all three surface water locations is below the water quality objective 

of not exceeding 100/100 ml. 

Total Dissolved Solids 

Total dissolved solids in Folsom Reservoir should not exceed 100 mg/l (90th 

percentile) as per the CVRWQCB Basin Plan. TDS data are acceptable in the 

reservoir as shown in Table 3.1-2 which indicates levels are between 39 and 44 

mg/L. 

Dissolved Oxygen 

For Folsom Reservoir, the CVRWQCB Basin Plan requires the monthly median 

of the mean daily DO concentration should not fall below 85 percent of 

saturation in the main water mass, and the 95th percentile concentration should 

not fall below 75 percent of saturation. In addition, the DO concentrations should 

not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time in waters designated to support cold 

water ecosystems and spawning, reproduction and/or early development 

beneficial uses, or 5.0 mg/l in water designated to support warm water 

ecosystems. Data in Table 3.1-2 indicate that DO levels from samples taken from 

Folsom Reservoir between 2001 and 2005 are minimum 4.95 mg/L and 

maximum 7.93 mg/L. 

Turbidity 

Turbidity should be less than or equal to 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

(NTUs) in Folsom Reservoir, except for periods of storm runoff according to the 

CVRWQCB Basin Plan. Average turbidity readings as shown in Table 3.1-2 are 

8.4 NTU, below CVRWQCB Basin Plan objectives. The Folsom DS/FDR could 

increase sedimentation in Lake Natoma from construction activities. Water 

quality samples from January 2001 through June 2002 in Lake Natoma show 

turbidity readings ranging from 0.5 NTU to 5.0 NTU with most of the readings 

between 1.0 NTU and 4.0 NTU, well within the Basin Plan objectives. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-13 

pH 

The CVRWQCB Basin Plan states that pH levels should not be less than 6.5 nor 

above 8.5. In fresh waters with designated cold water or warm water habitat 

beneficial uses, changes in normal ambient pH levels should not exceed 0.5 

(RWQCB 2004). All pH data are within objectives as presented in Table 3.1-2. 

From 2001 to 2005 in Folsom Reservoir, minimum pH was 6.60, maximum pH 

was 8.23, and average pH was 6.94. 

As indicated by the above data, water quality in Folsom Reservoir meets the 

requisite Basin Plan objectives. Sedimentation/siltation within local tributaries 

due to construction is one of the primary potential water quality concerns. 

Construction activities also have the potential of releasing hazardous or other 

chemicals into surrounding waters, thus impacting water quality. 

Other Water Quality Issues 

Abandoned Mines 

An old abandoned chromium mine exists on the Peninsula just north of Flagstaff 

Hill. The Pillikin Mine contained the largest known chromite deposit in the 

Sierra Nevada. The mine began ore production during World War I and became 

inactive in April of 1955 (El Dorado County Public Library website 2002). 

Four abandoned limestone quarries also exist north of the Peninsula. The 

Alabaster Cave quarries are located approximately one mile east of Rattlesnake 

Bridge, just five miles south of Auburn at an elevation above 600 ft. These 

quarries were owned by various companies and were mined from the 1860s until 

the 1950s (El Dorado County website 2003, Perazzo 2006). 

Both mines are located well above the elevation of the reservoir and would not 

cause any water quality effects with the implementation of any of the Folsom 

DS/FDR alternatives. According to Reclamation, there has never been any 

detection of chromium in the water tested (Sherer 2006c). 

Mercury and Metals 

The sediments in Folsom Reservoir may contain elemental mercury and metals 

from historic mining or those naturally occurring within the bedrock of the 

American River drainage. Mercury is toxic to both aquatic life and human health. 

Groundwater 

Folsom Reservoir is located at the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley 

Groundwater Basin, in the North American and South American subbasins. The area 

surrounding Folsom Reservoir primarily consists of bedrock formations of the Sierra 

Nevada foothill complex. Although groundwater is not a major resource in the 

vicinity of the Folsom DS/FDR site, small amounts of groundwater are typically 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

found in granitic fissures and cracks. Figure 3.1-2 indicates the areas where 

groundwater exists surrounding Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma. Bedrock is 

close to, or in some areas, at the surface; therefore, high water tables exist in a few 

locations. Due to the presence of the impermeable material near the surface, natural 

drainage cannot regularly occur, thus low areas frequently become water-logged. 

Because fractured aquifer systems are typically low yielding, surface water sources 

are primarily used for drinking water or irrigation water sources rather than wells. 

However, a few groundwater wells are being used to provide water within the 

construction area. These wells are located at Rattlesnake Bar, the Peninsula 

campground and boat launch, Nimbus Flat residences, and Shadow Glen stables 

(Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). 

Jurisdictional Wetlands 

Regulated or jurisdictional waters include all adjacent wetlands in addition to 

navigable waters, interstate waters, and their tributaries. Therefore, any discharge of 

dredged or fill material into these jurisdictional wetlands would also be subject to 

compliance under Section 404 and 401 of the CWA. Project construction related to 

impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be subject to regulations stated within these 

permits. 

Seasonal wetlands and freshwater marshes exist in the construction area typically 

within or adjacent to streams, swales, or other drainages. Furthermore, groundwater 

upwelling is creating a wetland near Dike 5 on the western side of the reservoir. 

For more specific information on wetlands found in the construction area, including 

recent acreage estimates of various wetlands and vegetative and terrestrial 

community composition, see Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, and 

Appendix C. 

Mormon Island Wetland Preserve 

The Mormon Island Wetland Preserve contains a series of wetlands that exist 

downstream of MIAD, above and below Green Valley Road. Reclamation completed 

a literature review of prior investigations into the connectivity between the reservoir 

and the wetlands. In the 2006 report entitled MIAD Hydrogeology Draft Report, 

Reclamation determined that data collected throughout the downstream foundation 

area suggests no reservoir connection to local groundwater levels (Reclamation 

2006b). There does, however, appear to be a hydraulic connectivity in the dredged 

alluvium downstream of MIAD in the area between the dam toe and the preserve.

Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Additionally, it is believed that the water source for the wetlands located in the 

north-central part of the preserve, just south of Green Valley Road, could be from 

seepage of the MIAD embankment. The source of this seepage is not the reservoir 

but a combination of bank storage of precipitation and seepage via joints in the 

foundation bedrock. This seepage collects in a drain and then eventually flows 

through a culvert under Green Valley Road and into the preserve (Reclamation 

2006b). The source of water in the preserve in an area of deciduous trees in the 

dredged alluvium is believed to originate from the higher hillsides to the east due to 

release of bank storage and surface water runoff following precipitation events 

(Reclamation 2006b). 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

In this section, the assessment methods, significance criteria, and effects of the 

alternatives on surface water and groundwater resources, water quality conditions, 

and jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity are evaluated. In regards to wetlands, this 

section focuses on the hydrologic effects to wetlands due to construction activities. 

Additional information on jurisdictional wetland impacts, specifically loss of 

wetland areas and habitat quality, are described in Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation 

and Wildlife. 

3.1.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed through a 

qualitative evaluation. Information presented in the existing conditions as well as 

construction practices and materials, location, and duration of construction were 

evaluated during the assessment process. 

3.1.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Based on CEQA Guidelines, effects on hydrologic resources and water quality 

conditions would be significant if construction would: 

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving 

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; 

• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or 

substantially degrade water quality; or 

• 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. 

Additionally, thresholds of significance for wetland resources under CEQA have 

been used in the following evaluation. Impacts were significant if they would: 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-17 

• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 

Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, 

coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other 

means. 

Section 3.5 contains additional thresholds of significance under CEQA for biological 

resources related to wetlands and riparian habitat, their related impacts and 

associated mitigation measures. 

3.1.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in increased dam safety and 

flood damage reduction.

The No Action/No Project Alternative assumes no action would be taken by any 

agency. If modifications to Folsom Dam are not completed to improve dam safety 

and flood damage reduction, public safety would be at risk due to the potential of 

dam and dike failure associated with seismic, static, and hydrologic concerns. 

Without the Folsom DS/FDR, the reservoir does not have sufficient capacity to 

safely contain and release large amounts of flood water. This could result in floodrelated loss of life, economic losses, and infrastructure damage. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Based on the analysis presented above, 

it is anticipated that the environmental impact of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative (i.e., future environmental conditions if no action is taken relative to the 

Folsom DS/FDR) would exceed the significance criteria defined herein. However, 

unlike a significant impact associated with an action alternative, no mitigation can 

be required for significant impacts associated with the No Action/No Project (i.e., 

within the regulatory framework of NEPA and CEQA, a project applicant cannot be 

required to mitigate the impacts that would result from taking no action). As such, 

the impact identified above for the No Action/No Project Alternative is considered to 

be significant, adverse, and unmitigable. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Construction of Folsom Facility modifications would degrade water quality. 

Construction of Folsom Facility modifications associated with Alternative 1 would 

result in impacts to water quality caused by earth moving operations, storage and 

handling of construction materials on site, and operation and maintenance of 

construction equipment and vehicles. 

Soil erosion associated with excavating material and re-grading would transport 

sediment into local tributaries or directly into the reservoir thus affecting water 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

quality. Significant earth moving operations would occur at sites immediately 

adjacent to Folsom Reservoir as part of Alternative 1. Approximately 5.8 million 

cubic yards of earthen material would be handled as part of construction. Earthen 

material would be removed from the Beal’s Point borrow and processing site 

adjacent to the reservoir up to depths of 30 feet to construct improvements to the 

Right Wing Dam and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. Additionally, the excavated soils with low 

permeability that exist at the D2 borrow site would be used for reinforcement of the 

MIAD core material under Alternative 1. 

During haul road construction and use, sediment would be transported directly into 

local tributaries or directly into the reservoir. Internal haul road construction includes 

alignments within the reservoir boundary between Beal’s Point and the Right Wing 

Dam, and the Left Wing Dam and MIAD. The primary road surface would consist 

of an earthen road base material. Other general construction materials including 

solvents, paints, waste materials, and oil and gas associated with operation and 

maintenance of construction equipment present on-site would introduce hazardous or 

toxic materials and silt and debris into surrounding waters. All of the elements and 

factors presented above could contribute to degradation of water quality in receiving 

waters as part of construction of Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction of Folsom Facility modifications would subject population to risk of 

dam or embankment failure. 

Construction of Folsom Facility modifications associated with Alternative 1 would 

occur during times that the structures retained water. This could risk the integrity of 

the structures. However, all construction work would occur on the downstream side 

and would not involve the core of the structures. Therefore, there would be no 

potential for facility failure impacts to local population. 

No impact due to risk of facility failure during construction. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would affect water quality. 

Under this alternative, the agencies would jet grout portions of the foundation of 

MIAD at the toe of the downstream embankment to reduce seismic risks. The jet 

grout is a stabilizer, usually a neat cement grout, which would be injected at high 

pressures into the subsurface alluvium. When the jet grout is injected, the potential 

exists for the grout to migrate through the spaces between alluvial rocks and gravels. 

The migration of grout into source waters or into the wetlands area would alter water 

quality. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-19 

The curing of jet grout in the subsurface and in the waste pits at the surface would 

have the potential of producing alkaline water of pH 12. Many biological processes, 

such as reproduction, cannot operate in alkaline waters. Elevated pH levels can also 

lead to increased nutrient loading. 

Mercury and other metals, historically found in the dredged alluvium deposits, could 

also be released due to jet grouting processes and subsequent generation of slurry 

waste materials. These metals could potentially mobilize and move downstream, 

adversely affecting water quality and aquatic life. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-4 through 

HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce the water source 

for a portion of the wetlands. 

Alternative 1 would require jet grouting the downstream foundation at MIAD. As 

discussed in Section 3.1.1.3, one water source for a portion of the wetlands 

downstream of MIAD could be seepage from the MIAD embankment. Jet grouting 

would solidify materials at the foundation and could reduce seepage, thereby 

resulting in a reduction in water to a portion of the wetlands in the preserve. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions would cause effects to groundwater or groundwater supplies.

With the exception of the potential groundwater effects due to jet grouting at MIAD, 

construction activities would not affect groundwater resources. Mitigation measures 

for jet grouting (HWQ-4 through HWQ-8) will be employed to minimize 

groundwater effects due to jet grouting. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-4 through 

HWQ-8 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions would cause mobilization of mercury and metals into the water 

column in the reservoir.

Construction of the Auxiliary Spillway and construction activities at MIAD could 

lead to the mobilization of sediment into the water column or released into the 

American River downstream. Reclamation completed sediment sampling to 

determine if it would be a hazard to downstream aquatic life if allowed to flow 

downstream. Results of the sediment chemical analyses are presented in Appendix J. 

In 2006, Reclamation sampled a total of 18 sites and none of the samples exceeded 

the threshold for mercury of 0.2 mg/kg. Additionally, of all the samples analyzed for 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

metals, no results met or exceeded any of the sediment standards and as a result 

would be suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. However, mitigation measures 

would be implemented to prevent any potential mobilization of sediment. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-12 and 

HWQ-13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Excess material placed in the reservoir would cause adverse water quality effects.

Excess material excavated from the auxiliary spillway site that does not meet the 

specifications for shell or filter may be placed in areas inside the reservoir. If this 

material is placed within or near the water line, erosion could occur from wave 

action or runoff and could increase turbidity in the reservoir. This could also 

introduce soluble pollutants associated with the materials into the water column or 

could lead to a release of insoluble pollutants if materials are place in deeper 

locations. During the placement material in the reservoir, there may also be

temporary water quality impacts resulting from the dripping and leakage of fuels and 

oils from the use of construction equipment along the shoreline. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3, HWQ-9, and HWQ-14 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction of Alternative 1 would not affect downstream water quality. 

Alternative 1 is primarily a stand alone Dam Safety alternative and was designed to 

pass the Probable Maximum Flood and address the seismic and static risks. The 

Main Concrete Dam will retain all of its current capabilities. If this alternative was 

implemented, it is anticipated that the features would only be operated once every 

300 years or greater. The fuseplug and Auxiliary Spillway would only operate at a 

point when over 500,000 cfs was already being released downstream through the 

existing spillway. The fuseplug spillway in conjunction with the existing spillway 

could release a total discharge between 850,000 and 900,000 cfs. 

All operations-related impacts would have already occurred downstream before the 

fuseplug would operate. All habitat within the Lower American River Parkway and 

the river channel itself would already be adversely impacted. Therefore, this 

alternative would not have significant downstream water quality impacts. 

This alternative would not have adverse impacts to the coldwater pool or 

downstream temperatures (water quality). The fuseplug would be reconstructed as 

soon as the event has passed. Stockpiles of the material required to rebuild the 

fuseplug would be available for this purpose. Timely replacement of the fuseplug 

would ensure that there are no adverse water quality impacts to the coldwater pool, 

or downstream conditions. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-21 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases would be less 

than significant for Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Construction would degrade water quality. 

Similar to Alternative 1, construction-related activities associated with Alternative 2 

related to earth moving operations, storage and handling of construction materials on 

site, and operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles could 

impact water quality within the reservoir or small local tributaries that discharge 

directly into the reservoir. 

Soil erosion associated with excavating material and re-grading may transport 

sediment into local tributaries or directly into the reservoir, thus affecting water 

quality. Earth moving operations would occur adjacent to Folsom Reservoir as part 

of Alternative 2, and approximately 11.9 million cubic yards of material would be 

handled. With the exception of boring the Auxiliary Spillway tunnel, similar 

activities would occur as part of Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1. However, the 

potential for erosion would be increased as part of Alternative 2 due to the potential 

earthen raises of all dikes, wing dams and MIAD. 

The potential water quality impacts of Alternative 2 are primarily related to haul road 

construction and use, storage and handling of construction materials, and operation 

and maintenance of equipment. All of these activities could contribute to degradation 

of water quality during construction. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Dewatering at the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce the water source 

for a portion of the wetlands. 

Dewatering around the area of the downstream foundation at MIAD would be 

required prior to excavation of the foundation. Because there is likely a hydraulic 

connectivity in the dredged alluvium downstream of MIAD in the area between the 

dam toe and the preserve, dewatering could reduce water levels in the area of the 

preserve. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-10 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Actions to excavate and replace the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce 

the water source for a portion of the wetlands. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Alternative 2 would involve excavation and replacement of the downstream 

foundation at MIAD. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.3, one water source for a portion 

of the wetlands downstream of MIAD is likely seepage from the MIAD 

embankment. Excavation and replacement of the MIAD foundation with high 

strength material including cement-modified soil could reduce seepage. The water 

source for the wetlands in the preserve could be reduced. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would 

reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions would cause effects to groundwater or groundwater supplies.

With the exception of the potential groundwater effects due to excavation and 

replacement of the downstream foundation at MIAD, construction activities would 

not affect groundwater resources. Mitigation Measure HWQ-10 will be employed to 

minimize groundwater effects. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-10 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions including in-reservoir dredging would cause adverse water 

quality effects from mercury and metals in the reservoir.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-12 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Excess material placed in the reservoir would cause adverse water quality effects.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction of Alternative 2 would affect downstream water quality. 

Alternative 2 is a Flood Damage Reduction alternative and was designed to pass the 

Probable Maximum Flood. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the features 

would be operated infrequently to pass the design flood. The principle features of 

Alternative 2 would include a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with an underlying tunnel 

and a raise of up to 4 feet. 

The fuseplug spillway features of this alternative would only operate at a point when 

over 500,000 cfs was already being released downstream, as described in Alternative 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-23 

1. The tunnel would provide a substantially lower level of discharge capacity, 

allowing for the initiation of earlier releases, and maintaining flows at 160,000 cfs or 

below for duration’s equivalent to the 1 in 200 year event. 

All operations-related impacts would have already occurred downstream before the 

fuseplug would operate. All habitat within the Lower American River Parkway and 

the river channel itself would already be adversely impacted. Therefore, this 

alternative would not have significant downstream impacts to water quality. 

Alternative 2 would not have adverse impacts to the coldwater pool, or downstream 

temperatures (water quality). The fuseplug would be reconstructed as soon as 

feasible once the event has passed. Stockpiles of the material required to rebuild the 

fuseplug would be available for this purpose. Timely replacement of the fuseplug 

would ensure no adverse water quality impacts to the coldwater pool, or downstream 

conditions. 

Construction and utilization of the features in Alternative 2 would not substantially 

alter current Folsom Reservoir operations and, in general, would decrease 

downstream hydraulic impacts during a severe storm event. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 2 

would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Construction would degrade water quality. 

Construction-related activities associated with Alternative 3 related to earth moving 

operations, storage and handling of construction materials on site, and operation and 

maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles could affect water quality 

within the reservoir or small local tributaries that discharge directly into the 

reservoir. In addition, the construction involved with extending the Stilling Basin 

under Alternative 3 poses further water quality impacts due to the dewatering 

processes necessary to complete this work. 

Soil erosion associated with excavating material and re-grading may transport 

sediment into local tributaries or directly into the reservoir, thus affecting water 

quality. Under Alternative 3, 3.6 million cubic yards of material would be handled. 

Similar activities would occur as part of Alternative 3 as was described above for 

Alternative 2, including the potential construction of new embankments in low 

elevation areas to retain water temporarily stored during emergency flood flow 

events. In addition, excavation activities would occur at either or both the D1 and D2 

sites to develop borrow sites for use in strengthening the core of MIAD. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Similar water quality impacts would exist as part of Alternative 3 as was described 

above for Alternatives 1 and 2 regarding haul road construction and use, storage and 

handling of construction materials, and operation and maintenance of equipment. All 

of these factors could contribute to degradation of water quality in receiving waters 

as part of construction of Alternative 3. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would affect water quality. 

This impact would be similar to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-4 through 

HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce the water source 

for a portion of the wetlands. 

This impact would be similar to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions including in-reservoir dredging would cause adverse water 

quality effects from mercury and metals in the reservoir.

Alternative 3 would involve construction activities within the reservoir, including 

dredging, to construct the approach channel to the Auxiliary Spillway. Impacts 

would be similar to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-12 and 

HWQ-13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Excess material placed in the reservoir would cause adverse water quality effects.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3, HWQ-9, and HWQ-14 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Dewatering of the Stilling Basin would affect water quality downstream in Lake 

Natoma and the lower American River.
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-25 

The water quality of the Stilling Basin is generally good and comparable to the water 

quality of Folsom Reservoir. Previous dewatering of the basin in 2004 by the Corps 

did not result in any downstream impacts. Best management practices would be 

employed when dewatering occurs. It is not expected that this action would result in 

any downstream water quality impacts. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction of Alternative 3 would not affect downstream water quality. 

Under Alternative 3, Folsom Dam would have four methods of releasing flows from 

the reservoir: three power penstocks, eight flood control outlets (four upper tier and 

four lower tier, all 5 ft x 9 ft), tainter/radial spillway gates set near the main spillway 

crest (five service and three emergency), and six submerged tainter gates in the 

proposed Auxiliary Spillway. In general, utilization of the features described in 

Alternative 3 would involve greater releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that 

closely match downstream channel capacity. 

The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would allow the objective release of 115,000 cfs to be 

achieved sooner in a flood event, and would lessen peak flows fore large, infrequent 

hydrologic events. A maximum flood release of 160,000 cfs, which is the emergency 

downstream channel capacity, would be made through the Auxiliary Spillway when 

necessary based on observed and anticipated reservoir inflows. Emergency releases 

of 160,000 cfs or above would not be made any sooner with the JFP spillway 

features than under existing conditions. 

Variations in releases utilizing the Folsom DS/FDR features would not be any larger 

than those allowed under existing conditions. Under this alternative, the amount of 

water that would ultimately be released would be the same as existing conditions and 

the No Action/No Project Alternative (due to operational constraints), but operators 

would have the ability to release water sooner in a hydrologic event. Features of this 

alternative would be operated under existing operating criteria; therefore, the 

implementation of Alternative 3 would not have adverse impacts to downstream 

water quality. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 3 

would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Construction would degrade water quality. 

Construction-related activities associated with Alternative 4 pertaining to earth 

moving operations, storage and handling of construction materials on site, and 

operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles could impact 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

nearby water quality. In addition, the construction involved with extending the 

Stilling Basin under Alternative 4 poses further water quality impacts due to the 

dewatering processes necessary to complete this work. 

Soil erosion associated with excavating material and re-grading may transport 

sediment into local tributaries or directly into the reservoir, thus affecting water 

quality. Alternative 4 involves earth moving operations adjacent to Folsom Reservoir 

where 6.5 million cubic yards of material would be handled to construct the new 

Auxiliary Spillway and raise embankments. Similar activities would occur as part of 

Alternative 4 as was described above for Alternative 2 and 3, including the 

construction of new embankments. In addition, excavation activities would occur at 

Granite Bay, Beal’s Point and other borrow sites (e.g., D1 and D2) to develop 

borrow for the earthen raise of the facilities. 

Similar water quality impacts would occur as part of Alternative 4 as was described 

above for Alternatives 1 through 3 regarding haul road construction and use, storage 

and handling of construction materials, and operation and maintenance of equipment. 

All of these factors could contribute to degradation of water quality in local 

tributaries or within the reservoir as part of construction of Alternative 4. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would affect water quality. 

This impact would be similar to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-4 through 

HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce the water source 

for a portion of the wetlands. 

This impact would be similar to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions including in-reservoir dredging would cause adverse water 

quality effects from mercury and metals in the reservoir.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 3 resulting from 

construction of the approach channel to the Auxiliary Spillway within the reservoir. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-27 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-12 and 

HWQ-13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

 

Excess material placed in the reservoir would cause adverse water quality effects.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3, HWQ-9, and HWQ-12 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Dewatering of the Stilling Basin would affect water quality downstream in Lake 

Natoma and the lower American River.

The water quality of the Stilling Basin is generally good and comparable to the water 

quality of Folsom Reservoir. Previous dewatering of the basin in 2004 by the Corps 

did not result in any downstream impacts. Best management practices would be 

employed when dewatering occurs. It is not expected that this action would result in 

any downstream water quality impacts. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction of Alternative 4 would not affect downstream water quality.

Alternative 4 would provide Folsom Dam with the same four methods of discharging 

water as Alternative 3. In general, utilization of the features described in Alternative 

4 would involve greater releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that closely 

match downstream channel capacity. The new Auxiliary Spillway would allow the 

objective release of 115,000 cfs to be achieved sooner in a flood event, and would 

lessen peak flows fore large, infrequent hydrologic events. A maximum flood release 

of 160,000 cfs, which is the emergency downstream channel capacity, would be 

made through the new Auxiliary Spillway when necessary, based on observed and 

anticipated reservoir inflows. 

Emergency releases of 160,000 cfs or above would not be made any sooner with the 

Folsom DS/FDR features than under existing conditions. Variations in releases 

utilizing Folsom DS/FDR features would not be any larger than those allowed under 

the existing conditions and the No Action/No Project Alternative. Under this 

alternative, the amount of water that would ultimately be released would be the same 

as existing conditions and the No Action/No Project Alternative (due to operational 

constraints), but operators would have the ability to release water sooner in a 

hydrologic event. The features would be operated under existing operating criteria; 

therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to water quality. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 4 

would be less than significant. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Construction would degrade water quality. 

Construction-related activities associated with Alternative 5 pertaining to earth 

moving operations, storage and handling of construction materials on site, and 

operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles would impact 

nearby water quality. Dewatering of shallow groundwater would be necessary to 

complete excavation and replacement of the downstream foundation at MIAD, 

further increasing the potential for local surface water quality degradation.

Soil erosion associated with excavating material and re-grading would transport 

sediment into local tributaries or directly into the reservoir, thus affecting water 

quality. Alternative 5 would involve the greatest amount of borrow excavation 

within the reservoir because the Auxiliary Spillway would not be built. However, 

similar activities would occur as part of Alternative 5 for other excavation activities 

as was described above for Alternatives 1 through 4, but at a greater extent due to the 

raising of all facilities by 17 ft. Private properties surrounding the reservoir would be 

protected by construction of new embankments or would be acquired. Construction 

of the new embankments would pose the same water quality effects as would 

construction of the main facilities. Similar to Alternative 4, excavation activities 

would occur at either or both the D1 and D2 sites to develop borrow sites for use in 

the 17 foot earthen raise at MIAD. 

Similar water quality impacts would occur as part of Alternative 5 as was described 

above for Alternatives 1 through 4 regarding haul road construction and use, storage 

and handling of construction materials, and operation and maintenance of equipment. 

All of these factors could contribute to degradation of water quality in local 

tributaries or within the reservoir as part of construction of Alternative 5. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3 and HWQ-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Dewatering at the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce the water source 

for a portion of the wetlands. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-10 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Actions to excavate and replace the downstream foundation of MIAD would reduce 

the water source for a portion of the wetlands. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-29 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Actions to excavate and replace the downstream foundation of MIAD would 

adversely affect groundwater and groundwater resources. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-10 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction actions would cause adverse water quality effects from mercury and 

metals in the reservoir.

Excavation of material from the approach channel could suspend sediment 

containing mercury in the water column. Fish and invertebrates could be exposed to 

higher levels of mercury, which could lead to bioaccumulation. Fish in Folsom 

Reservoir are known to have elevated levels of mercury, many timed above 

background levels. The amount of sediment suspended and mercury methylated 

would be reduced with water quality mitigation measures and physical means, such 

as silt curtains. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-12 and 

HWQ-13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Excess material placed in the reservoir would cause adverse water quality effects.

Impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through 

HWQ-3, HWQ-9, and HWQ-14 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction of Alternative 5 would not affect downstream water quality. 

The 17 foot raise would be designed to contain a large storm event and pass it 

without overtopping the downstream levees. Variations in releases utilizing Folsom 

DS/FDR features would not be any larger than those allowed under existing 

conditions and the No Action/No Project Alternative. In addition, the top of the flood 

control pool would be raised to increase the flood storage space. Alternative 5 would 

allow the reservoir to hold more flood water and would allow a substantially larger 

timeframe for the evacuation of downstream communities. 

Downstream impacts would remain the same as existing conditions and the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. The implementation of Alternative 5 would not have 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

adverse downstream impacts to water quality. Releases would be made according to 

the Interim Flood Control Diagram. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 5 

would be less than significant. 

3.1.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

None of the alternatives would change the hydrology of Folsom Reservoir, but the 

alternatives could result in better management of hydrologic flows and conditions. 

Additionally, none of the alternatives would have adverse downstream water quality 

effects associated with operation because the new features of each alternative would 

be operated according to existing operating criteria. Potential water quality impacts 

associated with construction of Alternatives 1 through 5 would be potentially 

significant. Impacts would be mitigated by implementing Mitigation Measures 

HWQ-1 through HWQ-12. Besides the No Action/No Project Alternative which 

would pose no increased threat to hydrologic resources, varying degrees of potential 

impacts to water quality, water levels, and viability of wetlands are associated with 

each alternative, as discussed below. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 would pose the least potential to impact water resources. This is 

because both alternatives would have the smallest amount of excavation that would 

occur during construction, including the least borrow development within the 

reservoir. The possibility of impacts to water resources would be lower because there 

is less chance for soil erosion and subsequent transport into the reservoir. 

Furthermore, less earthmoving and construction equipment would be necessary to 

perform this work, and associated with it, less operations and maintenance of the 

equipment, and subsequent storage and handling of construction material. 

Jet grouting of the downstream foundation at MIAD would also occur under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, potentially affecting water quality and potentially reducing 

the water source for a portion of the wetlands. 

Alternative 2 would involve greater potential for water quality impacts than 

Alternatives 1 and 3 because it requires more construction activities and excavation 

to occur. Alternative 2 is the only alternative that includes construction of an 

Auxiliary Spillway tunnel. Alternative 2 would result in a greater potential for 

impacts than Alternative 1 to water quality due to the increased area of construction 

and volume of material excavated and related chances for erosion and sedimentation 

to occur in local tributaries or directly into the reservoir. In addition, while this 

alternative does not involve jet grouting, dewatering would be required when 

excavation and replacement of the foundation downstream of MIAD occurs, thus 

possibly reducing the water source for a portion of the wetlands. 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-31 

Alternative 3 would have similar potential for impacts to water quality as Alternative 

1. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would require jet grouting at MIAD which 

could introduce water quality problems and water source issues for a portion of the 

wetlands. In addition, under Alternative 3, extending the Stilling Basin would require 

dewatering with potential water quality impacts as a result of discharge. The 

potential impacts of Alternative 3 are less than those of Alternatives 4 and 5 because 

the required earth-moving and excavation quantities are less for Alternative 3 than 

those for Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Alternative 4 would pose greater potential water quality impacts than Alternatives 1 

and 3 because it requires more excavation and construction activities. Alternative 4 

would result in potential impacts to water resources due to the increased area of 

construction and volume of material excavated and related chances for erosion and 

sedimentation to occur in local tributaries or directly into the reservoir. In addition, 

Alternative 4 requires extending the Stilling Basin, which would require dewatering, 

as well as jet grouting of the downstream foundation of MIAD. Therefore, 

additional water quality and wetland impacts could be introduced. The potential 

impacts of Alternative 4 are less than those of Alternative 5 due to the fact that 

excavation quantities are less for Alternative 4 than those for Alternative 5. 

Alternative 5 would have the greatest overall potential for impacts to water quality, 

wetlands, and groundwater and surface water levels compared to Alternatives 1 

through 4 because it requires the most construction activities and excavation to 

occur. Additionally, Alternative 5 involves dewatering for both the excavation and 

replacement of the downstream foundation at MIAD. Alternative 5 has the greatest 

potential for water quality effects because it involves the largest construction area 

and the greatest volume of material excavated and dewatering processes. These 

processes increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur in local 

tributaries or directly into the reservoir, water levels in both surface water and 

groundwater to potentially fluctuate, and wetland water sources to be affected. 

3.1.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-12 would reduce the 

significant impact on water quality, wetlands, and water levels to a less than 

significant level. Compliance and evaluation as part of the provisions stated for the 

various permits discussed below would serve to minimize and mitigate potential 

hydrologic impacts due to construction activities. 

HWQ-1: An NPDES permit will be obtained prior to construction activities, 

commencing by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the CVRWQCB and preparing a 

SWPPP. As required under the General Permit, the SWPPP will identify 

implementation measures necessary to mitigate potential water quality degradation 

as a result of construction. These measures will include BMPs and other standard 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

pollution prevention actions such as erosion and sediment control measures, proper 

control of non-stormwater discharges, and hazardous spill prevention and response. 

The SWPPP will also include requirements for BMP inspections, monitoring, and 

maintenance. 

The NOI indicates the intent to comply with the General Permit which outlines 

conditions to minimize sediment and pollutant loading. 

The following items are examples of BMPs that will be implemented during 

construction to avoid causing water quality degradation: 

• Erosion control BMPs such as use of mulches or hydroseeding to prevent 

detachment of soil following guidance presented in the California BMP 

Handbooks – Construction (CASQA 2003). A detailed site map will be included 

in the SWPPP outlining specific areas where soil disturbance may occur, and 

drainage patterns associated with excavation and grading activities. In addition, 

the SWPPP will provide plans and details for the BMPs to be implemented prior, 

during and after construction to prevent erosion of exposed soils and to treat 

sediments before they are transported offsite. 

• Sediment control BMPs such as silt fencing or detention basins that trap soil 

particles. 

• Construction staging areas designed so that stormwater runoff during 

construction will be collected and treated in a BMP such as a detention basin. 

• Management of hazardous material and wastes to prevent spills. 

• Vehicle and equipment fueling BMPs so these activities occur only in designated 

staging areas with appropriate spill controls. 

• Maintenance checks of equipment and vehicles to prevent spills or leaks of 

liquids of any kind. 

As described in Chapter 2, specific staging areas for construction-related activities 

will be located near the Main Concrete Dam, Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, Folsom 

Point, and MIAD. Haul roads will be constructed to connect Beal’s Point with 

Granite Bay, and the LWD with MIAD. Only designated areas and roads will be 

used during construction processes to minimize water quality impacts. 

HWQ-2: Measures to control on-site spills will be included in the SWPPP. In 

addition to the spill prevention and control BMPs presented above, the SWPPP will 

contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for 

pollutants that are non-visible to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. Proper 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-33 

storage and handling of materials and equipment servicing will only occur in 

designated areas. Should a spill occur, appropriate steps will be taken to inform local 

regulatory agencies as well as implementation of a spill response program as 

outlined in the SWPPP. 

HWQ-3: Permits prepared by the responsible Federal agency will be obtained and 

abided by as stated in Section 401 and Section 404 of the CWA regarding dredging 

or filling of waters of the United States, and activities involving discharging into 

those waters, which include wetlands, respectively. Construction activities related to 

temporary or permanent alteration of any water body within the construction area 

will be subject to regulation pursuant to these permits. Compliance under these 

permit provisions will serve to minimize construction activity impacts on water 

quality. 

HWQ-4: Prior to implementing the full jet grouting action, Reclamation will perform 

jet grouting tests at MIAD including the monitoring for any grout leakages as well as 

the testing of groundwater and surface water levels and quality. If Reclamation 

determines that leakages are expected to occur and could cause adverse water quality 

effects, they will construct a cutoff wall before they jet grout the foundation at 

MIAD that will eliminate the migration of the grout, metals released from sediments, 

and pH 12 water impacts to surrounding waters. 

HWQ-5: Reclamation will monitor surface and groundwater levels and water quality 

prior to, during, and after jet grouting or excavation and replacement of MIAD. 

• If any well or wetlands within 200 feet of jet grout construction are found to have 

an elevated pH, then construction will cease until the pH returns to normal (as 

determined by pre-construction water quality monitoring). 

• If the pH does not return to normal within 30 minutes, then a Reclamation 

biologist or hazardous materials specialist will be notified. 

HWQ-6: If jet grout daylights more than 50 feet from the point of construction, then 

work will cease until it can be determined that the grout will remain localized. 

HWQ-7: During jet grout injection, all wetlands that could be impacted by 

construction will be visually inspected for the presence of grout every 15 to 30 

minutes. 

HWQ-8: All temporary jet grout solidification areas will be lined with a material that 

does not allow the migration of any construction-related materials. 

HWQ-9: Guidance will be obtained from the CVRWQCB for testing earthen 

materials before constructing work area platforms within or adjacent to the reservoir 

to ensure any potentially associated pollutants will not be introduced into the 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

3.1-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

reservoir that would violate water quality standards or substantially degrade existing 

water quality. Fill material will be placed in the reservoir during periods of lower 

water elevation, when possible. Best management practices will be adhered to in 

order to minimize water quality impacts during the placement of fill in the reservoir. 

HWQ-10: Reclamation will monitor groundwater and surface water levels in 

wetlands downstream of MIAD and within the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve 

during dewatering of the MIAD foundation for excavation and replacement. If water 

levels decrease because of dewatering, the water obtained from dewatering will be 

tested and treated to meet surface water standards prior to being pumped back into 

the wetlands. 

HWQ-11: The Corps will obtain a dewatering permit from CVRWQCB and will 

implement applicable water quality monitoring during dewatering of the existing 

Stilling Basin. 

HWQ-12: Mitigation measures to minimize water quality impacts due to 

construction within and along the reservoir shoreline will be developed in 

consultation with CVRWQCB staff. These measures may include placement of a silt 

curtain surrounding the construction zone or construction of coffer dams. If 

appropriate, routine water samples will be collected at the start and completion of 

each dredging and/or blasting period. 

HWQ-13: During the process of dredging material to construct the approach channel 

for the Auxiliary Spillway, sediment containing mercury will be controlled using a 

variety of methods, including, but not limited to, silt curtains, silt fences, as well as 

other BMPs and construction methods approved by the CVRWQCB. Dredged 

material will be placed on the downstream side of the reservoir in a contained area 

for drying and processing. The dredged material will then be contained either in the 

MIAD overlay or transported to a permanent disposal site outside of the reservoir. 

HWQ-14: A water quality monitoring plan will be developed for review by the 

CVRWQCB prior to any in reservoir construction work. The plan will address 

sampling requirements during dredging, blasting, excavation, and placement of fill 

within the reservoir. If turbidity readings exceed action level values established by 

the CVRWQCB, corrective actions will be implemented in accordance with the plan. 

3.1.5 Cumulative Effects 

This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the Folsom DS/FDR. 

Related past, present, and probable future projects considered in this cumulative 

discussion are presented in Table 5-1. 

Construction would result in increased dam safety and flood damage reduction. This 

impact would be beneficial and therefore does not require mitigation. For those 
Section 3.1 

Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.1-35 

alternatives that incorporate flood damage reduction as part of their modifications, 

the Lower American River Common Features Project and Long-Term Reoperation 

of Folsom Dam and Reservoir have the potential to collectively increase the flood 

damage reduction in even greater amounts. These projects would culminate in 

beneficial impacts for flood damage reduction and dam safety. 

Construction of the Folsom DS/FDR, in combination with existing and probable 

future projects, could affect water quality, wetland areas, and groundwater and 

surface water levels. This cumulative impact would be significant but mitigation 

such as contained within Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-12 would 

reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Folsom DS/FDR construction 

activities could potentially influence water quality, change the viability of wetlands, 

and alter groundwater and surface water levels. When combined with construction of 

the New Folsom Bridge; Future Redundant Water Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom, 

and San Juan Water Districts; and the Lower American River Common Features 

Project, there is a possibility that water resources would be affected. However, each 

project’s associated SWPPPs, BMPs, pertinent permits, and appropriate monitoring 

and testing would ensure that measures are implemented to avoid hydrologic 

resource impairment including water quality degradation, changing water levels, and 

detrimental effects to wetlands. This would result in effective mitigation of 

significant cumulative impacts. 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.2-1 

3.2 Water Supply 

This section discusses the potential impacts of construction of the various 

alternatives on water supplies. 

3.2.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section briefly describes the area of analysis, regulatory setting relevant to this 

resource, and the existing condition of this resource. 

3.2.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis for this section includes Folsom Reservoir and surrounding 

counties: El Dorado, Sacramento, and Placer. Additionally, the water supply 

portion of Folsom Reservoir for both Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors and 

local water purveyors is also part of the area of analysis. 

3.2.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal Regulations 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates alteration of (and 

prohibits unauthorized obstruction of) any navigable waters of the United States. 

Construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways 

of the U.S. is prohibited without Congressional approval. Construction plans for a 

bridge or causeway must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of 

Transportation, while construction plans for a dam or dike must be submitted to and 

approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army. Excavation or fill 

within navigable waters requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers and the 

Secretary of the Army. Under the reauthorization of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 

1937, Reclamation took responsibility for the operation of the CVP. The Act 

authorized $12 million for construction of the CVP and made the improvement of 

navigation, regulation, and flood protection on the San Joaquin and Sacramento 

Rivers the first priority. Reclamation’s primary purpose of supplying water for 

domestic use and irrigation were second priority and power generation was 

designated last priority. Reclamation currently manages water contracts and the 

majority of dams, reservoirs, canals, and other infrastructure connected with the 

CVP, which includes Folsom Reservoir. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 amended previous 

authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and 

mitigation on equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses. The CVPIA 

reallocated 800,000 acre-feet of CVP water from farmers in the Central Valley for 

the restoration of fisheries. In dry years 600,000 acre-feet is reallocated. The 

CVPIA also limited renewed agricultural water contracts to twenty-five years. 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

3.2-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

State Regulations 

DWR and nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards oversee water 

service. State regulation of water utilities also encompasses water supply planning 

and water quality. 

DWR manages California’s water resources in accordance with several pieces of 

legislation: 

• Urban Water Management Planning Act – This Act addresses water supply 

availability and requires urban water suppliers to provide an Urban Water 

Management Plan (UWMP) to DWR every five years. 

• Senate Bill (SB) 221 (Keuhl, Chapter 642, Statues of 2001) Certification of 

Sufficient Water Supply – This Bill requires local agencies to provide written 

verification that sufficient water supply is available before approving plans for 

new development. 

• SB 610 (Costa, Chapter 643, Statues of 2001) Water Supply Planning – This Bill 

requires an urban water supplier to include in its UWMP a description of all 

water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total 

projected water use when groundwater is identified as a source of water available 

to the supplier (DWR 2004). 

In addition, DWR is responsible for the development and management of the State 

Water Project (SWP), including planning, design, construction, operation and 

maintenance. 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) oversees the quality of the 

state’s water resources, and ensures proper allocation and beneficial use. The 

SWRCB’s Division of Water Rights administers the permitting and licensure of 

water rights as well as enforcement and the adjudication of water right disputes 

(SWRCB 1999). 

Local Regulations 

The Water Forum Agreement (Agreement) is an agreement among community 

leaders and water experts in Sacramento County to address anticipated water 

shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to 

groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity if action is not taken 

(Water Forum 1999). The Agreement provides assurances that as each signatory 

meets its responsibilities, other signatories will be fulfilling their commitments. One 

of the main objectives is to “provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s 

economic health and planned development to the year 2030” (Water Forum 1999). 

Elements that directly pertain to water supplies include increased surface water 

diversions, action to meet customers' needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.2-3 

years, water conservation, and groundwater management. Neither Reclamation nor 

the Corps is a signatory to this Agreement. 

3.2.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Folsom Reservoir is one of the larger facilities of the CVP. The CVP is a network of 

20 reservoirs and over 500 miles of major canals that provides approximately 7 

million acre-feet to the San Francisco Bay Area as well as to the Central Valley for 

agricultural, urban, and wildlife uses. Folsom Reservoir consists of approximately 

10 percent of the total CVP storage (Reclamation 2005a). 

Folsom Reservoir is the largest reservoir in the American River basin. By law, the 

Folsom Facility is operated as part of the CVP for flood control, irrigation water 

supply, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, hydropower generation, fish 

and wildlife, navigation and water quality purposes. The dams and dikes impound 

approximately 977,000 acre-feet; the average monthly storage ranges from 838,100 

acre-feet in June to 472,900 acre-feet in November (Reclamation 2005a). Reservoir 

releases are generally highest from May through September. 

Total annual M&I demand for Folsom Reservoir storage is about 140,000 acre-feet 

(Corps 2002). The reservoir meets the majority of water demands of the City of 

Roseville, the City of Folsom, the San Juan Water District, and the Folsom Prison. 

The San Juan Water District provides water to the City of Folsom, Orangevale Water 

Company, Fair Oaks Water District, and Citrus Heights Water District. Placer 

County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District also receive water from 

Folsom Reservoir (Reclamation 2005a). 

Water is conveyed from Folsom Reservoir to the City of Folsom and California 

Department of Corrections water treatment plants, and the Corps' Resident Office 

fire protection system through the Natomas Pipeline. This is a 42-inch above ground 

pipeline that is approximately 2,800 feet in length. The pipeline exits the dam at 

Adit 4 to the Folsom standpipe. The San Juan Water District receives its water 

supply from the same pipe which then delivers water to the San Juan Water District’s 

water treatment plant. 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.2.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed qualitatively. 

Information presented in the existing conditions as well as the following factors were 

considered during the evaluation process: 

• Reservoir operations during construction; 

• Changes to infrastructure that would impact deliveries to local water purveyors; 

and 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

3.2-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Changes to water supply capacity within the reservoir. 

3.2.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Under criteria based on the CEQA Guidelines and agency guidance, the Folsom 

DS/FDR would be considered to have a significant impact on water supply if it 

would: 

• Result in delivery interruptions, reductions, or changes in timing of deliveries to 

CVP contractors; or 

• Result in new or expanded entitlements or other water resources and supplies. 

3.2.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

The following discussion evaluates impacts associated with each alternative. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not result in adverse effects associated 

with water supply. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative assumes that no action would be taken by any 

agency and there would be no changes to the existing and future water supply.

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on water supply 

resources.

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would not result in adverse effects associated with new or expanded 

entitlements or other water resources and supplies. 

Alternative 1 would improve the safety of the Folsom Facility, but would not involve 

the raising of the Folsom Facility for additional flood storage purposes. The storage 

capacity of the reservoir would remain the same as existing conditions. During 

construction and post-construction, water allocations to CVP contractors would 

remain the same as existing conditions.

Alternative 1 would have no adverse effects associated with new or expanded 

entitlements. 

The placement of excess material in the reservoir could reduce storage at Folsom 

Reservoir.
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.2-5 

Under Alternative 1, excess borrow material would be placed in the reservoir. 

Approximately 65 percent of this material could be placed below the elevation of 

466 feet. Assuming a 15 percent void ratio, the excess material placed in the 

reservoir could reduce storage by approximately 883 acre-feet (See Table 3.2-1). 

This impact would be less than significant because it would involve less than one 

percent of available water storage. Mitigation would not be required. 

Table 3.2-1 

Decreases in Storage from Excess Material 

 Alternative 

Excess 

Material 

(Cubic 

Yards) 

Excess 

Material 

(Cubic Feet) 

Excess 

Material 

(AcreFeet) 

Assume 

65% in 

Reservoir 

(below 

466ft) 

Assume 

15% Void 

Ratio 

Reduction 

in Storage 

(Acre-Feet) 

ALT 1 2,579,109 69,635,938 1,598 1,039 155 883 

ALT 2 3,629,655 98,000,678 2,249 1,462 219 1,243 

ALT 3 3,395,702 91,683,948 2,104 1,368 205 1,163 

ALT 4 2,727,600 73,645,195 1,690 1,098 164 934 

ALT 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Source: (Lessard 2006). 

Alternative 1 would result in adverse effects associated with the interruption of water 

supplies to local purveyors. 

Reservoir operations during and post-construction would be operated in a manner to 

ensure that the timing and delivery of water to CVP contractors would not be altered 

from existing conditions. However, construction of the Auxiliary Spillway would 

potentially affect local water purveyors during construction. The chute alignment of 

the Auxiliary Spillway would cross a portion of the Natomas Pipeline. As discussed 

in Section 3.2.1.3, this raw water pipeline supplies water to the City of Folsom and 

California Department of Corrections water treatment plants, and the Corps' Resident 

Office fire protection system. Approximately 300 feet of the pipeline would need to 

be replaced with an above ground pipeline and would temporarily interrupt water 

supplies. In order to minimize the amount of time water supplies are interrupted, the 

above ground pipeline would be constructed prior to disconnecting the 300 foot 

portion of the existing pipeline for replacement. The interruption of supplies would 

be for a duration of less than one work day. The chute would be excavated below 

the above ground pipeline. In addition to the Natomas pipeline, an 8-inch diameter 

fire protection pipeline and metering station for the Corps’ Resident Office would 

need to be relocated. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure WS-1 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. All other impacts associated with the 

interruption of water supplies to CVP contractors would be less than significant. 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

3.2-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would not result in adverse effects associated with new or expanded 

entitlements or other water resources and supplies. 

Although the proposed raise of the structures at the Folsom Facility would increase 

the storage capacity of the reservoir, this additional capacity would be used for flood 

storage, not for additional storage of water supplies. During construction and postconstruction, water allocations to CVP contractors would remain the same as 

existing conditions. 

Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects associated with new or expanded 

entitlements. 

The placement of excess material in the reservoir could reduce storage at Folsom 

Reservoir.

Under Alternative 2, excess borrow material would be placed in the reservoir. 

Approximately 65 percent of this material could be placed below the elevation of 

466 feet. Assuming a 15 percent void ratio, the excess material placed in the 

reservoir could reduce storage by approximately 1,243 acre-feet (See Table 3.2-1). 

This impact would be less than significant because it would involve less than one 

percent of available water storage. Mitigation would not be required. 

The remaining potential water supply impacts are the same as Alternative 1. There 

would be no impacts associated with expanded entitlements. During construction and 

post-construction, water allocations and timing of deliveries to CVP contractors 

would remain the same as existing conditions. However, there could be impacts 

associated with the interruption of water supplies for water users that rely on the 

Natomas Pipeline. Mitigation Measure WS-1 would reduce impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

The placement of excess material in the reservoir could reduce storage at Folsom 

Reservoir.

Under Alternative 3, excess borrow material would be placed in the reservoir. 

Approximately 65 percent of this material could be placed below the elevation of 

466 feet. Assuming a 15 percent void ratio, the excess material placed in the 

reservoir could reduce storage by approximately 1,163 acre-feet (See Table 3.2-1). 

This impact would be less than significant because it would involve less than one 

percent of available water storage. Mitigation would not be required. 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.2-7 

The potential water supply impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. There would 

be no impacts associated with new or expanded entitlements. During construction 

and post-construction, water allocations and timing of deliveries to CVP contractors 

would remain the same as existing conditions. However, there would be impacts 

associated with the interruption of water supplies for water users that rely on the 

Natomas Pipeline. Mitigation Measure WS-1 would reduce impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

The placement of excess material in the reservoir could reduce storage at Folsom 

Reservoir.

Under Alternative 4, excess borrow material would be placed in the reservoir. 

Approximately 65 percent of this material could be placed below the elevation of 

466 feet. Assuming a 15 percent void ratio, the excess material placed in the 

reservoir could reduce storage by approximately 934 acre-feet (See Table 3.2-1). 

This impact would be less than significant because it would involve less than one 

percent of available water storage. Mitigation would not be required. 

The potential water supply impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. There would 

be no impacts associated with new or expanded entitlements. During construction 

and post-construction, water allocations and timing of deliveries to CVP contractors 

would remain the same as existing conditions. However, there would be impacts 

associated with the interruption of water supplies for water users that rely on the 

Natomas Pipeline. Mitigation Measure WS-1 would reduce impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

The placement of excess material in the reservoir could reduce storage at Folsom 

Reservoir.

Alternative 5 requires such a large quantity of material for a potential raise to the 

dams and dikes that it is unlikely to result in a large amount of excess material. Any 

excess material would be placed at an elevation that would not reduce water storage 

at Folsom Reservoir. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Because an Auxiliary Spillway would not be constructed for this alternative, water 

supplies would not be interrupted. Similar to Alternative 1, there would be no 

impacts associated with new or expanded entitlements and timing of deliveries to 

CVP contractors would remain the same as existing conditions. 
Section 3.2 

Water Supply 

3.2-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.2.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

None of the alternatives would result in new or expanded entitlements or other water 

resources and supplies. Under Alternatives 1 through 4, excess material would be 

placed in the reservoir. Alternative 2 would likely have the most excess material and 

could reduce storage by approximately 1,243 acre-feet. This would represent less 

than one percent of the reservoir storage and would be a less than significant impact. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would result in potentially significant impacts associated 

with the interruption of water supplies to local water purveyors. A portion of the 

Natomas Pipeline would need to be replaced with an above ground pipeline along the 

chute alignment of the Auxiliary Spillway. This would temporarily interrupt water 

supplies to the City of Folsom and California Department of Corrections water 

treatment plants, and the Corps' Resident Office fire protection system. In addition 

to the Natomas Pipeline, an 8-inch diameter fire protection pipeline and metering 

station for the Corps’ Resident Office would need to be relocated. The No Action/No 

Project Alternative and Alternative 5 would not result in any water supply impacts. 

3.2.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measure WS-1 would reduce the significant impact on 

water supply interruption to a less than significant level. 

WS-1: As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, the relocation 

of a 300-ft segment of the Natomas Pipeline to an above ground pipeline would 

temporarily interrupt water supplies to the City of Folsom and California Department 

of Corrections water treatment plants. The Corps’ Resident Office fire protection 

system would also be affected. These impacts to the City of Folsom and California 

Department of Corrections will be mitigated through a temporary, scheduled 

disruption, using a bypass pipeline that will sufficiently meet water demands until 

construction of the above ground pipeline is complete. The 8-inch diameter fire 

protection pipeline and metering station for the Corps’ Resident Office will need to 

be relocated prior to construction of the chute alignment of the Auxiliary Spillway. 

3.2.5 Cumulative Effects 

Of the projects identified in Table 5-1 only the Long-term Reoperation of Folsom 

Reservoir would potentially affect water supply. Impacts of reoperation are unknown 

and would be addressed in separate environmental compliance documentation; 

however, for this cumulative analysis, the impact is assumed to be less than 

significant after mitigation. Other projects in Table 5-1 would not have any effects 

on water supplies. The Folsom DS/FDR could potentially reduce reservoir storage by 

approximately 0 to 1,243 acre-feet which would be considered less than significant. 

No other known projects would reduce reservoir storage; therefore, the Folsom 

DS/FDR’s incremental contribution to the cumulative condition would be less than 

significant. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.3 Air Quality 

This section presents the air quality impact analysis conducted for the Folsom 

DS/FDR alternatives. The analysis includes discussions of the affected environment 

and existing conditions, significance thresholds, analysis of impacts for each of the 

Folsom DS/FDR alternatives, mitigation measures, and cumulative effects. 

3.3.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section describes the area studied in the air quality analysis, as well as the 

regulatory and environmental setting. The regulatory setting is described in terms of 

federal, state and local requirements. The environmental setting is described in terms 

of climate and atmospheric conditions, and air pollutant sources and existing 

concentrations. 

3.3.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The air quality impact 

analysis evaluates the 

existing conditions and 

impacts in Sacramento, 

Placer and El Dorado 

counties. These three 

counties share a common 

boundary point near the 

center of the Folsom 

Facility. The Folsom 

DS/FDR construction 

equipment, haul trucks, and 

employee traffic would 

generate emissions in each 

of these three counties. As 

discussed below in Section 

3.3.1.2, the general region 

of concern when analyzing 

air quality impacts in the Sacramento region also includes Yolo County and portions 

of Sutter and Solano Counties. Figure 3.3-1 shows the air quality area of analysis. 

3.3.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Air quality management and protection responsibilities exist in federal, state, and 

local levels of government. The primary statutes that establish ambient air quality 

standards and establish regulatory authorities to enforce regulations designed to 

attain those standards are the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and California Clean Air 

Act (CCAA). 

Figure 3.3-1 

Air Quality Area of Analysis 

3.3-1 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Air Quality Management at the Federal Level 

The federal CAA, as amended in 1990, is currently comprised of six titles: 

• Title I – Air Pollution Prevention and Control 

• Title II – Emission Standards for Moving Sources 

• Title III – General 

• Title IV – Acid Deposition Control 

• Title V – Permits 

• Title VI – Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Titles I and V contain the provisions that typically address construction projects and 

stationary source emissions. Title I requirements include, among others, 

requirements (a) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

air pollutants that protect human health with an adequate margin of safety as well as 

protect public welfare, (b) to limit emissions from new stationary sources, (c) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality in regions with air quality that is 

already better than the NAAQS, and (d) to develop State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) that establish the steps to be taken to bring areas with air quality that is worse 

than the NAAQS back into attainment of the NAAQS by mandated attainment dates. 

As part of Title I, federal agencies cannot engage in, support in any way or provide 

financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not 

conform to an approved SIP. 

Title V requires that major stationary sources obtain operating permits and pay fees 

that are based on the quantity of pollutants emitted. Title III of the CAA gives 

authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to promulgate 

regulations that implement the CAA requirements. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

As required by the Federal CAA, the USEPA has established and continues to update 

the NAAQS for specific “criteria” air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter 

(PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS for these 

pollutants are listed in Table 3.3-1 and represent the levels of air quality deemed 

necessary by USEPA to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate 

margin of safety. The health effects associated with these pollutants are summarized 

in Table 3.3-2. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-3 

Table 3.3-1 

National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

 Standard, 

 as parts per million by 

volume (ppmv) 

Standard, 

as micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3

) Violation Criteria 

Pollutant Avg Time California National California National California National 

8 hours 0.07 0.08 137 157 If exceeded 

If exceeded on more 

than 3 days in 3 

years Ozone (O3) 

1 hour 0.09 N/A 180 N/A If exceeded N/A 

8 hours 9.0 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more 

Carbon than 1 day per year 

monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual N/A 0.053 N/A 100 N/A If exceeded 

(NO2) 1 hour 0.25 N/A 470 N/A If exceeded N/A 

Annual N/A 0.03 N/A 80 N/A If exceeded 

24 hours 0.05 0.14 131 365 If exceeded If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year 

3 hours N/A 0.5 N/A 1300 N/A If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year 

Sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) 

1 hour 0.25 N/A 665 N/A If exceeded N/A 

Hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) 1 hour 0.03 N/A 42 N/A If equaled or 

exceeded N/A 

Vinyl chloride 24 hours 0.010 N/A 26 N/A If equaled or 

exceeded N/A 

Inhalable Annual N/A N/A 20 50 If exceeded If exceeded 

particulate matter 

(PM10) 24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 If exceeded If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year 

Annual N/A N/A 12 15 If exceeded If exceeded Fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) 24 hours N/A N/A N/A 65 N/A 

If exceeded on 

more than 1 day per 

year 

Sulfate particles 24 hours N/A N/A 25 N/A If equaled or 

exceeded N/A 

Calendar 

quarter N/A N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If exceeded Lead particles 

(Pb) 30 days N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If equaled or 

exceeded N/A 

Source: CARB 2005. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-2 

Criteria Pollutants 

Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources 

Ozone A highly reactive 

photochemical pollutant 

created by the action of 

sunshine on ozone precursors 

(reactive organic gasses and 

oxides of nitrogen). 

• Eye irritation. 

• Respiratory function 

impairment. 

Combustion sources, 

such as factories and 

automobiles, and 

evaporation of 

solvents and fuels. 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Odorless, colorless gas that is 

highly toxic. Formed by the 

incomplete combustion of 

fuels. 

• Impairment of oxygen 

transport in the 

bloodstream. 

• Aggravation of 

cardiovascular 

disease. 

• Fatigue, headache, 

dizziness. 

Automobile exhaust, 

combustion of fuels, 

and combustion of 

wood in woodstoves 

and fireplaces. 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Reddish-brown gas formed 

during combustion. 

• Increased risk of acute 

and chronic respiratory 

disease. 

Automobile and diesel 

truck exhaust, 

industrial processes, 

and fossil-fueled 

powerplants. 

Sulfur Dioxide Colorless gas with a pungent 

odor. 

• Increased risk of acute 

and chronic respiratory 

disease. 

Diesel vehicle 

exhaust, oil-powered 

powerplants, 

industrial processes. 

PM10 and PM2.5 Small particles that measure 

10 microns or less are termed 

PM10 (fine particles less than 

2.5 microns are PM2.5). Solid 

and liquid particles of dust, 

soot, aerosols, smoke, ash, 

and pollen and other matter 

that are small enough to 

remain suspended in the air for 

a long period. 

• Aggravation of chronic 

disease and heart/lung 

disease symptoms. 

Dust, erosion, 

incinerators, 

automobile and 

aircraft exhaust, and 

open fires. 

The USEPA recently approved changes to the O3 and PM10 NAAQS. In place of the 

1-hour ozone standard, the USEPA approved an 8-hour standard of 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm). In addition to the current PM10 standard, the USEPA approved a 

standard for suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

(PM2.5). Although these changes have been approved, implementation of the new 

standards and monitoring of ambient conditions relative to these new standards is an 

ongoing process. 

The Federal CAA requires states to classify air basins (or portions thereof) as either 

“attainment” or “non-attainment” with respect to criteria air pollutants, based on 

whether the NAAQS have been achieved, and to prepare air quality plans containing 

emission reduction strategies for those areas designated as “non-attainment.” The 

Lower Sacramento Valley Air Basin, in which the Folsom DS/FDR is located, is 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-5 

designated as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS, and Sacramento County is 

designated as non-attainment for the PM10 NAAQS, as listed in Table 3.3-3. 

Table 3.3-3 

Federal and State Attainment Status 

Pollutant State Status Federal Status 

O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment, serious for 8-hour average(1)

PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment, moderate(2)

PM2.5 Attainment Attainment 

CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance 

NO2 Attainment Attainment 

SO2 Attainment Attainment 

(1) On June 15, 2005, the USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in lieu of the 8-hour standard. 

(2) For Sacramento County only, all other counties in the area are unclassifiable/attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

Sources: SMAQMD 2006a; 40 CFR 81.305; 70 FR 71776; 70 FR 19844; 70 FR 944.

State Implementation Plans 

Counties or regions that are designated as federal non-attainment areas for one or 

more criteria air pollutants must prepare a SIP that demonstrates how the area will 

achieve attainment of the standards by the federally mandated deadlines. In addition, 

those areas that have been redesignated as attainment will have maintenance plans 

that show how the area will maintain the standard. 

The currently approved SIP for the O3 non-attainment area was published in 1994 for 

the 1-hour O3 NAAQS. Three progress updates have been published since then, one 

in 1999, one in 2002, and the latest in 2006. While these SIP milestone and rate-ofprogress reports describe the changes in emission inventories that have occurred 

since the 1994 SIP was developed, the budgets for the O3 precursors

1

 nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)2 have not been updated. The next O3

SIP is currently under development and should be published no later than 2007. This 

new SIP will need to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour O3 NAAQS by 2013. The 

extent of the non-attainment area for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS is identified in Figure 

3.3-2, and includes all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, and parts of El Dorado, 

Placer, Solano, and Sutter Counties.

 

1 O3 is a secondary pollutant, meaning that it is not directly emitted from sources, but is formed from 

atmospheric reactions of the precursor compounds NOx and VOC. NOx and VOC are directly 

emitted from various mobile and stationary sources. For SIP purposes, NOx and VOC emissions are 

controlled to reduce the ambient O3 concentrations. 

2 EPA uses the definition of VOC to incorporate those compounds that are sufficiently reactive in the 

atmosphere to form O3; the State of California has defined reactive organic gases (ROG) for the same 

purpose. Although minor variations exist in the definitions of VOC and ROG, for most sources of 

concern in this document these variations are negligible and the terms are interchangeable.
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

On November 30, 2005, USEPA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 71776) its 

direct final rule approving ten CO Maintenance Plans in California, including the 

Sacramento Urbanized Area CO Maintenance Plan. This plan provides the CO 

budgets for the next 10 years that will demonstrate continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS. 

Although the area is designated as non-attainment for the PM10 NAAQS, no 

approved SIP for PM10 currently exists. The area has achieved the PM10 NAAQS, 

but the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 

must request redesignation to attainment and submit a maintenance plan to be 

formally designated as attainment. 

General Conformity 

Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires any entity of the 

federal government that engages in, supports, or in any way provides financial 

support for, licenses or permits, or approves any activity to demonstrate that the 

action conforms to the applicable SIP required under Section 110 (a) of the Federal 

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)) before the action is otherwise approved. In this context, 

conformity means that such federal actions must be consistent with a SIP's purpose 

of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 

achieving expeditious attainment of those standards. Each federal agency must 

determine that any action that is proposed by the agency and that is subject to the 

regulations implementing the conformity requirements will, in fact, conform to the 

applicable SIP before the action is taken. The Folsom DS/FDR is subject to the 

Figure 3.3-2 

Federal 8-Hour Ozone Sacramento Non-attainment Area 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-7 

General Conformity Rule since it is sponsored and supported by multiple federal 

agencies. 

On November 30, 1993, USEPA promulgated final general conformity regulations at 

40 CFR 93 Subpart B for all federal activities except those covered under 

transportation conformity. The general conformity regulations apply to a proposed 

federal action in a non-attainment or maintenance area if the total of direct and 

indirect emissions of the relevant criteria pollutants and precursor pollutants caused 

by the proposed action equal or exceed certain de minimis amounts, thus requiring 

the federal agency to make a determination of general conformity. The de minimis 

amounts for the region covering Folsom Dam are presented in Table 3.3-4. 

Table 3.3-4 

General Conformity de minimis Thresholds 

Pollutant Federal Status De minimis (TPY) 

VOC (as an Ozone Precursor) Nonattainment, serious 8-hour Ozone 50 

NOx (as an Ozone Precursor) Nonattainment, serious 8-hour Ozone 50 

PM10 Nonattainment, moderate 100 

CO Attainment, Maintenance 100 

TPY = tons per year 

Sources: SMAQMD 2006a; 40 CFR 93.153.

Regardless of the proposed action's exceedance of de minimis amounts, if this total 

represents 10 percent or more of the area's total emissions of that pollutant, the action 

is considered regionally significant and the federal agency must make a 

determination of general conformity. By requiring an analysis of direct and indirect 

emissions, USEPA intended the regulating federal agency to make sure that only 

those emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and that the federal agency can 

practicably control subject to that agency's continuing program responsibility will be 

addressed. 

Direct emissions are those that are caused or initiated by the federal action, and occur 

at the same time and place as the federal action. Indirect emissions are reasonably 

foreseeable emissions that are further removed from the federal action in time and/or 

distance, and can be practicably controlled by the federal agency on a continuing 

basis (40 CFR 93.152). A federal agency can indirectly control emissions by placing 

conditions on federal approval or federal funding. An example would be controlling 

emissions by limiting the size of a parking facility or by making employee trip 

reduction requirements (USEPA 1994). 

The general conformity regulations incorporate a stepwise process, beginning with 

an applicability analysis. According to USEPA guidance (USEPA 1994), before any 

approval is given for a proposed action to go forward, the regulating federal agency 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

must apply the applicability requirements found at 40 CFR 93.153(b) to the proposed 

action and/or determine the regional significance of the proposed action to evaluate 

whether, on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, a determination of general conformity is 

required. The guidance states that the applicability analysis can be (but is not 

required to be) completed concurrently with any analysis required under NEPA. If 

the regulating federal agency determines that the general conformity regulations do 

not apply to the proposed action (meaning the proposed action emissions do not 

exceed the de minimis thresholds and are not regionally significant), no further 

analysis or documentation is required. 

If the general conformity regulations do apply to the proposed action, the regulating 

federal agency must next conduct a conformity evaluation in accord with the criteria 

and procedures in the implementing regulations, publish a draft determination of 

general conformity for public review, and then publish the final determination of 

general conformity. For a required action to meet the conformity determination 

emissions criteria, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action must be 

in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones contained 

in the applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.158(c)), and in addition must meet other specified 

requirements, such as: 

• For any criteria pollutant, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the 

action is specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP’s 

attainment or maintenance demonstration (40 CFR 93.158(a)(1)); or 

• For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, the total of direct and indirect emissions from 

the action is determined and documented by the State agency primarily 

responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, 

together with all other emissions in the non-attainment (or maintenance) area, 

would not exceed the emissions inventory specified in the applicable SIP (40 

CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)); or 

• For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, the total of direct and indirect emissions from 

the action is determined by the State agency responsible for the applicable SIP 

to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other emissions in the 

non-attainment (or maintenance) area, would exceed the emissions inventory 

specified in the applicable SIP and the State Governor or the Governor’s 

designee for SIP actions makes a written commitment to USEPA for specific 

SIP revision measures reducing emissions to not exceed the emissions 

inventory (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B)); or 

• For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, the total of direct and indirect emissions from 

the action is fully offset within the same non-attainment (or maintenance) area 

through a revision to the applicable SIP or a similarly enforceable measure 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-9 

that affects emission reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions of 

that pollutant (40 CFR 93.158(a)(2)). 

Air Quality Management at the State Level 

The CCAA substantially added to the authority and responsibilities of the State’s air 

pollution control districts. The CCAA establishes an air quality management process 

that generally parallels the federal process. The CCAA, however, focuses on 

attainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) that, for 

certain pollutants and averaging periods, are more stringent than the comparable 

NAAQS. The CAAQS are included in Table 3.3-1. 

The CCAA requires that air districts prepare an air quality attainment plan if the 

district violates CAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, or O3. Table 3.3-3 shows that the 

Sacramento area is classified as a non-attainment area for the O3 and PM10 CAAQS. 

No locally prepared attainment plans are required for areas that violate the PM10

CAAQS. 

The CCAA requires that the CAAQS be met as expeditiously as practicable, but does 

not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the act established increasingly 

stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. 

The air quality attainment plan requirements established by the CCAA are based on 

the severity of air pollution problems caused by locally generated emissions. 

Upwind air pollution control districts are required to establish and implement 

emission control programs commensurate with the extent of pollutant transport to 

downwind districts. 

Air pollution problems in Sacramento County are primarily the result of locally 

generated emissions. However, Sacramento’s air pollution occasionally includes 

contributions from the San Francisco Bay Area or the San Joaquin Valley. In 

addition, Sacramento County has been identified as a source of ozone precursor 

emissions that occasionally contribute to air quality problems in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin and the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Consequently, the 

air quality planning for Sacramento County must not only correct local air pollution 

problems, but must also reduce the area’s effect on downwind air basins. 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for developing emission 

standards for on-road motor vehicles and some off-road equipment in the state. In 

addition, CARB develops guidelines for the local districts to use in establishing air 

quality permit and emission control requirements for stationary sources subject to the 

local air district regulations. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Air Quality Management at the Local Level 

Multiple air quality management districts (AQMDs) and air pollution control 

districts (APCDs) have jurisdiction over the O3 and PM10 non-attainment areas. Each 

county in the area has its own AQMD or APCD. The SMAQMD manages air quality 

in Sacramento County and coordinates with the other districts to develop SIP 

updates. The other districts most likely to be impacted by the Folsom DS/FDR are 

the Placer County APCD, El Dorado County AQMD, and Feather River AQMD. 

The Folsom DS/FDR site may have some operations occurring in Placer and El 

Dorado Counties as well as Sacramento County. Transportation of sand/gravel for 

filter material from the Marysville area would require haul trucks to travel through 

the Feather River AQMD. 

In addition to permitting and rule compliance, air quality management at the local 

level is also accomplished through AQMD/APCD imposition of mitigation measures 

on project environmental impact reports and mitigated negative declarations 

developed by project proponents under CEQA. Specific to project construction 

emissions, CEQA requires mitigation of air quality impacts that exceed certain 

significance thresholds set by the local AQMD/APCD. In the SMAQMD, the 

construction significance thresholds are 85 lbs/day for NOx emissions, and 50 μg/m3

for PM10 ambient concentrations. 

If project construction NOx emissions exceed 85 lbs/day, then a standard set of 

construction mitigation measures must be incorporated into the Draft EIR and 

mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The inclusion of these 

measures allows the applicant to assume a 20 percent reduction in NOx emissions 

from construction activities. If the mitigated NOx emissions still exceed 85 lbs/day, 

SMAQMD’s policy is to charge a mitigation fee of $14,300/ton of excess (greater 

than 85 lbs/day) NOx emissions. 

3.3.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Climate and Atmospheric Conditions 

Sacramento County is located at the southern end of the Sacramento Valley, which is 

bounded by the Coast and Diablo Ranges on the west and the Sierra Nevada on the 

east. The county is about 50 miles northeast of the Carquinez Strait, a sea-level gap 

between the Coast Range and the Diablo Range. The prevailing winds are from the 

south, primarily because of marine breezes through the Carquinez Strait, although 

during winter the sea breezes diminish and winds from the north occur more 

frequently. 

The area of analysis experiences episodes of poor atmospheric mixing caused by 

inversion layers. Inversion layers form when temperature increases with elevation 

above ground or when a mass of warm dry air settles over a mass of cooler air near 

the ground. Surface inversions (0 to 500 feet) occur most frequently during the 

winter, while subsidence inversions (1,000 to 2,000 feet) occur most frequently 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-11 

during the summer. Inversion layers limit vertical mixing in the atmosphere, 

trapping pollutants near the surface. 

Existing Air Quality Conditions 

The existing air quality conditions for a project area are typically the result of 

meteorological conditions and existing emission sources in an area. 

Emission Sources 

Table 3.3-5 presents estimates of existing emissions in Sacramento County. There 

are two main categories of emission sources in any area: stationary and mobile. 

On-road motor vehicles are the major source of VOC, CO, and NOx emissions in 

Sacramento County. Other (off-road) mobile vehicles and equipment are the major 

source of SO2 emissions, and contribute substantially to VOC, CO, and NOx

emissions. Fugitive dust primarily from construction sites, paved and unpaved 

roadways, and farming operations is the major source of PM10 and PM2.5, with 

substantial contributions from residential fuel combustion (all of these sources are 

summarized in the Area-Wide Miscellaneous Processes in Table 3.3-5). 

Table 3.3-5 

Sacramento County 2004 Emission Inventories 

Average Emissions in tons per day (TPD) 

Source Type Category VOC/ROG CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Fuel Combustion 0.59 3.02 3.19 0.04 0.93 0.91 

Stationary Waste Disposal 0.24 0.14 0.04 0 0.01 0.01 

Stationary Cleaning and Surface 

Coatings 5.35 0 0 0 0 0 

Stationary Petroleum Production and 

Marketing 4.11 0 0 0 0 0 

Stationary Industrial Processes 0.88 0.50 0.28 0.03 1.22 0.59 

Area-Wide Solvent Evaporation 13.45 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 

Area-Wide Miscellaneous Processes 4.17 40.69 3.17 0.16 38.29 11.79 

Mobile On-Road Motor Vehicles 29.30 276.07 54.86 0.46 1.75 1.19 

Mobile Other Mobile Sources 12.06 91.23 25.62 0.54 1.77 1.59 

 Total 70.15 411.65 87.16 1.23 43.98 16.09 

Source: CARB 2006a. 

Monitoring Data – Criteria Pollutants 

Air quality data from monitoring stations near the area of analysis are summarized in 

Table 3.3-6. Because many of the stations do not monitor all pollutants, a distinct set 

of monitoring stations was chosen for each pollutant that would best represent 

conditions at the area of analysis, or in the case of ozone, the regional conditions. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-6 

Summary of Pollutant Monitoring Data in Sacramento 

Criteria Air Pollutant Yearly Monitoring Data 

And Station Location 2003 2004 2005 

 Carbon Monoxide 

 Sacramento – Del Paso Manor

 Highest 8-hour concentration (ppm) 4.27 3.15 3.09 

 Days above CAAQS (1) 0 0 0 

 Ozone 1-hour 

 Sacramento – Del Paso Manor 

 1st High (ppm) 0.134 0.11 0.134 

 2nd High (ppm) 0.132 0.105 0.124 

 Days above CAAQS (2) 21 6 14 

 Days above NAAQS 2 0 1 

 Ozone 8-hour 

 Sacramento – Del Paso Manor

 1st High (ppm) 0.113 0.089 0.117 

 2nd High (ppm) 0.099 0.087 0.109 

 Days above NAAQS (3) 13 3 10 

 PM10

 Sacramento – Del Paso Manor

 Highest 24-hour concentration (ug/m3) (4) 54/55 49/52 59/77 

 Arithmetic mean (ug/m3) (4) 20.6/21.8 22.1/22.7 N/A/23.1 

 Calculated number of days above CAAQS (5) 2 1 5 

 Calculated number of days above NAAQS 0 0 0 

 PM2.5

 Sacramento – Del Paso Manor

 Highest 24-hour concentration (ug/m3) 65 51 44 

 Annual mean (ug/m3) 12.2 11.5 N/A 

 Number of days above standard (6) 0 0 N/A 

(1) Days above standard = days above 8-hour CAAQS of 9 ppm. (2) Days above standard = days above 1-hour CAAQS of 0.09 ppm. (3) Days above standard = days above 8-hour NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. (4) Different methods of analyzing monitored data for PM10 are used by USEPA and CARB; therefore, both data are 

provided, respectively, separated by "/". (5) Days above standard = days above 24-hour CAAQS of 50 ppm. Most PM10 measurements are taken every 6 days; 

therefore, the number of days over the 24-hour standard in any year is calculated. (6) Days above standard = days above 24-hour NAAQS of 65 ppm. 

N/A = not available 

Source: CARB 2006b 

Monitored CO levels have been trending down over the last several years. The 

downward trend is primarily a result of the use of oxygenated gasoline during the 

winter CO season. The 8-hour CO CAAQS and NAAQS were last exceeded in the 

early 1990s. The area has attained the standards since then, and Sacramento County 

was re-designated an attainment/maintenance area for the CO NAAQS in March 

1998. 

The 1-hour O3 CAAQS had been exceeded up to 30 times each year at the individual 

monitoring stations shown on Table 3.3-6. The recorded 8-hour O3 concentrations 

exceeded the NAAQS up to 26 times in 2003. Substantial year-to-year variations in 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-13 

monitored O3 levels are common. However, no clear trend in O3 levels is 

demonstrated by monitoring results from the 1990s through 2004. 

The 24-hour and annual PM10 and annual PM2.5 CAAQS were exceeded during the 

monitoring period. However, the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS were not exceeded, as 

shown in Table 3.3-6. 

Monitoring Data – Toxic Air Contaminants 

Existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations are presented in Table 3.3-7 for 

pollutants typically associated with mobile sources. The data were collected at the 

Roseville monitoring station located at 151 North Sunrise Avenue. Most of the TAC 

concentration trends for the past three years are either flat or declining. From the 

concentrations of all TACs monitored at the Roseville station, the estimated lifetime 

cancer risk for existing conditions (without considering diesel particulate matter) was 

approximately 112 per million in 2005. The TACs that are the top contributors to 

this risk level are carbon tetrachloride, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde. 

Table 3.3-7 

Summary of Toxic Air Contaminant Monitoring Data in 

Sacramento (Roseville) 

Annual Average (Mean) 

Concentration 

Toxic Air Contaminant 2003 2004 2005 

Acetaldehyde (ppbv) 0.93 0.87 0.89 

Acrolein (ppbv) 2.5 (1) 1.7 (1) 0.43 

Benzene (ppbv) 0.363 0.278 0.244 

1,3-Butadiene (ppbv) 0.078 0.054 0.051 

Ethyl benzene (ppbv) 0.12 0.18 0.11 

Formaldehyde (ppbv) 3.23 2.12 2.07 

Methyl ethyl ketone (ppbv) 0.07 0.07 0.07 

Methyl tert-butyl ether (ppbv) 0.33 0.15(1) N/A 

Styrene (ppbv) 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Toluene (ppbv) 0.80 2.15 0.80 

meta- and para-Xylene (ppbv) 0.41 0.48 0.32 

Ortho-Xylene (ppbv) 0.15 0.15 0.10 

Benzo(a)pyrene (ng/m3) 0.156 0.135 N/A 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene (ng/m3) 0.199 0.167 N/A 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene (ng/m3) 0.091 0.076 N/A 

Benzo(g,h,i)perlyene (ng/m3) 0.270 0.234 N/A 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (ng/m3) 0.041 0.034 N/A 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (ng/m3) 0.209 0.154 N/A 

Chromium (hexavalent) (ng/m3) 0.053 0.060 0.058 

(1) Reported maximum value. 

N/A = not available 

ng/m3 = nanograms per cubic meter 

Source: CARB 2006b. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.3.2.1 Significance Criteria 

Ozone Precursor Significance Thresholds 

For CEQA analyses, the SMAQMD has established O3 precursor emission 

thresholds for NOx and VOC. The thresholds are based on daily emission rates from 

both construction and operational conditions. If any of the thresholds shown in 

Table 3.3-8 are exceeded, then the Folsom DS/FDR action would be considered 

significant for that pollutant. Only the NOx construction thresholds are applicable 

since the Folsom DS/FDR would have no operational emissions once completed. 

Table 3.3-8 

Ozone Precursor Significance Thresholds 

Pollutant Pounds per Day 

Construction Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 85 

Operational Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 65 

Operational Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 65 

Source: SMAQMD 2004

Other Criteria Pollutants 

Unlike ozone precursors, other criteria pollutants, such as CO, PM10, and PM2.5 do 

not have daily significance thresholds; rather, the pollutants are compared against the 

CAAQS (CEQA) and NAAQS (NEPA). A project would have a significant adverse 

air quality impact if it either causes of an exceedance of a standard (for pollutants in 

attainment) or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air 

quality standard (for pollutants in non-attainment). For the purposes of a CEQA 

evaluation, a “substantial” contribution is defined as five percent or more of an 

existing exceedance. 

Offensive Odors 

Specific significance thresholds are not available for offensive odors; however, a 

project would be considered to have significant adverse air quality impacts if it 

causes detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons. 

Since the Folsom DS/FDR is not expected to have any short- or long-term impacts 

associated with offensive odors, no further analysis was conducted. 

Toxic Air Contaminants 

If the proposed action would emit TACs, such as diesel particulate matter from 

diesel-fueled construction equipment, then the health risk associated with these 

compounds must be assessed. The California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (CAPCOA) and CARB have developed TAC health risk assessment 

(HRA) guidelines that must be followed to judge the impacts associated with TAC 

emissions. If a complete HRA is not completed, then emissions from mobile and 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-15 

stationary sources may be conservatively considered to be significant and 

unavoidable. The recommended significance thresholds for TACs include: 

• Lifetime probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in one million; 

• Ground-level concentration of non-carcinogenic toxic air pollutants would 

result in a Hazard Index of greater than 1. 

3.3.2.2 Assessment Methods 

This section describes the methodology used to develop the emission inventories and 

the comparison of the analysis results to the significance thresholds discussed above. 

Emission Calculation Methodology 

In general, the construction emissions were estimated from various emission models 

and spreadsheet calculations, depending on the source type and data availability. The 

CARB Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) - Version 8.7 and EMFAC2002 (onroad vehicle emission factor model) were used along with emission factors obtained 

from USEPA AP-42 and SMAQMD/El Dorado APCD CEQA guidelines. 

URBEMIS was developed to estimate emissions from a variety of projects such as 

residential, commercial and industrial developments. However, URBEMIS does not 

include specific features associated with dam construction and much of the emission 

calculation relied on other methods to estimate construction emissions. Daily and 

annual emissions for each year of construction were estimated from appropriate 

emission factors, number of facilities and features being worked and the associated 

schedules. The following construction sources and activities were analyzed for 

emissions: 

• On-site demolition and grading (cut/fill) fugitive dust – based on URBEMIS 

modeling. 

• On-site construction equipment and haul truck engine emissions (all 

pollutants) – based on SMAQMD/El Dorado APCD CEQA guideline 

emission factors and estimated equipment schedules. 

• Off-site haul truck engine emissions (all pollutants) – based on EMFAC2002 

and estimated vehicle miles traveled. 

• On-site and off-site haul truck fugitive dust emissions for paved and unpaved 

road travel – based on AP-42 and estimated vehicle miles traveled. 

• On-site material processing plants (assumed to be primarily crushing and 

sorting operations) – based on AP-42 and number of facilities operating 

simultaneously. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• On-site concrete batch plants – based on AP-42 and number of facilities 

operating simultaneously. 

• On-site blasting emissions – based on methodology provided in the Blue 

Rock Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (Sonoma County 2005) and 

approximate size of area subject to blasting activity. 

• Off-site worker vehicle trips to and from the site, including paved road dust – 

based on EMFAC2002 (engine emission factors), Midwest Research Institute 

(MRI 1996, paved road dust emission factors), and estimated vehicle miles 

traveled. 

The following sections provide additional discussion of emission estimation 

methodologies used for each source group. 

On-Site Demolition, Grading, and Asphalt Paving 

The URBEMIS model was developed to estimate construction emissions from land 

development projects. It treats construction in three phases: Phase 1 – demolition, 

Phase 2 – site grading, and Phase 3 – building construction. For this proposed action, 

URBEMIS was used for fugitive PM emissions from demolition and grading (earth 

cut/fill) activities. The earth cut/fill activity is included in URBEMIS Phase 2 –Site 

Grading, which allows the user to select one of four tiers of detail to calculate 

fugitive dust emissions. Movement of dam shell material was treated as grading. The 

volume of shell material for each feature and alternative were estimated in cubic 

yards per day; therefore, the Low Level tier was selected in URBEMIS for fugitive 

PM10 emission estimations. 

On-Site Construction Equipment Engine Emissions 

Both the SMAQMD and El Dorado County AQMD developed daily emission rates 

for construction equipment, which can be found in their CEQA Guides (SMAQMD 

2004, El Dorado 2002). The emission factors compared favorably with the CARB 

OFFROAD model emission factors. The emission factors provided in the 

SMAQMD/El Dorado AQMD CEQA guidelines are emission rate data (lbs/day) by 

year for each year up to 2010. For this analysis, it was assumed that the emission 

factors for 2011 through 2014 were equal to those in 2010. The construction 

equipment emission rates from the CEQA guidelines are shown in Table 3.3-9. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-17 

Table 3.3-9 

Construction Equipment Emission Rates (lb/day) for 2007-2014(1)

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Bore/Drill Rigs 

2007 1.57 13.37 10.85 0.25 0.23 

2008 1.88 15.97 12.97 0.30 0.28 

2009 2.38 20.21 16.41 0.38 0.35 

2010-2014 2.26 19.23 15.61 0.36 0.33 

Concrete/Industrial Saws 

2007 1.08 7.97 7.84 0.29 0.27 

2008 1.08 8.26 7.44 0.26 0.24 

2009 1.08 8.56 7.04 0.23 0.21 

2010-2014 1.08 8.86 6.65 0.20 0.18 

Cranes 

2007 1.44 12.27 8.37 0.23 0.21 

2008 1.44 12.27 8.37 0.23 0.21 

2009 1.44 12.27 8.37 0.23 0.21 

2010-2014 1.44 12.27 8.37 0.23 0.21 

Crawler Tractors 

2007 1.45 10.75 10.58 0.39 0.36 

2008 1.45 11.15 10.04 0.35 0.32 

2009 1.45 11.55 9.50 0.31 0.29 

2010-2014 1.45 11.95 8.96 0.27 0.25 

Crushing Proc. Equipment 

2007 2.12 15.69 15.45 0.57 0.52 

2008 2.12 16.28 14.66 0.51 0.47 

2009 2.12 16.86 13.88 0.45 0.41 

2010-2014 2.12 17.45 13.09 0.40 0.37 

Excavators 

2007 1.84 15.64 10.67 0.29 0.27 

2008 1.84 15.64 10.67 0.29 0.27 

2009 1.84 15.64 10.67 0.29 0.27 

2010-2014 1.84 15.64 10.67 0.29 0.27 

Graders 

2007 1.76 14.98 10.22 0.28 0.26 

2008 1.76 14.98 10.22 0.28 0.26 

2009 1.76 14.98 10.22 0.28 0.26 

2010-2014 1.76 14.98 10.22 0.28 0.26 

Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors 

2007 1.84 13.63 13.42 0.49 0.45 

2008 1.84 14.14 12.74 0.44 0.40 

2009 1.84 14.65 12.05 0.39 0.36 

2010-2014 1.84 15.16 11.37 0.34 0.31 

Off-Highway Trucks/Water Trucks 

2007 3.60 30.62 20.89 0.58 0.53 

2008 3.60 30.62 20.89 0.58 0.53 

2009 3.60 30.62 20.89 0.58 0.53 

2010-2014 3.60 30.62 20.89 0.58 0.53 

Pavers 

2007 1.37 11.62 7.93 0.22 0.20 

2008 1.37 11.62 7.93 0.22 0.20 

2009 1.37 11.62 7.93 0.22 0.20 

2010-2014 1.37 11.62 7.93 0.22 0.20 

Paving Equipment 

2007 1.04 7.66 7.54 0.28 0.26 

2008 1.04 7.95 7.16 0.25 0.23 

2009 1.04 8.23 6.78 0.22 0.20 

2010-2014 1.04 8.52 6.39 0.19 0.17 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-9 

Construction Equipment Emission Rates (lb/day) for 2007-2014(1)

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Rollers 

2007 0.86 7.34 5.01 0.14 0.13 

2008 0.86 7.34 5.01 0.14 0.13 

2009 0.86 7.34 5.01 0.14 0.13 

2010-2014 0.86 7.34 5.01 0.14 0.13 

Rough Terrain Forklifts 

2007 0.79 6.70 4.57 0.13 0.12 

2008 0.79 6.70 4.57 0.13 0.12 

2009 0.79 6.70 4.57 0.13 0.12 

2010-2014 0.79 6.70 4.57 0.13 0.12 

Rubber Tired Dozers 

2007 3.66 27.11 26.69 0.98 0.90 

2008 3.66 28.12 25.33 0.88 0.81 

2009 3.66 29.13 23.97 0.78 0.72 

2010-2014 3.66 30.14 22.61 0.68 0.63 

Rubber Tired Loaders 

2007 1.35 11.52 7.86 0.22 0.20 

2008 1.35 11.52 7.86 0.22 0.20 

2009 1.35 11.52 7.86 0.22 0.20 

2010-2014 1.35 11.52 7.86 0.22 0.20 

Scrapers 

2007 3.64 30.96 21.12 0.58 0.53 

2008 3.64 30.96 21.12 0.58 0.53 

2009 3.64 30.96 21.12 0.58 0.53 

2010-2014 3.64 30.96 21.12 0.58 0.53 

Signal Boards 

2007 1.72 12.70 12.50 0.46 0.42 

2008 1.72 13.18 11.87 0.41 0.38 

2009 1.72 13.65 11.23 0.37 0.34 

2010-2014 1.72 14.12 10.60 0.32 0.29 

Skid Steer Loaders 

2007 0.56 4.78 3.26 0.09 0.08 

2008 0.56 4.78 3.26 0.09 0.08 

2009 0.56 4.78 3.26 0.09 0.08 

2010-2014 0.56 4.78 3.26 0.09 0.08 

Surfacing Equipment 

2007 3.77 27.91 27.48 1.01 0.93 

2008 3.77 28.95 26.08 0.90 0.83 

2009 3.77 29.99 24.68 0.80 0.74 

2010-2014 3.77 31.03 23.28 0.70 0.64 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 

2007 0.65 4.82 4.74 0.17 0.16 

2008 0.65 5.00 4.50 0.16 0.15 

2009 0.65 5.18 4.26 0.14 0.13 

2010-2014 0.65 5.36 4.02 0.12 0.11 

Trenchers 

2007 1.00 8.53 5.82 0.16 0.15 

2008 1.00 8.53 5.82 0.16 0.15 

2009 1.00 8.53 5.82 0.16 0.15 

2010-2014 1.00 8.53 5.82 0.16 0.15 

(1)Assumes an 8-hour work day (SMAQMD 2006b). 

Sources: SMAQMD 2004; El Dorado 2002. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-19 

The emission factors presented in Table 3.3-9 are multiplied by the number of pieces 

of each equipment type that would be used at each of the Folsom DS/FDR feature 

sites for each year of the analysis. The year with most construction equipment on site 

is 2009 for Alternative 1 through 4, and is 2013 for Alternative 5. The peak number 

of equipment on site per day for the peak year of construction is summarized in 

Table 3.3-10. 

Table 3.3-10 

Peak Daily Construction Equipment Counts in Peak Year* 

Equipment Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

Drill Rig 2 5 2 4 3 

Dozers 5 6 6 6 6 

Rippers/Graders 1 5 5 6 3 

Scrapers 14 4 8 5 10 

Excavators 2 8 0 6 1 

Loaders 4 12 7 11 13 

Small Crane 0 3 1 2 0 

Compactors 0 4 1 4 1 

Off-Highway Trucks 12 6 22 6 9 

On-Highway Trucks 12 0 0 0 0 

Water Trucks 1 6 4 6 5 

Total 53 59 56 56 51 

* The peak year of emissions for Alternatives 1 through 4 is 2009, and for Alternative 5 is 2013. 

The construction scheduling estimate for the Folsom DS/FDR is based on a 16-hour 

work day (two shifts). However, the daily emission rates presented in Table 3.3-9 

were developed based in an 8-hour work day (one shift) (SMAQMD 2006b). 

Therefore, the emissions estimated from the data in Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 must be 

doubled to account for the second daily work shift. The results section includes this 

doubling of emissions for on-site construction equipment. 

On-Site and Off-Site Haul Truck Engine Emissions and Road Dust 

The haul truck engine emissions were calculated based on EMFAC2002 emission 

factors for heavy duty diesel trucks in Sacramento County and estimates of total 

vehicle miles traveled per day. The emission factors used in this analysis are 

presented in Table 3.3-11. The average speed for on-site hauling was assumed to be 

15 mph, and the average speed for off-site hauling was assumed to be 30 mph. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-11 

Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors for Sacramento Valley (g/VMT) 

MPH VOC/ROG CO NOx PM10 Total(1) SO2 PM2.5 Total1

15 1.146 5.076 14.181 0.548 0.021 0.473 

30 0.676 2.506 11.147 0.343 0.021 0.285 

(1)PM10 and PM2.5 totals include engine exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear. 

g/VMT = gallons per vehicle miles traveled 

Re-entrained road dust from haul truck travel was estimated for paved and unpaved 

roads. Paved road dust was estimated using emission factors developed by the 

Midwest Research Institute (MRI 1996), and unpaved road dust was estimated using 

emission factors from AP-42 (USEPA 2006). Table 3.3-12 presents the paved road 

emission factors, and Table 3.3-13 presents the unpaved road emission factors. 

Table 3.3-12 

Paved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors (g/VMT) 

Average Daily Trips (ADT) 

Road condition High Low Average 

Average conditions 0.37 1.3 0.81 

Worst-case conditions 0.64 3.9 2.1 

Source: Midwest Research Institute 1996. 

Table 3.3-13 

Unpaved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors (g/VMT) 

 Silt (%) PM10 PM2.5

Lowest 0.56 0.4 0.04 

Worst 23 10.4 1.04 

Mean 8.5 4.2 0.42 

Folsom 5.4 0.54 

Sources: USEPA 2006

The Folsom DS/FDR emission factor for unpaved road dust was averaged from the 

values calculated using the lowest and highest silt contents, which is slightly greater 

than the one calculated from the mean silt content. 

The haul trucks were divided into three groups based on hauling materials and site 

locations. The long distance group was defined as hauling raw material from 

Marysville and Prairie City, for which the roundtrip distances were determined from 

GoogleTM Maps. The off-site group included trucks hauling materials from local sites 

to the dam area, which assumed that all roundtrips were within 15 miles. Both 

exhaust emissions and re-entrained dust from paved roads were calculated for the 

two groups of hauling trucks above. The third group was defined as trucks hauling 

materials internally on-site, mostly on unpaved roads. The round trip distances were 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-21 

determined between 0.5 and 6 miles based on the site map, depending on individual 

construction activity and site location. The round trip distances for each group were 

summarized in Table 3.3-14. 

Table 3.3-14 

Haul Truck Trip Distances and Paved vs. Unpaved Road Ratios 

Haul Truck Group 

Roundtrip Distance 

(miles) Exhaust Emissions 

Paved/Unpaved 

Road Dust 

Marysville/Prairie 106/30 Calculated All paved road 

Off-site Material Haul 15 Calculated All paved road 

On-site Internal Haul 0.5 – 6 Calculated 95% unpaved vs. 

5% paved roads 

On-Site Material Processing Plant Dust 

On-site materials processing was assumed to be crushing and sorting. Emissions 

were estimated using the AP-42 emission factors summarized in Table 3.3-15, with 

an estimated materials processing facility achieving a maximum production rate of 

5,000 tons per day. The emissions were calculated as the total of each process 

emission assuming the total material handled was subjected to all steps listed in 

Table 3.3-15. 

In developing the emission inventories for materials processing, it was assumed that 

prime power would be obtained from the electric utility grid, and that diesel engines 

would not be used for prime movers/generators. It was also assumed that wet 

suppression of plant dust would be required as a condition of obtaining an air quality 

permit; therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR design would include emission controls in the 

materials processing plants. 

Concrete Batch Plant Dust 

Concrete batching emissions were estimated using AP-42 emission factors and 

summarized in Table 3.3-16 (USEPA 2006). The maximum daily production rate 

was estimated to be 300 cubic yards. Since the emission factor is in pounds per ton 

of concrete produced, the production rate in cubic yards per day was converted to 

tons per day with a concrete density of 4,946 lbs/cubic yard, resulting in 742 tons per 

day concrete production. The composition ratio of the aggregate, sand, and cement 

materials in the concrete was estimated to be 6:3:1. 

As with materials processing, it was assumed that prime power in the concrete batch 

plants would be obtained from the electric utility grid, and that diesel engines would 

not be used for prime movers/generators. It was also assumed that wet suppression 

of plant dust would be required as a condition of obtaining an air quality permit; 

therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR design would include emission controls in the 

concrete batch plants. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-15 

Materials Processing Emission Factors (lbs per ton of material) 

Source 

Total 

PM10

Total 

PM2.5

 Tertiary Crushing 0.0024 ND 

 Tertiary Crushing (controlled) 0.00054 0.00010 

 Fines Crushing 0.0150 ND 

 Fines Crushing (controlled) 0.0012 0.000070 

 Screening 0.0087 ND 

 Screening (controlled) 0.00074 0.000050 

 Fines Screening 0.072 ND 

 Fines Screening (controlled) 0.0022 ND 

 Conveyor Transfer Point 0.00110 ND 

 Conveyor Transfer Point (controlled) 4.6 x 10-5 1.3 x 10-5

 Wet Drilling – Unfragmented Stone 8.0 x 10-5 ND 

 Truck Unloading -Fragmented Stone 1.6 x 10-5 ND 

 Truck Unloading – Conveyor, crushed 0.00010 ND 

Source: USEPA 2006. 

Table 3.3-16 

Concrete Batch Plant PM10 Emission Factors (lbs ton of concrete) 

Batch Plant Source Uncontrolled Controlled 

Aggregate transfer 0.0033 ND 

Sand transfer 0.00099 ND 

Cement unloading to elevated storage silo 

(pneumatic) 0.46 0.00034 

Cement supplement unloading to elevated 

storage silo 1.10 0.0049 

Weigh hopper loading 0.0024 ND 

Mixer loading (central mix) 0.156 0.0055 

Truck loading (truck mix) 0.311 0.0263 

Source: USEPA 2006. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-23 

Air Dispersion Modeling Methodology 

This section describes the selection of the air dispersion model and describes the 

basic input parameters and assumptions used to conduct the dispersion modeling. 

Model Selection 

In 1991, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the USEPA initiated a 

joint effort to develop a vastly improved air quality model. A committee was formed 

(AERMIC [the AMS/USEPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee]) to 

upgrade the current models which were developed nearly two decades ago. Much 

progress has occurred in the scientific knowledge of atmospheric turbulence and 

dispersion and so a need had been recognized to update the regulatory air quality 

models based on more up-to-date science. 

The goal of such an update would be to improve the accuracy of these models. 

AERMIC chose to focus on the development of a new model, AERMOD 

(AERMIC’s Dispersion Model), for estimating the near-field concentrations from a 

variety of stationary sources. That is, AERMOD is designed to handle the same 

source types formerly addressed with the USEPA recommended Industrial Source 

Complex Model (ISC3), including sources located in various terrain settings. 

After sufficient technical review, AERMOD, along with its associated preprocessors 

(AERMET - the meteorological data preprocessor, AERMAP - the terrain data 

preprocessor), was submitted to the USEPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards for consideration as a regulatory dispersion model. The model was 

approved on November 9, 2005 [Federal Register: November 9, 2005 (Vol. 70, Num. 

216) Page 68217-68261] to replace ISC3 after a one-year transition period. 

AERMOD (USEPA 2004a) was used to predict the impacts from sources during 

construction. The most recent available model version was used. 

AERMOD is capable of handling multiple sources, including point, volume, and area 

source types. Line sources may also be modeled as a string of volume sources or as 

elongated area sources. Several source groups may be specified in a single run, with 

the source contributions combined for each group. The model contains algorithms 

for modeling the effects of aerodynamic downwash due to nearby buildings on point 

source emissions. The current version of AERMOD does not include algorithms for 

modeling depositional effects on particulate emissions. 

Source emission rates can be treated as constant throughout the modeling period, or 

may be varied by month, season, hour-of-day, or other optional periods of variation. 

These variable emission rate factors may be specified for a single source or for a 

group of sources. The user may also specify a separate file of hourly emission rates 

for some or all of the sources included in a particular model run. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The AERMOD model is capable of predicting average hourly impacts using local 

meteorological data. Lakes Environmental’s ISC-AERMOD View modeling 

interface tool was used to create the inputs and evaluate the output. 

Model Options 

The regulatory default options (which include the use of Final Plume Rise, Stack-tip 

Downwash, Buoyancy-induced Dispersion, the model’s Calms Processing Routine, 

Default Wind Profile Exponents, and Default Vertical Potential Temperature 

Gradients) were used in the model. 

Averaging times selected depend on the pollutant modeled, as each pollutant has a 

regulatory standard with its own averaging time. Only pollutant concentrations were 

calculated. No deposition was modeled. 

AERMOD’s rural dispersion processing routines were used. Although there is 

significant development near the Folsom Facility, the majority of this area is 

suburban residential, with large areas of undeveloped land. Also, the reservoir’s 

effects must be accounted for, and AERMOD’s urban processing routine would be 

inappropriate for this modeling scenario. 

Since construction activities are intermittent (versus continuous), the emission factor 

feature of AERMOD was used to vary emissions. This allows the modeler to restrict 

emissions to only times and days when construction would occur. Since a detailed 

construction schedule was not available, only hour-of-day factors were used. 

Since the proposed action is expected to be completed over an 8 year period, only the 

peak year of each alternative was modeled. 

Modeled Pollutants 

The particulate matter pollutants (PM10 and PM2.5) do not have daily significance 

thresholds. Therefore these pollutants must be modeled and the predicted downwind 

concentrations compared against the California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to determine if an 

adverse impact is caused by the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

It is anticipated that NOx emissions from construction equipment may be substantial 

for all alternatives. Thus, since the NOx emission inventories were above the 

construction significance threshold, modeling of NOx was performed for comparison 

to the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) CAAQS. 

Emissions of SO2 are expected to be extremely low, due to the use of ultra low sulfur 

diesel (15 ppm) fuel on the proposed action. Therefore, modeling of SO2 was not 

conducted. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-25 

Emissions of CO from construction equipment and heavy duty diesel trucks are 

typically not a cause of CO nonattainment. With the continued reduction in CO 

emissions from on-road vehicles due to state regulation, CO concentrations in the 

region are now better than the CO CAAQS and NAAQS. Therefore, dispersion 

modeling of Folsom DS/FDR equipment CO was not conducted. 

Source Representation 

Emission sources were represented in the AERMOD model as best as possible. 

Again, AERMOD is capable of handling multiple sources, including point, volume, 

and area source types. Each actual emission source must be represented as one of the 

aforementioned types. All sources were modeled as area sources. The emissions of 

PM10 and PM2.5 may be dominated by fugitive dust, and were thus modeled as 

ground based area sources. Emissions of the gaseous pollutants are likely to be 

dominated by engine exhaust, which was modeled as elevated area sources. 

Excavation and Construction Sites

Excavation sites were primarily modeled as area sources. These areas were often 

represented by irregularly shaped polygons. Emissions were allocated based on the 

construction schedule, the number and types of equipment expected to be in use at 

that site, and the area of the site. 

Concrete Processing Facilities

Concrete processing facilities (concrete batch plants) were modeled as elevated area 

sources, with a size of 10 to 20 acres, depending on the amount of activity expected 

to take place at each plant. These types of facilities often have tall equipment used to 

mix sand and aggregate and to load the mixture into trucks stationed underneath. 

Thus, there is a significant vertical dimension to the emissions. 

Material/Rock Processing Facilities

Similarly to concrete processing, materials processing (sorting) and rock crushing 

were modeled as 10 acre area sources. 

Roadways

Emissions from roadways located within excavation and construction sites were 

included as area source emissions with 25 foot widths. Although emissions of this 

type are often modeled as volume sources, the number of volume sources required to 

accurately represent the onsite roadways alone would number over 1200, and 

significantly increase runtimes to an impractical level. It will likely be indiscernible 

to the results to model the onsite roadways as area sources rather than volume 

sources. 

Variable Emissions

The workday would consist of two 8-hour shifts. Emissions are assumed to occur 

from 7 AM to (but not including) 11 PM. Thus for dispersion calculations, 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

emissions were factored by 1.00 during those hours, and 0.0 from 11 PM to (but not 

including) 7 AM. Although the construction activity would only occur during 

workdays (Monday through Friday), the model was initially set to process all days of 

the week for the entire year being modeled. If this conservative approach indicates 

that impacts may be above the CAAQS or NAAQS, a refinement to remove the 

weekend emissions may be introduced. 

Receptors 

The Folsom DS/FDR would encompass the southern and western banks of the 

Folsom Reservoir. The reservoir itself is roughly 4 miles east-west by 5 miles northsouth. Receptor placement and grid selection must be dense enough to assure that 

the maximum predicted impacts are obtained, yet within the limits of the model’s 

processing capability. 

The most appropriate way to accomplish this was by performing two rounds of 

modeling. The first round used a single Cartesian receptor grid. A coarse 31 x 31 

point receptor grid with 500 meter spacing covered an area of 225 square kilometers 

(approximately 55,600 acres). This grid encompassed areas to about 4 kilometers 

east of the easternmost work area (MIAD Left Borrow area) and about 4 kilometers 

west of the westernmost work area (Dike 5). This coarse grid also extended roughly 

3.5 kilometers north of the northernmost work area (Dike 1) and 3.5 kilometers south 

of the southernmost work area (Dike 8). Receptor locations in the reservoir were 

removed. This grid adequately represent any pollutant dispersion outside the 

immediate vicinity of any work areas, as well as providing the analysts the general 

location of the highest concentrations in preparation for the second round of 

modeling. 

The second round of modeling included a fine Cartesian grid of 121 (11x11) 

receptors spaced 50 meters apart, and centered on the location of the highest 

concentration value predicted in the first round of modeling. This allowed the 

analyst to better estimate the highest concentrations without using valuable computer 

resources and time to model receptors which are irrelevant to the compliance 

analysis. 

Terrain elevations were included at each receptor. Digital elevation model (DEM) 

data produced by the United States Geological Service (U.S.G.S.) was obtained from 

Lakes Environmental’s online database (www.webgis.com). 7.5-degree data was 

used for all receptor points. The actual receptor elevations will be chosen using the 

terrain processor included with the ISC-AERMOD View interface. 

Meteorological Data 

Proper quality-assured meteorological data is essential to running dispersion models. 

Data appropriate for input to the AERMOD dispersion model was obtained from the 

Lakes Environmental WebMet site (Lakes 2006), unless specific meteorological data 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-27 

is provided by SMAQMD. The WebMet site data for Sacramento is from the 

Sacramento Executive Airport for surface data and from Oakland International 

Airport for upper air data. The dispersion analysis was conducted for one year of 

data. 

A wind rose for Sacramento Executive Airport for 1985 is shown in Figure 3.3-2, 

and is considered to be generally indicative to existing wind characteristics local to 

the Folsom Facility. The length of each line in a wind rose diagram is proportional 

to the frequency of wind blowing out of that direction; and the percentage of calm 

periods is noted at the bottom. The calm periods representing a very stable 

atmosphere are most commonly observed during early morning hours before the sun 

heats the ground and the mixing height increases. 

Output Options 

Tabular output for the highest and second highest predicted concentrations was 

requested from the model for all pollutants except PM2.5; in this case, the eighth 

highest value was requested to approximate the 98th percentile required by NAAQS 

for 24-hour averaging. In addition, plot files were requested so that visual depictions 

of the results can be created. 

3.3.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Emission Inventories 

Emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs would occur during construction activities 

at the proposed site. Typical construction activities including demolition, site 

grading, and Folsom Facility feature construction, all of which would contribute to 

fugitive dust emissions or on- and off-site diesel exhaust emissions. Since no 

operational sources are part of the Folsom DS/FDR action, only construction air 

quality impacts have been analyzed. 

Construction impacts were estimated following the methodology described above. 

Table 3.3-17 provides a summary of peak daily and annual emission rates for VOC, 

NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. In cases where emission factors were only provided 

for PM10, appropriate CARB PM size profiles were used to estimate PM2.5

emissions. Detailed calculation tables that provide emissions by year and by general 

source categories are included in Appendix E. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Figure 3.3-3 

1985 Wind Rose for Sacramento Executive Airport 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-29 

Table 3.3-17 

Uncontrolled Construction Emission Inventories 

Alternative VOC NOx CO SO2

(1) PM10 PM2.5

Peak Daily Emissions in lbs/day

1 207 1,734 1,809 ~1.0 2,341 587 

2(2) 247 1,979 2,151 ~1.0 3,874 910 

3 306 1,969 2,561 ~0.6 2,190 556 

4(3) 262 1,759 2,127 ~0.6 2,688 659 

5(3) 289 2,057 2,291 ~1.0 2,712 669 

 Peak Annual Emissions in tons/year

1 20.5 209.9 293.1 <1.0 239.0 63.5 

2(2) 24.6 251.8 351.7 <1.0 330.1 83.3 

3 32.4 196.9 281.0 <1.0 215.4 56.8 

4(3) 18.9 116.9 156.9 <1.0 264.8 69.8 

5(3) 27.2 161.9 228.6 <1.0 267.4 71.5 

(1) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm S) assumed to be used in all construction equipment. 

(2)

 Alternative 2 VOC, NOx, and CO emissions assumed to be equal to Alternative 1 emissions plus Tunnel 

Construction emissions. Alternative 2 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimated from ratio of peak daily material 

quantities moved for Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1 (for daily emissions) and from ratio of equipment-hours 

per year for Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1 (for annual emissions). 

(3) PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for Alternatives 4 and 5 estimated from ratio of peak daily material quantites moved 

for Alternatives 4 and 5 relative to Alternative 1 (for daily emissions), and from ratio of equipment-hours per year 

for Alternatives 4 and 5 relative to Alternative 1 (for annual emissions). 

Based on the general layout of the Folsom DS/FDR construction activities, it is 

anticipated that 75 to 80 percent of the emissions would occur in Sacramento 

County, 20 to 25 percent in Placer County, and 1 to 5 percent in El Dorado County. 

A nominal amount of on-highway haul truck emissions may occur in Yuba County if 

material is transported from Marysville to the site. 

As was discussed in Section 3.3.2, NOx has a short-term (construction) significance 

threshold of 85 pounds per day under CEQA. Under the General Conformity Rule, 

NOx and VOC each have a 50 tons per year (tpy) de minimis threshold, PM10 has a 

100 tpy de minimis threshold, and CO has a 100 tpy de minimis threshold. The 

emission estimates provided in Table 3.3-17 indicate the uncontrolled NOx emissions 

would be considered significant for the Folsom DS/FDR under CEQA, and 

uncontrolled NOx, PM10, and CO emissions exceed the General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds for all action alternatives. Unless standard conditions for the 

Folsom DS/FDR construction would require control of NOx, PM10, and/or CO 

emissions, a General Conformity evaluation must be conducted for these pollutants. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The controlled PM10 emissions are below the General Conformity de minimis 

thresholds. Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR is assumed to conform to any PM10 SIP 

requirements for all action alternatives. 

The major source of NOx emissions are the on-site construction equipment and haul 

trucks with non-road equipment engines. Control of NOx emissions from these 

mobile sources would not be subject to stationary source permitting requirements. 

Therefore, the control of NOx from these sources will be considered a mitigation 

measure under CEQA. 

See Section 3.3.4 for a discussion of potentially available mitigation options for 

mobile construction equipment.

Modeled Ambient Air Quality 

Table 3.3-18 summarizes the results of the unmitigated modeling completed for 

Folsom DS/FDR, and compares the results to the NAAQS. The Sacramento-Del 

Paso Manor air quality monitoring station was used to estimate the background 

concentration at the site. The maximum concentration for each given pollutant from 

the years 2003 to 2005 was selected to estimate existing air quality near Folsom 

Reservoir. 

The NAAQS background concentration for PM10 is 59 μg/m3 for the 24-hour 

average. Adding the unmitigated Folsom DS/FDR PM10 contributions to this 

background indicates that PM10 concentrations would exceed the current NAAQS 

standard of 150 μg/m3

. Additional PM10 mitigation measures would need to be 

implemented during construction. 

The NAAQS background concentration for PM2.5 is 62 μg/m3

 for the 24-hour 

average, which exceeds the current NAAQS standard of 35 μg/m3

; therefore, the site 

would eventually be designated as nonattainment for PM2.5. The modeled results 

indicate that the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 would be exceeded due primarily to the 

high background concentration. Additional PM2.5 mitigation measures will need to 

be implemented during construction. 

Table 3.3-19 compares the modeled pollutant concentrations with the CAAQS. The 

background PM10 concentrations, as determined for CAAQS comparisons, exceeds 

the current 24-hour and annual PM10 CAAQS. Therefore, adding the Folsom 

DS/FDR actions would further erode the PM10 air quality near the site. The 

background annual PM2.5 concentration, as determined for comparison to the 

CAAQS, is equal to the PM2.5 CAAQS. Thus, any contribution would cause the local 

concentrations to exceed the PM2.5 CAAQS during construction. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-18 

Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Unmitigated Results) to NAAQS

Modeled Concentration Modeled Concentration with Bac

Pollutant

Alt 1 Alt 2(1) Alt 3(2) Alt 4(1) Alt 5(1) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

NO2

Annual(3) 8 10 8 4 6 29 31 28 

PM10

24-Hr(4) 110 182 110 126 127 169 241 169 Annual(5) 7 10 7 8 8 29 32 29 

PM2.5

24-Hr(6) 13 20 13 15 15 78 85 78 Annual(7) 2 3 2 2 2 14 15 14 

(1) Alternative 2, 4 and 5 concentrations estimated from Alternative 1 concentrations multiplied by the ratio of Alternative 2, 4 or 5 em

1 emissions. 

(2) Alternative 3 concentrations assumed to be the same as Alternative 1 concentrations. (3) Reported concentration of NO2 shown is 75 percent of the modeled NOx concentration. (4) The modeled high-8th-high value is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM10. (5) The annual average PM10 NAAQS has been rescinded, effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). (6) The modeled high-8th-high value averaged over 3 years is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM2.5; this method approximates t

See Appendix E for additional discussion of this methodology. 

(7) The maximum annual average over 3 years of meteorological data (1985, 1986, and 1987) is reported as the appropriate annual 

NAAQS. 

(8) Sacramento-Del Paso Manor monitoring station used for background concentrations (years 2003, 2004, and 2005): 

 NAAQS background concentration for NOx: 20.8 μg/m3 (Annual).  NAAQS background concentrations for PM10: 59 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 22 μg/m3 (Annual).  NAAQS background concentrations for PM2.5: 62 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 12.2 μg/m3 (Annual). 

Values in Bold Italics indicate concentrations that exceed the NAAQS. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-19 

Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Unmitigated Results) to CAAQS

Modeled Concentration Modeled Concentration with Bac

Pollutant

Alt 1 Alt 2(1) Alt 3(2) Alt 4(1) Alt 5(1) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

NO2

1-Hr(3) 188 215 188 191 223 378 404 378 

PM10

24-Hr(4) 110 182 110 126 127 187 259 187 Annual 7 10 7 8 8 33 36 33 

PM2.5

Annual(5) 2 3 2 2 2 14 15 14 

(1) Alternative 2, 4 and 5 concentrations estimated from Alternative 1 concentrations multiplied by the ratio of Alternative 2, 4 or 5 em

1 emissions. 

(2) Alternative 3 concentrations assumed to be the same as Alternative 1 concentrations.  (3) Reported concentration of NO2 shown is determined from the modeled NOx concentration multiplied by the NO2-to-NOx ratio obt

 NO2-to-NOx versus NOx graph included in Appendix E. 

(4) The modeled high-8th-high value is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM10. (5) The maximum annual average over 3 years of meteorological data (1985, 1986, and 1987) is reported as the appropriate annual  NAAQS. (6) Sacramento-Del Paso Manor monitoring station used for background concentrations (years 2003, 2004, and 2005): 

• CAAQS background concentration for NOx: 189.9 μg/m3 (1-Hr). • CAAQS background concentrations for PM10: 77 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 26 μg/m3 (Annual). • CAAQS background concentrations for PM2.5: 12 μg/m3 (Annual). 

Values in Bold Italics indicate concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-33 

3.3.3 Significance and Comparison of the Alternatives 

As was discussed in Section 3.3.2, NOx has a short-term (construction) significance 

threshold of 85 pounds per day under CEQA. Under the General Conformity Rule, 

NOx and VOC each have a 50 tons per year (tpy) de minimis threshold, PM10 has a 

100 tpy de minimis threshold, and CO has a 100 tpy de minimis threshold. The 

emission estimates provided in Table 3.3-17 indicate the uncontrolled NOx 

emissions would be considered significant for this project under CEQA, and 

uncontrolled NOx, PM10, and CO emissions exceed the General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds for all action alternatives. Unless standard conditions for Folsom 

DS/FDR construction will require control of NOx, PM10, and/or CO emissions, a 

General Conformity evaluation must be conducted for these pollutants. 

A comparison of alternatives will need to consider the amount of material moved and 

the number of pieces of equipment used in the peak day and peak year of 

construction activity. In the development of alternatives, the details on equipment 

counts and material moved for Alternatives 1 and 3 were further along at the time of 

the air quality impact analysis than the details for Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. Therefore, 

the PM emission inventories for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are based on ratios of daily 

and annual material movement quantities between those alternatives and Alternative 

1. The gaseous pollutant emissions for Alternatives 4, and 5 are based on preliminary 

equipment count information that may not be as detailed as the data obtained for 

Alternatives 1 and 3. The gaseous pollutant emissions for Alternative 2 were 

estimated assuming the tunnel construction occurs simultaneously with the same 

features being worked as with Alternative 1. Thus the peak VOC, CO, and NOx 

emissions for Alternative 2 are the Alternative 1 emissions plus the tunnel emissions. 

The major source of PM (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions is fugitive dust from on-site 

construction activities. Comparing PM emissions between alternatives indicates that 

Alternative 2 has the highest emissions followed by Alternatives 5, 4, 1, and 3. 

Alternative 2 requires the most on-site material to be moved over a given day and 

given year, and has the highest on-site material movement requirement of all 

alternatives, almost 12 million cubic yards. On-site material moved for Alternatives 

1, 3, 4, and 5 over the project life total approximately 5.2 million, 5.6 million, 5.8 

million, and 7.8 million cubic yards, respectively. Thus materials moved for 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are similar, thus the PM emissions are expected to be roughly 

the same. In addition to material moved, the specific construction schedule 

identifying which features are worked simultaneously, how many work days per 

feature, and how many years per feature effect the peak daily and annual emissions. 

The major sources of VOC, CO, and NOx emissions are the on-site construction 

equipment and haul trucks with non-road equipment engines. Control of NOx 

emissions from these mobile sources would not be subject to stationary source 

permitting requirements. Therefore, the control of NOx from these sources will be 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

considered a mitigation measure under CEQA. Comparing the daily NOx emissions 

for each alternative indicates Alternatives 5, 2, and 3 have the highest emission 

levels, with lower emissions for Alternatives 4 and 1. These inventories imply that 

more equipment is needed on the peak day for Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 than for 

Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Please see Section 3.3.4 for a discussion of potentially available mitigation options 

for mobile construction equipment. 

3.3.4 Mitigation Measures 

The emissions of unmitigated NOx, primarily from off-road construction equipment, 

would be above the CEQA significance threshold for construction. In addition, 

unmitigated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. 

Finally, unmitigated NOx, PM10, and CO emissions exceed the General Conformity 

de minimis thresholds for each year of the Folsom DS/FDR construction. Therefore 

additional mitigation would need to be applied to the emission sources. 

3.3.4.1 Stationary Source Mitigation Options 

The stationary sources associated with the Folsom DS/FDR would include the 

concrete batch plant(s) and material crushing/processing facilities. Because these 

plants would be subject to air quality permitting by one or more of the local air 

districts, it is assumed that the following controls will be installed: 

• AQ-1 - Facility power will come from the electric utility grid, not dieseldriven generators and pumps. Using grid power eliminates both the gaseous 

pollutants associated with diesel engines, as well as diesel particulate matter 

which is a listed toxic air contaminant in California.

• AQ-2 - Wet suppression will be used to reduce plant dust emissions. For this 

analysis, the controlled emissions are based on AP-42 controlled emission 

factors for batch plants and crushing facilities.

These controls are included as part of the Folsom DS/FDR design for the stationary 

plants. The emissions for these units will be refined as the design is firmed up for air 

quality permitting and eventual operation. 

3.3.4.2 Mobile Source Mitigation Options 

The standard CEQA mitigation measures for construction equipment emissions are 

(SMAQMD 2004): 

• AQ-3 - The Project Agencies will provide a plan for approval by SMAQMD, 

demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be 

used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor 

vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-35 

and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet 

average at time of construction; and 

• AQ-4 - The Project Agencies will submit to the SMAQMD a comprehensive 

inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 

horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any 

portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the 

horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use or fuel 

throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and 

submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an 

inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction 

activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty offroad equipment, the project representative shall provide SMAQMD with the 

anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone 

number of the project manager and on-site foreman. 

NOx Mitigation Options 

Several mitigation options that may be applicable to mobile construction equipment 

engines to reduce NOx emissions are described below. The specific measures to be 

employed will be based on discussions with the SMAQMD. 

• AQ-5 - Use of emulsified or aqueous diesel fuel. Use of emulsified or 

aqueous diesel fuel could theoretically be applied to all diesel equipment 

operating at the site by making this the only diesel fuel purchased for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. It is anticipated that equipment fueling would occur 

onsite with a fuel depot and/or mobile fueling trucks. It is assumed that 

aqueous diesel fuel would provide a 14 percent reduction NOx emissions as 

well as a 63 percent reduction of engine exhaust PM10 emissions, consistent 

with the control efficiencies incorporated in the URBEMIS2002 model. 

• AQ-6 - Use of equipment with engines that incorporate exhaust gas 

recirculation (EGR) systems. EGR systems would need to be part of the 

engine design for a substantial portion of the existing construction equipment 

fleet in the region to be effective. While EGR systems can provide reductions 

of NOx, PM10, CO, and VOC emissions, it is not likely that enough available 

construction equipment have EGR engines to provide any real reductions for 

the Folsom DS/FDR action. However, the availability of construction 

equipment with EGR systems will need to be reviewed in detail prior to the 

final decision to incorporate or drop this option from the MMRP for the 

proposed action. 

• AQ-7 - Installation of a lean NOx catalyst in the engine exhaust system. Lean 

NOx catalyst filters may be available for construction equipment exhaust. 

However, these units would need to be certified by CARB before being 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

installed on specific construction equipment engines. In addition, other add-in 

exhaust filters are not compatible with aqueous diesel fuel. Therefore, 

aqueous fuel use and lean NOx catalysts may be mutually exclusive mitigation 

options. Again, a detailed review of applicable catalysts and compatibility 

with different fuels will need to be conducted before a final decision can be 

made to incorporate in or drop this option from the MMRP. 

Currently, it is assumed that off-highway 30-yard quarry trucks would be used to 

move material between the borrow areas and the storage/use sites. Approximately 

3,400,000 cu yd of excavated would be moved using these trucks, and emissions 

from these trucks alone represent approximately 40 percent of the Alternative 1 total 

ROG, NOx and CO emissions. Using smaller on-highway haul trucks for this activity 

would reduce emissions for Alternative 1, but would also increase the schedule for 

these activities. For this analysis, it is assumed that the on-highway trucks will be 

used to mitigate the gaseous pollutant emissions from on-site material hauling 

equipment 

Finally, NOx emissions that exceed 85 lbs/day after installation of control devices 

and/or implementation of other administrative controls will be subject to a mitigation 

implementation fee used to control other emission sources in the proposed action 

region. This fee, currently $14,300 per ton of NOx in excess of the 85 lbs/day 

significance threshold represents the final mitigation measure used to reduce the NOx

impact to a level of insignificance. 

PM Mitigation Options 

Fugitive dust control will be applied to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Typical 

dust mitigation measures include: 

• Wet suppression and soil stabilization 

• Wind fencing around active area 

• Paving on-site roadways 

• Truck wheel washing facilities at site exits onto public roadways 

• Maintaining minimum truck bed freeboard or covering haul truck beds 

The Folsom DS/FDR will employ some combination of these measures as 

appropriate for the area and equipment operating on a given feature. 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.3-37 

3.3.4.3 Mitigated Emission Inventories 

The estimated mitigated emission inventories are presented in Table 3.3-20. These 

inventories assume that NOx emissions from off-road equipment are reduced by 20 

percent, and that fugitive PM emissions are reduced by 50 percent. 

Table 3.3-20 

Mitigated Construction Emission Inventories 

Alternative VOC NOx(3) CO PM10(4) PM2.5(4)

Peak Daily Emissions in lbs/day

1 207 1,508 1,809 1,372 383 

2(1) 247 1,704 2,151 2,270 593 

3 306 1,629 2,562 1,284 363 

4(2) 262 1,464 2,124 1,575 430 

5(2) 288 1,873 2,280 1,589 437 

 Peak Annual Emissions in tons/year

1 20.4 170.8 293.1 140.4 41.7 

2(1) 24.5 204.9 351.7 193.9 54.7 

3 32.8 158.9 281.0 126.5 37.3 

4(2) 18.9 95.8 156.8 155.6 45.8 

5(2) 27.1 144.3 228.0 157.1 47.0 

(1)

 Alternative 2 VOC, NOx, and CO emissions assumed to be equal to Alternative 1 emissions plus 

Tunnel Construction emissions. Alternative 2 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimated from ratio of 

peak daily material quantities moved for Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1 (for daily emissions) 

and from ratio of equipment-hours per year for Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1 (for annual 

emissions). 

(2) PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for Alternatives 4 and 5 estimated from ratio of peak daily material 

quantites moved for Alternatives 4 and 5 relative to Alternative 1 (for daily emissions), and from 

ratio of equipment-hours per year for Alternatives 4 and 5 relative to Alternative 1 (for annual 

emissions). 

(3) Construction equipment engine NOx emissions assumed to be reduced by 20 percent 

compared to unmitigated NOx emissions. 

(4) Fugitive dust assumed to be reduced by 50 percent compared to unmitigated PM emissions. 

NOx emissions with all feasible mitigation measures and payment of the mitigation 

implementation fee would be less than significant under CEQA. However the, 

mitigated NOx, PM10, and CO emissions associated with the federal action would be 

greater than the General Conformity de minimis threshold. Therefore, a full NOx, 

PM10, and CO conformity evaluation will need to be developed for the preferred 

alternative (proposed action) before a ROD can be issued for the Folsom DS/FDR. 

3.3.4.4 Mitigated Air Dispersion Results 

The modeled ambient air quality associated with the mitigated emission inventories 

are compared to the NAAQS in Table 3.3-21, and are compared to the CAAQS in 
Section 3.3 

Air Quality 

 

3.3-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-22. These results indicate that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may be 

exceeded, primarily because the existing background concentrations already exceed 

the current standard. The mitigated PM10 concentrations would be better than the 

NAAQS for all alternatives, except Alternative 5. However, the PM10 and PM2.5

CAAQS may be exceeded during construction for all alternatives. Although the 

exceedances are primarily due to background PM concentrations exceeding the 

respective CAAQS, this draft analysis concludes that PM10 and PM2.5 would remain 

significant under CEQA after mitigation. 

Due to the conservative nature of the inventory estimations used in the analysis, it is 

anticipated that refinement of the estimates will be made when the construction 

schedule is firmed up. In addition, more current emission factors may be applied in 

the refinement. 

3.3.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 lists projects considered in the cumulative analysis. Many of the projects, 

including the New Folsom Bridge, include construction within the study region. 

Construction of these projects would increase emissions of criteria pollutants, 

including VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM emissions, from onsite construction and 

transport of materials. If these construction projects are implemented concurrently, 

the combined cumulative effects would be above CEQA thresholds for air quality 

emissions and the General Conformity de minimus thresholds. Each project would 

need to mitigate individual air quality effects, which could decrease overall 

cumulative effects. However, without consideration of scheduling and sequence of 

activities, concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom Reservoir 

would have significant cumulative air quality impacts. 

The effects of the Folsom DS/FDR to air quality would be cumulatively 

considerable. Additionally, mitigated NOx, PM10 and CO emissions associated with 

the Folsom DS/FDR would be greater than the General Conformity de minimis

threshold. Therefore, these incremental effects would be significant under the 

cumulative condition. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-21 

Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Mitigated Results) to NAAQS

Modeled Concentration Modeled Concentration with Bac

Pollutant

Alt 1 Alt 2(1) Alt 3 Alt 4(2) Alt 5(2) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

NO2

Annual(3) 6 6 5 6 7 27 27 26 

PM10

24-Hr(4) 64 64 45 76 112 123 123 104 Annual(5) 3 3 2 4 5 25 25 24 

PM2.5

24-Hr(6) 9 9 8 9 14 71 71 70 Annual(7) 1 1 1 1 2 13 13 13 

(1) Alternative 2 concentrations assumed to be equal to Alternative 1 concentrations. (2) Alternative 4 and 5 concentrations estimated from Alternative 1 concentrations multiplied by ratio of Alternative 4 or 5 emissions t

emissions. 

(3) Reported concentration of NO2 shown is 75 percent of the modeled NOx concentration. (4) The modeled high-8th-high value is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM10. (5) The annual average PM10 NAAQS has been rescinded, effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). (6) The modeled high-8th-high value averaged over 3 years is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM2.5; this method approximates t

See Appendix E for additional discussion of this methodology. 

(7) The maximum annual average over 3 years of meteorological data (1985, 1986, and 1987) is reported as the appropriate annual 

NAAQS. 

(8) Sacramento-Del Paso Manor monitoring station used for background concentrations (years 2003, 2004, and 2005): 

 NAAQS background concentration for NOx: 20.8 μg/m3 (Annual).  NAAQS background concentrations for PM10: 59 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 22 μg/m3 (Annual).  NAAQS background concentrations for PM2.5: 62 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 12.2 μg/m3 (Annual). 

Values in Bold Italics indicate concentrations that exceed the NAAQS. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.3-22 

Comparison of Modeled Concentrations (Mitigated Results) to CAAQS

Modeled Concentration Modeled Concentration with Bac

Pollutant

Alt 1 Alt 2(1) Alt 3 Alt 4(2) Alt 5(2) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

NO2

1-Hr(3) 166 166 186 166 206 356 356 376 

PM10

24-Hr(4) 64 64 45 76 112 141 141 122 Annual 3 3 2 4 5 29 29 28 

PM2.5

Annual(5) 1 1 1 1 2 13 13 13 

(1) Alternative 2 concentrations assumed to be equal to Alternative 1 concentrations. (2) Alternative 4 and 5 concentrations estimated from Alternative 1 concentrations multiplied by ratio of Alternative 4 or 5 emissions t

emissions. 

(3) Reported concentration of NO2 shown is determined from the modeled NOx concentration multiplied by the NO2-to-NOx ratio obta

 NO2-to-NOx versus NOx graph included in Appendix E. 

(4) The modeled high-8th-high value is reported as the 24-Hour average for PM10. (5) The maximum annual average over 3 years of meteorological data (1985, 1986, and 1987) is reported as the appropriate annual  NAAQS. (6) Sacramento-Del Paso Manor monitoring station used for background concentrations (years 2003, 2004, and 2005): 

 CAAQS background concentration for NOx: 189.9 μg/m3 (1-Hr).  CAAQS background concentrations for PM10: 77 μg/m3 (24-hr) and 26 μg/m3 (Annual).  CAAQS background concentrations for PM2.5: 12 μg/m3 (Annual). 

Values in Bold Italics indicate concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

 

3.4 Aquatic Resources 

This section presents potential impacts to aquatic resources from construction of the 

Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

3.4.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.4.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis for fisheries and other aquatic (vernal pool1) impacts includes 

the entirety of Folsom Reservoir as well as reaches of the American River and Lake 

Natoma between Folsom Dam and Nimbus Dam. Fishes residing in Folsom

Reservoir use habitat throughout the reservoir and are not restricted to the area of the 

dam. Impacts that may occur to fish near the dam could affect populations in other 

parts of the reservoir. 

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531 et seq.; 50 CFR Parts 17 and 222). This 

act includes provisions for protection and management of species that are federally 

listed as threatened (FT) or endangered (FE) and designated critical habitat for these 

species. “Endangered species” are defined as “any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”; “threatened species” 

are defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C.A. 

§1532). Critical habitat is defined as the specific areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 

Section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 

management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions 

of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C.A. §1532). The National 

Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) jurisdiction under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act is the protection of marine mammals and fishes and anadromous fishes 

(i.e., fish born in fresh water that migrate to the ocean to grow into adults and then 

return to fresh water to spawn). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the 

administering agency for this authority for terrestrial species (species of animals and 

plants that live on or grow from the land). 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) establishes a 

1

 Vernal pools are seasonally ponded landscape depressions in which water accumulates because of 

limitations to subsurface drainage and that support a distinct association of plants and animals. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-1 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

management system for national marine and estuarine fishery resources. This 

legislation requires that all Federal agencies consult with NMFS regarding all actions

or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect 

“essential fish habitat.” Essential fish habitat is defined as “waters and substrate 

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The 

legislation states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning 

grounds are considered essential fish habitat. The phrase “adversely affect” refers to 

the creation of any impact that reduces the quality or quantity of essential fish 

habitat. Federal activities that occur outside of an essential fish habitat but that may, 

nonetheless, have an impact on essential fish habitat waters and substrate must also 

be considered in the consultation process. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, effects 

on habitat managed under the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan must also be 

considered. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). 

The FWCA (16 USC 661 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consult with USFWS, 

or, in some instances, with NMFS and with State fish and wildlife resource agencies 

before undertaking or approving water projects that control or modify surface water. 

The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that wildlife concerns receive equal 

consideration during water resource development projects and are coordinated with 

the features of these projects. The consultation is intended to promote the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources by preventing their loss or damage and to 

provide for the development and improvement of fish and wildlife resources in 

connection with water projects. Federal agencies undertaking water projects are 

required to fully consider recommendations made by USFWS, NMFS, and State fish 

and wildlife resource agencies in project reports and to include measures to reduce 

impacts on fish and wildlife in project plans. 

State 

California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code (CDFG) 

§2050-2097). This act includes provisions for the protection and management of 

species listed by the state of California as endangered (SE) or threatened (ST), or 

designated as candidates for such listing (SC). The act includes a requirement for 

consultation “to ensure that any action authorized by a state lead agency is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 

results in the destruction or adverse modification essential to the continued existence 

of the species" (§2090). Animals of California declared to be endangered, threatened, 

or rare are listed at 14 CCR §670.5. The administering agency for the above 

authority is the CDFG. 

3.4.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Folsom Reservoir inundates approximately 12,000 acres of the North Fork, South 

Fork, and main stem of the American River. Although the maximum depth of the 

reservoir is 266 feet just behind Folsom Dam, most of the reservoir is shallower 

3.4-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

averaging 66 feet in depth. The reservoir has about 85 miles of shoreline. The waters 

of Folsom Reservoir stratify in the warmer months from April through November, 

with a layer of warmer water known as the epilimnion sitting on top of a bottom

layer of cold water known as the hypolimnion. 

Nimbus Dam is located about 6 miles downstream of Folsom Dam and inundated the 

American River for most of this reach creating Lake Natoma. Anadromous fish, such 

as Chinook salmon and steelhead can access about 23 miles of the lower American 

River downstream of Nimbus Dam but do not ascend the river beyond Nimbus Dam.

The Nimbus Hatchery was constructed as a mitigation hatchery for the original 

Folsom Dam project. 

Habitat within Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma allow for a diverse assemblage of 

native and introduced fish species to coexist. Folsom Reservoir is managed as a 

‘two-story’ fishery, with cold-water fishes such as trout inhabiting the hypolimnion 

and warm-water fishes such as bass and sunfish inhabiting the epilimnion and 

shoreline areas. Two cold water fisheries for rainbow trout and Chinook salmon are 

actively maintained through a stocking program. 

Seasonally wet areas outside the reservoir receive water from seeps, drainages and 

from direct precipitation. Dominant species include pointed rush, Baltic rush, and 

often scattered willow and cottonwood. During the dry season, these areas support 

annual upland vegetation such as non-native brome grasses and other forbs. These 

seasonally wet areas may provide habitat for aquatic invertebrate species. Specialstatus aquatic invertebrate species with potential to occur are vernal pool fairy 

shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and California vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus 

packardi). 

Fish Species Present in the Folsom Reservoir Area 

Native and introduced fishes are present in the Folsom Reservoir area. Native fishes 

occur primarily as a result of their continued existence in tributaries of Folsom

Reservoir and Lake Natoma. Two native species are planted in Folsom Reservoir for 

fishing, rainbow trout and Chinook salmon. The populations of most other species 

are currently self-supporting. Introduced fishes are more commonly found in the 

reservoirs than are native fishes. Most of these fishes were introduced into the State 

as game fish or as forage fish to support game fish populations. Some of the 

introduced fishes may have been unintentionally introduced into Folsom Reservoir 

over the past 50 years. 

Game Fishes 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Rainbow trout habitat use and life history behavior varies depending on where they 

are found. Most stream-dwelling wild rainbow trout reach sexual maturity in their 

second or third year and usually spawn between February and June, depending on 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-3 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

water temperature and strain. Spawning occurs in streams over gravel, usually in 

riffles (a section of stream that has shallow, fast-flowing water followed by deep, 

slow-flowing water).or pool tailouts. The eggs hatch in 15 weeks at 3.5 ̊C and 11 

weeks at 5 ̊C. Fry (small juvenile fish).emerge from the gravel beginning two to 

three weeks later, depending upon temperature. Juvenile and adult rainbow trout may 

migrate into a lake or other downstream areas or remain in the stream defending a 

small home range. Stream dwelling fish feed mostly on drifting invertebrates, but 

also eat benthic (pertaining to the bottom of a body of water).invertebrates, and 

terrestrial insects that fall into the water. Rainbow trout in lakes may feed on 

zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, or small fish. It is generally accepted that 

temperatures less than 20 ̊C are suitable for growth. Mortality can occur at 

temperatures exceeding 27 ̊C, although some fish may tolerate higher temps for brief 

periods. CDFG stocks juvenile and adult rainbow trout in Folsom Reservoir on a 

regular basis. Although natural reproduction does occur in the tributaries, stocked 

trout make up the vast majority of the rainbow trout population in the reservoir 

(Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytcha) 

Prior to the construction of Folsom and Nimbus dams, Chinook salmon migrated 

through and spawned in the American River where the two reservoirs are now 

located. Folsom Reservoir is now stocked for angling purposes with fingerling and 

yearling Chinook salmon from the Nimbus fish hatchery. Juvenile salmon feed 

largely on zooplankton while in the reservoir. The salmon are first caught at 12 to 14 

inches and continue to grow for up to 3 years (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 

2003). Under natural river conditions, these juveniles would smoltify 

(physiologically change in preparation to entering salt water) and migrate to the 

ocean. As these stocked fish cannot migrate to the ocean as smolts, it is estimated 

they experience high stress mortality (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003), 

although a few individuals may survive to become adults. Chinook salmon require 

cold water temperatures to spawn and rear. Rearing juveniles prefer water 

temperatures between 5 and 19 ̊C. Temperatures greater than 24 ̊C can lead to 

mortality in all age classes. Natural spawning occurs in rivers over large gravel. 

However, although adult salmon have been observed migrating upstream of the 

reservoir, natural reproduction contributes very little to the population in the 

reservoir (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). The lower American River has 

been designated as Critical Habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead. 

Brown trout (Salmo trutta)

Brown trout are native to Europe and western Asia. Peak spawning activity generally 

occurs in October and November and tapers off in December. Eggs are deposited 

among gravel in the riffles or pool tailouts of streams. Habitat preferences have a 

high degree of overlap with rainbow trout. In streams, fry and juvenile brown trout 

tend to prey on drift organisms and are similar in diet to rainbow trout except they 

are more piscivorous (eat other fish) as they get larger. In lakes they feed on 

3.4-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

zooplankton or macroinvertebrates. Trout greater than 25 cm pursue large prey such 

as other fish, crayfish, and dragon fly or damsel fly larvae. Preferred water 

temperatures for brown trout are 12 to 20 ̊C. Brown trout were introduced to Folsom

Reservoir as a game fish but are not currently stocked (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd 

et al 2003). 

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Bluegill are native to the eastern United States. They are notable for their ability to 

thrive in a wide range of environmental conditions. Although they can tolerate water 

temperatures approaching freezing, they grow best in water from 27 to 32 ̊C. They 

are usually found in shallow, slow moving water among beds of aquatic vegetation. 

Bluegill are highly opportunistic feeders subsisting on all kinds of aquatic 

invertebrates and small fish. Spawning occurs in spring and summer when water 

temperatures reach 18 to 21 ̊C over nests in shallow water. 

Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) 

Redear are native to the southeastern United States. They prefer relatively deep, 

sluggish, warm water with abundant vegetation. They grow best in water from 24 to 

32 ̊C. Diet consists mostly of benthic invertebrates, especially snails. Spawning 

occurs over nests during the summer. Redear mature later than bluegill and often 

grow quite large. 

Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 

Green sunfish inhabit small, warm, streams, ponds and lake edges and are incredibly 

adaptable to extreme environments. They prefer temperatures between 26 to 30 ̊C 

and can withstand temperatures at least as warm as 38 ̊C. They are generally rare in 

habitats that contain more than three or four other species of fish. Thus, in lakes and 

reservoirs they are usually only locally abundant in shallow, weedy areas that 

exclude larger or less tolerant species. They are opportunistic predators on 

invertebrates and small fish. Spawning activity occurs in spring and summer over 

fine gravel. 

White crappie (Promoxis annularis) 

White crappie, another introduced game fish, thrive in lakes, reservoirs, and other 

slow moving waters. They prefer warmer waters where summer temperatures reach 

27 to 29 ̊C. Diet consists of many varieties of aquatic invertebrates and small fish. 

White crappie build nests in shallow water and spawning occurs from March through 

July. Adult males defend their nests for a short time. Larval young leave the nest to 

drift in open water and feed on zooplankton. 

Black crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus) 

Black crappie are very similar to white crappie in their habitat, spawning and feeding 

requirements in reservoirs. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-5 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

Largemouth bass were introduced into California in 1891 and have since been spread 

to many waters of the state. They are abundant in farm ponds, lakes, reservoirs and 

river backwaters where other nonnative fish are abundant as well. Largemouth bass 

are normally found in warm, shallow (less than 20 feet or 6 m) waters of moderate 

quality and beds of aquatic plants. They are known to survive in isolated pools 

during droughts or in polluted waters, due to their ability to withstand adverse water 

quality conditions. Spawning occurs in spring when water temperatures reach 15 ̊C. 

By the time they reach two inches, they feed largely on aquatic insects and fish fry, 

including those of their own species. Once largemouth bass exceed four inches, they 

usually subsist primarily on fish. Occasionally, adults prefer crayfish or amphibians. 

Optimal temperatures for growth are 25 to 30 ̊C although growth will occur at 

temperatures ranging from 10 to 35 ̊C. Largemouth bass are a popular game fish in 

Folsom Reservoir although they are not actively stocked. 

Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) 

Spotted bass are native to the Mississippi River drainage. In California reservoirs, 

they tend to inhabit slow moving waters in the vicinity of tributaries and hide along 

steep rocky banks. They prey upon a variety of invertebrates and fish. Spawning 

occurs in spring and early summer at temperatures around 15 to 18 ̊C over nests built 

in the bottom substrate. 

Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) 

Brown bullheads are native to a large area of the eastern United States and Canada. 

They are widely distributed and highly adaptable living in habitats ranging from

warm turbid sloughs to clear mountain lakes. In California, they are most abundant 

in larger bodies of water such as large rivers and foothill reservoirs where they are 

generally associated with the deeper littoral zone2

 (2 to 5 m), with mats of aquatic 

vegetation and muddy bottoms. This species tolerates a wide range of temperatures 

and is able to survive in low dissolved oxygen conditions. Brown bullhead feed 

largely on insect larvae and fish. Spawning occurs from May through July near 

aquatic vegetation or large woody debris. 

White catfish (Ictalurus catus) 

White catfish are native to the east coast of the United States from the Hudson River 

south to Florida. They inhabit the bottom of warm, sluggish waters such as reservoirs 

where temperatures exceed 20 ̊C during the summer. Diet consists of a variety of 

aquatic invertebrates and fish. Spawning occurs in June and July over nests on the 

bottom or in crevices. 

 

2

 A littoral zone is the area on or near the shore of a body of water. 

3.4-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 

Channel catfish are native to the Mississippi-Missouri River system in the United 

States and into northeastern Mexico. They prefer to inhabit the bottom of swiftly 

moving rivers although they can live well in more sluggish habitats. Diet consists of 

a variety of aquatic invertebrates and fish. Spawning occurs in summer when water 

temperatures reach 21 to 29 ̊C. Nests are built in small caves or crevices. 

Native Non-Game Fishes

Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus) – CSC 

Hardhead are large minnows reaching up to 60 cm in length that are native to the low 

to mid-elevation foothill streams of central valley and Russian River watersheds. 

They prefer stream habitats with clear, deep pools and runs but can also subsist in 

parts of reservoirs. Preferred temperatures are around 24 to 28 ̊C, which is why 

hardhead are often found near the surface in reservoir habitats. Diet consists of both 

plant material and invertebrates. Spawning occurs in April and May over stream

gravels. Juveniles rear along edge habitats in covered areas. Hardhead do not tolerate 

the presence of bass or sunfish. For that reason they are unlikely to inhabit most parts 

of Folsom and Natoma lakes. Hardhead are more likely to be found in the tributary 

arms of Folsom Reservoir, rivers upstream of Folsom Reservoir or in the flowing 

reaches below Folsom Dam where there are fewer warm water fishes. 

Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis) 

Sacramento pikeminnow are large minnows growing up to a meter in length that are 

native to low to mid-elevation central valley drainages. They prefer stream and river 

habitats with deep pools and cover. They generally prefer waters where temperatures 

reach 18 to 28 ̊C in the summer. Juveniles feed on aquatic insects while adults are 

predatory on other fishes. Spawning occurs over gravel riffles or other shallow 

flowing areas in the spring and early summer. Juveniles rear along edge habitats, 

moving into deeper water with age. Adults can be sedentary or highly migratory but 

are usually not found in large reservoirs except near where large tributary streams 

enter. 

California roach (Lavinia symmetricus) 

California roach are small minnows native to the central valley, Sierra foothills, and 

some coastal watersheds of California. They can be abundant in small, warm stream

habitats where they browse on small benthic invertebrates and algae. They tolerate a 

greater temperature range (up to 35°C) than other native fishes. Spawning occurs in 

spring and early summer when water temperatures exceed 16 ̊C, when spawning 

aggregations are formed. Roach are broadcast spawners, scattering eggs and sperm

over small gravel substrate. Within the Folsom Reservoir area, roach are more likely 

to be found in and around small tributary streams than in the reservoirs. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-7 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis) 

The Sacramento Sucker is a common, widely distributed species in central and 

northern California. They are most abundant in larger streams and rivers at moderate 

elevations. Sacramento suckers first spawn at an age of about four to six. Spawning 

generally takes place in February through June, depending on water temperatures, 

and may continue into July or August in some systems. In streams, suckers spawn 

over gravel riffles, whereas in lakes they spawn along shorelines. Larval suckers are 

found concentrated over detritus bottoms or in emergent vegetation in warm, 

protected stream margins. Juvenile suckers are found close to the bottom in shallow, 

low velocity water along stream margins. Suckers forage on algae, diatoms, and 

some invertebrates. Preferred temperatures are around 20 to 25 ̊C. 

Riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus) 

Riffle sculpin are native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin river basins and are common 

in fast moving streams with rocky substrate and cover such as boulders or logs. They 

prefer water less than 25 to 26 ̊C. Diet generally consists of benthic invertebrates. 

Spawning occurs from February through April. Riffle sculpins have been identified 

in the stilling basin below Folsom Dam (Corps 2006b). In the Folsom Reservoir 

areas they are probably restricted to the flowing reaches below Folsom Dam and the 

uppermost reaches of Lake Natoma. 

Introduced Non-Game Fishes 

Threadfin shad (Dorosoma pretenense) 

Threadfin shad are in the same family as herring and are native to rivers of Gulf of 

Mexico south to Belize. They were introduced to California as a forage fish (a fish 

planted as food for other more desirable fish species). Threadfin shad inhabit open 

waters of reservoirs and slow moving rivers and prefer warm temperatures in excess 

of 22 to 24 ̊C in the summer. Diet consists almost entirely of plant and animal 

plankton they filter from the water. Spawning occurs from April through August 

over any kind of submerged structure. Threadfin shad grow very fast but live only 1 

to 2 years. 

Wakasagi smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) 

Wakasagi smelt are native to Japan and were introduced to California as forage fish 

for trout. These small smelt school in the open waters of lakes, reservoirs, and 

estuaries feeding on plankton. Spawning takes place in April and May and the short 

life cycle generally only lasts one year. Wakasagi smelt are common in Folsom

Reservoir and Lake Natoma. They were the most numerous fish found in the Folsom

Dam stilling basin when it was drained several years ago. 

Seasonal Aquatic Habitats and Invertebrate Species in the Folsom Reservoir Area 

The species discussed in the preceding section occur in permanent waters such as 

Folsom Reservoir and Natoma Lake or the stilling basin. The following section 

3.4-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

discusses aquatic invertebrates that can occur in temporary water bodies including 

seasonal ponds and vernal pools. 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) – FT.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp are restricted to seasonal vernal pools (Eng, et al. 1990; 

Federal Register 1994). The vernal pool fairy shrimp prefers cool-water pools that 

have low to moderate dissolved solids (Eriksen and Belk 1999). This fairy shrimp is 

found primarily in the Central Valley and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada in 

northern California from 10 to 290 meters in elevation (Eng et al. 1990, Eriksen and 

Belk 1999, Federal Register 1994). Critical habitat has been designated for this 

species, but includes no land in the Folsom Reservoir area (Federal Register 2003). 

Fairy shrimp are adapted for survival in water bodies that are transient and their cysts 

(protected eggs) can withstand long dry periods. They require cool waters early in 

the rainy season for hatching and are highly susceptible to contaminants. Dispersal of

cysts is thought to occur by animal vectors, including grazing animals or waterfowl. 

Evidence of seasonal ponding was observed in August surveys in the vicinity of Dike 

2 and south of MIAD, at locations that may be included in the Folsom DS/FDR as 

contractor use areas. Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been observed less than one mile 

away from the Folsom Reservoir area (David Murth pers. obs., as cited in LSA 

2003). Although the seasonal pools within the study area contain less water than is 

typical for this species’ habitat, the close proximity of the Folsom DS/FDR area to a 

known occurrence provides at least a low potential for this species to occur. 

California Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) - FE. 

The California vernal pool tadpole shrimp is a small crustacean found in ephemeral 

freshwater pools. This species inhabits vernal pools ranging in size from 5 square 

meters to 36 hectares. The water in the pools can be clear to turbid and often has low 

conductivity, total dissolved solids, and alkalinity (Federal Register 1994, Eng et al. 

1990). Temperatures in pools where this tadpole shrimp have been found to vary 

from 3 to 23°C (Gallagher 1996). Vernal pool formations occur in grass-bottomed 

swales of grasslands, in old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in mud bottomed 

pools (Federal Register 1994). Pools with cobble over hardpan bottoms also serve as 

habitat (Gallagher 1996). Gallagher (1996) found that the depth, volume, and 

duration of inundation of a pool were important for the presence of this tadpole 

shrimp in vernal pools when compared to the needs of other branchiopods (a group 

of primitive and primarily fresh water crustaceans, mostly resembling shrimp). He 

found that this species did not reappear in ponds that dried and rehydrated during the 

study period, while other branchiopod species did. California vernal pool tadpole 

shrimp needs deeper and longer-lasting pools if they are to persist over a rainy 

season in which both wet and dry periods occur. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-9 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

Potential habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurs within the Folsom

Reservoir area. Because this species requires pools of specific size and inundation 

duration, potential habitat within the Folsom Reservoir area is limited. However, this 

species is known to occur in small pools in the Mather Air Force Base vicinity in 

eastern Sacramento County, and therefore even small pools may supply adequate 

habitat if inundation is of sufficient duration. 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.4.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Potential impacts of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives were evaluated on a qualitative 

basis because 1) details regarding specific borrow site actions, internal roadway 

construction and placement, and types and energy dissipation of explosives were still 

be defined at the time of this assessment; 2) there is limited or no data available to 

quantify population levels of the different species within Folsom Reservoir

generally, or at or near potential borrow sites (Figure 2-1), and 3) impact 

mechanisms are only generally described. 

3.4.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Impacts would be potentially significant if they would: 

• 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 CDFG, NMFS, or 

USFWS; 

• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish 

species; 

• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 

Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 

conservation plan; 

• Substantially change the diversity or numbers of any aquatic community or 

species or interfere with the survival, growth, or reproduction, of affected 

populations; 

• Introduce new aquatic species into an area; or, 

• Cause substantial deterioration or adverse alteration of existing fish habitat. 

“Substantial” in this context means a long-term (3 years or more) impact that can 

be verified by repeated measurement, or would impact habitat designated as, 

“Critical Habitat” by NOAA Fisheries for listed anadromous species. 

3.4-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Of these six significance criteria, only the first, fourth, and sixth apply. Folsom and 

Nimbus Dams effectively stop all fish migration and significance criterion 2 would 

not apply. The Folsom DS/FDR actions would not conflict with any known 

conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation 

plan. The Folsom DS/FDR actions would not be introducing new fish species and 

therefore, criterion 5 would not apply. 

3.4.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

There would be no impacts to aquatic resources under this alternative. Existing 

conditions would be maintained. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on aquatic resources. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have the lowest magnitude of impacts for all activities in 

comparison to the other alternatives (except for the ‘No Action/No Project’ 

alternative) due to the relatively smaller amount of borrow material that would be 

excavated from the reservoir. 

Construction of Alternative 1 would not have any downstream impacts that would 

harm fish, or their habitat.

 

Alternative 1 is primarily a standalone Safety of Dams alternative, and was designed 

to pass the Probable Maximum Flood and address the seismic and static risks. The 

Main Concrete Dam would retain all of its current capabilities. If this alternative was 

implemented, it is anticipated that the features would only be operated once every 

300 years or greater. The fuseplug and Auxiliary Spillway would only operate at a 

point when over 500,000 cfs was already being released downstream through the 

existing spillway. The fuseplug spillway in conjunction with the existing spillway 

could release a total discharge between 850,000 and 900,000 cfs. 

All operations-related impacts would have already occurred downstream before the 

fuseplug would operate. All habitat within the Lower American River Parkway and 

the river channel itself would already be adversely impacted. Therefore, this 

alternative would not have significant downstream impacts to fish, or their habitat. 

This alternative would not have adverse impacts to the coldwater pool, or 

downstream temperatures (water quality). The fuseplug would be reconstructed as

soon as the event has passed. Stockpiles of the material required to rebuild the 

fuseplug would be available for this purpose. Timely replacement of the fuseplug 

would ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the coldwater pool, or downstream 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-11
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

conditions. Construction of this alternative would not impact Critical Habitat 

downstream for listed species. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases would be less 

than significant for Alternative 1. 

Blasting impacts for borrow excavation could harm fish.

Blasting for borrow excavation would occur along the reservoir shoreline and would 

affect fishes in the reservoir in close proximity (kill, injure, displace, or change the 

behavior of these fish). The littoral fish community around the proposed borrow 

areas is mostly composed of exotic warm water fishes such as largemouth bass and 

sunfish. The only special status species known to be present in the area of analysis is 

hardhead. This species is most likely to be found in the tributary arms or their 

upstream rivers and unlikely to be found in the main body of the reservoir. Blasting 

would unlikely harm any special status fish species. 

Direct impacts of blasting on fishes for borrow would be temporary and less than 

significant; no special-status species would likely be affected. 

Blasting impacts for the approach channel could harm fish.

Controlled blasting would also be necessary for the construction of the approach 

channel to the Auxiliary Spillway. The approach channel for Alternative 1 would be 

300 to 500-ft. long, and 500-ft. wide. The last 150-ft would be concrete-lined. 

Material would be excavated from the lakebed mechanically until refusal. The soil 

would be removed mechanically with a clamshell, suction dredge, dragline, or 

another suitable method. Once the material cannot be removed with a clamshell, or 

other means, the excavation would require controlled blasting. The majority of the 

blasting would take place under water. The material that is excavated by blasting 

would be placed on a barge or floating platform, with containment in place to reduce 

or eliminate sedimentation. All material excavated from the reservoir would be 

transported to a containment area onshore, where the material can dry. 

Appropriate methods would be employed to deter fish from utilizing the footprint for 

the approach channel prior to blasting. Once blasting has been initiated it is 

reasonable to assume the any fish not harmed in the first blast would vacate the 

general area. Since blasting would follow the removal of sediment in the footprint 

area, and the area would be highly disturbed, most of the fish would have left the 

area before any blasting takes place. Impacts to fish habitat from the construction of 

the approach channel would be significant, but the impacts would be temporary and 

would only last for the duration of construction. 

3.4-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Blasting impacts to fish within the footprint for the approach channel would be 

reduced by employing appropriate fish avoidance devices, such as a fishpulser, low 

frequency sound, high frequency sound, scare charges, or using a bubble curtain. 

Direct impacts of blasting on fishes and habitat for the spillway approach would be 

temporary and less than significant; no special-status species would likely be 

affected. 

Construction of the approach channel could have impacts to water quality.

 

Previous explorations by Reclamation have shown that there is a thin layer of 

sediment on top of weathered bedrock within the chute alignment. Reclamation and 

the Corps do not anticipate problems with water quality and sedimentation due to the 

minimal amount of sediment that would need to be removed. Construction methods 

would be required to comply with all water quality regulations and would be fully 

permitted before construction can begin. Best management practices and the 

employment of silt curtains, or other containment methods would reduce the impacts 

to less than significant. Section 3.1 provides additional water quality analysis and 

mitigation. 

The sediments within the chute alignment are known to contain elemental mercury, 

as well as other metals. Of the 18 samples that were collected by Reclamation in 

2006, only two reached the threshold of 0.2 mg/kg for mercury. Of all the samples 

analyzed for metals, no results met or exceeded any of the sediment standards, and as 

a result would be suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. 

Sediment containing mercury would be temporarily suspended during construction 

of the Auxiliary Spillway approach channel, but the amount of material that would 

be suspending would be minimal. Regardless, Reclamation and the Corps would be 

required to minimize the amount of material that is suspended in order to meet water 

quality standards. The majority of the material that could be suspended would drop 

out of suspension almost immediately. Unless releases are being made from the 

outlets, the majority of the rest of the material should fall out of suspension within 

Folsom Reservoir. Any material that stays suspended would be minor and would not 

represent a hazard or substantially impair water quality. 

There are also several locations within the reservoir that could be enhanced for 

construction purposes with the placement of material excavated from the Auxiliary 

Spillway. Fill areas would be used for staging, stockpiling and potentially for 

processing materials. Fill material would be used at the Observation Point area, 

Beal’s Point, Folsom Point, and Dike 7. 

In order to avoid or eliminate water quality impacts during the placement of material 

within the reservoir, best management practices would be employed. If at all 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-13
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

possible, material would be placed in the dry. Silt curtains or other physical methods 

would also be employed to reduce to eliminate water quality issues during

construction. 

Reclamation and the Corps would use Best Management Practices for sediment and 

mercury in order to reduce the impacts to water quality to less than significant. 

Direct impacts of blasting and excavation on water quality for the spillway approach 

would be temporary and less than significant; no special-status species would likely 

be affected. 

The alternative could result in staging, construction (borrow development), and 

materials transport impacts.

 

Staging operations associated with borrow site excavation would cause an increase in 

local turbidity as sediment is re-suspended in the water column from blasting 

activity, excavation, and transport operations. The turbidity increases associated with 

these activities would cause behavioral and sub-lethal effects on all fish in the 

localized area. Turbidity increases due to transport or construction staging are likely 

to be localized in space and time and particles would settle out of the water column a 

few hours after the cessation of the disturbance. The littoral fish community around 

the proposed borrow areas is mostly composed of exotic warm water fishes such as 

largemouth bass and sunfish. The only special status species known to be present in 

the area of analysis is hardhead. This species is most likely to be found in the 

tributary arms or their upstream rivers and unlikely to be found in the main body of 

the reservoir. Construction would not likely harm any special status fish species. 

Turbidity increases from construction staging, borrow excavation, and transport 

would be less than significant, temporary impacts. 

The alternative could result in equipment and transport impacts to fish.

 

Borrow site develop to the shoreline coupled with haul roads constructed along the 

shore line could result in vibration effects to fish inhabiting the shoreline. The 

expected response of fish would be to swim away from the area of impact. No longterm health impacts would be expected. 

Vibration increases along the shoreline from construction equipment and transport 

would be less than significant, temporary impacts. 

3.4-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Borrow site lighting could attract fish and increase potential for harm from 

construction activities.

Intense lighting along the shoreline would be needed to facilitate construction and 

excavation operations after sunset. Zooplankton, aquatic insects, and fish of all life 

stages can be attracted to intense lighting near the reservoir. Fish attracted to nearshore light sources would be more vulnerable to harm from blasting or activities such 

as excavation and transport. There is a low probability that special status fish species 

occur in the areas that would be lighted. 

Indirect effects of borrow site lighting would be less than significant. 

Construction activities could lead to habitat modification impacts.

Borrow areas would be excavated into the inundation zone to provide rock for 

construction activities. The borrow areas would be shaped and contoured so that they 

are gently sloped and would drain completely as the reservoir is operated. When 

fully contoured, the borrow sites would resemble broad depressions in the new lake 

bottom (Figure 3.4-1). Maximum depth of the borrow sites would be around 30 feet. 

Excavation of the borrow sites would increase the average depth of the littoral 

habitat in the inundation zone and would locally increase the bottom slope perhaps 

changing some of the littoral zone to deeper, cold water habitat. Currently the 

inundation zone consists of a mixture of weathered rock, decomposed granite and 

other sediment. Only one area near Folsom Point supports vegetation such as 

willows or cottonwoods. Excavation of the borrow areas would change the substrate 

of these areas to newly exposed rock. Newly exposed rock substrate is likely to 

provide less cover for fish and would likely support a reduced assemblage of benthic 

fauna. Over time, the bare rock substrate of the excavated borrow sites would 

weather and become more like the pre-disturbed substrate, and vegetation may 

become reestablished. Eventually the excavated and contoured inundation zone 

would closely resemble its current state. Benthic substrate changes could cause 

localized changes in fish and invertebrate species composition. It is unlikely that an 

overall change in the reservoir fisheries would be detectable. 

The changes in benthic substrate and cover resulting from borrow pit excavation 

would be less than significant, long-term impacts. 

Excavation of borrow sites would impact reservoir bathymetry3. 

Excavation of the borrow sites would reduce local bed elevation by as much as 30 ft. 

This change in topography would change the relative abundance of habitat types 

 

3

 Bathymetry is the measurement of the depth of the water body floor from the water surface; the 

equivalent of topography, or an underwater elevation model.

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-15
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

available at various reservoir levels. At the high water levels occurring during the 

spring and early summer, much of the inundation zone is submerged shallow water 

habitat within the warmer epilimnion. A 30-ft reduction in the bed elevation could 

result in these areas becoming part of the deeper, cooler water habitat below the 

epilimnion when the reservoir level is high. Deeper benthic habitat is associated with 

reduced numbers of warm-water fish and benthic invertebrates in some reservoirs 

(Keast & Harker 1977), although it can also mean improved habitat suitability for 

cold water fish such as trout. Any change in benthic habitat as a result of borrow 

excavation would only be relevant for part of the year since the water level within 

the reservoir varies so widely. Habitat changes could cause changes in fish species 

composition within localized areas. It is unlikely that an overall change in the 

reservoir fisheries would be detectable. 

The change in bathymetry of the inundation zone resulting from borrow pit 

excavation would be a less than significant, long-term impact.

3.4-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 


Cross Section of an Idealized Borrow Site Located in the In

Reservoir Showing High and Low Water Levels and the Location o

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Cross Section of an Idealized Borrow Site_Fig3.4-1.ai 06/13/06 JJT

High wate

BORROW

SITE

Maximum

depth of excavation

30 feet

Low wate

Existing ground level
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

Construction activities may result in alteration of habitat for protected vernal pool 

invertebrates or direct impacts to these species. 

Seasonal ponds that could provide limited habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp or 

California vernal pool tadpole shrimp were observed at proposed construction use 

areas near Dike 2 and east of MIAD. Activities associated with this type of use 

include road access, movement of vehicles and other construction equipment, 

presence of workers in the area, and possibly short-term storage of construction 

supplies and materials. These activities and the associated uses of the area may 

directly impact the seasonally ponded area by physical disturbance, erosion and 

deposition of materials on the surface, and discharge of toxic substances from

machinery. Impacts to these ponds could result in significant adverse effects if the 

ponds were occupied by either of these species. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures AQINV-1a 

through AQINV1c would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Jet Grouting at MIAD could adversely alter the water level or chemistry within 

downstream wetlands.

The injection of grout into the subsurface at MIAD could adversely affect 

downstream wetlands through either a water chemistry change (grout has low pH 

and soluble compounds) or water level change. This could adversely affect wetlands 

ecological health or reduce water levels. Jet grout could re-emerge near or within the 

wetlands, also adversely affecting water quality. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

HWQ-4 through HWQ-8 described in Section 3.1.4 Hydrology, Water Quality and 

Groundwater, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would involve greater borrow activities and the impacts would be 

slightly greater in area and in duration relative to Alternative 1. Impacts from

excavation and construction of the Auxiliary Spillway approach channel are the same

as Alternative 1. The impacts of Alternative 1 to fisheries would still be considered 

less than significant. Effects to vernal pool species would be similar. Alternative 2 

would have the potential for increasing the reservoir pool elevation above normal 

operations during emergency floodwater retention events. This effect is introduced 

below. Dewatering of MIAD to facilitate excavation and replacement of the 

downstream foundation could reduce water levels in downstream wetlands. 

Alternative 2 would have similar potential effects to vernal pool species as 

Alternative 1. 

3.4-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Construction of Alternative 2 would not have any downstream impacts that would 

harm fish, or their habitat.

 

Alternative 2 is a Flood Damage Reduction alternative, and was designed to pass the 

Probable Maximum Flood. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the features 

would be operated infrequently to pass the design flood. The principle features of 

Alternative 2 would be a fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with an underlying tunnel, and 

a raise of up to 4 feet. 

The fuseplug spillway features of this alternative would only operate at a point when

over 500,000 cfs was already being released downstream as described in Alternative 

1. The tunnel would provide a substantially lower level of discharge capacity, 

allowing for the initiation of earlier releases, and maintaining flows at 160,000 cfs or 

below for duration’s equivalent to the 1 in 200 year event. 

All operations-related impacts would have already occurred downstream before the 

fuseplug would operate. All habitat within the Lower American River Parkway and 

the river channel itself would already be adversely impacted. Therefore, this 

alternative would not have significant downstream impacts to fish, or their habitat. 

Alternative 2 would not have adverse impacts to the coldwater pool, or downstream

temperatures (water quality). The fuseplug would be reconstructed as soon as 

feasible once the event has passed. Stockpiles of the material required to rebuild the 

fuseplug would be available for this purpose. Timely replacement of the fuseplug 

would ensure no adverse impacts to the coldwater pool, or downstream conditions. 

Construction and utilization of the features in Alternative 2 would not substantially 

alter current Folsom Reservoir operations and, in general, would decrease 

downstream hydraulic impacts during a severe storm event. Construction of this 

alternative would not impact Critical Habitat downstream for listed species. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 2 

would be less than significant. 

Direct or indirect impacts to protected vernal pool invertebrates or their habitat may occur 

due to temporary or permanent alteration of habitat by a large hydrologic event. 

Under the Folsom DS/FDR, Reclamation would utilize the temporary increase in 

reservoir capacity afforded by the dam raise during extreme flood events to safely 

release water through the concrete dam into the American River. Seasonal pools 

located at or below the maximum capacity after the dam raise may be subject to 

inundation during extreme flood events. Inundation of these pools could alter habitat 

conditions and introduce invasive predators such as fish into naturally fish-less 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-19
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

systems. Inundation may also cause geomorphic alterations to such pools through 

sedimentation or erosion. Such occurrences could result in direct impacts to

individuals and adverse effects to the habitat of this species. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure 

AQINV-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Excavation and replacement of the MIAD foundation could adversely alter the water 

level or chemistry within downstream wetlands.

 

Dewatering of the toe of MIAD to facilitate replacement of its foundation could 

adversely affect downstream wetlands through either a water chemistry change or 

water level change. This could adversely affect wetlands ecological health or reduce 

water levels. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure 

HWQ-10 described in Section 3.1.4 Hydrology, Water Quality and Groundwater, 

would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

This alternative would involve the same impacts as Alternative 1, including 

underwater blasting and dredging for construction of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. 

Because Alternative 3 would increase the amount of spillway site excavation 

compared to Alternative 1, the impacts would be slightly greater in area and in 

duration of construction relative to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would have an 

additional impact related to the extension of the stilling basin downstream of Folsom 

Dam. Impacts to vernal pool species would be the same and would require 

mitigation. Impacts at MIAD would be the same as Alternative 1. The impacts to 

aquatic resources would still be considered less than significant with mitigation as

appropriate. 

Construction of Alternative 3 would not have any downstream impacts that would 

harm fish, or their habitat.

 

Under Alternative 3, Folsom Dam would have four methods of discharging flows 

from the reservoir: three power penstocks, eight flood control outlets (four upper tier 

and four lower tier, all 5 ft x 9 ft), tainter/radial spillway gates set near the main 

spillway crest (five service and three emergency), and six submerged tainter gates in 

the proposed Auxiliary Spillway. In general, utilization of the features described in 

Alternative 3 would involve greater releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that 

closely match downstream channel capacity. 

The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would allow the objective release of 115,000 cfs to be 

achieved sooner in a flood event, and would lessen peak flows fore large, infrequent 

3.4-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

hydrologic events. A maximum flood release of 160,000 cfs, which is the emergency 

downstream channel capacity, would be made through the Auxiliary Spillway when 

necessary based on observed and anticipated reservoir inflows. Emergency releases 

of 160,000 cfs or above would not be made any sooner with the JFP Auxiliary 

Spillway features completed than under existing condition. 

Variations in releases utilizing the Folsom DS/FDR features would not be any larger 

than those allowed under existing conditions. Under this alternative, the same

amount of water would ultimately be released with and without implementation of 

this alternative (due to operational constraints), but operators would have the ability 

to release more water sooner in a hydrologic event. Features of this alternative would 

be operated under existing operating criteria, therefore, the implementation of 

Alternative 3 would not have adverse impacts to fish or their habitat. Construction of 

this alternative would not impact Critical Habitat downstream for listed species. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 3 

would be less than significant. 

Underwater construction activities for the JFP Spillway may result in localized 

impacts to reservoir fishes.

Fishes in the JFP spillway construction area would be exposed to the effects of 

underwater blasting and dredging. Underwater blasting would kill, injure, or alter the 

behavior of fishes in the construction area. Fish not killed outright from the 

concussion may be injured and eventually die or become prey for other fish and 

birds. Dredging would create additional disturbance, increase local turbidity and 

underwater noise as the blasted rubble is removed. The additional effects of dredging 

on the fish population would be minimal if dredging occurs within hours to days 

after blasting. Construction of the JFP spillway would displace some of the habitat 

that is presently used by fish in the reservoir. 

The impacts to water quality would be slightly greater for this alternative than 

Alternatives 1 and 2, due to the length of the approach. The base of the approach 

channel would vary in width from about 330 feet (at the upstream end) to 168 feet 

wide (just upstream of gate structure), and would be about 900-ft long. 

The disturbance from blasting and dredging would be a less than significant, shortterm impact. The loss of habitat from the reservoir would be a less than significant 

long-term impact. 

Dewatering the Stilling Basin would displace and potentially harm fish.

 

The Stilling Basin must be dewatered while extension work is being performed. 

Because there is no fish stocking program for the Stilling Basin, the fish (primary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-21
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

non-native and exotics) inhabiting the facility most likely were transported through 

the Folsom Dam river outlets. Dewatering of the stilling basin could result in the 

harm or death of some native fish, such as riffle sculpin, that are known to occur 

there (Corps 2006b). However, special status species are unlikely to be present as 

there is no mechanism for them to be present. Because it would not be possible to 

remove all fish prior to dewatering, some fish loss would be expected. A fish 

recovery plan would be implemented to minimize this impact (see Mitigation 

Measure Fish-1). 

The impact of dewatering of stilling basin for extension work would be less than 

significant for special status fish species. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

This alternative would involve the same construction impacts as Alternative 2 and 

Stilling Basin impacts as Alternative 3. However, because Alternative 4 would 

increase the amount of borrow excavation compared to Alternative 2, the impacts 

would be slightly greater in area and in duration of construction relative to 

Alternative 3. Impacts to fish populations would still be considered less than 

significant with appropriate mitigation. Impacts to vernal pool species would be the 

same and would require mitigation. 

Construction of Alternative4 would have no downstream impacts that would harm 

fish, or their habitat.

 

Alternative 4 would provide Folsom Dam with the same four methods of discharging 

water as Alternative 3. In general, utilization of the features described in Alternative 

4 would involve greater releases earlier in a major hydrologic event that closely 

match downstream channel capacity. The new Auxiliary Spillway would allow the 

objective release of 115,000 cfs to be achieved sooner in a flood event, and would 

lessen peak flows fore large, infrequent hydrologic events. A maximum flood release 

of 160,000 cfs, which is the emergency downstream channel capacity, would be 

made through the new Auxiliary Spillway when necessary based on observed and 

anticipated reservoir inflows. 

Emergency releases of 160,000 cfs or above would not be made any sooner with the 

Folsom DS/FDR features than under existing conditions. Variations in releases 

utilizing Folsom DS/FDR features would not be any larger than those allowed under 

the existing conditions. Under this scenario, the same amount of water would 

ultimately be released with and without the Folsom DS/FDR features (due to 

operational constraints), but operators would have the ability to release more water 

sooner in a hydrologic event. The features would be operated under existing 

operating criteria, therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to fish or their 

habitat due to the implementation of Alternative 4. Construction of this alternative 

would not impact Critical Habitat downstream for listed species. 

3.4-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 4 

would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5

This alternative would have substantially greater impacts than Alternative 4 due to 

the need to fully develop all in-reservoir borrow sites. Because a new Auxiliary 

Spillway would not be constructed, there would be no borrow material coming from

that site. The impacts would be greater in the area within and along the shoreline and 

in duration of construction relative to Alternative 4, but would still be considered 

less than significant with appropriate mitigation. Vernal pool and MIAD impacts 

would be the same as for Alternative 4. 

Construction of Alternative 5 would not have any downstream impacts that would 

harm fish, or their habitat.

 

The 17-ft raise would be designed to contain a large storm event and pass it without 

overtopping the downstream levees. Variations in releases utilizing Folsom DS/FDR 

features would not be any larger than those allowed under existing conditions. In 

addition, the top of the flood control pool would be raised to increase the flood 

storage space. Alternative 5 would allow the reservoir to hold more flood water and 

would allow a substantially larger timeframe for the evacuation of downstream

communities. 

Downstream impacts would remain the same as the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. The implementation of Alternative 5 would not have adverse 

downstream impacts to fish or their habitat. Releases would be made according to 

the Interim Flood Control Diagram. Construction of this alternative would not 

impact Critical Habitat downstream for listed species. 

Downstream impacts from reservoir operations and flood releases for Alternative 5 

would be less than significant. 

3.4.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no impact on fisheries resources. 

The action alternatives described above would all have several identifiable impacts, 

but all would be considered “less than significant”, except for vernal pool habitat and 

potential impacts to MIAD wetlands. Therefore, the differences between the overall 

impacts of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives have to do with the relative magnitude 

of the “less than significant” adverse impacts. These adverse impacts are provided in 

Table 3.4-1 with the provision that impacts associated with borrow site excavation 

would tend to increase between Alternative 1 and 5 as borrow volumes increase. 

Prior to applying mitigation measures, there would be significant impacts to vernal

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-23
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

pool habitats and species. However, with mitigation, these impacts would be reduced

to less than significant under all alternatives. 

Table 3.4-1 

Comparison of Folsom Dam Raise Impacts for Fisheries and Vernal Pool Species 

(relative level of impacts increase from Alt 1 to Alt 5) 

Alternative 

Affected Resource and

Area of Potential Impact 

No Action 

Compared to

Existing 

Conditions

1 2 3 4 5

Impact

1. Blasting N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

2. Turbidity N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

3. Vibration N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

4. Lighting N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

5. Substrate Change at Borrow

Sites N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

6. Depth Change at Borrow Sites N LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A LS, A 

7. Fuseplug Spillway N LS, A LS, A N N N 

8. JFP Spillway N N N LS, A LA, A N 

9. Dewatering Stilling Basin N N N LS, A LS, A LS, A 

10. Direct or indirect impacts to 

protected vernal pool 

invertebrates or their habitat 

due to temporary or 

permanent alteration of habitat 

by construction activities. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

11. Direct or indirect impacts 

protected vernal pool 

invertebrates or their habitat 

due to temporary flooding of 

habitat by a large hydrologic 

event. 

N N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

12. Direct or indirect impacts to 

MIAD wetlands due to release

of jet grout mixture into 

emergent groundwater 

N SM, A N SM, A SM, A N 

13. Direct or indirect impacts to 

MIAD wetlands due to 

dewatering of groundwater to

facilitate foundation 

replacement. 

N N SM, A N N SM, A 

Key:

SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact (CEQA) 

SM = Significant but mitigable Impact (CEQA) 

LS, A = Less than Significant Impact (CEQA) 

N = No Impact (CEQA, NEPA) 

B = Beneficial Impact (NEPA) 

A = Adverse Impact (NEPA)

3.4.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQINV-1a, AQINV-1b, and AQINV-1c, 

would reduce impacts to aquatic resources to a less than significant level. 

3.4-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

 

AQINV-1a: Protocol surveys for special-status branchiopods will be completed prior 

to any grading or other construction activities in potential habitat for these species. 

AQINV-1b: Potential vernal pool habitat will be avoided (preserved) by placing 

fencing and a suitable buffer area around the vernal pool area to prevent effects from

vehicles and other construction-related activities. For vernal pool habitat that is to be 

avoided, an approved biologist (monitor) will inspect construction-related activities 

to ensure that no unnecessary take or destruction of habitat occurs. The biologist will 

contact the construction representative who has the authority to stop activities that 

may result in such take or destruction until corrective measures have been taken. The 

biologist will also be required to report immediately any unauthorized effects to 

Reclamation or the Corps, and to the USFWS and CDFG. 

AQINV-1c: On-site construction personnel will receive instruction (from

Reclamation, Corps, or trained representative) regarding the potential presence of 

listed species and the importance of avoiding impacts. 

AQINV-1d: Adverse impacts to potential vernal pool habitat in the Folsom DS/FDR 

footprint will be compensated in a manner agreed upon by the responsible Federal 

agency and the USFWS. For example, for habitat that is directly or indirectly 

affected, vernal pool credits will be dedicated within a USFWS-approved ecosystem

preservation bank. Based on a USFWS evaluation of conservation values of the 

affected habitat, vernal pool habitat will be preserved, or created and monitored, on 

the Folsom DS/FDR site, or on another non-bank site approved by the USFWS. 

Vernal pool habitat and associated upland habitat used as on-site mitigation will be 

protected from adverse effects and managed in perpetuity or until the responsible 

Federal agency and USFWS agree on a process to exchange such areas for credits 

within a USFWS-approved mitigation banking system. 

AQINV-1e: Effects caused by emergency retention of floodwaters will be minimized 

by conducting baseline surveys below the maximum potential surface elevation. 

Protocol surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp and California vernal pool tadpole 

shrimp will be conducted by a USFWS-approved biologist at seasonal pools capable 

of supporting these vernal pool species. 

• If these vernal pool species are not found, no additional minimization measures 

will be required. 

• If vernal pool fairy shrimp and/or California vernal pool tadpole shrimp are 

found, sites supporting populations will be recorded. 

• Following a large hydrologic event that temporarily increases Folsom reservoir 

surface elevation above the normal operations maximum, affected pools 

supporting vernal pool fairy shrimp and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.4-25
Section 3.4 

Aquatic Resources 

populations will be again surveyed by an approved biologist for 

presence/absence, and the responsible Federal agency will re-initiated 

consultation with the USFWS if necessary or appropriate. 

AQINV-2: In the event of emergency operations, supplemental environmental 

compliance will be completed. It is anticipated that surveys would be completed after 

the event. Based on the results of these surveys, formal Section 7 consultation would 

be reinitiated by the responsible federal agency. 

FISH-1: A fish removal plan will be developed prior to dewatering of the existing 

Stilling Basin and implemented at the time of dewatering. 

3.4.5 Cumulative Effects 

The following analysis evaluates the impacts of the Folsom DS/FDR actions when 

considered together with related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 

Of the cumulative projects described in Chapter 5, only the Folsom Bridge Project is 

relevant to the evaluation presented herein. All of the other projects are located away

from the Reservoir and, therefore, would not contribute to impacts to aquatic 

resources. 

The Folsom Bridge Project is expected to result in limited impacts to fishery 

resources, in part in areas also potentially affected by the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects of the Folsom Bridge Project and the Folsom

DS/FDR actions would not be cumulatively considerable for fishery resources in 

general. 

The DEIS/EIR for the Folsom Bridge Project (Corps 2006b) found there would be no 

adverse effects to the vernal pool fairy shrimp, or the California vernal pool tadpole 

shrimp from any of the alternatives evaluated for that project because “...no suitable 

habitat for special-status reptiles, amphibians, or invertebrates was noted during the 

wetland delineation for the proposed project”. 

Therefore, the effects of this project in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions would not be cumulatively considerable for fisheries resources or aquatic 

invertebrates in general or for special-status invertebrates. 

3.4-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-1 

3.12 Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

This section discusses existing land uses, local General Plan Land Use designations 

and Zoning, and non-Federal land that could potentially be affected by the Folsom 

DS/FDR action. The Folsom DS/FDR action proposes construction modifications to 

the Folsom Facility. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description and Project 

Alternatives, this includes a variety of improvements to dams, dikes and spillways 

within El Dorado, Placer and Sacramento Counties. Portions of the Folsom Lake 

State Recreation Area are within Placer, Sacramento and El Dorado Counties. The 

City of Folsom directly abuts the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area to the south 

within Sacramento County. Folsom State Prison/California State Prison, Sacramento 

is adjacent to the project area within the City of Folsom. 

3.12.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section presents existing land uses and local General Plan Land Use 

designations and Zoning in the area around the Folsom Facility. It also includes 

properties and neighborhoods in or adjacent to proposed transportation haul routes. 

The project construction area and haul routes are defined in Chapter 2. 

The affected environment includes many public recreation uses within the study 

area. This Land Use Section describes the various public recreation uses in general 

terms. A full analysis of the Folsom DS/FDR’s impacts on recreation uses is 

included in Section 3.13, Recreation Resources. 

3.12.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis is broken down into various federal, state, county and city 

jurisdictions. These include: Folsom Dam, jointly managed by Reclamation and the 

Corps; Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, owned by Reclamation and managed 

under a lease by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR); and 

adjacent local jurisdictions of Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties and the 

City of Folsom, through which material would be transported. Figure 3.12-1 shows 

Folsom Reservoir and adjacent jurisdictions. 

3.12.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

The Folsom Lake State Recreation Area is managed by DPR in accordance with the 

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area General Plan. An update to the Folsom Lake 

State Recreation Area General Plan (1979) is currently being prepared by CDPR in 

partnership with Reclamation, and with a substantial amount of public participation. 

Since 1976, DPR has managed the land by lease or contract with Reclamation for the 

purpose of providing recreation opportunities to the public. The Folsom Lake State 
Placer

County

El Dorado

County

Sacramento

County

City of Folsom Surrounding

Folsom DS/FDR Area



Figure 3.12-1

Folsom Reservoir and Adjacent Jurisdiction

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Folsom Lake and Adjacent Jurisdiction_Fig3.12-1.ai 11/16/06 JJT

Folsom

Reservoir

N

MILES

0 1 mile
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-3 

Recreation Area General Plan discusses management of various environmental 

resources including: vegetation, wildlife, geology, soils, cultural resources, and land 

use. Tree removal policies are also included within the General Plan. The Land Use 

Element of the General Plan discusses planning concepts for General Land Use, 

Transportation and Circulation, Water Use, Recreational Opportunities, 

Interpretation and Acquisition as they apply to recreational uses at Folsom Reservoir 

(DPR 1979). 

Placer County has jurisdiction over a portion of the affected environment. Several 

planning documents pertain to this area. These documents include: Placer County 

General Plan, Placer County Zoning Ordinance, Placer County Tree Preservation 

Ordinance, and Granite Bay Community Plan. The General Plan Draft EIR was also 

reviewed for information. 

Several planning documents pertain to the El Dorado County portion of the study 

area and include: El Dorado County General Plan, El Dorado County Zoning 

Ordinance, El Dorado County Interim Interpretive Guidelines for General Plan 

Policy 7.4.4.4 – Forest and Oak Woodland Resources (Public Review Draft), and 

Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan. The General Plan Draft EIR was also 

reviewed for information. 

A portion of the Folsom DS/FDR study area is within Sacramento County; however, 

this portion of the study area falls entirely within the City of Folsom. Therefore, 

Sacramento County planning agencies do not have jurisdiction within the Folsom 

DS/FDR study area. 

City of Folsom planning documents pertaining to the Folsom DS/FDR study area 

include: City of Folsom General Plan, City of Folsom Zoning Ordinance, and City of 

Folsom Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Folsom General Plan Draft EIR was also 

reviewed for information. 

3.12.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Folsom Reservoir and Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

The primary land uses within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area are recreation, 

flood management, water supply, and power generation. Recreation land uses are 

managed by DPR and include: water-related activities such as swimming, boating, 

fishing, waterskiing, and windsurfing; and non-water-related activities such as 

camping, hiking, mountain biking, the American River Bikeway, horseback riding, 

and picnicking. The park includes many facilities throughout all areas providing for 

boat launching and marina storage, day-use parking, camping areas, public restrooms 

and chemical toilets, equestrian staging areas, riding and hiking trails, bicycle trails, 

picnic areas with barbecues, and the Park Headquarters near the main dam. A paved 

road provides access throughout the park and to Folsom Reservoir (Wallace, 

Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The Folsom Lake State Recreation Area General Plan is the key planning document 

for this area. DPR is currently in the process of updating the Folsom Lake State 

Recreation Area General Plan and Resource Management Plan. Information from the 

Draft Resource Inventory for the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, April 2003 has 

been used for preparation of this section. 

Placer County 

The western portion of Folsom Reservoir is within Placer County from below Beal's 

Point at the southern end and includes approximately 15 miles of the western portion 

of the North Fork American River up to the City of Auburn. Several unincorporated 

communities exist adjacent to Folsom Reservoir. These include Granite Bay, 

Horseshoe Bar, Penryn, and Newcastle. According to the Placer County General 

Plan, adjacent generalized land uses to Folsom Reservoir include primarily Rural 

Residential, north of Horseshoe Bar Road; and Urban Residential, south of 

Horseshoe Bar Road to the Sacramento County line, with a small portion designated 

as agriculture. Granite Bay, Horseshoe Bar, and Penryn communities have their own 

Community Plans (Placer County 1994). Figure 3.12-2 shows the land use in Placer 

County. 

The Folsom DS/FDR study area within Placer County includes existing roadways 

proposed for transport of construction materials from within the Folsom Reservoir 

boundary to dams and dikes in the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. These roads 

include: 

• Auburn-Folsom Road from the Placer County line north to Douglas Boulevard. 

• Douglas Boulevard from the intersection of Auburn-Folsom Road east to the 

Folsom Reservoir park entrance. 

• The main park road from the park entrance north, then meandering down to 

Doton's Point located within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. 

Land uses adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and east of AuburnFolsom Road within the Folsom DS/FDR study area include urban and suburban 

residential, and commercial and public recreation. The areas along the western 

portion of Folsom Reservoir, north of Douglas Boulevard, include high-end custom 

estate homes with some smaller high-end homes within subdivisions. This area is 

commonly known as Granite Bay. Auburn-Folsom Road is a major arterial and 

scenic road that spans the entire western portion of Folsom Reservoir from the City 

of Auburn to the Sacramento County/City of Folsom line. Land uses along the 

proposed haul route on Auburn-Folsom Road include a mix of general commercial 

and urban residential. The urban residential portion includes a mix of high-end 

custom homes, older tract homes and new homes, and mobile home parks. The route 

along Douglas Boulevard to the State Park entrance includes a mix of older and 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-5 

newer subdivisions of single family homes. Several accessory uses exist within the 

residential areas including: schools, parks, churches, child-care facilities and 

necessary public and safety facilities. The general commercial land use areas include 

but are not limited to shopping centers, retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, and 

medical facilities (Placer County 1994). 

Public recreation facilities include the American River Bike Trail, hiking and multiuse trails, horse assembly areas, and parking. These areas are between Folsom 

Reservoir and developed residential areas. 

Zoning 

Placer County zoning districts adjacent to the Folsom DS/FDR study area within the 

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and along proposed transportation routes are 

listed below. 

• Residential Single-Family (RS) along Douglas Boulevard. The intent for this 

zoning district is to provide for residential development of detached single family 

homes within subdivisions. 

• Residential Multi-Family (RM) along Auburn-Folsom Road, south of Douglas 

Boulevard. The purpose of this zoning district is to provide for multi-family 

development on one lot, halfplexes, duplexes, apartments and other multi-family 

attached dwelling units such as condominiums and onsite recreational amenities. 

It is also the intent to have these developments located near community facilities, 

business centers and major streets. 

• The Residential Agriculture (RA) zoning district is at the northern end of the 

study area adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. The intent of this 

zoning district is to stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of the 

area and provide an environment suitable for family life including agricultural 

uses. 

• Office Professional (OP) within districts requiring Conditional Use (CU) Permit 

and Design Review approval (Dc) are along Auburn-Folsom Road. The OP 

zoning district is intended for development and operation of professional and 

administrative offices and personnel services instead of retail trade. 

• Neighborhood Commercial (C1) is along Auburn-Folsom Road. The purpose of 

this zoning district is to provide areas for small-scale, day to day shopping and 

services for residents within an immediate neighborhood. 
DOUGLAS BL

AUBURN FOLSOM RD

BARTON RD

STALLMAN RD

EUREKA RD

D

BAUGHMAN CANAL

LINDA CREEK

ROSE SPRING DITCH

MINERS RAVINE

å

å

åå

E E

E

E

")

")

")

#

å

#

")

")

$ $

E

$

")

")

")

")

RE

HDR

MDR

RLDR-DL .67

PROF

O

O

RLDR

O

RR

O

RLDR

HDR

LDR LDR

MDR

HDR

COMM

PROF

RR

LDR-X

COMM

DR-X LDR-X

HDR

PROF HDR

LDR

RLDR

COMM

COMM

RLDR

RR

RR

RE

Folsom Reservoir

OO FF

LL I NI N

CITY OF

ROSEVILLE

E Density Receptor Parcel

$ Fire Station

# Golf

") Park

å School

Commercial

Professional Office

High Density Residential 4 - 10 DU/Ac.

Medium Density Residential 2 - 4 DU/Ac.

Low Density Residential 0.4 - 0.9 Ac. Min.

Rural Low Density Residential 4.6 - 20 Ac. Min.

Rural Residential 2.3 - 4 Ac. Min.

Rural Estate 4.6 - 20 Ac. Min.

Open Space

Density Limit

Density Transfer Parcels

COMM

COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATIONS

PROF

HDR

MDR

LDR

RLDR

RE

O

- DL

- X

RR

Legend

County Boundary

CityLimits

Parcels

Lakes

Intermittent

Perennial

Source: Placer County Community Development Resource Agency IT/GIS Division



Figure 3.12-2

Placer County Land Uses Surrounding Folsom DS/FDR Area

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Placer County Land Uses_Fig3.12-2.ai 11/16/16 JJT

N

MILES

0 1

Sacramento County
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-7 

• Commercial Planned Development (CPD), Design Review required (Dc), CPDDc is along Auburn-Folsom Road and Douglas Boulevard. The intent of this 

zoning district is to provide excellence in site planning and building design for 

mixed-use community shopping centers, office parks, and other similar 

developments. 

• Open Space (O) is between the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and all 

developed areas. The intent of this zoning district is to preserve open space areas 

by limiting allowable land uses to low intensity agricultural and public 

recreational uses (Placer County 2003). 

El Dorado County 

The eastern portion of Folsom Reservoir is within El Dorado County. This includes 

the eastern portion of the North Fork American River within the reservoir boundary; 

and the South Fork American River within Folsom Reservoir down to the eastern 

edge of the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD). According to the El Dorado 

County General Plan, existing land uses adjacent to the Folsom DS/FDR study area 

include: Medium Residential, High Density Residential, Low Density Residential, 

Tourist Recreational, and Commercial. Figure 3.12-3 shows the land use in El 

Dorado County. 

The study area within El Dorado County outside of the Folsom Lake State 

Recreation Area includes Green Valley Road from the Folsom City line to the 

Folsom Reservoir Marina entrance road. This route would be used for transport of 

material to and from areas within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. Land uses 

along this route include new planned unit developments, some currently under 

construction. 

Zoning 

El Dorado County zoning districts adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation 

Area and along proposed transportation routes include the following: 

• Recreational Facilities between Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and 

developed areas of El Dorado County. The intent of this zoning district is to 

allow for the development and maintenance of land suitable for public recreation 

and to protect lands from uses having an adverse effect on natural resources. 

• One Family Residential at the north end of the El Dorado County study area 

within the Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan area, north of the Specific 

Plan area, and along Green Valley Road. Planned unit developments are also 

located along Green Valley Road. 
North West

El Dorado Hills

Specific Plan

Promontory

Specific Plan

Folsom Reservoir

Agricultural Lands

Adopted Plan

Commercial

High Density Residential

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

Medium Family Residential

Open Space

Public Facilties

Rural Residential

TR

Legend



Figure 3.12-3

El Dorado County Land Uses Surrounding Folsom DS/FDR Area

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\El Dorado County Land Use_Fig3.12-3.ai 11/16/06 JJT

N

MILE

0 1
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-9 

• Commercial uses along Green Valley Road. Allowed uses include commercial 

uses serving surrounding residential areas. 

• Estate Residential 5 Acres along Green Valley Road. The purpose of this zoning 

district is to allow enough land for a one-family home and the ability to pursue 

horticulture and agriculture endeavors. 

• One Half Acre Residential along Green Valley Road. The purpose of this zoning 

district is to allow enough land for a one-family home and limited ability to 

pursue horticulture and agriculture endeavors. 

• Single Family Two Acres along Green Valley Road. The purpose of this zoning 

district is to allow for low-density suburban development with sufficient space 

for residents to pursue limited horticulture and agriculture endeavors. 

Sacramento County 

A portion of the Folsom DS/FDR study area is within Sacramento County; however, 

this portion of the study area falls entirely within the City of Folsom. Therefore, 

Sacramento County planning agencies do not have jurisdiction within the Folsom 

DS/FDR study area. 

City of Folsom 

The City of Folsom is within Sacramento County along the southern end of the 

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area down to State Route 50. The City borders El 

Dorado County to the east and Placer County to the north. Folsom Dam is within the 

city limits and the American River flows from Folsom Reservoir through the City of 

Folsom to Lake Natoma. Figure 3.12-4 shows the zoning for the City of Folsom near 

the Folsom DS/FDR study area. 

The study area within the Folsom City limits includes existing roadways where 

material would be transported to and from sites within the Folsom Lake State 

Recreation Area. 

Adjacent land uses outside of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and within the 

City of Folsom include: Folsom Prison/California State Prison, Sacramento, which 

are two state facilities adjacent to one another located south of Folsom Dam Road 

and north of Natoma Street; a gated community located at the southern end of 

Folsom Reservoir and east of Folsom State Prison; single family small lot 

subdivisions and new and older planned unit developments along East Natoma Street 

and Green Valley Road; and public recreation. 
Single Family Dwelling, Large Lot District

Single Family Dwelling, Medium Lot DistrictSingle Family Dwelling, Small Lot DistrictTwo Family Residence DistrictNeighborhood Apartment DistrictResidential, Multi Family Dwelling DistrictGeneral Apartment DistrictTrailers and Trailer parks

LegendResidential Zoning

Business and Professional DistrictNeighborhood Business DistrictCentral Business DistrictGeneral Commercial DistrictHospital Commercial District

Commercial Zoning

Light Industrial DistrictGeneral Industrial DistrictLimited Manufacturing DistrictIndustrial Frontage District

Industrial Zoning



City of Folsom Zoning Surroun

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\City of Folsom Zoning Surrounding Project Area_Fig3.12-4.ai 11/16/06 JJT

Feet

0

N

2000
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-11 

Zoning 

According to the City of Folsom Zoning Ordinance, zoning districts adjacent to 

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and along proposed transportation routes include 

the following: 

• A-1-A – Agricultural Reserve District is east of the prisons and provides a buffer 

between Folsom Reservoir and developed area to the south. This zoning district 

is intended to provide for interim agricultural and livestock grazing uses until 

community services are available for urban development. Minimum allowed lot 

area is 50 acres. 

• R-1-L – Single Family Large Lot District north of East Natoma. This zoning 

district is intended for low-density, large-lot residential living. 

• R-1-M PD – Single Family Dwelling Small Lot District Planned Development 

north and south of East Natoma to the intersection with Green Valley Road. This 

zoning district is intended for medium-density, small-lot residential living. 

• OSC – Open Space Conservation District is at Folsom State Prison and 

California State Prison, Sacramento. The intent of this zoning district is to 

maintain these properties as open or undeveloped, or developed for permanent 

open uses such as parks and greenbelts. 

• C-2-PD Central Business District Planned Development is along Auburn-Folsom 

Road north and south of the intersection with Folsom Dam Road. This zoning 

district is appropriate for a wide range of commercial activities serving the entire 

community including all sizes of shopping centers. 

• RMH – Trailers and trailer parks are along Auburn-Folsom Road near the Placer 

County line. This zoning district is designated for mobile home parks defined as 

any tract of land where space is rented or held out for rent to one or more owners 

of mobile homes. 

• C-1 – Neighborhood Business District on Auburn-Folsom Road at the Placer 

County line. This zoning district is for low-intensity commercial retail activities 

serving nearby residential areas. 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences/ Environmental Impacts 

3.12.2.1 Assessment Methods 

This environmental effects analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to 

determine potential impacts to land use from construction of the project alternatives. 

Preliminary planning-level analyses from the PASS II Study Real Estate Plan are 

used to estimate the numbers and extent of parcels potentially affected by the various 

alternatives (Reclamation 2005g). However, as the preliminary parcel impacts from 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

the various raise alternatives may be overestimated, a site-specific analysis would be 

conducted to accurately assess impacts to any potentially affected parcel, if a raise 

feature is selected. It is anticipated that the site-specific analysis would conclude 

that the numbers and extent of parcels potentially affected would actually be less 

than estimated through the PASS II Study Real Estate Plan; hence, the impacts 

analysis presented herein is considered to be conservative. 

This analysis also examines potential conflicts with local land use plans and zoning 

policies from the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. The City of Folsom, Placer County 

and El Dorado County planning documents were used to determine if the action 

alternatives and the No Action/No Project Alternative would be in conflict with 

County and City plans and policies. Local agency conservation plans were used to 

determine if the project would be in conflict with any habitat or natural community 

conservation plan. Local Community Plans were also reviewed. General Plan Land 

Use designations refer to areas designated by the General Plan to allow for certain 

uses, based upon existing land uses and proposed future land uses. Consideration is 

given to trends in development and population increases. Zoning refers to areas 

defined as zoning districts, which allow for specific uses such as residential and 

commercial. Zoning districts define permitted uses, discretionary permitting 

requirements for other uses, development standards, and other issues determined by 

the local Planning Commission. 

3.12.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR would result in a significant land use impact 

if it would: 

• Conflict with an applicable land use plan, zoning policy, ordinance or regulation 

of an agency with jurisdiction over the project area that was adopted for the 

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; 

• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 

conservation plan; or 

• Create land use incompatibility or alter the existing land use function. 

3.12.2.3 Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative could conflict with local planning policies 

related to Public Health and Safety goals.

The No Action/No Project Alternative would result in no improvements to the 

Folsom Facility. The conditions at Folsom Reservoir would remain similar to 

existing conditions and no additional flood damage reduction measures would be 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-13 

implemented. The risks to public safety from a catastrophic flood or an earthquake 

capable of damaging the existing Folsom Facility would remain similar to existing 

conditions, but could actually increase over time because of future population growth 

and development. 

The General Plan documents for Placer and El Dorado Counties, the City of Folsom, 

and the Granite Bay Community Plan all address the need to protect the public from 

flood inundation. There is a need to implement measures to improve public safety 

and to provide flood damage reduction in the area around the Folsom Facility. The 

expected future population growth in the region will only increase the need for these 

dam safety and flood damage reduction measures. The No Action/No Project 

Alternative would not result in the construction or implementation of the actions 

under the Folsom DS/FDR and the risks associated with flooding would remain 

similar to or greater than existing conditions; therefore, the No Action/No Project 

Alternative would be in conflict with these planning documents. The local planning 

policies, goals, objective and ordinance related to this issue are listed below.

Placer County 

Flood Protection 

• Goal 4.F: To protect the lives and property of the citizens of Placer County from 

hazards associated with development in floodplains and manage floodplains for 

their natural resource values. 

Policies 

• 4.F.6. The County shall continue to coordinate efforts with local, state, and 

federal agencies to achieve adequate water quality and flood protection. 

• 4.F.7. The County shall cooperate with the Placer County Flood Control and 

Water Conservation District, surrounding jurisdictions, the cities in the County, 

and other public agencies in planning and implementing regional flood protection 

improvements. 

Public Safety and Emergency Management Facilities 

Flood Hazards

• Goal 8.B: To minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, damage to property, and 

economic and social dislocations resulting from flood hazards. 

Placer County - Granite Bay Community Plan 

Flood Hazard 

• Goal: Protect the lives and property of the citizens of the Granite Bay area from 

unacceptable risk resulting from flood hazards. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Policies: Continue to work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

Resource Conservation District in defining existing and potential flood problem 

areas. 

El Dorado County 

Flood Hazards 

• Goal 6.4: Protect the residents of El Dorado County from flood hazards. 

• Objective 6.4.1: Development Regulations 

Minimize loss of life and property by regulating development in areas subject to 

flooding in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

guidelines, California law, and the El Dorado County Flood Damage Prevention 

Ordinance. 

City of Folsom 

Safety Element Goals and Policies 

• Goal 29: To protect the lives and property from unacceptable risks resulting from 

natural and manmade hazards.

• Policy 29.4 – The City shall work with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in 

developing standards for development within the inundation boundary resulting 

from a failure of Folsom Dam or the dikes retaining Folsom Reservoir. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not conflict with local zoning policies 

or conservation or habitat management plans, nor would it result in any land use 

incompatibility issues. However, the No Action/No Project Alternative could conflict 

with local planning policies related to Public Health and Safety goals. The Placer 

County General Plan, Granite Bay Community Plan, El Dorado County General Plan 

and City of Folsom General Plan all state the importance of protecting lives and 

property from flood hazards. While Folsom Reservoir provides a substantial amount 

of existing flood protection, the need for additional flood protection measures have 

been identified by the Corps and Reclamation. The No Action/No Project Alternative 

would preclude the construction of additional dam safety and flood control measures 

at this time. 

Therefore, the impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative on land use would be 

potentially significant. Based on the analysis presented above, it is anticipated that 

the environmental impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., future 

environmental conditions if no action is taken relative to the Folsom DS/FDR) would 

exceed the significance criteria defined herein. However, unlike a significant impact 

associated with an action alternative, no mitigation can be required for significant 

impacts associated with the No Action/No Project (i.e., within the regulatory 

framework of NEPA and CEQA, a project applicant cannot be required to mitigate 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-15 

the impacts that would result from taking no action). As such, the impacts identified 

above for the No Action/No Project Alternative are considered to be significant, 

adverse, and unmitigable.

3.12.2.4 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

The following information applies to all Folsom DS/FDR alternatives and would 

have the same effect for each alternative. The sections following this provide 

qualitative and preliminary quantitative impact analysis for each individual 

alternative. 

All Folsom DS/FDR alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2. The Folsom 

DS/FDR includes the transport of material to and from construction sites around the 

Folsom Facility. The transport of material along city and county roads would not 

result in the need for road improvements or widening. A new connector road 

intersecting with Auburn-Folsom Road may be constructed on Reclamation property, 

however, to access the Dike 5 area. 

All of the alternatives as proposed would be beneficial to local jurisdictions for 

meeting flood protection policies and goals described in their General Plans. Placer 

and El Dorado Counties, the Granite Bay Community, and the City of Folsom each 

have policies and goals within their General Plan documents expressing the need to 

continue to provide or improve flood protection. Some of the goals are listed above 

in Section 3.12.2.3. 

Placer and El Dorado Counties and the City of Folsom include conservation policies 

within their General Plan documents. The Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

General Plan also includes policies for conservation of resource areas within its 

boundary. There is no formal conservation planning document specifically for 

Folsom Reservoir and the surrounding area. There are no conflicts to these plans 

with mitigation incorporated, according to state and federal guidelines and permitting 

requirements for wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife protection. 

Table 3.12-1 summarizes potential land use actions by project alternative. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Construction activities under Alternative 1 could affect existing land use policies. 

Construction activities under Alternative 1 would not interfere with existing land use 

or zoning designations in the study area, as described in the affected environment 

section. The only potential impacts to land use plans and policies would be scenic 

and noise issues that could result from construction activities. Section 3.7, Visual 

Resources, and Section 3.10, Noise, discuss these impacts and provide appropriate 

mitigation. Alternative 1 would not conflict with local General Plan documents. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 3.12-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EI

Table 3.12-1 

Potential Land Use Actions for Folsom DS/FDR Alternatives

Main Features 

Having Potential to 

Result in Land Use 

Impacts 

Implementation 

of Those 

Features Under 

Alternative 1 

Implementation of 

Those Features Under 

Alternative 2 

Implementation of Those 

Features Under 

Alternative 3 

Implementation of 

Those Features Under 

Alternative 4 

Im

Construction of flood protection berms (and acquisition of associated flood protection structure and access easements if on non-Federal property) 

Construction of flood protection berms (and acquisition of associated flood protection structure and access easements if on non-Federal property)

Construction of flood protection berms (and acquisition of associated flood protection structure and access easements if on non-Federal property) 

Cpafloan

Acquisition of flood easements (occasional flowage easements) on impacted property 

Acquisition of flood easements (occasional flowage easements) on impacted property 

Acquisition of flood easements (occasional flowage easements) on impacted property 

Aefloim

New embankment, easement, or potential parcel acquisition (Mooney Ridge and other impacted areas)

None 

Possible acquisition in fee title (less than 5 parcels affected) , including 1 possible relocation* 

Possible acquisition in fee title (less than 5 parcels affected), including 1 possible relocation* 

Possible acquisitions in fee title (less than 10 parcels affected) , including 6 possible relocations* 

P4inre

*The estimated numbers and extent to which parcels are potentially impacted by the various raise alternatives are the result of preliminary planning-

PASS II Study Real Estate Plan. As the preliminary parcel impacts from the raise alternatives may be overestimated, more accurate site-specific anconducted if a raise feature is selected. As such, the impacts analysis reflected in the table above is considered to be conservative, and the actual im

alternative would probably be less, depending on the results of the site-specific analyses.Definitions of terms used in Table 3.12-1 are provided below: • Access easement = Grants the right of access. • Acquisition in fee title = Acquisition of ownership. Parcel would be acquired in its entirety, probably in fee at appraised value. • Flood easement = see "occasional flowage easement" below. • Flood protection berm = Also referred to as a new embankment. A flood protection berm is a small embankment built in low elevation areas as a 

measure to reduce or eliminate the flooding of non-federal property. These flood protection features would be a simple berm constructed of ear

at the specific site or imported from within the boundaries of the reservoir, from the closest area with stockpiled material. These flood protection constructed as a parapet wall or another type of suitable structure. 

• Flood protection berm easement = Grants the right to build, maintain, repair, operate, and replace a flood protection berm. 

• New embankment = see flood protection berm above. • Occasional flowage easement = Flood easement; grants the right to occasionally flood, as determined necessary and appropriate during extrem

owner retains fee ownership; however, such an easement may restrict the construction of new structures and/or uses for human habitation within 

• Relocation = The impacted property owner is paid fair market value for their property, provided assistance to locate comparable housing and is e

benefits and services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-17 

Therefore, construction activities under Alternative 1 would have no effect on 

existing land use or zoning designations. Construction impacts of Alternative 1 on 

land use policies related to noise and scenic resources would be less than significant 

with mitigation. 

Construction of Alternative 1 may conflict with local tree preservation ordinances,

specifically as a result of direct or indirect impacts to protected oak woodlands.

Oak woodlands are present within the construction areas and staging areas for 

Alternative 1 and may be affected by construction activities. These woodlands are 

protected under county and city tree ordinances. 

Activities implemented for Alternative 1 may result in indirect adverse impacts to 

vegetation and wetlands identified as sensitive by the state, counties, or cities, 

including increased erosion and sedimentation, damage to roots of oaks and other 

tree species adjacent to areas where heavy equipment would be operated, dust 

impacts to roadside vegetation, and colonization of exposed substrate by exotic plant 

species. 

These impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation measures 

related to sensitive wetlands and vegetation including native oak trees, erosion and 

sedimentation control, protective fencing, dust control, and invasive non-native plant 

species control described in Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, would 

reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 

Therefore, the effects of Alternative 1 on land use would be less than significant.. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternatives with Raise features 

(Alternatives 2 through 5) 

The following text applies to all project alternatives with raise features (i.e., 

Alternatives 2 through 5; Alternative 1 does not include any raise features) and 

would have a potential increase in impact related to raise height. For each alternative 

with a raise feature, qualitative impact assessments as well as preliminary 

quantitative impact analysis of potentially affected parcels are provided in the 

following sections. 

Effects to Federal Parcels 

Under an extreme flood or Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event, an emergency 

increase in reservoir water surface elevation would cause a temporary inundation of 

lands surrounding Folsom Reservoir.

The effect of emergency inundation of undeveloped federal parcels would be an 

indirect, temporary, physical change to land use. Therefore, the impact to land use 

would be less than significant. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Temporary inundation of undeveloped federal parcels during an extreme storm event 

would be less than significant.

If necessary to prevent flooding of non-federal property surrounding Folsom 

Reservoir in an extreme flood or PMF event, a new flood protection berm(s) could 

be constructed on undeveloped federal property.

The construction of a flood protection berm(s) on undeveloped federal property 

would not preclude existing land use function or operation. Therefore, the effect of a 

flood protection berm(s) on undeveloped federal property would be less than 

significant on land use. 

Construction of new flood protection berm(s) on federal property in relation to 

current land use would be less than significant. 

A flood protection berm on a federal parcel could affect existing land use policies 

related to scenic impacts. 

The construction of new flood protection berm(s) could change the visual nature of 

the affected areas. 

This impact would be potentially significant to land use. Mitigation Measures LU-1 

through LU-3 would be implemented as needed to reduce this impact to a less than 

significant level. 

Effects to Non-Federal Parcels 

If necessary to prevent flooding of non-federal property surrounding Folsom 

Reservoir in an extreme flood or PMF event, a flood easement (occasional flowage 

easement) would be acquired and/or a new flood protection berm would be 

constructed on impacted non-federal parcel(s). The construction of a flood 

protection berm on a non-federal parcel would also require the acquisition of 

associated flood protection structure and access easements. 

These actions could change the existing land use function or operation of an 

impacted non-federal parcel if, and to the extent that, the associated physical 

improvements and/or use restrictions effectively preclude continuation of the 

existing day-to-day (i.e., normal) land use function or operation. A flood protection 

berm on a non-federal parcel could affect existing land use policies related to current 

land uses. 

These impacts would be potentially significant to land use. Mitigation Measures LU1 through LU-3 would be implemented as needed to reduce these impacts to a less 

than significant level. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-19 

If substantial inundation of non-federal property surrounding Folsom Reservoir 

could not be avoided through other flood protection measures (such as a flood 

protection berm) under an extreme flood or PMF event, fee title would be acquired 

for the impacted non-federal parcel.

The acquisition in fee title of an impacted non-federal parcel could preclude the 

existing land use function if, and to the extent, it is determined that existing day-today land use function or operation would no longer continue once acquired. 

The effect of acquiring fee title for an impacted non-federal parcel and associated 

discontinuation of the existing land use function or operation would be a significant 

and unavoidable impact to land use. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Actions under Alternative 2 would have the potential to change existing land use for 

parcels that could be inundated under a severe storm event. 

A 4-foot raise could result in an increase in the reservoir pool elevation during 

extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation areas beyond the 

boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower elevation areas are primarily located in 

Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and certain areas along the eastern shoreline. 

To address the potential for flooding related to a 4-foot raise, Reclamation, the 

Corps, or SAFCA, as the Corps non-Federal sponsor, and any one of these referred 

to in the discussion below as the responsible agency, would pursue structural or real 

estate remedies, or a combination of both, in cooperation with affected non-federal 

property owners. Probable remedies in lower elevation areas would include 

construction of new flood protection berms (and associated access and flood 

protection structure easements if berms are located on non-federal property) and/or 

acquisition of flood easements on impacted non-federal parcels. A potential 

easement acquisition area in Placer County at Mooney Ridge is within the Medium 

Density Residential (MDR) and Open Space (O) land use designations according to 

the Granite Bay Community Plan. Placer County Zoning for this area is ResidentialSingle Family (RS-B-10 and RS-B-20) and Open Space. A potential easement 

acquisition area north of Granite Bay in Placer County is within the Rural 

Residential (RR) and O land use designations according to the Granite Bay 

Community Plan and the Placer County General Plan. Placer County Zoning for 

these areas is O and RA-BX-20. A potential easement acquisition area in El Dorado 

County at the New York Creek area is within the High Density Residential land use 

designation according to the El Dorado County General Plan. El Dorado County 

Zoning for this area is One-Family Residential (R1), Open Space and Recreational 

Facilities. A potential easement acquisition area in El Dorado County at the Browns 

Ravine area is within the Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Single Family 

Residential land use designation, according to the Northwest El Dorado Hills 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Specific Plan, and Commercial and Medium Density Residential, according to the El 

Dorado County General Plan. El Dorado County Zoning for these areas is OneFamily Residential and One-Family Residential Planned Development (R1-PD), 

Recreational Facilities, Commercial along Green Valley Road, Estate Residential 

Five-Acre, One-Half Acre Residential, and Single-family Two-Acre. 

Where flood easements are acquired and/or where flood protection berms are 

constructed (and associated flood protection structure and access easements acquired 

if berms are located on non-Federal property) in order to address the potential for 

flooding, the responsible agency would acquire such easements according to State 

and Federal guidelines. 

According to Corps guidelines (Corps 2006), properties encumbered by flood 

easement would be restricted as follows:

• No structure for human habitation shall be constructed or maintained on the 

easement premises. 

• No other structure shall be constructed or maintained on the land except those 

that have been approved in writing by the responsible agency. 

• No excavation shall be conducted or fill placed on the land without approval of 

the responsible agency. 

With a 4-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analysis also indicates 

the acquisition in fee title of approximately four non-federal properties as a possible 

scenario, including one residential property, for which the property owner would be 

entitled to fair market value, assistance with replacement housing and relocation 

benefits and services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. If property were 

acquired in fee by the United States, land use and zoning would be Federal use only. 

However, efforts would be made to develop a structural solution that would 

eliminate the need for acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title) or 

relocation. Because the non-federal parcels potentially impacted by this alternative 

are identified through the use of coarse planning-level analyses, the number and 

extent of parcels potentially affected by this alternative may be overestimated. 

Detailed site-specific analyses would be conducted should this raise feature be 

selected. The need for, location, number, and impacts of flood protection berms 

and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title) would be further 

analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a supplemental environmental compliance 

document, if this raise feature is selected and further designed. 

Because this alternative could potentially change the existing land use of parcels 

around Folsom Reservoir, this impact would be potentially significant to land use. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-21 

Mitigation Measures LU-1 through LU-3 would be implemented as needed to reduce 

this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction of new flood protection berms under Alternative 2 may conflict with 

existing land use policies related to scenic impacts. 

New flood protection berms would be a potentially significant impact to scenic 

resources and may not comply with Granite Bay design guidelines. However since 

these would be for the purpose of improving dam safety and flood damage reduction, 

it is likely that the effects of this alternative would not conflict with local General 

Plan documents. Mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.12.4 would be 

implemented as needed to assist in reducing these impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

Therefore, this impact to scenic resource policies would be less than significant. 

Construction activities under Alternative 2 could affect existing land use policies 

related to noise and scenic impacts. 

Potential impacts to land use plans and policies would be scenic and noise issues that 

could result from construction activities. Section 3.7, Visual Resources, and Section 

3.10, Noise, discuss these impacts and provide appropriate mitigation. 

Therefore, the effect of construction activities under Alternative 2 on existing land 

use policies related to noise and scenic impacts would be less than significant with 

mitigation. 

Construction of the project may conflict with local tree preservation ordinances,

specifically as a result of direct or indirect impacts to protected oak woodlands.

Oak woodlands are present within the construction areas and staging areas for 

Alternative 2 and may be affected by construction activities. These woodlands are 

protected under county and city tree ordinances. 

Activities implemented for Alternative 2 may result in indirect adverse impacts to 

vegetation and wetlands identified as sensitive by the state, counties, or cities, 

including increased erosion and sedimentation, damage to roots of oaks and other 

tree species adjacent to areas where heavy equipment would be operated, dust 

impacts to roadside vegetation, and colonization of exposed substrate by exotic plant 

species. 

These impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

related to sensitive wetlands and vegetation including native oak trees, erosion and 

sedimentation control, protective fencing, dust control, and invasive non-native plant 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

species control described in Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, would 

reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 

Inundation caused by an increase in the reservoir pool elevation during extreme 

storm events could adversely affect native oaks.

Inundation caused by an increase in the reservoir pool elevation during extreme 

storm events could adversely affect native oaks if the inundation is of sufficient 

duration. Blue oaks can be sensitive to inundation for as few as seven days, and 

evergreen oaks are likely to be more sensitive. Inundation above the ordinary high 

water mark (OHWM) is anticipated to be a rare event and even for a 151 to 200-year 

flood would last 2.5 to 4 days. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

related to emergency inundation of oak woodlands and described in Section 3.5, 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, would reduce the impact to a less than 

significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

A potential 3.5-foot parapet wall raise could result in an increase in the reservoir 

pool elevation during extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation 

areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower lying areas are 

primarily located in Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and along the eastern 

shoreline. 

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 3 would be essentially the same for land use as those described for 

Alternative 2 (Section 3.12.2.7). 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

A 7-foot raise could result in an increase in the reservoir pool elevation during 

extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation areas beyond the 

boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower lying areas are primarily located in 

Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and along the eastern shoreline.

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 4 would be the same for land use as those described for Alternative 2 

(Section 3.12.2.7), with the following exceptions: 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 7-foot raise height. Additional 

acquisition of flood easements and/or construction of larger flood protection 

berms (and acquisition of associated flood protection structure and access 

easements if necessary). Affected Placer County and El Dorado County land use 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-23 

designations and zoning designations for Alternative 4 are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2 (Section 3.12.2.7). 

• With a 7-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analysis also 

indicates the acquisition in fee title of approximately nine non-federal properties 

as a possible scenario, including approximately six residential properties, for 

which the property owners would be entitled to fair market value, assistance with 

replacement housing and relocation benefits and services in accordance with 

Public Law 91-646. If property were acquired in fee by the United States, land 

use and zoning would be Federal use only. However, efforts would be made to 

develop a structural solution that would eliminate the need for acquisition of real 

estate rights (easements or fee title) or relocation. Because the non-federal 

parcels potentially impacted by this alternative are identified through coarse 

planning-level analyses, the number and extent of parcels actually affected by 

this alternative may be overestimated. Detailed site-specific analyses would be 

conducted should this raise feature be selected. The need for, location, number, 

and impacts of flood protection berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in 

a supplemental environmental compliance document, if this raise feature is 

selected and further designed. 

Because this alternative could potentially change the existing land use of parcels 

around Folsom Reservoir, this impact would be potentially significant to land use. 

Mitigation Measures LU-1 through LU-3 would be implemented as needed to assist 

in reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

The 17-foot earthen raise could result in an increase in the reservoir pool elevation 

during extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation areas beyond the 

boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower lying areas are primarily located in 

Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and along the eastern shoreline. 

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 5 would be the same for land use as those described for Alternative 2 

(Section 3.12.2.7), with the following exceptions: 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 17-foot raise height. Additional 

acquisition of flood easements and/or construction of larger flood protection 

berms (and acquisition of associated flood protection structure and access 

easements if necessary). Affected Placer County and El Dorado County land use 

designations and zoning designations for Alternative 5 are the same as those 

described under Alternative 2 (Section 3.12.2.7), except in the Mooney Ridge 

area where additional land use and zoning designations are affected. Parcels 

within the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation would also be 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

affected which includes the RS-B-X (10,000 sf min.) zoning district according to 

the Placer County Zoning Ordinance. 

• With a 17-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analysis also 

indicates the acquisition in fee title of approximately 45 non-federal properties as 

a possible scenario, including as many as 37 residential properties, for which the 

property owners would be entitled to fair market value, assistance with 

replacement housing, and relocation benefits and services in accordance with 

Public Law 91-646. If property were acquired in fee by the United States, land 

use and zoning would be Federal use only. However, efforts would be made to 

develop a structural solution that would eliminate the need for acquisition of real 

estate rights (easements or fee title) or relocation. Because the non-federal 

parcels potentially impacted by this alternative are identified through coarse 

planning-level analyses, the number and extent of parcels actually affected by 

this alternative may be overestimated. Detailed site-specific analyses would be 

conducted should this raise feature be selected. The need for, location, number, 

and impacts of flood protection berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in 

a supplemental environmental compliance document, if this raise feature is 

selected and further designed. 

Because this alternative could potentially change the existing land use of parcels 

around Folsom Reservoir, this impact would be potentially significant to land use. 

Mitigation Measures LU-1 through LU-3 would be implemented as needed to assist 

in reducing this impact to a less than significant level. 

If substantial inundation of non-federal property surrounding Folsom Reservoir 

under an extreme flood or PMF event could not be avoided through other flood 

protection measures (such as a flood protection berm), fee title would be acquired 

for the impacted non-federal parcel(s).

The acquisition in fee title of some impacted non-federal parcel(s) under Alternative 

5 is probably unavoidable and this action would preclude the existing land use 

function. 

Thus, the effect of acquiring fee title of impacted non-federal parcel(s) would be a 

significant and unavoidable impact to land use under Alternative 5. 

3.12.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would likely conflict with local General Plans 

because it would not reduce safety risks associated with flooding and it would not 

implement any dam safety or flood damage reduction measures. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.12-25 

Table 3.12-1 compares the potential land use actions of each of the alternatives 

including construction of new flood protection berms, acquisition of easements, 

and/or fee title acquisition. Alternative 1 would not affect land use since no new 

flood protection berms would be constructed, and real estate rights (easements or fee 

title) would not be acquired. From preliminary planning-level analyses, the land use 

effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same: approximately 64 potentially 

impacted parcels (via easement and/or flood protection berm, or fee title acquisition), 

with less than five parcels possibly involving acquisition in fee title, including one 

possible relocation. Alternative 4 would result in approximately 92 potentially 

impacted parcels but less than 10 parcels affected by possible acquisition in fee title, 

including six possible relocations. Alternative 5 potentially impacts approximately 

175 parcels, with 45 parcels affected by possible acquisition in fee title, including 37 

possible relocations. Depending upon the real estate and/or construction solution(s) 

selected to mitigate for potential inundation due to raise heights of Alternatives 2 

through 5, the impacts to land use could be significant. If a raise feature is selected, 

efforts would be made to avoid, or mitigate, significant land use impacts. 

Additionally, the need for, location, number, and impacts of flood protection berms 

and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title) would be further 

analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a supplemental environmental compliance 

document if a raise feature is selected. 

All of the action alternatives could result in impacts to native oak trees and 

woodlands which are considered special status or protected species according to 

Placer County, El Dorado County, and the City of Folsom. Oak woodland vegetation 

impacted by construction will be compensated for at a ratio stipulated in the USFWS 

Coordination Act Report. By mitigating impacts identified in Section 3.12.2 

according to measures identified in Section 3.5.4, the impact resulting from 

construction of the project would be less than significant. 

3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a 

less than significant level: 

LU-1: If a raise feature is selected, the determination regarding structural solutions 

(i.e., flood protection berms) and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee 

title) for any impacted non-federal parcel will be made on a case by case basis and 

will depend upon feasibility, cost, and acceptability to the landowner(s). Efforts will 

be made to design and construct flood protection structures that will reduce or 

eliminate the need for building flood protection berms and/or acquiring real estate 

rights (easements or fee title), including potential relocation of residents, on 

impacted non-federal parcels. 
Section 3.12 

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 

3.12-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

LU-2: The responsible agency will follow the procedures of local jurisdictions for 

zoning district changes, as needed to provide flood protection measures. 

LU-3: To lessen visual impacts of flood protection berms and reduce potential 

conflict with local visual resource policies, a berm will be located on a parcel so as to 

conceal it in the viewshed, if practical, and/or construction materials will be used to 

make the berm less visually conspicuous. 

3.12.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 provides a list of past, present and probable future projects in the general 

vicinity of the Folsom DS/FDR study area that are included in the cumulative effects 

analysis. Any land use action taken, such as building a flood protection structure 

and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title), that could change the 

existing land use operation or function of an impacted parcel would be a potentially 

significant impact to land use. It is unlikely that the projects identified in Table 5-1 

would have any notable adverse impact on local land use designations or zoning 

designations. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the Folsom DS/FDR action would 

be less than significant. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-1

3.13 Recreation Resources 

This section presents potential impacts to recreation resources from construction of 

the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

3.13.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.13.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The study area assessed as part of the evaluation of recreational resources included 

all portions of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA) available for 

recreational use. This area consists of Folsom Reservoir, including marinas, boat 

launching facilities, whitewater rafting facilities, and terrestrial facilities, including 

campgrounds, day use facilities, other facilities (i.e., Folsom Dam, the California 

State University Sacramento [CSUS] Aquatic Center at Nimbus Flat), and numerous 

hiking trails throughout the FLSRA. Terrestrial areas outside of trails and developed 

sites are generally not accessible to recreational users. Therefore, these areas are not 

a focus of this study. 

3.13.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Reclamation holds title to virtually all lands and all recreation areas immediately 

surrounding Folsom Reservoir. One exception is certain land underlying the Jedediah 

Smith Bike Trail (also known as the American River Bike Trail), which is owned by 

the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Reclamation has a longterm agreement with DPR to manage recreation on Reclamation’s lands designated 

as part of the FLSRA. 

The DPR planning process is integrated with Reclamation’s Resource Management 

Planning (RMP) Process. The DPR, in partnership with Reclamation, recently began 

work on the integrated FLSRA General Plan and Resource Management Plan 

Update. This process will update the current general plan, as well as the long-range 

vision for the area. The General Plan will guide the protection of natural and cultural 

resources, provide for and manage recreational opportunities, and outline the future 

development of public facilities. Alternative plan concepts have been developed, 

with general direction common to all alternatives. Resource and visitor capacity 

issues have been identified for major use areas within the FLSRA, as well as ways of 

addressing them. The revised joint integrated project is being prepared to meet the 

requirements of both agency planning processes. A draft of the General Plan/RMP 

and DEIR/DEIS are currently being finalized and will soon be distributed to the 

public. For additional details refer to http://www.parks.ca.gov. For details on the 

RMP process, refer to the RMP handbook, http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/ 

planning/RMPG/rmpg.pdf. 

3.13.1.3 Environmental Setting 

FLSRA is an important local, regional, and state recreation resource (Figure 3.13-1). 
Placer County

Sacramento County

El Dorado County

Penryn Rd

Cam bri dge Rd

Folsom

Auburn Rd

Laird Rd Blue Ravine Rd

Da m Rd

Dick Cook Rd

Folsom Dam Rd

Parkdale Ln

Natoma St

Wells Ave

Eureka Rd

Coloma Rd

Horseshoe Bar Rd

Sibley

St

Silva Valley Pky

Deer

Valley Rd

E Dorado Hil sl B vl d

Bass Lake Rd

d R edr eVl aV

Green Valley Rd

E Natoma St

Countr y

Club Dr

Aub urn Folsom

Rd

King Rd

E Bidwell St

Sweetwater Creek

Willow Creek

£¤50

§ ̈¦80

Folsom

State

Prison

Loomis

Folsom

ElDorado

Hills

18 2

3

11

17

8

12

5

4

16

15

13 14

10

6

9

7

1

Folsom

Reservoir

Z 1:80,000

0 3,300 6,600

Feet

Camping

Picnic Area

Boating

County Line

Trails

15 - Salmon Falls

18 - Peninsula Campground

17 - Peninsula

16 - Skunk Hollow

7 - Beal's Point Campground

3 - Granite Bay Beach

5 - Granite Bay Boat Ramp and Parking

9 - Observation Point

14 - Sweetwater Creek

10 - Folsom Point

6 - Beals Point

4 - Granite Bay

1 - Rattlesnake Bar

8 - Folsom Dam

13 - Old Salmon Falls

12 - Folsom Lake Marina

11 - Browns Ravine

2 - Dotons Point

# FLSRA Facilities / Use Areas

Figure 3.13-1

Major Recreational

Facilities

Source: ENTRIX

American River

Bike Trail Folsom Point-Browns

Ravine Trail

Los Lagos Trail

Granite Bay

Multi-Use Trail
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-3

Folsom Reservoir, the primary feature in the FLSRA, supports numerous waterbased activities, such as boating, waterskiing, and fishing. The reservoir’s upper 

arms are designated slow zones for quiet cruising, fishing, and nature appreciation. 

The shoreline provides sandy swimming beaches, both formal (with lifeguard 

services) and informal. Summer water temperatures average 72oF, enhancing both 

water-oriented and shoreline activities. Land-based activities such as hiking, biking, 

picnicking, camping, and horseback riding also attract visitors. The reservoir serves 

flood control, water supply, and power generation purposes, and as a result reservoir 

levels typically fluctuate from a high of 466 feet in late winter or early spring to 405 

feet during late fall. 

With more than 1.5 million visitors in 2000, the FLSRA is one of the most popular 

sites within California for recreation in the DPR system. Recreation activities in the 

FLSRA have changed significantly since the first facilities were opened to the public 

in 1958, and even since the first General Plan for the FLSRA was adopted in 1979. 

The popularity of personal watercraft (jet skis), wake boarding, sailing, and bass 

fishing tournaments has transformed the boating environment on Folsom Reservoir. 

Land-based recreational activities have also changed over the years. When the 

FLSRA first opened, the trails were used primarily by equestrians and hikers. The 

popularity of running in the 1970s and mountain biking in the 1980s have greatly 

increased trail use. With urban development surrounding the southern half of the 

FLSRA, paved trails now play an important part in the region’s growing 

transportation network as more people commute via bicycle. These changes affect 

the character and level of use in the FLSRA, how existing facilities are used, and 

what future facilities may be needed. 

Throughout the year, permitted special events are held at various locations in the 

FLSRA. Events include bass fishing tournaments, yacht races, mountain bike races, 

triathlons, mountain bike triathlons, adventure races, running races, and summer 

camps. Past race events have included, but are not limited to: Future Pro Tour 

Amateur Bash Fishing Tournament at Granite Bay, Big Blue Adventure’s Folsom 

Lake Sports Adventure Race at Granite Beach, Nissan Xterra USA Championship 

Real Mountain Bike Triathlon at Granite Bay and surrounding trails, Folsom Lake 

Yacht Club Series at Browns Ravine, American Bass Tournament at Browns Ravine, 

California State University Sacramento operates an aquatic center at Lake Natoma. 

During the summer CSUS utilizes Folsom Point at Folsom Reservoir for their youth 

wake board and water ski camp. 

This section discusses existing conditions for recreation resources in the Folsom 

Reservoir area. It describes existing recreation resources in terms of attendance 

levels, visitor capacity, types of facilities present, activities available, and 

management issues. Much of the information cited is from a Resource Inventory for 

FLSRA prepared by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, et. al 2003 under a contract with 

DPR for revision of the General Plan/RMP. DPR provided most of the resource 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

information to Wallace, Roberts, and Todd for preparation of the resource inventory 

document. Recreation resources are divided into aquatic-based day use areas, other 

types of day use areas, camping areas, and areas that support use of the North and 

South Forks of the American River. A discussion of trails is also provided, 

describing their connections to other adjacent parks and nearby communities. 

Folsom Reservoir Areas 

Browns Ravine 

The Folsom Lake Marina is the only marina facility in the FLSRA (Figure 3.13-1). 

Annual attendance in 2000 was 66,856 visitors. On the east side of the reservoir, at 

Browns Ravine, the facility includes 685 wet slips and 175 dry storage slips. 

Currently, there is a five-year waiting list for one of the 72 sixteen-foot slips and 368 

twenty-foot slips. A nine-year wait currently exists for one of the 245 twenty-fourfoot slips. In recent years, interest in slip rentals has increased significantly due to 

the difficulty in launching during peak season weekends due to the lack of ramp and 

parking capacity at the main launch area. The maximum usable elevation for boat 

ramp facilities at Browns Ravine is 468 feet. Based on 1985 to 2004 California Data 

Exchange Center (CDEC) data, the elevation of Folsom Reservoir has not been over 

466 feet. There is an alternative boat ramp at Hobie Cove that only has a maximum 

usable elevation of 426 feet. The alternative boat launch at Hobie Cove provides no 

relief during the peak season for use at Browns Ravine, since it only becomes 

available in the fall when reservoir levels have dropped sufficiently to make this 

facility operational. 

Folsom Point 

Folsom Point is off East Natoma Street between Folsom Dam Road and Green 

Valley Road. This is the most popular day use area on the eastern shore of Folsom 

Reservoir. Attendance in 2000 was 112,120 visitors. Facilities here include a shaded 

picnic area with tables and barbeques, two vault toilets, and parking for 77 vehicles. 

Folsom Point also includes the largest formal boat launch facilities on this side of the 

reservoir. The Folsom Point boat launch facility has 129 parking spaces. The 

maximum usable boat ramp elevation at Folsom Point is 468 feet. The popularity of 

Folsom Point for the staging of special aquatic events causes both the aquatic and 

day use facilities to reach capacity quickly during peak season weekends. 

The picnic area at Folsom Point appears to be eroded and worn due to heavy foot 

traffic and informal parking off paved surfaces. Access to the shoreline is informal. 

CSUS uses the Dike 8 area of Folsom Reservoir for waterskiing lessons. 

Observation Point 

The Observation Point parking lot is on the Folsom Dam Road at the eastern end of 

the Dam. This area offers a panoramic view of Folsom Reservoir. In the past, 

Observation Point was a popular place for meeting, fishing and swimming. When 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-5

reservoir levels are low, the Observation Point also provides a good starting place for 

hiking. The informal trail along the eastern shoreline leads to Browns Ravine. 

However, Observation Point is now closed to public access and has been since 

September 11, 2001, due to security concerns associated with threats to Folsom 

Dam. 

Observation Point was previously used as a staging area for the installation of a 

temperature control intake device, and the construction of the Corp’s Folsom 

Modifications Project offices and formal staging area. The Observation Point parking 

lot site was slated for use as a staging area for the outlet modifications phase of the 

Corp’s projects at the Folsom Reservoir to improve flood damage reduction for 

Sacramento. 

It is doubtful that the paved portion of the Observation Point area will be available 

for public use in the future, due to current security restrictions that are not likely to 

be relaxed. The area below the paved portion of Observation Point is still open to 

fishing, but only from a boat. 

Beal’s Point Day Use Area 

Attendance at Beal’s Point in 2000 was 219,986 visitors. This facility provides a 

1,000-foot long swim beach (summer season only) and concessions facility with a 

snack bar, beach equipment rentals, restrooms, and paved parking for about 400 

vehicles. A large grassy area along the reservoir includes picnic tables, barbeques, 

and restroom facilities. The paved multi-use Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail begins 

at Beal’s Point and connects to Lake Natoma and the American River Parkway. This 

is a national recreation trail. The unpaved multi-use Granite Bay Trail connects 

Beal’s Point to other facilities along Folsom Reservoir. The aquatic facilities at 

Beal’s Point include an informal boat launch ramp, but the area does not have 

separate parking for vehicles and boat trailers. The informal boat launch ramp is an 

unpaved ramp that is available for use at specific reservoir elevations only. Ski/wake 

board boats and larger boats cannot use the ramp. Ramp use is available for personal 

watercraft and other very light boats. 

There are two management issues with respect to this recreation area, visitor capacity 

and unrestricted access to the shoreline. During peak season weekends, the parking 

area generally fills by midday, causing traffic to back up onto Auburn-Folsom Road 

and surrounding neighborhood streets. This also makes it difficult for campers with 

reservations to enter the FLSRA. Regarding unrestricted access to the shoreline area, 

when reservoir levels fall, the shoreline becomes exposed allowing motorized 

vehicles to access the shoreline. 

The structures, parking lot, and roads at Beal’s Point range in elevation from 465 feet 

to 475 feet. When the reservoir surface level reaches 466 feet, water levels are just 

below the road, parking lot, restrooms/dressing room building, and concessions 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

building. At 466 feet, the beach area would be inundated, although turf areas for 

picnicking, sunbathing, and other passive uses are still usable. 

Granite Bay 

The most popular day use facility in the FLSRA is Granite Bay with a series of 

facilities spread over three distinct subareas. It is on the west side of the reservoir off 

Folsom-Auburn Road. Attendance in 2000 was 507,712 visitors. The Main Beach 

area includes a 1,200-ft long guarded swim beach (summer season only), snack bar 

and beach equipment concessions, restrooms, a grassy picnic area, tot lot, and a 

paved parking area for vehicles. The North Granite area is popular for fishing, 

horseback riding, and hiking. This area includes an informal beach area at Oak Point, 

equestrian staging area, Doton’s Point, and Beek's Bight. An activity center just 

north of the Main Beach is available by reservation for group use and includes a 

small picnic area. 

Trail facilities at Granite Bay include the equestrian and pedestrian Pioneer Express 

Trail running north to Auburn State Recreation Area (SRA), 8 miles of unpaved 

multi-use trails running through the area, and a unpaved pedestrian and Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) only trail in the Beek's Bight area. 

The boat launch area capacity varies with water levels (Table 3.13-1). At high water, 

there are 10 lanes available, while at low water only two lanes available. As with 

Beal’s Point, capacity is a major concern at Granite Bay, particularly during peak 

season weekends when the day use parking area at Main Beach and the parking area 

and launch ramps at the launch area fill by midday. Access is another concern: there 

is only one entrance to Granite Bay at Douglas Boulevard and significant backups 

occur along the roadway and onto Auburn-Folsom Road when the parking areas fill. 

In addition, there is no external access to the sprawling and relatively remote North 

Granite area. Unrestricted vehicle access along the shoreline at low water is also a 

concern in the North Granite area. Unrestricted vehicle access causes erosion, 

potentially impacts water quality, damages vegetation, and threatens cultural 

resources below the high water line. 

Maximum usable elevation of the boat launches areas range from about 400 to 470 

feet. Currently, when the reservoir surface level is at 466 feet, only one 12-lane ramp 

and the two-lane boat launch ramp are usable. Elevations of the structures (other than 

the boat launch ramps), parking lot, and roads at Granite Bay range from 

approximately 465 to 475 feet.
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-7

Table 3.13-1 

Boat Launch Capacity at Granite Bay Day Use Area

 Lanes Slope (%) Width 

(feet) 

Minimum useable 

reservoir level 

(feet) 

Maximum useable 

reservoir level 

(feet) 

Stage 1 2 15 60 395 420 

Stage 2 10 10 700 426 435 

Stage 3 10 10 700 435 450 

Stage 4 14 15 330 425 466 

5 percent 4 5 60 408 466 

Low water 2 15 45 360 410 

Source: Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, et. al 2003, DPR 2006 

 

 Other Day Use Areas 

Old Salmon Falls 

Old Salmon Falls is on Salmon Falls Road in El Dorado County between Browns 

Ravine and the whitewater rafting facilities at the South Fork of the American 

River. The upper portion of the facility is just off Salmon Falls Road, commonly 

referred to as Falcon Crest, and includes an informal parking area used as an 

equestrian staging area and access to a hiking and horseback riding trail that 

drops down to the site of the old (closed) Monte Vista campground about one 

mile to the west. From Falcon Crest, a narrow road drops down to a lower area 

on the shore of Folsom Reservoir. Facilities here include a small, unpaved 

parking area and portable toilet. This area is used for fishing, swimming, and as a 

trailhead for the Browns Ravine and Sweetwater Trails. 

Issues related to the Old Salmon Falls area include unrestricted vehicle access to 

the shoreline, particularly when reservoir levels are low, that could lead to 

damage and erosion, and possible erosion problems on State land and trails 

resulting from the country-estate residential subdivision currently under 

construction on the nearby hills above the reservoir. The north and south parking 

lots, restroom facilities, and trail access points would be completely inundated at 

475 feet. Under existing conditions, the reservoir has not reached this level. 

Sweetwater Creek 

Sweetwater Creek is midway between Old Salmon Falls and the Salmon Falls 

Bridge. A widened shoulder just off Salmon Falls Road doubles as an informal 

parking area where a gate marks the trailhead for the Sweetwater Trail. This 

unpaved multi-use trail runs east about 2 miles to the Salmon Falls Bridge and 

the Darrington Trail. An informal trail runs west from here to Old Salmon Falls 

and the Browns Ravine Trail. 

Rattlesnake Bar on the northeast shore of Folsom Reservoir provides two boat 

launch lanes and an equestrian staging area. Portions of the road accessing the 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

launch lanes would be inundated at 470 feet; and the boat launch areas become 

unusable at elevations greater than 468 feet. 

Peninsula 

The Peninsula day use facility is about 1 mile north of the Peninsula 

Campground on the eastern shore of Folsom Reservoir. Due to its remote 

location, this facility is used primarily by boat-in users. The site consists of a 

small concrete boat ramp, pre-cast concrete vault toilet, picnic tables with 

ramadas and barbeques, and a small informal beach area. 

The south boat ramp elevations range between 410 and 466 feet and the north 

ramp between 434 and 467 feet. 

Peninsula Campground 

The Peninsula Campground is at the tip of the peninsula that separates the North 

and South Forks of the American River. This facility occurs in what is the most 

natural and least disturbed portion of the FLSRA. The area is characterized by 

rolling hills, open grasslands, and scattered oak and pine groves. Access to the 

site is provided by Rattlesnake Bar Road, which connects to Highway 49 at Pilot 

Hill about 9 miles away. The campground includes 104 sites that can 

accommodate a maximum trailer length of 18 feet and RV length of 24 feet. The 

facility also includes five restrooms (no showers), one boat ramp, and a small 

amphitheater suitable for group use. Located nearby is temporary seasonal 

housing for four DPR employees, a permanent park ranger residence, and a small 

maintenance yard. The maximum usable boat ramp elevation at Pennisula 

Campground is 466 feet. Most of the campsites would be inundated at 475 feet. 

Beal’s Point Campground 

The Beal’s Point Campground is adjacent to the popular Beal’s Point day use 

area. The facility includes 49 single campsites, 20 RV sites with electrical hookups, a sanitary dump station, two restrooms, and showers. The RV sites were 

constructed as mitigation for the loss of the family campsites at Negro Bar that 

were removed for the construction of the Lake Natoma crossing. Campers have 

easy access to all of the day use facilities provided at Beal’s Point, including 

trails, the beach, boat launch, picnic area, and snack bar. 

Folsom Reservoir River Access Areas 

Commercial and private whitewater rafting are popular activities on the South 

Fork of the American River. The 21-mile run between Chili Bar Dam near 

Highway 193 and Salmon Falls Road at the upper extent of Folsom Reservoir is 

the highest use river segment in the West. The river offers a diversity of rafting 

experiences, with Class I through Class III rapids, along with classic scenery and 

narrow rocky gorges all within relatively easy reach of Sacramento. Several 

agencies have jurisdiction in this run of the American River: the U.S. Bureau of 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-9

Land Management (BLM) owns 12.5 miles of river frontage; Reclamation owns 

1.5 miles of river frontage between Hospital Bar and Salmon Falls Road, which 

is managed by DPR; and El Dorado County is responsible for permitting river 

use by commercial outfitters. 

There are currently about 40 commercial rafting outfitters on the South Fork with 

67 permits in existence. These outfitters must obtain river use permits from El 

Dorado County which specify, among other things, the number of weekday and 

weekend trips permitted, the number of rafts and rafters per group, and insurance 

requirements. Permits are not required for private boats. The current daily boater 

total threshold is 3,200 boaters on two days during any one season. 

Skunk Hollow and Salmon Falls 

The FLSRA facilities at Salmon Falls and Skunk Hollow (in El Dorado County 

where Salmon Falls Road crosses the South Fork) are specifically intended to 

accommodate rafting activity on the river. According to DPR staff, 

approximately 9,000 commercial boats take-out at the Salmon Falls facility (they 

are prohibited to do so at Skunk Hollow), or between 50,000 and 60,000 boaters. 

Facilities here include a large area for bus parking and queuing, informal take-out 

area, four vault toilets, and drinking water. It is estimated that as many as 4,000 

additional private boats (roughly 24,000 boaters) take-out at the Skunk Hollow 

facility. Facilities here include a small paved parking area for 37 vehicles, a raft 

loading zone with drying rails, two vault toilets, a paved path from the river up to 

the parking area, and several picnic tables. A total of 45 parking spaces are 

provided at Salmon Falls. Both the Skunk Hollow and Salmon Falls facilities 

receive heavy use during peak season weekends. Both facilities are often used as 

a parking area for the nearby Darrington and Sweetwater Trails in addition to the 

20 parking spaces at the Darrington Trailhead. 

Folsom Reservoir Trails 

The trail system in the FLSRA is extensive, linking most of the FLSRA’s 

facilities, and accommodating a variety of users including walkers and hikers, 

horseback riders, cyclists, and mountain bikers. Although there are over 90 miles 

of existing trails within the FLSRA, there are many areas that are not accessible 

by trail and there is not a continuous trail connection around the reservoir. Due to 

the narrow land base and steep topography around both Folsom Reservoir and 

Lake Natoma, the opportunities to develop new trail facilities are limited. Within 

this context, the demand for trail access continues to increase for all types of trail 

uses, including pedestrian, equestrian, mountain bikes, and hard-surface 

bicycling. The increased demand also results in a growing concern about 

conflicts between the different kinds of trail users, particularly on multi-use 

trails, which are open to all users. The following is a description of trails in the 

FLSRA that are in the vicinity of Folsom Reservoir. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Pioneer Express Trail 

The Pioneer Express Trail connects the cities of Auburn and Sacramento and 

passes through the FLSRA. This segment of the Pioneer Express Trail is also part 

of the American Discovery Trail, the nation’s first coast-to-coast non-motorized 

recreation trail. The trail enters the northeastern corner of the FLSRA at Cardiac 

Hill and follows the western shoreline of the North Fork of the American River 

through Rattlesnake Bar and Granite Bay to Beal’s Point. This 21 mile segment 

of dedicated unpaved trail is for equestrian and pedestrian users only. From 

Beal’s Point west, the Pioneer Express Trail follows the American River Bike 

Trail along the western shore of Lake Natoma to Nimbus Dam (10 miles), and 

continues west along the American River Parkway 23 miles to Discovery Park in 

downtown Sacramento. The lower American River between Nimbus Dam and 

the confluence with the Sacramento River at Discovery Park has been designated 

as a National Wild and Scenic River. The Folsom DS/FDR would not affect 

flows and recreation resources on the lower American River or affect the Wild 

and Scenic River designation. 

Los Lagos Trail 

This 1.5-mile equestrian and pedestrian trail is on a 200-foot wide strip of land 

that extends through the residential subdivision of Los Lagos. The trail begins at 

Auburn-Folsom Road and runs south into the FLSRA connecting with the 

Pioneer Express Trail just north of Granite Bay at Beek’s Bight. 

Doton’s Point ADA Trail 

This pedestrian-only trail is a scenic 1-mile spur that extends from a trailhead 

near the Granite Bay equestrian staging area at Beek’s Bight to the end of 

Doton’s Point on Folsom Reservoir. 

Granite Bay Multi-Use Trails 

There are 8 miles of unpaved multi-use trails in the sprawling Granite Bay area 

of the FLSRA. The 2-mile Granite Bay/Beal’s Point Trail connects Granite Bay 

and the day use area at Beal’s Point. The Granite Bay Trail extends 5 miles from 

the main entrance to Granite Bay at Douglas Boulevard to Beek’s Bight and 

Doton’s Point in the northern area of the facility. The 1-mile Center Trail is 

essentially a shortcut across Oak Point instead of following the Granite Bay Trail 

along the shoreline. 

Folsom Point/Browns Ravine Trail 

This unpaved multi-use trail extends 4 miles between Folsom Point and Browns 

Ravine. The trail begins in the day use area at Folsom Point and ends at the 

Browns Ravine/Old Salmon Falls trailhead at Browns Ravine. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-11

Browns Ravine/Old Salmon Falls Trail 

This unpaved equestrian and pedestrian trail begins at the Browns Ravine 

equestrian staging area and trends north along the eastern shoreline of Folsom 

Reservoir to the trailhead parking area at Old Salmon Falls about 12 miles away. 

Sweetwater Trail 

A widened shoulder just off Salmon Falls Road between Old Salmon Falls and 

Salmon Falls Bridge doubles as an informal parking area where a gate marks the 

trailhead for the Sweetwater Trail. This unpaved multi-use trail extends east 

about 2 miles to the commercial raft take-out facility at Salmon Falls Bridge and 

the Darrington Trail. An informal trail extends west from here to Old Salmon 

Falls and the Browns Ravine Trail. 

Darrington Trail 

The trailhead for this popular trail is at a small unpaved parking area at the north 

end of the Salmon Falls Road bridge over the American River just above the 

whitewater rafting facility at Skunk Hollow. This rugged 9-mile trail for 

mountain bikers and pedestrians follows the western shoreline of the South Fork 

high above the waterline, rounds the peninsula that separates the North and South 

Forks, and terminates at the Peninsula Campground. 

Peninsula ADA (pedestrian only) 

The Peninsula trail is at the Peninsula Campground and extends from the south 

boat launch south along the Folsom Reservoir shoreline about 1 mile. 

Mormon Island Cove Trailhead 

The Mormon Island Cove Trailhead is located at the east end of MIAD. Parking 

is provided for approximately 30-40 vehicles. This facility was constructed by El 

Dorado County as mitigation for the Green Valley Road widening project. 

Connections to External Trail Systems 

There are several connections to the FLSRA’s trail system from outside 

jurisdictions. In Placer County, a multi-use trail enters the FLSRA at Sterling 

Pointe running along Lomida Lane off Auburn-Folsom Road. In El Dorado 

County, the 1997 Trails Master Plan includes a proposal to create the 10-mile 

Salmon Falls-Knickerbocker Trail that would connect with the Sweetwater Trail 

at the Salmon Falls Bridge. The trail would generally follow Salmon Falls Road 

to Pilot Hill and then Pilot View north to the Knickerbocker Trail. 

In the City of Folsom, several connections to the FLSRA’s trail systems exist. 

Folsom-Auburn Road provides a Class II bike lane that allows easy access to the 

West Lake Natoma Bike Trail and the FLSRA facilities along it, such as Beal’s 

Point, American River Water Education Center, Negro Bar, and Lake Overlook. 

Access points include Berry Creek Drive and Crestridge Lane. Class II bike lanes 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

along Greenback Lane provide access to facilities at Negro Bar and the West 

Lake Natoma Bike Trail at American River Canyon Drive and at Folsom-Auburn 

Road. Class II bike lanes along East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road 

provide access to Folsom Point and Browns Ravine. Finally, Class II bike lanes 

along Folsom Boulevard essentially parallel the East Lake Natoma Bike Trail, 

with access points at the Lake Natoma Crossing, Young Wo Circle, Parkshore 

Drive, Natoma Station Drive, and Nimbus Flat. 

There are many locations in the FLSRA where private landowners have 

established informal connections to the existing trail network. These connections 

often involve the installation of a gate in fences along property lines that abut 

DPR land. 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.13.2.1 Assessment Methods 

This analysis evaluates impacts to recreation by estimating the potential loss of 

visitors at each site as a result of construction of any of the alternatives. The analysis 

estimates total annual impacts and impacts during the peak recreation season based 

on monthly visits. Based on average 2002 to 2005 visitation, about 78 percent of 

total recreation at the FLSRA occurs during the peak season of May through 

September and 22 percent of recreation occurs during the off-peak season of October 

through April (DPR 2006). Therefore, any effects to recreation sites during the peak 

season months would affect substantially more visitors than effects during off-peak 

season months. 

Construction of any of the alternatives is expected to occur from late 2007 to 2013 or 

2014, depending on the alternative. Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and/or Folsom Point 

would be used as staging areas for construction activities and processing of 

materials. The sites used vary for each alternative; Section 2.2.4.11 describes 

activities at each of these sites. The length of the construction period varies at each 

location and by alternative. Table 3.13-2 shows the expected timeframe of 

construction activities at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point under each 

alternative. 

Construction activities could affect recreation by temporarily interrupting recreation 

or fully closing a facility, increasing truck traffic in the facility, impeding access to 

the facility, or impeding use of trails within the FLSRA. This analysis assumes 

varying levels of effects at each facility. Each alternatives discussion presents these 

assumptions. In summary, all recreation at Folsom Point would be interrupted under 

all alternatives, between 0 and 50 percent of recreation at Beal’s Point would be 

interrupted, and between 0 and 50 percent of recreation at Granite Bay would be 

interrupted. Some trail related recreation between Browns Ravine and Folsom Point 

and at Mooney Ridge could be affected. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-13

Table 3.13-2 

Construction Activity Timeframe

Granite Bay

Alternative 1 None 

Alternative 2 Late summer (August, September) 2013 

Alternative 3 Late summer 2009 

Alternative 4 Late summer 2013 to end 2014 

Alternative 5 Late summer 2013 to end 2014 

Beal’s Point

Alternative 1 Fall 2007 to early Summer (May, June) 2009 

Alternative 2 Fall 2007 to early Summer 2009 

Alternative 3 Spring 2008 through Summer 2008 

Alternative 4 Fall 2007 to end 2009 

Alternative 5 Fall 2007 to end 2012 

Folsom Point

Alternative 1 Fall 2007 to end 2012 

Alternative 2 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 3 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 4 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 5 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

This analysis assumes that recreation use would not change at Rattlesnake Bar, 

Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls, the Peninsula area, and at Lake Natoma. Water related 

recreation use at Folsom Lake Marina would not change as a result of implementing 

any alternative and water surface elevations would not change substantially at 

Folsom Reservoir as a result of any of the action alternatives. 

Potential impacts to recreation are evaluated based on average visitation during the 

years 1996 to 2005 visitation levels and projected future visitation levels through 

2014, the end of scheduled construction. Visitation data from 1996 to 2005 were 

provided for the entire FLSRA, not separated by facility. Instead, data was separated 

by paid day use, free day use, overnight camping, and total attendance. Many day 

use areas do not have entrance stations and many users enter by foot or bicycle. 

These free day users generally do not get counted; therefore, DPR estimates likely 

underestimate the actual number of visitors at FLSRA. From 1996 to 2005, average 

total visitation was 1,232,197 visitors. This was the best available data to use for this 

analysis. To estimate visitation at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point in 

2005, this analysis uses the percentage of total visitors at the affected facilities in 

year 2000. In 2000, total attendance at FLSRA was more than 1.5 million. Table 

3.13-3 shows 2000 visitation levels at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point 

and the respective percentages of total visits. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Table 3.13-3 

Attendance at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom 

Point as a Percentage of Total FLSRA 2000 Attendance

 Attendance Percentage of Total 

FLSRA Facility 

Attendance 

Granite Bay 507,712 46% 

Beal’s Point 219,986 20% 

Folsom Point 112,120 10% 

Total (above facilities) 839,818 76% 

Total FLSRA facility 

attendance 

1,111,260 - 

Based on the above percentages and 10 year average visitation (1996 to 2005), 

visitation levels in 2006 were estimated to be 566,811 at Granite Bay, 246,439 at 

Beal’s Point, and 123,220 at Folsom Point. These values are used to project future 

use at the FLSRA. 

The California Department of Finance (DOF) provides population estimates and 

projections for all California counties. This analysis relies on DOF population data to 

estimate future visitation at the FLSRA. The analysis assumes that visitation at 

FLSRA will increase relative to population growth in Sacramento, El Dorado, and 

Placer Counties. From 2001 to 2005, population increased an average of 2.24 percent 

per year. DOF projections indicate that population in the three counties will grow an 

average of 2.07 percent per year from 2007 to 2014. Therefore, this analysis assumes 

that during the 2007 to 2014 construction period, visitation at FLSRA will increase 

2.1 percent per year. 

3.13.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Impacts from the action alternatives would be significant if: 

• Recreational use at major recreation sites and trails would be substantially 

reduced (more than 10 percent loss in annual visitation or any long-term 

reductions in visitation1

) as a result of construction. 

• Truck traffic or other construction activities would substantially reduce access to 

or interfere with recreational activities at the FLSRA. 

• Special events at the FLSRA would require cancellation. 

• Displaced recreation from sites affected by construction would substantially 

contribute to overcrowding or exceed the facility capacity at other recreation sites 

(including sites within the FLSRA). 

 

1

 For this analysis, long-term is defined as greater than 1 year. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-15

3.13.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, construction of staging and recreation 

centers and development of borrow areas within the reservoir would not occur. 

Various corrective actions to Folsom Dam and related facilities would not occur. 

Therefore there would be no impact to recreation. 

Table 3.13-4 displays estimated recreation use from 2007 through 2014. Based on 

DOF population projections, visitation is estimated to increase 2.1 percent per year. 

Therefore, total visitation at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point would 

increase from about 956,000 visitors in 2007 to about 1,106,000 visitors in 2014. 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, the DPR would complete their RMP, 

which would result in improved recreation infrastructure. Some of the major 

improvements include: converting some of the campgrounds at Beal’s Point to group 

campsites, and improving traffic flow at the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay entrance 

stations to avoid traffic problems on Folsom-Auburn Road. New and improved 

facilities could attract even more visitors to the FLSRA than estimated in Table 3.13-

4. 

Table 3.13-4 

Recreation Use at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point under the No Action/No 

Project Alternative 

Site/area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite 

Bay 578,714 590,867 603,275 615,944 628,878 642,085 655,569 669,336 

Beal’s 

Point 251,615 256,899 262,293 267,802 273,425 279,167 285,030 291,015 

Folsom 

Point 125,807 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 145,508 

Total 956,136 976,215 996,715 1,017,647 1,039,016 1,060,836 1,083,114 1,105,859 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Table 3.13-5 summarizes assumptions about the percentage of recreation affected at 

each facility under Alternative 1 and the proposed construction period. Under 

Alternative 1, there would be no construction activity at Granite Bay. Table 3.13-6 

shows estimated losses in visitation to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point 

during the construction period, compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. 

The following sections identify and evaluate potential recreation impacts of 

Alternative 1. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Table 3.13-5 

Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under Alternative 1 

FLSRA Site % of 

Visitors 

Affected 

Construction Timeframe # of Peak Recreation 

Season Affected 

Granite Bay 0% None 0 

Beal’s Point 10% Fall 2007 to early Summer 

(May, June) 2009 1.5 

Folsom Point 100% Fall 2007 to end 2012 5 

Table 3.13-6 

Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 1

Facility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite Bay - - - - - - - - 

Beal’s Point 742 25,690 13,143 - - - - - 

Folsom Point 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 - - 

Total 

 

4,455 

 

154,139 

 

144,290 

 

133,901 

 

136,713 

 

139,584 - - 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Granite Bay

Granite Bay would not be affected by this alternative; therefore, there would be no 

impacts to recreation at Granite Bay from Alternative 1. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational day use at Beal’s Point 

Construction at Beal’s Point is scheduled to begin in Fall 2007, or later. All efforts 

would be made to start major construction at Beal’s Point after the peak recreation 

season is over. Depending on when construction begins, work in this area would 

continue through early summer of 2009. There would be an in-reservoir staging area 

at the southwest end of Beal’s Point so that no public parking is used for construction 

activities. Beal’s Point would include contractor’s offices, parking, stockpiling of 

and equipment, as well as other staging area-related activities. During the preparation 

of the plans and specifications, the lead construction agency would coordinate with 

DPR on the potential to use temporary construction access, staging areas, haul routes 

and permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. There could be some borrow 

development at Beal’s Point that could affect recreation. If excavation at Beal’s Point 

is necessary, a processing plant could potentially be constructed in-reservoir, south 

of the Beal’s Point parking lot, adjacent to the RWD. The picnic facilities and 

restrooms on the south end of Beal’s Point would be open to the public during 

construction. The boat launch facility at Beal’s Point would be closed to the public. 

The staging area would more than likely block access to the boat launch. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-17

It is assumed that about 10 percent of recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted 

each year during the construction period. The major recreational facilities at the 

north end of Beal’s Point would still be accessible to the public. The north end area 

includes a beach, restrooms, picnic tables, and concessionaires. The walking and 

bike trails, or suitable detours would continue to be available to the public through 

the entire construction period. The south end facilities, except the boat ramp would 

be open to the public; however, the nearby proximity of construction could deter 

visitors to the area. Construction would affect recreation for a little less than 2 years. 

This analysis estimates a loss of about 25,690 visits during 2008 and about 13,143 

visits during 2009. Because effects would occur longer than one year, this impact to 

day use recreation would be potentially significant. 

After construction, if appropriate, the government would turn over the construction 

platform and processing area at Beal’s Point to DPR. Reclamation would cover the 

staging area in road base aggregate, or another suitable material. If borrow activity 

occurs at Beal’s Point, the beaches would be re-contoured as appropriate. 

During construction, the loss of day use recreation at Beal’s Point would be 

potentially significant. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 would reduce the 

impact to less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground. 

The campground facilities would still be open to the public during construction. 

Construction would occur on the opposite side of the dikes from the campground. A 

small staging area would be located north of the campground. Construction would 

not occur anywhere on the campground or result in any closure of camping facilities. 

Construction activities would generate noise and traffic that could affect use of the 

campground adjacent to Beal’s Point. Noise levels would be mitigated to the extent 

possible through the mitigation measures in Section 3.10.4. Increased noise levels 

could result in some decreased recreational use of the campground. 

The loss of use at the Beal’s Point Campground over the construction period would 

be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures in Section 3.10.4 and RC-1 through 

RC-8 would reduce the impact to less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Folsom Point. 

Construction is scheduled to start at Folsom Point in Fall of 2007. Construction 

would likely start after the peak recreation season and ensue through 2012. Folsom 

Point would be the main staging area along the reservoir’s southern edge for 

construction on the Auxiliary Spillway, the main dam, the Left Wing Dam, and 

MIAD. Folsom Point would include contractor’s offices, parking, staging of 

material, and processing and stockpiling of borrow materials, as well as other staging 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

area-related activities. During the preparation of the plans and specifications, the lead 

construction agency would coordinate with DPR on the potential to use temporary 

construction access, staging areas, haul routes and permanent stockpiles as future 

recreation areas. 

All recreation at Folsom Point would be interrupted during the construction period. 

Visitors would not be able to access Folsom Point facilities, including the boat 

launch or the parking lots. Recreation would be affected for about 6 years. Losses in 

annual recreation visits are estimated to range from about 128,400 in 2008 to 

139,600 in 2012. 

This would be a significant and unavoidable impact to recreation at Folsom Point. 

The government would implement Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8, but 

impacts would still be significant while Folsom Point is closed. 

Construction traffic and construction activities could interrupt and interfere with 

recreation at Beal’s Point. 

Construction traffic would include the trucking of borrow materials and processed 

materials. Formal internal haul routes within the reservoir would be established that 

connect all of the dikes and dams to a primary borrow area and a primary processing 

area. Public traffic would be restricted on these roads. This would decrease 

construction traffic on public roads within the Beal’s Point area. 

Internal haul roads would be constructed above the normal high waterline to ensure 

that the hauls roads are available except in extreme conditions. Construction vehicles 

would rarely need to use the main entrance at Beal’s Point from Auburn-Folsom 

Road. Construction traffic would occur during the scheduled hours of the identified 

construction period. Construction traffic would not occur on weekends with 

scheduled special functions or on holiday weekends that would interfere with 

recreation. During off-peak seasons, recreational use within the Beal’s Point facility 

is generally low; construction traffic would not cause major interruptions to 

recreation. During the peak summer season, recreational use is high on weekdays 

and weekends. If public access routes are used, construction traffic would slow down 

visitors to Beal’s Point, but visitors would not be excluded. 

A small staging area and or a transition would be constructed north of Beal’s Point 

Campground to store and transport materials to Dikes 5 and 6. All construction 

activities would occur on the water side of the dikes away from the campground. 

Some construction noise would be audible from the campground. All reasonable 

mitigation measures would be used to reduce to noise impacts, which would include, 

but would not be limited to using portable noise barriers, limiting construction work 

to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and off-season periods (October through April), 

and erecting staging areas as far from the campground as possible. A detailed list of 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-19

mitigation measures to reduce noise levels is presented in Section 3.10.4. 

Construction traffic would occur from the staging areas to the construction areas. 

There may be some increased wait times to access the facility; as well as minor 

construction within the facility. 

Impacts to the Beal’s Point recreation facilities would be significant during the 

construction period. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 would be taken to 

reduce interruptions to recreation activities from construction traffic during the peak 

season. After mitigation, impacts to recreation at Beal’s Point would be less than 

significant. 

Construction traffic and construction activities could interrupt and interfere with 

recreation at Folsom Point.

Because of the full closure of Folsom Point, onsite construction traffic and 

construction activities would not interfere with recreation at Folsom Point facilities. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on trails at Granite Bay and Beal’s 

Point.

FLSRA has many paved and dirt multi-use trails for biking, walking, hiking, and 

horse riding. A dirt multi-use trail extends from Granite Bay south to Beal’s Point. 

Construction on Dikes 4, 5, and 6 and potential borrow activity north of Beal’s Point 

could limit access to the trail. The Pioneer Express Trail, an equestrian and 

pedestrian trail, also extends from Beal’s Point to Granite Bay. The American River 

Bike Trail extends from downtown Sacramento and ends at the Beal’s Point 

recreation area. Use of these trails would be interrupted intermittently during the 

construction period. Parts of the trails may be closed to the public or may be 

removed to accommodate construction activities. 

This would be a temporary significant impact. Mitigation Measures RC-9 and RC10 would reduce the impact to less than significant. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on Folsom Point-Browns Ravine 

trail.

The Folsom Point-Browns Ravine multi-use trail extends northeast from Folsom 

Point to Browns Ravine. The trail runs across MIAD and along the reservoir’s edge 

to Browns Ravine. Construction activities would restrict public access to the Folsom 

Point-Browns Ravine trail from Folsom Point the entire time that the Folsom Point 

staging area is used. Signs would be posted that redirect visitors to trail access at 

Browns Ravine. Restricted access to Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail from Folsom 

Point would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

During construction on MIAD, the portion of the trail that runs over MIAD would be 

closed to the public. The parking lot to access the trail from MIAD would also be 

closed. Under Alternative 1, construction on MAID would occur from 2008 to 2010. 

During this time, the government would allow use of other portions of Folsom PointBrowns Ravine trail subject to public safety considerations. 

Loss of recreational use on this trail would be a temporary, significant and 

unavoidable impact. 

Construction could result in cancellation of special events scheduled at FLSRA. 

Section 3.13.1.3 describes some special events held annually at the FLSRA sites. 

Special events attract both participants and spectators. Many special events, 

including triathlons, other races, and bass fishing tournaments are held at Granite 

Bay. Under Alternative 1, construction would not occur at Granite Bay; therefore, 

there would be no impacts to special events. 

Construction activities at Beal’s Point would not occur during weekends when 

special events are scheduled to take place. All construction areas would be blocked 

off from the public. Additional efforts may be necessary to accommodate crowds 

within a smaller designated area. 

Some scheduled events at Folsom Point would need to change venues to a different 

area of the FLSRA or be cancelled until construction is complete. The FLSRA 

already is overcrowded during the summer season; therefore, it would be difficult to 

schedule additional special events during this time at unaffected areas of the FLSRA. 

If special events occur during the off-peak season, organizers would likely be able to 

find an alternative FLSRA location to hold the event. Fishing tournaments out of 

Browns Ravine would be unaffected by construction. 

The government would implement Mitigation Measure RC-7. If cancellation of any 

event occurs because of construction, this impact would be significant and 

unavoidable. 

Construction could displace visitors from Beal’s Point and Folsom Point and 

substantially contribute to overcrowded conditions at other regional recreation sites.

Because of potential interruptions to recreation at Beal’s Point and the full closure of 

Folsom Point, visitors would need to find alternate recreation opportunities. During 

the off-peak season, other facilities at FLSRA would be able to accommodate 

displaced users. The FLSRA is typically over crowded during the peak season and 

would not likely accommodate all displaced visitors. The remaining areas of the 3-

county region offer multiple recreation opportunities, including many parks and 

swimming areas. Boaters could travel to nearby reservoirs in the Sierra foothills or 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-21

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The surrounding counties, including Yolo, Yuba, 

and San Joaquin County also have outdoor recreational and boating opportunities. 

Displaced visitors would be able to find a comparable substitute for recreation at 

FLSRA; however, many of these sites are also overcrowded during the peak season, 

especially boating facilities. Not all displaced visitors from FLSRA would go to the 

same recreation areas. Some visitors may opt for non-outdoor recreational 

substitutes. 

Visitors would be displaced during the construction season at each facility. This 

analysis assumes that 10 percent of visitors would be affected annually at Beal’s 

Point. Displaced visitors during the off-peak season would not result in substantial 

overcrowding at other recreation sites. When construction occurs during the peak 

season, more visitors could be affected. Most recreational facilities at Beal’s Point 

would continue to be open for public use during construction; therefore, fewer 

visitors would be displaced than if the facility were completely closed. The majority 

of visitors at Beal’s Point are not boaters; therefore, the multitude of other regional 

recreation areas would be able to accommodate visitors interested in hiking, 

swimming, or picnicking. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Folsom Point would be closed for about 6 years. Any displaced visitors from Folsom 

Point that travel to other recreation areas for boating activities would contribute to 

overcrowding. The magnitude and duration of displaced visitors, especially boaters, 

from Folsom Point to other facilities would create overcrowding. 

This impact would be significant and unavoidable. The government would implement 

Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8; however, impacts from overcrowding 

would still be significant. 

Installation and operation of security measures could interrupt recreation at FLSRA 

facilities. 

Proposed security measures include appropriate level of access controls, intrusion 

detection, supplemental lighting and Closed Circuit television (CCTV) components 

throughout the Folsom Dam facilities. Installation of security cameras would require 

the construction of 30’ steel towers on each end of Dikes 4, 5, 6, and 7, and MIAD. 

Once installed the cameras would be able to only monitor critical access control 

devices. Cameras would be installed at Beal’s Point to monitor access control points 

of Folsom Dam and the Right Wing Dam. Construction associated with the security 

measures would be coordinated with construction activities of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

Installation at Beal’s Point includes a fixed camera tower at the southern edge of the 

public parking lot near the RWD. Installation of the tower would restrict part of the 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

parking lot from public use for a short period of time. The staging area at Beal’s 

Point would be set up for construction at the RWD and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. Installation 

of the security camera would not interfere with additional recreation. The security 

cameras would video recreation activity around the recreation sites; however, 

recreation would not be affected. Increased security could improve public safety at 

the recreation site. 

This would be a less than significant impact. 

Installation of camera towers and lighting on the dikes could temporarily affect 

existing bike and pedestrian trails that run atop the dikes. Permanent lighting could 

improve recreation opportunities on trails. 

This impact would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures RC-6, RC-9 and 

RC 10.

Installation of camera towers on MIAD at the left and right abutments would require 

some construction work. The Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail over MIAD would 

be restricted to the public during construction work on MIAD. Installation of the 

security measure would occur during the same period. 

The impact would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Table 3.13-7 presents assumptions about the percentage of recreation affected at 

each facility under Alternative 2 and the proposed construction period. Table 3.13-8 

shows estimated losses to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point during the 

construction period under Alternative 2, compared to the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. The following sections identify and evaluate potential recreation impacts 

of Alternative 2. 

Table 3.13-7 

Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under Alternative 2 

FLSRA Site % of 

Visitors 

Affected 

Construction Timeframe # of Peak Recreation 

Season Affected 

Granite Bay 

0% 

Late summer (August, 

September) 2013 0.5 

Beal’s Point 

10% 

Fall 2007 to early Summer 

(May, June) 2009 1.5 

Folsom Point 100% Fall 2007 to end 2013 6 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-23

Table 3.13-8 

Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 2

Facility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite Bay - - - - - - - - 

Beal’s Point 742 25,690 13,143 - - - - - 

Folsom Point 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Total 4,455 

 

154,139 144,290 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Granite Bay

Under Alternative 2, construction at Granite Bay would occur during the late 

summer, roughly August through October, in 2013. The Granite Bay staging area 

would be north of Granite Bay on the east side of Dike 1, which is outside of major a 

recreational activity at Granite Bay. During the preparation of the plans and 

specifications, the lead construction agency would coordinate with DPR on the 

potential to use temporary construction access, staging areas, haul routes and 

permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. There would be no borrow activity at 

Granite Bay under this alternative. The Granite Bay staging area would support the 

construction on Dikes 1, 2, and 3, including contractor’s offices, parking, 

construction, materials storage, as well as other staging area-related activities. All 

recreation facilities at Granite Bay would be available for public use. Construction 

on Dikes 1, 2, and 3 would not result in any losses to recreational use at Granite Bay. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Beal’s Point

Impacts to Beal’s Point would be similar to Alternative 1. Because of construction 

effects and restricted use of the boat launch, it is assumed that about 10 percent of 

recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted during the construction period. All 

facilities, except the boat launch, would remain open to the public. 

During construction, the loss of day use recreation at Beal’s Point would be 

significant. Mitigation Measure RC-1 through RC-8 would reduce the impact to less 

than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground. 

Impacts to Beal’s Point Campground would be similar to Alternative 1. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

The loss of use at the Beal’s Point Campground over the construction period would 

be significant. Mitigation Measures in Section 3.10.4 and RC-1 through RC-8 would 

reduce the impact to less than significant.

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Folsom Point 

Construction is scheduled to start at Folsom Point in the Fall of 2007. Construction 

would likely start after the peak recreation season and ensue through 2013. Folsom 

Point would be the main staging area along the reservoir’s southern edge for 

construction on the Auxiliary Spillway, the main dam, the Left Wing Dam, Dikes 7 

and 8, and MIAD. All recreation at Folsom Point would be interrupted during the 

construction period. The boat ramp at Folsom Point would be closed for public use. 

Recreational use of the facility would be lost for over 6 years. Annual losses in visits 

are estimated to range from about 128,400 in 2008 to 142,500 in 2013. During the 

preparation of the plans and specifications, the lead construction agency would 

coordinate with DPR on the potential to use temporary construction access, staging 

areas, haul routes and permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. 

This impact would be a significant and unavoidable impact to recreation at Folsom 

Point during the construction period. The government would implement Mitigation 

Measures RC-1 through RC-8, but impacts would still be significant while Folsom 

Point is closed. 

Construction traffic and activities could interrupt or interfere with recreation at 

Beal’s Point and Granite Bay.

Construction traffic would include the trucking of borrow materials and processed 

materials. Formal internal haul routes within the reservoir would be established that 

connect all of the dikes and dams to a primary borrow area and a primary processing 

area. Public traffic would be restricted on these roads. An internal haul route would 

be constructed from Beal’s Point to Granite Bay. Construction trucks would use this 

route to the extent possible to haul materials. This would reduce the effects of 

construction traffic on recreation at these facilities. 

Internal haul roads would be constructed above the normal high waterline to ensure 

that the hauls roads are available except during extreme conditions. When water 

levels are high and internal roads are inundated, construction vehicles would need to 

use the main entrances to Beal’s Point from Auburn-Folsom Road and to Granite 

Bay from Douglas Boulevard. Construction traffic would occur during scheduled 

hours of the identified construction period. Construction traffic would not occur 

during weekends with scheduled special events or holiday weekends that would 

interfere with recreation. During off-peak seasons, recreational use within the Beal’s 

Point and Granite Bay facilities are generally low; construction traffic would not 

cause major interruptions to recreation. During the peak summer season, recreational 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-25

use is high on weekdays and weekends. If public access routes are used, construction 

traffic would slow down visitors and increase wait times to access Beal’s Point and 

Granite Bay. 

A small staging area would be constructed north of Beal’s Point Campground to 

store and transport materials to Dikes 5 and 6. All construction activities would 

occur on the water side of the dikes away from the campground. Some construction 

noise would be audible from the campground. All reasonable mitigation measures 

would be used to reduce to noise impacts, which would include, but would not be 

limited to using portable noise barriers, limiting construction work to daytime (7:00 

a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and off-season periods (October through April), and erecting 

staging areas as far from the campground as possible. A detailed list mitigation 

measures to reduce noise levels is presented in Section 3.10.4. Construction traffic 

would occur from the staging area to the construction areas. There may be some 

increased wait times to access the facility; construction traffic would not interfere 

with public traffic within the facility. 

Impacts to the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation facilities would be 

significant during the construction period. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 

would be taken to reduce interruptions to recreation activities from construction 

traffic during the peak season. After mitigation, impacts to recreation at Beal’s Point 

and Granite Bay would be less than significant. 

Construction traffic could cause major interruptions to recreation at Folsom Point.

Because of full closure at Folsom Point, onsite construction traffic would not affect 

recreation at Folsom Point facilities. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on trails at Granite Bay and Beal’s 

Point.

FLSRA has many paved and dirt multi-use trails for biking, walking, hiking, and 

horse riding. A dirt multi-use trail extends from Granite Bay south to Beal’s Point. 

Construction on Dikes 4, 5, and 6 and potential borrow activity north of Beal’s Point 

could limit access to the trail. The Pioneer Express Trail, an equestrian and 

pedestrian trail, also extends from Beal’s Point to Granite Bay. The American River 

Bike Trail extends from downtown Sacramento and ends at the Beal’s Point 

recreation area. Use of these trails would be interrupted intermittently from late 2007 

to the early summer of 2009 peak season, and the latter half of the 2013 summer 

season. Parts of the trails may be closed to the public or may be removed to 

accommodate construction activities. 

This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures RC-9 and RC-10 would 

reduce the impact to less than significant. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Construction could result in lost recreational use on Folsom Point-Browns Ravine 

trail.

The Folsom Point-Browns Ravine multi-use trail extends northeast from Folsom 

Point to Browns Ravine. The trail runs across the MIAD and along the reservoir’s 

edge to Browns Ravine. Construction activities would restrict public access to the 

Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail from Folsom Point the entire time that the Folsom 

Point staging area is used. Signs would be posted that redirect visitors to trail access 

at Browns Ravine. Restricted access to Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail from 

Folsom Point would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact. 

During construction on MIAD, the portion of the trail that runs over MIAD would be 

closed to the public. The parking lot to access the trail from MIAD would also be 

closed. Under Alternative 2, construction on MAID would occur from 2008 to 2011. 

During this time, the government would allow use of other portions of Folsom PointBrowns Ravine trail subject to public safety considerations. However, loss of 

recreational use on this trail during MIAD construction would be a temporary, 

significant and unavoidable impact. 

Loss of recreational use on this trail would be a temporary, significant and 

unavoidable impact. 

Construction could result in cancellation of special events scheduled at FLSRA. 

Section 3.13.1.3 describes some special events held annually at the FLSRA sites. 

Special events attract both participants and spectators. Many special events, 

including triathlons, other races, and bass fishing tournaments are held at Granite 

Bay. Alternative 2 would not interrupt recreation at Granite Bay facilities; therefore, 

these special events could be held during construction periods. Construction 

activities would not occur during weekends when special events take place. All 

construction areas would be blocked off from the public. Additional efforts would be 

necessary to accommodate crowds within a smaller designated area. 

Effects to special events at Beal’s Point and Folsom Point would be the same as 

Alternative 1. Events would likely be able to occur as planned at Beal’s Point during 

the construction period. Events scheduled at Folsom Point would need to be 

relocated, rescheduled, or cancelled. 

The government would implement Mitigation Measure RC-7 and RC-9. If any events 

are cancelled, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-27

Construction could displace visitors and substantially contribute to overcrowded 

conditions at other regional recreation sites.

Because of potential interruptions to recreation at Beal’s Point and full closure of 

Folsom Point, visitors would need to find alternate recreation opportunities. During 

the off-peak season, other facilities at FLSRA would be able to accommodate 

displaced users. The FLSRA is typically over crowded during the peak season and 

would not likely accommodate all displaced visitors. The remaining areas of the 3-

county region offer multiple recreation opportunities, including many parks, 

swimming areas and boating opportunities. The surrounding counties, including 

Yolo, Yuba, and San Joaquin County also have outdoor recreational and boating 

opportunities. Displaced visitors would be able to find a comparable substitute for 

recreation at FLSRA; however, many of these sites are also overcrowded during the 

peak season, especially boating facilities. Not all displaced visitors from FLSRA 

would go to the same recreation areas. Some visitors may opt for non-outdoor 

recreational substitutes. 

Visitors would be displaced during the construction season at each facility. Granite 

Bay offers boating and non-water related activities. Construction would not affect 

recreation at Granite Bay. Visitors would still be able to use all facilities, including 

boat ramps. 

This impact to Beal’s Point and Granite Bay would be less than significant. 

This analysis assumes that 10 percent of visitors would be affected annually at Beal’s 

Point. Displaced visitors during the off-peak season would not result in substantial 

overcrowding at other recreation sites. When construction occurs during the peak 

season, more visitors could be affected. Most recreational facilities at Beal’s Point 

would continue to be open for public use during construction. The majority of 

visitors at Beal’s Point are not boaters; therefore, the multitude of other regional 

recreation areas would be able to accommodate visitors interested in hiking, 

swimming, or picnicking. 

Displaced visitors from Beal’s Point would not result in substantial overcrowding at 

other facilities. This would be a less than significant impact. 

Folsom Point would be entirely closed for 6 peak recreation seasons. Any displaced 

visitors from Folsom Point that travel to other recreation areas for boating activities 

would contribute to overcrowding. The magnitude and duration of displaced visitors, 

especially boaters, from Folsom Point to other facilities would create overcrowding. 

This impact would be significant and unavoidable. The government would implement 

mitigation measure RC-1 through RC-8; however, impacts from overcrowding would 

still be significant. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Installation and operation of security measures could interrupt recreation at FLSRA 

facilities. 

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Table 3.13-9 presents assumptions about the percentage of recreation affected at 

each facility and the scheduled construction period. Table 3.13-10 shows estimated 

losses to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point during the construction period, 

compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. The following sections identify 

and evaluate potential recreation impacts of Alternative 3. 

Table 3.13-9 

Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under Alternative 3 

FLSRA Site % of 

Visitors 

Affected 

Construction Timeframe # of Peak Recreation 

Season Affected 

Granite Bay 0% Late summer 2009 0.5 

Beal’s Point 10% Spring through summer 2008 1 

Folsom Point 100% Fall 2007 to end 2013 6 

Table 3.13-10 

Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 3

Facility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite Bay - - - - - - - - 

Beal’s Point - 21,985 - - - - - - 

Folsom Point 

3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Total 3,712 150,435 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Granite Bay.

Under Alternative 3, impacts to Granite Bay would be the same as Alternative 2, 

except construction would occur during the latter part of the 2009 peak season as 

opposed to the latter part of the 2013 peak season under Alternative 2. Construction 

would not affect any recreation facilities at Granite Bay. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Beal’s Point.

Under this alternative, construction at Beal’s Point is scheduled to begin in Spring 

2008 and end in Summer 2008. Construction activities at Beal’s Point would include 

contractor’s offices, parking, staging of material, and concrete production, as well as 

other staging area-related activities. A construction platform would be constructed so 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-29

that no public parking would be occupied by construction staging and activities. The 

construction platform would be near some picnic facilities and restrooms, but they 

would still be open to the public. The boat launch facility at Beal’s Point would be 

closed to the public because the staging area would more than likely block access to 

the boat launch. If excavation is necessary, there could be some borrow development 

at Beal’s Point that could affect recreation. During the preparation of the plans and 

specifications, the lead construction agency would coordinate with DPR on the 

potential to use temporary construction access, staging areas, haul routes and 

permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. 

Because of construction effects and restricted use of the boat launch, it is assumed 

that about 10 percent of recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted during the 

construction period. All facilities, except the boat launch, would remain open to the 

public. This analysis estimates a loss of about 22,000 visits during the 6-month 

construction period. 

Because it is expected that only 10 percent of recreation would be affected and 

construction would be less than one year, this impact would be less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground. 

Impacts to Beal’s Point Campground would be similar to Alternative 1. However, 

under this Alternative, substantial amounts of visitors would not be affected because 

the construction period is shorter, as described above. 

The loss of use at the Beal’s Point Campground over the construction period would 

be less than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Folsom Point.

Impacts to Folsom Point under Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The government would implement 

Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 to mitigate the loss of boating facilities, but 

impacts would still be significant while Folsom Point is closed. 

Construction traffic could result in substantial interruptions to recreation at Beal’s 

Point and Granite Bay.

Impacts from construction traffic would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts to the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation facilities would be 

significant during the construction period. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 

would be taken to reduce interruptions to recreation activities from construction 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

traffic. After mitigation, impacts to recreation at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay 

would be less than significant. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on trails at Granite Bay and Beal’s 

Point.

Impacts from construction traffic would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures RC-9 and RC-10. 

Construction would result in lost recreational use on Folsom Point-Browns Ravine 

Trail.

Impacts to Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail would be the same as Alternative 2. 

This would be a temporary, significant and unavoidable impact. 

Construction could result in cancellation of special events scheduled at FLSRA. 

Effects to special events would be the same as Alternative 2. Events would likely be 

able to occur as planned at Granite Bay and Beal’s Point during the construction 

period. Events scheduled at Folsom Point would need to be relocated, rescheduled, 

or cancelled. 

Mitigation Measure RC-7 would be implemented. If cancellation of events occurs, 

this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Construction could displace visitors and substantially contribute to overcrowded 

conditions during more than one peak season at other regional recreation sites. 

Impacts of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Displaced visitors from 

Granite Bay and Beal’s Point would not cause substantial overcrowding at other 

recreation sites. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Displaced visitors from Folsom Point would cause substantial overcrowding at other 

facilities. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Installation and operation of security measures could interrupt recreation at FLSRA 

facilities. 

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-31

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts Alternative 4 

Table 3.13-11 summarizes assumptions about the percentage of recreation affected at 

each facility and the proposed construction period. Table 3.13-12 shows estimated 

losses to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point during the construction period, 

compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. The following sections identify 

and evaluate potential recreation impacts of Alternative 4. 

Table 3.13-11 

Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities Under Alternative 4 

FLSRA Site % of 

Visitors 

Affected 

Construction Timeframe # of Peak Recreation 

Season Affected 

Granite Bay 

25% 

Late summer 2013 to end 

2014 1.5 

Beal’s Point 50% Fall 2007 to end 2009 2 

Folsom Point 100% Fall 2007 to end 2013 6 

Table 3.13-12 

Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 4

Facility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite Bay 

- - - - - - 46,683 163,892 

Beal’s Point 3,712 128,449 131,147 - - - - - 

Folsom Point 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Total 7,425 256,899 262,293 133,901 136,713 139,584 189,198 163,892 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Granite Bay.

Under Alternative 4, construction at Granite Bay would occur during the late 

summer 2013 and continue through 2014. The Granite Bay staging area would be 

north of Granite Bay on the east side of Dike 1, which is outside of major a 

recreational activity at Granite Bay. The Granite Bay staging area would support the 

construction on Dikes 1, 2, and 3, including contractor’s offices, parking, 

construction, materials storage, as well as other staging area-related activities. There 

would be borrow development in the northern parts of Granite Bay under this 

alternative, which would affect recreation at Granite Bay. During the preparation of 

the plans and specifications, the lead construction agency would coordinate with 

DPR on the potential to use temporary construction access, staging areas, haul routes 

and permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. It is assumed that about 25 

percent of recreation at Granite Bay would be interrupted during the construction 

period. Recreation would be affected for almost 2 years. This analysis estimates a 

loss of about 46,700 visits during the latter half of 2013 and about 167,000 in 2014. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

This impact would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures 

RC-1 through RC-8 would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less 

than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Beal’s Point.

Under Alternative 4, construction at Beal’s Point would begin in November 2007 

after the peak recreation season and ensue through 2009. There would be an inreservoir staging area at the southwest end of Beal’s Point so that no public parking 

is used for construction activities. Beal’s Point would include contractor’s offices, 

parking, stockpiling of and equipment, as well as other staging area-related activities. 

Borrow development at the southern end of Beal’s Point would occur under this 

alternative. A processing plant would be constructed in-reservoir at the southern end 

of the facility. Borrow development would affect recreational use in this area. The 

picnic facilities and restrooms on the south end of Beal’s Point would be open to the 

public; however, the public would likely avoid these facilities during construction. 

The boat launch facility at Beal’s Point would be closed to the public. The staging 

area would block access to the boat launch. There could be borrow development at 

the northern part of Beal’s Point depending on materials needed. During the 

preparation of the plans and specifications, the lead construction agency would 

coordinate with DPR on the potential to use temporary construction access, staging 

areas, haul routes and permanent stockpiles as future recreation areas. 

It is assumed that about 50 percent of recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted 

during the construction period. This analysis estimates a loss of about 128,500 visits 

during 2008 and about 131,100 visits 2009. 

This impact would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures 

RC-1 through RC-8 would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less 

than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground. 

Impacts to Beal’s Point Campground would be similar to Alternative 1; however, 

construction activities would be greater and would occur over a longer period. 

The loss of use at the Beal’s Point Campground over the construction period would 

be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures in Section 3.10.4 and RC-1 through 

RC-8, would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less than 

significant.
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-33

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Folsom Point.

Impacts to Folsom Point under Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 

The government would implement Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 but 

impacts would still be significant while Folsom Point is closed. 

Construction traffic could result in substantial interruptions to recreation at Beal’s 

Point and Granite Bay. 

Impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts to the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation facilities would be 

significant during the construction period. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-9 

would be taken to reduce interruptions to recreation activities from construction 

traffic during the peak season. After mitigation, impacts to recreation at Beal’s Point

and Granite Bay would be less than significant. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on trails at Granite Bay and Beal’s 

Point.

Impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures RC-9 and RC-10. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on Folsom Point-Browns Ravine 

Trail.

Impacts to Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail would be the same as Alternative 2. 

This would be a temporary, significant and unavoidable impact. 

Construction could result in cancellation of special events scheduled at FLSRA. 

Effects to special events would be the same as Alternative 2. Events at Granite Bay 

and Beal’s Point would be able to occur during the construction period. Events 

scheduled at Folsom Point would need to be relocated, rescheduled, or cancelled. 

Mitigation Measure RC-7 would be implemented. If cancellation of events occurs, 

this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. 

Construction could displace visitors and substantially contribute to overcrowded 

conditions at other regional recreation sites.
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Overcrowding would likely occur during the peak summer seasons. Boaters at 

Granite Bay would be displaced for 1.5 peak summer seasons. This analysis 

estimates that about 128,000 visitors could be displaced in the 2014 peak summer 

season. This could result in substantial overcrowding at other recreation sites. 

This impact would be significant and unavoidable. 

Under this alternative, about 50 percent of visitors at Beal’s Point would be 

displaced for 2 peak seasons. This analysis estimates that about 128,000 visits could 

be displaced in 2008 and 131,000 visits in 2009. The amount and duration of 

displaced visitors from Beal’s Point would cause substantial overcrowding at other 

recreation sites. 

This impact would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to Alternatives 1 through 

3, displaced visitors from Folsom Point for 6 peak seasons would cause substantial 

overcrowding; this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 

Installation and operation of security measures could interrupt recreation at FLSRA 

facilities. 

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts Alternative 5 

Table 3.13-13 presents assumptions about the percentage of recreation affected at 

each facility and the proposed construction period. Table 3.13-14 shows estimated 

losses to Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point during the construction period, 

compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. The following sections identify 

and evaluate potential recreation impacts of Alternative 5. 

Table 3.13-13 

Timeframe of Construction at FLSRA Facilities under Alternative 5 

FLSRA Site % of 

Visitors 

Affected 

Construction Timeframe # of Peak Recreation 

Season Affected 

Granite Bay 

50% 

Late summer 2013 to end 

2014 1.5 

Beal’s Point 50% Fall 2007 to end 2012 5 

Folsom Point 100% Fall 2007 to end 2013 6 

Table 3.13-14 

Loss of Visitors During Construction Period Under Alternative 5

Facility 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Granite Bay 

- - - - - - 46,683 163,892 

Beal’s Point 

3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 - - 

Folsom Point 

3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 

Total 7,425 256,899 262,293 267,802 273,425 279,167 189,198 163,892 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-35

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Granite Bay.

Under Alternative 5, construction at Granite Bay would occur during the late 

summer 2013 and continue through 2014. There would be borrow development in 

the northern parts of Granite Bay under this alternative. It is assumed that about 50 

percent of recreation at Granite Bay would be interrupted during the construction 

period. This analysis estimates a loss of about 46,700 visits during the latter half of 

2013 and about 163,900 in 2014. 

This impact would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures 

RC-1 through RC-8 would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less 

than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Beal’s Point. 

Under Alternative 5, construction at Beal’s Point would begin in Fall 2007 after the 

peak recreation season and ensue through 2012. Effects would be similar to 

Alternative 4, but more borrow development would occur. Borrow development on 

both the southern and northern ends of Beal’s Point would occur under this 

alternative. The length and magnitude of construction would be larger under this 

alternative relative to Alternative 4. 

It is assumed that about 50 percent of recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted 

during the construction period. This analysis estimates annual losses in recreation 

ranging from about 128,500 visits during 2008 to about 139,000 visits during 2012. 

This impact would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures 

RC-1 through RC-8 would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less 

than significant. 

Construction could result in a substantial loss of use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground. 

Impacts to Beal’s Point Campground would be similar to Alternative 1; however, 

construction activities would be greater and would occur over a longer period. 

The loss of use at the Beal’s Point Campground over the construction period would 

be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures in Section 3.10.4 and RC-1 through 

RC-8 would be implemented, but would not reduce this impact to less than 

significant.

Construction could result in a substantial loss of recreational use at Folsom Point.
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

Impacts to Folsom Point under Alternative 5 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The government would implement 

Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8, but impacts would still be significant while 

Folsom Point is closed. 

Construction traffic could result in substantial interruptions to recreation at Beal’s 

Point and Granite Bay.

Alternative 5 involves more construction than all the other alternatives. More borrow 

material is required to support construction activities; therefore, more trucks would 

be needed to haul materials. Impacts to the Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation 

facilities would be significant during the construction period. Mitigation Measures 

RC-1 through RC-8 would be taken to reduce interruptions to recreation activities, 

but construction traffic would cause a significant and unavoidable impact to 

recreation.

Construction could result in lost recreational use on trails at Granite Bay and Beal’s 

Point.

Impacts under Alternative 5 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures RC-9 and RC-10. 

Construction could result in lost recreational use on Folsom Point-Browns Ravine 

Trail.

Impacts to Folsom Point-Browns Ravine trail would be the same as Alternative 2. 

This would be a temporary, significant and unavoidable impact.

Construction could result in cancellation of special events scheduled at FLSRA. 

Effects to special events would be the same as Alternative 2. Events at Granite Bay 

and Beal’s Point would be able to occur during the construction period. Events 

scheduled at Folsom Point would need to be relocated, rescheduled, or cancelled. 

Mitigation Measure RC-7 would be implemented. If cancellation of events occurs, 

this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. 

Construction could displace visitors and substantially contribute to overcrowded 

conditions at other regional recreation sites.

Overcrowding would likely occur during the peak summer seasons. Under this 

alternative, construction would displace about 50 percent of visitors at Beal’s Point 

for 5 peak seasons and 50 percent of visitors at Granite Bay for 1.5 peak seasons. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-37

The amount and duration of displaced visitors from Granite Bay and Beal’s Point 

would cause substantial overcrowding at other recreation sites. 

Similar to Alternatives 1 through 4, displaced visitors from Folsom Point would 

cause substantial overcrowding. Mitigation Measures RC-1 through RC-8 would be 

implemented, but this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 

Installation and operation of security measures could interrupt recreation at FLSRA 

facilities. 

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

3.13.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

Table 3.13-15 summarizes effects of the five action alternatives on recreation 

resources during the construction period. Construction on most alternatives would 

begin at the end of the 2007 peak season. The potential interruptions to recreation are 

dependent on the length of the construction period and the facility being affected. If 

construction takes longer than identified in the schedule, impacts to recreation would 

increase. 

Table 3.13-15 

Comparison of Alternatives Recreation Impacts Loss of Visits During Construction Season

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 2007 

to 2014 

Granite Bay 

Alternative 1 - - - - - - - - - 

Alternative 2 - - - - - - - - - 

Alternative 3 - - - - - - - - - 

Alternative 4 - - - - - - 46,683 163,892 210,575 

Alternative 5 - - - - - - 46,683 163,892 210,575 

Beal’s Point 

Alternative 1 742 25,690 13,143 - - - - - 39,575 

Alternative 2 742 25,690 13,143 - - - - - 39,575 

Alternative 3 - 21,985 - - - - - - 21,985 

Alternative 4 3,712 128,449 131,147 - - - - - 263,308 

Alternative 5 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 - - 673,506 

Folsom Point 

Alternative 1 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 - - 673,506 

Alternative 2 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 816,021 

Alternative 3 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 816,021 

Alternative 4 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 816,021 

Alternative 5 3,712 128,449 131,147 133,901 136,713 139,584 142,515 - 816,021 

Granite Bay is the most used facility at FLSRA; therefore, any interruptions to 

recreation at Granite Bay would affect more visitors relative to less used facilities. 

Alternative 1 would not have any construction at Granite Bay. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would have some construction north of Granite Bay, but would not interrupt 

recreation at the facilities. Alternative 4 and 5 would have the most impacts to 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

3.13-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006

recreation at Granite Bay because borrow activity could occur and construction 

would ensue over a longer period. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted in late 

2007 through 2009. Alternative 4 would affect about 50 percent of the recreation 

because of increased borrow activity. Alternative 3 would have the shortest 

construction period at Beal’s Point; therefore it would have the fewest impacts to 

recreation at Beal’s Point. 

Folsom Point would be fully closed under all the alternatives. Alternative 1 has a 

shorter scheduled construction period; therefore, it would have fewer impacts to 

recreation than the other alternatives. Impacts would be the same under Alternatives 

2 through 5. 

3.13.4 Mitigation Measures 

This section identifies preliminary mitigation measures for impacts to recreation 

under the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. Reclamation and the Corps would continue 

to coordinate with DPR to identify opportunities to avoid significant recreation 

impacts at FLSRA. If significant recreation impacts cannot be avoided, the agencies 

would work within their guidance and authority to provide mitigation for these 

impacts. Final determination by the federal agencies on actual mitigation measures 

will be specified in the Record of Decision (ROD). Potential mitigation measures 

could include but are not limited to the measures listed below. 

RC-1: All construction-related damages to recreation facilities would be replaced in 

kind by the appropriate agency, in accordance with policy and guidance. 

RC-2: The lead construction agency, would post signage and public announcements 

to inform the public of construction activities, facility closures at Folsom Point, and 

potential increased crowding and waiting times at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay. 

RC-3: Construction, borrow and staging areas would be sited as far away from 

recreation areas as practical in order to minimize recreation impacts, as determined 

by the lead construction agency. When a staging area cannot be moved or relocated, 

appropriate measures would be taken for noise and safety considerations. 

RC-4: Borrow development, staging and construction activities would be recontoured by the lead constructing agency, as appropriate, to pre construction 

conditions, or to contours which do not pose a safety hazard. 

RC-5: After all construction activities are complete at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point, or 

Granite Bay, all disturbed recreation areas and facilities would be restored as closely 

as possible to pre-construction conditions. 
Section 3.13 

Recreation Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.13-39

RC-6: The lead construction agency would include in the plans and specifications, if 

appropriate, a plan to ensure that the entrance stations at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point 

and Granite Bay would meet public safety and traffic requirements during 

construction. 

RC-7: Construction hours would be scheduled to minimize impacts during peak 

recreation use periods, holidays, and special events, as practical. 

RC-8: The lead construction agency would develop a traffic management plan for all 

public roads within the recreation areas where both public and construction traffic 

occur. The plan would include measures such as flagmen and appropriate signage. 

The traffic plan would be submitted to the appropriate entities, or included in the 

Plans and Specifications for construction. An appropriate mile per hour speed limit 

would be imposed in all public areas close to construction. Construction crews and 

traffic would utilize internal haul routes, to the extent practical. 

RC-9: Suitable detours would be established, with appropriate signage, for any bike, 

equestrian, or pedestrian trails that are interrupted by construction, per agency 

guidance and policy. Public service announcements would also be distributed and 

posted to inform the public of route changes. 

RC-10: Any damage to existing improved trails from construction would be repaired 

in kind after construction is completed by the lead construction agency, per agency 

policy and guidance. 

3.13.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 describes the projects included in the cumulative analysis. Besides, the 

Folsom DS/FDR, the other projects would not restrict access to or use of major 

recreation sites at the FLSRA. The Folsom Dam Road Closure will continue to 

redirect traffic through city streets and may cause further traffic interruptions to 

those trying to access FLSRA facilities. The New Folsom Bridge should relieve 

some of the traffic interruptions. Construction of the bridge should not have any 

direct effect on FLSRA facilities. The DPR, in partnership with Reclamation, 

recently began work on the integrated FLSRA General Plan and Resource 

Management Plan Update. This process would update the current general plan, as 

well as the long-range vision for the area. The General Plan will result in 

improvements to the FLSRA facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR impacts to recreation would be cumulatively considerable 

during the construction period because of the magnitude of potential decreases in 

visitation at FLSRA facilities. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-1 

3.14 Public Services and Utilities 

Public services and utilities include electricity, natural gas, water, stormwater, 

wastewater, solid waste, telecommunications, roads, police, fire, and parks and 

recreation. The following section discusses the regulatory setting, the existing 

conditions, and the potential effects of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives on public 

services and utilities. A discussion of existing recreational resources in the Folsom 

Facility area and impacts from the Folsom DS/FDR to such resources are discussed 

in greater detail in Section 3.13, Recreation Resources, and Chapter 4, 

Socioeconomics. 

3.14.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.14.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis for this section includes the area surrounding the Folsom 

Facility, but does not include the American River or Lake Natoma, downstream of 

Folsom Dam. The area of analysis generally follows the 500-foot contour line around 

the entire Folsom Facility, and also includes all potential borrow, staging, and 

construction areas. 

3.14.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

This section describes the federal and state regulatory setting for public services and 

utilities. 

Solid Waste 

Federal 

At the federal level, the USEPA regulates the management of non-hazardous solid 

waste according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle 

D (USEPA 2005b). Under RCRA, the USEPA is also in charge of regulating the 

handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

State 

Under the jurisdiction of the California Environmental Protection Agency (California 

EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is charged 

with managing solid waste. Title 14 , Chapter 3, of the CCR, addresses minimum 

standards for solid waste handling and disposal (CIWMB 2004). 

Public Services 

Federal 

Police and Fire: There are no federal regulations specifically associated with the 

provision of police, or fire services. Local county and city departments establish 

their own guidelines and rules regarding services. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

State 

Police: There are no specific state regulations related to police service. Local county 

and city departments establish their own guidelines and rules regarding services. 

Fire: The California Office of the State Fire Marshal (COSFM) indirectly regulates 

fire services by regulating buildings and controlling substances that could cause fires 

(COSFM 2003). Local county and city departments establish their own guidelines 

and rules for fire services. 

Parks and Recreation: The California State Park and Recreation Commission 

approves general plans for State Parks, classifies units of the State Park system, and 

establishes general policies on the protection and development of State Parks (DPR 

2004). 

3.14.1.3 Environmental Setting 

The following section provides a description of the existing utilities and public 

services at the Folsom Facility, starting at the northwest end of the reservoir and 

continuing counter-clockwise around the reservoir. Information was obtained from 

the 2002 American River Watershed Investigation Long-Term Study Final 

Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR by the Corps, the 2006 Folsom 

Bridge SEIS/SEIR by the Corps, and the DPR 2003 Folsom Lake State Recreation 

Area Resource Inventory by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al., consultation with 

Reclamation, and various site visits. 

Rattlesnake Bar 

There are no water or sewer pipelines at Rattlesnake Bar. There is a well system but 

it is no longer in operation. There are porta-potties and pre-cast concrete vault toilets 

(pre-cast concrete restrooms with lined pits that store waste until it can be pumped 

out and taken to a treatment plant) available in the parking lot. The entrance kiosk to 

Rattlesnake Bar has telephone service and electrical service provided by PG&E. 

Power lines extend to the well and lights in the parking lot. 

Horseshoe Bar (Sterling Point, Eden Rock) 

There are no public utilities at Horseshoe Bar. 

Granite Bay 

Granite Bay is generally divided into three main areas, the Granite Bay boat launch 

area in the south, the Granite Bay Main Beach just north of the boat launch area, and 

Oak Point, Doton’s Point, and Beeks Bight north of the Main Beach. The boat launch 

area has Stage 1 through 4 boat ramps as well as a 5 percent boat ramp. The Main 

Beach includes a snack bar, concessions, restrooms, and an activity center. There are 

no major buildings that require utilities past the Main Beach. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-3 

There are three restrooms at the Granite Bay Main Beach, one restroom at the Stage 

4 boat ramp, and one restroom at the 5 percent boat ramp that are connected to San 

Juan Water District (SJWD) water system. Sewer connects to a leach field system. 

There are four lift stations in Granite Bay; three serve the three restrooms at the Main 

Beach and one serves the Stage 4 boat ramp. There is also a lift station for the new 

restroom at the 5 percent boat ramp. 

SJWD provides water services for the residence, shop, and kiosk restrooms at the 

Main Beach. Sewer is connected to a septic tank and leach fields. 

Utilities at the entrance kiosk, the residence, the shop, and concession stand at the 

Main Beach include telephone and electricity. 

Restrooms at the activity center, Main Beach, and Stage 4 boat ramp have electricity 

as do all boat ramps. 

There are no utilities at the Horse Assembly Area, Oak Beach, Beeks Bight, or 

Doton’s Point. The Horse Assembly Area has a porta-pottie and Oaks Beach, Beeks 

Bight, and Dotons Point have pre-cast concrete vault toilets. 

Beal’s Point 

All restrooms at Beal’s Point have flush toilets with sewer and water service. SJWD 

provides water through a water line that extends from Folsom-Auburn Road to the 

campgrounds, two restrooms and showers, the food concession, restrooms next to the 

food concession, and restrooms in the day use parking lot area. Placer County 

provides the sewer service with three sewer lift stations, one at the food concession 

and two at the Beal’s Point Campground. An existing sewer pipeline runs through 

the upper right abutment of Dike 4 and extends towards Auburn-Folsom road (Sherer 

2006). Telephone lines extend to the kiosk, lifeguard tower, and food concession. 

PG&E provides electricity for Beal’s Point and underground lines extend to 

restrooms, food concession, and RV campsites. Electric water heaters are used to 

heat water for showers and at the food concession and restrooms. Propane gas 

heaters heat water for the RV sites. Of the 69 campsites at the Beal’s Point 

Campground, 20 are RV campsites with electrical hookups. 

DPR Gold Fields Headquarters/Bureau Headquarters 

Water and sewer lines are connected to the City of Folsom lines on Auburn Road. 

Electricity is provided by Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Western 

Area Power Administration (WAPA), and PG&E. Telephone and internet services 

are provided to the DPR/Reclamation headquarters by SBC fiber-optic cables that 

use the existing SMUD 12 kV line. Hot water is heated by propane. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Main Dam 

The City of Roseville shares an 84-inch raw water pipeline with SJWD that extends 

from the right abutment of the Main Concrete Dam towards the SJWD Sydney N. 

Peterson Water Treatment Plant (Peterson water treatment plant) just south of Beal’s 

Point. 

A 42-inch raw water pipeline, referred to as the Natomas Pipeline extends from the 

left abutment of the main concrete dam and provides water to the City of Folsom and 

Folsom State Prison. 

Below the right abutment of the main concrete dam is the Folsom Powerplant. The 

Folsom Powerplant has three generating units with an average generating capacity of 

198,720 kW. 

Corps Resident Office 

The Corps Resident office receives power from a SMUD 12 kV line that was a 

formerly abandoned 112 kV PG&E power line. An 8-inch fire protection pipeline is 

connected to the existing 42-inch Natomas Pipeline to provide fire protection to the 

Corps Residence Office. 

Observation Point 

There are no public utilities at Observation Point. The parking lot and kiosk are 

currently closed to the public. 

Folsom Point 

Folsom Point has two pre-cast concrete vault toilets in the day use area and a 

restroom at the boat launch area. 

A 3-inch water main and a sewer line extend to the kiosk and restrooms at the boat 

launch. Sewer lift stations transport sewage back to East Natoma Road. 

The Folsom Point kiosk has electricity that is connected to the City of Folsom utility 

lines on East Natoma Road. 

MIAD area 

A power line extends to a shed at the east end of MIAD. 

Browns Ravine 

Browns Ravine is the only marina at the Folsom Facility. It has flush toilets and a 

store. Water and sewer lines extend from El Dorado Irrigation District utilities off 

Green Valley Road to restrooms in the parking lot. Two El Dorado Irrigation District 

lift stations serve the restrooms. Electricity and telephone service is available for the 

shop and restrooms. 

Storm drains and a culvert are installed in the Browns Ravine parking lot. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-5 

Old Salmon Falls (Falcon Crest, Jack Shack, Monte Vista) 

The Old Salmon Falls parking lot has a porta-pottie and the Falcon Crest area has 

drinking fountains. The Monta Vista campground is not in operation and does not 

have a septic system but does have drinking fountains. 

Sweetwater Creek 

There are no public utilities or restrooms at Sweetwater Creek. 

Salmon Falls (Lower half of South Fork American River, west of Skunk Hollow) 

Salmon Falls has a parking lot, four pre-cast concrete vault toilets, and drinking 

water. There is no public water or sewer service. Telephone service is available but 

is not in use. 

Skunk Hollow (Lower Half of South Fork American River) 

Skunk Hollow has no public utilities. There are two pre-cast concrete vault toilets at 

the end of the parking lot. 

Peninsula 

The Peninsula has a campground with 104 camp sites, five restrooms, two boat 

ramps, and small amphitheatre. The restrooms at the Peninsula are flush toilets. The 

sewer system consists of a collection system and leach field, where waste is gravity 

fed to a lift station and then to a leach field. There are also pre-cast vault toilets in the 

parking lot. The Peninsula campground has a potable water system that pumps well 

water into a 50,000 gallon tank and delivers water to the five restrooms and various 

drinking fountains. 

Mormon Island Wetlands Preserve 

Currently there are no utilities at Mormon Island Wetlands Preserve. An unpaved 

road and parking lot provide access to the area. 

Easements and Parcel Leases 

Several agencies and companies have easements or parcel leases in the vicinity of the 

Folsom Facility. The easements provide the utility owners with permanent and 

guaranteed access to pipelines or transmission lines for maintenance and repair 

purposes (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). Table 3.14-1 below provides a 

list of the easements and parcel leases and a general description of their location. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.14-1 

Easements and Parcel Leases at the Folsom Facility

Company/Agency Easement/Parcel Lease Location 

City of Folsom 

42-inch raw water pipeline 

(Natomas Pipeline) (transitions 

to a 60-inch raw water pipeline). 

Left abutment of Main Concrete Dam. 

84-inch raw water pipeline 

(shared with SJWD). 

Extends from right abutment of Main 

Concrete Dam to Peterson water 

treatment plant. City of Roseville 

60-inch pipeline that connects 

to the 84-inch pipeline. 

Runs south of Peterson Water 

Treatment Plant towards Folsom 

Auburn Road. 

WAPA Two overhead power lines. 

Both originate from the Folsom 

Powerhouse. One extends west through 

the unit to Folsom Auburn Road, the 

other follows the American River south. 

230 kilovolt transmission line. 

Along the northern boundary of Folsom 

Prison; carries electricity from WAPA 

facilities to the City of Folsom. SMUD 

12 kV power line. 

Uses a 115 kV PG&E abandoned line 

and provides power to Corps Resident 

Office. 

115 kV electric tower line. 

Passes through the Folsom Facility in 

the areas of Rattlesnake Bar and 

Granite Bay. 

Small distribution line - less 

than 50 kV . 

Extends from the 115 kV line to 

Peninsula Campground. 

 PG&E 

Newcastle Powerhouse. End of Newcastle Road off Rattlesnake 

Road, east of Rattlesnake Bar. 

Raw water intake facility that 

includes intake pipelines, a 

surge tank, and pump station. 

South Fork of American River near 

Planeta Way. El Dorado Irrigation 

District 

30-inch raw water pipeline. From the intake facility. 

84-inch raw water pipeline 

(shared with City of Roseville). 

Extends from right abutment of Main 

Concrete Dam to Peterson water 

treatment plant. 

51,200 gallon potable water 

hydropneumatic tank. 

Mooney Ridge off the end of Skyway 

Lane, south of Granite Bay. 

SJWD 

Leases a parcel of land called 

Parcel C. 

North end of Peterson water treatment 

plant. 

Source: (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003, Corps 2002, Corps 2006). 

Landfills 

The Sacramento County (Kiefer) Landfill currently serves the City of Folsom. 

Roads 

Roads surrounding the Reclamation Central California Area Office provide operation 

and maintenance access to the main dam, powerplant, and pumping plant and 

generally remain closed to the public. The remaining roads at the Folsom Facility are 

managed by DPR as part of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and are open to 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-7 

the public. There are several access roads and trails that run along the top of dams 

and dikes or over them. 

Public Services 

Police: The Folsom Police Department provides police services for the City of 

Folsom and has a total staff of 103 (City of Folsom 2002b). 

Fire: Four fire stations in the City of Folsom, with a total staff of approximately 74, 

provide fire/rescue and emergency medical services (City of Folsom 2002a). 

Parks and Recreation: The majority of the land around Lake Natoma and Folsom 

Reservoir is owned by Reclamation. In 1956, DPR entered into agreement with 

Reclamation to manage the recreation facilities at the Folsom Lake State Recreation 

Area and Lake Natoma (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). DPR is generally 

responsible for maintenance of the recreation facilities, trails, roads, and parking lots 

within the Folsom Facility. 

Existing Potential Inundation of Utilities 

Under existing conditions, Folsom Reservoir’s high water elevation is approximately 

466 feet and it rarely rises above this elevation; however, a severe storm event could 

cause levels to rise above this elevation. Beal’s Point, Granite Bay, and Browns 

Ravine range in elevation from 465 to 475 feet (Reclamation et al. 2006). If the 

reservoir were to reach an elevation of 470 feet, portions of Beal’s Point, Granite 

Bay, and Browns Ravine could be inundated, including several utilities, roads, and 

parking lots. Salmon Falls Road, which crosses the South Fork American River, 

would have all restroom facilities, trails, and parking lots completely inundated at an 

elevation of 482 feet (Reclamation et al. 2006). Under existing conditions, the 

potential for the reservoir to reach an elevation above 466 feet is low. 

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.14.2.1 Assessment Methods 

This impacts analysis takes into consideration the potential effects on public services 

and utilities from the five action alternatives and the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. The analysis takes into account the potential for borrow activities to 

require the relocation of utilities. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would require the least 

amount of borrow and would likely be able to avoid most utility relocations. 

In addition to site visits and consultation with Reclamation, the following documents 

were used to describe the potential effects of the alternatives on public services and 

utilities: 

• American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan 

Formulation Report EIS/EIR by the Corps, 2002 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Folsom Lake State Recreation Area Resource Inventory by CDPR, 2003 

• PASS II, by Reclamation, Corps, SAFCA, DWR, State Reclamation Board, 2006 

• Folsom Bridge SEIS/SEIR, by the Corps, 2006. 

3.14.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Impacts to public services and utilities would be considered potentially significant if 

Folsom DS/FDR actions would: 

• Require the construction, expansion, or re-location of infrastructure or facilities 

for electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, stormwater, and 

telecommunications, which could result in interruptions in service or adverse 

environmental effects; 

• Exceed landfill capacity with waste generated by the project; 

• Damage existing parking lots, roads, or trails at the Folsom Facility; 

• Create a demand for public services that substantially exceeds the capacity of 

public service agencies (by increasing response times or requiring large increases 

in staff); or 

• Impair or interfere with emergency or evacuation plans. 

3.14.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The environmental consequences/impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative 

would remain similar to existing conditions. Without the Folsom DS/FDR, there 

would be no impacts to existing utilities as no relocations would be required. There 

would be no changes in public services. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on utilities or public 

services. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Electricity 

Construction activities could require the relocation of electricity infrastructure.

Several power lines and utility poles may require relocation during construction, 

including: 

• A power line that connects to a shed at the east end of MIAD; 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-9 

• Approximately five wood poles and 1,500 feet of conductor of the existing 

SMUD 12-kilivolt (kV) service to the Corps Resident Office; 

• A 4,160 – volt power line that serves Reclamation’s yard on the right abutment 

of the Main Concrete Dam could require relocation of seven poles and 

approximately 2,000 feet of conductor; and 

• Power lines that serve the Folsom Point entrance kiosk. 

The relocation of electrical infrastructure above could result in interruptions in 

service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 

would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Electricity would be required to power processing and concrete batch plants.

In order to sort and crush borrow material and to create concrete, processing plants 

and concrete batch plants would be established in several areas around Folsom 

Reservoir. The processing plants and concrete batch plants would have the option of 

either using diesel powered generators or extending existing electricity 

infrastructure. If existing electricity infrastructure is used, this could require the 

extension of existing infrastructure such as towers, power lines, or poles. The 

construction/relocation of electrical infrastructure could result in interruptions in 

service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 

would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Electricity may be required for various types of construction equipment.

Various types of construction equipment could require power to operate. 

Construction crews would likely use onsite generators or existing electricity 

infrastructure. This could require the extension of existing power lines. This would 

be unlikely to result in interruptions in service and would not affect any other 

existing utilities. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities may require the temporary raising of power lines.

Several overhead power lines cross the entrance of Granite Bay. During construction, 

large vehicles may need to have these power lines raised in order to safely pass under 

them. In any instances where overhead lines could create obstacles for construction 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

vehicles, agencies would likely temporarily raise the power lines with large poles in 

order to avoid utility relocations and interruptions in service. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

During construction, a new substation would be constructed.

To provide a source of power for various aspects of the Main Concrete Dam and 

Auxiliary Spillway, a new substation would need to be constructed. This substation 

would tie into existing SMUD power. Construction of this substation could result in 

interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU2 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Installation and operation of security measures would have impacts to utilities.

The installation of stoplights, lights, cameras, and intercoms around the Main 

Concrete Dam, MIAD, Dikes 4,5, 6, and 7, Left Wing Dam, Right Wing Dam, Beal's 

Point, and Folsom Pumping Plant, would require electricity. In order to provide 

power to these security features, power lines would be installed in trenches. A 

temporary power source such as a generator, or an upgrade of the solar power source 

currently in use, could be utilized until a permanent power source could be 

constructed. Construction actions including digging trenches and the placement of 

concrete poles for cameras could damage existing utilities. The conversion to a 

permanent power source could result in interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 

would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Natural Gas 

No known existing natural gas infrastructure or facilities exist in the study area, 

therefore there would be no impacts to natural gas. 

Water 

Construction of the Auxiliary Spillway would require the relocation of water 

infrastructure.

The chute alignment for the new Auxiliary Spillway would cross a portion of the 

aboveground 42-inch diameter raw water pipeline (Natomas Pipeline), which 

provides water to the City of Folsom and the California Department of Corrections 

water treatment facilities. Approximately 300 feet of the existing pipeline may need 

to be relocated. The City of Folsom has stated that it will not accept interruptions in 

service for more than several hours. In addition, an 8-inch diameter fire protection 

pipeline and metering station that serve the Corps Resident Office would also have to 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-11 

be relocated. Mitigation Measure WS-1 in Section 3.2, Water Supply, would reduce 

this impact to a less than significant level. 

This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation 

Measure WS-1. 

Construction activities could require the relocation of existing water infrastructure. 

Construction and borrow activities could require the relocation of existing water 

infrastructure including: 

• An existing 3-inch water main that serves the entrance kiosk and restroom 

facilities at the boat launch at Folsom Point; and 

The relocation of water infrastructure listed above could result in interruptions in 

service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Wastewater 

Construction activities could require the relocation of existing wastewater facilities.

Construction activities around the Folsom Facility may lead to the damage or 

removal of existing restroom facilities. Mitigation Measure RC-1 in Section 3.13 

states that any damaged or removed recreation facilities would be replaced in kind; 

therefore this impact would be less than significant. 

This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation 

Measure RC-1. 

Construction activities would require the relocation of existing wastewater 

infrastructure. 

A mounded leach field of approximately 7,500 square feet at the Corps Resident 

Office would need to be relocated to a site adjacent to the existing septic tank before 

construction of the Auxiliary Spillway. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction activities would likely result in the need for additional restroom 

facilities. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Construction workers onsite would likely require additional restrooms in various 

construction areas. Contractors would likely rent porta-potties for the duration of the 

construction. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities could require relocation of wastewater infrastructure at 

Dike 4.

Construction activities at Dike 4 could require the relocation of an existing sewer 

pipeline that runs through the upper right abutment of Dike 4 and out towards 

Auburn-Folsom Road. This could result in interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction activities could require the relocation of existing wastewater 

infrastructure at Folsom Point.

Borrow activities in the vicinity of Folsom Point could require the relocation of an 

existing sewer line that serves the restroom facilities at the boat launch. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Stormwater 

Construction activities would not require the relocation of existing infrastructure or 

the installation of new stormwater infrastructure; therefore, there would be no impact 

to stormwater infrastructure. 

Solid Waste 

Construction activities would generate solid waste.

Construction activities would generate various types of solid waste, such as litter, 

and miscellaneous construction waste such as concrete or steel, that would require 

disposal in a landfill. Construction activities could also generate hazardous wastes 

that would require proper disposal. All non-hazardous waste would be trucked to a 

local landfill for disposal. Because construction is expected to continue through the 

end of 2014, a large quantity of waste could be sent to the local landfill. 

This impact would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures PSU-3 through 

PSU-5 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction activities would generate borrow material waste. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-13 

Excavation at certain borrow areas may result in quantities of material that are not 

suitable for use as shell or filter material for dikes or dams. Any excess borrow 

material would be applied to MIAD or placed in the reservoir and would not affect 

existing landfills. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Telecommunications 

Construction activities could require the relocation of telecommunications 

infrastructure.

Telephone and internet is provided to the Corps Resident Office by SBC, which uses 

SMUD’s 12 kV poles. The fiber-optic cables for telephone and internet could need to 

be relocated and would follow the new 12 kV alignment. Telephone service to a 

Reclamation station uses several existing 4,160 volt power poles that provide power 

to the Reclamation Office. If the 4,160 volt power line and poles require relocation, 

two telephone poles and approximately 500 feet of wire would also need to be 

relocated. The relocation of telecommunication infrastructure could result in 

interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 

would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Roads 

Construction activities could damage existing roads. 

Construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment, could damage existing 

roads throughout the Folsom Facility. Mitigation Measure RC-1 in Section 3.13 

would reduce this impact to less than significant by replacing all damaged facilities 

in kind. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure RC-1 in Section 

3.13 would reduce this impact to less than significant. 

Construction activities could require alterations to Folsom Dam Road on top of the 

Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam. 

The Right Wing Dam may require a retaining wall near the intersection of the road 

and the crest of the upstream side of the road. A transition section could be required 

between Right Wing Dam and the Main Concrete Dam if the construction activities 

result in a difference in crest elevation. 

In addition, the road on top of Left Wing Dam could have to be removed during 

construction. A new road would be installed with a metal beam guardrail on the 

downstream side and a concrete parapet wall on the upstream side. The road may 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

also require a transition section if there is a difference in the crest elevation of Left 

Wing Dam and the Main Concrete Dam. Construction of these features would not 

affect any other existing roads or trails. This road is not open to the public and would 

therefore be considered less than significant. During construction, alternate routes 

would be made available to Reclamation for operation and maintenance access. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

A new Auxiliary Spillway would require construction of a maintenance access road 

and access ramp. 

The new Auxiliary Spillway would require construction of a new access road to 

allow Reclamation access for operation and maintenance. This new access road 

would likely run across the new spillway and would connect to the new bridge 

access road that would be constructed by the Corps as part of the Folsom Bridge 

project. This road could be bench-cut into the slope of the spillway inlet channel. 

The new access road would be built to withstand semi-trucks with oversized loads. 

In addition to an access road, a vehicle ramp would be constructed to allow vehicle 

access into the Auxiliary Spillway channel. The new ramp would be constructed of 

concrete and would enter on the northern face near the start of the spillway channel, 

would angle toward the river channel, and then exit through the training walls onto 

the floor of the spillway channel. The new access road and access ramp would be 

unlikely to affect existing roads or utilities. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction of a new Auxiliary Spillway could require armoring of the existing 

Folsom Powerplant access road. 

The existing access road to the Folsom Powerplant may require armoring to prevent 

erosion damage from releases by the new Auxiliary Spillway. This would not affect 

any other existing roads or utilities. During construction, alternate routes would be 

made available to Reclamation for operation and maintenance access. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Relocation of the Natomas Pipeline would require construction of a new access 

turnout. 

The Natomas Pipeline, which would be relocated because of the new Auxiliary 

Spillway, would likely be placed between the new Auxiliary Spillway channel and 

the new Folsom Bridge Road. City of Folsom employees would require access to this 

pipeline for operation and maintenance. Access could be difficult because the new 

Folsom Bridge Road would be on an embankment in this area. One option would be 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-15 

to construct a turnout and shoulder turn lane on the north side of Folsom Bridge 

Road, which would be accessible to westbound traffic. Construction of a turnout and 

shoulder turn lane would not affect existing roads or utilities. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction of the Auxiliary Spillway could require the re-alignment of the access 

road to Left Wing Dam toe and the existing stilling basin. 

A portion of the existing access road from Folsom Dam Road to the Corps Resident 

Office, the toe of Left Wing Dam, and the stilling basin would need to be realigned 

because of the new Auxiliary Spillway control structure and chute, and the new 

Folsom Bridge Road embankment. The new sections of the road would be paved 

and would still allow access from the Left Wing Dam toe to the Corps Resident 

Office and the toe of the Main Concrete Dam and stilling basin. This would not 

affect any other existing roads or utilities. During construction, alternate routes 

would be made available to Reclamation for operation and maintenance access. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities would require the development of new internal haul roads.

In order to provide access to all areas around the reservoir, a series of in-reservoir 

roads would be constructed. These roads would likely consist of soil and gravel and 

would be constructed when the reservoir is low. When the reservoir fills, these roads 

would become inundated and could require reconstruction each year. The 

construction of in-reservoir roads would not affect any existing roads or utilities 

because it would occur in the reservoir. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Public Services 

Construction activities could increase emergency response times to the Folsom 

Facility. 

Construction activities such as the stockpiling of materials or equipment may block 

sections of existing roadways or parking lots within the Folsom Facility. Several 

existing paved or unpaved roads could be removed during construction of the dikes 

and dams. This could reduce the number of access routes available to emergency 

vehicles or increase the response times if emergency vehicles are forced to take 

longer routes. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-6 would 

reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Construction activities could create the need for additional police staff.

Construction activities would not create the need for additional police staff. 

Contractors would be responsible for hiring 24-hour security for the construction 

site. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities could create the need for additional fire protection staff.

Construction workers could be working in potential fire risk areas to excavate 

borrow materials and to perform other construction activities. Although the potential 

for fires would exist, it is unlikely that additional fire staff would be needed to 

address the fire risk. No new buildings or facilities would be constructed that would 

require additional fire protection staff. Construction crews would take precautions to 

reduce the chances of fire (see Section 3.17, Public Health and Safety). 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities could create the need for additional parks and recreation 

staff.

Construction activities would not require additional parks and recreation staff. All 

security would be the responsibility of the contractor. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities could increase the emergency staff to population ratio.

A large number of construction workers would be onsite at all times during the seven 

years of construction, and certain recreation areas would also remain open to the 

public during construction. The Folsom Facility has over 2,000 parking spots and 

can accommodate well over 2,000 people per day. Because construction workers at 

the Folsom Facility are not expected to exceed 300 people per shift on any given 

day, workers would be unlikely to exceed the Folsom Facility’s visitor capacity and 

would therefore have little impact on the emergency staff to population ratio. 

This impact would be less than significant. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-17 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Electricity 

Because Alternative 2 would involve construction on Dikes 1 through 3, several 

utilities, in addition to those described under Alternative 1, could require relocation. 

The impacts to electricity would be similar to Alternative 1 with the following 

additional impact: 

• Several power lines running beneath the boat launch area in front of Dike 3 could 

require relocation. 

Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 would reduce any potentially significant 

impacts to a less than significant level. 

Natural Gas 

No existing natural gas infrastructure or facilities exist in the study area; therefore, 

there would be no impacts to natural gas. 

Water 

Construction activities could require the relocation of existing water infrastructure. 

Construction and borrow activities could require the relocation of existing water 

infrastructure including: 

• Water pipelines running beneath the boat launch area in front of Dike 3 that 

provide water service to the restrooms at the boat launch. 

• An existing 3-inch water main that serves the entrance kiosk and restroom 

facilities at the boat launch at Folsom Point; and 

The relocation of water infrastructure listed above could result in interruptions in 

service. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

The remaining impacts to water would be the same as those discussed for Alternative 

1. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a 

less than significant level. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Wastewater 

The impacts to wastewater would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation Measures 

PSU-1 (Section 3.13) would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Stormwater 

Construction activities would not require the relocation of existing infrastructure or 

the installation of new stormwater infrastructure; therefore, there would be no impact 

to stormwater infrastructure. 

Solid Waste 

The impacts to solid waste would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation Measures 

PSU-3 through PSU-5 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Telecommunications 

The impacts to telecommunications would the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation 

Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a 

less than significant level. 

Roads 

The remaining impacts to roads would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation 

Measure RC-1 in Section 3.13 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a 

less than significant level. 

Public Services 

The impacts on public services would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation 

Measure PSU-6 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

New Embankments/Flood Easements 

A series of new embankments/flood easements could be constructed around the 

Folsom Facility to raise areas of low elevation. The number of new 

embankments/flood easements and their locations have not yet been determined. 

Construction of new embankments/flood easements could require the relocation of 

utilities.

Construction of new embankments/flood easements could require the relocation of 

utilities. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and PSU-2 

would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. 

Construction of the new embankments/flood easements could require new roads.
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-19 

Construction of new embankments/flood easements could require the construction of 

new roads to allow construction and maintenance vehicles access. This would not 

affect existing roads. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction of the new embankments/flood easements would be unlikely to affect 

public services.

Construction of the new embankments/flood easements would be unlikely to have 

any effects on police, fire, or parks and recreation services. 

There would be no impact to public services. 

Inundation 

An increase in flood storage could inundate utilities during a severe storm event.

Because this alternative includes a potential raise of the dams and dikes, this would 

potentially increase the flood storage capacity at Folsom Reservoir. During a severe 

storm event, utilities around the Folsom Facility could become inundated. The 

potential for such a severe storm is very low and the inundation period would only 

last a few days until the water could be released. 

This impact would be potentially significant but could be reduced to a less than 

significant level with Mitigation Measure PSU-7. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

The environmental effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative 2. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 through PSU-7, RC-1, and WS-1 

would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

The environmental effects of Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative 2. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 through PSU-7, RC-1, and WS-1 

would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

The impacts under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2, but would not 

involve any impacts associated with construction of the new Auxiliary Spillway. The 

impacts under Alternative 5 would also be similar to Alternative 1, but would 

involve construction on Dikes 1 through 3, and would involve a raise and the 

potential for new embankments. 

Electricity 

Construction activities would require the relocation of electricity infrastructure.
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Several power lines may require relocation during construction, including: 

• Power lines running beneath the boat launch area in front of Dike 3; 

• An existing power line that connects to a shed on the east end of MIAD; and 

• The power lines that serve the Folsom Point entrance kiosk. 

The relocation of electrical infrastructure could result in interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures PSU-1 through 

PSU-2 could reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

The remaining impacts to electricity from Alternative 5 would the same as 

Alternative 1. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 through PSU-2 would reduce any impacts 

to less than significant. 

Natural Gas 

No existing natural gas infrastructure or facilities exist in the study area; therefore 

there would be no impacts to natural gas. 

Water 

Construction activities could require the relocation of existing water infrastructure. 

Construction and borrow activities could require the relocation of existing water 

infrastructure including: 

• An existing 3-inch water main that serves the entrance kiosk and restroom 

facilities at the boat launch at Folsom Point; and 

• Water pipelines beneath the Dike 3 boat launch that serve the restrooms at the 

boat launch. 

These relocations could result in interruptions in service. 

This impact would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measure PSU-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-21 

Wastewater 

These impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except the leach field at the Corps 

Resident Office would not require relocation because the Auxiliary Spillway would 

not be constructed. Mitigation Measures PSU-1 and RC-1 in Section 3.13 would 

reduce any impacts to less than significant. 

Stormwater 

Construction activities would not require the relocation of existing stormwater 

infrastructure or the installation of new stormwater infrastructure; therefore, there 

would be no impact to stormwater infrastructure. 

Solid Waste 

These impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation Measures PSU-3 

through PSU-5 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Telecommunications

The Auxiliary Spillway would not be constructed under Alternative 5; therefore there 

would be no impacts to telecommunications. 

Roads 

Construction activities could damage existing roads. 

Construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment, could damage existing 

roads throughout the Folsom Facility. Mitigation Measure RC-1 in Section 3.13 

would reduce this impact to less than significant by replacing all damaged facilities 

in kind. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure RC-1 in Section 

3.13 would reduce this impact to less than significant. 

Construction activities could require alterations to Folsom Dam Road on top of the 

Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam. 

The Right Wing Dam may require a retaining wall near the intersection of the road 

and the crest of the upstream side of the road. A transition section could be required 

between Right Wing Dam and the Main Concrete Dam if the construction activities 

result in a difference in crest elevation. 

In addition, the road on top of Left Wing Dam could have to be removed during 

construction. A new road would be installed with a metal beam guardrail on the 

downstream side and a concrete parapet wall on the upstream side. The road may 

also require a transition section if there is a difference in the crest elevation of Left 

Wing Dam and the Main Concrete Dam. This road is not open to the public and 

would be considered a less than significant impact. Construction of these features 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

would not affect any other existing roads or trails. During construction, alternate 

routes would be made available to Reclamation for operation and maintenance 

access. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Construction activities would require the development of new internal haul roads.

In order to provide vehicle access to all areas around the dam, a series of in-reservoir 

roads would be constructed. These roads would likely consist of soil and gravel and 

would be constructed when the reservoir is low. When the reservoir fills, these roads 

could become inundated and could require reconstruction each year. The 

construction of in-reservoir roads would not affect any existing roads or utilities 

because it would occur in the reservoir. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Public Services 

The impacts to public services would be the same as Alternative 1. Mitigation 

Measure PSU-6 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

New Embankments/Flood Easements 

A series of new embankments/flood easements could be constructed around the 

Folsom Facility to raise areas of low elevation. The numbers of new 

embankments/flood easements and their locations have not yet been determined. 

The impacts to utilities and public services would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Mitigation Measures PSU-1 to PSU-2 would reduce any potentially significant 

impacts to a less than significant level. 

Inundation 

These impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. These impacts would be 

potentially significant but could be reduced to less than significant with Mitigation 

Measure PSU-7. 

3.14.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

The impacts analysis discussed above considers the potential impacts of obtaining 

borrow material from all of the potential borrow areas, however, for the smaller 

potential raises, it is unlikely that 100 percent of all the borrow areas would need to 

be used. Although the impacts to utilities are generally similar for Alternatives 2 

through 5, Alternatives 1 and 3 would require less borrow material and, therefore, 

would be able to avoid the relocation of most of the existing utilities. Alternatives 1 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-23 

through 3 would still require the relocation of utilities for the Auxiliary Spillway and 

the relocation of the Natomas Pipeline. 

Alternative 4, the 7-foot raise, would require more borrow material than alternatives 

1 and 3, and could require utility relocations in order to obtain borrow from the 

borrow areas. This alternative would also require utility relocations associated with 

the new Auxiliary Spillway. The Natomas Pipeline would have to be relocated. A 

potential 7-foot raise would likely require the construction of more new 

embankments/flood easements than Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Alternative 5 would require the most amount of borrow material from the actual 

borrow sites and, therefore, could require the most utility relocations associated with 

borrow areas. It would also have the greatest flood storage capacity and could 

potentially inundate a larger area then the other alternatives. This would increase the 

potential for several utilities to become submerged under water. Alternative 5 would 

also require the largest quantity of new embankments/flood easements to raise up 

low elevation areas surrounding the reservoir. This could cause additional utility 

relocations. One important difference between Alternative 5 and the remaining 

alternatives would be the lack of a new Auxiliary Spillway. Alternative 5 would not 

require all of the utility relocations that would be needed during construction of an 

Auxiliary Spillway, nor would it require the relocation of the Natomas Pipeline. 

Alternative 1 would require the least amount of borrow material from the actual 

borrow sites and would therefore likely be able to avoid utility relocations associated 

with borrow areas. This alternative would not create any additional flood storage 

capacity. Construction of the Auxiliary Spillway would likely require relocation of 

existing utility poles and utility lines and would also require the relocation of the 

Natomas Pipeline. New embankments/flood easements would not be constructed 

under this alternative as there would be no raise. 

3.14.4 Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures, in addition to compliance with all federal and 

state rules and regulations, would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less 

than significant level: 

PSU-1: Coordinate with utility companies and other relevant agencies before 

construction to locate existing utilities and avoid damage. Avoid the relocation of 

utilities whenever possible. Provide notification of any potential interruptions in 

services to the appropriate agencies. 

PSU-2: Stage utility relocations to minimize interruptions in service. 

PSU-3: Consult with local landfills to select licensed landfills with adequate capacity 

to receive the wastes. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

PSU-4: Recycle construction wastes whenever possible. 

PSU-5: Dispose of hazardous wastes at licensed hazardous waste facilities. 

PSU-6: Prior to construction, consult with local police, fire, and CDPR staff to 

develop and implement emergency response plans and establish emergency vehicle 

routes. 

PSU-7: Notification will be provided to the appropriate agencies if any additional 

utilities could be inundated as a result of the implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

Mitigation Measures WS-1 (see Section 3.2.4) and RC-1 (See Section 3.13.4) would 

also serve to reduce potential public services and utilities impacts during 

construction to a less than significant level. 

3.14.5 Cumulative Effects 

This section contains analysis of potential cumulative effects, that is, the effects of 

each of the five Folsom DS/FDR alternatives in addition to those past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects that would have similar impacts. The projects in 

consideration for this cumulative analysis are listed in Table 5-1 in Chapter 5, 

Cumulative Effects. 

Electricity 

There could be cumulative impacts associated with electricity. 

The Corps’ New Folsom Bridge Project and the Folsom DS/FDR would both 

require electricity during construction to operate equipment. This could exceed the 

capacity of existing energy infrastructure and could require new energy 

infrastructure. The Folsom DS/FDR’s contribution to the cumulative condition 

would be less than significant. Electricity demands for equipment throughout the 

construction period are not expected to exceed capacity of existing electricity 

infrastructure and would not require additional infrastructure beyond the extension of 

existing power lines and the construction of a substation. In addition, generators 

would likely be used onsite to provide power for equipment. Besides the security 

measures and the alterations to the main dam and Auxiliary Spillway, the majority of 

the Folsom DS/FDR actions would only require electricity for the duration of the 

construction period. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Natural Gas/Stormwater 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions would not have any impacts on natural gas or 

stormwater; therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.14-25 

Water 

There would be no cumulative effects on water infrastructure or facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR and the projects in Table 5-1 would not increase the demand 

for water and would not require new water infrastructure or facilities other than a 

temporary water supply for the City of Folsom. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Wastewater 

There would be no cumulative effects on wastewater infrastructure or facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR and the projects in Table 5-1 would not increase the amount of 

wastewater generated and would not require new wastewater infrastructure or 

facilities. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Solid Waste 

There could be potentially cumulative effects on existing landfills. 

Many of the construction projects, including this Folsom DS/FDR, would create 

waste that would be sent to landfills. These projects could contribute to a reduction 

in the capacity and life of the local landfills. The Folsom DS/FDR would not 

contribute significantly to the cumulative condition. As describe in the mitigation 

measures, the Folsom DS/FDR would select only licensed landfills with adequate 

capacity to accept the waste. In addition, waste from the Folsom DS/FDR would be 

temporary and would only last through the duration of the construction period. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Telecommunications 

There would be no cumulative effects on telecommunications infrastructure or 

facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR and the projects in Table 5-1 would not increase the demand 

for telecommunications and, therefore, would not require new telecommunications 

infrastructure or facilities. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Roads 

There would be no cumulative effects associated with existing roads in the Folsom 

Facility. 
Section 3.14 

Public Services and Utilities 

 

3.14-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The Folsom DS/FDR and the projects in Table 5-1 would not increase the demand 

for roads and would not require any additional roads beyond the temporary internal 

haul routes or other temporary roads needed during construction. Mitigation 

measures will require all roads, parking lots, or trails removed during construction to 

be replaced. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Public Services 

There would be no cumulative effects on public services. 

The Folsom DS/FDR and the projects in Table 5-1 would not increase the demand 

for public services and would not require any additional public services staff. 

This impact would be less than significant. 
Section 3.15 

Hydropower Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.15-1 

3.15 Hydropower Resources 

This section presents potential impacts to hydropower resources from construction of 

the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

3.15.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

The following description of the hydropower resources associated with the Folsom 

DS/FDR was primarily obtained from the following sources unless otherwise noted: 

• American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan 

Formulation Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report dated February 2002 prepared jointly by the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, and the State of California 

Reclamation Board. 

• Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

dated April 2005 prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

3.15.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The study area assessed as part of the evaluation of hydropower resources included 

Folsom Dam and Nimbus Dam, and associated hydropower generation facilities. 

3.15.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Hydropower operations are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) pursuant to the Federal Power Act and the Electric Consumers Protection 

Act. Both laws require balancing of power generation with conservation of natural 

resources. 

3.15.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Central Valley Project Hydropower System 

Folsom Dam is part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) hydropower system that 

extends from the Cascade Range in the north to the plains along the Kern River 

approximately 500 miles to the south. The CVP was built primarily to provide the 

Central Valley with water supply, flood control, and hydropower generation. 

Although the CVP emphasizes irrigation and flood control, features of the project 

such as Folsom Dam also provide domestic and industrial water supply, water 

quality enhancement, environmental CVP Improvement Act benefits, recreation, and 

hydropower generation (Reclamation 2005a). 

The CVP hydropower system consists of eight powerplants and two pumpinggenerating plants. This system is fully integrated into the Northern California Power 

System and provides a substantial portion of the hydropower available for use in 

northern and central California. The installed power capacity of the system is 

2,044,350 kilowatts (kW). By comparison, the combined capacity of the 
Section 3.15 

Hydropower Resources 

 

3.15-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

368 operational hydropower plants in California is 12,866,000 kW. Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (PG&E) is the area’s major power supplier, with a generating 

capacity from all sources of over 20 million kW (Reclamation 2005a, Corps 2002). 

Folsom Dam and Reservoir 

Reclamation constructed Folsom Powerplant at the foot of Folsom Dam on the north 

side of the river. Water from the dam is released through three 15-foot-diameter 

penstocks (i.e., pipelines) to three generating units. Each generating unit has a 

capacity of 66,240 kW, with a combined average generating capacity of 198,720 kW 

(CDPR 2004a, Reclamation 2005a). Based on a 10-year average, Folsom Dam 

generates (net) between approximately 35 gigawatt hours (GWh) (September 

through December) and 70 GWh (February through June) 

(http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/folsom/ folsomgr.pdf). Water is supplied to 

the three 74,000 horsepower turbines that drive the generators through three 560-

foot-long, 15-foot-diameter penstocks that run through the right abutment of the 

Main Concrete Dam. The capacity of the three power penstocks is approximately 

8,000 cfs (Corps 2002, CDPR 2002). 

By design, the facility is operated as a peaking facility. Peaking plants schedule the 

daily water release volume during the peak electrical demand hours to maximize 

generation at the time of greatest need. At other hours during the day, there may be 

no release (and no generation) from the plant. The facility is dedicated first to 

meeting the requirements of the CVP facilities and preferred customers. The 

remaining electricity from the plant is marketed to various customers in Northern 

California. On average, the powerplant produces about 10 percent of the power used 

in Sacramento each year, and about 0.3 percent of the total projected power 

generation in the State. It also supplies power to the local pumping plant to provide 

domestic water supply to the cities of Folsom and Roseville, Folsom State Prison, 

and San Juan Water District. The powerplant has been increasingly relied upon to 

support local electrical loads during system disturbances (Reclamation 2005a). 

To avoid sudden water surface elevation fluctuations in the lower American River, 

Nimbus Dam and Lake Natoma, downstream of Folsom Dam, are operated as 

regulating facilities for releases from Folsom Reservoir. Nimbus Powerplant, also 

constructed and operated by Reclamation, is located on the right abutment of Nimbus 

Dam, on the north side of the river. The Nimbus Powerplant consists of two 

generating units, with a generating capacity of approximately 17,000 kW and release 

capacity of approximately 5,100 cfs. Water is supplied to two 9,400 horsepower 

turbines that drive the generators through six 46.5-foot-long by 13.75-foot by 15.95-

foot penstocks. Electricity is generated from this facility continuously throughout the 

day (Corps 2002). 
Section 3.15 

Hydropower Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.15-3 

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.15.2.1 Assessment Methods 

The methods used to assess impacts to hydropower resources consisted of the 

evaluation of any changes to hydropower generation during construction of an 

alternative compared to that which would be generated under the No Action/No 

Project Alternative. In addition, changes in hydropower generation output over the 

course of a daily or weekly cycle resulting from construction of an alternative when 

compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative were also evaluated. 

3.15.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Impacts to hydropower resources would be potentially significant if construction of 

the Folsom DS/FDR would: 

• Result in a reduction of total hydropower output; or 

• Change the ability of the Folsom Powerplant to operate as a peaking facility (i.e., 

if construction under an alternative would alter the Powerplant’s ability to 

generate hydropower at appropriate times of the day). 

3.15.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate.

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, there would be no impact to 

hydropower and the Folsom Powerplant would continue to operate in a manner 

consistent with current and past operations. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on hydropower 

resources. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 construction activities would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate.

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact to hydropower during construction 

because Folsom Dam would be operated in a manner consistent with current and past 

operations. 

Alternative 1 construction activities would have no effect on hydropower resources.
Section 3.15 

Hydropower Resources 

 

3.15-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 construction activities would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate.

Under Alternative 2, there would be no impact to hydropower during construction 

because Folsom Dam would be operated in a manner consistent with current and past 

operations. 

Alternative 2 construction activities would have no effect on hydropower resources. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 construction activities would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no impact to hydropower during construction 

because Folsom Dam would be operated in a manner consistent with current and past 

operations. 

Alternative 3 construction activities would have no effect on hydropower resources. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 construction activities would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate.

Under Alternative 4, there would be no impact to hydropower during construction 

because Folsom Dam would be operated in a manner consistent with current and past 

operations. 

Alternative 4 construction activities would have no effect on hydropower resources. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 construction activities would not change reservoir operations; 

therefore, it would not reduce hydropower or change the system’s ability to operate. 

Under Alternative 5, there would be no impact to hydropower during construction 

because Folsom Dam would be operated in a manner consistent with current and past 

operations. 

Alternative 5 construction activities would have no effect on hydropower resources.

3.15.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

None of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would have impacts to hydropower 

generation. 
Section 3.15 

Hydropower Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.15-5 

3.15.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required. 

3.15.5 Cumulative Effects 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions would have no impacts to hydropower generation; 

therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-1 

3.16 Population and Housing 

This section presents demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census and analyzes the 

effects of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives on population and housing. 

3.16.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.16.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The Folsom DS/FDR area encompasses the areas surrounding Folsom Reservoir, 

including the construction footprint and adjacent properties. The area of analysis for 

the population and housing analysis is defined as the potential construction, staging, 

and borrow areas and local transportation routes for hauling construction materials 

plus properties and neighborhoods adjacent to these areas and routes, all located 

within the designated 2000 Census Tracts and Block Groups listed below. The 

Folsom DS/FDR area is within unincorporated portions of Placer County and El 

Dorado County and within the City of Folsom in Sacramento County. These areas 

are growing in population with new housing developing rapidly. The two counties 

and the City of Folsom have General Plan documents and Zoning Ordinances that 

include measures to plan for the housing and services needed to accommodate the 

increased population. As indicated above, the affected environment is broken down 

into State and local jurisdictions including: Folsom State Prison, Placer County, El 

Dorado County, Sacramento County, and the City of Folsom. There are no housing 

units or residents within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. The 2000 Census 

Tracts and Block Groups used for this analysis include the following: 

• Folsom State Prison/California State Prison, Sacramento (Sacramento County) – 

Block Group 1, Census Tract 83 

• Placer County – Block Groups 1, 2 and 3, Census Tract 206.01 and Block Group 

2, Census Tract 206.05 

• El Dorado County – Block Group 1, Census Tract 307.01 and Block Group 1, 

Census Tract 307.02 

• City of Folsom (Sacramento County) – Block Groups 1, 2 and 4, Census Tract 

82.10; Block Group 1, Census Tract 84.02 and Block Group 2, Census Tract 

85.01 

Figure 3.16-1 shows the Census geographic area used for determining Block Groups 

and Census Tracts to include within the Folsom DS/FDR area. 
85.01-BG2 85.01-BG2

307.01-BG1 307.01-BG1

82.10-BG4 82.10-BG4

82.10-BG2 82.10-BG2

82.10-BG1 82.10-BG1

83-BG1

307.02-BG1 307.02-BG1

206.01-BG2 206.01-BG2

206.05-BG2 206.05-BG2

206.01-BG1 206.01-BG1

84.02-BG1 84.02-BG1

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

EL DORADO COUNTY

Folsom

Reservoir



Figure 3.16-1

Population and Housing - Census Geographic Area

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Population and Housing - Census_Fig3.16-1.ai 11/16/06 JJT

N

Not to Scale
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-3 

3.16.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

(Uniform Act) 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970 (Public Law 91-646), commonly referred to as the Uniform Act, is the Federal 

law that provides the minimum standards for relocation assistance requirements for 

persons affected by Federally funded projects or programs. Under this Act, any 

person who is displaced or whose property is acquired because of a Federally funded 

project or program must receive fair and equitable treatment and is eligible for 

assistance during the relocation process. 

3.16.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Most of the data were obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census. Additional information 

sources are noted. Table 3.16-1 is the consolidated Demographic Characteristics of 

the entire Folsom DS/FDR area by Census Tract and Block Group. This information 

is also included separately for Folsom State Prison/California State Prison as well as 

Placer County, El Dorado County, and the City of Folsom.
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 3.16-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EI

Table 3.16-1 

Demographic Characteristics of the Folsom DS/FDR Area 

Parameter 

Block Group 

1, Census 

Tract 

307.01, El 

Dorado 

County 

Block Group 

1, Census 

Tract 

307.02, El 

Dorado 

County 

Block Group 

1, Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County 

Block Group 

2, Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County 

Block Group 

3, Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County 

Block Group 

2, Census 

Tract 

206.05, 

Placer 

County 

Block 

Group 1, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County 

Block 

Group 2, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County 

Block 

Group 4, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County 

G

C

T

Sac

C

Population2000 Census 5,108 746 1,435 4,719 271 2,295 459 711 1,733 Percentage under 18 34.4% 29.4% 25.6% 25.9% 24.4% 26.8% 17.2% 8.7% 13.8% 0Percentage 65 or over 6.4% 10.9% 12.5% 11.7% 21.8% 10.0% 11.1% 45.7% 42.6% Racial CompositionWhite 89.0% 92.0% 93.4% 92.8% 91.5% 92.3% 88.0% 91.0% 94.8% 3African American 1.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.4% 3Native American 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0Asian 4.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.3% 0.7% 2.0% 5.9% 4.8% 1.7% 1Other or mixed 4.8% 4.8% 3.6% 3.4% 7.0% 4.6% 6.1% 2.7% 2.9% 2Hispanic or Latino 5.5% 2.8% 4.7% 4.4% 8.5% 5.0% 4.6% 3.0% 2.5% 2Median household income $99,728 $109,025 $79,912 $101,851 $74,821 $101,617 $87,417 $29,500 $35,543 $Per-capita income $42,695 $45,197 $33,670 $50,118 $36,209 $44,201 $42,830 $24,064 $30,396 $Below poverty level 2% 0.0% 3.2% 2.9% 0.0% 5.1% 3.9% 5.9% 3.8% 5Source: 2000 U.S. Census, US Census Bureau 2004a 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-5 

Folsom State Prison/California State Prison - Sacramento 

Folsom State Prison and California State Prison, Sacramento (CSPS) are within the 

same Census Tract and Block Group and within the City limits of Folsom. Folsom 

State Prison is a medium security prison for men, housing Level II and Level III 

inmates. A minimum security unit is also at Folsom State Prison (California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations 2006a). CSPS is adjacent to Folsom 

State Prison and houses maximum security inmates with long sentences as well as 

inmates perceived as management problems from other institutions and is a 

Department of Corrections Medical hub for Northern California. 

Folsom State Prison and CSPS are within Census Tract 83, Block Group 1, 

Sacramento County, California. The majority of individuals are listed as living 

within group quarters. Table 3.16-2 displays the racial and ethnic breakdown of the 

Folsom State Prison and the CSPS populations. 

Table 3.16-2 

Race and Ethnic Demographics within Folsom State Prison and CSPS 

Race/Ethnicity Population 

Percent of Total 

Prison and CSPS 

Population 

White 2,438 35.63% 

Black or African American 2,430 35.52% 

American Indian and Alaska Native 65 0.95% 

Asian 88 1.29% 

Other or Mixed 1,821 26.61% 

 100.00% 

Hispanic or Latino(1) 1,860 27.19% 

(1) Hispanics or Latinos are also included in the population totals for the five racial groups listed 

above because Hispanic and Latinos are considered an ethnic group and not a racial group 

according to the U.S. Census. Therefore the percentages total over 100%. Hispanics or 

Latinos are separated out because some are included in the white racial group; however, 

according to Federal guidelines for Environmental Justice, Hispanics and Latinos are 

considered a minority group. 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

The population of both facilities is currently over maximum capacity and there are 

no imminent plans to expand the capacity of either facility. The population of both 

facilities as of March 2006 is 7,374 which is an increase of approximately 8.4 

percent since 2000. 

Table 3.16-3 shows the age and gender breakdown of residents within Folsom State 

Prison and CSPS. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.16-3 

Age Demographics by Gender within Folsom State Prison and CSPS

Age Male Female Total 

Under 5 Years* 2 2 4 

5 to 17 Years* 7 5 12 

18 to 21 Years 319 2 321 

22 to 29 Years 1,809 3 1,812 

30 to 39 Years 2,536 5 2,541 

40 to 54 Years 1,784 19 1,803 

55 to 64 Years 263 4 267 

Over 65 Years 81 1 82 

Total 6,801 41 6,842 

Median Age 35.1 43.3 35.1 

*The 2000 Census Data includes employees and their families who live on site. 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

Placer County 

Placer County is one of the fastest growing counties in California with a population 

increase of 44 percent between 1990 and 2000, and an increase of 24 percent 

between 2000 and 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a). The population of Placer 

County was 307,004 in 2004, 248,399 in 2000, and 172,796 in 1990. Census 2000 

data for the area surrounding the Folsom DS/FDR footprint were analyzed for 

statistical information. Census Tracts 206.01 (Block Groups 1 and 2) and 206.05 

(Block Group 2) are within the Folsom DS/FDR area. This information was used to 

determine the existing housing and population demographics of the area. The total 

2000 population within these two Census Tracts was 8,720, 3.5 percent of the entire 

Placer County population. The race and ethnic demographics of the Placer County 

population as compared to the population that occurs within Folsom DS/FDR portion 

of Placer County are listed in Table 3.16-4. 

Table 3.16-4 

Race and Ethnic Demographics within Placer County Folsom DS/FDR Area

Race/Ethnicity Placer 

County 

Placer County Study Area 

Block Groups 

Percent of Placer 

County Study Area 

Population 

White 220,053 8,089 92.8% 

Black or African American 2,031 54 0.6% 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 

2,199 

49 0.6% 

Asian 7,317 193 2.2% 

Other or Mixed 16,799 335 3.8% 

 8,720 100% 

Hispanic or Latino(1) 14,566 415 

(1) Hispanics or Latinos are also included in the population totals for the five racial groups listed above 

because Hispanic and Latinos are considered an ethnic group and not a racial group according to the 

U.S. Census. Therefore the percentages total over 100%. Hispanics or Latinos are separated out 

because some are included in the white racial group; however, according to Federal guidelines for 

Environmental Justice, Hispanics and Latinos are considered a minority group. 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-7 

Placer County’s population is projected to exceed 456,000 by 2020 (EDD 2004), an 

increase of approximately 83 percent from year 2000 Census figures. 

Table 3.16-5 shows the age and gender breakdown of residents within all of Placer 

County compared to the Folsom DS/FDR area residents that occur within Placer 

County. 

Table 3.16-5 

Age Demographics by Gender within Placer County Folsom DS/FDR Area

Age Placer 

County 

Placer County Study 

Area Block Groups 

Percentage of Total 

County Population 

 Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Under 5 Years 8,027 7,897 216 182 2.7% 2.3% 

5 to 17 Years 25,430 24,404 969 902 3.8% 3.7% 

18 to 21 Years 5,742 5,012 145 150 2.5% 3.0% 

22 to 29 Years 9,697 9,439 143 138 1.5% 1.5% 

30 to 39 Years 18,286 19,193 438 521 2.4% 2.7% 

40 to 54 Years 29,295 30,370 1,282 1,354 4.4% 4.5% 

55 to 64 Years 11,238 11,809 656 604 5.8% 5.1% 

Over 65 Years 14,177 18,383 517 503 3.6% 2.7% 

Totals 121,892 126,507 4,366 4,354 3.6% 3.4% 

Median Age 37.1 38.8 42.8 43.4 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

A total of 3,195 housing units were listed in the 2000 Census statistics for the Placer 

County Block Groups within the Folsom DS/FDR area. Occupied units totaled 3,115 

and 80 units were listed as vacant. The occupied units were listed as 2,905 or 93.3 

percent owner occupied and 210 or 6.7 percent renter occupied units. The average 

household size was 2.74 people. 

Table 3.16-6 presents the economic statistics for the Folsom DS/FDR area 

population within Placer County. The income levels within the Folsom DS/FDR area 

of Placer County were higher than the overall county median household income and 

the per-capita income. The percentages of people living below the poverty level for 

each block group are less than the overall Placer County percentage.1

 The median 

value for owner occupied homes for each block group is higher than the overall 

Placer County median value for owner occupied homes. The median contract rent 

prices for Census Tract 206.05 Block Group 2 was significantly less than the overall 

 

1

 In 1999, the poverty threshold for a two-person household was annual income of $10,869 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2004a) 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Placer County median contract rent price.2 Based on the above statistics the Folsom 

DS/FDR area appears to be a more affluent area within Placer County. 

Table 3.16-6 

Economic Statistics in Placer County Folsom DS/FDR Area 

Census Tract 

206.01 Block 

Group 1 

Census Tract 

206.01 Block 

Group 2 

Census Tract 

206.05 Block 

Group 2 

Census Tract 

206.01, Block 

Group 3 

Placer 

County 

Median 

Household 

Income 1999 

$79,912 $101,851 $101,617 $74,821 $57,535 

Per-capita 

income 

$33,670 $50,118 $44,201 $36,209 $27,963 

Percentage 

Below 

Poverty Level 

3.2% 2.9% 5.1% 0.0% 12% 

Median Value 

for Owner 

Occupied 

Homes 

$283,900 $388,100 $385,000 $339,700 $213,900 

Median 

Contract Rent 

$1,179 $1,138 $383 Not reported $687 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2004a 

El Dorado County 

El Dorado County is also growing at a steady rate with a total population of 172,889 

in 2004,156,299 in 2000, and 125,995 in 1990. This represents a 10.6 percent 

increase between 2000 and 2004 and a 24 percent increase between 1990 and 2000 

Census figures. 

Census data for the area surrounding the Folsom DS/FDR footprint was analyzed for 

statistical information. Census Tracts 307.01 Block Group 1 and 307.02 Block 

Group 1 are within the Folsom DS/FDR area. This information was used to 

determine the existing housing and population demographics of the area. The total 

2000 population within these two Census Tracts was 5,854, 3.7 percent of the entire 

El Dorado County population. 

 

2

 A representative from the Placer County Redevelopment Agency was contacted for an 

explanation as to why the median rent prices within the block group was so low compared to the 

other block groups within the project area and all of Placer County. The contact explained that no 

formal analysis has been done to justify this difference and that these areas include large estatetype homes and owners may be renting rooms and/or cottages and secondary units to family and 

friends or employees who work on their property. (Auerbach 2006) 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-9 

The race and ethnic demographics of the El Dorado County population as compared 

to the Folsom DS/FDR area population that occurs within El Dorado County are 

listed below in Table 3.16-7. 

Table 3.16-7 

Race and Ethnic Demographics within El Dorado County Folsom DS/FDR Area 

Race/Ethnicity El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado County 

Study Area Block 

Groups 

Percent of El Dorado 

County Study Area 

Population 

White 140,209 5,231 89.4% 

Black or African American 813 60 1.0% 

American Indian and Alaska Native 1,566 26 0.4% 

Asian 3,328 257 4.4% 

Other or Mixed 10,383 280 4.8% 

Total 5,854 100.0% 

Hispanic or Latino(1) 14,566 302 

(1) Hispanics or Latinos are also included in the population totals for the five racial groups listed above because 

Hispanic and Latinos are considered an ethnic group and not a racial group according to the U.S. Census. 

Therefore the percentages total over 100%. Hispanics or Latinos are separated out because some are included in 

the white racial group; however, according to Federal guidelines for Environmental Justice, Hispanics and Latinos 

are considered a minority group. 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

El Dorado County’s population is projected to exceed 221,000 by 2020 (EDD 2004), 

an increase of approximately 41 percent from year 2000 Census figures. Table 3.16-

8 shows the age and gender breakdown of residents within all of El Dorado County 

compared to the Folsom DS/FDR area residents that occur within El Dorado County. 

Table 3.16-8 

Age Demographics by Gender within El Dorado County Folsom DS/FDR Area

Age El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado County Study 

Area Block Groups 

Percentage of Total 

County Population 

Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Under 5 Years 4,688 4,258 213 198 4.5% 4.7% 

5 to 17 Years 16,323 15,523 801 765 4.9% 4.9% 

18 to 21 Years 3,636 3,127 110 81 3.0% 2.6% 

22 to 29 Years 5,600 5,171 96 103 1.7% 2.0% 

30 to 39 Years 10,367 11,161 389 478 3.8% 4.3% 

40 to 54 Years 20,786 20,968 883 880 4.2% 4.2% 

55 to 64 Years 7,647 7,710 235 215 3.1% 2.8% 

Over 65 Years 8,916 10,418 212 195 2.4% 1.9% 

Totals 77,963 78,336 2939 2915 3.8% 3.7% 

Median Age 38.8 40 38.5 39 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

A total of 1,990 housing units were listed in the 2000 Census statistics for the two El 

Dorado County Block Groups within the Folsom DS/FDR area. Occupied units 

totaled 1,924 and 66 units are listed as vacant. The occupied units were listed as 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

1,648 or over 85 percent owner occupied and 276 or almost 15 percent renter 

occupied units. The average household size was 2.94 people. The types of residences 

existing within the Folsom DS/FDR area include: custom homes on 1, 2 and 5-acre 

parcels, new and older single family homes on small lots and a limited amount of 

multi-family planned unit development (El Dorado 2006). Most of the residences 

are within the Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan area. 

Table 3.16-9 presents the economic statistics for the Folsom DS/FDR area 

population within El Dorado County. 

Table 3.16-9 

Economic Statistics El Dorado County Folsom DS/FDR

Census Tract 

307.01 Block 

Group 1 

Census Tract 

307.02 Block 

Group 1 

El Dorado 

County 

Median 

Household 

Income 1999 

$99,728 $109,025 $51,484 

Per-capita 

income 

$42,695 $45,197 $25,560 

Percentage 

Below 

Poverty Level 

1.8% 0% 15% 

Median Value 

for Owner 

Occupied 

Homes 

$335,700 $203,900 $194,400 

Median Contract 

Rent 

$1,153 $1,625 $617 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

Based on the above statistics the Folsom DS/FDR area appears to be a more affluent 

area within El Dorado County. 

Sacramento County 

A portion of the Folsom DS/FDR area is within Sacramento County, however, this 

portion falls entirely within the City of Folsom. Therefore, Sacramento County 

statistics related to population and housing were not analyzed. 

City of Folsom 

The City of Folsom is located within Sacramento County and, like the neighboring 

counties, Sacramento County and the City of Folsom are growing at a steady rate 

with a total population of 63,960 in 2004, 51,884 in 2000, and 29,802 in 1990. This 

represents a 23.3 percent increase between 2000 and 2004 and a 74.1 percent 

increase between 1990 and 2000. 

Census data for the area surrounding the Folsom DS/FDR footprint was analyzed for 

statistical information. Census Tracts 82.10 (Block Groups 1, 2 and 4), 84.02 (Block 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-11 

Group 1) and 85.01 (Block Group 2) are within the Folsom DS/FDR area. Census 

Tract 83 is also within the City of Folsom; however, this is the Folsom State Prison 

and CSPS. Folsom State Prison’s and CSPS’s population and housing information is 

explained above in a separate subsection and is not included in this section. The City 

of Folsom Block Groups were used to determine the existing housing and population 

demographics of the area. The total 2000 population within these Block Groups was 

9,998, or 19.2 percent of the entire City of Folsom population. 

The race and ethnic demographics of the City of Folsom population as compared to 

the Folsom DS/FDR area population that occurs within the City of Folsom are listed 

below in Table 3.16-10. Folsom State Prison is not included in this table. 

Table 3.16-10 

Race and Ethnic Demographics within City of Folsom Non-Prison Folsom DS/FDR Area

Race/Ethnicity City of 

Folsom 

Folsom Non-Prison 

Study Area Block 

Groups 

Percent of Folsom 

Non-prison Study 

Area Population 

White 40,415 8,990 89.9% 

Black or African American 3,109 70 0.7% 

American Indian and Alaska Native 302 48 0.5% 

Asian 3,731 367 3.7% 

Other or Mixed 4,327 523 5.2% 

 9,998 100.0% 

Hispanic or Latino(1) 4,914 646 

(1) Hispanics or Latinos are also included in the population totals for the five racial groups listed above because 

Hispanic and Latinos are considered an ethnic group and not a racial group according to the U.S. Census. 

Therefore the percentages total over 100%. Hispanics or Latinos are separated out because some are included in 

the white racial group; however, according to Federal guidelines for Environmental Justice, Hispanics and Latinos 

are considered a minority group. 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

The City of Folsom’s population is projected to exceed 76,333 by 2020 (SACOG 

1990), an increase of approximately 47.1 percent from year 2000 Census figures. 

Table 3.16-11 shows the age and gender breakdown of residents within all of the 

City of Folsom compared to the Folsom DS/FDR area residents that occur within the 

City of Folsom except Folsom State Prison and CSPS. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.16-11 

Age Demographics by Gender within City of Folsom Non-Prison Folsom DS/FDR 

Area

Age City of Folsom City of Folsom Nonprison Study Area 

Percentage of Total 

County Population 

 Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Under 5 Years 1,788 1,803 305 321 17.1% 17.8%

5 to 17 Years 4,571 4,395 1,092 1,041 23.9% 23.7%

18 to 21 Years 1,094 736 172 187 15.7% 25.4%

22 to 29 Years 3,533 1,864 279 283 7.9% 15.2%

30 to 39 Years 6,583 4,431 685 802 10.4% 18.1%

40 to 54 Years 5,671 5,671 1,295 1,273 22.8% 22.4%

55 to 64 Years 1,666 1,666 372 390 22.3% 23.4%

Over 65 Years 2,660 2,660 598 903 22.5% 33.9%

Totals 27,566 23,226 4,798 5,200 17.4% 22.4%

Median Age 35.4 36.6 45 46.9 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

A total of 3,938 housing units were listed in the 2000 Census statistics for the 

Folsom Block Groups within the Folsom DS/FDR area. Occupied units total 3,811 

and 127 units were listed as vacant. The occupied units were listed as 3,198 or 84% 

owner occupied and 613 or 16% renter occupied units. The average household size 

was 2.45 people. The types of residences surveyed within the Folsom DS/FDR area 

include: custom estate homes overlooking Folsom Reservoir, single family small lot 

planned unit developments, and multi-family planned developments. 

Table 3.16-12 presents the economic statistics for the Folsom DS/FDR area 

population within the City of Folsom, not including Folsom State Prison and CSPS. 

Based on the statistics in Table 3.16-12, the Folsom DS/FDR area had a wide range 

of income levels. Census Tract 82.10, Block Groups 2 and 4 listed lower median 

household incomes than other areas within the City and study area; however, the 

median value for owner occupied homes was over the City median. Census Tract 

82.10, Block Group 1 had a high median household income level and a low median 

value for owner occupied home. Only Census Tract 85.01, Block Group 2 had 

consistently higher economic values than other blocks within the City of Folsom and 

appears to be a more affluent area within the City of Folsom. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-13 

Table 3.16-12 

Economic Statistics for City of Folsom Non-Prison Folsom DS/FDR Area

Census 

Tract 82.10 

Block 

Group 1 

Census Tract 

82.10 

Block Group 

2 

Census 

Tract 

82.10 

Block 

Group 4 

Census 

Tract 

84.02 

Block 

Group 1 

Census Tract 

85.01 Block 

Group 2 

City of 

Folsom 

Median 

Household 

Income 1999 

$87,417 $29,500 $35,543 $75,698 $100,250 $73,175 

Per-capita 

income 

$42,830 $24,064 $30,396 $25,269 $30,370 $30,210 

Percentage 

Below 

Poverty Level 

3.9% 5.9% 3.8% 3.8% 1.9% 6.8% 

Median Value 

for Owner 

Occupied 

Homes 

$203,300 $276,400 $260,600 $206,300 $257,300 $228,700 

Median 

Contract Rent 

$1,100 $838 $821 $904 $1,470 $867 

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.16.2.1 Assessment Methods 

This environmental effects analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to 

determine potential impacts to population and housing from construction of the 

Folsom DS/FDR action alternatives. The significance criteria listed below were used 

to qualitatively assess the impacts of each alternative. Preliminary planning-level 

analyses from the PASS II Study Real Estate Plan provide estimates of the numbers 

and extent of parcels potentially affected by the various alternatives (Reclamation 

2005g). However, as the preliminary parcel impacts from the various raise 

alternatives may be overestimated, a site-specific analysis would be conducted to 

accurately assess impacts to any potentially affected parcel, if a raise feature is 

selected. It is anticipated that the site-specific analysis would conclude that the 

numbers and extent of parcels potentially affected would actually be less than 

estimated through the PASS II Study Real Estate Plan; hence, the impacts analysis 

presented herein is considered to be conservative. 

3.16.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR action would result in a significant 

population or housing impact if it would: 

• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating construction 

of replacement housing elsewhere. 

• Displace substantial numbers of residents, necessitating construction of 

replacement housing elsewhere. 

3.16.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would result in no improvements to the 

Folsom Facility. The conditions at Folsom Reservoir would remain similar to 

existing conditions and no additional dam safety and flood damage reduction 

measures would be implemented. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on population growth in 

the area since the Folsom DS/FDR purpose is to modify existing structures for dam 

safety/security and flood damage reduction. 

No displacement of housing or residents would occur as a direct result of the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. The risk of displacement to population and housing in 

the Folsom DS/FDR area from a severe storm event and potential inundation would 

remain similar to existing conditions, but would increase over time with the 

projected future population growth and development. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Actions under the Folsom DS/FDR are construction-related actions only and would 

not cause, either directly or indirectly, a population increase or decrease. The Folsom 

DS/FDR would have no long-term effect on population and housing within the area. 

Alternative 1 would not have any effect on housing or displacement of people. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 could require one possible residential relocation as a result of property 

acquisition in order to address temporary flooding during extreme storm events.

Under Alternative 2, a 4-foot raise could result in an increase in the reservoir pool 

elevation during extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation areas 

beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower elevation areas are 

primarily located in Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and certain areas along the 

eastern shoreline. 

To address the potential for flooding related to a 4-foot raise, Reclamation, the 

Corps, or SAFCA, as the Corps non-Federal sponsor, and any one of these referred 

to in the discussion below as the responsible agency, would pursue structural or real 

estate remedies, or a combination of both, in cooperation with affected non-federal 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-15 

property owners. Probable remedies in lower elevation areas would include 

construction of new flood damage reduction berms (and associated access and flood 

damage reduction structure easements if berms are located on non-federal property) 

and/or acquisition of flood easements on impacted non-federal parcels. 

Where flood easements are acquired and/or where flood damage reduction berms are 

constructed (and associated flood damage reduction structure and access easements 

acquired if necessary) in order to address the potential for flooding, the responsible 

agency would acquire such easements according to State and Federal guidelines. 

According to Corps guidelines (Corps 2006), properties encumbered by flood 

easement would be restricted as follows:

• No structure for human habitation shall be constructed or maintained on the 

easement premises. 

• No other structure shall be constructed or maintained on the land except those 

that have been approved in writing by the responsible agency. 

• No excavation shall be conducted or fill placed on the land without approval of 

the responsible agency. 

With a 4-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analyses indicate that 

property title of up to four non-federal parcels could potentially be acquired in fee, 

including one residential property. Impacted property owner(s) would be entitled to 

fair market value, assistance with replacement housing, and relocation benefits and 

services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. However, efforts would be made to 

develop a structural solution that would eliminate the need for acquisition of real 

estate rights (easements or fee title) or relocation. 

Because the non-federal parcels potentially impacted by this alternative are identified 

through the use of coarse planning-level analyses, the number and extent of parcels 

potentially affected may be overestimated. Detailed site-specific analyses would be 

conducted should this raise feature be selected. The need for, location, number, and 

impacts of flood damage reduction berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a 

supplemental environmental compliance document, if this raise feature is selected 

and further designed. 

In the event that a flood damage reduction berm would be constructed (and 

associated easements acquired if the berm is located on non-federal property), and/or 

a flood easement would be acquired on an impacted non-federal parcel, these actions 

would not require the relocation of residents or displacement of houses. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The potential acquisition of one residential property under Alternative 2 would not 

result in the displacement of a substantial number of residents or existing housing 

units that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As 

discussed above, in the event that acquisition of property fee title would be required, 

relocation assistance to the impacted residential property owner(s) would be 

implemented. The impacted property owner(s) would be entitled to fair market 

value, assistance with replacement housing, and relocation benefits and services in 

accordance with Public Law 91-646. As indicated above, Placer County is one of 

the fastest growing counties in California and El Dorado County is also growing at a 

steady rate. It is anticipated that replacement housing for the one residential property 

that could potentially be acquired in fee would be available within the existing 

housing inventory or within new housing from continued growth in the area. 

Further, as indicated above, efforts would be made to design and construct flood 

damage reduction structures that would reduce or eliminate the need for acquisition 

of fee title of impacted properties that would result in residential relocations. The 

determination regarding structural solutions and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) for any impacted non-federal parcel would be made on a 

case-by-case basis and would depend upon feasibility, cost, and acceptability to the 

landowner(s). 

Population and housing impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 could require one possible residential relocation as a result of property 

acquisition in order to address temporary flooding during extreme storm events.

Under Alternative 3, a 3.5-foot parapet wall raise could result in an increase in the 

reservoir pool elevation during extreme storm events, and this could flood lower 

elevation areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower elevation 

areas are primarily located in Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and certain areas 

along the eastern shoreline. 

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 3 would be essentially the same for population and housing as those 

described for Alternative 2. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 could require six possible residential relocations as a result of property 

acquisition in order to address temporary flooding during extreme storm events.

A 7-foot raise could result in an increase in the reservoir pool elevation during 

extreme storm events, and this could flood lower elevation areas beyond the 

boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower elevation areas are primarily located in 

Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and certain areas along the eastern shoreline.
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-17 

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 4 would be the same for population and housing as those described for 

Alternative 2, with the following exceptions: 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 7-foot raise height. Additional 

acquisition of flood easements and/or construction of larger flood damage 

reduction berms (and acquisition of associated flood damage reduction structure 

and access easements if necessary). 

• With a 7-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analysis also 

indicates the acquisition in fee title of approximately nine non-federal properties, 

including approximately six residential properties, for which the property owners 

would be entitled to fair market value, assistance with replacement housing and 

relocation benefits and services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. 

However, efforts would be made to develop a structural solution that would 

eliminate the need for acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title) or 

relocation. 

Because the non-federal parcels potentially impacted by this alternative are identified 

through the use of coarse planning-level analyses, the number and extent of parcels 

potentially affected may be overestimated. Detailed site-specific analyses would be 

conducted should this raise feature be selected. The need for, location, number, and 

impacts of flood damage reduction berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a 

supplemental environmental compliance document, if this raise feature is selected 

and further designed. 

Flood damage reduction berms and/or occasional flowage easements would not 

require the relocation of residents or displacement of houses. 

The potential acquisition of six residential properties under Alternative 4 would not 

result in the displacement of a substantial number of residents or existing housing 

units that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As 

discussed above, in the event that acquisition of property fee title would be required, 

relocation assistance to the impacted residential property owner(s) would be 

implemented. The impacted property owner(s) would be entitled to fair market 

value, assistance with replacement housing, and relocation benefits and services in 

accordance with Public Law 91-646. As indicated above, Placer County is one of 

the fastest growing counties in California and El Dorado County is also growing at a 

steady rate. It is anticipated that replacement housing for the six residential 

properties that could potentially be acquired in fee would be available within the 

existing housing inventory or within new housing from continued growth in the area. 

Further, as indicated above, efforts would be made to design and construct flood 

damage reduction structures that would reduce or eliminate the need for acquisition 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

of fee title of impacted properties that would result in residential relocations. The 

determination regarding structural solutions and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) for any impacted non-federal parcel would be made on a 

case-by-case basis and would depend upon feasibility, cost, and acceptability to the 

landowner(s). 

Population and housing impacts under Alternative 4 would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 could require 37 possible residential relocations as a result of property 

acquisition in order to address temporary flooding during extreme storm events.

The 17-foot earthen raise could result in a substantial increase in the reservoir pool 

elevation during extreme storm events, and this could be expected to flood lower 

elevation areas beyond the boundaries of the Folsom Facility. The lower elevation 

areas are primarily located in Mooney Ridge, north of Granite Bay, and certain areas 

along the eastern shoreline. 

The environmental consequences/environmental impacts from construction of 

Alternative 5 would be the same for population and housing as those described for 

Alternative 2, with the following exceptions: 

• More potentially impacted parcels due to the 17-foot raise height. Additional 

acquisition of flood easements and/or construction of larger flood damage 

reduction berms (and acquisition of associated flood damage reduction structure 

and access easements if necessary). 

• With a 17-foot raise, Reclamation’s preliminary planning-level analysis also 

indicates the acquisition in fee title of approximately 45 non-federal properties, 

including as many as 37 residential properties, for which the property owners 

would be entitled to fair market value, assistance with replacement housing, and 

relocation benefits and services in accordance with Public Law 91-646. 

However, efforts would be made to develop structural solutions wherever 

possible that would eliminate the need for acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) or relocation. 

Because the non-federal parcels potentially impacted by this alternative are identified 

through the use of coarse planning-level analyses, the number and extent of parcels 

potentially affected may be overestimated. Detailed site-specific analyses would be 

conducted should this raise feature be selected. The need for, location, number, and 

impacts of flood damage reduction berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a 

supplemental environmental compliance document, if this raise feature is selected 

and further designed. 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.16-19 

Flood damage reduction berms and/or occasional flowage easements would not 

require the relocation of residents or displacement of houses. 

The potential acquisition of 37 residential properties under Alternative 5 would not 

result in the displacement of a substantial number of residents or existing housing 

units that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As 

discussed above, in the event that acquisition of property fee title would be required, 

relocation assistance to the impacted residential property owner(s) would be 

implemented. The impacted property owner(s) would be entitled to fair market 

value, assistance with replacement housing, and relocation benefits and services in 

accordance with Public Law 91-646. As indicated above, Placer County is one of 

the fastest growing counties in California and El Dorado County is also growing at a 

steady rate. It is anticipated that replacement housing for the 37 residential 

properties that could potentially be acquired in fee would be available within the 

existing housing inventory or within new housing from continued growth in the area. 

Furthermore, as indicated above, efforts would be made to design and construct 

flood damage reduction structures that would reduce or eliminate the need for 

acquisition of fee title of impacted properties that would result in residential 

relocations. The determination regarding structural solutions and/or acquisition of 

real estate rights (easements or fee title) for any impacted non-federal parcel would 

be made on a case-by-case basis and would depend upon feasibility, cost, and 

acceptability to the landowner(s). 

Population and housing impacts under Alternative 5 would be less than significant. 

3.16.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on population growth in 

the Folsom DS/FDR area and no displacement of housing or residents would occur 

as a direct result of the No Action/No Project Alternative. 

Alternative 1 would not result in effects on population and housing since no new 

flood damage reduction berms would be constructed, and real estate rights 

(easements or fee title) would not be acquired. Alternatives 2 through 5 could result 

in impacts to population and housing. Raise heights of these action alternatives could 

result in property acquisition that could require relocation of a small number of 

residents, except perhaps Alternative 5. From preliminary planning-level analyses, 

the population and housing impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same with 

one residential property possibly affected. Alternative 4 would possibly affect 6 

residential properties. Alternative 5 would possibly affect 37 residential properties. 

If a raise feature is selected, efforts would be made to avoid or mitigate population 

and housing impacts. Additionally, the need for, location, number, and impacts of 

flood damage reduction berms and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or 
Section 3.16 

Population and Housing 

3.16-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

fee title) would be further analyzed and disclosed in more detail in a supplemental 

environmental compliance document if a raise feature is selected. 

3.16.4 Mitigation Measures 

There would be no significant impacts on population and housing; therefore, no 

mitigation measures are required. 

3.16.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 provides a list of past, present and probable future projects in the general 

vicinity of the Folsom DS/FDR area that are included in the cumulative effects 

analysis. No significant impact on population and housing would occur as a result of 

the Folsom DS/FDR action. It is unlikely that the projects identified in Table 5-1 

would have any impact on population and housing in a negative way. Therefore, the 

cumulative effect of the Folsom DS/FDR action would be less than significant. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-1 

3.17 Public Health and Safety 

This section describes potential public health and safety concerns, including risks 

posed by hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes (HTRW) within the study area 

that are relevant to the alternatives. 

3.17.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.17.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis includes Folsom Reservoir as well as areas identified as 

construction areas, staging areas, and borrow areas for the alternatives. No effect on 

public safety in other areas is expected because no construction activities would 

occur outside of these identified areas. Potential effects on the lower American River 

due to floods or releases from the reservoir are discussed in Section 3.1, Hydrology, 

Water Quality, and Groundwater. 

3.17.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Public Safety 

Federal Regulations 

The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety require that dams be designed, inspected, 

and maintained to protect the structural integrity of the dam and appurtenant 

structures and ensure protection of human life and property. The following 

documents contain the requirements for design floods for dams that are the 

responsibility of federal agencies: 

• Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Publication FEMA 93, June 1979, reprinted April 2004. 

• Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow 

Design Floods for Dams, FEMA Publication FEMA 94, October 1998, reprinted 

April 2004. 

The Corps and Reclamation both have obligations and interests in the Folsom 

Facility (which includes the Folsom Dam and appurtenant facilities) but differ in 

respect to congressional objectives, mandates, authorities, funding and timelines. 

Reclamation is responsible for operation and maintenance of the Folsom Facility as 

part of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Corps’ interest in the Folsom Facility 

is primarily as flood protection and wetlands and waterways regulation and 

permitting. 

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes 

Federal Regulations 

Hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes are regulated 

under various federal laws including: 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 United States Code 692); 

• Hazardous Material Transportation Act (HMTA); 

• Clean Water Act (CWA); 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA, 43 United States Code 9601); 

• Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title 3; 

• 40 CFR 260-279 Federal Regulations on hazardous waste management; 

• 40 CFR, Section 301 et seq. Emergency Planning and Community Right to 

Know Act; and 

• Toxic Substances Control Act (15 United States Code 2601). 

Under RCRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates the 

generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes (USEPA 2005c). The 

USEPA requires permits for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous 

wastes and tracks the wastes from generation through to disposal (USEPA 2005c). 

The USEPA delegates some of this authority, such as permitting, to individual states. 

The Department of Transportation through the HMTA regulates transportation of 

hazardous materials. Transporting hazardous materials requires special handling, 

packaging, placarding, and manifesting of cargoes. Various laws, including the 

SARA and HMTA, govern day-to-day management of hazardous materials. These 

laws define the requirements for storage of hazardous materials, safe handling 

practices, and employee training. 

State Regulations 

California state laws that regulate activities involving hazardous materials, hazardous 

substances, or hazardous waste include: 

• Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code section 

25100); 

• Title 17, Public Health (California Code of Regulations); 

• Title 19, Public Safety (California Code of Regulations); 

• Title 22, Division 4.5 - Environmental Health Standards for the Management of 

Hazardous Waste (California Code of Regulations); 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-3 

• Title 26, Toxics (California Code of Regulations); and 

• California Department of Motor Vehicles, Hazardous Waste and Materials 

Transportation Requirements (Vehicle Code Section 31303). 

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers the 

Federal RCRA for the state, and enforces the California Health and Safety Code. 

According to the California Government Code (Section 65962.5), DTSC is required 

to compile and update lists of hazardous materials sites, including land designated as 

hazardous waste sites and hazardous waste disposals on public lands. The California 

Government Code (Section 65962.5) also requires the State Water Resources Control 

Board to compile and update hazardous materials site lists, including underground 

storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed, and solid waste 

disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous wastes. 

Other agencies that enforce hazards or hazardous materials regulations include the 

California Highway Patrol, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and local 

fire departments. 

3.17.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Seismology/Earthquakes 

The study area is in the Foothills Fault system which consists of northwest trending 

vertical faults and is divided into two zones, the western Melones Fault zone and the 

western Bear Mountains Fault zone. The west trace of the Bear Mountains Fault 

zone transects the upper reaches of the North Fork arm and crosses the South Fork 

arm of Folsom Reservoir. The last major movement of this system occurred 140 

million years ago and the United States Geological Survey has not designated the 

Bear Mountains Fault as an active fault (Corps 2006b). Additional details on seismic 

activity are provided in Section 3.6.1. 

Landslides 

As discussed in Section 3.6, Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources, factors that 

influence slope stability include slope inclination, bedrock geology, geologic 

structure, geomorphology, weathering, vegetation, and granitic rocks. Studies along 

the Highway 50 corridor have shown slides to occur where metamorphic and granitic 

rocks are in contact as well as where metamorphic and Tertiary sedimentary rocks 

are in contact. These geologic conditions are present within the study area where the 

sedimentary Laguna Formation overlies the metamorphic bedrock and along the 

north side of Folsom Reservoir where the Mehrten Formation tops the granite hills. 

Despite these geologic formations, landslides are not a major hazard in the study area 

because soils are thin and the slopes are not particularly steep (Wallace, Roberts, and 

Todd et al. 2003). 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Fire Risk 

During the dry season, the area surrounding the reservoir is at risk for fires, 

particularly at the interface between residential development and open space. From 

Granite Bay to the middle of MIAD (Placer and Sacramento Counties), the fire threat 

is moderate to high. From the middle of MIAD north towards Browns Ravine 

(Sacramento and El Dorado Counties), the fire threat is very high according to the 

California Fire Alliance Fire Planning and Mapping website (California Fire 

Alliance 2004). 

Floods/Leakage 

Folsom Reservoir is in close proximity to an urban area and serves as flood 

management for the entire Sacramento metropolitan area. A comprehensive Facility 

Review conducted by Reclamation in 2000 identified deficiencies in the Folsom 

Facility. A flood with a more frequent return period than originally anticipated could 

overtop the Main Concrete Dam, MIAD, and dikes. In addition, several of the dikes 

and the Right and Left Wing Dams surrounding Folsom Reservoir do not meet 

current standards for filters. This creates the potential for seepage and piping and 

increases the static instability of the dikes. 

Reservoir Levels 

The retention structures at the Folsom Facility have a crest elevation of 480.5 feet 

above mean sea level (483.1 feet in NAVD 88). Between 1985 and 2006, water 

elevation in Folsom Reservoir fluctuated between 347.14 feet (November 3, 1998) 

and 465.51 feet (June 21, 1993).1

Recreation Areas 

The area surrounding the Folsom Facility is operated as a state recreational park. The 

reservoir and recreation area are used by visitors for hiking, biking, running, 

camping, picnicking, horseback riding, water-skiing, swimming, and boating. 

Hazardous Waste 

Hazardous materials are defined by the State of California as: 

...any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or 

chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to 

human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace 

or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, 

hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or 

the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would 

 

1

 Source: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgiprogs/selectQuery?station_id=FOL&dur_code 

=D&sensor_num=6&start_date=1985&end_date=now 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-5 

be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment 

if released into the workplace or the environment.2

Hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Asbestos 

• Construction and demolition debris 

• Drums 

• Landfills or solid waste disposal sites 

• Pits, ponds, or lagoons 

• Wastewater 

• Fill, dirt, depressions, and mounds 

• Underground storage tanks 

• Wastewater treatment plants 

• Stormwater runoff structures 

• Transformers that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

In May 2005, the Corps conducted an environmental site assessment (ENSA) for the 

Folsom Dam Modification Project. The ENSA included records research, interviews, 

and field surveys within a 1.5-mile radius of the Folsom Dam. A one-mile buffer was 

added for the records research to account for potential groundwater migration and 

contaminant transport. In addition to identifying about 70 HTRW sites within the 

study area, the report identified two potential hazardous sites within the area of 

analysis. The first site, located near the Left Wing Dam, had total petroleum 

hydrocarbons (TPH) at 1,900 mg/kg detected in a single soil sample at 7 to 9 feet 

below ground surface when it was sampled during a geotechnical exploration in 

2004. The second potential hazardous site is the foundation of MIAD. The gravel 

used for the MIAD foundation may have been mined from an area where naturally 

occurring asbestos rock exists. It is unknown whether the asbestos is friable.3

 

To include the construction areas being evaluated as part of the Folsom DS/FDR 

EIS/EIR, another database records search was performed for a corridor extending 

along the west and south borders of the reservoir. A one-mile buffer was included to 

account for potential groundwater migration and contaminant transport. A map 

showing the area searched and an overview of the identified HTRW sites is shown in 

 

2

 California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(k) 

3

 USACE 2005. Environmental Site Assessment Folsom Dam Modification, Sacramento County 

California Draft. May.
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Figure 3.17-1. The databases for which sites were identified are summarized in Table 

3.17-1.4

Table 3.17-1 

Map Findings Summary

Federal Records Databases 

Date EDR 

Contacted 

Agency 

Number 

of Sites 

Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 1/12/2006 5 

Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) 1/16/2006 10 

FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) 3/20/2006 1 

Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS) 3/6/2006 1 

Facility Index System (FINDS) 1/3/2006 14 

State and Local Records Databases 

Date EDR 

Contacted 

Agency 

Number 

of Sites 

No Further Action (NFA) 3/15/2006 1 

State Landfill 3/15/2006 1 

California Water Resources Control Board – Waste Discharge System (CA 

WDS) 

3/21/2006 1 

Cortese Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 2/6/2006 9 

Recycling Facilities (SWRCY) 1/9/2006 1 

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 1/16/2006 7 

California Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST) 12/28/1998 9 

Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing (SLIC) 1/16/2006 1 

Sacramento Co. Contaminated Sites (CS) 1/30/2006 7 

Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST) 1/9/2006 2 

Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST) 7/26/2001 15 

Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities (AST) 1/30/2006 4 

Placer Co. Master List (MS) 3/20/2006 23 

Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) 6/3/2005 16 

California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) 2/20/2006 9 

Deed Restriction Listing (DEED) 1/3/2006 1 

Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties (VCP) 3/15/2006 1 

Clandestine Drug Labs (CDL) 2/8/2006 2 

Sacramento Co. Master List (ML) 1/30/2006 22 

Facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET) 2/24/2006 42 

FIFRA – Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act 

TSCA – Toxic Substances Control Act 

EDR – Environmental Data Resources 

 

4

 EDR 2006. EDR DataMap Corridor Study for Folsom Dam (Inquiry Number 01637093.lr). 

March 23. 

Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Based on the database research results, 205 sites with potential to affect public health 

and safety during construction were identified within a 1-mile radius of the corridor. 

However, many of the sites reported by the database search identify generators of 

hazardous waste or owners of storage tanks that hold potentially hazardous materials. 

The existence of these generators and storage facilities does not necessarily indicate 

that the contents have been released to the environment in such a way that would 

affect construction of the dam improvements. In addition, some sites reported by the 

database search have received closure from the governing agency indicating that the 

contamination was found to be sufficiently contained. No record reviews or site 

inspections were performed on the sites identified from the database searches. 

However, based on the database information, the following sites were identified as 

potentially contaminated sites warranting further evaluation: 

• ARCO #2140 (Map Location #9 – 8555 Auburn-Folsom Road, Granite Bay). 

Gasoline was discharged at the site in 1993 and methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE) 

was found affecting the drinking water aquifer. The site is currently under post 

remedial action monitoring. 

• Beacon #3642-Former (Map Location #9 – 6990 Douglas Boulevard, Granite 

Bay). Diesel was discharged at the site in 2000 and MTBE was found affecting 

the drinking water aquifer. The site is currently under remedial action. 

• Haag Property (Map Location #13 – 9232 Barton Road, Granite Bay). In 2000, 

this residential property had fill material contaminated with a nitrogen-based 

residual explosive from a blasting operation at another site. The DTSC 

determined that the soil poses no risk of chemical contamination but does present 

a potential risk due to physical contamination of the soil. The owners applied for 

the Voluntary Cleanup Program to address the site. Although the DTSC issued 

no further action for DTSC, no additional information was provided as to the 

outcome of the site. 

• Green Valley Gas and Food (Map Location #32 - 381 Green Valley Road, El 

Dorado Hills). A leaking gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was reported 

on this site in 2000. A work plan and preliminary assessment were conducted in 

2004. The site is currently conducting pollution characterization. 

• WAPA-Folsom Substation (Map Location #33 - Folsom Dam Road, Folsom). 

This site was reported in the Sacramento contaminated sites list as having waste 

oil. However, no closure date was provided for this site. 

• Folsom Prison (Map Location #37 – north of Folsom City, Represa). Folsom 

Prison operates a license plate manufacturing plant onsite that uses caustic 

stripping bath liquids and paint sludges. In addition, the prison has an 

evaporation pond for cannery wastewater, a scrap metal disposal area, light 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-9 

industrial areas, and a firing range. The prison is part of the Voluntary Cleanup 

Program to address the contamination. Several remedial actions were completed 

at the site. Groundwater monitoring is on-going. 

• California State Prison Garage (Map Location #38 – 560 East Natoma Street, 

Folsom). This site was reported in the Sacramento contaminated sites list as 

having an unknown substance released that affects groundwater. However, no 

closure date was provided for this site. 

• Folsom State Prison (Map Location #38 – 560 East Natoma Street, Represa). 

This site was reported in the Sacramento contaminated sites list as having diesel 

released to the soil in 1989. However, no closure date was provided for this site. 

• Folsom Prison – Green Valley (Map Location #38 – 560 East Natoma Street, 

Represa). This site was reported in the Sacramento contaminated sites list as 

having gasoline released to the soil in 1998. However, no closure date was 

provided for this site. 

• California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Folsom Facility (Map 

Location #39 – 600 East Natoma Street, Folsom). This site was reported in the 

California State Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup (SLIC) database as 

having an open case. However, no further information was provided for this site. 

Appendix H of this Draft EIS/EIR presents a complete list of the databases searched 

and information concerning the governing agencies, the 205 sites identified in the 

Folsom DS/FDR corridor vicinity, and a map locating all sites. Although the agency 

lists are updated regularly, there may be contaminated sites that have not yet been 

identified and therefore are absent from the databases. A complete Phase I ENSA 

was not performed for the Folsom DS/FDR corridor because such investigations tend 

to remain valid for only six months and, as a result, are typically done after selection 

of the preferred alternative and closer to construction. 

3.17.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.17.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Impacts on public safety at Folsom Reservoir were evaluated based on the potential 

for human exposure to hazardous conditions during construction. 

3.17.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Using the environmental checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA 

Guidelines as a base, effects on public safety would be significant if an alternative 

would: 

• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through reasonable 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

foreseeable upset and accident conditions resulting in the release of hazardous 

materials into the environment; 

• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste 

within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 

• Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites 

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would 

create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; 

• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or 

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving 

wildland fires, including areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or 

where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 

3.17.2.3 Natural Disasters 

Natural disasters occur when natural phenomenon (e.g., earthquake, landslides) 

result in fatalities or property damages. Common natural phenomena that could 

potentially result in natural disasters at the Folsom Reservoir include earthquakes, 

landslides, fires, and floods. 

3.17.2.3.1 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, no new construction would occur. 

Thus, no change to risk of public safety as a result of a wildland fire or landslide 

would occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Although this alternative 

would result in no change in public safety because persons would not be exposed to 

additional hazards associated with construction of flood management facilities, the 

existing risks to the public from current dam deficiencies, such as failure due to 

seismic (earthquake), static (seepage), and hydrologic concerns (probable maximum 

flood events), would remain. Failure of the Folsom Facility would result in flood 

impacts on downstream populations. Folsom Reservoir is in an urban setting and 

flood flows could flow through the Sacramento metropolitan area.5 Due to the 

current deficiencies in the dam, the No Action/No Project Alternative would have the 

potential to result in serious property damage and loss of human life in the event of a 

seismic or maximum flood event. This would be a significant and unavoidable 

impact. 

 

5

 Reclamation 2005c. Folsom Dam - Safety of Dams – Corrective Action Study Scoping Report, 

Folsom Dam Central Valley Project, California. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-11 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have significant impacts related to 

public safety. Based on the analysis presented above, it is anticipated that the 

environmental impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., future 

environmental conditions if no action is taken relative to the Folsom DS/FDR) would 

exceed the significance criteria defined herein. However, unlike a significant impact 

associated with an action alternative, no mitigation can be required for significant 

impacts associated with the No Action/No Project (i.e., within the regulatory 

framework of NEPA and CEQA, a project applicant cannot be required to mitigate 

the impacts that would result from taking no action). As such, the impacts identified 

above for the No Action/No Project Alternative are considered to be significant, 

adverse, and unmitigable. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Excavation of borrow material would not result in landslides.

Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse effects associated with 

landslides. As described in Section 3.6.1.3, landslides are not a major hazard in the 

study area because soils are thin and the slopes are not particularly steep. Excavation 

would be conducted in a manner to further minimize the potential for landslides 

(e.g., excavation may be terraced to stabilize slopes). 

Impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. 

During construction of Alternative 1, an impact to public safety would occur if 

construction activities reduced the integrity of the existing Folsom Facility such that 

leakage occurs or the structures can no longer retain flood flows. 

Construction activities would be designed, staged, and scheduled in such a manner to 

prevent compromising existing structures, particularly during the wet weather 

season. Many of the improvements, such as jet grouting and installation of drains, 

shear key elements, and tendons, involve intrusive activities to existing flood 

management structures and could diminish structural integrity of the structure either 

temporarily or permanently if not designed or installed correctly. Placement of fill on 

top of existing dams and dikes, such as for the overlay of the MIAD and the raising 

of the elevations of the dams and dikes, could also have a detrimental effect on 

existing structures if not designed or constructed properly. In addition, conducting 

blasting near existing structures or near a fault could cause structural damage or 

damage to foundations thereby reducing the integrity of the existing Folsom Facility 

such that leakage occurs or the structures can no longer retain flood flows. This 

impact would be mitigated by having the Folsom Facility improvements designed 

and the construction schedule phased by California-licensed professional civil and 

structural engineers and the construction work performed by licensed professional 

contractors. Designs and plans would also require reviews and permits per local, 

state and federal laws. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

These requirements are already established as part of the Folsom DS/FDR, and 

would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction activities could increase hazards by the placement of construction 

equipment in waterways, roadways, or other areas potentially accessible by park 

visitors. 

For example, popular recreation areas, such as Beal's Point, are in the immediate 

vicinity of construction borrow areas. Although these areas would be closed off to 

the public while they are under construction to reduce hazards to the public, 

blockage of existing roadways could also interfere with existing emergency 

evacuation plans. Adequate signage and notification would be required per Section 

659 of the Harbors and Navigation Code (California Administrative Code, Title 14, 

Section 7000) to reduce the potential for these potential hazardous conditions. 

The placement of construction equipment in areas potentially accessible by park 

visitors would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure PHS-1 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction would increase the risk of fire. 

During the dry season, the area surrounding the reservoir is at risk for fires, 

particularly at the interface between residential development and open space. 

Construction activities, particularly those that may result in accidental spills of 

flammable liquids, could further aggravate the risk of fire. Mitigation measures 

would be implemented to reduce these risks, such as proper housekeeping 

procedures at construction sites. 

The risk of fire would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure PHS-2 

would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

There would be no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 regarding construction design and scheduling, blockage or closure of 

roads for construction, construction activities in waterways or other areas accessible 

by park visitors, potential landslides, and fire risks. Implementation of Mitigation 

Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2 would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

Similarly, new embankments and/or flood easements that could be constructed 

around the reservoir under Alternative 2 to prevent flooding in areas of low elevation 

also could result in additional impacts to public health and safety. The number of 

new embankments/flood easements required and their exact locations have not been 

determined. However, typical construction of the new embankments would involve 

the use of scrapers, loaders, and other equipment to create earthen berms and the 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-13 

creation of access roads for construction and maintenance. The nature of the impacts 

from these activities would not be substantially different from the impacts addressed 

under Alternative 1 and would be mitigated to a less than significant level by 

implementation of Mitigation Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Impacts of Alternative 3 would not be substantially different from the impacts 

addressed under Alternative 2 and would be mitigated to a less than significant level 

by implementation of Mitigation Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2. There would be no 

other appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 

for the impacts regarding construction design and scheduling, lowering of reservoir 

levels, blockage or closure of roads for construction, construction activities in 

waterways or other areas accessible by park visitors, potential landslides, fire risks, 

construction of new embankments/flood easements, and inundation from 

dam/embankment raises. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2 

would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

There would be no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 3 and 

Alternative 4 for the impacts regarding construction design and scheduling, lowering 

of reservoir levels, blockage or closure of roads for construction, construction 

activities in waterways or other areas accessible by park visitors, potential landslides, 

fire risks, construction of new embankments/flood easements, and inundation from 

dam/embankment raises. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2 

would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

There would be no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 3 and 

Alternative 5 for the impacts regarding construction design and scheduling, lowering 

of reservoir levels, blockage or closure of roads for construction, construction 

activities in waterways or other areas accessible by park visitors, potential landslides, 

fire risks, construction of new embankments/flood easements, and inundation from 

dam/embankment raises. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PHS-1 and PHS-2 

would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. 

3.17.2.4 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste 

Exposure to hazardous materials and contaminated soil and groundwater along 

urbanized portions of the Folsom DS/FDR corridor could occur during construction 

of the preferred alternative. This section describes the potential impact of exposure to 

hazardous substances from construction of the Folsom DS/FDR. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.17.2.4.1 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, no new construction would occur. No 

change in public safety with respect to hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes is 

expected because no persons would be exposed to hazardous, toxic, and radiological 

wastes associated with the construction of flood management facilities. Existing 

conditions of the Folsom Facility also do not currently expose people to hazardous, 

toxic, and radiological wastes. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on health and safety 

related to hazardous, toxic, or radiological waste. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Development of soil borrow in the vicinity of Dike 8 may expose workers to health 

and safety effects.

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.3, soil in the area of Dike 8 is derived from schist 

containing minute amounts of asbestos-like fibers. During borrow removal, 

processing, and placement at MIAD, friable, asbestos fibers may be released during 

construction. Engineering controls would be required during disturbance of the 

concrete foundation to protect construction crews and the general public. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures GR-1 (See 

Section 3.6.4), PHS-3, PHS-4, and PHS-5 would reduce impacts to a less than 

significant level. 

Construction activities could result in exposure to hazardous materials.

Some construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials and their 

use could result in accidental spills at construction sites. In addition, all earthwork 

has the potential to uncover hazardous materials in the soil, groundwater, or 

sediment. Excavation or borrow development could expose hazards left in the area 

from previous construction activities. Spillway modifications could result in 

resuspension of sediments that may contain contaminants such as mercury. 

Depending on the concentrations, the introduction of these contaminants in the 

reservoir could require closures or warnings for swimming and fishing. (Refer to 

Section 3.1, Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater and Section 3.5, Terrestrial 

Vegetation and Wildlife, for additional information regarding mercury 

contamination.). The contractor needs to be prepared to implement appropriate 

protocols for proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials should they be 

encountered during construction to protect construction crews and the general public; 

and to provide proper notification to the general public, as needed. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-15 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and 

HWQ-2 (See Section 3.1.4), PHS-1, PHS-3, PHS-4, and PHS- 5 would reduce 

impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 could involve the development of borrow 

material containing asbestos-like fibers, the use of hazardous materials that could 

result in accidental spills at construction sites, and earthwork that has the potential to 

uncover hazardous materials in the soil, groundwater, or sediment. One difference 

between Alternatives 1 and 2 would be that new embankments/flood easements 

could be constructed around the reservoir under Alternative 2 to prevent flooding in 

areas of low elevation. The number of embankments required and their exact 

locations have not been determined; however, typical construction of the new 

embankments/flood easements would involve the use of scrapers, loaders, and other 

equipment to create earthen berms, and the creation of access roads for construction 

and maintenance. The nature of the impacts from these activities would not be 

substantially different from the impacts addressed under Alternative 1 and would be 

mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measures 

GR-1, HWQ-1, HWQ-2, PHS-1, PHS-3, PHS-4, and PHS- 5. 

Other than the new embankments/flood easements, there would be no appreciable 

difference between the impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 for these elements. 

Mitigation Measures identified for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 2. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 could involve the development of borrow 

material containing asbestos-like fibers, the use of hazardous materials that could 

result in accidental spills at construction sites, and earthwork that has the potential to 

uncover hazardous materials in the soil, groundwater, or sediment. There would be 

no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 for 

these elements. Mitigation Measures identified for Alternative 2 are applicable to 

Alternative 3. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

As with Alternative 2, Alternative 4 could involve the development of borrow 

material containing asbestos-like fibers, the use of hazardous materials that could 

result in accidental spills at construction sites, and earthwork that has the potential to 

uncover hazardous materials in the soil, groundwater, or sediment. There would be 

no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 for 

these elements. Mitigation Measures identified for Alternative 2 are applicable to 

Alternative 4. 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

As with Alternative 2, Alternative 5 could involve the development of borrow 

material containing asbestos-like fibers, the use of hazardous materials that could 

result in accidental spills at construction sites, and earthwork that has the potential to 

uncover hazardous materials in the soil, groundwater, or sediment. There would be 

no appreciable difference between the impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 for 

these elements. Mitigation Measures identified for Alternative 2 are applicable to 

Alternative 5. 

3.17.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

There would generally be no difference between the alternatives for impacts to 

public health and safety due to natural disasters or hazardous, toxic, and radiological 

waste. However, Alternatives 4 and 5 would require the largest quantities of borrow 

material and would therefore have a greater chance of encountering hazards in the 

soils. Alternatives 1 through 4 would require excavation in the reservoir for a new 

Auxiliary Spillway and could therefore encounter mercury in the sediments. 

Although there would be no excavation in the reservoir for a new Auxiliary 

Spillway, construction activities at MIAD under Alternative 5 could encounter 

mercury in the sediment. 

3.17.4 Mitigation Measures 

Adherence to the following mitigation measures would satisfy the regulatory 

requirements regarding hazard identification and would mitigate potentially 

significant impacts to a less than significant level. 

PHS-1: A public safety management plan will be prepared and implemented to 

maintain public safety during all phases of construction. Components of the plan will 

address: 

• Public notification of the location and duration of construction activities, 

pedestrian/bicycle path/trail closures, and restrictions on reservoir use (i.e., 

boating, water skiing, fishing, swimming); 

• Verification with local jurisdictions that construction blockage of existing 

roadways will not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans; 

• Adequate signage regarding the location of construction sites and warning of the 

presence of construction equipment; 

• Fencing of construction staging areas and of construction areas if dangerous 

conditions exist when construction is not occurring; and 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-17 

• Temporary walkways (with appropriate markings, barriers, and signs to safely 

separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic) and detour signage where an existing 

sidewalk or pedestrian/bicycle path/trail will be closed during construction.

PHS-2: Prior to initiating construction activities, the responsible Federal agency in 

consultation with the appropriate city, county, and State fire suppression agencies 

will prepare and implement a Fire Management Plan. The plan will include fire 

prevention and response methods including fire precaution, presuppression, and 

suppression measures consistent with the policies and standards in the affected 

jurisdictions. 

PHS-3: Conduct a Phase I ENSA at all construction sites before beginning 

construction. Reclamation and the Corps will require that site-specific environmental 

site assessments be performed for all sites where construction will be conducted. As 

necessary, a soil and groundwater characterization program will be developed and 

implemented at all excavation locations in proximity to listed hazardous waste sites 

identified in the Phase I ENSA. The soil and groundwater characterization program 

will identify those excavation areas that will require development and 

implementation of appropriate remediation measures. Mitigation Measure PHS-5 

described below applies only to areas where contact with contaminated soil or 

groundwater is suspected. 

PHS-4: Prepare and implement a Worker Health and Safety Plan prior to the start of 

construction activities. The Contractor will prepare a Health and Safety Plan that 

should, at a minimum, identify: 

• All contaminants that could be encountered during excavation activities (e.g., 

potential asbestos in the gravel used for the foundation of the Folsom Dam, TPH 

in soil); 

• All appropriate worker, public health, and environmental protection equipment 

and procedures; 

• Emergency response procedures; 

• Most direct route to a hospital; and 

• Site Safety Officer. 

The plan will require documentation that all workers have reviewed and signed the 

plan. 

PHS-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities, the Contractor will be required to 

prepare a Hazardous Material Management Plan for review by the responsible 

Federal agency. The purpose of this plan is to have an established plan of action if 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

3.17-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

hazardous materials are encountered during construction and to establish best 

management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for exposure to hazardous 

wastes. The plan will: 

• Define a protocol for proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials if they 

are encountered during construction; 

• Define a protocol for proper emergency procedures and handling and disposal of 

hazardous materials if an accidental spill occurs during construction; and 

• Establish BMPs to reduce the potential for spills of HTRW. 

Typical BMPs to reduce the potential for spills may include, but are not limited to: 

• Having a spill prevention and control plan with a designated supervisor to 

oversee and enforce proper spill prevention measures; 

• Providing spill response and prevention education for employees and 

subcontractors; 

• Stocking appropriate clean-up materials onsite near material storage, unloading 

and use areas; 

• Designating hazardous waste storage areas away from storm drains or 

watercourses; 

• Minimizing production or generation of hazardous materials onsite or 

substituting chemicals used onsite with less hazardous chemicals; 

• Designating areas for construction vehicle and equipment maintenance and 

fueling with appropriate control measures for runon and runoff; and 

• Arranging for regular hazardous waste removal to minimize onsite storage. 

HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 (see Section 3.1.4) and GR-1 (see Section 3.6.4) would also 

serve to reduce potential public health and safety impacts during construction to a 

less than significant level. 

3.17.5 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulatively, the Folsom DS/FDR actions would have a beneficial effect on public 

health and safety with respect to natural disasters. The Folsom DS/FDR actions 

would reduce current dam deficiencies, such as potential failure due to seismic 

(earthquake), static (seepage), and hydrologic concerns (probable maximum flood 

events), and provide greater protection to downstream populations in the Sacramento 

metropolitan area from potential flood impacts. Effects on public health and safety 
Section 3.17 

Public Health and Safety 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.17-19 

with respect to hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste were found not to have the 

potential to contribute to cumulative effects because the effects are either temporary 

or have no potential to be additive to other projects. Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions would not have an adverse cumulative effect on public health and safety. 
Section 3.18 

Indian Trust Assets 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.18-1 

3.18 Indian Trust Assets 

Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are defined as legal interests in property held in trust by 

the United States government for Indian tribes or individuals, or property protected 

under United States law for Indian tribes and individuals. Federal agencies are 

required to take responsibility for protection and maintenance of ITAs. EISs should 

consider impacts to ITAs when the potential for impacts exist. 

As shown in Figure 3.18-1, ITAs are not present within the area or adjacent to the 

Folsom Facility. Therefore, there would be no impacts to ITAs from the Folsom 

DS/FDR actions (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). 
Fols Shingle Springs

Rancheria

Jackson

Rancheria

Ione Band of

Miwok TDSA



Figure 3.18-1

ITAs Near the Folsom Facility

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\ITAs Near Project Area_Fig3.18-1.ai 11/01/06 JJT

N

No Scale
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.19-1

3.19 Environmental Justice 

This section addresses the degree to which the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would 

comply with federal and state regulations and guidelines pertaining to environmental 

justice by identifying potentially disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority and/or low-income populations. The applicable 

federal and state environmental justice regulations and guidelines are described 

below in Subsection 3.19.1.2. 

3.19.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.19.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The study area is broken down into State and local jurisdictions including: Folsom 

State Prison/California State Prison - Sacramento (CSPS), Placer County, El Dorado 

County, Sacramento County, and City of Folsom. The 2000 Census Tract Block 

Groups used for this analysis include the following: 

• Folsom State Prison/California State Prison, Sacramento (Sacramento County) – 

Block Group 1, Census Tract 83 

• Placer County – Block Groups 1, 2 and 3, Census Tract 206.01 and Block Group 

2, Census Tract 206.05 

• El Dorado County – Block Group 1, Census Tract 307.01 and Block Group 1, 

Census Tract 307.02 

• City of Folsom (Sacramento County) – Block Groups 1, 2 and 4, Census Tract 

82.10; Block Group 1, Census Tract 84.02 and Block Group 2, Census Tract 

85.01 

The study area for the environmental justice analysis is the area in which the 

collective environmental effects resulting from the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives 

would be likely to occur. Figure 3.16-1, in Section 3.16, Population and Housing, 

shows the census tracts and block groups included in the Folsom DS/FDR study 

area. 

3.19.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal Environmental Justice Regulations and Guidelines 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations,” established the priority of analyzing 

environmental justice for any action that could cause disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts to a minority and/or or low-income population. All federal agencies 

are required to include analysis of environmental justice within EISs. Minority 

population is defined as including all non-white racial groups and Hispanics of any 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

3.19-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

racial group; low-income population is defined based on federal poverty thresholds 

(Council of Environmental Quality 1997). 

Two principles are central to the analysis of environmental justice under Executive 

Order 12898: 

• Fair treatment of all people regardless of race, color, nation of origin or income; 

and 

• Promotion of public participation by minority and/or low-income populations. 

Reclamation and the Corps have guidelines for analysis of environmental justice in 

EAs and EISs. Potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority 

and/or low-income populations should be discussed and reasonable mitigation 

measures established as necessary. Active engagement of minority and low-income 

communities within the public scoping and involvement processes should be 

promoted. Consideration of minority cultural and language needs should be 

addressed when developing public involvement programs. 

State Environmental Justice Regulations and Guidelines 

California State Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines environmental 

justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect 

to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations and policies. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is the 

coordinating agency in State government for environmental justice programs. OPR is 

responsible for developing guidelines for incorporating environmental justice into 

general plans. 

Enacted at the same time as Government Code Section 65040.12, Public Resources 

Code Sections 71110-71116 designate the California Environmental Protection 

Agency (CalEPA) as the public agency to implement the state's environmental 

justice programs. Specifically, CalEPA is required to "promote enforcement of all 

health and environmental statutes within its jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the 

fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including minority 

populations and low income populations of the state." See Public Resources Code § 

71110. CalEPA's other broad responsibilities include the implementation of 

environmental justice in the design and implementation of programs, policies and 

activities, the implementation of enforcement efforts, the design of public 

participation activities, and conducting health and environmental research and data 

collection. Pursuant to this law, CalEPA has developed a model environmental 

justice mission statement and convened a Working Group and an Advisory Group to 

develop an agency-wide strategy for identifying and addressing any gaps in existing 

programs, policies, or activities that could impede the achievement of environmental 

justice. On October 7, 2003, the Advisory Group finalized and published their 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.19-3

Environmental Justice Recommendations to the Working Group, which provide a set 

of comprehensive recommendations to establish and implement an effective 

environmental justice program at CalEPA. 

Beyond these general environmental justice laws, there is currently no state 

requirement or specific guidance for addressing environmental justice under CEQA. 

However, it is in recognition of the environmental justice principles and policies 

under Government Code Section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code Sections 

71110-71116 and the still-developing statewide approach to environmental justice, 

the subject issue is addressed in this section.

Placer and El Dorado Counties’ General Plans and the City of Folsom’s General Plan 

do not include guidelines related to environmental justice. 

3.19.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Table 3.19-1 shows the demographic and income breakdown for each block group in 

the study area. Based on this information, there is one block group with a population 

consisting primarily of minority and low-income individuals. Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 83 consists of the Folsom State Prison and the CSPS, and is located adjacent to 

the Folsom DS/FDR area, within the City of Folsom. As indicated in Table 3.19-1, 

year 2000 U.S. Census data indicates that Block Group 1, Census Tract 83 consists 

of over 50 percent minority individuals and 53.3 percent of low-income individuals, 

defined as living below the federal poverty level. 

Section 3.18, Population and Housing, defines the race and ethnic demographic 

breakdown within the area of analysis. Household income is also discussed in the 

Section 3.18 for the area of analysis. 

Folsom State Prison/California State Prison - Sacramento 

Folsom State Prison and CSPS are within the same census tract and block group, and 

within the city limits of Folsom. Folsom State Prison is a medium security prison for 

men, housing Level II and Level III inmates. A minimum security unit is also at 

Folsom State Prison (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations 

[CDCR] 2006a). Adjacent to Folsom State Prison, CSPS houses maximum security 

inmates with long sentences and inmates perceived as management problems from 

other institutions. 

CSPS is also a medical hub for Northern California. This facility provides a 

Psychiatric Services Unit, enhanced outpatient (EOP) and EOP Administrative 

Segregation levels of healthcare. An Outpatient Housing Unit and Correction 

Treatment Center are also located at the facility (CDCR 2006b). A total of 7,367 

inmates were housed at the two prisons as of March 31, 2006 (CDCR 2006b). 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 3.19-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EI

Table 3.19-1 

Demographic and Income Data of Environmental Justice Study Area

Parameter Applicable 

Environmental 

Justice 

Threshold1 

Block 

Group 1, 

Census 

Tract 

307.01, 

El Dorado 

County, CA 

Block 

Group 1, 

Census 

Tract 

307.02, 

El Dorado 

County, 

CA 

Block 

Group 1, 

Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County, 

CA 

Block 

Group 2, 

Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County, 

CA 

Block 

Group 3, 

Census 

Tract 

206.01, 

Placer 

County, 

CA 

Block 

Group 2, 

Census 

Tract 

206.05, 

Placer 

County, 

CA 

Block 

Group 1, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County, CA 

Block 

Group 2, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County, CA 

Block 

Group 4, 

Census 

Tract 82.10, 

Sacramento 

County, CA 

Total Population 5,108 746 1,435 4,719 271 2,295 459 711 1,733 Total Minority Population2 

 737 69 139 467 40 247 71 76 124 

Minority Percentage 50% or more 14.4% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 14.8% 10.8% 15.5% 10.7% 7.2% Median Household Income 

 $99,728 $109,025 $79,912 $101,851 $74,821 $101,617 $87,417 $29,500 $35,543 

Percentage Below Federal Poverty Threshold 

 1.8% 0.0% 3.2% 2.9% 0.0% 5.1% 3.9% 5.9% 3.8% 

Source: 2000 U.S. Census unless noted otherwise, U.S. Census Bureau 2004a 1Based on Environmental Justice – Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Review Act, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1997, page 25. 2Total population minus “white alone” plus Hispanics/Latinos who are white alone. 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.19-5

Folsom State Prison and CSPS are located in Census Tract 83, Block Group 1, 

Sacramento County. Table 3.19-2 shows the majority of the prison population to be 

minorities at 65.7 percent of the population in 2000. 

Table 3.19-2 

Race and Ethnic Demographics within Block 1, Census Tract 83 

(Folsom State Prison and CSPS)

Race/Ethnicity Number Percentage of 

Study Area Population 

White alone 2,438 35.6% 

Black or African American 2,430 35.5% 

American Indian and Alaska Native 65 1.0% 

Asian 88 1.3% 

Other or Mixed 1,821 26.6% 

Total 6,842 100.0% 

 

Hispanic or Latino 1,860 27.2% 

Total minority 4,493 65.7% 

Source: US Census Data 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a) 

The majority of the prison population was reported as having incomes below the 

poverty level. U.S. Census 2000 reports 77 people living in 36 households with a 

median household income of $56,042. Because these households are in the same 

census block group as the prisons, separate racial and income data are not available 

for them. The 2000 Census reported no families living below poverty level in the 

block group. Discussions with prison public information officers indicate that 

individuals living within these households are prison employees and their families 

and are not institutionalized individuals (Cocke 2006; Lucchi 2006). 

3.19.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.19.2.1 Assessment Methods 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) guidance for determining 

whether there is a minority community where environmental justice effects could 

occur gives both quantitative and qualitative measures: if the affected area’s minority 

population is over 50 percent, and if the minority population in the affected area is 

“meaningfully greater” than that in the general population. 

U.S. 2000 Census data was used to identify the percentage of minority and low 

income populations within the study area to determine if environmental justice 

impacts would occur. Data indicated the percentage of individuals who are listed as 

minorities in census block groups in the study area. The demographic analysis also 

identified percentages of study area residents living below the poverty level. 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

3.19-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.19.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Implementation of the proposed actions of the Folsom DS/FDR would result in a 

significant environmental justice impact if they would: 

• Expose a minority or low-income population to disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts or hazards; or 

• Not take efforts to encourage public participation within predominately minority 

or low-income population segments. 

3.19.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, construction of the Folsom DS/FDR 

improvements at the Folsom Facility would not occur. All income levels and 

populations would be at the same risk if seismic, hydrologic, or static problems or a 

major flood occurred at the Folsom Facility. Appropriate measures would be taken to 

protect the prison population from any hazardous effects. Because there would be no 

disproportionate effect to minorities or low income populations, the No Action/No 

Project Alternative would have no impact relative to Environmental Justice. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no impact to Environmental 

Justice. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Actions under Alternative 1 would not result in environmental justice impacts.

The majority of the population in the study area is not a minority and is living above 

the Federal poverty threshold. Therefore, based on demographics identified in Table 

3.19-1, there would not be a disproportionate impact to minority or low-income 

populations or property in the majority of the study area. Folsom State Prison/CSPS 

and prison employee households (Block Group 1, Census Tract 83) indicated low 

income and minority groups above 50 percent. Therefore, environmental justice 

could be an issue if implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR disproportionately 

affects the prison population, including inmates and workers and families living on 

the prison grounds. 

Construction activities could temporarily increase noise, traffic, and air emissions in 

the vicinity of the site. Several phases of construction planned for the Alternative 1 

would occur around the Main Concrete Dam and Left Wing Dam, which could 

increase noise levels near the prison. Construction activities would also occur in 

multiple areas surrounding the Folsom Facility, which would increase noise for other 

communities. The effects of increased noise would be experienced by all people 

within the surrounding areas of the Folsom Facility. Therefore, there would be no 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.19-7

disproportionate effect of increased noise on Block Group 1, Census Tract 83, 

including the prison population. 

Increased traffic from construction activities would also affect a wide range of 

income levels and races in the study area. Traffic could increase along the Highway 

50 and Interstate 80 corridors and in the City of Folsom. These increases would 

affect all drivers and would not have any disproportionately high and adverse effects 

to minority and/or low-income populations. In general, because construction is 

planned throughout the study area, any effects would fall on all residents within the 

study area. Disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and/or lowincome populations would not occur from construction of Alternative 1. 

Alternative 1 would also close recreation sites in the Folsom Lake State Recreation 

Area. The Folsom Lake State Recreation Area is used by people of all income levels 

and race. Closure of the recreation areas would not affect prisoners or 

disproportionately affect workers or families living on the prison grounds. 

As described in Section 2, the formulation, screening, and selection of alternatives to 

be considered for the Folsom DS/FDR included public outreach and community 

input, including attendance at local scoping meetings (see Appendix A, Public 

Scoping Report). Additional focused efforts to solicit public participation within 

predominately minority or low-income population segments were not conducted 

relative to the Folsom DS/FDR, given the unique circumstances of the subject 

population (i.e., inmates within Folsom State Prison and CSPS). 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Impacts of Alternative 2 related to environmental justice would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Impacts of Alternative 3 related to environmental justice would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Impacts of Alternative 4 related to environmental justice would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Impacts of Alternative 5 related to environmental justice would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 
Section 3.19 

Environmental Justice 

3.19-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.19.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

There would be no significant impacts under any of the Folsom DS/FDR action 

alternatives with regard to environmental justice. 

3.19.4 Mitigation Measures 

There would be no significant environmental justice impacts; therefore, no 

mitigation measures are required. 

3.19.5 Cumulative Effects 

The Folsom DS/FDR would have no significant environmental justice impacts and 

would not contribute to any cumulative environmental justice impacts. 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

3.5.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

Terrestrial biological resources include vegetation, wildlife habitats, wetlands, 

wildlife species, and threatened and endangered species. The information provided in 

this document describes the botanical resources and wildlife that occur in the vicinity 

of Folsom Reservoir. 

The analysis area is dominated by aquatic habitat within Folsom Reservoir, but 

stands of native vegetation occupy much of the area adjacent to the shoreline. This 

area supports seven major terrestrial vegetation types that are typical of the foothills 

of California’s Central Valley. The vegetation mosaic is a result of interactions 

between natural and human influences including: climate, soil type and depth, 

elevation, slope gradient, slope aspect, grazing, fire, physical disturbances by 

humans, reservoir fluctuations, and invasive exotic vegetation. 

Native plant communities in the analysis area provide suitable habitat for a variety of 

native wildlife, including special-status species. The primary habitat types that occur 

within the analysis area include annual grassland, interior live oak woodland and 

savanna, blue oak woodland, chaparral, willow scrub, riparian forest, seasonal 

wetland, freshwater marsh, and aquatic (lake, pond, creek, and stream). Alteration in 

composition and structure of native vegetation is likely to have resulted in reduced 

populations of native wildlife not adapted to the changed environment. Additional 

changes to the natural ecosystems have resulted from the incursion of non-native 

species and the related increase in native wildlife species that have adapted to these 

vegetation changes. Land development within the vicinity of Folsom Reservoir 

(including the dams themselves) has created significant barriers to wildlife 

movement and altered patterns of animal migration. 

3.5.1.1 Area of Analysis 

Potential impacts to biological resources have been evaluated for the Folsom Dam 

and the area surrounding the reservoir. Acreages discussed in the analysis are limited 

to those affected by the maximum combined footprint for the construction phase of 

the project and do not include any sites for additional new embankments related to 

raise features. Impacted habitat acreages and compensatory mitigation acreages 

identified in the Draft Coordination Act Report (CAR) for the Folsom Dam Safety 

and Flood Damage Reduction Project (USFWS 2006) are estimated and being 

refined; impacts would be further minimized in coordination with the USFWS. The 

CAR does include areas of potential impact beyond the construction phase of the 

project. Subsequent environmental documents would address details of the 

construction of additional new embankments, if a raise feature is selected and new 

embankments are necessary. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-1 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

3.5.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

The following laws, ordinances, and regulations are applicable or potentially 

applicable to the project in the context of biological resources. 

Federal 

Endangered Species Act of 1973; 16 USC §1531 et seq.; 50 CFR Parts 17 and 222 

This act includes provisions for protection and management of species that are 

federally listed as threatened or endangered or proposed for such listing and of 

designated critical habitat for these species. The administering agency for the above 

authority for non-marine species is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: 16 USC §703-711; 50 CFR Subchapter B 

This act includes provisions for protection of migratory birds, including basic 

prohibitions against any taking not authorized by federal regulation. The 

administering agency for the above authority is the USFWS. 

Rivers and Harbors Act §10; 33 USC §201 et seq. 

This act protects waters of the United States. The administering agency for the above 

authority is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 

Clean Water Act of 1977; 33 USC §1251-1376; 30 CFR §330.5(a) 26 

These sections provide for the protection of wetlands. The administering agency for 

the above authority is the Corps. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977) 

This order provides for the protection of wetlands. The administering agency for the 

above authority is the Corps. 

State 

California Endangered Species Act of 1984, California Fish and Game Code §2050-2098 

This act includes provisions for the protection and management of species listed by 

the state as endangered or threatened, or designated as candidates for such listing. 

This act includes a requirement for consultation “to ensure that any action authorized 

by a state lead agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species...or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of the species” (§2090). 

Plants of California declared to be endangered, threatened, or rare are listed at 14 

CCR §670.2. Animals of California declared to be endangered, threatened, or rare 

are listed at 14 CCR §670.5. The administering agency for the above authority is the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 

3.5-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Native Plant Protection Act of 1977; California Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq. 

This act lists state-designated rare and endangered plants and provides specific 

protection measures for identified populations. The administering agency for the 

above authority is the CDFG. 

California Species Preservation Act of 1970; California Fish and Game Code §900-903 

This act includes provisions for the protection and enhancement of the birds, 

mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles of California. The administering agency for 

the above authority is the CDFG. 

California Fish and Game Code §900-903 

This code section prohibits the taking or possessing of any bird egg or nest. The 

administering agency for the above authority is the CDFG. 

California Fish and Game Code §3511 and 5050 

This code section prohibits the taking or possessing of birds and reptiles listed as 

“fully protected.” The administering agency for the above authority is the CDFG. 

California Fish and Game Code §1930-1933 

These code sections provide for the Significant Natural Areas program and database. 

The administering agency for the above authority is the CDFG. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) PRC §21000 et seq. 

This act provides for protection of the environment within the state of California. For 

the project, the administering agency for the above authority is the California State 

Lands Commission (CSLC). 

Local 

Local Native Tree Protection Ordinances 

California State Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 and several city and county 

ordinances regulate effects on native oak and riparian trees and woodlands, as well 

as designated landmark or heritage trees. These local ordinances generally require 

permits for any activities that directly remove covered trees of specific size and 

species, or indirectly affect them by work under or adjacent to their canopy driplines. 

The ordinances typically have specific quantitative mitigation ratios for replacement 

of trees affected by projects. 

3.5.1.3 Existing Conditions 

Botanical Resources 

The analysis area includes all construction use areas from Alternative 1 (no structural 

raise) to Alternative 5 (17-ft raise). This area is dominated by aquatic habitat within 

Folsom Reservoir, but stands of native vegetation occupy much of the area adjacent 

to the shoreline. This area supports seven major terrestrial vegetation types that are 

typical of the foothills of California’s Central Valley. These types include: interior 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-3 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

live oak woodland, blue oak woodland and savanna, annual grassland, chaparral, 

cottonwood-willow riparian, freshwater marsh, and seasonal wetland. 

Sensitive plant communities have special protection or consideration under federal, 

state, and local laws. Sensitive communities for this project are those that meet any 

of the following criteria: communities that are described as Significant Natural Areas 

(SNAs) by CDFG, communities that are either known or believed to be of high 

priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to 

their rarity or level of threat, riparian communities subject to Corps jurisdiction or 

CDFG jurisdiction, and communities that are protected or recognized as a 

community of special concern by the state or local ordinances. Sensitive plant 

communities in the study area and vicinity include valley oak, blue oak savanna and 

woodland, gabbroic northern mixed chaparral, riparian forest, riparian scrub, 

freshwater marsh, and seasonal wetlands. 

Vegetation 

Upland Plant Communities 

• Interior Live Oak Woodland. This upland vegetation community (classified 

as interior live oak series by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf [1995]) was present 

above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the reservoir (as indicated 

by evidence of regular inundation), and is therefore not influenced by 

fluctuation of the reservoir water line. Dominant tree species are interior live 

oak (Quercus wislizenii), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and foothill or gray 

pine (Pinus sabiniana). This community intergrades with blue oak woodland 

(Holland 1986). The shrub layer was relatively depauperate with an 

occasional elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), or ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.). 

The understory herb layer was occupied by exotic Mediterranean grasses 

(Bromus spp.) and other ruderal species including short-pod mustard 

(Hirschfeldia incana), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and yellow 

star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). In areas of dense tree cover, bare ground 

or leaf litter was dominant. Approximately 81 acres of oak woodland, 

including interior live oak woodland, are present in the maximum extent of 

the project construction area. The potential future inundation zone portion of 

the CAR evaluation area includes a maximum extent 1,323 acres of interior 

live oak woodland. 

• Blue Oak Woodland and Savanna. Blue oak woodland is a highly variable 

climax woodland dominated by blue oak, but usually including other oak 

species (coast live oak [Quercus agrifolia], and interior live oak) as well as 

foothill pine (Holland 1986). The community is described as blue oak series 

(Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) and blue oak woodland (Holland 1986) in 

the literature. Within the project area, blue oak woodlands are present outside 

of the reservoir fluctuation zone on relatively xeric sites. Canopy cover 

ranges from continuous to fairly open. Understory species are mainly 

3.5-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

herbaceous and include Mediterranean grasses (Bromus spp.), dogtail grass 

(Cynosurus echinatus) and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). 

Approximately 81 acres of oak woodland, including blue oak woodland, are 

present in the maximum extent of the project construction area. The potential 

future inundation zone portion of the CAR evaluation area includes 1,323 

acres of oak woodland, including blue oak woodland. 

• Annual Grassland. Annual grassland is a heterogeneous mix of non-native 

grasses, annual forbs and wildflowers. This community is classified as 

California annual grassland series (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) and valley 

and foothill grassland or non-native grassland (Holland 1986). Dominant 

plant species in the annual grassland include introduced annual grasses such 

as wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum

spp.), dogtail grass and fescue (Vulpia spp.). Herbaceous forbs and 

wildflowers present in this vegetation include both native species such as 

fiddle neck (Amsinckia spp.), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and 

popcornflower (Plagiobothrys spp.), and non-native species such as shortpod mustard, yellow star thistle, and dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus). 

Approximately 180 acres of annual grassland are present in the maximum 

extent of the project construction area. 

• Chaparral. Chaparral consists of a dense cover of perennial, mostly 

evergreen shrubs, generally 1 to 3 meters in height. Chaparral is common 

around Folsom Reservoir, especially on steep, west or south facing slopes. 

The dominant species include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and 

whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida). Other common species present 

include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus 

californica), buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus), poison oak 

(Toxicodendron diversilobum), and redbud (Cercis occidentalis). Small 

stands of this community occur within the project construction area, 

sometimes as understory to interior live oak woodland. These small units are 

not shown on the vegetation map. Approximately 1.5 acres of chaparral are 

present in the maximum extent of the project construction area. The potential 

future inundation zone portion of the CAR evaluation area includes 66 acres 

of chaparral. 

• Gabbroic Northern Mixed Chaparral. This chaparral occurs on gabbro- and 

diorite-derived soils along the South Fork American River arm of Folsom 

Reservoir between Sweetwater and Weber Creeks. This community is a 

sensitive plant community. This community is defined by the presence of 

specific soil types (the Rescue Series), that are rich in iron and magnesium 

and other heavy metals which many common plant species do not tolerate. In 

the analysis area, this chaparral is typically dominated by chamise and 

supports scattered populations of several special-status plants, many of them 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-5 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

local endemics. These special-status plants occur in a fire-adapted plant 

community. However, this community does not occur within the project 

construction area. 

Riparian and Wetland Plant Communities 

• Riparian and wetland plant communities in the project construction area are 

found both outside of Folsom Reservoir and within the fluctuation zone of 

the reservoir between its ordinary high water line and the minimum pool 

elevation of the reservoir. Outside of the fluctuation zone of Folsom 

Reservoir, these communities may be found adjacent to the American River, 

tributary streams, drainage canals from reservoir dikes, or as isolated 

communities. Approximately 41 acres of woody riparian vegetation are 

present in the maximum extent of the project construction area. No woody 

riparian vegetation is present in the future inundation zone portion of the 

CAR evaluation area. 

• Cottonwood-Willow Riparian (Sensitive). Vegetation communities dominated 

by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) and various 

species of willow (Salix spp.) are typically found on floodplains, riparian 

areas, and low-gradient depositions along the banks of rivers, seeps, and 

streams where soils are intermittently flooded. Cottonwood communities in 

the project area contain elements of both great valley cottonwood riparian 

forests and willow scrub described by Holland (1986) and the Fremont 

cottonwood series and mixed willow series described by Sawyer and KeelerWolf (1995). 

• Freshwater Marsh (Sensitive). Freshwater marsh communities within the 

project area are wetland communities fed by seeps or springs and are 

permanently to semi-permanently flooded. The dominant species was cattail 

(Typha latifolia). The most applicable vegetation community described in the 

literature is coastal and valley freshwater marsh, a community dominated by 

perennial, emergent monocots including bulrush (Scirpus spp.) and cattail 

(Typha spp.) (Holland 1986). Approximately one acre of freshwater marsh is 

present in the maximum extent of the project construction area. 

• Riparian Vegetation Associated with the Reservoir Fluctuation Zone.

Scattered stands of willow and other woody vegetation are present within the 

reservoir fluctuation zone in the project area. Several categories have been 

mapped within this general vegetation type. 

The Gooding’s willow community is created by mature Gooding’s willow 

(Salix goodingii) trees that reached an average height of 30 feet. These 

communities are generally present within 100-200 feet below the OHWM 

within the heavily vegetated portion of the reservoir shoreline. Understory 

3.5-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

species are common herbaceous species including Bermuda grass (Cynodon 

dactylon), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and rushes (Juncus sp.). 

Mixed Riparian Areas within the Reservoir Fluctuation Zone are generally 

associated with depressions, or riparian areas within the reservoir fluctuation 

zone. These areas appeared to be frequently inundated and also likely 

received overland flow from upland areas. Species present include rushes, 

buttonwillow (Cephalanthus occidentalis), seep monkey flower (Mimulus 

guttatus) and other common species. 

Shrub Willow vegetation within the Reservoir Fluctuation Zone is dominated 

by willow shrubs (Salix sp.) that occur at certain areas at the very lowest 

elevations of the reservoir shoreline. These areas are frequently inundated 

and had saturated soil conditions. 

Seasonal Wetland Communities 

Seasonal wetland communities were mapped both inside and outside of the 

reservoir-influenced zone. The majority of wetland areas within the project area 

are seasonal. These communities are exposed to wetland hydrology for a limited 

period of time, though it may be for long enough duration to show indicators of 

wetland soil and hydrology and to seasonally host hydric vegetation. Much of 

this area, however, does not meet all three wetland criteria. Approximately 5 

acres of seasonal wetlands are present in the maximum extent of the project 

construction area. Descriptions of the various types of seasonal wetland 

communities observed in the project construction area are provided below. No 

seasonal wetland vegetation has been mapped in the future inundation zone 

portion of the CAR evaluation area. 

Seasonal Depression Vegetation within the Reservoir Fluctuation Zone is 

generally associated with depressions, or riparian areas within the area influenced 

by the reservoir. These areas appear to be frequently inundated and also likely 

receive overland flow from upland areas. Species present include rushes, seep 

monkey flower and other common species. 

Seasonal Wetland Slope Community within the Reservoir Fluctuation Zone is by 

far the most common vegetation community below the OHWM of the reservoir. 

Dominant species include Bermuda grass, sand spurrey (Spergularia spp.), rough 

cocklebur, and rushes, with each species alternating in dominance, depending on 

the site conditions. Rushes and rough cocklebur appear to dominate the more 

mesic sites and depressions while Bermuda grass and sand spurrey are more 

common in the drier areas. 

• Seasonal Depressions and Riparian Areas Outside the Reservoir Fluctuation 

Zone. Seasonally wet areas in the project area outside the reservoir 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-7 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

fluctuation zone were also mapped. These communities receive water from 

seeps, drainages and from direct precipitation. Some areas are confined to a 

distinct channel, but one area with uneven terrain and a partly-exposed 

bedrock outcrop has what appears to be seasonal ponding. Dominant species 

include pointed rush (Juncus oxymeris), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and 

often scattered willow and cottonwood. During the dry season, these areas 

support annual upland vegetation such as non-native brome grasses (Bromus

spp.) and other forbs. 

Disturbed Areas 

• Reservoir Shoreline Fluctuation Zone: Barren Areas. The reservoir shoreline 

fluctuation zone occurs between the 425-foot and 466-foot elevations, which 

corresponds with the minimum and maximum pool volumes for the reservoir. 

Barren areas within this zone are generally devoid of vegetation or supported 

less than 10 percent cover. Areas of deep sand and rock are prevalent in this 

zone. 

• Developed Areas. Developed land is intensively used with much of the land 

paved or covered by structures. The urban community includes residential, 

commercial, and industrial development. Vegetation in urban areas generally 

consists of non-native landscape species (lawns, flowerbeds, shrubs, or 

ornamental trees) or cleared areas that are generally devoid of vegetation. 

Developed communities within the project area include rip-rap slopes of 

dams and dikes, roads, trails, or parking lots. These communities are 

generally outside of the OHWM except in the case of a dam or dike in which 

the toe of the structure would be within the OHWM. Dikes and dams are 

generally devoid of vegetation but sometimes hosted ruderal species such as 

Mediterranean grasses, short-pod mustard, telegraph weed, yellow star thistle 

and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). Parks and other developed areas are 

outside of the reservoir influence and are dominated by horticultural or 

ruderal species. Approximately 35 acres of developed land are present in the 

project construction area (Table 3.5-1). 

Table 3.5-1 

Vegetation Community Acreages in the Maximum Project Construction Area 

Vegetation Community Acres 

Oak Woodland (Interior Live Oak and Blue Oak) 81 

Annual Grassland 180 

Riparian 41 

Freshwater Marsh 1 

Seasonal Wetland 12 

Reservoir Fluctuation Zone: Ruderal and Barren Areas 667* 

Developed Areas 35 *

Some of this area extends below the water line on the aerial images and is not included in this value 

3.5-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Special-status plants in this document are species in any of the following categories: 

plants listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for possible future listing under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (endangered [FE], threatened [FT], candidate 

species for listing [FC] and species proposed for listing [FPE, FPT]), plants listed or 

proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (endangered [CE], 

threatened [CT]), plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native 

Plant Protection Act (Rare [CR]), plants that meet the definitions of rare or 

endangered under the State CEQA Guidelines, plants by the California Native Plant 

Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (Lists 1B and 

2), plants by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine 

their status, and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4), which may be included 

as special-status species on the basis of local significance. 

A list of special-status plants that are reported to occur or have potential to occur in 

the analysis area or vicinity was compiled based on consultation with the USFWS, 

and searches of the latest version of the CNDDB (2005a, 2006). 

Based on known occurrences and quality of existing habitat, a total of five specialstatus plant species have potential to occur in the project area. A table of all specialstatus species reported from the project vicinity and an evaluation of their potential 

to occur is provided in Appendix C. The five plant species are San Joaquin 

spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis

var. macrolepis), El Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae), Boggs 

Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), and Layne’s butterweed (Senecio 

layneae). The following section provides a brief description of each species followed 

by their potential to occur in the project area. 

San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) – CNPS List 1B. 

A member of the Chenopodiaceae family, the San Joaquin spearscale is an 

annual herb that blooms from April to October. The San Joaquin spearscale is 

found in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, valley and foothill grassland habitats 

or alkaline soils within the elevation range of 1 to 1,050 feet. This species has 

been found in Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Glenn, Merced, Monterey, Napa, 

Sacramento, San Benito, Santa Clara [extirpated], San Joaquin [extirpated], 

Solano, Tulare [extirpated], and Yolo Counties (CNPS 2001). 

It is unlikely that the San Joaquin spearscale would occur within the project area 

because there are no chenopod scrubs, playas, or alkaline areas within the project 

vicinity. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-9 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) – CNPS List 

1B. 

The big-scale balsamroot is a perennial herb that blooms from March to June. A 

member of the Asteraceae family, the big-scale balsamroot is found in chaparral, 

cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland habitats and sometime 

serpentinite soils within an elevation range of 295 to 4,600 feet. The big-scale 

balsamroot has been within Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Lake, Mariposa, Napa, 

Placer, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Tehama Counties (CNPS 2001). 

Although there is no serpentinite within the project area, there is a possibility of 

finding the big-scale balsamroot on other substrates within woodland and 

grassland communities in the project area. 

El Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae) – FE, CR, CNPS List 1B. 

The El Dorado bedstraw is a perennial herb that blooms from May to June. A 

member of the Rubiaceae family, this species is only found in El Dorado County. 

The El Dorado bedstraw is found within chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower 

montane and coniferous forest habitats and gabbroic soils within an elevation 

range from 100 to 585 meters (CNPS 2001). No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species. 

It is unlikely that El Dorado bedstraw occurs in the project area based on the lack 

of chaparral and coniferous forest. However, the project area is in the lower 

extent of the elevation range for this species, and cismontane woodland is 

present. Therefore, there is a small possibility that this species could be present. 

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) – CE, CNPS List 1B. 

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is an annual herb and a member of the 

Scrophulariaceae family. This species can be found in marshes, swamps (lake 

margins), and vernal pool habitats on clay soils ranging from 10 to 2,375 meters 

in elevation. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssops bloom from April to August and have 

been known to occur in Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Merced, Modoc, Placer, 

Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, San Joaquin, Solano and Tehama Counties as well 

as parts of Oregon (CNPS 2001). 

The project area is within the known range Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop. Small 

areas of seasonal wetland and marshy habitat are present within the project area, 

but are not on clay soils. This species is not expected to occur in the project area. 

Amador rush-rose (Helianthemum suffrutescens) – CNPS List 3. 

Amador (Bisbee Peak) rush-rose is an evergreen shrub in the Asteraceae family. 

This species is found on serpentinite, gabbroic, or Ione soils in chaparral at 

elevations from 45 to 840 meters (CDFG 2005). Amador rush-rose flowers from 

3.5-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

April to May. This rush-rose has been reported from Amador, Calaveras, El 

Dorado, Sacramento, and Tuolumne Counties (CNPS 2001). 

Most of the construction area for the project does not include suitable habitat for 

the Amador (Bisbee Peak) rush-rose, but it could occur at sites for new 

embankments/flood easements or in the area that would be inundated by a large 

flood event if the dams and dikes are raised. 

Layne’s butterweed (Senecio layneae) – FT, CR, CNPS List 1B. 

The Layne’s butterweed is a perennial herb that blooms from April to May in 

chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats on serpentinite, gabbroic and/or 

rocky soils. A member of the Asteraceae family, the Layne’s butterweed is found 

in El Dorado, Tuolumne and Yuba Counties. Habitat areas fall within 200 to 

1,000 meters in elevation (CNPS 2001). No critical habitat has been designated 

for this species. 

Layne’s butterweed is not likely to occur in the project construction area based 

on the limited chaparral and lack of serpentinite soils. 

El Dorado mule-ears (Wyethia reticulata) – CNPS List 1B. 

El Dorado mule-ears is a perennial herb in the Asteraceae family. This species is 

found on clay or gabbroic soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower 

montane coniferous forest at elevations from 185 to 630 meters (CDFG 2005). El 

Dorado mule-ears flowers from May to July. This mule-ears is known only from 

El Dorado County (CNPS 2001). 

Most of the construction area for the project does not include suitable habitat for 

El Dorado mule-ears, but it could occur at sites for new embankments/flood 

easements or in the area that would be inundated by a large flood event if the 

dams and dikes are raised. 

Wildlife 

This section presents information on wildlife resources in the analysis area. 

Descriptions of wildlife resources are derived from the American River Watershed, 

California Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (Corps 2002) and 

the Draft Resource Inventory Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (LSA 2003). 

Common Wildlife Habitats 

Common habitats are distinguished from sensitive habitats on the basis of their local, 

regional, or statewide abundance. In the analysis area, common wildlife habitats 

include chaparral, annual grassland, and ruderal fields (Corps 2002). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-11 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Chaparral. 

Chaparral provides important cover and foraging habitat for brush-dependent 

wildlife and a range of other wildlife species. Wrentits (Chamaea fasciata) and 

California thrashers (Toxostoma redivivum) are primarily chaparral-dependent 

wildlife species; other species that use the chaparral habitat include spotted 

towhees (Pipilo maculatus), California towhees (Pipilo crissalis), goldencrowned sparrows (Zonotrichia atricapilla), orange-crowned warblers 

(Vermivora celata), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyotes (Canis 

latrans), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Many species of reptiles occur in 

chaparral, including western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), gopher snakes 

(Pituophis melanoleucus), western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), and 

western whiptails (Cnemidophorus tigris) (Corps 2002). 

Annual Grassland. 

Annual grasslands in the analysis area have moderate value as wildlife habitat. 

Grasslands provide foraging habitat for wide-ranging species such as red-tailed 

hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), coyotes, gray foxes, and bobcats (Lynx rufus). These 

species depend on grassland prey species that include California voles (Microtus 

californicus), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), gopher 

snakes, and western fence lizards. In addition, many species that nest or roost in 

adjacent woodlands, including western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana), western 

kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis), and some species of bats may forage in 

grasslands (Corps 2002). 

Ruderal Fields. 

Ruderal fields have similar wildlife values to those of annual grasslands, except 

that they commonly support fewer wildlife species. They are dominated by nonnative plants and, therefore, may offer sparse cover. In addition, ruderal fields are 

typically disturbed on a more or less ongoing basis by human activity, which 

further reduces their value for wildlife (Corps 2002). 

Sensitive Wildlife Habitats 

For purposes of this document, the term sensitive habitat is defined as plant 

communities and wildlife habitats composed of native species that are especially 

diverse, regionally uncommon, or of specific concern to state or federal agencies. 

Sensitive habitats in the analysis area include seasonal wetland, freshwater 

marsh, oak woodland and savanna, blue oak woodland and savanna, willow 

scrub, and riparian forest (Corps 2002). 

Oak Woodland and Savanna. 

Oak woodlands and savannas offer diverse, abundant, and valuable wildlife 

habitat. Oak trees provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds and small 

mammals, including acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall’s 

3.5-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

woodpeckers (Picoides nuttallii), northern flickers (Colaptes auratus), whitebreasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), oak titmice (Baeolophus inornatus), 

western bluebirds, western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), and raccoons 

(Procyon lotor). Oak trees also provide roosting sites for some species of bats 

including the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). 

Acorns are used by a variety of wildlife species, including California quail 

(Callipepla californica), wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), northern flickers, 

western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica), western gray squirrels, and mule 

deer. Oak foliage provides a foraging substrate for insectivorous birds such as 

ruby-crowned kinglets (Regulus calendula), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), 

warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus), Hutton’s vireos (Vireo huttoni), and Wilson’s 

warblers (Wilsonia pusilla). Blackberries and elderberries are eaten by many 

species of birds and mammals, including American robins (Turdus migratorius), 

Bullock’s orioles (Icterus bullockii), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), 

spotted towhees, California towhees, and gray foxes. Finally, the shrub 

understory of these habitats provide cover for many species of songbirds as well 

as for California quail, gopher snakes, common kingsnakes (Lampropeltis 

getula), bobcats, gray foxes, and a variety of rodents (Corps 2002). 

Blue Oak Savanna. 

Blue oak savanna has particularly high value for wildlife because blue oak trees 

provide excellent substrates for cavity-nesting wildlife. Wildlife use of blue oaks 

in the savanna setting is similar to the use of oak woodlands described above, 

except that the higher density of blue oaks provides a greater number of nesting 

sites for cavity-nesting birds and small mammals (Corps 2002). 

Willow Scrub. 

Willow scrub along the North Fork American River and South Fork American 

River has high value for wildlife. Willow scrub provides cover, nesting habitat, 

and foraging habitat for many wildlife species, including habitat particularly 

suitable for migratory songbirds. Belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), Anna’s 

hummingbirds (Calypte anna), bushtits, ruby-crowned kinglets, Wilson’s 

warblers, yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia), and lesser goldfinches 

(Carduelis psaltria) also use the willow scrub environment, as do Pacific 

treefrogs (Hyla regilla), raccoons, striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and mule 

deer (Corps 2002). 

Permanent Freshwater Marsh. 

Small areas of Permanent Freshwater Marsh are found at the toe of the Mormon 

Island Auxiliary Dam. Water birds and other wildlife depend on the freshwater 

marshes in these areas for foraging and/or rearing habitat. These species include 

Pacific treefrogs, western toads (Bufo boreas), common garter snakes 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-13 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

(Thamnophis sirtalis), beavers (Castor canadensis), raccoons, and muskrats 

(Ondatra zibethicus) (Corps 2002). 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Special-status wildlife in this document are species in any of the following 

categories: species that are federally listed as endangered (FE) or threatened (FT), 

species that are proposed for federal listing (FPE, FPT) or are candidates (FC) for 

possible future listing under the federal Endangered Species Act, species listed or 

proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act or other state 

statutes (endangered (CE), threatened (CT), rare (CR), species identified as state 

species of concern by CDFG (CSC), and state fully protected species (CFP). A list 

of special-status wildlife that are reported to occur or have potential to occur in the 

analysis area or vicinity was compiled based on consultation with the USFWS, and 

searches of the latest version of the CNDDB (2005, 2006). 

Based on known occurrences and quality of existing habitat, a total of 27 specialstatus terrestrial wildlife species have the potential to occur in the project area (Table 

3.5-2). These species include one invertebrate, three amphibians, three reptiles, 

sixteen birds and four mammals are described below. A table of all special-status 

wildlife species reported from the project vicinity and an evaluation of the likelihood 

of their occurrence in the project area is provided in Appendix C. 

One special-status terrestrial invertebrate species with potential to occur is the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Special-status 

amphibian and reptile species that may occur are California red-legged frog (Rana 

aurora draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), western spadefoot toad 

(Spea [Scaphiopus] hammondii), western pond turtle (Emys [Clemmys] marmorata 

marmorata), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), and giant 

garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). 

Special-status bird species with potential to occur are Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter 

cooperii), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), western burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia hypugaea), Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), white-tailed kite (Elanus 

leucurus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), long-billed 

curlew (Numenius americanus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), white-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi), and bank swallow (Riparia riparia). 

Special-status mammals that may occur are pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Pacific 

western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus [Plecotus] townsendii townsendii), spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum), and greater western mastiff-bat (Eumops perotis 

3.5-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

californicus). The following section provides a brief description of each species 

followed by the likelihood of their occurrence in the project area. 

Table 3.5-2 

Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring 

in the Project Area 

Species Status 

Invertebrates 

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT 

Amphibians 

California red-legged frog FT, CSC 

Foothill yellow-legged frog CSC 

Western spadefoot toad CSC 

Reptiles 

Northwestern pond turtle CSC 

California horned lizard CSC 

Giant garter snake FT, CT 

Birds 

Cooper’s hawk CSC 

Tricolored blackbird CSC 

Western burrowing owl CSC 

Aleutian Canada goose FD 

Ferruginous hawk CSC 

Swainson's hawk CT 

Vaux’s swift CSC 

Mountain plover CSC 

White-tailed (=black shouldered) kite CSC, CFP 

American peregrine falcon FD, CE 

Bald eagle FT, CE, CFP 

Loggerhead shrike CSC 

Long-billed curlew CSC 

Osprey CSC 

White-faced ibis CSC 

Bank swallow CT 

Mammals 

Pallid bat CSC 

Pacific western big-eared bat CSC 

Spotted bat CSC 

Greater western mastiff-bat CSC

Special-status Invertebrates 

• Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) – 

FT. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is associated with various species 

of elderberry (Sambucus spp.). This beetle generally occurs along waterways 

and in floodplains that support remnant stands of riparian vegetation. Both 

larvae and adult beetle feed on elderberry shrubs. Larvae feed internally on 

the pith of the trunk and larger branches, while adult beetles appear to feed 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-15 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

externally on elderberry flowers and foliage. Prior to metamorphosing into 

the adult life stage, the larvae chew an exit hole in the elderberry trunk, 

through which the adult beetle later exits the plant (CDFG 2003). Critica

habitat has been designated for this species, but does not include the projec

area (Federal Register 1980). 

l 

t 

The Folsom project area contains blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), the 

ies 

nd 

Table 3.5-3 

Elderberry Shrubs Within or A Folsom DS/FDR Action Area 

host plant of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Exit holes have been 

observed in the elderberry shrubs in the project area. Therefore, this spec

occurs within the project area. Results of protocol elderberry surveys 

conducted for the Folsom DS/FDR Action are shown in Figure 3.5-1 a

Table 3.5-3. 

djacent to the

Location Stem Diameter ms 

(maximum at ground 

Exit Hole on Shrub Number of Ste

level) 

Observed 

Transplantable Shrubs1

Non-Riparian 1-3 inches No 147 

Yes 66 

Non-R ian 3-5 ipar inches No 91 

Yes 31 

Non-R ian ipar More than 5 inches No 141 

Yes 27 

Rip ian 1-3 ar inches No 5 

Yes 0 

Rip ian 3-5 ar inches No 14 

Yes 0 

Rip ian ar More than 5 inches No 15 

Yes 0 

Total Shrubs 150 

Non-Transplantable Shrubs2

Non-Riparian 1-3 inches No 5 

Yes 0 

Non-R ian 3-5 ipar inches No 4 

Yes 0 

Non-R ian ipar More than 5 inches No 7 

Yes 1 

Rip ian 1-3 ar inches No 7 

Yes 0 

Rip ian 3-5 ar inches No 0 

Yes 0 

Rip ian ar More than 5 inches No 10 

Yes 0 

Total Shrubs 11 

1 indirect effects to 34 transplantable shrubs compensated for under earlier contracts 

2 indirect effects to 9 non-transplantable shrubs compensated for under earlier contracts 

3.5-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife This page intentionally left blank 3.5-18 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Special-status Amphibians 

• California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) - FT, CSC. The 

California red-legged frog is a federally threatened species (Federal Register 

1996) and a California species of special concern. Critical habitat for this 

species was designated in 2001. However, on November 6, 2002, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree, vacating 

the critical habitat designation (except Units 5 and 31) and remanding the 

designation to the USFWS to conduct an economic analysis. The USFWS 

released a recovery plan in 2002 (USFWS 2002). Critical habitat was again 

designated on April 13, 2006 (Federal Register 2006). No proposed critical 

habitat is within the project area. 

Historically, the California red-legged frog occurred in coastal mountains 

from Marin County south to northern Baja California, and along the floor and 

foothills of the Central Valley from about Shasta County south to Kern 

County (Jennings et al. 1992). Currently, this subspecies generally only 

occurs in the coastal portions of its historic range; it is apparently extirpated 

from the valley and foothills and in most of southern California south of 

Ventura County. California red-legged frogs are usually associated with 

aquatic habitats, such as creeks, streams and ponds, and occur primarily in 

areas having pools approximately three feet deep, with adjacent dense 

emergent or riparian vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1988). Adult frogs 

rarely move large distances from their aquatic habitat. California red-legged 

frogs breed from November to March. Egg masses are attached to emergent 

vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1994) and hatch within fourteen days. 

Metamorphosis generally occurs between July and September. 

Within the project construction area, perennial and intermittent creeks and 

Folsom Reservoir may provide marginally suitable habitat for this species. 

This frog has been reported from a location upstream of the construction 

project area in a tributary to Folsom Reservoir (CDFG 2006b). The presence 

of centrarchids (including species of the warmwater fish community such as 

bass) and fluctuating reservoir levels that affect vegetation communities 

make Folsom Reservoir marginally suitable to unsuitable for this species. 

Perennial and intermittent creeks, seasonal wetlands, and ponds may provide 

marginally suitable habitat for adult California red-legged frog, but the lack 

of vegetation and/or the presence of centrarchids substantially reduce the 

value of aquatic habitat for spawning and rearing frogs. 

• Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) – CSC. Foothill yellow-legged 

frogs inhabit foothill and mountain streams from sea level to about 6,000 feet 

in elevation. Their known range includes the Coast Ranges from the Oregon 

border south to the Transverse Mountains in Los Angeles County, most of 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-19 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

northern California west of the Cascade crest, and along the western flank of 

the Sierra south to Kern County. Most records are below 3,500 feet. The 

foothill yellow-legged frog is found in a variety of habitats, including valleyfoothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet 

meadow types (Zeiner et al. 1988). 

Home ranges are small, but these frogs may move several hundred meters to 

spawning habitat. Adult frogs congregate at suitable spawning sites as spring 

runoff declines, when water temperatures reach 54oF to 59oF (12oC to 15oC), 

usually any time from mid-March to May, depending on local water 

conditions. The breeding season at any locality is usually about two weeks 

for most populations. Spawning frogs favor low to moderately steep gradient 

streams (0 to 8 degrees). Females deposit eggs in shallow edgewater areas 

with low water velocities (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). Egg masses are often 

attached to the downstream sides of cobbles and boulders, or to gravel, wood, 

or other materials. Eggs hatch in approximately five days. Tadpoles 

transform in three to four months and stay for a time in spawning habitat but 

eventually disperse. Tadpoles feed on diatoms or algae on the surface of the 

substrate (Stebbins 1951). Tadpoles favor calm, shallow water. 

Juvenile and adult frogs bask on midstream boulders or in terrestrial sites 

along riffles, cascades, main channel pools, and plunge-pools, often in 

dappled sunlight near low overhanging vegetation. Adults generally avoid 

deep shade. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are relatively strong swimmers and 

prefer faster water habitat than do other frog species in the foothills, such as 

the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) or the California red-legged frog. 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are not likely to occur in the project area, 

although they may occur in upstream areas. Fluctuating reservoir levels and 

the presence of exotic species (bullfrogs, crayfish and introduced fish) 

probably preclude the establishment of a viable population. The perennial and 

intermittent creeks provide potential habitat, however they are likely too 

small and lack the appropriate substrate to sustain a viable population 

(Wallace et al. 2003). 

• Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea [Scaphiopus] hammondii) – CSC. This 

species ranges throughout the Central Valley and adjacent foothills from sea 

level to 4,500 feet, primarily in grasslands with shallow temporary pools, and 

occasionally in valley-foothill hardwood. The Western spadefoot toad 

typically lives underground in burrows up to 3 feet deep during most of the 

year, with the first rains of the year initiating movement to the surface. 

Terrestrial burrowing sites may be well removed from breeding sites. 

3.5-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Breeding occurs from late winter to late March. Western spadefoot toad 

utilizes shallow, temporary pools formed by heavy winter rains, with sand 

and gravel substrate, for breeding habitat and tadpole rearing. Sandy, gravelly 

washes or small streams (often temporary) may also be used. Egg masses, in 

clusters of 10 to 40, are attached to plant material, or the upper surfaces of 

small, submerged rocks, with eggs hatching within two weeks. During late 

spring, recently metamorphosed juveniles seek refuge in breeding ponds for 

several days after transformation (Zeiner et al. 1988, Stebbins 1972). 

However, aquatic breeding habitat is unsuitable in the presence of predators 

(bullfrogs, fish or crayfish) or in the presence of mosquitofish. 

While most of the grassland/savanna communities in the project area appear 

suitable for adult toads, there is little suitable aquatic habitat for reproduction. 

Most of the seasonal wetlands in the project area are too small to hold water 

long enough for spadefoot larvae to reach metamorphosis (LSA 2003). There 

are few seasonal wetlands that may inundate long enough to serve as rearing 

habitat. Therefore, the lack of breeding habitat may limit the population 

within the project area. 

Special-status Reptiles 

• Western pond turtle (Emys [Clemmys] marmorata marmorata) – CSC. This 

turtle occurs in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California, west of the 

Sierra-Cascade crest, from sea level to about 6,000 feet (Zeiner et al. 1988). It 

is absent from desert regions except in the Mojave Desert along the Mojave 

River and its tributaries. It is found in permanent or nearly permanent water 

in a wide variety of habitat types with basking sites such as partially 

submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. 

Individuals are active all year where climates are warm but hibernate during 

cold periods elsewhere. During the spring or early summer, females move 

overland up to 325 feet to find suitable sites for egg-laying. Eggs are laid 

from March to August depending on local conditions and incubate from 73 to 

80 days. Sexual maturity is reached at about eight years of age (Zeiner et al. 

1988). 

Most of the creeks, ponds, and reservoir backwater areas in the project area 

are suitable for western pond turtles. They have been regularly observed in 

the vicinity of the project area at Avery’s Pond since the 1970’s (David 

Murth pers. obs., as cited in LSA 2003). Avery’s Pond is a constructed pond 

near the reservoir shoreline at Rattlesnake Bar, more than 2.5 miles upstream 

from the construction Project area. Western pond turtles may also inhabit the 

preserve downstream from MIAD. However, Holland (1994) and Jennings 

and Hayes (1994) suggest that turtles that are found occupying reservoirs, 

stock ponds and the like represent displaced individuals and, therefore, do not 

represent viable populations. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-21 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

• California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) - CSC. The 

California horned lizard occurs in open country, especially gravelly or sandy 

areas, washes, flood plains and wind-blown deposits, sand dunes, alluvial 

fans, etc. Common habitats include valley foothill hardwood, conifer and 

riparian habitats, alkali flats, chaparral, as well as in pine-cypress, juniper and 

annual grass habitats. This lizard has a wide range in California occurring 

from Shasta County south, along the Sacramento Valley, east to the Sierra 

Nevada foothills (below 4,000 feet), west through much of the South Coast 

Ranges, and in the Southern California deserts and mountains below 6,000 

feet. Horned lizards are generally active from April through October. The 

reproductive season for the California horned lizard varies from year to year 

and geographically depending on local conditions. Courtship generally occurs 

in the spring, and hatchlings first appear in mid-summer. Horned lizards 

prefer to eat ants, but they will also eat many other types of invertebrates, 

such as grasshoppers, beetles, and spiders. 

Suitable habitat is present for the California horned lizard within the project 

area. In addition, recorded observations of this species have occurred within 

five miles of the project site within the past 20 years (CDFG 2005a). It is 

likely that this species occurs within the project area. 

• Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) - FT, CT. The giant garter snake 

historically ranged in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from Butte 

County in the north to Kern County in the south (Rossman et al. 1996). Its 

current range is much reduced, and it is apparently extirpated south of 

northern Fresno County (Bury 1971; Rossman et al. 1996). No critical habitat 

has been designated for this species. 

The giant garter snake inhabits marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, lowgradient streams, and other waterways and agricultural wetlands, such as 

irrigation and drainage canals and rice fields. Giant garter snakes feed on 

small fishes, tadpoles, and frogs (Fitch 1941; Federal Register 1993). Habitat 

requirements consist of adequate water during the snake's active season 

(early-spring through mid-fall) to provide food and cover; emergent 

herbaceous wetland vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, for escape 

cover and foraging habitat during the active season; grassy banks and 

openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and higher elevation uplands 

for cover and refuge from flood waters during the snake's dormant season in 

the winter (Federal Register 1993). Giant garter snakes are absent from larger 

rivers and other waterbodies that support introduced populations of large, 

predatory fish, and from wetlands with sand, gravel, or rock substrates 

(Rossman and Stewart 1987; Brode 1988, Federal Register 1993). 

3.5-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

The giant garter snake inhabits small mammal burrows and other soil 

crevices above prevailing flood elevations throughout its winter dormancy 

period (November to mid-March). Giant garter snakes typically select 

burrows with sunny aspects along south and west facing slopes. Upon 

emergence, males immediately begin wandering in search of mates. The 

breeding season extends through March and April, and females give birth to 

live young from late July through early September (Hansen and Hansen 

1990). Brood size is variable, ranging from 10 to 46 young (Hansen and 

Hansen 1990). Young immediately scatter into dense cover and absorb their 

yolk sacs, after which they begin feeding on their own. Sexual maturity 

averages 3 years of age in males and 5 years for females. 

It is unlikely that the seasonal wetlands in the project area hold water 

throughout the summer and into the fall. While potential habitat may exist 

within the vicinity of the project area, it is unlikely that a viable population 

occurs within the boundaries of the project. 

Special-status Birds 

• Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) – CSC. The Cooper’s hawk is a breeding 

resident throughout most of the wooded portion of the state. The Cooper’s 

hawk, which can be found in elevations ranging from sea level to 8,860 feet, 

requires dense stands of live oak, riparian, deciduous, or other forest habitats 

near water when nesting. The breeding season begins in March and continues 

through August, with average clutch sizes of 4 to 5 eggs. During this period, 

the female will incubate the eggs while the male provides food. The hawk’s 

primary food source is small birds, supplemented by reptiles and amphibians. 

More of an ambush predator, the Cooper’s hawk will take prey from the 

ground, on branches or in mid-flight (Johnsgard 1990). Hunting takes place 

in broken woodland and habitat edges. The Cooper’s hawk is seldom found 

in areas without dense tree stands. Some individuals are year-long residents 

of California, while others from the more northern areas winter in California. 

Cooper’s hawks are commonly found in the southern Sierra Nevada foothills, 

New York Mountains, Owens Valley, and other local areas in southern 

California (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

There is a high potential for the Cooper’s hawk to occur within the project 

area because there is suitable nesting habitat and project sites are within their 

known range. A wintering Cooper's hawk was observed perched in an oak 

tree in the vicinity of Beal's Point behind Dike 6 on December 29, 2005 

(Schell pers. comm. 2005). 

• Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) – CSC. The tricolored blackbird 

ranges throughout the Central Valley of California, typically nesting in 

colonies numbering several hundred. An adequate breeding ground for the 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-23 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

tricolored blackbird requires open water, protected nesting substrate 

(emergent wetland vegetation) and a foraging area with insect prey within a 

few kilometers (miles) of the colony. Tricolored blackbird foraging habitats 

in all seasons include pastures, agricultural fields and dry seasonal pools. 

Occasionally these birds will also forage in riparian scrub, marsh boarders 

and grassland habitats. Egg laying generally begins within 4 days of the 

colonies arrival, with one egg being laid per day and clutch size usually 

around three to four eggs. Tricolored blackbirds typically leave their 

wintering areas in late March and early April for breeding locations in 

Sacramento County and throughout the San Joaquin Valley (Beedy and 

Hamilton 1997). 

There is potential for the tricolored blackbird to occur within the project area 

due to the presence of suitable foraging sites (i.e., grasslands) in an around 

the project area. No suitable nesting habitat is present due to the limited size 

of emergent marshland habitat. 

• Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) –CSC. The western 

burrowing owl was formerly a common permanent resident throughout much 

of California. However, a decline that became noticeable in the 1940’s 

(Grinnell and Miller 1944) has continued through to the present time. The 

western burrowing owl is a year-long resident of open, dry grassland and 

desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals. They have also been 

found to inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon and ponderosa pine 

habitats. Western burrowing owls commonly perch on fence posts or on top 

of mounds outside their burrows. Western burrowing owls are active both 

day and night, with a lessening in activity at the peak of the day. Western 

burrowing owls are opportunistic feeders and large arthropods comprise a 

majority of their diet. Small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion are also 

important components of the burrowing owl’s diet (Zeiner et al. 1990a). The 

nesting season of the burrowing owl occurs from February through August, 

with a peak in breeding occurring from April to May. Western burrowing 

owls nest in burrows in the ground and often utilize old ground squirrel or 

other small mammal nests (Zeiner et al. 1990a). However, western burrowing 

owls may dig their own nests in areas of soft soil. Pipes, culverts, and nest 

boxes are also used in areas where burrows are scarce (Robertson 1929). 

Portions of the project area contain grassland habitat with small mammal 

burrows. Therefore, there is potential for Western burrowing owls to occur. 

• Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) - FD. The Aleutian 

Canada goose breeds in the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska and winters in 

California, Oregon and Washington. These geese are among the smaller of 

the Canada goose subspecies, and migrate south to wintering areas between 

3.5-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

August and December, with the greatest number leaving the Aleutian Island 

chain in September. Aleutian Canada geese are omnivores, having a steady 

diet of arthropods, evergreen shrubs, roots, tubers, leaves, and stems during 

the breeding season; with all their water taken from vegetation. During the 

non-breeding season they feed on crops such as corn, wheat, barley, oats, and 

lima beans. They can be found wintering on lakes, reservoirs, ponds and 

inland prairies, and will forage on natural pasture or fields cultivated in grain 

(Sibley 2001). 

There is moderate potential for the Aleutian Canada goose to occur within the 

project area because suitable wintering habitat is present, although the area is 

outside the reported wintering sites for this subspecies. A Canada goose 

(subspecies not identified) was observed in the vicinity of Beal's Point on 

November 17, 2005 (Colgate, pers. comm. 2005), and many Canada goose 

(subspecies not identified) were observed all around the reservoir on May 24 

and 25, 2006 (Victorine, pers. comm. 2006). 

• Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) - CSC. The ferruginous hawk is an 

uncommon winter resident and migrant in the lower elevations and open 

grasslands of the Central Valley and Coast Ranges. It is a fairly common 

resident in the Southern Californian grasslands and agricultural areas. 

Ferruginous hawks favor open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrubs, low 

foothills surrounding valleys and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. 

Requiring open, treeless areas to hunt, the ferruginous hawk feeds on rabbits, 

jackrabbits, ground squirrels, and mice, but also takes birds, reptiles and 

amphibians. It is speculated that the hawk’s population trend follows the 

lagomorph population cycles. There are no records of the ferruginous hawk 

breeding in California. Ferruginous hawks prefer to roost in open areas, 

usually in a lone tree or other elevated structure. Migration to California 

usually occurs in September, where the ferruginous hawk will remain until 

mid-April (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

Roosting and foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk is present in the 

vicinity of the project. Based on their reported distribution, the species is not 

likely to breed within the project area. 

• Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) – CT. Swainson's hawk is restricted to 

portions of the Central Valley and Great Basin regions where suitable nesting 

and foraging habitat is still available. Swainson's hawk requires large, open 

grasslands with abundant prey in association with suitable nest trees. Suitable 

foraging areas include native grasslands or lightly grazed pastures, alfalfa and 

other hay crops, and certain grain and row croplands. Central Valley 

populations are centered in Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties. 

Over 85 percent of Swainson's hawk territories in the Central Valley are 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-25 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

associated with riparian systems adjacent to suitable foraging habitats. 

Swainson's hawk often nests peripherally to riparian systems, and is known to 

utilize lone trees or groves of trees in agricultural fields. Valley oak, Fremont 

cottonwood, walnut, and large willow with an average height of about 60 feet 

are the most commonly used nest trees in the Central Valley. Breeding occurs 

late March to late August, with peak activity from late May through July. 

Clutch size is two to four eggs (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

This species may use the riparian trees in the project area as nest sites, and 

they may forage on the uplands. 

• Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) – CSC. Vaux’s swift is a summer resident of 

northern California, preferring redwood and Douglas-fir habitats. Between 

April and September, the Vaux’s swift is a fairly common migrant 

throughout the state. Nesting typically takes place in hollow redwood, 

Douglas-fir, and occasionally other coniferous trees, with the nest near the 

bottom of the cavity. The Vaux’s swift shows a preference to forage over 

rivers and lakes, but will forage over most terrain or habitat. They feed 

almost exclusively on flying insects taken in long continuous foraging flights. 

The Vaux’s swift breeds from early May to mid-August, with a clutch size 

usually of four to five eggs (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

Although it is unlikely that the Vaux’s swift nests within the project area, 

there are adequate foraging sites in the project area. 

• Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) – CSC. The mountain plover is 

known to winter in northern California, southern Arizona, New Mexico, and 

central Texas south into north-central Mexico, however has not been known 

to nest in California. The mountain plover avoids high and dense cover, 

preferring prairie grasslands, shortgrass plains and plowed fields with little 

vegetation. The mountain plover forages for large insects, in particular 

grasshoppers. Breeding takes place from late April through June with a peak 

in late May. The average clutch is three eggs. In years of abundant food, the 

male may incubate the existing clutch to allow the female to lay an additional 

clutch, often attended by another male (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

The project area provides only marginal foraging habitat for the mountain 

plover, therefore this species is not likely to occur there. 

• White-Tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) – CFP. The white-tailed kite is a 

common to uncommon, year-long resident in coastal and valley lowlands, 

and is rarely found away from agricultural areas. This species inhabits 

herbaceous and open stages of most habitats in cismontane California, and 

uses herbaceous lowlands with variable tree growth, especially those with 

dense populations of voles. Substantial groves of dense, broad-leaved 

3.5-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

deciduous trees are used for nesting and roosting. The white-tailed kite

forages in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emerg

wetlands. White-tailed kites eat small rodents, especially the California vole 

as well as birds, snakes, lizards, frogs and large insects. Nests are built of 

twigs and sticks with an inner layer of grass or leaves in trees that are usua

on habitat edges. Nest-building occurs January through August (Dunk 1995). 

Egg-laying begins in February and probably peaks in March and April. Peak 

fledging probably occurs in May and June with most fledging complete by 

October. Clutch size is most commonly four (Zeiner, et al. 1990a). 

ent 

lly 

Suitable habitat for the white-tailed kite can be found within the project 

a. 

• American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) – FD, CE. The 

nds of 

readily 

r 

 

There is potential for the American peregrine falcon to occur within the 

• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – FT, FPD, CE, CFP. This species is 

rant at 

 River. 

vicinity. Therefore, the white-tailed kite may occur within the project are

American peregrine falcon is a medium-sized raptor that breeds from no

Arctic portions of Alaska and Canada south to Baja California (except the 

coast of southern Alaska and in British Columbia), throughout Arizona and

into Mexico (locally). Nesting American peregrine falcons usually winter in 

their breeding range, with the exception of the more northern residents, which

move south. The primary nesting habitat for the American peregrine falcon 

tends to be cliffs or series of cliffs that dominate the surrounding landscape. 

However, river cutbanks, trees, and manmade structures including tall towers

and the ledges of tall buildings can also serve as suitable nesting sites. 

American peregrine falcons hunt their prey in the air, usually over open

habitat types such as waterways, fields, and wetland areas, diving at spee

up to 200 miles per hour to strike their targets. Bluejays, flickers, 

meadowlarks, pigeons, starlings, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other 

available species make up the American peregrine falcon’s diet. The rapto

may travel 10 to 12 miles from their nests in search of prey. Breeding takes 

place in later March and April, with a usual clutch size of three to four eggs.

project area. Adequate nesting sites and sufficient foraging habitat is 

available within the project area and vicinity. 

a permanent resident and uncommon winter migrant in California. Breeding 

is mostly restricted to Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou,

and Trinity Counties. About half of the wintering population is in the 

Klamath Basin. The bald eagle is fairly common as a local winter mig

a few favored inland waters in southern California. The largest numbers of 

bald eagles occur at Big Bear Lake, Cachuma Lake, Lake Matthews, 

Nacimiento Reservoir, San Antonio Reservoir, and along the Colorado

Bald eagles are typically found in coniferous forest habitats with large, old 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-27 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

growth trees near permanent water sources such as lakes, rivers, or ocean 

shorelines. This eagle requires large bodies of water with abundant fish an

adjacent snags or other perches for foraging. Bald eagles prey mainly on fish

and occasionally on small mammals or birds, by swooping from a perch or 

from mid-flight. This eagle also scavenges dead fish and other dead animals

Nests are found in large, old growth, or dominant trees, especially ponderosa 

pine with an open branchwork, usually 50 to 200 feet above the ground. It 

breeds February through July, with peak activity from March to June. Clutc

size is usually two. Incubation usually lasts 34 to 36 days (Zeiner et al. 

1990a). 

d 

h 

The bald eagle is known to occur within the project area and based on the 

t 

• Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) – CSC. The loggerhead shrike is a 

es, 

t 

r 

s 

 clutch 

There is a high potential for the loggerhead shrike to be present within the 

• Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) – CSC. In California, the longia. 

e 

availability of adequate nesting sites and foraging habitat within the projec

area and vicinity, the bald eagle will continue to utilize habitat within the 

project area. Bald eagles have over wintered in the area, but there are no 

reports of successful nest building activities. No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species. 

common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout 

California. It prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fenc

utility lines, or other perches. Its highest density occurs in open-canopied 

valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill 

riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree habitats. I

occurs only rarely in heavily urbanized areas, but is often found in open 

cropland. It builds its nest on stable branches in densely foliaged shrubs o

trees, usually well-concealed. Nest height is 1 to 50 feet above ground. It lay

eggs from March into May, and young become independent in July or 

August. The loggerhead shrike is a monogamous, solitary nester with a

size of four to eight. Incubation lasts 14 to 15 days. Altricial young are 

tended by both parents and leave the nest at 18 to 19 days (Zeiner et al. 

1990a). 

project area because of favorable riparian woodlands within the vicinity. A 

wintering loggerhead shrike was observed perched on barbed wire atop a 

chain-link fence behind the right-wing dam on December 29, 2005. 

billed curlew is known to nest on elevated interior grasslands and wet 

meadows, usually adjacent to lakes or marshes, in northeastern Californ

Breeding long-billed curlew will be present in northeastern California from

April to September. Generally a solitary nester, the long-billed curlew may b

loosely colonial in favorable habitats. Both parents incubate a mean clutch 

3.5-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

size of four eggs for 27 to 28 days. The long-billed curlew prefers to winter

in large coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous areas, and croplands. Some 

years, large numbers of nonbreeders remain in the Central Valley in the 

summer. The long-billed curlew uses its characteristic long bill to probe 

into substrate, or to grab prey from mud surfaces. During its inland stay, the 

long-billed curlew takes insects (adults and larvae), worms, spiders, berries, 

crayfish, snails, and small crustaceans. Occasionally they will take nestling 

birds. In coastal estuaries and intertidal zones, the long-billed curlew will 

prey on mud crabs, ghost shrimp, mud shrimp, insect pupae, gem clams an

small estuarine fish (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

deep 

d 

The long-billed curlew has the potential to occur in the project area based on 

• Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) - CSC (Nesting). The osprey occurs along 

ifer 

. 

tember. 

this 

The osprey has high potential to occur within the project area, because there 

tly 

• White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) – CSC. The white-faced ibis is a rare visitor 

 or 

 into mud. 

the availability of grassland and lake habitat. However, this habitat is 

marginal at best. 

seacoasts, lakes, and rivers, primarily in ponderosa pine and mixed con

habitats. It preys mostly on fish at or below the water surface, but will also 

take small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Large 

snags and open trees near large, clear, open waters are required for foraging

The osprey typically swoops from flight, hover, or perch to catch prey. In 

California, the osprey breeds primarily in the northern part of the state and

typically builds its nests in large conifers, but may also use artificial 

platforms as nesting areas. The breeding season is from March to Sep

Nests are built on platforms of sticks at the top of large snags, dead-topped 

trees, on cliffs, or on human-made structures. A nest may be as much as 250

feet above ground and is usually within 1,000 feet of fish-producing water. 

Osprey need tall, open-branched "pilot trees" nearby for landing before 

approaching the nest and for use by young for flight practice. Typically, 

species migrates in October south along the coast and the western slope of the

Sierra Nevada to Central and South America (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

is suitable foraging habitat in Folsom Reservoir and the nearby American 

River. Suitable nest trees (foothill pine) are also present. Osprey is frequen

sighted at Folsom Reservoir. 

to the Central Valley, and is more widespread in migration. The white-faced 

ibis prefers to feed in fresh emergent wetland habitats, shallow lacustrine 

waters, the muddy ground of wet meadows, and irrigated/flooded pastures

croplands. Within these habitats, the white-faced ibis feeds on earthworms, 

insects, crustaceans, amphibians, small fishes and miscellaneous 

invertebrates. The white-faced ibis uses its long bill to probe deep

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-29 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

It feeds in shallow water or on the surface. Preferred nesting sites are dense 

marsh vegetation near foraging areas in shallow water or muddy fields. The 

white-faced ibis no longer breeds regularly anywhere within California 

(Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

It is unlikely that the white-faced ibis will occur within the project area. 

ense 

• Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) – CT. The bank swallow arrives in California 

ant 

ted 

k 

ies 

rushland, 

 the 

The bank swallow may occur within the project area due to suitable foraging 

Special-status Mammals 

 pallidus) – CSC. The pallid bat ranges from western 

und over 

There is suitable foraging habitat on the margins of Folsom Reservoir; 

however, the fluctuating reservoir levels preclude the establishment of d

marsh vegetation, their preferred nesting habitat. 

from South America in early March and remains until early August when 

colonies are abandoned and migration begins. The bank swallow is found 

primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats in California west of the 

desert during the spring-fall period. The bank swallow is a common migr

within the interior of the state during the spring-fall period, and less common

along the coast. There are few records of the bank swallow in California 

during the winter months. During the summer, the bank swallow is restric

to riparian, lacustrine, and coastal areas with vertical banks, bluffs, and cliffs 

with fine-textured or sandy soils. A colonial breeder, about 75 percent of the 

current breeding population in California nests along the banks of the 

Sacramento and Feather Rivers in the northern Central Valley. The ban

swallow breeds from early May through July, digging horizontal nesting 

tunnels and burrows along the side of stream banks and cliffs. Most colon

have between 100 and 200 nesting pairs. The bank swallow feeds 

predominantly over open riparian areas, but will also forage over b

grassland, wetlands, water and cropland. A wide variety of aerial and 

terrestrial soft-bodied insects, including flies, bees and beetles make up

bank swallow’s diet (Zeiner et al. 1990a). 

habitat. However, the project area does not have vertical banks, bluffs or 

cliffs for nesting. 

• Pallid Bat (Antrozous

Canada to central Mexico. This species is usually found in rocky, 

mountainous areas near water, and in desert scrub. They are also fo

more open, sparsely vegetated grasslands, and they seem to prefer to forage 

in the open. The pallid bat has three different roosts. The day roost is usually

in a warm, horizontal opening such as in attics or rock cracks; the night roost 

is usually in the open, near foliage; and the hibernation roost, which is often 

in buildings, caves, or cracks in rocks (Miller 2002). 

3.5-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Although this species has not been recorded near the project vicinity, pallid 

bats are known to occur throughout California where suitable habitat exists 

(CDFG 2005a). Since suitable habitat exists within the project vicinity there 

is potential for the species to occur there. 

• Pacific Western Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus [Plecotus] townsendii 

townsendii) – CSC. The Pacific Western big-eared bat (a subspecies of 

Townsend’s big-eared bat) is known to occur in the coastal regions of north 

and central California to Washington. Townsend's big-eared bat can be found 

in a variety of habitats throughout California, from the moist coastal 

redwoods to the mid-elevation mixed conifers to the dry deserts, but are most 

commonly associated with desert scrub, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, and 

pine forest. Common roosting locations include limestone caves, lava tubes, 

mines, buildings and other structures. This species is extremely sensitive to 

disturbance in its roost. The Townsend's big-eared bat feeds primarily on 

small moths, but also takes other insects including flies, lacewings, dung 

beetles, and sawflies (Kunz and Martin 1982). 

This species could potentially utilize the project area as foraging habitat 

while using nearby buildings or other man-made structures as roosting 

habitat. 

• Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) – CSC. Although spotted bats were once 

thought to be very rare (Zeiner et al. 1990b), this species is now known to 

range widely in western North America from southern British Columbia to 

Mexico (Pierson and Rainey 1998). In California, these bats probably occur 

throughout the state in suitable habitat. Spotted bats have been found 

foraging in many different habitats, from arid deserts to ponderosa pine 

forests and marshlands. 

Spotted bats have a patchy distribution that may be related to the distribution 

of suitable diurnal roosting sites (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Spotted bats 

roost in the small cracks found in steep cliffs and stony outcrops. They have 

been found as high as 3000 meters above sea level, and even below sea level 

in the deserts of California (Pierson and Rainey 1998). 

This species is usually found foraging in open areas (Pierson and Rainey 

1998). In addition to the nightly migration to foraging sites, these bats might 

have a seasonal elevation migration from ponderosa pine high elevation 

habitats in June and July to lower elevations in August (Barbour and Davis 

1969), although they are known to hibernate in some colder portions of their 

range (Pierson and Rainey 1998). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-31 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Due to the proximity of the project area to suitable roosting habitat and the 

recorded long-range nightly migrations of this species between roosting and 

foraging sites, this species may forage in the project vicinity, although 

spotted bats are unlikely to roost in the project area. 

• Greater Western Mastiff-Bat (Eumops perotis californicus) – CSC. The 

greater western mastiff-bat occurs from central California to central Mexico. 

This bat is found in arid to semi-arid habitats, including conifer and 

deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands and chaparral (Zeiner et al. 

1990b). Preferred roosting sites include cracks and crevices in cliffs, trees, 

tunnels and buildings. Day roosts in cliffs are usually in large cracks in 

exfoliating slabs of granite or sandstone. Greater western mastiff-bats feed on 

both low-flying and high-flying insects and may forage as much as 195 feet 

above the ground (Zeiner et al. 1990b). 

This species has potential to occur in the project area based on the availability 

of preferred habitat, and the availability of roosting sites in trees and other 

man-made structures. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.5.2.1 Assessment Methods 

This section describes the potential impacts of action alternatives to biological 

resources that are associated with the project area. This analysis is based on the 

Folsom alternatives introduced in Chapter 2.0 of this EIS/EIR. 

Information contained in previous documents prepared for Sacramento area flood 

protection measures, as well as field surveys conducted by ENTRIX, was used to 

characterize biological resources in the vicinity of the project area. Existing biotic 

resource surveys of the project vicinity, as described in Section 3.1.1, and a review 

of records from the CNDDB (CDFG 2006b) were used to develop a list of specialstatus species with potential to occur in the project area. Information used in 

developing these impact analyses was found in the following sources: 

• The American River Watershed Project, California Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Corps 2006). 

• Natural Resources, Animal Life, Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (Wallace, 

Todd, and Roberts et al. 2003). 

• Folsom DS/FDR Action Biological Field Report (Appendix C). 

• CNDDB (DFG 2006a). 

3.5-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Existing resource information, including the Draft CAR for the Folsom Dam 

Enlargement Plan Alternatives: Analysis and Recommendations American River 

Watershed Investigation (USFWS 2001), was used to develop the description of the 

environmental setting. The resources described in that section were evaluated in 

conjunction with activities associated with action alternatives to determine potential 

impacts and develop mitigation measures. The assessment of impacts is based on the 

most current information on the status and distribution of special-status species and 

the potential for changes in their habitat resulting from implementation of action 

alternatives. Impacted habitat acreages and compensatory mitigation acreages 

identified in the Draft CAR of the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Project (USFWS 2006) are estimates and are being refined; impacts will be further 

minimized in coordination with the USFWS. If Reclamation-owned land is not 

available or suitable for mitigation needs, then off-site mitigation would be sought. 

Reclamation will also discuss the potential for on-site mitigation in areas previously 

disturbed by construction activities with the USFWS. 

The first step in the assessment was to evaluate the potential for species to occur 

based on recent field surveys, documented occurrences, and the availability of 

habitat for various life history stages (spawning, incubation, juvenile and adult 

rearing). The second step was to evaluate the potential for action alternatives to 

affect individuals and populations of those species likely to occur within projectaffected areas, as well as potential impacts to their habitat. 

Both direct and indirect effects are included in this analysis and the evaluation of the 

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other measures designed 

to reduce impacts. Direct effects are those that occur at the same time and place of 

the project action. Indirect effects caused by project actions occur later in time or at 

another location. Examples of potential direct effects to species include disturbance, 

injury, or mortality that may occur during construction or maintenance activities, 

including alterations to habitat. Examples of potential indirect and secondary effects 

to species or habitats due to project activities could include alterations or loss of 

habitat that may occur later in time, such as alterations at borrow sites that 

potentially provide habitat or result in alterations to a species food base, changes in 

hydrology that affect the habitat or surrounding areas, introduction of toxic 

chemicals, and introduction of predators such as bullfrogs or mosquitofish. 

Project Implementation Conditions: 

The effects for the action alternatives were estimated based on the following 

conditions pertaining to project implementation: 

• Excavation activities at borrow sites upstream of Folsom Dam would occur when 

sites are dry. Indirect effects to aquatic habitats may occur at these sites during 

the rainy season following excavation activities. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-33 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

• Analyses for impacts of excavation of borrow sites upstream of Folsom Dam are 

based on the assumption that sites would be excavated to an approximate depth 

of 30 ft between the shoreline and the 400-ft contour and the reservoir rim, 

except for the Granite Bay area, which may be deepened to as much as 50 ft. 

Upon completion of borrow excavation activities, borrow areas would be sloped 

or restored to accommodate recreational foot traffic. 

• Implementation of a spill prevention plan would reduce the risk of fuel or oil 

spills from construction and transportation equipment. 

• The implementation of BMPs would control soil erosion due to construction 

activities, and minimize potential construction-related effects on water quality. 

3.5.2.2 Significance Criteria 

The mandatory findings of significance as explained in CEQA, Pub. Res. Code sec. 

21083; guidelines sec. 15065, indicate that a project would have a significant effect 

on biological resources if it would: 

• Substantially degrade environmental quality; 

• Substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat; 

• Cause a fish or wildlife habitat to drop below self-sustaining levels; 

• Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or 

• Reduce the numbers or range of a rare, threatened or endangered species. 

Additional thresholds of significance for biological resources under CEQA have 

been used in the following evaluation. Impacts were significant if they would: 

• 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 CDFG, USFWS, or USFS; 

• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by 

CDFG, USFWS, or USFS; 

• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 

pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or 

other means; 

3.5-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

• 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; 

• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, 

such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or 

• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 

Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 

conservation plan. 

3.5.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, construction activities would not occur. 

No impacts to terrestrial, riparian, or wetland vegetation or to special-status species 

would occur from the No Action/No Project Alternative. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the main concrete dam would receive a number of 

modifications, but would not be raised. Under this alternative, the crests of the LWD, 

RWD, MIAD, and dikes 4 through 6 would be strengthened through placement of 

additional earthen material. The auxiliary spillway site would be excavated. Haul 

roads would be constructed, borrow sites would be developed at Beal’s Point, 

staging areas, material processing plants developed at Folsom Point and Beal’s Point, 

a concrete batch plant for the jet grout work at MIAD, and a concrete batch plant 

constructed in the vicinity of the Main Dam, either at the Observation Point, or 

downstream of the LWD. Contractor use areas and/or waste material 

disposal/stockpile sites would also be developed at Dike 7, MIAD, Folsom Point, the 

Observation Point, Beal’s Point, and downstream of the LWD. Underwater blasting 

and dredging would also be required to construct the approach channel. 

There would be direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species from 

construction.

According to CDFG (2006a), several special-status plant species could potentially 

occur in the vicinity of construction sites of Alternative 1. Vegetation studies 

conducted in this area in 2002 did not report any special-status plant species, 

although these studies were not species surveys (LSA 2003). If any such species are 

present, or establish in the interim, these populations could be directly affected by 

construction activities. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-35 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. 

There would be direct or indirect impacts to protected oak woodlands.

Oak woodlands are present within the construction areas and staging areas for 

Alternative 1 and may be affected by construction activities. These woodlands are 

protected under county tree ordinances. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-4, VEG-1 and BIO-10 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce 

the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

There would be loss of other native vegetation. 

Alternative 1 construction activities would result in permanent loss of native 

vegetation, including sensitive riparian habitat. This loss includes only the small 

portion of the area that would be displaced by a constructed structure (i.e., dam, 

spillway, and dike alterations). However, permanent habitat loss would have a lessthan-significant impact on special-status species (other than for listed or candidate 

species under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts) unless extensive areas 

of suitable habitat are degraded or somehow made unsuitable, or areas supporting a 

large proportion of the species population are substantially and adversely affected. 

This impact would be less than significant. To further reduce this impact, any native 

vegetation affected including riparian and chaparral vegetation would be 

compensated for by addressing requirements in the CAR and through 

implementation of mitigation measures VEG-2, VEG-3, VEG-5, VEG-6 and BIO-10. 

There would be no direct impact due to the Folsom Dam Security Enhancement 

Project.

Security measures would not impact to the flora or fauna surrounding the Folsom 

Dam Site. The installation of poles for security cameras would be constructed in 

areas already under construction and would be unlikely to contain any natural 

vegetation. There would be no impacts to Valley elderberry longhorn beetles. Work 

associated with the power poles would not start until all of the elderberry shrubs 

have been transplanted or other wise mitigated for. Also, work would not start until 

the areas 150 ft from the toe of each dike had been cleared for the placement of 

filters or other work that requires a 150-ft buffer from the structure (Folsom Dam 

Security Enhancement Project, 2006). 

This impact would be less than significant. 

3.5-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

There would be indirect impacts to native vegetation, including oaks.

Construction Activities implemented for Alternative 1 may result in indirect adverse 

impacts to vegetation and wetlands identified as sensitive by the state or by counties, 

including increased erosion and sedimentation, damage to roots of oaks and other 

tree species adjacent to areas where heavy equipment would be operated, dust 

impacts to roadside vegetation, and colonization of exposed substrate by exotic plant 

species. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-6, BIO-7, VEG-5, VEG-6 and BIO-10 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce 

the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

There would be permanent loss of wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

Construction activities associated with Alternative 1 could result in the permanent 

loss of wetlands below the Right and Left Wing Dams, Dike 6, and below MIAD. 

There appears to be hydraulic connectivity between the area downstream of MIAD 

and the wetlands south of Green Valley Road in the State Preserve (Reclamation 

2006b). Effects on the wetlands in the Preserve due to the construction activities at 

MIAD are unknown and would be monitored during all phases of construction at 

MIAD. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures are 

described in Section 3.1.4 and 3.4.4 for monitoring the MIAD wetlands. VEG-4, 

VEG-7 and BIO-10 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. 

There would be temporary disturbance of wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

Construction activities associated with Alternative 1 would result in the temporary 

loss of wetlands below the OHWM of the reservoir. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation measure VEG6 and VEG-7 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure VEG-4 and BIO-10 

described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Construction activities and borrow site excavation may result in adverse effects to 

host plants for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Elderberry shrubs, the host plant for the federally protected valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle, have been mapped at locations around the reservoir that could be 

affected by project construction activities, including excavation of borrow areas 

within the reservoir. Most of these elderberries are within the area potentially 

affected by Alternative 1. Actions resulting in adverse effects to elderberry shrubs in 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-37 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

the Alternative 1 area are significant. The following avoidance and minimization 

measures are summarized from the Conservation Guidelines for the Valley 

Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999). These measures are subject to and 

contingent upon a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. This consultation would 

occur prior to permitting of construction. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures INV1a through INV-1e, described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. 

There could be direct or indirect impacts to special-status amphibian species or their 

habitat due to temporary or permanent alteration of terrestrial habitat.

Terrestrial habitat for special-status amphibian species occurs in the vicinity of the 

Proposed Action. A portion of the grassland/savanna habitat, which may be utilized 

by western spadefoot toad, may be affected by construction activities. Direct 

mortality or indirect impacts from local alterations to habitat could occur. However, 

within the affected area affected by Alternative 1, western spadefoot toad appears to 

be limited by the lack of aquatic habitat for breeding rather than terrestrial habitat, so 

disturbance to grassland/savannah habitat is not likely to affect the overall habitat 

value of the Alternative 1 area for this species. California red-legged frog has the 

potential to be present in marginally suitable habitat. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5, BIO-9, and AMP-1 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce 

the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Excavation at borrow sites could alter amphibian (including special-status species) 

aquatic habitat.

Excavation at borrow sites would be implemented when the surface of the sites are 

dry, and therefore there would be no direct impacts to special-status amphibians or 

their aquatic habitat. However, the potential to indirectly affect aquatic habitat would 

occur if excavated areas pond water when inundated at the onset of the rainy season, 

creating seasonal or permanent ponds which potentially may be utilized by 

amphibians, including special-status amphibians California red-legged frog or 

western spadefoot toad. 

All borrow sites upstream of Folsom Dam can be inundated by water from Folsom 

Reservoir, allowing the introduction of species that prey on amphibians. The rest of 

the borrow sites are downstream of the reservoir and would not be inundated from 

rising water levels in Folsom Reservoir. The presence of centrarchids and other 

species that prey on amphibians, as well as the influence of fluctuating water levels 

on vegetation, makes aquatic habitat marginally suitable to unsuitable for 

3.5-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

amphibians. Therefore, direct or indirect impacts to amphibians or their habitat 

would generally not occur at these sites. 

If, following excavation, ponds form in a portion(s) of the downstream D2 Pit site, it 

may create seasonal or permanent aquatic habitat during and following the next rainy 

season. If aquatic habitat of sufficient depth occurs for a sufficient time, it may 

provide additional breeding habitat for amphibian species. However, additional pond 

habitat, particularly if it contains permanent water, may be colonized by bullfrogs 

that prey on red-legged frogs. Furthermore, in ponds with permanent water, fish may 

be introduced, as they were to Avery Pond. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure BIO9 and AMP-1 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. With implementation of Mitigation AMP-1, the excavated area 

within the borrow site would be graded to drain water. Therefore, ponded areas 

would not be created. 

Construction activities could directly or indirectly affect amphibians (including 

special-status species) or their aquatic habitat in permanent freshwater marshes.

There is a potential for direct or indirect effects to amphibians or their aquatic habitat 

if permanent freshwater marsh habitat is altered or lost. Construction activities 

associated with Alternative 1 could result in the temporary or permanent loss of 

wetlands below at the toe of the MIAD and the water that supplies the neighboring 

wetland across the road. 

Construction activities would occur while reservoir elevations are at low levels, 

exposing borrow sites, haul routes and the Auxiliary Spillway approach. Because 

there areas would be dry at the time construction activities are performed direct 

impacts to amphibians are not likely to occur. 

Although aquatic habitat within the area is generally marginally suitable to 

unsuitable for special-status amphibians, due to the presence of species that prey or 

compete with native amphibians, loss of any wetlands has the potential impact their 

habitat. Mitigation Measures BIO-5, VEG-2, VEG-4 and BIO-10 would implement a 

Revegetation Plan and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan which would 

replace lost acreage at a ratio stipulated in the CAR. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures for 

monitoring the MIAD wetlands are described in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.4.4. Mitigation 

Measures BIO-5, VEG-2, VEG-4, VEG-7 and BIO-10 described in Section 3.5.4 

would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-39 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Construction-related activities could result in temporary or permanent loss of 

terrestrial habitat for amphibians.

Within the footprint of construction activities at the main concrete dam, Auxiliary 

Spillway, left and right wing dam, and dikes 4 through 6, roads, staging areas, 

borrow material processing sites, and concrete batch plant, activities would occur on 

dry land and would not directly affect aquatic habitat with which amphibians are 

generally associated. Furthermore, aquatic habitat contiguous with these sites 

generally contains reservoir habitat that is only marginally suitable to unsuitable for 

amphibians. Therefore, impacts to amphibians from this impact are less than 

significant. 

This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required or 

recommended. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in direct 

mortality to special-status wildlife species.

Excavation of borrow material above the fluctuation zone of the reservoir could 

result in mortality of special-status wildlife species, including California horned 

lizard and northwestern pond turtle. This impact would be potentially significant. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in temporary or 

permanent alteration of habitat for special-status wildlife species.

Excavation of the proposed borrow sites and other construction activities could result 

in the loss of special-status wildlife habitat, including habitat for California horned 

lizard, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, American peregrine 

falcon, western burrowing owl, bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose, loggerhead 

shrike, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, Swainson's hawk, osprey, Vaux’s 

swift, white-faced ibis, mountain plover, bank swallow, pallid bat, spotted bat, 

Pacific western big-eared bat, and greater western mastiff-bat . However, permanent 

habitat loss is a less than significant impact on special-status species (other than for 

listed or candidate species under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts) 

unless extensive areas of suitable habitat are degraded or somehow made unsuitable, 

or areas supporting a large proportion of the species population are substantially and 

adversely affected. This impact would be less than significant. 

This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required or 

recommended. 

3.5-40 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in 

sedimentation in streams, creeks and seasonal wetlands.

Excavation and other construction activities could result in increased erosion and 

sedimentation. This may affect water quality (Section 3.1) and, therefore, habitat 

quality within the Alternative 1 area. Changes to water quality could substantially 

degrade aquatic or wetland habitat, which would be considered a significant impact. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure BIO6 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in impacts to 

burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat.

Borrow site excavation above the fluctuation zone of the reservoir and other 

construction activities could result in loss of burrowing owl habitat or individuals. 

Because this species is a state species of special concern, this is a significant impact. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in direct 

impacts to migrating and wintering birds.

Folsom Reservoir is within the Pacific Flyway migration corridor and is therefore a 

stopover point for migrating and wintering birds. Bald eagles are known to winter 

and forage in the project area. Mountain plovers, ferruginous hawks, and Aleutian 

Canada geese are potential wintering species in the Alternative 1 area. Direct impact 

to individuals of these species is a significant impact. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 and BIO-2 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in direct 

impacts to northwestern pond turtles.

Northwestern pond turtles, a California species of special concern, are known to 

occur in the project vicinity. They lay their eggs along wetland margins and upland 

areas near water. They excavate nests and bury their eggs. Pond turtles also rely on 

upland areas as basking sites. Direct impacts to turtles or turtle nests during inreservoir borrow site excavation is to be adverse and significant. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-41 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure BIO1 through BIO-5 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in direct 

mortality to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Take of bird eggs and nestlings protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is 

prohibited and is an adverse significant impact. 

This impact would be potentially significant but avoidable. Implementation of 

measures WIL-1, BRD-1 and BRD-2 described in Section 3.5.4 would avoid this 

impact. 

Temporary loss of special-status wildlife habitat would result from construction 

activities.

Construction activities required for Alternative 1 that are temporary in nature and do 

not significantly alter natural processes (e.g., hydrology) are expected to leave such 

areas in a restorable condition. Such areas may include those used as haul routes and 

staging areas that would be vacated after the completion of Alternative 1. 

However, permanent and temporary habitat loss is a less than significant impact 

(other than for listed or candidate species under the State and Federal Endangered 

Species Acts) unless extensive areas of suitable habitat are degraded or somehow 

made unsuitable, or areas supporting a large proportion of the species population are 

substantially and adversely affected. This impact would be less than significant. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Borrow site excavation and other construction activities could result in loss of 

habitat for non special-status species. 

Excavation of the proposed borrow sites and other construction activities could result 

in the loss of habitat for non-special-status wildlife. However, permanent habitat loss 

is a less than significant impact unless extensive areas of suitable habitat are 

degraded or somehow made unsuitable, or areas supporting a large proportion of the 

species population are substantially and adversely affected. This impact would be 

less than significant. 

This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required or 

recommended. 

There could be adverse noise effects on special-status bats from construction 

generated noise.

3.5-42 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Noise generated by construction and blasting could potentially interfere with 

echolocating bats’ roosting and breeding activities. Pallid bats are known to 

hibernate in rocky outcrops and may occur in rip-rap portions of the earthen dikes 

surrounding the reservoir. They are also intolerant of human disturbance. The greater 

western mastiff-bat may use the main concrete dam as roosting habitat. Both pallid 

and greater western mastiff-bats are known to utilize buildings as roosts. It has been 

shown that high frequency noise (4,000-18,000 Hz) produced a deterring effect on 

bat colonies (USEPA 1971). Similarly other studies have shown that a 60-dB high 

frequency noise was sufficient to produce physiological effects in hibernating bats 

(USEPA 1971). High frequency noise (>2,000 Hz) at a level in excess of 50-db at bat 

roosts would result in an adverse significant impact. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure WIL1 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

There could be adverse noise effects on special-status birds.

Noise generated by construction and blasting could potentially interfere with bird 

roosting and breeding activities. It has been shown that noise in excess of 85-dB at 

the ear was sufficient to cause distress in birds. It has also been shown that noise 

generated by motor vehicles is sufficient to decrease breeding bird fecundity 

(Rheindt 2003, Reijnen et al. 1995, Reijnen and Foppen 1994, and Ferris 1979). 

Birds remaining within the blasting vicinity may sustain permanent hearing loss. 

Adverse impacts from construction-related noise on breeding special-status birds 

would be significant. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1, BIO-3, BRD-1 and BRD-2 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the 

impact to a less-than-significant level. 

There could be adverse noise effects on non-special-status wildlife.

Noise generated by construction and blasting activities could potentially cause 

adverse impacts to non-special-status wildlife. Noise can alter con-specific 

communication, predator avoidance calls, and behaviors. However, this impact 

would be less than significant. 

This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required or 

recommended. 

Blasting impacts and their associated mitigation measures would be the same for 

most actions as for Alternative 1. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-43 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Aquatic habitat would be altered when the stilling basin is extended

The stilling basin contains nonnative fish species that are known to prey on native 

amphibian species, and therefore is not likely to contain suitable habitat for 

amphibians. 

No impacts to amphibians or their habitat would occur. 

Adverse effects to wildlife could result from underwater blasting.

The use of blasting is particularly disruptive to wildlife (including special status 

species). Excessive noise associated with blasting can cause birds to abandon nests 

and bats to abandon roosts and hibernacula. Blasting can also cause direct mortality 

to any animals remaining within the blasting zones. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5 would be implemented to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 includes the additional modifications to those described for Alternative 

1. The main concrete dam would receive strengthening of the existing parapet wall. 

The Auxiliary Spillway would receive a partially or completely lined spillway, a 350 

to 400-foot wide fuseplug, and a tunnel with 3 submerged tainter gates. The Left and 

Right Wing Dams would receive a 0.5-foot earthen raise with a 3.5-foot parapet 

concrete wall, toe drains and half-height filters. MIAD and all dikes would receive a 

4-foot earthen raise. Excavated material would be processed downstream of the 

LWD, or at the Observation Point. A borrow site would be established Beal’s Point, 

as well as a processing plant. An additional staging area would be developed at 

Granite Bay. 

Areas of lower elevation not protected by existing embankments would receive a 

new embankment. The numbers of new embankments required and their exact 

locations have not been determined. Typical construction of new embankments 

would involve the use of scrapers, loaders, and other equipment to create earthen 

berms. Access roads for construction and maintenance would also be required. 

Under Alternative 2, flood control operations would utilize the temporary extra 

reservoir capacity afforded by dam and dike raises during flood events for as long as 

it takes to safely release water through the concrete dam into the American River. 

Impacts to vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians, and wildlife species from 

construction at all facility sites and their associated mitigation measures would be 

similar to those for Alternative 1. 

3.5-44 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect special-status 

plant species.

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect special status 

plant species if any are present in the inundated area and if the inundation is of 

sufficient duration. 

Because such inundation would be a rare event and even for a 151-year flood would 

last for less than two days, with the water being progressively lowered, little or no 

adverse effects are expected to occur. 

This impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required or recommended. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect native oaks.

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect native oaks if 

the inundation is of sufficient duration. Blue oaks can be sensitive to inundation for 

as few as seven days, and evergreen oaks are likely to be more sensitive. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure BIO8 described in Section 3.5.4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely other native 

vegetation.

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could result in temporary loss of 

native upland vegetation. However, this habitat loss would have a less-thansignificant impact on special-status species (other than for listed or candidate species 

under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts) unless extensive areas of 

suitable habitat are degraded or somehow made unsuitable, or areas supporting a 

large proportion of the species population are substantially and adversely affected. 

This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required or 

recommended. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect valley 

elderberry longhorn beetles.

Inundation above the OHWM, associated with emergency retention of flood waters, 

could inundate elderberry plants that were previously not subjected to inundation. 

Depending on the duration of this flooding, elderberry plants could be adversely 

affected. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure BIO8 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-45 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Construction activities could potentially result in temporary or permanent alteration 

of terrestrial habitat for special-status amphibians at new embankments/flood 

easements for lower topography.

Potential impacts to special-status amphibians, in particular California red-legged 

frog and western spadefoot toad, would be the similar as to Alternative 1. 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures BIO 

1- through BIO-5 and BIO-9 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure AMP-1 

would protect amphibians and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant 

level. However, this impact would be further analyzed in subsequent environmental 

documents. 

Construction of new embankments/flood easements for lower topography would 

result in loss of terrestrial and aquatic habitat for amphibian species

Construction activities at some new embankment/flood easement locations would 

occur in creek drainages and could directly affect aquatic habitat with which 

amphibians are generally associated. Aquatic habitat contiguous with these sites 

contains habitat that is marginally suitable for amphibians could potentially contain 

amphibians. 

This impact would be potentially significant, but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

BIO-1 through BIO-5 would be implemented and would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. However, this impact would be further analyzed in subsequent 

environmental documents. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect special-status 

amphibians.

Inundation above the OHWM could adversely affect special status amphibians such 

as California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs and western spadefoot 

toads. Emergency action may cause the temporary loss of upland habitat for 

amphibians. 

Flood stage usually occurs during spring runoff, which may affect frog breeding 

activities as well. Frogs may take advantage of flooded areas to breed and lay eggs. 

If these areas are dewatered by release of floodwaters through the spillway before the 

eggs hatch, there could be an impact to eggs as a result of desiccation. Additionally, 

California red-legged frog egg masses could be affected if rising waters knock egg 

masses loose from anchor vegetation, because drifting egg masses are subject to high 

mortality. 

3.5-46 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Because such inundation would be a rare event and even for a 151-year flood would 

last for less than two days, with the water being progressively lowered, little or no 

adverse effects are expected to occur. 

This impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required or recommended. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect other specialstatus wildlife.

Inundation above the OHWM could adversely affect special status wildlife such as 

western burrowing owls, northwestern pond turtles, California horned lizards, giant 

garter snakes, long billed curlew, white faced ibis, mountain plovers, and various bat 

species. 

Emergency action may cause the temporary loss of upland habitat for reptiles and 

ground nesting and foraging birds. Reptiles that utilize burrows above the OHWM 

but below the new maximum reservoir elevation after implementation of 

Alternative 2 could be drowned. Species that are known to hibernate in such burrows 

are particularly susceptible. Inundation of upland northwestern pond turtle nests 

could result in the drowning of hatchling turtles or rupturing of eggs due to 

hydrostatic pressure. 

Because such inundation would be a rare event and even for a 151-year flood would 

last for less than two days, with the water being progressively lowered, little or no 

impacts to reptiles and to ground-foraging birds that do not breed in the project area 

would occur. 

The nests of ground nesting birds may be inundated if emergency retention occurs 

after eggs have been laid. Any western burrowing owls that occupy areas that lie 

between the current OHWM and the maximum reservoir elevation that would result 

from implementation of the project could be subject to drowning, loss of burrows 

and loss of eggs. 

This impact would be potentially significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 

BIO-8 would be implemented. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO8, this impact would still be significant. 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect non specialstatus wildlife.

Inundation above the OHWM caused by retention of emergency flood waters could 

adversely affect non special status wildlife through temporary loss of upland habitat 

and mortality caused by drowning. 

This impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required or recommended. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-47 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 includes the same modifications as Alternative 2 with the following 

exceptions. A gated auxiliary spillway would be constructed with construction of the 

approach channel into the reservoir. All structures would receive a 3.5-foot parapet 

concrete wall. A borrow site and processing plant would be developed at Beals Point. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4. 

Alternative 4 includes the same modifications as Alternative 2 with the following 

exceptions. Under Alternative 4, the main concrete dam and all earthen structures 

would be raised 7 ft. Under Alternative 4, the Granite Bay borrow site would be 

developed and an additional processing plant would be installed at Granite Bay. 

Impacts to vegetation, invertebrate, amphibian, and wildlife species and their 

associated mitigation measures would be generally be similar to Alternative 3, but 

the extent of impacts would be greater due to the borrow site and processing plant at 

Granite Bay. 

No additional mitigation measures are required or proposed. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 includes the same modifications as Alternative 4 with the following 

exception. The main concrete dam along with all the earthen dams would be raised 

17 feet. No Auxiliary Spillway would be constructed under this alternative. 

Excavation and replacement of the downstream foundation would be done at MIAD. 

Borrow sites under Alternative 5 would include Beal’s Point, R1/R2, D1/D2, L1/L2 

and Granite Bay. An additional processing plant would be necessary at Beal’s Point 

and staging would be required at MIAD. Stockpiles of various types of material 

would be located at Folsom Point, Dike1/Dike2, Beal’s Point, Granite Bay, D1, D2 

and at the Left Wing Dam. Underwater blasting and dredging would not be 

conducted under Alternative 5. 

Impacts to vegetation, invertebrate, amphibian, and wildlife species and their 

associated mitigation measures would be the same as for Alternatives 1 and 2 

because the analyses for similar construction activities were based on the assumption 

that all borrow sites upstream of Folsom Dam would be utilized and construction 

would occur at all existing and new dam and dike locations. 

No additional mitigation measures are required or proposed. 

3.5.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

Table 3.5-4 presents a summary of the potential impacts to terrestrial biological 

resources. The No-Action Alternative would have no impacts from project-related 

construction activities. 

3.5-48 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Alternative 1 would have no impacts related to construction of new embankments or 

an increase in reservoir elevation during large flood events. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 

could have adverse impacts on wildlife associated with construction of new 

embankments. These impacts would be further analyzed in subsequent 

environmental documents. 

The other potential impacts of Alternatives 1 through 5 on special-status plant 

species are the same under all alternatives, and are less than significant or less than 

significant with mitigation. Because Alternatives 4 and 5 would require additional 

borrow sites, impacts to vegetation would be more extensive than for Alternatives 1, 

2, and 3. There may be additional wildlife impacts associated with the additional 

borrow sites for Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 3 and 4 could have adverse 

impacts to wildlife associated with blasting that would not occur with Alternatives 1, 

2, and 5. All of these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation 

(Table 3.5-4). 

Table 3.5-4 

Summary Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives 

Alternative 

Affected Resource and 

Area of Potential Impact 

No Action 

Compared to 

Existing 

Conditions 1 2 3 4 5 

Biological Resources 

(1) Direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant 

species from construction. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(2) Direct or indirect impacts to protected oak 

woodlands 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(3) Loss of other native vegetation N LS LS LS LS LS 

(4) Indirect impacts to native vegetation N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(5) Permanent Loss of wetlands and Other Waters of 

the U.S. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(6) Temporary disturbance of wetlands and Other 

Waters of the U.S. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(7) Inundation caused by emergency flood retention 

could adversely affect special-status plant species. 

N N LS LS LS LS 

(8) Inundation caused by emergency flood retention 

could adversely affect native oaks. 

N N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(9) Removal of host plants for the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(10) Inundation of host plants of the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle. 

N N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A

(11) Direct or indirect impacts to special-status 

amphibian species or their habitat due to temporary 

or permanent alteration of terrestrial habitat. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(12) Alteration of amphibian (including special-status 

species) aquatic habitat associated with excavation 

of borrow sites. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(13) Direct or indirect effects to amphibians 

(including special-status species) or their aquatic 

habitat in permanent freshwater marshes. 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(14) Temporary or permanent loss of terrestrial 

habitat for amphibians. 

N LS LS LS LS LS 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-49 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Table 3.5-4 

Summary Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives 

Alternative 

Affected Resource and 

Area of Potential Impact 

No Action 

Compared to 

Existing 

Conditions 1 2 3 4 5 

(15) Direct or indirect impacts to special-status 

amphibian species or their habitat due to temporary 

or permanent alteration of terrestrial habitat at new 

embankments for lower topography. 

N N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(16) Construction of new embankments for lower 

topography would result in loss of terrestrial habitat. 

N N LS LS LS LS 

(17) Inundation by emergency retention could result 

in adverse impacts to special status amphibians. 

N N LS LS LS LS 

(18) Alteration of aquatic habitat when the stilling 

basin is extended. 

N N N N N N 

(19) Direct mortality to special-status wildlife species 

from excavation and other construction activities 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(20) Impacts to special-status wildlife habitat from 

borrow site excavation and other construction 

activities 

N LS LS LS LS LS 

(21) Sedimentation of wildlife habitat in streams, 

creeks and seasonal wetlands 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(22) Impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl 

habitat 

N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(23) Impacts on migrating and wintering birds N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(24) Direct impacts to northwestern pond turtles N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(25) Direct impacts to nesting birds protected by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

N SAV, A SAV, A SAV, A SAV, A SAV, A 

(26) Temporary loss of special-status wildlife habitat N LS LS LS LS LS 

(27) Loss of habitat for non-special-status species N LS LS LS LS LS 

(28) Noise effects on special-status bats N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(29) Noise effects on special-status birds N SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A SM, A 

(30) Noise effects on non-special-status wildlife N LS LS LS LS LS 

(31) Inundation caused by emergency retention 

would result in adverse impacts to special status 

wildlife. 

N N SU, A SU, A SU, A SU, A 

(32) Inundation caused by emergency retention 

would result in adverse impacts to non-special status 

wildlife. 

N N LS LS LS LS

(33) Adverse impacts to wildlife associated with 

blasting 

N N N SM, A SM, A N

Key: 

SM = Significant but mitigable impact (CEQA) 

SU = Significant and unavoidable impact 

LS = Less than Significant Impact (CEQA) 

N = No Impact (CEQA, NEPA) 

B = Beneficial Impact (NEPA) 

A = Adverse Impact (NEPA) 

AV = Avoidable 

Other potential impacts of alternatives 1 through 5 on special-status amphibians and 

their habitat are the same under all alternatives, and would be no impact, less than 

significant or less than significant with mitigation (Table 3.5-4). 

3.5-50 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Other potential impacts of alternatives 1 through 5 on other terrestrial wildlife and 

their habitat are the same under all alternatives, and would be less than significant or 

less than significant with mitigation (Table 3.5-4). 

3.5.4 Mitigation Measures 

This section lists all of the recommended mitigation measures for impacts common 

to all biological resources (BIO), or specific to vegetation (VEG), all wildlife (WIL), 

invertebrates only (INV), amphibians only (AMP), and birds only (BRD). 

BIO-1: Within the project footprint, pre-construction surveys would be conducted by 

qualified biologists in areas that may contain suitable habitat for special-status plant, 

invertebrate, or wildlife species. The biologists would identify locations of special 

status plant, invertebrate, or wildlife species and take necessary measures to provide 

protection. 

BIO-2: To the extent consistent with project implementation needs, any populations 

of special-status plant, invertebrate, or wildlife species would be avoided by placing 

fencing around the population and a suitable buffer area. Environmental monitors 

would regularly inspect any fenced sensitive biological resources to ensure no 

disturbance. 

BIO-3: If populations of special-status plant, invertebrate, or wildlife species are 

found that cannot be avoided, USFWS and CDFG would be consulted and mitigation 

measures developed for those populations. 

BIO-4: All construction personnel at the Folsom DS/FDR construction site would 

receive environmental awareness training from agency biologist(s) associated with 

the project, or suitably trained representative(s), regarding the potential presence of 

listed, special-status, and protected (e.g., oak trees) species in the project area and the 

importance of avoiding impacts to the habitat and reporting sightings. 

BIO-5: A Revegetation Plan would be developed to address potential losses to all 

habitats impacted within the project footprint. The Revegetation Plan would be 

implemented immediately following construction in accordance with requirements in 

the SWPP, CAR, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP). 

BIO-6: Standard erosion and sedimentation control measures (BMPs), as described 

in mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3 in Section 3.1.4, would be 

implemented for all grading, filling, clearing of vegetation, or excavating that occurs 

in site preparation. 

BIO-7: To minimize dust impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and breeding wildlife, 

unpaved access roads would be frequently watered with raw water using a sprayer 

truck during periods when trucks and other construction vehicles are using the roads, 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-51 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

except during periods when precipitation has dampened the soil enough to inhibit 

dust. The speed limit on unpaved roads would be limited to avoid visible dust. 

BIO-8: In the event of emergency operations that increase the reservoir surface 

elevation of Folsom Reservoir above the normal OHWM, supplemental 

environmental compliance will be completed. It is anticipated that surveys would be 

completed after the event and post-inundation surveys would be compared to the 

most recent pre-inundation survey data available to assess impacts and compensatory 

mitigation. The responsible Federal agency would contact other federal, state, and 

local agencies to develop appropriate mitigation measures. These measures would be 

based on the extent and duration of the emergency inundation and survey data. 

Based on the results of these surveys, formal Section 7 consultation would be 

reinitiated by the responsible federal agency and consultation with CDFG would also 

be conducted. 

BIO-9: Qualified biologists (monitors) would be available throughout the 

construction period to identify any at-risk special-status species. The biologist 

would consult with the appropriate agency to remove individuals from the project 

area, according to USFWS and CDFG laws, handling guidelines, licenses, and 

permits. 

BIO-10: Follow recommendations in the CAR and complete mitigation in the CAR 

for all affected habitats. 

VEG-1: Native oaks and oak woodlands impacted by construction would be 

compensated for at a ratio stipulated in the CAR and MMRP. 

VEG-2: Riparian vegetation outside the OHWM of the reservoir impacted by 

construction will be compensated for at a ratio stipulated in the CAR and MMRP. 

VEG-3: Chaparral vegetation impacted by construction will be compensated for at a 

ratio stipulated in the CAR and MMRP. 

VEG-4: Wetlands impacted by construction will be compensated for at a ratio 

stipulated in the CAR and MMRP. 

VEG-5: Prior to bringing in equipment from other sites, contractors will clean all 

mud, soil, and plant/animal material from the equipment. This will help prevent the 

importation of plants or animals that are exotic or invasive. 

VEG-6: All revegetated or disturbed areas would be monitored annually for invasive 

non-native plant species, particularly French broom and pampas grass, for five years 

following completion of construction, with the assistance of a qualified botanist. If 

invasive species are becoming established on areas disturbed by project activities 

3.5-52 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

during the five-year period, invasive species will be removed at times that preclude 

the plants from setting new seed. 

VEG-7: During jet grouting or excavation and replacement of the foundation at 

MIAD, wetlands downstream of MIAD will be flagged and clearly delineated. No 

equipment will be staged within 25 ft of a wetland, nor will work take place within 

25 ft of a wetland. 

INV-1a: Where avoidance is compatible with the construction of the Folsom 

DS/FDR Action, a 100-foot buffer zone will be established and maintained around 

all elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1.0 inches or greater in diameter at 

ground level. USFWS will be consulted before any disturbances within the buffer 

area occur. 

INV-1b: Elderberry plants that cannot be avoided during Folsom DS/FDR 

construction activities will be transplanted to a conservation area approved by 

USFWS. All elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1.0 inches or greater in 

diameter at ground level will be transplanted to a conservation area if technically 

feasible, per Biological Assessment that was submitted to USFWS and Biological 

Opinion that is anticipated from USFWS as well as the Valley Elderberry Longhorn 

Beetle (VELB) conservation guidelines (USFWS 1999). 

INV-1c: Each elderberry stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground 

level that is adversely affected (e.g., those that are transplanted or destroyed) will be 

compensated, in the conservation area, with elderberry seedlings and associated 

native plant seedlings per the Biological Opinion for the Project and USFWS’s 1999 

VELB Conservation Guidelines. A minimum survival rate of at least 60 percent of 

the elderberry plants will be maintained throughout the monitoring period (see INV1e). If survival drops below this level, additional seedlings or cuttings will be 

planted. Stock for plantings will be obtained from local sources. 

INV-1d: Native plants associated with elderberry plants at the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action site, or at similar reference sites, will be planted at ratios provided in the 

Biological Opinion for the Project. A minimum survival rate of at least 60 percent of 

the associated native plants must be maintained throughout the monitoring period 

(see INV-1e). If survival drops below this level, additional seedlings or cuttings will 

be planted. Only stock from local sources will be used. 

INV-1e: A conservation area will be established distinct from the project area and 

will be protected in perpetuity as a compensation site for transplanted elderberry 

plants and associated native vegetation. This area will provide at least 1,800 square 

feet for each transplanted elderberry plant. The condition of the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle, elderberry shrubs, and general condition of the conservation area 

will be monitored over a period of ten consecutive years or for seven years over a 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-53 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

15-year period occurring on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, tenth, and 

fifteenth years. 

AMP-1: The excavated areas within the proposed borrow sites will be graded to drain 

water to prevent attraction to the artificial pools by amphibian species as well as 

prevent fish stranding with changing reservoir water surface elevations. 

WIL-1: To the extent possible, excavation and construction activities would be 

initiated during non-breeding seasons for special-status and protected wildlife. 

Habitat for special status and protected species would be removed during the nonbreeding season if practicable to preclude return to the project area by the species 

during construction activities. 

BRD-1: To the extent possible, removal of vegetation and potential bird breeding 

habitat in the Folsom DS/FDR project area would occur between September 1 and 

February 28, when birds are not expected to be nesting within the project area, in 

order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Impacts to nonbreeding birds still may occur between September 1 and February 28, because they 

are not reproductively constricted to the project area during that period. During the 

period from March 1 to August 31, bird reproduction is occurring and therefore the 

potential for impacts to nesting birds exists. 

BRD-2: To mitigate and monitor construction-related impacts to birds during the 

breeding season, a bird monitoring plan would be developed as part of the MMRP 

and implemented to comply with the MBTA and Executive Order 13186. Mitigation 

will include but is not limited to a nest monitoring zone of an adequate size, per the 

Migratory Bird Act, to avoid or significantly reduce impacts to breeding birds at 

active construction sites. Also, methods to deter nesting, and/or to acclimate birds to 

construction noise and activities made. One potential method would be to use 

acoustic recordings within 500 ft of blasting sites to deter birds from nesting near 

blasting areas or allow them to become habituated to the noise. Also, an appropriate 

buffer zone around active nests of special status bird species would be implemented. 

3.5.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 provides a list of past, present and probable future projects in the general 

vicinity of the study area that are included in the cumulative effects analysis. 

The following analysis evaluates the impacts of the Folsom DS/FDR Action on 

terrestrial biological resources when added related past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects. This analysis includes the potential impacts of the Folsom 

Bridge Project, the Future Redundant Water Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom, and San 

Juan Water District the Lower American River Common Features Project, and the 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Transmission Line Project. The Folsom Dam 

3.5-54 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

Road Closure and the Folsom Historic District Traffic Calming Program are not 

likely to affect biological resources and are not included in this evaluation. 

Construction of any of the Folsom DS/FDR actions will not significantly alter 

current Folsom Facility operations. During construction and upon completion of 

structural modifications current operational parameters as summarized above and 

defined in appropriate agreements and authorities will remain in effect until the 

current flood operations agreement expires, or a new Flood Management Plan is 

developed and implemented, or if there are new Congressional authorizations, 

directives or mandates. 

Vegetation 

The Folsom Bridge Project is expected to result in limited impacts to native 

vegetation, in part in areas also potentially affected by the Folsom DS/FDR Action. 

These impacts include impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The project provides 

mitigation to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District Transmission Line Project would result in limited impacts 

to native vegetation, primarily in areas also potentially affected either by the Folsom 

Bridge Project or the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Additional impacts to native 

vegetation in the Folsom DS/FDR Action area are not expected from this project. 

Potential alterations to stream flow due to modification of the spillway at French 

Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in the long distance between L.L. Anderson 

Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area and are not likely to affect vegetation in 

the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. Although work related to the Lower American 

River Common Features Project is on-going, it is close to completion and consists 

primarily of levee work outside the floodway. 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for vegetation in general, for riparian 

vegetation, or for wetland vegetation. 

Special-status Plant Species 

The Folsom Bridge Project is not expected to result in impacts to special-status plant 

species. The SMUD Transmission Line Project is not expected to result in impacts to 

special-status plant species. Potential alterations to stream flow due to modification 

of the spillway at French Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in the long 

distance between L.L. Anderson Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area and are 

not likely to affect vegetation in the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. Although work 

related to the Lower American River Common Features Project is on-going, it is 

close to completion and consists primarily of levee work outside the floodway. 

Cumulative impacts to federally or state-listed plant species from the Folsom 

DS/FDR Action are not expected to occur because species in those categories are 

unlikely to occur in the project area. In addition, other special-status plant species are 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-55 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

unlikely to be affected by the Folsom DS/FDR Action. While complete avoidance of 

such species may not be possible, should they be found in the interim, the proposed 

mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 

implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR Action, its implementation along with the 

Folsom Bridge Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for special-status plant species. 

Special-status Wildlife Species 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect elderberry shrubs, the host plant for the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle. Mitigation measures specified in Section 3.5.2 would reduce this 

impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation for these impacts may be 

compensated in a joint area with elderberry compensation for the Folsom Bridge 

Project to provide better quality habitat and greater cost efficiency. 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect only small amounts of existing amphibian aquatic habitat, 

most of which is unsuitable to marginally suitable for amphibian species, including 

special-status species. Terrestrial habitat potentially utilized by western spadefoot 

toad may be altered temporarily or permanently, but since the distribution of this 

species appears to be limited by the lack of aquatic breeding habitat rather than 

terrestrial habitat, none of the proposed alternatives are likely to affect the overall 

habitat value for this species. Mitigation measures, such as performing preconstruction surveys and implementation of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting 

Plan for wetlands affected by the project, would reduce both direct and indirect 

impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, these impacts would result in only 

a very minor contribution to ongoing cumulative effects caused by other projects 

within the region. 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect special-status reptiles, birds, and bats and their habitat, 

and other breeding migratory birds. However, other habitat is available adjacent to 

the project area. With the mitigation measures described in Section 3.5.2, these 

potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 

The DEIS/EIR for the Folsom Bridge project (Corps 2006b) found there would be no 

adverse effects to the California red-legged frog or the giant garter snake from any of 

the alternatives evaluated for that project because “...no suitable habitat for specialstatus reptiles, amphibians, or invertebrates was noted during the wetland delineation 

for the proposed project” (Corps 2006b). The DEIS/EIR for the Folsom Bridge 

project did identify potential impacts to the white-tailed kite and for the bald eagle if 

3.5-56 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.5 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

 

these species were to be present during construction. This document also provided 

mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

Construction activities for three other projects would be implemented concurrently 

with, and generally within the footprint of, construction activities implemented for 

the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Therefore, they would not contribute to additional 

direct or indirect impacts. These projects include the Reliable Water Supply Project 

for the City of Roseville, City of Folsom, the San Juan Water District project and the 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Transmission Line Project.

Because environmental documents to fulfill NEPA/CEQA requirements have not yet 

been completed for the redundant water pipeline for the City of Roseville, City of 

Folsom, the San Juan Water District project, or the Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District Transmission Line Project impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, including 

special-status species, have not been identified. However, any alternative that would 

install a new intake and redundant delivery pipeline would affect habitat already 

disturbed by the existing infrastructure. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the 

construction-related impacts would occur concurrently with, and within the footprint 

of, construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Likewise, a substantial 

portion (possibly all) of the construction-related impacts for Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District Transmission Line Project would occur within the footprint of, 

construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR Action or the Folsom Bridge project. 

Two projects, the L.L. Anderson Dam Project and the Lower American River 

Common Features Project would not affect local or proximate populations of 

wildlife, including special-status species. Potential alterations to stream flow due to 

modification of the spillway at French Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in 

the long distance between L.L. Anderson Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. 

Although work related to the Lower American River Common Features Project is 

on-going, it is close to completion. Impacts to wildlife and their habitat due to the 

Folsom DS/FDR Action are less-than-significant with mitigation and, therefore, 

would not contribute to cumulative impacts with the remaining levee work. 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for wildlife in general or for specialstatus wildlife. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.5-57 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-1 

3.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

This section discusses the effects that construction may have on soils, minerals, and 

geologic resources in the study area. 

3.6.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section describes the soils, minerals, and geological resources in the study area 

as well as the regulatory setting relevant to these resources. 

3.6.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The area of analysis for this section includes Folsom Reservoir and the area 

surrounding the reservoir. 

3.6.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal Regulations 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) includes provisions for reducing soil erosion relevant 

to water quality. The CWA made it unlawful for any person to discharge any 

pollutant from a point source (including construction site), into navigable waters, 

unless a permit was obtained under its provisions. This pertains to construction sites 

where soil erosion and storm runoff as well as other pollutant discharges could affect 

downstream water quality. Further details are provided in Section 3.1, Hydrology, 

Water Quality, and Groundwater. 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) process, established 

by the CWA, is intended to meet the goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff. 

Projects involving construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, or excavation) 

involving land disturbance greater than one acre must file a Notice of Intent with the 

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to indicate their intent 

to comply with the State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated 

with Construction Activity (General Permit). This Permit establishes conditions to 

minimize sediment and pollutant loading and requires preparation and 

implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to 

construction. Section 3.1 provides further details. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) also includes provisions for reducing soil erosion relevant 

to air and water quality. On construction sites, exposed soil surfaces are vulnerable to 

wind erosion and small soil particulates are carried into the atmosphere. Suspended 

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) is one of the six criteria air pollutants of the 

CAA. PM standards and additional details on the CAA are provided in Section 3.3, 

Air Quality. 

State Regulations 

State regulations including the Porter Cologne Act and Fish and Game Code 1600 

provide provisions to reduce soil erosion. The Porter Cologne Act established the 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine regional boards that 

regulate water quality. The regional boards carry out the NPDES permitting process 

for point source discharges and the CWA Section 401 certification program. 

Additional information is provided in Section 3.1. 

Fish and Game Code 1600 requires notification for projects that are planned to occur 

in or in close proximity to a river, stream, lake, or its tributaries. Applicants are to 

enter into a “streambed alteration agreement” with the Department of Fish and Game 

when a construction activity would 1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or 

the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, 2) use material from a stream 

bed, or 3) result in the disposal of disposition of debris, waste, or other material 

containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement that could pass into a river, stream, 

or lake. The Federal Government is not required to submit a Fish and Game code 

1600 permit; however, the same impacts will be addressed under a 401, and a 404 

permit. 

The 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California Public Resources 

Code (CPRC) Section 2621 et seq.) requires local agencies to regulate development 

within earthquake fault zones to reduce the hazards associated with surface fault 

ruptures. It also regulates construction in earthquake fault zones. 

The 1990 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (CPRC Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses 

strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failures as a result of 

earthquakes. This Act requires statewide identification and mapping of seismic 

hazard zones which would be used by cities and counties to adequately prepare the 

safety element of their general plans and protect public health and safety (California 

Geological Survey 2003). Local agencies are also required to regulate development 

in any seismic hazard zones, primarily through permitting. Permits for development 

projects are not issued until geologic investigations have been completed and 

mitigation has been developed to address any issues. 

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 (CPRC Sections 2710 

et seq.) addresses surface mining and requires mitigation to reduce adverse impacts 

to public health, property, and the environment. SMARA applies to anyone 

(including a government agency) that disturbs more than one acre or removes more 

than 1,000 cubic yards of material through surface mining activities, even if 

activities occur on federally managed lands (California Department of Conservation, 

Office of Mine Reclamation 2006). Local city and county “lead agencies” develop 

ordinances for permitting that provide the regulatory framework for mining and 

reclamation activities. The permit generally includes a permit to mine, a reclamation 

plan to return the land to a useable condition, and financial reports to ensure 

reclamation would be feasible. The State Mining and Geology Board reviews lead 

agency ordinances to ensure they comply with SMARA (California Department of 

Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation 2006). 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-3

The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, 

Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (See Title 17 CCR Section 93105) 

contains the requirements for construction operations that would disturb any portion 

of an area that is located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit or that has naturallyoccurring asbestos, serpentine, or ultramafic rock. Construction or grading 

operations on property where the area to be disturbed is greater than one acre, require 

an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to be submitted and approved by the air quality 

management district before the start of construction. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation 

Plan must be implemented at the beginning and must be maintained throughout the 

duration of the operation. In order to receive an exemption from this Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure, a registered geologist must conduct a geologic evaluation of the 

property and determine that no serpentine or ultramafic rock is likely to be found in 

the area to be disturbed. This report must be presented to the executive officer or air 

pollution control officer of the air pollution control or air quality management 

district, who may then grant or deny the exemption. 

The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Surfacing Applications (17 CCR 

Section 93106) applies to any person who produces, sells, supplies, offers for sale or 

supply, uses, applies, or transports any aggregate material extracted from property 

where any portion of the property is located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit or 

the material has been determined to be ultramafic rock, or serpentine, or material that 

has an asbestos content of 0.25 percent or greater. Unless exempt, the use, sale, 

application, or transport of material for surfacing is restricted, unless it has been 

tested using an approved asbestos bulk test method and determined to have 

an asbestos content that is less than 0.25 percent. Any recipient of such materials 

may need to be provided a receipt with the quantity of materials, the date of the sale, 

verification that the asbestos content is less than 0.25 percent, and a warning label. 

Anyone involved in the transportation of the material must keep copies of all receipts 

with the materials at all times. 

Local Regulations 

The General Plans for El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties have a goal of 

minimizing threat to life, injury, and property from seismic and geological hazards. 

El Dorado County plans to accomplish this through the adoption and enforcement of 

development regulations, including building and site standards that provide 

protection against seismic and geologic hazards and the continued evaluation of 

seismic-related hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, and avalanches (El Dorado 

County 2004). 

The Sacramento County General Plan calls for a geotechnical report and appropriate 

mitigation measures for new development in seismic and geologically sensitive 

areas; a draft of an ordinance to establish a program for the removal or strengthening 

of poorly anchored parapets, unreinforced masonry walls, and architectural detailing; 

support efforts of local, State, and Federal agencies in investigating and mitigating 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

geologic hazards; and prohibits development on slopes that exceed 40 percent 

(County of Sacramento 1993b). 

Placer County’s General Plan also calls for a variety of policies that focus on 

minimizing geologic and seismic hazards. These include the preparation of soils 

reports as well as soils engineering and geologic seismic analysis prior to 

development in geologic and seismic sensitive areas; appropriate investigation, site 

selection, and design provisions pertaining to structures that may encounter potential 

landslides, expansive soils, liquefaction, seismic ground shaking, as well as fault 

rupture and/or creep; appropriate mitigation for habitual structure and sewage 

systems located on critically expansive soils; preparation of drainage plans for 

development in hillside areas; prohibition of activities that may alter land in a 

manner that increases the potential for landslides; and the support of scientific 

investigations on geologic and seismic hazards (Placer County 1994). 

3.6.1.3 Environmental Setting 

This section describes the geological resources, mineral resources, and soils within 

the study area. Information on the topography, geology, seismicity, landslides, and 

subsidence is provided in the geological resources section. The mineral resources 

section focuses on minerals that could be extracted for economically beneficial 

purposes and the soils section describes the soil characteristics within the study area. 

Geological Resources 

Topography 

The study area is located in the American River watershed which ranges in elevation 

from 10,000 ft in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Sierras) to 10 ft above mean sea 

level (amsl) at the confluence with the Sacramento River. Folsom Reservoir is in the 

foothills of the Sierras, residing in a valley at the confluence of the North and South 

Forks of the American River. The reservoir extends into the canyons of the North 

and South Forks of the American River with an elevation of 466 ft at the Main 

Concrete Dam spillway. The slope surrounding Folsom Reservoir is generally steep 

to moderate with exception to the flatter areas of the Peninsula Campground area, 

Goose Flat, and Granite Bay.

Geology 

The study area is between the Central Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley 

Geomorphic Provinces. The Sierra Nevada geomorphic region is characterized by a 

north-northwest trending mountain belt with extensive foothills on the western slope. 

The Folsom Reservoir geomorphic region primarily consists of rolling hills and 

upland plateaus between major river canyons. There are three major geologic 

divisions within the study area. The oldest consists of a north-northwest trending belt 

of metamorphic rocks. Younger granitic plutons have intruded and obliterated some 

of the metamorphic belt. The youngest geologic division consists of relatively flat 

deposits of volcanic ash, debris flows, and alluvial fan deposits. These deposits 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-5

overlie the older rocks. Figure 3.6-1 shows the local geologic characteristics 

surrounding Folsom Reservoir. 

Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock types are present within the study area. 

The four major rock divisions of the study area include 1) ultramafic intrusive rocks, 

2) metamorphics, 3) granodiorite intrusive rocks, and 4) volcanic mud flows and 

alluvial deposits. 

Ultramific rocks originate from oceanic sediments including volcanic pillow basalts 

and andesite breccia. These rocks have been lifted from deep beneath the earth’s 

crust through faulting and underthrusting of the earth’s crust. Outcrops of ultramafic 

rock are relatively resistant to erosion and often form topographic highs. The largest 

exposure occurs on Flagstaff Mountain on the Folsom Reservoir Peninsula. 

Ultramafic rock consists of serpentine minerals (antigorite, chrysotile, and chlorite) 

and chromite, minor nickel, talc and naturally-occurring asbestos. 

Metamorphic rocks are found in a north-northwest trending band that is east of 

Rattlesnake Bar through most of the peninsula that is between the two arms of the 

reservoir. Metamorphic rocks are also a part of the Copper Hill Volcanics along the 

southern portion of the study area. These rocks originate from an ancient chain of 

volcanic islands and seafloor sediments that have been subjected to heat and pressure 

forming metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks that are mainly composed of 

metamorphosed basaltic breccia, pillow lava, and ash. 

Granodiorite intrusive rocks are similar to granite. They are composed of a coarse 

grained crystalline matrix with slightly more iron and magnesium-bearing minerals 

and less quartz than granite. The feldspar and hornblend of the granodiorite is less 

resistant than the quartz crystals and easily weathers. When weathering occurs, the 

remaining feldspars separate from the quartz resulting in decomposed granite. The 

granodiorite intrusive rocks occur in the study area in two intrusive plutons, the 

Rocklin and Penryn Plutons. The Rocklin Pluton is on both sides of Folsom 

Reservoir and extends to Lake Natoma. The Penryn Pluton is upstream of the 

Rocklin Pluton. 

The volcanic mud flows and alluvial deposits are found downstream of Folsom 

Reservoir. These deposits form two major formations, the Merhten and Laguna 

Formation. The Laguna and Merhten Formations occur in a small area in the 

southeast corner of the Folsom Reservoir. The Merhten Formation is a complex unit 

of volcanic sediments mixed with volcanic mudflows. It contains volcanic 

conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone, all derived from andesitic sources. Portions 

of the Merhten are gravels deposited by ancestral streams. The Laguna Formation, 

deposited on the Merhten Formation is a sequence of gravel, sand and silt derived 

from granitic sources. It was deposited mainly as debris flows. 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The western side of Folsom Reservoir is bounded by igneous rocks, primarily 

granodiorite intrusive rocks. The eastern side of Folsom Reservoir is bounded by a 

metamorphic intrusive complex that includes the Copper Hill Volcanics and 

Ultramafic rocks. Naturally-occurring asbestos may be found in both of these 

formations. Near MIAD in the southeast corner of Folsom Reservoir are the Laguna 

and Merhten Formations. 

Seismicity 

The study area is in the Foothills Fault system which is located in the metamorphic 

belt. This system consists of northwest trending vertical faults and is divided into 

two zones, the western Melones Fault zone and the western Bear Mountains Fault 

zone. The west trace of the Bear Mountains Fault zone transects the upper reaches of 

the North Fork arm near Manhattan Bar Road, and crosses the South Fork arm in the 

region of the New York Creek. Figure 3.6-1 shows the location of the west strand of 

the Bear Mountains Fault. The last major movement of this system occurred 140 

million years ago and the United States Geological Survey has not designated the 

Bear Mountains Fault as an active fault (Corps 2006b). 

Faults 11 to 102 miles away could potentially generate earthquakes with a magnitude 

of 6.5 to 7.9 (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). However, risk of shaking at 

the study area is relatively low given the distance, hard bedrock, and thin soil cover. 

The California Geological Survey Seismic Shaking Hazard Map, Figure 3.6-2, shows 

the study area lies within the 10-20 percent acceleration of gravity zone. This means 

that within the study area, there is a 10 percent probability that the seismic ground 

motion will exceed 10 percent to 20 percent of the acceleration of gravity within the 

next 50 years. 

Although the risk of shaking is relatively low, the seismic safety of the Folsom 

Facility is important considering the large downstream population. Studies in the late 

1980s indicated that all features of the Folsom Facility were stable assuming a 

Maximum Earthquake of Magnitude 6.5 occurring 15 km on the East Branch of the 

Bear Mountains Fault Zone with exception of risk to MIAD and the Main Concrete 

Dam. The Corps identified a potential risk of liquefaction of the foundation materials 

at MIAD. Liquefaction occurs when soils lose their strength and stiffness as a result 

of earthquake shaking or rapid loading. Soils are not able to support structures 

resulting in collapse and damage. 

In response to risk of liquefaction, Reclamation, in cooperation with the Corps, took 

actions to reduce this risk through jet grouting. In 1995, after several tests, 

Reclamation discovered that the lower portion of the foundation was not treated. 

Although Reclamation has determined the technical risks for liquefaction are low, 

the foundation at MIAD requires additional treatment to ensure safety.
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-7

Source: Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al 2003 

Figure 3.6-1 

Local Geology of Folsom Reservoir 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Land Subsidence 

Land subsidence is the gradual or sudden sinking, or settling of the ground surface. 

The potential for a possible hazard as a result of subsidence in the study area is very 

low. Conditions that generally result in subsidence include natural geologic 

processes such as a cavern collapse or peat oxidation and human activities involving 

groundwater extraction as well as oil and gas mining. Local collapse of small mines 

in the Flagstaff mountain area could potentially occur, yet is unlikely. The 

surrounding rocks of the mines appear to be stable and the extent of the mine shaft is 

Source: California Geologic Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazard Map, 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html 

Figure 3.6-2 

California Geological Survey Seismic Shaking Hazard Map 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-9

limited. Generally, conditions that may cause subsidence are not of scale to warrant 

substantial risk of subsidence in the study area (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 

2003). 

Landslides 

Factors that influence slope stability include slope inclination, bedrock geology, 

geologic structure, geomorphology, weathering, vegetation, and granitic rocks. 

Studies along the Highway 50 corridor have shown slides to occur where 

metamorphic and granitic rocks are in contact as well as where metamorphic and 

Tertiary sedimentary rocks are in contact. These geologic conditions are present 

within the study area where the sedimentary Laguna Formation overlies the 

metamorphic bedrock and along the north side of Folsom Reservoir where the 

Mehrten Formation tops the granite hills. Despite these geologic formations, 

landslides are not a major hazard in the study area because soils are thin and the 

slopes are not particularly steep (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). 

Mineral Resources 

A variety of mineral resources are present within the study area. Resources such as 

chromite, minor nickel, talc, and asbestos are associated with the ultramific rocks 

and past mining has occurred within the region. The richest chromite mining area of 

the western foothill region is located on Flagstaff Hill where sporadic mining 

occurred from 1894 to 1955. Chromite mining also occurred on the peninsula 

between the Forks of the two rivers. Abandoned or idle pit mines of talc and asbestos 

also occur on the peninsula. Mineral resources associated with the metamorphic belt 

include disseminated gold, lode gold, copper, limestone, and zinc. Limestone is 

mined on the north side of the peninsula across from Rattlesnake Bar. 

Placer gold is associated with the Merhten Formation which is exposed in the bluffs 

northwest of upper Lake Natoma. Mine and dredge tailings in the area have been left 

from previous placer gold mining activities. The majority of the tailings are found 

along Lake Natoma, but they can also be found below and to the south of MIAD. 

The mine and dredge tailings are made up of well-washed large gravel, cobbles, and 

boulders that have been left in large piles along the river banks. The well-rounded 

cobbles and boulders could be mined for landscape rock. 

Decomposed granite may also be considered a resource within the study area. 

Although this rock has not been used for commercial purposes, decomposed granite 

would be used as fill material for the potential dike and dam raises of the selected 

alternative. 

Soils 

Soils in higher elevations of the study area are generally thin and have numerous 

outcroppings of igneous and metamorphic rock. Loose soils of decomposed granite 

are found on the north and west portions of Folsom Reservoir. These soils are highly 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

erodible and excessive erosion has been observed along the north shore. Clayey and 

denser soils are concentrated on the south end. Generally, all soils within the study 

area are of low shrink-swell potential. Serpentine soil and rock are located on the 

Peninsula between the North and South Forks and south of the South Fork of the 

American River at Iron Mountain. These soils are high in nickel, chromium, and 

manganese which limit the variety of plant species that can grow. This soil is also 

corrosive and generally is not suitable for leach fields (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et 

al. 2003). 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.6.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed through a 

qualitative evaluation. Information presented in the existing conditions discussion 

above as well as the following factors were considered during the evaluation process:

• Proximity to faults and frequency of seismic activity; 

• The types of mineral resources that would be excavated; 

• The amount and location of on-site material displacement including stripping, 

borrow, and fill material; and 

• Existing regulatory controls in place to offset and/or mitigate adverse effects. 

3.6.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Under criteria based on the CEQA Guidelines and agency guidance, the Folsom 

DS/FDR action would be considered to have significant impacts on geology, soils, 

and mineral resources if it would: 

• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the 

risk of loss, or injury, or death involving: 

- 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, 

- Strong seismic ground shaking, 

- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, 

- Landslides; 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-11

• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource recovery site 

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan that would 

be of value to the region and the residents of the State; 

• Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil; and 

• Airborne naturally-occurring asbestos could expose workers to health risks. 

3.6.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative assumes that no action would be taken by any 

agency. As described in Section 3.6.1, seismic concerns have been identified for the 

foundations of both MIAD and the Main Concrete Dam. Liquefaction of the MIAD 

foundation could occur during seismic activity. The MIAD foundation materials 

have been treated, yet subsequent testing and analysis revealed that methods to 

densify the foundation material did not fully treat the lower portion of the 

foundation. Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, the current seismic risk 

posed to these facilities would remain into the future. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would retain current risks associated with 

seismic activity, would not result in a loss of mineral resources or topsoil, and would 

not disturb naturally-occurring asbestos. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 could result in adverse effects associated with seismic activity. 

In order to excavate the Auxiliary Spillway channel, and to produce fill material for 

MIAD, wing dams, and dikes, blasting would be necessary when hard materials are 

encountered. Blasting is not expected to affect the nearest active or inactive faults 

(Sherer 2006a). The nearest faults are too distant from the Folsom DS/FDR site to be 

affected; therefore, construction of Alternative 1 would not induce earthquake 

activity along the fault. 

In addition, modifications to MIAD and the Main Concrete Dam would provide 

seismic benefits. The stabilization of both dam foundations would provide additional 

assurance that seismic activity would not cause severe structure damage. 

Potential effects associated with seismic activity would be less than significant. 

Alternative 1 could result in adverse effects associated with landslides. 

As described in Section 3.6.1, landslides are not a major hazard in the study area 

because soils are thin and the slopes are not particularly steep. Excavation would be 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

conducted in a manner to further minimize the potential for landslides (e.g., 

excavation may be terraced to stabilize slopes). 

Impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. 

Alternative 1 would result in adverse effects associated with the loss of decomposed 

granite and other minerals which would be extracted from the reservoir bed and 

used for construction. 

Shell material (this includes decomposed granite in addition to impervious soil and 

miscellaneous shell soil) would be excavated from the designated borrow locations 

and the Auxiliary Spillway. This material would be used to harden the crests of the 

earthen dam/dike embankments. 

As shown in Figure 3.6-3, decomposed granite would be excavated in the western 

and northern portions of the study area. Decomposed granite would be a major 

portion of material removed. This excavation would occur at the bottom of the 

reservoir and in the Auxiliary Spillway. If borrow material is excavated east of the 

Left Wing Dam, talc, chromite, and asbestos could be encountered. Although the 

extraction of these materials as well as decomposed granite may be considered a loss 

of a known resource, there is no future potential for the commercial mining of these 

materials. 

Table 3.6-1 provides estimated quantities of material that would be excavated and/or 

placed (as shell material, filter material, bank protection, etc.) for all alternatives. 

Excavated material includes material extracted from the Auxiliary Spillway site and 

material stripped from the Left Wing Dam, Right Wing Dam, Dikes 1 through 8, and 

MIAD prior to placement of filter material and additional shell material. 

Table 3.6-1 

Folsom Facility Estimated Material Quantities

Alternative 

Estimated Quantity of 

Excavated and Applied 

Material 

(CY) 

No Action/No Project 0 

#1 5,821,000 

#2 11,964,000 

#3 3,564,000 

#4 6,525,000 

#5 7,161,000 

The impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources would be less than 

significant.
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-13

Alternative 1 would result in effects associated with asbestos disturbance.

Figure 3.6-3 shows the location of where naturally-occurring asbestos may be 

present in the Copper Hill Volcanics and ultramafic rocks in the southern and eastern 

portions of the reservoir. Samples collected from D1/D2 borrow site investigations in 

the vicinity of MIAD and Dike 8 were subject to a petrographic examination of 

amphibolite schist bedrock. Termolite, an asbestoform mineral, was one of the main 

minerals in the amphibolite schist. Additional screening level tests (using a polarized 

light microscope) revealed that about 97 percent of the amphibole schist samples 

were positive for less than 1 percent regulated asbestos (from a regulatory 

perspective, the shape/size and mineralogy may constitute concern) (Reclamation 

2006d). 

In accordance to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, 

Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17 CCR Section 93105), 

the Sacramento and El Dorado Counties Air Quality Management District were 

notified of the positive tests. Permits would be required prior to any earth 

displacement in this location of the Folsom DS/FDR study area. In order to obtain 

the permits from both Sacramento and El Dorado Counties, a geologic site 

characterization report (signed by a California Registered Geologist) must be 

prepared as well as a county approved Dust Mitigation Plan. These measures are in 

place to reduce impacts associated with asbestos excavation. 

The impacts associated with the excavation of asbestos would be significant. 

Mitigation Measure GR-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Alternative 1 would result in adverse effects associated with the loss of topsoil. 

The Auxiliary Spillway, borrow areas, wing dam, and dike embankments would be 

stripped of organics prior to excavation and borrow development. This would result 

in a loss of topsoil. However, the majority of this soil is not of high ecological or 

agricultural value due to either the shallow nature of soil over granitic bedrock, the 

origin of the material was either excavated from the local granitic borrow sites when 

the facility was constructed during the 1950s, or the borrow is excavated from the 

bottom of the reservoir. (Ecological impacts associated with excavation are provided 

in Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife). 

Adverse effects associated with the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Source of geologic formations: Geotechnical Consultants 2003 

Figure 3.6-3 

Decomposed Granite and Asbestos 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-15

 

Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts associated with an increased

potential for soil erosion. 

Construction activities would expose bare ground surface through stripping and 

excavation as well as through the use of staging/processing areas and movement of 

large construction equipment. These activities remove the vegetative root structure 

that stabilizes soil and contributes to the protection of the soil surface from wind and 

soil erosion. The newly exposed surface is exposed to storm water runoff during the 

rainy season and remains vulnerable until new vegetation has the opportunity to 

become established. 

Impacts from soil erosion would be significant. Mitigation Measure GR-2 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

The potential impacts associated with seismic activity, landslides, and asbestos 

disturbance would be the same as for Alternative 1. The potential for loss of minerals 

and topsoil through excavation and soil erosion would be greater than Alternative 1. 

This is because more material would be excavated for shell placement. Table 3.6-1 

provides estimated quantities of material that would be excavated and placed for 

each alternative. All impacts would be less than significant with the exception of 

impacts from soil erosion and asbestos disturbance. Mitigation Measures GR-1 and 

GR-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

The potential impacts associated with seismic activity, landslides, asbestos 

disturbance, and loss of minerals and topsoil through excavation and soil erosion 

would be similar to Alternative 1. Less material would be excavated for fill (Table 

3.6-1) as parapet walls would potentially be constructed. All impacts would be less 

than significant with the exception of soil erosion and asbestos disturbance. 

Mitigation Measures GR-1 and GR-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

The potential impacts associated with seismic activity, landslides, asbestos 

disturbance, and loss of minerals and topsoil through excavation and soil erosion 

would be greater than Alternatives 1 and 3. This is because additional material would 

be excavated to raise all earthen structures. Table 3.6-1 provides estimated quantities 

of material that would be excavated and placed for this alternative. All impacts 

would be less than significant with the exception of soil erosion and asbestos 

disturbance. Mitigation Measures GR-1 and GR-2 would reduce impacts to a less 

than significant level. 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

The potential impacts associated with seismic activity, landslides, asbestos 

disturbance, and loss of minerals and topsoil through excavation and soil erosion 

would be greater than Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This is because no Auxiliary Spillway 

would be constructed and all shell material would be excavated from within the 

reservoir and at the D1/D2 location. All potential borrow sites would be developed 

under Alternative 5. Table 3.6-1 provides estimated quantities of material that would 

be excavated and placed for this alternative. All impacts would be less than 

significant with the exception of soil erosion and asbestos disturbance. Mitigation 

Measures GR-1 and GR-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

3.6.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

None of the impacts associated with each alternative would be significant with the 

exception for the potential for asbestos disturbance and soil erosion. Asbestos 

disturbance and soil erosion impacts would be mitigated through Mitigation 

Measures GR-1 and GR-2, respectively. 

Table 3.6-1 shows the estimated amount material that would be excavated and placed 

for each alternative. With exception to the No Action/No Project Alternative, 

Alternative 3 requires the least amount of material handling and processing. 

Consequently, Alternative 3 has the least potential for adverse effects associated with 

asbestos disturbance, loss of topsoil, and erosion. In contrast, Alternative 2 involves 

the greatest amount of material handling as a result of tunnel construction and it 

would result in the largest potential for adverse effects. The amount of material and 

associated impacts for the remaining alternatives in increasing order are Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5. 

3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures GR-1 and GR-2 would reduce asbestos, soil, 

and geological resource impacts to a less than significant level. 

GR-1: In order to obtain air quality permits from both Sacramento and El Dorado 

Counties, a geologic site characterization report (signed by a California Registered 

Geologist) and a county approved Dust Mitigation Plan must be prepared. The 

geologic site characterization report will be useful for mitigation purposes by 

identifying areas of naturally-occurring asbestos. The Dust Mitigation Plan will 

specify the activities and Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to minimize 

airborne naturally-occurring asbestos. These activities and BMPs are specified in the 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure regulation as well as the more restrictive county 

requirements. These include, but are not limited to, the following: 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.6-17

• Pre-wet work area and keep area sufficiently wet during construction operations. 

An approved palliative material may also be used to seal loose fibers to the 

parent material; 

• Limit vehicle access and speed on serpentine and other materials containing 

asbestos; 

• Cover areas that are exposed to vehicle travel; 

• Material transfers and stockpiles of loose material must be covered, kept 

adequately wet, or sealed by an approved palliative; and 

• Worker safety precautions and monitoring should be considered. Written 

employee notifications should be provided, notifying employees of the potential 

health risk and requirements of the asbestos dust mitigation plan (El Dorado 

County 2003). 

GR-2: Prior to construction activity, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the Central 

Valley RWQCB to indicate the intent to comply with the General Permit. The 

General Permit establishes conditions to minimize sediment and pollutant loading 

and requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP prior to construction (see 

Section 3.1 for more details). The purpose of this Plan is to prevent the movement of 

construction pollutants (in contact with storm water) into receiving water. This is 

accomplished through the selection of BMPs which are measures that are applied to 

control erosion and sediment transport. The SWPPP lists the BMPs that will be used 

and identifies the placement of the BMPs (State Water Resources Control Board 

2006). BMPs will be used during the construction period to stabilize the soil in 

affected areas (e.g., Auxiliary Spillway and borrow and fill sites) until vegetation 

will be reestablished as well as reduce the intensity of stormwater runoff and 

intercept sediment prior to offsite transport. BMPs may include the installation of 

hay bales, sediment traps, fiber rolls, sediment fences, and rock check dams. Proper 

installation, monitoring and maintenance of BMPs will be implemented and 

enforced. Additional details are provided in Section 3.1. 

3.6.5 Cumulative Effects 

Construction activities associated with the Folsom DS/FDR action in combination 

with construction of the projects identified in Table 5-1 would not have any nonmitigable significant cumulative effects on soil, mineral, or geological resources. 

Combined construction activities would not result in cumulative adverse effects 

associated with seismic activity. Projects that are within close proximity to the study 

area include the New Folsom Bridge. Blasting could potentially be required for the 

New Folsom Bridge. However, blasting would be of sufficient distance from the 

Bear Mountains Fault system and would not trigger seismic activity. Seismic activity 
Section 3.6 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

 

3.6-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

is also unlikely given that the Bear Mountains Fault system is not designated as an 

active fault and that the risk of seismic shaking is relatively low. Cumulative adverse 

effects associated with seismic activity would be less than significant. 

Combined construction activities would not result in cumulative adverse effects 

associated with landslides. Although the construction of the New Folsom Bridge and 

the Folsom DS/FDR actions would involve a substantial amount of soil and material 

displacement, the potential for landslides within the study area is low and 

construction techniques would be implemented to minimize the potential for 

landslides. Cumulative adverse effects associated with landslides would be less than 

significant. 

Combined construction activities would result in adverse effects associated with the 

loss of minerals or topsoil which would be extracted and used for construction. 

Although the construction of the New Folsom Bridge and the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions would involve a substantial amount of soil and material displacement, 

impacts associated with this loss would be less than significant. Any minerals that 

would be excavated would not be used for commercial purposes and therefore would 

not be considered an economic loss. Similarly, excavated topsoil is not of a high 

ecological or agricultural value. Cumulative adverse effects associated with soil 

losses would be less than significant. 

Combined construction activities would result in significant impacts associated with 

an increase potential for soil erosion. Construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action and the New Folsom Bridge would expose bare ground surface through 

stripping and excavation as well as through the use of staging/processing areas and 

movement of large construction equipment. This would substantially increase 

erosion potential. However, both actions would be mitigated through the 

implementation of BMPs set forth in the SWPPP. These BMPs would reduce erosion 

and intercept sediment present in stormwater runoff. The SWPPP and 

implementation of the BMPs would effectively mitigate impacts associated with soil 

erosion. Cumulative adverse effects associated with soil erosion would be 

significant. The development and implementation of an SWPPP for each action 

would effectively mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-1 

3.7 Visual Resources 

Both natural and artificial landscape features contribute to perceived visual images 

and the aesthetic value of a view. The value is determined by contrasts, forms and 

textures exhibited by geology, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, and man-made 

features. Individuals respond differently to changes in the physical environment, 

depending on prior experiences and expectations and proximity and duration of 

views. Therefore, visual effects analyses tend to be highly subjective in nature. 

This section describes the existing conditions with respect to the visual resources in 

the Folsom DS/FDR area. The existing conditions describe the visual character of the 

area and identify potentially sensitive visual resources. This section also identifies 

the potential environmental impacts on visual resources that could result from each 

of the proposed alternatives. 

3.7.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.7.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The study area of visual resources for this EIS/EIR includes Folsom Reservoir and 

lands adjacent to it in the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA) and the 

surrounding area that are in visible range of the areas of activity for each alternative 

(e.g., Folsom Dam, potential dike construction zones, potential borrow areas, 

potential contractor use areas, and processing and concrete mixing areas). These 

areas consist of Folsom Reservoir itself (including marinas and boat launching 

facilities), other public facilities (including campgrounds, day use facilities, roads, 

numerous hiking trails along Folsom Reservoir), and private properties (including 

residential housing along Folsom Reservoir and the surrounding hillsides). 

3.7.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Reclamation and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) do not 

have regulations or specific guidance on how to evaluate impacts to visual resources. 

As a result, this analysis uses the Scenery Management System (SMS) developed by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service as a guide to assess 

visual impacts. 

3.7.1.3 Environmental Setting 

FLSRA represents an important visual and scenic resource within the region. 

Although the manmade reservoirs were created for flood control, water supply and 

power generation, the resulting waterfront setting affords visitors with dramatic 

panoramas of the water and the surrounding natural landscape. The growing urban 

development around the reservoir also affords visitors with views of less scenic 

urban elements such as the dam, electric transmission facilities, industrial areas, and 

residential subdivisions and roadways. Together, the length and configuration of the 

FLSRA’s shoreline, coupled with the hilly topography, provide substantial variety in 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

both viewpoint orientation and available viewsheds and create a wealth of viewing 

conditions and opportunities. These resources include a combination of panoramic 

views in which the reservoir forms the dominant foreground element and the 

surrounding Sierra Foothills landscape forms the background, as well as distinctive 

landscape and built features. 

Numerous visual resources, such as panoramic views, vista points, landscape 

features, and built features contribute to an existing positive visual experience for 

FLSRA users. There are also, however, a number of visual features or characteristics 

in the FLSRA and vicinity that detract from the quality of the views and scenic 

character. Some of these features are within the FLSRA (e.g., parking lots, utility 

corridors) while others are outside the FLSRA boundaries. In addition, visual 

resources include public views of the FLSRA from external viewpoints, including 

from private properties and local roadways. There are no historic buildings or scenic 

highways in the area of analysis; however there are cultural resources. These are 

described in Section 3.11, Cultural Resources. 

The remaining portions of this Environmental Setting section describe these visual 

resources. Much of the content of these descriptions was taken from the FLSRA 

Resource Inventory (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). Visual resources are 

described in the context of the scenery management system, which is used by the 

USDA Forest Service to evaluate impacts to visual resources. Scenic attractiveness 

classifications are a key component of the SMS and are used to classify visual 

features into the following categories (USDA Forest Service 1995):

• Class A “distinctive.” Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water 

characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide unusual, unique, or 

outstanding scenic quality. These landscapes have strong positive attributes of 

variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, 

pattern, and balance. 

• Class B “typical.” Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water 

characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide ordinary or common 

scenic quality. These landscapes generally have positive, yet common, attributes 

of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, 

pattern, and balance. 

• Class C “indistinctive.” Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water 

characteristics, and cultural features have low scenic quality. Often water and 

rock form of any consequence are missing in Class C landscapes. These 

landscapes have weak or missing attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, 

intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-3 

Class A and B visual resources typically include state or federal park, recreation, or 

wilderness areas, including rivers and reservoirs. Class C resources generally include 

areas that have low scenic quality and contain more common landscapes. 

In addition, the SMS uses three primary distance zones as part of the assessment of 

visibility (USDA Forest Service 1995). These distance zones, described below, are 

foreground, middleground, and background. 

• Foreground (0 to 0.5 mile): At a foreground distance, people can distinguish 

small boughs of leaf clusters, tree trunks and large branches, individual shrubs, 

clumps of wildflowers, medium-sized animals, and medium-to-large birds. 

• Middleground (0.5 to 4 miles): At a middleground distance, people can 

distinguish individual tree forms, large boulders, flower fields, small openings in 

the forest or tree line, and small rock outcrops. Form, texture, and color remain 

dominant, and pattern is important. 

• Background (4 miles to horizon): At a background distance, people can 

distinguish groves or stands of trees, large openings in the forest, and large rock 

outcrops. Texture has disappeared and color has flattened, but large patterns of 

vegetation or rocks are still distinguishable, and landform ridgelines and horizon 

lines are the dominant visual characteristics. 

Panoramic Views 

The FLSRA’s most notable visual resources are dramatic and high quality panoramic 

views. These panoramas include views across the reservoir, views from the reservoir, 

and views out over the surrounding nonpark landscape. East-facing views from the 

western shores of Folsom Reservoir include the sweep of the reservoir surface 

(Figure 3.7-1) in the foreground with the regionally characteristic landscape of 

rolling hills, open grasslands, and scattered oak and gray pine woodlands on the 

peninsula. Views north from Folsom Dam provide a sweeping view of Folsom 

Reservoir framed by foothills. Each of these panoramas includes a unique 

combination of water, sky, and natural and built features. 

Vista Points 

Because of the varied topography and sheer length of shoreline within the FLSRA, 

there are innumerable points from which to enjoy the area’s visual resources. 

However, limitations on vehicle access around the reservoirs prevents visitation to 

some vista points and increases visitation at accessible sites. Lake Overlook—the 

highest point within the park—is one of the best-known vista points. From Lake 

Overlook, one is presented with sweeping views of Lake Natoma, the Sierra 

Foothills, Nimbus Flat, Nimbus Dam, Nimbus Shoals, and urban development in the 

valley below. Observation Point by Folsom Dam provides sweeping views of 
¡

¡¡¡

¡

¡

¡

¡

Placer County

Sacramento Count

El Dorado County

y

V4

V2

V1

V3

V5

V7

V6

Penryn Rd

Cam bri dge Rd

Folsom

Auburn Rd

Laird Rd Blue Ravine Rd

Da m Rd

Dick Cook Rd

Folsom Dam Rd

Parkdale Ln

Natoma St

Wells Ave

Eureka Rd

Coloma Rd

Horseshoe Bar Rd

Sibley

St

Silva Valley Pky

Deer

Valley Rd

E Dorado Hil sl B vl d

Bass Lake Rd

d R edr eVl aV

Green Valley Rd

E Natoma St

Countr y

Club Dr

Aub urn Folsom

Rd

King Rd

E Bidwell St

Sweetwater Creek

Willow Creek

£¤50

§ ̈¦80

Folsom

State

Prison

Loomis

Folsom

ElDorado

Hills

19

2

3

12

18

9

13

5

4

6

17

16

14 15

11

7

10

8

1

8 6

5

4

3 2 1

7

Folsom

Reservoir

Z 1:80,000

0 3,300 6,600

Feet

Old Inter Contour

Old Index Contour

County Line

¡ Photo Location / Direction

V4 - Folsom Dam

V5 - Observation Point

V6 - Folsom Point

V7 - Browns Ravine

V1 - Granite Bay

V2 - Beals Point North

V3 - Beals Point South

Visual Impact Areas V1 - V7

16 - Salmon Falls

19 - Peninsula Campground

18 - Peninsula

17 - Skunk Hollow

8 - Beals Point Campground

3 - Granite Bay Beach

5 - Granite Bay Boat Ramp and Parking

10 - Observation Point

15 - Sweetwater Creek

11 - Folsom Point

7 - Beals Point

4 - Granite Bay

1 - Rattlesnake Bar

6 - Mooney Ridge

9 - Folsom Dam

14 - Old Salmon Falls

13 - Folsom Reservoir Marina

12 - Browns Ravine

2 - Dotons Point

# FLSRA Facilities / Use Areas

Figure 3.7-1

Potential Areas of

Visual Impact

Source: ENTRIX
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-5 

Folsom Reservoir, the dikes, and the rugged oak-studded hills of the peninsula. In 

addition to these vista points, other frequently visited viewing areas that provide 

sweeping vistas of the FLSRA are near public facilities along the reservoir shoreline, 

such as the Folsom Reservoir Marina, Folsom Point, Beal's Point, Granite Bay, 

Doton’s Point, etc. (Figure 3.7-1). 

Other vista points are accessible only by trail and receive much lower visitation due 

to their more limited access and remote location. For example, a vista point exists at 

the tip of the peninsula on the eastern shore of Folsom Reservoir. This vista point is 

visited primarily by mountain bikers and hikers on the Danington Trail. From this 

vantage point, views extend from the rugged eastern shore of the North Fork of the 

American River, south toward Folsom Dam, and west toward the beaches at Granite 

Bay. 

Landscape Features 

The rugged peninsula separating the North and South Forks of the American River at 

Folsom Reservoir is visible from many parts of the park and contributes to a sense of 

wild undeveloped countryside due to the limited development. Flagstaff Hill (at over 

1,400 feet) and Shirttail Peak (at over 1,300 feet) mark the highest points of the 

prominent ridgeline that forms the peninsula. Nearby Iron Mountain, where New 

York Creek meets the South Fork of the American River, also stands out on the 

eastern shore of Folsom Reservoir rising almost 300 feet above the water. Along the 

western shore of Folsom Reservoir where it meets the North Fork of the American 

River, a substantial ridgeline rises above the water between North Granite and 

Horseshoe Bar. Steep gorges further upstream on both the North and South Forks of 

the American River (as they extend toward the Sierra Foothills) are even more 

impressive. 

Distinctive Built Features 

The aesthetic value of built features in the natural landscape is subject to different 

interpretations. Whereas such features are often distinctive because of their contrast 

with their setting, determining whether their aesthetic contribution is positive or 

negative can be quite subjective. For example, the damming of the American River 

at Folsom has resulted in a number of distinctive built features within the FLSRA. 

The major feature is Folsom Dam, a concrete structure more than 1,400 feet long and 

340 feet high (Reclamation 2006). Associated structures include earthen dikes that 

emerge from Folsom Dam and form the eastern and western shores at the south end 

of Folsom Reservoir. While certainly visually distinctive, the effect of these features 

on the visual character of the FLSRA is mixed. The large engineering projects 

detract from the “natural” character of the setting, and the natural character of the 

FLSRA is one of its scenic strengths. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Built Features within the FLSRA 

In several locations throughout the FLSRA, built features or human intervention 

detract from the overall visual quality and ultimately the visitor experience. These 

features include the dams, parking lots, utility corridors, and temporary structures 

associated with park activities. A complete description of parking lots, utility 

corridors, and temporary structures associated with park activities has been included 

in the FLSRA Resource Inventory (Wallace, Roberts and Todd et al. 2003). 

Exposed Shoreline of Folsom Reservoir 

Seasonal fluctuation in water levels results in considerable impacts on the visual 

quality of Folsom Reservoir. The highest elevations occur in late winter or early 

spring when storm and snowmelt runoff fill the reservoir; the lowest in late fall or 

early winter following the dry season. As a result, the elevations drop 

continuously—up to about 70 feet in normal years—from the start of the peak 

recreation season around Memorial Day through the season’s end at Labor Day. 

Unlike bodies of water under tidal influence or natural riparian corridors as found 

upstream in the South and North Forks of the American River, Folsom Reservoir 

does not have the advantage of habitats that can adapt to such large changes in 

environmental condition. This leaves much of the exposed shoreline devoid of 

vegetation. The relatively gradual slope to the reservoir bottom results in a greater 

area of exposed shoreline with lower water levels, resulting in the “bathtub ring” 

effect common to California reservoirs. As the water level elevation and water 

surface area within Folsom Reservoir shrink over the course of the recreation season, 

so does the quality of the views along its 75 miles of shoreline. This condition is 

further exacerbated by visitors who drive their vehicles out onto the exposed slopes, 

causing rutting and erosion of the exposed areas. In some years, this condition is 

minimized by a striking display of wildflowers along shorelines with a particular 

aspect, including along the eastern shoreline between New York Creek and Old 

Salmon Falls. 

External Views 

Public views of the FLSRA from external viewpoints are limited due to the 

topography of the area, the heavy vegetation within the FLSRA boundaries, and the 

nature of land ownership around the FLSRA. Views from private property, 

particularly of Folsom Reservoir, are impressive as reflected by the high-end 

residential estate development occurring around the reservoir. In El Dorado County, 

this style of development commands the hills along the majority of the eastern 

boundary of Folsom Reservoir to Salmon Falls. As this development extends from 

Salmon Falls Road north of Green Valley Road, property size increases dramatically 

as Folsom Reservoir views become a major selling factor. Along the western 

boundary of Folsom Reservoir in Placer County, most of the choice properties with 

reservoir views have been developed (e.g., the housing development along Mooney 

Ridge). In addition, several exclusive gated subdivisions currently exist on the ridge 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-7 

above the reservoir. As a result, few clear public access points exist from which to 

view Folsom Reservoir. 

Views from Key Observation Points 

Key observation points were identified based on the methods described in the 

Assessment Methods section below. These key observation points were selected if 

features of one or more alternatives were within a line of site and if they represented 

foreground or middleground views (i.e., within 4 miles of the key observation point). 

Identified Key Observation Points include Folsom Reservoir (on-reservoir 

viewpoint), Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina, Beal's Point, Granite Bay, 

Peninsula Campground, various Folsom Reservoir trails, and a few private 

residential neighborhoods. These key observation points and associated alternative 

views, which are listed on Table 3.7-1 and shown on Figure 3.7-1, are described 

below. 

Folsom Reservoir 

Folsom Reservoir is used throughout the year for various boating activities. 

Although most recreational boats are launched from the various boat launch facilities 

including Folsom Reservoir Marina (at Browns Ravine) and Granite Bay Marina, 

views for boaters are not limited to these areas. With the exceptions of views of the 

marina and other man-made features, these on-reservoir views are Class A and B 

visual resources (as discussed in the next section). Also, boaters have access to areas 

in close proximity to all construction activities occurring along the reservoir’s 

shoreline. As a result, all construction activity areas may represent foreground views 

depending on the location of the boat at any one time. 

Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina 

Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina consist of a marina with both boat docks 

and upland boat storage areas, and a picnic area on the adjacent point to the west of 

the marina. Most views from the marina toward the reservoir are obstructed by the 

presence of boats and/or docks, which are aligned along the relatively narrow ravine. 

The best views are available from the picnic area west of the marina. These views 

are Class A or B visual resources. With the exception of the potential borrow area 

and processing facility at Browns Ravine (V7), all construction activity areas are 

either not in the line of sight or are at least 3.5 miles away. With the exception of the 

immediately adjacent shoreline, views out over the reservoir capture largely 

background views, where ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant visual 

characteristic. Stands of trees and open grass fields are distinguishable, but specific 

features (e.g., individual building structures) are barely noticeable. Along the 

immediate shoreline area, foreground views of tree stands and grass fields are 

present, with natural features readily distinguishable. The closest portion of the 

Browns Ravine (V7) activity area is within 0.25 mile of the marina picnic area 

(Figure 3.7-1); this area is shown on Figure 3.7-2. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 3.7-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EI
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-9 

Beal’s Point 

Beal’s Point consists primarily of picnic grounds, beach/swimming areas and 

associated facilities. Along the perimeter of Beal’s Point, there are unobstructed 

views of most areas of Folsom Reservoir. These views are Class A or B visual 

resources. With the exception of the immediately adjacent shoreline to the northeast, 

views out over the reservoir capture largely background views, where ridgelines and 

horizon lines are the dominant visual characteristic. Stands of trees and open grass 

fields are distinguishable, but specific features (e.g., individual building structures) 

are barely noticeable. Along the immediate shoreline area, foreground views of tree 

stands and grass fields are present, with natural features, dikes and houses readily 

distinguishable. Beal’s Point is within the Beal’s Point South (V3) construction 

activity area (foreground), which includes a potential borrow area and a processing 

facility. In addition, Beal’s Point North (V2), Folsom Dam (V4), Observation Point 

(V5), and Folsom Point (V6) construction activity areas are within the middleground 

of Beal’s Point (Figure 3.7-1). Figure 3.7-3 views the dikes between Beal’s Point and 

Folsom Dam, and is the location of a proposed processing facility in the foreground. 

Figure 3.7-4 views Folsom Dam (V4) where proposed dam raising activities would 

occur. Figure 3.7-5 views the shoreline between Folsom Dam and Browns Ravine, 

which include proposed borrow areas and concrete and process facilities associated 

with middleground views of Observation Point (V5) and Folsom Point (V6). Figure 

3.7-6 views the potential borrow areas and processing facility of Beal’s Point South 

Figure 3.7-2 

View of Browns Ravine from Folsom Reservoir Marina 

(Photo Location 1 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

(V3) (foreground) and Beal’s Point North (V4) (middleground), including the 

Mooney Ridge residential development on the ridge overlooking Folsom Reservoir. 

Figure 3.7-4 

View from Beal’s Point South toward Folsom Dam 

(Photo Location 3 in Figure 3.7-1) 

Figure 3.7-3 

View from Beal’s Point at Right Wing Dam 

(Photo Location 2 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-11 

Figure 3.7-6 

View from Beal’s Point North toward Mooney Ridge 

(Photo Location 5 in Figure 3.7-1) 

Figure 3.7-5 

View from Beal’s Point toward Folsom Point 

(Photo Location 4 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Granite Bay 

Granite Bay consists of a marina with launching ramps, picnic grounds, 

beach/swimming areas and associated facilities. Reservoir views are generally 

toward Doton’s Point, the Peninsula, and Browns Ravine on the eastern side of the 

reservoir. These views are Class A or B visual resources. With the exception of the 

immediately adjacent shoreline to the south and to Doton’s Point to the northeast, 

views out over the reservoir capture largely background views, where ridgelines and 

horizon lines are the dominant visual characteristic. Stands of trees and open grass 

fields are distinguishable, but specific features (e.g., individual building structures) 

are barely noticeable. Along the immediate shoreline area, foreground views of tree 

stands and grass fields are present, with natural features readily distinguishable. The 

potential borrow area and processing facilities at Granite Bay (V1) and a small 

portion of the borrow area at Beal's Point North (V2) are within the foreground view 

of Granite Bay facilities. All other construction activity areas are either not in sight 

or are at least 3.5 miles away. Figure 3.7-7 shows a view from Granite Bay beach of 

the potential borrow area and processing facilities to the northeast. 

Figure 3.7-7 

View from Granite Bay to northeast 

(Photo Location 6 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-13 

Peninsula Campground 

Peninsula Campground, which is present along the shoreline of the west side of the 

Peninsula, has unobstructed views of the west side of Folsom Reservoir. These views 

are Class A or B visual resources. With the exception of the immediately adjacent 

Peninsula shoreline, views out over the reservoir capture largely background views, 

where ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant visual characteristic. Stands of 

trees and open grass fields are distinguishable, but specific features (e.g., individual 

building structures) are barely noticeable. Along the immediate shoreline area, 

foreground views of tree stands and grass fields are present, with natural features 

readily distinguishable. Only views of potential borrow areas and processing 

facilities at Granite Bay (V1) and Beal's Point North (V2) are present within the 

middleground, while no potential construction activity areas are within the 

foreground views. Figure 3.7-8 shows a view from the Peninsula campground toward 

the potential borrow area and processing facilities at Granite Bay (V1). 

Figure 3.7-8 

View from Peninsula Campground West Toward Granite Bay 

(Photo Location 7 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Folsom Reservoir Trails 

Folsom Reservoir trails offer a variety of views of the reservoir and its shorelines 

from different vantage points, several of which are key observation points. These 

trails include Pioneer Express Trail, Doton’s Point ADA Trail, Granite Bay Multiuse Trails, Folsom Point/Browns Ravine Trail, and Peninsula ADA Trail. Selected 

views along each of these trails represent Class A or B visual resources. With the 

exception of the immediately adjacent shoreline, views out over the reservoir capture 

largely background views, where ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant 

visual characteristic. Stands of trees and open grass fields are distinguishable, but 

specific features (e.g., individual building structures) are barely noticeable. Along 

the immediate shoreline area, foreground views of tree stands and grass fields are 

present, with natural features, dikes and houses readily distinguishable. With the 

exception of the Peninsula ADA trail, each of these trails appears to have foreground 

views of one or more potential borrow areas (including associated processing 

facilities). Figure 3.7-9 shows a view from Doton’s Point toward the potential 

borrow area and processing facilities at Granite Bay (V1). 

Figure 3.7-9 

View to the West from Doton’s Point Toward Granite Bay 

(Photo Location 8 in Figure 3.7-1) 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-15 

Residential Properties 

Some private residential developments are along the shoreline of Folsom Reservoir 

with varying scenic views. Residential homes with direct unobstructed views of the 

reservoir have Class A or B visual resources. With the exception of the immediately 

adjacent shorelines, views out over the reservoir largely capture background views, 

where ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant visual characteristic. Stands of 

trees and open grass fields are distinguishable, but specific features (e.g., individual 

building structures) are barely noticeable. Along the immediate shoreline area, 

foreground views of tree stands and grass fields are present, with natural features, 

dikes and houses readily distinguishable. With a few exceptions, views of 

construction activity areas represent middleground to background views. Notable 

exceptions include selected homes along Mooney Ridge, which have foreground and 

middleground views of Beal's Point North (V2) and Beal's Point South (V3). 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.7.2.1 Assessment Methods 

In this analysis, the assessment methods are guided by the SMS developed by the 

USDA Forest Service in 1995 and outlined in Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for 

Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. The SMS is an evolved 

and updated version of the Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service 

1995). The SMS allows for improved integration of aesthetics with other biological, 

physical, and social/cultural resources in the planning process. This assessment 

describes the effects of each alternative on known sensitive visual resources and 

landscapes in the area of analysis. The analysis discusses the effects of each 

alternative, including excavation from potential borrow areas, operation of 

processing and concrete facilities, use of construction and contractor-use areas, 

transportation of materials, and raising the Folsom structures. 

The implementation of any action alternative addressed within this EIS/EIR is 

limited solely to the construction activities associated with the various improvements 

proposed therewith. Such construction activities anticipated for any of the action 

alternatives would only affect the water level of Folsom Reservoir temporarily 

during rare, large flood events, and would not permanently increase the “bathtub 

ring” effect along the reservoir’s shoreline. As explained in Chapter 1, any 

subsequent changes in the operation of the Folsom Facility, which could alter water 

levels in the Reservoir, would not be decided until after the approval of the selected 

proposed improvements. The environmental effects of such reoperation, including 

those associated with any potential change in water levels, would be addressed in a 

supplemental environmental document. Effects addressed below were evaluated 

based on the significance criteria described in the following section. The SMS-based 

assessment methods were applied to the alternatives used the following steps: 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Identify visually sensitive areas. Sensitivity is rated highest for views seen by 

people driving to or from recreational activities, or along routes designated as 

scenic corridors. Views from relatively moderate to high-use recreation areas 

were also rated sensitive. 

• Define the landscape character. Landscape character gives a geographic area its 

visual and cultural image and consists of the combination of physical, biological, 

and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. 

Landscape character embodies distinct landscape attributes that exist throughout 

an area. A description of landscape character as it applies to Key Observation 

Points is provided in Section 3.7.1, Affected Environment/Existing Conditions, 

for each of the visually sensitive areas identified. 

• Identify visually sensitive observation points. Potential impacts to visual 

resources from the implementation of any one alternative could include the 

presence of construction equipment and processing and concrete facilities. This 

step identifies visually sensitive observation points within FLSRA and from 

external areas (private properties and roadways). This step compares these views 

to potential visual impact areas (V1 through V9) associated to one or more 

alternative. If direct views of any potential visual impact area from any of these 

observation points were present, then distances to each applicable potential visual 

impact area (i.e., to midpoint of defined area) was measured. In addition to these 

visual impact areas, earthwork would occur along dikes (i.e., dikes) along the 

southern shoreline areas for all alternatives. However, because these areas are in 

close proximity to these identified visual impact areas, they were not evaluated 

separately for the purposes of this assessment. Table 3.7.1 includes results from 

this step. 

• Identify visually affected key observation points. Based on the location and 

distance of potential visual impact areas from these visually sensitive observation 

points, only a portion of the observation points may be significantly affected. 

This analysis further evaluated observation points to determine if visual impact 

areas were (1) in the direct line of site and (2) within the foreground (0 to 0.5 

mile) and middleground (0.5 to 4 mile) views. This “screening’ method was 

selected because (1) alternative construction features are generally small (e.g., 

construction equipment less than 30 feet high), (2) no color contrasts are 

expected as a result of excavation in the borrow areas, and (3) small features 

become indistinct when viewed from distances of three miles or more. Also, 

further limitations were not employed due to earth curvature issues because 

reservoir levels would be low at the time of alternative activities and would not 

likely limit the view of the features. Observation points with visual impact areas 

in the direct line of site or within the foreground and background view are 

referred to as key observation points. These key observation points are described 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-17 

in the subsection titled Views from Key Observation Points above and identified 

in Table 3.7-1. 

• Classify scenic attractiveness. Scenic attractiveness classifications are a key 

component of the SMS and were used to classify visual features into the 

following categories (USDA Forest Service 1995). Classifications include Class 

A “Distinctive”, Class B “Typical”, and Class C “Indistinctive”. These 

classifications are described in 3.7.1.3. 

A total of seven key observation points that had Class A or B scenic attractiveness 

classifications were used to evaluate potential visual impacts. These classifications 

have been applied to these key observation points in Section 3.7.1, subheading 

Views from Key Observation Points. 

3.7.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed alternative would result in potentially 

significant impacts if it would: 

• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista 

• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock 

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway 

• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings. 

In addition to using these significance criteria to assess potential visual impacts, a 

consideration was made regarding the rate of visitation to the FLSRA at the time of 

construction. Because in-reservoir area borrow excavation would generally be 

implemented between October and March when reservoir levels are low, visual 

impacts from this construction activity would only affect visitors or residents during 

this time period. 

3.7.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, there would not be any dam raise or 

improvements made to the Folsom Facility and no action would be taken by any of 

the agencies. The visual setting would remain the same as existing conditions. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not affect visual resources.
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, construction activities, including, Auxiliary Spillway 

excavation, borrow development near Beal’s Point, and operating concrete and 

processing facilities would occur at visual impact areas V3 through V6. As a result, 

impacts have been identified at the following Key Observation Points: Folsom 

Reservoir (on-reservoir viewpoint), Beal’s Point, Folsom Reservoir Trails, and a few 

private residential developments. 

Construction would affect boaters’ views from the reservoir. 

Boaters would have access to portions of the reservoir in close proximity (i.e., 

foreground views) to all visual impact areas and may experience a different view and 

opinion towards the Class A and B visual resources. The primary use of the reservoir 

by boaters is during summer months when the majority of the in-reservoir borrow 

sites would be inundated. During these months, the primary visual impact would be 

construction equipment on tops of the dikes and dams (V-3, V-4, and V-6) and 

construction of the inlet for the Auxiliary Spillway (V-5). Excavation of borrow sites 

during the fall and winter would have less of a visual effect because of less frequent 

visitor usage (about 16 percent of the annual visitor use occurs from October through 

March). Construction would result in a less than significant impact to boaters. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources experienced by boaters from 

multiple viewpoints would be less than significant. 

Construction-related facilities would affect views from Beal’s Point. 

The potential borrow area and associated borrow material processing facilities at 

Beal’s Point (V3) (which also includes Dikes 5 and 6) would be within the 

foreground views from most all vantage points at Beal’s Point. These activities 

would significantly impact Class A and B visual resources. The processing facilities 

would be at the least visible location relative to the beach area, minimizing this 

visual impact. The view of construction at Dike 4 would be within the middleground 

views from the Beal’s Point Beach. 

Although activities at Folsom Dam (V4) (which includes Right and Left Wing 

Dams) and Observation Point (V5) (which includes the Auxiliary Spillway 

construction and borrow development) are within 3 miles of Beal’s Point, impacts to 

these views would not be significant because of the existing alterations in landscape 

represented by the dam and associated dikes, and the fact that these areas are closed 

to the general public. 

The visual impact to views from Beal’s Point would be potentially significant. There 

are no mitigation measures available to reduce these impacts; therefore these 

impacts are significant and unavoidable until completion of construction. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-19 

Construction-related facilities would affect views from Granite Bay. 

Under Alternative 1, there would be no activity at the proposed Granite Bay borrow 

area and associated processing facility (V1), which would be within the foreground 

views from the beach area at Granite Bay. Construction at Dikes 1, 2, and 3 would 

also not be implemented as part of this alternative, though these dikes are generally 

not visible from beach/recreation areas of Granite Bay. Therefore, there would be no 

impact to Class A and B visual resources as viewed from Granite Bay for this 

alternative. 

There would be no construction-related impacts to visual resources experienced 

from Granite Bay under Alternative 1.

Construction-related activities would impact views from Peninsula Campground. 

Peninsula Campground has distant middleground views of visual impact areas at 

Beal’s Point. However, because of the distance and relatively small size of 

construction equipment that would be used in these areas, impacts to Class A and B 

visual resources as viewed from Peninsula Campground would be less than 

significant. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources as experienced from Peninsula 

Campground would be less than significant. 

Folsom Reservoir Trails would be affected by construction activity. 

Three trails would have foreground Class A and B visual resource views that would 

include visual impact areas. Portions of Pioneer Express Trail and Granite Bay 

Multi-use Trails pass in close proximity to Beal’s Point. Visual impacts may be 

experienced by regular trail users at certain locations along these trails. However, 

because of the distance between the view points and the construction areas, the 

impacts would be less than significant for Alternative 1. Detours would be provided 

for all trails that would come in close proximity to haul trucks, staging areas, or other 

equipment for public safety reasons. These detours would help to lessen the visual 

impacts of the construction equipment and disturbed areas. 

Construction-related impacts to views from Folsom Reservoir Trails across the 

reservoir toward construction sites would be less than significant. 

Construction activities would affect views from selected residential developments. 

Several private residential developments contain homes with reservoir views, usually 

consisting of Class A or B visual resources. Some of these homes would have views 

of visual impact areas, including construction equipment and staging and borrow 

areas. Specifically, homes with reservoir views on Mooney Ridge, between Granite 

Bay and Beal’s Point, would have foreground views of the potential borrow area, 

middleground views of the potential borrow processing facilities at Beal’s Point 

South (V3) and Observation Point (V5), and middleground views of the Folsom Dam 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

construction (V4). For these Mooney Ridge homes with reservoir views, the visual 

impacts on foreground views would be significant and unavoidable. Although 

relatively few homes have these reservoir views, these residents would potentially 

view construction activities throughout the day and evening throughout the duration 

of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources at selected residential 

developments are significant and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. 

Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable until completion of 

construction. 

Modifications of the Folsom Facility would permanently alter the visual character of 

the reservoir setting.

Alternative 1 does not involve the raising of any structures and only minimal 

embankment raise, therefore, the current visual character of the Folsom Facility 

would not be changed to any notable degree. Alternative 1 would not have a 

significant permanent effect on visual resources. 

Facility modification-related impacts to visual resources would be less than 

significant.

Implementation of security measures would impede views around the Folsom 

Facility.

Due to the security enhancement project taking place at Folsom Dam, there would be 

an additional impact of lighting and security camera poles being permanently 

installed on the site. While construction is taking place, temporary generators would 

be onsite to maintain power to both the cameras and the lighting until utility lines are 

permanently installed. Construction of the security powerlines would be coordinated 

with construction of the other components of the Folsom DS/FDR action. Visual 

impacts from the generators would be temporary, for two years maximum. After the 

installation, the generators would be removed with power provided by underground 

electrical lines. 

Security-related impacts to visual resources would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, impacts to visual resources at key observation points would 

generally be the same as for Alternative 1. Both alternatives involve the use of the 

same potential borrow areas and associated concrete and processing facilities, and 

construction staging areas. Although Alternative 2 would involve earthen raises of 

Dikes 1, 2, and 3, views from Granite Bay would be not be impacted because 

construction at Dikes 1, 2 and 3 would occur behind the recreation area. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-21 

The impact associated with all view areas, including Granite Bay, would be less than 

significant. 

Construction of parapet walls would affect views from trails established on the tops 

of the wing dams.

The construction of concrete parapet walls would impair middle and background 

views of the Left and Right Wing Dams. The parapet walls would be constructed of 

concrete and would stand out from the existing earthen wing dams. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure VIS-3 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

The construction of parapet walls on tops of Left and Right Wing Dams would 

impair views of hikers. This view impact would be further impaired by placement of 

a safety rail at the top of each wall to prevent walking on top of and falling off of the 

walls. Due to their height limitations, the view impairment would mostly affect 

youth and children. 

This impact would be a potentially significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a 

less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be significant and 

unavoidable. 

Implementation of security measures would impede views around the Folsom 

Facility.

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. 

Modifications of the Folsom Facility would permanently alter the visual character of 

the reservoir setting.

Alternative 2 involves the raising of all structures thereby altering the current visual 

character of the Folsom Facility. The 4-ft earthen raise would not likely be noticed 

following construction because it would simply involve the placement of 4 feet of 

earth material on top of the existing dikes and MIAD. However, parapet walls 

constructed atop the wing dams would result in a significant, unavoidable impact to 

the character of those structures. Alternative 2 would have a permanent, significant 

adverse affect on visual resources. 

Facility modification would have significant, unavoidable adverse impacts to visual 

resources that cannot be mitigated. 

Construction of new embankments could have visual impacts.

Existing embankments would be raised by approximately 4 feet and new 

embankments could be constructed to provide localized flood damage reduction. 

They could impair view of the reservoir from the shoreline, depending on the exact 

viewing location and relative viewing height. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Construction of new embankments would have a potentially significant impact that 

cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be 

significant and unavoidable. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 includes similar modifications as Alternatives 1 and 2 except all 

structures would have a potential 3.5-ft raise via a concrete parapet wall. Impacts to 

visual resources at key observation points would generally be the same as for 

Alternative 2 because the same borrow areas and associated processing facilities 

would be used. 

Construction of parapet walls would affect views.

The construction of concrete parapet walls would impair views of the Folsom 

Facility including Right Wing Dam, Left Wing Dam, MIAD, and Dikes 1 through 

8.The parapet walls would be constructed of concrete and would stand out from the 

existing earthen wing dams, dikes and MIAD. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure VIS-3 would 

reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

The construction of parapet walls would impair views of hikers. This view impact 

would be further impaired by placement of a safety rail at the top of each wall to 

prevent walking on top of and falling off of the walls. Due to their height limitations, 

the view impairment would mostly affect youth and children. 

This impact would be a potentially significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a 

less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be significant and 

unavoidable. 

Modifications of the Folsom Facility would permanently alter the visual character of 

the reservoir setting.

Alternative 3 involves the raising of all structures using parapet walls, thereby 

altering the current visual character of the Folsom Facility. The parapet walls 

constructed atop of all dams and dikes would result in a significant, unavoidable 

impact to the character of those structures. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a 

permanent, significant adverse affect on visual resources. 

Facility modification would have significant, unavoidable adverse impacts to visual 

resources that cannot be mitigated. 

Implementation of security measures would impede views around the Folsom 

Facility.

The impacts from the implementation of the security measures would be the same as 

those described under Alternative 1. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-23 

Construction of new embankments could have visual impacts.

Under this alternative, new embankments may be constructed for flood damage 

reduction of residential properties along the boundary of the reservoir. The exact 

need, location, and size/height of such improvements would be determined in 

conjunction with future more detailed planning, should this alternative be selected. If 

new embankments/walls are constructed, they could impair view of the reservoir 

from the shoreline. 

Construction of new embankments would have a potentially significant impact that 

cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be 

significant and unavoidable. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under Alternative 4, construction activities, including, Main Concrete Dam 

modifications, Auxiliary Spillway excavation, borrow development near Beal’s 

Point, Granite Bay, MIAD Left, MIAD Right, MIAD D1/D2 and operating concrete 

and processing facilities would occur at visual impact areas V-1 through V-7. As a 

result, impacts have been identified at the following Key Observation Points: Folsom 

Reservoir (on-reservoir viewpoint), Beal’s Point, Folsom Reservoir Trails, and 

several private residential developments. 

Construction would affect boaters’ views from the reservoir. 

Boaters would have access to portions of the reservoir in close proximity (i.e., 

foreground views) to all visual impact areas and may experience a different view and 

opinion towards the Class A and B visual resources. The primary use of the reservoir 

by boaters is during summer months when the majority of the in-reservoir borrow 

sites would be inundated. During these months, the primary visual impact would be 

construction equipment on tops of the dikes and dams (V-1 to V-4, and V-6 and V-7) 

and construction of the inlet for the Auxiliary Spillway (V-5). Excavation of borrow 

sites during the fall and winter would have less of a visual effect because of less 

frequent visitor usage (about 16 percent of the annual visitor use occurs from 

October through March). Construction would result in a less than significant impact 

to boaters. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources experienced by boaters from 

multiple viewpoints would be less than significant. 

Construction-related facilities would affect views from Beal’s Point. 

The potential borrow area and associated borrow material and concrete processing 

facilities at Beal’s Point (V3) (which also includes Dikes 5 and 6) would be within 

the foreground views from most all vantage points at Beal’s Point. These actions 

would significantly impact Class A and B visual resources. The processing facilities 

would be the least visible location relative to the beach area, minimizing this visual 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

impact. The view of construction at Dike 4 would be within the middleground views 

from the Beal’s Point Beach. 

Although activities at Folsom Dam (V4) (which includes Right and Left Wing 

Dams) and Observation Point (V5) (which includes the Auxiliary Spillway 

construction and borrow development) are within 3 miles of Beal’s Point, impacts to 

these views would not be significant because of the existing alterations in landscape 

represented by the dam and associated dikes, and the fact that these areas are closed 

to the general public. 

The visual impact to views from Beal’s Point would be significant. No mitigation 

measures are available; therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable 

until completion of construction. 

Construction-related facilities would affect views from Granite Bay. 

Under Alternative 4, there would be activity at Granite Bay borrow area and 

associated processing facilities (V1), which would be within the foreground views 

from the beach area at Granite Bay and could affect Class A and Class B visual 

resources. Construction at Dikes 1, 2, and 3 would occur as part of this alternative, 

but these dikes are generally not visible from beach/recreation areas of Granite Bay. 

The construction-related impacts to views at Granite Bay would be significant. 

The construction-related impacts to visual resources experienced from Granite Bay 

would be significant. Mitigation Measure VIS-2 would reduce visual impacts of the 

borrow areas from the beach. Even with mitigation, it is likely that sections of the 

borrow areas, construction equipment, or processing plants would still be visible. No 

mitigation would reduce these impacts to less than significant; therefore, these 

impacts would be significant and unavoidable until completion of construction.

Construction-related activities would impact views from Peninsula Campground. 

Peninsula Campground has distant middleground views of alternative visual impact 

areas at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay. However, because of the distance and 

relatively small size of construction equipment that would be used in these areas, 

impacts to Class A and B visual resources as viewed from Peninsula Campground 

would be less than significant. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources as experienced from Peninsula 

Campground would be less than significant. 

Construction-related activities would impact views from Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir 

Marina. 

Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina has distant views of alternative visual 

impact areas at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay. Because of the distance and relatively 

small size of construction equipment that would be used in these areas, impacts to 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-25 

visual resources as viewed from Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina would be 

less than significant. The borrow area and processing plant at MIAD Left would be 

within the foreground views from most all vantage points at Browns Ravine/Folsom 

Reservoir Marina. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources as experienced from Browns 

Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina would be significant. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 

would help to reduce visual impacts from the processing plant. However, no 

mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts from the borrow area; 

therefore, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable until completion of 

construction. 

Folsom Reservoir Trails would be affected by construction activity. 

Three trails would have foreground Class A and B visual resource views that would 

include visual impact areas. Portions of Pioneer Express Trail and Granite Bay 

Multi-use Trails pass in close proximity to Beal’s Point and Granite Bay. Visual 

impacts may be experienced by regular trail users at certain locations along these 

trails and also along the trails near Browns Ravine. However, because of the distance 

between the view points and the construction areas, the impacts would be less than 

significant. Detours would be provided for all trails that would come in close 

proximity to haul trucks, staging areas, or other equipment for public safety reasons. 

These detours would help to lessen the visual impacts of the construction equipment 

and disturbed areas. 

Construction-related impacts to views from Folsom Reservoir Trails across the 

reservoir toward construction sites would be less than significant. 

Construction activities would affect views from selected residential developments. 

Several private residential developments contain homes with reservoir views, usually 

consisting of Class A or B visual resources. Some of these homes would have views 

of visual impact areas, including construction equipment and staging and borrow 

areas. Specifically, homes with reservoir views on Mooney Ridge, between Granite 

Bay and Beal’s Point, would have foreground views of the potential borrow area, 

middleground views of the potential borrow area and concrete and processing 

facilities at Beal’s Point South (V3) and Observation Point (V5), and middleground 

views of the Folsom Dam construction (V4). For these Mooney Ridge homes with 

reservoir views, the visual impacts on foreground views would be significant and 

unavoidable. Although relatively few homes have these reservoir views, these 

residents would potentially view construction activities throughout the day and 

evening for the duration of the construction. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources at selected residential 

developments are significant and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable until completion of 

construction. 

Modifications of the Folsom Facility would permanently alter the visual character of 

the reservoir setting.

Alternative 4 would involve the raising of all structures by 7 feet, thereby 

permanently altering the current visual character of the Folsom Facility. The raises of 

all dams and dikes would result in a significant, unavoidable impact to the character 

of those structures. Several homes around the Mooney Ridge and Granite Bay area 

may have significant visual impacts and may be unable to see Folsom Reservoir 

because of the magnitude of the raise. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a 

permanent, significant adverse affect on visual resources. 

Facility modification would have significant, unavoidable adverse impacts to visual 

resources that cannot be mitigated. 

Implementation of security measures would impede views around the Folsom 

Facility.

Impacts from installing security measures would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Construction of new embankments could have visual impacts.

Under this alternative, new embankments may be needed to provide for localized 

flood damage reduction. If new embankments are constructed, they could impair 

views of the reservoir from the shoreline. 

Construction of new embankments would have a potentially significant impact that 

cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be 

significant and unavoidable. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would have the same construction activities as Alternative 4. 

Alternative 5 would include the same impacts to visual resources as Alternative 4 

except there would be a potential 17-foot earth raise to all structures. Impacts to 

visual resources at key observation points would be greater than for Alternative 4 

because of the complete development of all potential borrow areas and processing 

sites throughout the Folsom Facility. Impacts to visual resources associated with 

Alternative 5 would be greater as a result of greater duration of activities at Beal's 

Point and Granite Bay, as well as a longer construction period. Mitigation Measures 

VIS-1 and VIS-2 would apply. 

Construction-related activities would impact views from Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir 

Marina. 

Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina has distant views of alternative visual 

impact areas at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay. Because of the distance and relatively 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-27 

small size of construction equipment that would be used in these areas, impacts to 

visual resources as viewed from Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina would be 

less than significant. The borrow area and processing plant at MIAD Left would be 

within the foreground views from most all vantage points at Browns Ravine/Folsom 

Reservoir Marina. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources as experienced from Browns 

Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina would be significant. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 

would help to reduce visual impacts from the processing plant. However, no 

mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts from the borrow area; 

therefore, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable until completion of 

construction. 

Modifications of the Folsom Facility would permanently alter the visual character of 

the reservoir setting.

Alternative 5 would involve the raising of all structures by 17 feet, thereby 

permanently altering the current visual character of the Folsom Facility. The raises of 

all dams and dikes would result in a significant, unavoidable impact to the character 

of those structures. Several homes around the Mooney Ridge and Granite Bay area 

may have significant visual impacts and may be unable to see Folsom Reservoir 

because of the magnitude of the raise. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a 

permanent, significant adverse affect on visual resources. 

Facility modification under Alternative 5 would have significant, unavoidable 

adverse impacts to visual resources. 

Implementation of security measures would impede views around the Folsom 

Facility.

Impacts from installing security measures would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Construction of new embankments could have visual impacts.

Under this alternative, new embankments may be needed to provide for localized 

flood damage reduction. If new embankments are constructed, they could impair 

views of the reservoir from the shoreline. 

Construction of new embankments would have a potentially significant impact that 

cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be 

significant and unavoidable. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.7.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

Table 3.7-2 summarizes effects of the five action alternatives on visual resources. 

This analysis was based on the intended use of all potential borrow areas and 

associated concrete and processing facilities among five alternatives. Based on the 

common locations planned for the borrow areas and associated processing facilities, 

impacts of these facilities would be similar for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and greater 

for Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Table 3.7-2 

Comparison of Alternative Effects on Visual Resources

Visual Impact Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

 ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

experienced by 

boaters from 

multiple viewpoints 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V2 through V6 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V2 through V6 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V2 through V6 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas V1 

through V7 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V7 

Less than 

significant 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

Browns 

Ravine/Folsom 

Reservoir Marina. 

No Impact No Impact No Impact Foreground 

views of visual 

Impact area at 

Browns Ravine 

(V7) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

views of visual 

Impact area at 

Browns Ravine 

(V7) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

Beal’s Point. 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Beal’s Point 

South (V3) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Beal’s Point 

South (V3) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Beal’s Point 

South (V3) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Beal’s Point 

South (V2) and 

North (V3) 

Significant and 

unavoidable, 

second highest 

impact 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Beal's Point 

South (V2) and 

North (V3) 

Significant and 

unavoidable, 

highest impact 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

Granite Bay. 

No Impact No Impact No Impact Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Granite Bay (V1) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

after mitigation, 

second highest 

impact 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact area at 

Granite Bay 

(V1) 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

after mitigation, 

highest impact 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

Peninsula 

Campground. 

Middleground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V2 and V3 

Less than 

significant 

Middleground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V2 and V3 

Less than 

significant 

Middleground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V3 

Less than 

significant 

Middleground 

views of visual 

impact areas V1 

through V3 

Less than 

significant 

Middleground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V3 

Less than 

significant, 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.7-29 

Table 3.7-2 

Comparison of Alternative Effects on Visual Resources (continued)

Visual Impact Visual Impact Visual Impact Visual Impact Visual Impact Visual Impact 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

along Folsom 

Reservoir Trails. 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V7 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V7 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 through V7 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas V1 

through V7 

Less than 

significant 

Foreground 

views of visual 

impact areas 

V1 and V2 

Less than 

significant, 

ConstructionRelated Impacts to 

Visual Resources 

as viewed from 

Selected 

Residential 

Developments. 

Foreground and 

middleground 

views of various 

visual impact 

areas 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

and 

middleground 

views of 

various visual 

impact areas 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground 

and 

middleground 

views of 

various visual 

impact areas 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Foreground and 

middleground 

views of various 

visual impact 

areas 

Significant and 

unavoidable, 

second highest 

impact 

Foreground 

and 

middleground 

views of 

various visual 

impact areas 

Significant and 

unavoidable, 

highest impact 

Permanent Facility 

Impacts Following 

Construction 

No Impact; 

facility changes 

would be for the 

most part be 

unnoticed 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

impact as a 

result of 

parapet wall 

raises 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

impact as a 

result of 

parapet wall 

raises 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

impact as a 

result of earth 

raises 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

impact as a 

result of earth 

raises 

Impacts to Visual 

Resources from 

construction of new 

embankments 

No Impact Significant and 

unavoidable 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Significant and 

unavoidable 

Security Project Less than 

significant 

Less than 

significant 

Less than 

significant 

Less than 

significant 

Less than 

significant 

The implementation of Alternative 1 would have less overall impact on visual 

resources because excavation and construction activities are generally shorter in 

duration or would not occur (e.g., no excavation and construction at Granite Bay), 

and the structures would not be raised to increase flood storage. Impacts to visual 

resources would be greater for Alternatives 4 and 5 because the duration of borrow 

development activities would be longer, more borrow would be required and the 

heights of the raises. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the greatest permanent visual 

impacts because they would involve raises of 7 and 17 feet respectively. These raises 

would permanently alter views of the reservoir from recreation areas and from 

residential areas around Mooney Ridge and Granite Bay. The implementation of 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would have impacts to visual resources along trails because 

portions of Pioneer Express Trail, Doton’s Point Trail, and Granite Bay Multi-use 

Trails pass in close proximity to Granite Bay (V1), and Beal’s Point (V-2), which 

would have active construction and excavation activities. 

3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1 and VIS-2 would help reduce 

potentially significant impacts to the Browns Ravine and Granite Bay recreation 

sites; however there could still be significant impacts after mitigation. 
Chapter 3.7 

Visual Resources 

3.7-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

VIS-1: To minimize the impact to a less than significant level, move the processing 

facility at Browns Ravine (V7) southeast into the cove area so that there is no direct 

view of it from the picnic grounds area (at Folsom Reservoir Marina). This would 

also minimize any impacts to the residential community on the northeast side of the 

marina. 

VIS-2: To lessen the visual impacts directly in front of the Granite Bay beach area, 

reduce the size of the potential borrow area (at Granite Bay V1) so that no 

excavation activities occur directly in front of the beach area. 

VIS-3: To less the visual impacts of the concrete parapet walls, a coloring agent will 

be added to the concrete to help it blend in with the natural surroundings.

3.7.5 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on visual resources were evaluated considering the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Table 5-1 summarizes projects in 

the cumulative analysis. Under the cumulative condition, only the New Folsom 

Bridge Project and Folsom DS/FDR would affect visual resources within the local 

visual setting. However, because the Bridge Project would not be visible from the 

same FLSRA view points, it would not create a noticeable change in the 

characteristic visual landscape. The Folsom DS/FDR would not contribute to any 

cumulative effects. 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.8-1 

3.8 Agricultural Resources 

This section presents an analysis of potential impacts on agricultural resources from 

construction of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

3.8.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

This section discusses Federal and State programs designed to protect agricultural 

land. This section also describes the existing agricultural land use conditions. 

3.8.1.1 Area of Analysis 

Construction activities that could affect agricultural resources would occur around 

Folsom Reservoir in portions of Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties. The 

area of analysis, therefore, will include the area immediately surrounding Folsom 

Reservoir in these counties. 

3.8.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

Conversion of farmland into other uses is a public issue in most agricultural regions 

experiencing rapid urbanization. California’s multi-billion dollar agricultural 

industry depends on a large supply of fertile farmland for both crop and animal 

production. California’s growing population necessitates further development of 

land, threatening existing and potential agricultural lands. This elevating conflict has 

led to the development of several Federal and State programs aimed towards 

protecting farmland. The following sections describe Federal and State programs that 

exist to promote the preservation of agricultural lands. 

3.8.1.2.1 Federal Programs 

Farmland Protection Policy Act 

Congress passed the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98), which 

includes the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) to minimize the effect that 

Federal programs would have on conversion of farmland to other, non-agricultural 

uses. FPPA does not exclude fallow farmland, but includes land designated as prime 

farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Categories of 

land are forestland, pasture land, cropland, or other land, as long as it is not water or 

developed urban land (USDA NRCS 2006a). The FPPA specifically requires that 

federal agencies use the criteria provided in Section 658.5 to identify and assess 

federal project effects on the protection of farmland (USDA NRCS 2006b). 

Conservation Reserve Program 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a Federal program administered by the 

Farm Services Agency. The CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental 

payments, incentive payments, and annual maintenance payments for certain 

activities, and cost-share assistance to establish approved cover on eligible cropland. 

To be eligible for placement in the CRP, land must be (1) cropland that is planted or 

considered planted to an agricultural commodity in two of the five most recent crop 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

3.8-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

years (including field margins) and that is physically and legally capable of being 

planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity or, (2) marginal 

pastureland that is either enrolled in the Water Bank Program or suitable for use as a 

riparian buffer to be planted to trees. 

Wetlands Reserve Program 

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program offering landowners 

the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and 

financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration. The NRCS goal 

is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife 

habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an 

opportunity to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection. 

In California, the WRP has focused on the restoration of a variety of wetland types 

throughout the state, including seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent marsh, and vernal 

pools along the perimeter of the Central Valley, riparian corridors, and tidallyinfluenced wetlands. 

3.8.1.2.2 State Programs 

Williamson Act 

The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has 

been the State’s premier agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 

1965. The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve 

agricultural lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban 

uses. The act creates an arrangement whereby private landowners contract with 

counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible 

open space uses. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling term, 10-year contract 

(unless either party files a “notice of nonrenewal,” the contract is automatically 

renewed on an annual basis to maintain the 10-year commitment duration). In return, 

restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their 

actual use, rather then potential market value. The Williamson Act also establishes a 

Farmland Security Zone, which introduces a 20-year contract between a private 

landowner and a county that restricts land to agricultural or open space uses.1

California Farmland Conservancy Program 

The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) is a voluntary state program 

that seeks to encourage the long-term, private stewardship of agricultural lands 

through the use of agricultural conservation easements. The CFCP provides grant 

funding for projects that use and support agricultural conservation easements for 

 

1

 A farmland security zone is essentially an area created within an agricultural preserve by a board of 

supervisors (board) upon request by a landowner or group of landowners. An agricultural preserve 

defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into Williamson Act 

contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board or city council 

having jurisdiction. Agricultural preserves must generally be at least 100 acres in size. 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.8-3 

protection of agricultural lands. An agricultural conservation easement is a 

voluntary, legally recorded deed restriction that is placed on a specific property used 

for agricultural production. The goal of an agricultural conservation easement is to 

maintain agricultural land in active production by removing the development 

pressures from the land. Such an easement prohibits practices that would damage or 

interfere with the agricultural use of the land. Because the easement is a restriction 

on the deed of the property, the easement remains in effect even when the land 

changes ownership. 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 

and produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing effects on California’s 

agricultural resources. The maps are updated every 2 years with the use of aerial 

photographs, a computer mapping system, public review, and field reconnaissance. 

The FMMP rates agricultural land according to soil quality and irrigation status and 

denotes the best quality land Prime Farmland. FMMP characterizes land use into the 

following categories: 

• Prime Farmland2 – Land with the best combination of physical and chemical 

features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has 

the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce 

sustained high yields. Land must have been used for production of irrigated crops 

at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. 

• Farmland of Statewide Importance – Land similar to Prime Farmland that has 

a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of 

crops. This land has minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to 

store soil moisture than Prime Farmland. Land must have been used for 

production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to 

the mapping date. 

• Unique Farmland – Lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s 

leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. 

Land must have been cropped at some time during the two update cycles prior to 

the mapping date. 

• Farmland of Local Importance – Land of importance to the local agricultural 

economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local 

advisory committee. 

 

2

 The term 'Prime' as it refers to rating for agricultural uses has two meanings in California. 

FMMP determines the location and extent of 'Prime Farmland' as described above; while under 

the state's Williamson Act, land may be enrolled under the 'Prime Land' designation if it meets 

certain economic or production criteria. 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

3.8-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Grazing Land – Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing 

of livestock. 

• Urban and Built-Up Land – Land occupied by structures with a building 

density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to one 10-

acre parcel. 

• Other Land – Land that does not meet the criteria of any other category. 

• Water – Water areas with an extent of at least 40 acres. 

Interim Farmland Mapping Categories3

• Irrigated Farmland – Cropped land with a developed irrigation water supply 

that is dependable and of adequate quality. Land must have been used for 

irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the 

mapping date.

• Non-irrigated Farmland – Land on which agricultural commodities are 

produced on a continuing or cyclic basis using stored soil moisture. 

3.8.1.3 Environmental Setting 

This section describes the environmental setting for agricultural resources for the 

Folsom DS/FDR impact zone (the Folsom Facility and immediate vicinity) by 

county. Information on agricultural land use and zoning is based on county and City 

of Folsom land use maps. Information on agricultural land classification is compiled 

from FMMP reports and maps. 

El Dorado County 

According to El Dorado County land use maps (Figure 3.12-3), agricultural land 

adjacent to Folsom Reservoir occurs along the South Fork of the American River 

right bank across from Salmon Falls. According to FMMP maps, this area is also 

classified as Farmland of Local Importance (Figure 3.8-1). Additional land in the 

County adjacent to Folsom Reservoir also classified as Farmland of Local 

Importance by FMMP is an area along the North Fork of the American River left 

bank near the terminus of Rattlesnake Bar Road. Further upstream from Folsom 

Reservoir along both forks of the American River are lands classified as grazing. 

None of these areas are within the footprints of the Folsom Facility. 

 

3

 For farmed areas lacking modern soil survey information and for which there is expressed local 

concern on the status of farmland, Irrigated and Non-irrigated Farmland substitute for the categories 

of important farmland. 
Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

Placer CoPlacer Co

El Dorado Co

El Dorado Co

El Dorado Co. El Dorado

Co.

Sacramento

Co. Sacramento Co.

Legend

Farmland Soils of Importance

Prime Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Grazing Land

Urban and Built-Up Land

Other Land

Water

Not Inventoried



Figure 3.8-1

Farmland Soils of Importance

W:\REPORTS\Folsom EIR\Graphics\Farmland Soils of Importance_Fig3.8-1.ai 10/31/06 JJT

N

MILES

0 1
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

3.8-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Placer County 

The Placer County land use map (Figure 3.12-2) does not show any agricultural land 

use adjacent to Folsom Reservoir. FMMP maps display land classified as grazing 

upstream from the Folsom Reservoir along the North Fork of the American River. 

Sacramento County 

The City of Folsom land use map (Figure 3.12-4) shows land zoned as agriculture 

adjacent to Folsom Reservoir east of Folsom Dam Road and north of East Natomas 

Street. This land is classified as grazing by the FMMP. These areas occur adjacent 

to Dikes 7 and 8 and MIAD. None of these areas are within the footprint of the 

Folsom Facility. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.8.2.1 Assessment Methods 

Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed qualitatively. 

Information presented in the affected environment/existing conditions discussion as 

well as the following factors were considered during the evaluation process:

 Proximity of agricultural resources to the Folsom DS/FDR footprint; and 

 Classification of agricultural resources within the area of analysis. 

3.8.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Based on criteria in the CEQA guidelines, the Folsom DS/FDR would be considered 

to have significant impacts on agricultural resources if it would: 

• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 

Importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP to nonagricultural use or involve other changes in the existing environment which, 

because of their location or nature would also result in conversion; or, 

• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. 

3.8.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses.

There are no areas within or adjacent to the area of analysis that have been classified 

as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland. The No Action/No Project 

Alternative would not cause the conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide 

Importance Farmland to a non-agricultural use. 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.8-7 

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on agricultural resources associated 

with conversion on Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not conflict with existing agricultural 

land use zoning or Williamson Act contracts.

Lands adjacent to Dikes 7 and 8 and MIAD are zoned agricultural by the City of 

Folsom. However, no dam safety or flood damage reduction measures would be 

taken under the No Action/No Project Alternative and there are no proposed changes 

in land use that would require a change in zoning. No Williamson Act lands were 

identified in the area of analysis. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on land use zoning or 

Williamson Act contracts. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Construction of this alternative would not convert Prime, Unique, or Statewide 

Importance Farmland.

There are no areas within or adjacent to the area of analysis that have been classified 

as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland. Therefore, actions under 

Alternative 1 would not convert farmland with these classifications to nonagricultural use. There are no areas meeting these definitions within the footprint of 

the Folsom Facility. 

There would be no conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland 

from construction of Alternative 1. 

Construction activities would not conflict with existing agricultural land use zoning 

or Williamson Act contracts.

Lands adjacent to Dikes 7 and 8 and MIAD are zoned agricultural by the City of 

Folsom. However, actions under Alternative 1 do not propose any changes in land 

use that would require a change in agricultural land use zoning. No Williamson Act 

lands were identified in the area of analysis. 

Construction would have no effect on land use zoning or Williamson Act contracts. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would have the same effect on agricultural resources as Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would have the same effect on agricultural resources as Alternative 1. 
Section 3.8 

Agricultural Resources 

3.8-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would have the same effect on agricultural resources as Alternative 1. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would have the same effect on agricultural resources as Alternative 1. 

3.8.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

None of the alternatives, including the No Action/No Project Alternative would 

affect agricultural resources. 

3.8.4 Mitigation Measures 

None of the alternatives would significantly affect agricultural resources. Therefore, 

no mitigation measures are necessary. 

3.8.5 Cumulative Effects 

Because none of the alternatives would affect agricultural resources, there would be 

no cumulative effects. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-1 

3.9 Transportation and Circulation 

This section describes how the construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR affect 

the area’s transportation and circulation. This includes a description of the Folsom 

DS/FDR study area, the local and direct access routes identified to be used during 

construction, the existing bicycle facilities and transit resources. Furthermore, an 

accepted methodology has been utilized to analyze the traffic volumes on access 

routes as affected during construction for all alternatives. A number of mitigation 

measures are proposed to reduce impacts during construction. Appendix F includes 

multiple tables (Tables 3.9-22 to 3.9-85) that support the transportation and 

circulation analysis. 

It is important to note that no permanent or long-term traffic volume increases or 

changes in traffic patterns are expected as a result of the Folsom DS/FDR 

alternatives. As such, any incremental transportation impacts associated with 

implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR are limited to the proposed construction 

years; hence, the focus of the analysis presented herein is on those impacts occurring 

from, and during, Folsom DS/FDR related construction activities. 

3.9.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.9.1.1 Area of Analysis 

The Folsom DS/FDR study area includes roadways in the following jurisdictions: 

• Counties: Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado. 

• Communities: Cities of Folsom, Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, Wheatland and 

Marysville and Community of Granite Bay. 

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) serves as the area 

Metropolitan Planning organization for the region. Local municipalities determine 

their own criteria for streets and roads while Caltrans, the California State 

Department of Transportation, oversees state highways. 

The area is considered to be primarily suburban, low density development to the east 

of Sacramento. Transportation facilities and services include interstate and state 

highways, local roads and streets, local transit including local bus service and a light 

rail line from the City of Folsom to downtown Sacramento. Also, a number of 

bicycle paths/routes accompany major roads. Finally, a number of commuter bus 

services are provided within the counties and cities in the area. 

Access to the proposed work sites is primarily restricted to the southwest region of 

Folsom Reservoir. Direct access to the Folsom Facility is limited to the routes 

described in Table 3.9-1. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.9-1 

Direct Access to the Folsom Facility

Direct Access Route Access Area Facility/Structure 

Douglas Boulevard Granite Bay Dikes 1, 2, 3, 

Auburn Folsom Road/FolsomAuburn Road Beal’s Point Dikes 4, 5, 6, Right Wing Dam 

(RWD) 

Folsom Dam Road(1) Main Concrete Dam Folsom Dam 

Natoma Street Folsom Point Left Wing Dam (LWD), Dike 7, Dike 

8, MIAD 

Green Valley Road MIAD MIAD 

(1) Folsom Dam Road will only be used to access the Main Concrete Dam, and complete use 

of the roadway is not included in this analysis. 

A multi-leveled approach has been applied to the Folsom DS/FDR to divide the 

evaluation of potential transportation impacts into two distinct areas of analysis: 

• Local Access Routes 

• Regional Access Routes 

The local and regional access routes provide access to the Folsom DS/FDR features 

via the direct access routes shown in Table 3.9-1. 

Figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 illustrate the regional and local routes, respectively, that are 

proposed to be used for providing access for materials and equipment related to 

construction of the alternatives. Figure 3.9-3 illustrates access routes available to 

Folsom DS/FDR construction personnel. A more detailed description of the 

selection of these routes is discussed below in Trip Generation and Trip Distribution. 

Access to the Direct Access Routes is provided via the local roadway network as 

illustrated in Table 3.9-2.

Table 3.9-2 provides a breakdown of the local access routes in terms of the names of 

the potentially affected roadways, the roadway segments of interest (i.e., limits of 

analysis), the city and county where the roadway is located, and finally the agency 

that has jurisdiction over each roadway segment. In addition, truck routes designated 

by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and/or transportation 

departments with jurisdiction have been highlighted. For the purposes of this 

analysis, Interstate 80 is considered the dividing line between local and regional 

access routes for the Folsom DS/FDR study area. 
From Tiechert/Marysville Borrow

(Hammonton/Smartville Road)

From Hammonton/Smartville Road

to North Beale Road

From Highway 70

to Highway 65

From North Beale Road

to Feather River Boulevard

to Highway 70

From Highway 65

to Interstate 80 

From Interstate 80 (East)

to Sierra College Boulevard

From Interstate 80 (West)

to Eureka Road

From Eureka Road

to Douglas Boulevard

From Sierra College Boulevard

to Douglas Boulevard

From Douglas Boulevard

to Auburn-Folsom Road

From Tiechert/Prairie City Borrow

(White Rock Road/Scott Road)

From Scott Road

to East Bidwell Street

From East Bidwell Street

to Oak Avenue Parkway

From Oak Avenue Parkway

to Blue Ravine

From Blue Ravine

to East Natoma Street

From East Natoma Street

to Green Valley Road

(BP-2)

MIAD & BP-3 RWD & BP-1

Main Dam, LWD,

Dikes 7 & 8, BP-2

Dikes 1-6 &

Mooney Ridge

PLACER

COUNTY

NEVADA

COUNTY

YUBA

COUNTY

SUTTER

COUNTY

SACRAMENTO

YOLO COUNTY

COUNTY

EL DORADO

COUNTY

80

5

5

70

70

99

99

70

65

65

50



Figure 3.9-1

Regional Access Routes

NORTH

NO SCALE

LEGEND

Segment Interchange/

Intersection

All routes from Tiechert/

Marysville Borrow to I-80

Routes A-1, A-2, & B-1

Routes A-3 & A-4

All Routes along

Douglas Blvd

From Marysville

All routes from Tiechert/

Prairie City Borrow

Routes BP-2 & BP-3

Routes A-5 & A-6

From Prairie City
From Interstate 80 (East)

to Sierra College Boulevard

From Interstate 80 (West)

to Eureka Road

From Eureka Road

to Douglas Boulevard

From Sierra College Boulevard

to Douglas Boulevard

From Douglas Boulevard

to Auburn-Folsom Road

From Scott Road

to East Bidwell Street

From US-50

to East Bidwell/Scott Road Exit

From East Bidwell Street

to Oak Avenue Parkway

From Oak Avenue Parkway

to Blue Ravine

From Blue Ravine

to East Natoma Street

From East Natoma Street

to Green Valley Road

(BP-2)

MIAD & BP-3

RWD & BP-1

Main Dam, LWD,

Dikes 7 & 8, BP-2

Dikes 1-6 &

Mooney Ridge

PLACER

COUNTY

SACRAMENTO

COUNTY

EL DORADO

COUNTY

80

50



Figure 3.9-2

Local Access Routes

NORTH

NO SCALE

LEGEND

Segment Interchange/

Intersection

O-1, O-2, & O-3

Route O-4

All Routes along

Douglas Blvd

From I-80

All routes from

US-50

Route O-6

Routes O-5

From US-50
Rocklin Rocklin 

Roseville Roseville oseville 

Folsom 

F-A Rd A-F Rd 

E Bidwell St 

I-80 

US-50 

Douglas Blvd 

Greenback Ln 

E 

Green Valley 

Rd 

Natoma 

St 

Folsom 

Blvd 

Sierra College College College 

Blvd 

From Sacramento

From El Dorado



Figure 3.9-3

General Folsom DS/FDR Area Transportation Routes

NORTH 

NO SCALE 

LEGEND 

Segment Interchange/ 

Intersection 

Possible Routes 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.9-2 

Local Access Routes

Roadway Segment Limits City/Community County Jurisdiction 

Folsom 

Boulevard 

from US 50 to A-F Road City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

AuburnFolsom (A-F) 

Road 

from Folsom Boulevard to county 

line 

City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

F-A Road From county line to Douglas 

Boulevard 

City of Roseville Placer County Placer County 

Eureka Road Interstate 80 to Douglas Boulevard City of Roseville Placer County City of Roseville 

Douglas 

Boulevard 

Sierra College Boulevard to A-F 

Road 

Granite Bay Placer County Placer County 

Blue Ravine 

Road 

Folsom Boulevard to Green Valley 

Road 

City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

East Natoma 

Street 

Folsom Boulevard to Green Valley 

Road 

City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

Green Valley 

Road 

Blue Ravine Road to County Line City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

Green Valley 

Road 

County Line to Sophia Parkway Unincorporated 

El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado County 

Oak Avenue 

Parkway 

East Bidwell Street to Blue Ravine 

Road 

City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

Sierra 

College 

Boulevard 

Interstate 80 to Douglas Boulevard City of Rocklin Placer County Placer County and 

Rocklin 

Douglas 

Boulevard 

Eureka Road to Sierra College 

Boulevard 

City of Roseville Placer County City of Roseville 

Eureka Road Interstate 80 to Douglas Boulevard City of Roseville Placer County City of Roseville 

East Bidwell 

Street 

US50 to Oak Avenue Parkway City of Folsom Sacramento 

County 

City of Folsom 

White Rock 

Road 

Grant Line Road to Scott Road Unincorporated 

Sacramento 

County 

Sacramento 

County 

Sacramento 

County 

Scott Road White Rock Road to Iron Point 

Road 

Unincorporated 

Sacramento 

County 

Sacramento 

County 

Sacramento 

County 

Sophia 

Parkway 

County Line to Green Valley Road Unincorporated 

El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado 

County 

El Dorado County 

Roadway - CA Legal Route/Local Route 

Roadway – Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Federal Route The STAA requires states to allow large trucks on 

identified access routes.

3.9.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

As indicated above, the Folsom DS/FDR study area includes roadways in the 

Counties of Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado, and the Cities of Folsom, 

Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, Wheatland, and Marysville, and the Community of 

Granite Bay. The study area also includes roadways within the jurisdiction of 

Caltrans. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-7 

Each of these jurisdictions, with the exception of the City of Marysville, has adopted 

standards regarding the desired performance level for traffic conditions on the 

circulation system within its jurisdiction. A measure called “Level of Service” 

(LOS) is used to characterize traffic conditions. Progressively worsening traffic 

conditions are given the letter grades “A” through “F”. While most motorists 

consider an “A”, “B”, “C” LOS as satisfactory, LOS “D” is considered marginally 

acceptable. Congestion and delay are considered unacceptable to most motorists and 

given the LOS “E” or “F” ratings. A more detailed explanation of LOS, and how it 

is determined, is provided later in Section 3.9.3.1. These LOS thresholds, reflected at 

the local jurisdiction level through the County and City General Plans, define the 

minimum levels of acceptable traffic conditions within the respective jurisdictions, 

typically LOS C or, in more urbanized areas, LOS D. Related to those LOS 

thresholds are additional thresholds used to determine where a change in traffic 

conditions, such as that associated with additional traffic from a new development 

project, would result in a significant impact to the local roadway system. Should a 

significant impact be identified, the formulation of mitigation measures for that 

impact is warranted. Table 3.9-3 presents the local and regional LOS standards and 

associated significance thresholds. These local significance thresholds were 

considered when developing significant thresholds for the CEQA impact analysis. 

Table 3.9-3 

Local and Regional LOS Standards and Significance Thresholds

Regulatory 

Agency Standards Significance Thresholds 

Sacramento 

County 

Rural collectors: 

LOS D 

Urban area roads: 

LOS E 

Roadways/Signalized Intersections: A project is considered to have a significant effect if 

it would: 

• result in a roadway or a signalized intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to 

deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; or 

• increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.05 at a roadway or at a 

signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project. 

Unsignalized Intersections: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it 

would: 

• result in an unsignalized intersection movement/approach operating at an 

acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS, and also cause the 

intersection to meet a traffic signal warrant; or 

• for an unsignalized intersection that meets a signal warrant, increase the delay by 

more than 5 seconds at a movement/approach that is operating at an unacceptable 

LOS without the project. 

Freeway Ramps: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would: 

• result in a facility operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable 

LOS, according to the LOS threshold defined by Caltrans. 

Freeway Segments: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would: 

• result in a facility operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable 

LOS, according to the LOS threshold defined in the Caltrans Route Concept Report 

for that facility. 

Residential Streets: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would: 

• result in a residential street operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an 

unacceptable LOS; or 

• increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.05 at a residential street that is operating at an 

unacceptable LOS without the project. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it 

would: 

• eliminate or adversely affect an existing bikeway or pedestrian facility in a way that 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.9-3 

Local and Regional LOS Standards and Significance Thresholds

Regulatory 

Agency Standards Significance Thresholds 

would discourage its use; 

• interfere with the implementation of a planned bikeway as shown in the Bicycle 

Master Plan, or be in conflict with the Pedestrian Master Plan; or 

• result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists or pedestrians, including unsafe 

bicycle/pedestrian, bicycle/motor vehicle, or pedestrian/motor vehicle conflict. 

Safety: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would: 

• substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 

City of Folsom LOS C If the “no project” LOS is LOS C or better and the project-generated traffic causes the 

intersection level of service to degrade to worse than LOS C (i.e., LOS D, E or F) then 

the proposed project must implement mitigation measures to return the intersection to 

LOS C or better. 

If the “no project” LOS is worse than LOS C (i.e., LOS D, E or F) and the projectgenerated traffic causes the overall average delay value at the intersection to increase 

by five seconds or more, then the Folsom DS/FDR must implement mitigation 

measures to improve the intersection to the “no project” condition or better. It is not 

necessary to improve the intersection to LOS C. 

If the “no project” LOS is worse than LOS C (i.e., LOS D, E, or F) and the projectgenerated traffic causes the overall delay value at the intersection to increase by less 

than five seconds, then the traffic impact is considered less than significant and no 

mitigation is required. 

Placer County LOS C on rural 

roadways, except 

within one-half mile 

of state highways 

where the standard 

shall be LOS D. 

LOS C on 

urban/suburban 

roadways except 

within one-half mile 

of state highways 

where the standard 

shall be LOS D. 

Require mitigation to LOS C unless an intersection is within one-half mile of a State 

Highway, in which case the LOS standard is "D". This applies where the existing LOS is 

at these levels, or better. If the LOS is worse than these standards, seek to mitigate 

impacts back to the existing level (Brinkman 2006). 

Granite Bay The LOS on major 

roadways (i.e., 

arterial and 

collector routes) 

and intersection 

identified in the CIP 

shall be at Level C 

or better. 

Require mitigation to LOS C (Granite Bay Community Plan). 

City of Lincoln LOS C for all 

streets and 

intersections (some 

variation by 

intersection) 

If the Folsom DS/FDR is shown to cause degradation of intersection LOS to worse than 

“C” (Or whichever LOS is identified in the General Plan for the particular intersection) 

after considering any improvements already planned by the City, then the traffic study 

shall recommend feasible mitigation measures to bring the intersection LOS within 

acceptable standards (in accordance with the General Plan)(City of Lincoln Department 

of Public Works Design Criteria and Procedures Manual 2004) 

City of Roseville Varies by 

intersection 

If the Folsom DS/FDR causes a signalized intersection previously identified in the 

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as functioning at LOS C or better to function at LOS 

D or worse; 

If the Folsom DS/FDR causes a signalized intersection previously identified in the CIP 

as functioning at LOS D or E to degrade by one or more LOS category (i.e. from LOS D 

to LOS E); 

If the Folsom DS/FDR causes the overall percentage of intersections meeting LOS C at 

p.m. peak hour to fall below 70%. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-9 

Table 3.9-3 

Local and Regional LOS Standards and Significance Thresholds

Regulatory 

Agency Standards Significance Thresholds 

Yuba County On County roads in 

urban areas and 

within 

specific/community 

plan areas, LOS 

C shall be 

maintained during 

the PM Peak Hour 

at signalized 

intersections. 

On County roads in 

rural areas, LOS C 

shall be maintained 

n/a 

Wheatland Maintain LOS C or 

better on all 

roadways, except 

within 

one-quarter mile of 

state highways. In 

these areas, the 

City 

shall strive to 

maintain LOS D or 

better. 

n/a 

City of 

Marysville 

n/a n/a 

El Dorado 

County 

Varies by 

intersection, LOS 

for Countymaintained roads 

and state highways 

within the 

unincorporated 

areas of the county 

shall not be worse 

than LOS E in the 

Community 

Regions or LOS D 

in the Rural 

Centers and Rural 

Regions except as 

specified in Table 

TC-2 or, after 

December 31, 

2008, Table TC-3. 

Two (2) percent increase in traffic during the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, or daily, or 

The addition of 100 or more daily trips, or 

The addition of 10 or more trips during the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour. 

Sources: 2004 El Dorado County General Plan; 1985 City of Marysville General Plan; 1993 Sacramento County General Plan; 1994 

Placer County General Plan; 1993 City of Folsom General Plan; 2003 City of Roseville General Plan; October 2005 General Plan Public 

Draft Goals and Policies Report City of Lincoln; Wheatland General Plan Policy Document Part II December 2005 

3.9.1.3 Environmental Setting 

The following describes the existing characteristics of the roadways and intersections 

located within the traffic analysis study area. Existing traffic volume data for the 

subject roadways were collected from a variety of sources. Recent EIS/EIR filings, 

City and County Transportation Divisions, and General Plan documents were 

researched to collect as much existing traffic volume data as possible. The primary 

source of traffic data information is the American River Watershed Project Folsom 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR (Bridge EIS/EIR) dated 

May 2006 along with Caltrans traffic counts website and local city/county contacts. 

If and where available, based on information currently available recent intersection 

capacity analysis data is included in the descriptions provided below. 

Local Access Route Descriptions 

Folsom Boulevard 

Folsom Boulevard is functionally classified as a divided arterial and provides northsouth access between the cities of Auburn to the north and Folsom to the south. 

Headed north from the US Highway 50 Interchange, Folsom Boulevard is a six-lane 

divided roadway to Iron Point Road. At Iron Point Road, the northbound side is 

reduced to two lanes while the southbound side maintains 3 lanes. At Natoma 

Station Drive, the southbound side of Folsom Boulevard also is reduced to two lanes. 

From Natoma Station Drive to Blue Ravine Road/Auburn-Folsom Road, Folsom 

Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway. The speed limit is posted at 50 miles per 

hour (mph). Land use along much of the roadway is predominantly commercial. 

Major intersections along Folsom Boulevard include: 

Folsom Boulevard at the US Highway 50 Interchange: The traffic flow at this 

intersection consists of three intersection approaches. The approach from US 

Highway 50 (eastbound) consists of an exclusive left turn lane, a shared left/right 

lane, and a right turn lane. The northbound approach on Folsom Boulevard consists 

of an exclusive left turn lane and three through lanes. The southbound Folsom 

Boulevard approach consists of two through lanes. The intersection is signalized; 

there are no facilities for pedestrians or bicyclists. Recent capacity analysis data for 

this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

 Folsom Boulevard at Iron Point Road: The traffic flow at this intersection consists 

of three intersection approaches. Iron Point Road enters from the east with two 

exclusive left turn lanes and one right turn lane. Folsom Boulevard northbound 

consists of two through lanes and one right turn lane. Folsom Boulevard southbound 

consists of one exclusive left turn lane and three through lanes. Iron Point Road has 

sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. There is a bicycle/pedestrian pathway that 

runs parallel with this section of Folsom Boulevard with a connector to the Iron 

Point Road/Folsom Boulevard intersection. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided on 

the westbound and southbound approaches to connect Iron Point Road to the 

bicycle/pedestrian pathway. The intersection is signalized and has pedestrian signal 

heads and push buttons. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not 

evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic 

study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-11 

Folsom Boulevard at Natoma Station Drive: The Folsom Boulevard at Natoma 

Station Drive intersection consists of three approaches. Natoma Station Drive enters 

from the east and consists of two exclusive left turn lanes and one right turn lane. 

The Folsom Boulevard northbound approach has a lane configuration of two through 

lanes and one right turn lane. Folsom Boulevard southbound consists of one 

exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. Natoma Station Drive has sidewalks 

on both sides of the roadway. A pedestrian/bicycle pathway connects into the 

intersection from the west. Crosswalks are provided across the Natoma Station 

Drive and Folsom Boulevard southbound approaches. The Folsom 

Boulevard/Natoma Station Drive intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian 

push buttons and signal heads. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection 

were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the 

traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Folsom Boulevard at Blue Ravine Road: The traffic flow at the intersection of 

Folsom Boulevard at Blue Ravine Road consists of four intersection approaches. 

The Folsom Boulevard northbound and southbound approaches consist of an 

exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The Blue Ravine 

Road approaches consist of an exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one 

right turn lane. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Blue Ravine Road in the 

vicinity of the intersection; short sections of sidewalk are provided on the west side 

of Folsom Boulevard to provide access to businesses adjacent to the intersection. 

There are pedestrian crosswalks on the Folsom Boulevard northbound approach and 

the Blue Ravine Road westbound approach. The intersection is signalized and 

includes pedestrian signal heads and push buttons. Recent capacity analysis data for 

this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Folsom Boulevard at Natoma Street and Forrest Street: The Folsom Boulevard at 

Natoma Street/Forrest Street intersection consists of four approaches. The Folsom 

Boulevard approaches both consist of an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, 

and a right turn lane. The lane configuration of the Forrest Street approach is one 

combined left/through lane and one right turn lane. The Natoma Street approach 

consists of a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane. There is a bicycle 

lane provided along this section of Auburn-Folsom Road both northbound and 

southbound. Forrest Street and Natoma Street have sidewalks along both sides in the 

vicinity of the intersection. Pedestrian crossings are provided on all four approaches 

with pedestrian push button actuation. This intersection currently experiences a 

worse case of LOS D during the evening peak hour (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) period as 

illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

Iron Point Road at Folsom Boulevard: The traffic flow at this intersection consists 

of three intersection approaches. Iron Point Road enters from the east with two 

exclusive left turn lanes and one right turn lane. Folsom Boulevard northbound 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

consists of two through lanes and one right turn lane. Folsom Boulevard southbound 

consists of one exclusive left turn lane and three through lanes. Iron Point Road has 

sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. There is a bicycle/pedestrian pathway that 

runs parallel with this section of Folsom Boulevard with a connector to the Iron 

Point Road/Folsom Boulevard intersection. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided on 

the westbound and southbound approaches to connect Iron Point Road to the 

bicycle/pedestrian pathway. The intersection is signalized and has pedestrian signal 

heads and push buttons. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not 

evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic 

study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Auburn-Folsom Road 

Auburn-Folsom Road is functionally classified as an undivided arterial and provides 

north-south access between the cities of Auburn to the north and Folsom to the south. 

Beginning at the intersection of Greenback Lane/Riley Street/Folsom Boulevard, 

Auburn-Folsom Road is a four-lane divided roadway. Heading north, AuburnFolsom Road continues with two lanes in each direction, becoming an undivided 

roadway outside of the City of Folsom limits, to its intersection with Folsom Dam 

Road. Continuing north, Auburn-Folsom Road narrows to one lane in each 

direction, crosses the Sacramento/Placer county line, and remains a two-lane 

undivided roadway to the Douglas Boulevard intersection. The speed limit is posted 

at 50 miles mph. Land use along Auburn-Folsom Road is mixed; commercial, 

residential and light industrial, however in downtown Folsom the land use becomes 

mainly commercial. 

Major intersections located along Auburn-Folsom Road include: 

Folsom Boulevard/Auburn-Folsom Road at Greenback Lane: The Folsom 

Boulevard/Auburn-Folsom Road at Greenback Lane intersection traffic flow is 

comprised of four approaches. The northbound approach on Folsom Boulevard (on 

the American River Bridge) has two exclusive left turn lanes, two through lanes, and 

a right turn lane. The Auburn-Folsom Road southbound approach and Greenback 

Lane westbound approaches consist of an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, 

and a right turn lane. The eastbound Greenback Lane approach lane configuration is 

two exclusive left lanes, one through lane, and a channelized right turn lane. 

Auburn-Folsom Road northbound has bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway; 

Greenback Lane eastbound has a marked bicycle lane on the south side of the 

roadway. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided on all four intersection approaches and 

include pedestrian pushbuttons. The intersection is signalized. This intersection 

currently experiences a LOS F during the peak hour periods as illustrated in the 

Bridge EIS/EIR. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-13 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Oak Avenue Parkway: The intersection of Auburn-Folsom 

Road at Oak Avenue Parkway consists of four intersection approaches. The AuburnFolsom Road approaches both have an exclusive left turn lane and two through 

lanes. The Oak Avenue Parkway approaches both have a single shared lane. 

Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across the Auburn-Folsom Road approaches with 

pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads; however, there are no sidewalks present 

within the vicinity of the intersection. The intersection of Auburn-Folsom Road at 

Oak Avenue Parkway is signalized. This intersection currently experiences a LOS D 

during the peak hour periods as illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Inwood Road: The traffic flow at this intersection consists 

of three intersection approaches. The Auburn-Folsom Road northbound approach 

has an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. The Auburn-Folsom Road 

southbound approach has two lanes, one through and one shared through/right. 

Inwood Road comes into the intersection from the west with an exclusive left turn 

lane and an exclusive right turn lane. There are no sidewalks present in the vicinity 

of the Auburn-Folsom Road at Inwood Road intersection; however, pedestrian 

crosswalks are present across the northbound and eastbound approaches. The 

intersection is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not 

evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic 

study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Folsom Dam Road: The intersection of Auburn-Folsom 

Road at Folsom Dam Road consists of four intersection approaches. The AuburnFolsom Road approaches consist of an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. 

The Folsom Dam Road eastbound approach is one shared lane; the westbound 

approach consists of an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. 

Bicycle lanes are present on both sides of Auburn-Folsom Road in the vicinity of the 

intersection. Folsom Dam Road west of the intersection has sidewalks on both sides; 

the southbound Auburn-Folsom Road approach has a segment of sidewalk on the 

west side at the intersection. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across the AuburnFolsom northbound approach and the Folsom Dam Road eastbound approach. The 

intersection is signalized. This intersection currently experiences a LOS A during the 

peak hour periods as illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Pinebrook Drive: The Auburn-Folsom Road at Pinebrook 

Drive intersection traffic flow consists of four approaches; three approaches are 

roadways, the fourth a driveway. The Auburn-Folsom Road northbound approach 

has an exclusive left turn lane and one through lane. The Auburn-Folsom Road 

southbound approach consists of a through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. The 

Pinebrook Drive approach lane configuration is one exclusive left turn lane and one 

right turn lane. The driveway approaches from the east and consists of a narrow 

general use lane. There are no marked pedestrian crosswalks; however, there is a 

short section of sidewalk on the Auburn-Folsom Road southbound approach that 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

connects Pinebrook Drive to the commercial property to the north. The intersection 

is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in 

the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Oak Leaf Way and Beal’s Point Road: The intersection is 

comprised of four approaches. Auburn-Folsom Road northbound consists of an 

exclusive left turn lane and one through lane. The southbound Auburn-Folsom Road 

approach has an exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a right turn lane. Oak 

Leaf Way comes into the intersection with a shared left/through lane and an 

exclusive right tune lane. Beal’s Point Road consists of a single general use lane. 

Crosswalks are present across the northbound Auburn-Folsom Road, Oak Leaf Way 

and Beal’s Point Road approaches. There are no marked bicycle lanes or sidewalks 

within the vicinity of the intersection. The Auburn-Folsom Road at Oak Leaf 

Way/Beal’s Point Road intersection is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for 

this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Eureka Road: The intersection of Auburn-Folsom Road at 

Eureka Road has four approaches; three roadway approaches and one driveway 

access. The northbound approach on Auburn-Folsom Road consists of an exclusive 

left turn lane and a through lane; southbound consists of an exclusive left turn lane, 

one through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. The Eureka Road approach from 

the west has a shared left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. A driveway 

access is directly across the intersection from Eureka Road. Pedestrian crosswalks 

are provided across the Auburn-Folsom Road northbound approach and the Eureka 

Road approach. There are no sidewalks within the vicinity of the intersection. The 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Eureka Road intersection is signalized. This intersection 

currently experiences a LOS B during the peak hour periods as illustrated in the 

Bridge EIS/EIR. 

Auburn-Folsom Road at Douglas Boulevard: The Auburn-Folsom Road at Douglas 

Boulevard intersection is comprised of four intersection approaches. The AuburnFolsom Road southbound, and both Douglas Boulevard approaches, consist of one 

exclusive left turn lane, two shared through lanes, and an exclusive channelized right 

turn lane. The Auburn-Folsom Road northbound approach consists of an exclusive 

left turn lane, one shared left/through lane, one through lane, and an exclusive 

channelized right turn lane. All four approaches have sidewalks present on both 

sides in the vicinity of the intersection. Pedestrian access is provided by crosswalks 

from each corner of the intersection to the channelization islands; and across each leg 

of the intersection from island to island. Pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads are 

provided for all crossings. The intersection is signalized. This intersection currently 

experiences a LOS D during the peak hour periods as illustrated in the Bridge 

EIS/EIR. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-15 

Douglas Boulevard 

Douglas Boulevard is an east-west roadway and is functionally classified as a 

divided arterial. Between Sierra College Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road, 

Douglas Boulevard consists of two lanes in each direction. Continuing east, it further 

narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway. Land uses along much of the roadway are 

offices and commercial to Sierra College Boulevard; residential/vacant/open space 

with limited commercial between Sierra College Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom 

Road; and primarily residential east of Auburn-Folsom Road. Douglas Boulevard 

west of Interstate 80 is two lanes in each direction through heavily developed and 

densely populated areas. 

Major intersections along Douglas Boulevard include: 

Douglas Boulevard at Eureka Road: The intersection of Douglas Boulevard at 

Eureka Road consists of four intersection approaches. The Douglas Boulevard 

eastbound approach has six lanes: two exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, 

and a right turn lane. The westbound Douglas Boulevard approach consists of two 

exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The 

Eureka Road northbound approach has two exclusive left turn lanes, two through 

lanes, and a right turn lane. The southbound Eureka Road approach consists of two 

left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The Eureka 

Road approaches also include a marked bicycle lane between the through and right 

turn lanes; Douglas Boulevard has a bicycle lane only on the north side between the 

through lane and the channelized right turns. All four approaches have sidewalks 

present on both sides of the roadways. Crosswalks are provided across all of the 

intersection approaches. The intersection is signalized and pedestrian push buttons 

are provided. This intersection currently experiences a LOS C during the peak hour 

period as illustrated in the Circulation Element section of the City of Roseville 

General Plan. 

Douglas Boulevard at East Roseville Parkway: The intersection of Douglas 

Boulevard at East Roseville Parkway consists of four intersection approaches. The 

Douglas Boulevard eastbound approach has six lanes: two exclusive left turn lanes, 

three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The westbound Douglas Boulevard 

approach consists of two exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. The East Roseville Parkway northbound approach has 

one exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The 

southbound East Roseville Parkway approach consists of two left turn lanes, two 

through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The East Roseville Parkway 

approaches also include a marked bicycle lane between the through and right turn 

lanes; Douglas Boulevard has a bicycle lane only on the north side between the 

through lane and the channelized right turns. All four approaches have sidewalks 

present on both sides of the roadways. Crosswalks are provided across all of the 

intersection approaches. The intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian push 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

buttons. This intersection currently experiences a LOS A during the peak hour period 

as illustrated in the City of Roseville General Plan, Circulation Element. 

Douglas Boulevard at Sierra College Boulevard: The intersection of Douglas 

Boulevard at Sierra College Boulevard consists of four intersection approaches. The 

eastbound Douglas Boulevard approach has four approach lanes: one exclusive left 

turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through/right lane. The westbound 

approach on Douglas Boulevard consists of one left turn lane, three through lanes, 

and a channelized right turn lane. The Sierra College Boulevard approaches both 

have four lanes: one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The 

right turn lane on the northbound approach is channelized. There are no marked 

bicycle lanes at this intersection. Pedestrian access is provided on all approaches 

with sidewalks on both sides of the roadways and pedestrian crosswalks across all 

four approaches. The intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Sierra College 

Boulevard is signalized and includes pedestrian pushbuttons. This intersection 

currently experiences a LOS E during the peak hour period as illustrated in the 

Circulation Element section of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

Douglas Boulevard at Cavitt-Stallman Road: The Douglas Boulevard at CavittStallman Road intersection is comprised of four approaches. The eastbound Douglas 

Boulevard approach has an exclusive left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared 

through/right lane. The Douglas Boulevard westbound approach consists of an 

exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. Both Douglas 

Boulevard approaches have a marked bicycle lane. The Cavitt-Stallman Road 

approaches each have two lanes: one shared left/through and one exclusive right. 

Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadways; crosswalks are provided across 

the Douglas Boulevard eastbound and both Cavitt-Stallman Road approaches. The 

intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian pushbuttons. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Douglas Boulevard at Seeno Avenue: The intersection of Douglas Boulevard and 

Seeno Avenue consists of three intersection approaches. The Douglas Boulevard 

approaches, both east and west, have an exclusive left turn lane and two through 

lanes. The Seeno Avenue approach has one general use lane; however, it is wide 

enough to allow for both a right and left turning vehicles. There is sidewalk present 

on the north side of Douglas Boulevard; there are no marked pedestrian crossings at 

the intersection. The Douglas Boulevard at Seeno Avenue intersection is signalized. 

Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Douglas Boulevard at Barton Road: The intersection of Douglas Boulevard and 

Barton Road has four intersection approaches. The eastbound Douglas Boulevard 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-17 

approach has one left turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn 

lane. The Douglas Boulevard westbound approach consists of an exclusive left turn 

lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The north and southbound approaches 

on Barton Road are both two lanes: one shared left/through and one right turn lane. 

The Barton Road northbound right turn lane is channelized. Pedestrian crosswalks 

are provided across the Douglas Boulevard westbound approach and both Barton 

Road approaches. A sidewalk is present along the Barton Road southbound 

approach and on the north side of Douglas Boulevard heading west from the 

intersection. The intersection is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Douglas Boulevard at Auburn-Folsom Road: The Auburn-Folsom Road at Douglas 

Boulevard intersection is comprised of four intersection approaches. The AuburnFolsom Road southbound, and both Douglas Boulevard approaches, consist of one 

exclusive left turn lane, two shared through lanes, and an exclusive channelized right 

turn lane. The Auburn-Folsom Road northbound approach consists of an exclusive 

left turn lane, one shared left/through lane, one through lane, and an exclusive 

channelized right turn lane. All four approaches have sidewalks present on both 

sides in the vicinity of the intersection. Pedestrian access is provided by crosswalks 

from each corner of the intersection to the channelization islands; and across each leg 

of the intersection from island to island. Pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads are 

provided for all crossings. The intersection is signalized. Recent capacity analysis 

data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Blue Ravine Road 

Blue Ravine Road is an east-west roadway connecting Folsom Boulevard to East 

Natoma Street. It is classified as an arterial. Between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie 

City Road/Sibley Street, Blue Ravine Road consists of three lanes in each direction. 

East of Sibley Street, Blue Ravine Road narrows to two lanes in each direction to the 

intersection of Joerganson Road and then continues east varying between one-lane 

and two-lane configurations to East Natoma Street/Green Valley Road. Blue Ravine 

Road is classified as a divided arterial. The speed limit is 45 mph and the roadway is 

posted as a local truck route. Land uses along much of the roadway are mixed 

commercial/office with dense residential along its full length. 

Major intersections along Blue Ravine Road include: 

Blue Ravine Road at Folsom Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road: The traffic flow 

at the intersection of Blue Ravine Road at Folsom Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom 

Road consists of four intersection approaches. The Folsom Boulevard (northbound) 

and Auburn-Folsom Road (southbound) approaches consist of an exclusive left turn 

lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The Blue Ravine Road approaches 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

consist of an exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. 

Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Blue Ravine Road in the vicinity of the 

intersection; short sections of sidewalk are provided on the west side of Folsom 

Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road to provide access to businesses adjacent to the 

intersection. There are pedestrian crosswalks on the Folsom Boulevard northbound 

approach and the Blue Ravine Road westbound approach. The intersection is 

signalized and there are pedestrian signals and push buttons. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Blue Ravine Road at Oak Avenue Parkway: The Blue Ravine Road at Oak Avenue 

Parkway intersection has four approach legs. The eastbound approach on Blue 

Ravine Road consists of five lanes: two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. The Blue Ravine Road westbound approach has two left 

turn lanes, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. The Oak Avenue 

Parkway northbound approach leg consists of one left turn lane, three through lanes, 

and a channelized right turn lane. There is a marked bicycle lane between the 

through and right turn lanes. The southbound Oak Avenue Parkway approach has 

one left turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. Sidewalks 

are present on both sides of all of the intersection approaches; pedestrian crosswalks 

are provided across all four legs of the intersection. The Blue Ravine Road at Oak 

Avenue Parkway intersection is signalized and provides pushbuttons and signal 

heads for pedestrian access. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were 

not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the 

traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Blue Ravine Road at Green Valley Road and East Natoma Street: The intersection of 

Green Valley Road at Blue Ravine Road/East Natoma Street consists of four 

intersection approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches on East Natoma 

Street both consist of an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. 

The northbound Green Valley Road approach, and the southbound Blue Ravine 

Road approach, both have one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn 

lane. There is sidewalk present on the south side of eastbound East Natoma Street 

approach and on the west side of Green Valley Road heading south away from the 

intersection. Crosswalks are marked across the Green Valley Road approach and the 

East Natoma Street westbound approach. There is a marked bicycle path on both 

sides of East Natoma Street east of the intersection. The Green Valley Road at East 

Natoma Street and Blue Ravine Road intersection is signalized and includes 

pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads. This intersection currently experiences a 

worse case of LOS C during the evening peak hour period (4 pm – 6 pm) as 

illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-19 

East Natoma Street 

Natoma Street is an east-west roadway in the City of Folsom. It is classified as an 

undivided arterial. Natoma Street consists of one lane in each direction from Folsom 

Boulevard to Stafford Street. East of Stafford Street, Natoma Street widens to two 

lanes in each direction and continues as a four-lane undivided roadway to Fargo 

Way. At Fargo Way, Natoma Street becomes East Natoma Street and continues to 

Folsom Dam Road as a two-lane undivided roadway. At Folsom Dam Road, the 

eastbound side of the roadway increases to two lanes; it continues as a three-lane 

road to Green Valley Road/Blue Ravine Road. Natoma Street is posted at 35 mph 

through the City of Folsom and then increases to 45 mph at the Prison entrance and 

increases again to 50 mph at Briggs Ranch Drive. Within the downtown area, land 

use is mixed use residential/commercial/office; east of Fargo Way the land use 

changes to residential/recreational. 

Major intersections along East Natoma Street include: 

East Natoma Street at Auburn-Folsom Road and Forrest Street: The Auburn-Folsom 

Road at Natoma Street/Forrest Street intersection consists of four approaches. The 

Auburn-Folsom Road approaches both consist of an exclusive left turn lane, two 

through lanes, and a right turn lane. The lane configuration of the Forrest Street 

approach is one combined left/through lane and one right turn lane. The Natoma 

Street approach consists of a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane. 

There is a bicycle lane provided along this section of Auburn-Folsom Road both 

northbound and southbound. Forrest Street and Natoma Street have sidewalks along 

both sides in the vicinity of the intersection. Pedestrian crossings are provided on all 

four approaches with pedestrian push button actuation. Recent capacity analysis data 

for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Natoma Street at Riley Street: The intersection of Natoma Street at Riley Street 

consists of four approach legs. The lane configuration on all approaches is an 

exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Bicycle lanes are 

present on both sides of the roadway. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across the 

four approaches; there is sidewalk in the vicinity of the intersection on all 

approaches. The Natoma Street at Riley Street intersection is signalized and 

pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads are provided. This intersection currently 

experiences a worse case of LOS F during the evening peak hour period (4 pm – 6 

pm) as illustrated in Bridge EIS/EIR. 

East Natoma Street at Coloma Street: The Natoma Street at Coloma Street 

intersection consists of four intersection approaches. All four intersection legs have 

the same lane configuration: one left turn lane and one shared through/right turn 

lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of Natoma Street and Coloma Street in the 

vicinity of the intersection. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across all four 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

intersection approaches. The intersection is signalized and pedestrian pushbuttons 

and signal heads are provided for each crossing. This intersection currently 

experiences a worse case of LOS C during the evening peak hour period (4 pm – 6 

pm) as illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

East Natoma Street at Stafford Street: The intersection of Natoma Street at Stafford 

Street has four approaches; the Stafford Street approaches are slightly offset with the 

northbound approach further west than the southbound approach. The Natoma Street 

eastbound approach consists of a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. 

The Natoma Street westbound approach has a left turn lane, on through lane, and a 

right turn lane. The northbound and southbound Stafford Street approaches both 

have a marked shared left/through/right lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of 

all four intersection legs. Crosswalks are provided across all intersection 

approaches. The Natoma Street at Stafford Street intersection is signalized and 

includes pedestrian pushbuttons. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection 

were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the 

traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action.

East Natoma Street at Wales Drive: The intersection of Natoma Street at Wales 

Drive consists of four approaches; three roadway approaches and one driveway 

access. The eastbound and westbound Natoma Street approaches have one left turn 

lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right lane. The Wales Drive 

northbound leg consists of one left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. The 

driveway access southbound has a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. 

There are sidewalks present along both sides of Natoma Street and Wales Drive; the 

driveway access has sidewalk on the east side only. The Natoma Street and Wales 

Drive approaches have crosswalks. The intersection is signalized and pedestrian 

pushbuttons are provided. This intersection currently experiences a LOS B during 

the peak hour periods as illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

East Natoma Street at Natoma Street and Prison Road: The Natoma Street at East 

Natoma Street and Prison Road intersection has three approach legs. The Natoma 

Street eastbound approach consists of a left turn lane and a through lane. This 

approach also has a marked bicycle lane. The westbound East Natoma Street 

approach has one shared lane and a marked bicycle lane. The Prison Road, 

southbound, leg of the intersection has one left turn lane and a right turn lane. There 

are no pedestrian crosswalks or sidewalks at this intersection. The Natoma Street at 

East Natoma Street and Prison Road intersection is signalized. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Natoma Street at Folsom Dam Road and Briggs Ranch Drive: The traffic flow 

at the intersection of East Natoma Street at Folsom Dam Road consists of four 

intersection approaches. The eastbound East Natoma Street approach has one left 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-21 

turn lane, a though lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. The westbound 

approach on East Natoma Street consists of a left turn lane, a through lane, and a 

right turn lane. The Briggs Ranch Drive northbound leg to the intersection consists 

of a shared left/through lane and a right turn lane. The southbound approach on 

Folsom Dam Road has a left turn lane and a shared left/through/right turn lane. 

Sidewalks are present on both sides of Briggs Ranch Drive south of the intersection; 

there are crosswalks on both the East Natoma Street and northbound Briggs Ranch 

Drive approaches. The East Natoma Street at Folsom Dam Road and Briggs Ranch 

Drive intersection is signalized and pedestrian signals and pushbuttons are provided 

for each crossing. This intersection currently experiences a LOS A during the peak 

hour periods as illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

East Natoma Street at Briggs Ranch Drive: The traffic flow at the intersection of 

East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive consists of four approach legs. The 

eastbound East Natoma Street approach has one left turn lane, two through lanes, and 

a right turn lane. The westbound East Natoma Street leg consists of one left turn 

lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The Briggs Ranch Drive approach 

from the south has one shared left/through lane and a right turn lane; the approach 

from the north has a single, unmarked, shared use lane. Briggs Ranch Drive has 

sidewalks on both sides to the south of the intersection. East Natoma Street has 

sidewalk on the north side to the west of the intersection. The northbound Briggs 

Ranch Drive and eastbound East Natoma approaches have crosswalks. The 

intersection is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not 

evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic 

study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Green Valley Road 

Green Valley Road is an east-west roadway that begins at the intersection with East 

Natoma/Blue Ravine Road and continues east into El Dorado County. Within the 

Folsom DS/FDR area, Green Valley Road is a two-lane undivided roadway and is 

classified as an undivided arterial. The speed limit is posted at 45 mph. Green 

Valley Road does not have sidewalks or marked bicycle facilities. The land use 

along much of the roadway is primarily residential/recreational. 

Folsom Dam Road 

On February 28, 2003, “following a series of security reviews, Reclamation 

indefinitely closed Folsom Dam Road, as an emergency measure to preserve and 

protect the core mission of Folsom Dam and Reservoir and to ensure public safety in 

the vicinity of the dam and other parts of Sacramento County.” Following a Record 

of Decision issued May 2005, Reclamation allowed the road to be opened to 

commuter traffic for 3-hour periods during the morning and evening peak periods 

subject to the City of Folsom providing safety and infrastructure improvements. The 

City of Folsom is currently unable to open the roads subject to Reclamation’s 

conditions; therefore, the road remains temporarily closed. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

To provide a conservative analysis of potential impacts on currently open roads, this 

analysis assumes that Folsom Dam Road is not available for construction activities. 

During implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR, the Folsom Dam Road could be used 

to accommodate construction traffic, which would reduce potential transportation 

impacts. 

Sierra College Boulevard 

Sierra College Boulevard is a north-south roadway that begins at its intersection with 

Hazel Avenue and Old Auburn Road and continues north to Interstate 80 and ends at 

the Caperton Reservoir. From Old Auburn Road to Seymour Place, Sierra College 

Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway. At Seymour Place, the northbound side 

reduces to one lane. Sierra College Boulevard continues as a three-lane divided 

roadway to the Rocklin line north of Olympus Drive where it further reduces to a 

two-lane undivided roadway. It is classified as a divided arterial. Sierra College 

Boulevard is posted at 45 mph through the Folsom DS/FDR area. Land use along 

much of the roadway varies from residential to commercial/retail. 

Major intersections along Sierra College Boulevard include: 

Sierra College Boulevard at Douglas Boulevard: The intersection of Douglas 

Boulevard at Sierra College Boulevard consists of four intersection approaches. The 

eastbound Douglas Boulevard approach has four approach lanes: one exclusive left 

turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through/right lane. The westbound 

approach on Douglas Boulevard consists of one left turn lane, three through lanes, 

and a channelized right turn lane. The Sierra College Boulevard approaches both 

have four lanes: one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The 

right turn lane on the northbound approach is channelized. There are no marked 

bicycle lanes at this intersection. Pedestrian access is provided on all approaches 

with sidewalks on both sides of the roadways and pedestrian crosswalks across all 

four approaches. The intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Sierra College 

Boulevard is signalized and includes pedestrian pushbuttons. This intersection 

currently experiences a LOS E during the peak hour period as illustrated in the City 

of Roseville General Plan, Circulation Element. 

Eureka Road 

Eureka Road is a north-south roadway; within the limits of the Folsom DS/FDR 

study area, it begins at the intersection of Eureka Road and Douglas Boulevard and 

ends at the Interstate 80 interchange intersection. It is classified as an arterial, 

changing from undivided to divided within the Folsom DS/FDR study area. The 

roadway consists of six lanes, divided, with marked bicycle lanes on both sides. The 

posted speed limit within the Folsom DS/FDR study area is 45 mph. Land use along 

much of the roadway is predominantly commercial/retail and large office space. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-23 

Major intersections along Eureka Road include: 

Eureka Road at Douglas Boulevard: The intersection of Eureka Road at Douglas 

Boulevard consists of four intersection approaches. The Douglas Boulevard 

eastbound approach has six lanes: two exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, 

and a right turn lane. The westbound Douglas Boulevard approach consists of two 

exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The 

Eureka Road northbound approach has two exclusive left turn lanes, two through 

lanes, and a right turn lane. The southbound Eureka Road approach consists of two 

left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The Eureka 

Road approaches also include a marked bicycle lane between the through and right 

turn lanes; Douglas Boulevard has a bicycle lane only on the north side between the 

through lane and the channelized right turns. All four approaches have sidewalks 

present on both sides of the roadways. Crosswalks are provided across all of the 

intersection approaches. The intersection is signalized and pedestrian push buttons 

are provided. This intersection currently experiences a LOS C during the peak hour 

period as illustrated in the Circulation Element section of the City of Roseville 

General Plan. 

Eureka Road at Lead Hill Boulevard: The intersection of Eureka Road at Lead Hill 

Boulevard consists of four intersection approaches. The Eureka Road northbound 

and southbound approaches have five lanes: one exclusive left turn lane, three 

through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. There is a marked bicycle lane 

between the through and right turn lane. The Lead Hill Boulevard approaches 

consist of four lanes: one exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. A bicycle lane is present between the through and right 

lane. All four approaches have sidewalks present on both sides of the roadway. 

Crosswalks are provided across all four intersection legs. The intersection is 

signalized and includes pedestrian signal heads and pushbutton actuation. This 

intersection currently experiences a LOS A during the peak hour period as illustrated 

in the Circulation Element section of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

Eureka Road at Rocky Ridge Drive: The intersection of Eureka Road at Rocky Ridge 

Drive consists of four intersection approaches. The Eureka Road northbound and 

southbound approaches have five lanes: one exclusive left turn lane, three through 

lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. There is a marked bicycle lane between the 

through and right turn lane. The Rocky Ridge Drive approaches consist of four 

lanes: one exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a channelized right turn 

lane. A bicycle lane is present between the through and right lane. All four 

approaches have sidewalks present on both sides of the roadway. Crosswalks are 

provided across all four intersection legs. The intersection is signalized and includes 

pedestrian signal heads and pushbutton actuation. This intersection currently 

experiences a LOS D during the peak hour period as illustrated in the Circulation 

Element section of the City of Roseville General Plan. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Eureka Road at Sunrise Avenue: The intersection of Eureka Road at Sunrise Avenue 

consists of four intersection approaches. The Eureka Road northbound and 

southbound approaches have five lanes: one exclusive left turn lane, three through 

lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. There is a marked bicycle lane between the 

through and right turn lane. The Sunrise Avenue approaches consist of six lanes: 

two exclusive left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. 

A bicycle lane is marked between the through and right turn lane. All four 

intersection legs have pedestrian crosswalks; there are sidewalks on both sides of all 

approaches. The intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian pushbuttons. This 

intersection currently experiences a LOS D during the peak hour period as illustrated 

in the Circulation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

Eureka Road at Taylor Road and the Interstate 80 Off-Ramp: The intersection of 

Eureka Road at Taylor Road and Interstate 80 has four intersection approaches. The 

northbound Eureka Road approach consists of three through lanes and a channelized 

right turn lane. The southbound Eureka Road approach has one exclusive left turn 

lane, and two though lanes. The Taylor Road westbound approach consists of two 

exclusive left turn lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. The Interstate 80 off-ramp 

approach eastbound has one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a 

channelized right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the Taylor Road 

approach and the Eureka Road northbound approach. Crosswalks are marked across 

all four legs of the intersection. The Eureka Road at Taylor Road and Interstate 80 

intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian signal heads and pushbuttons. This 

intersection currently experiences a LOS D during the peak hour period as illustrated 

in the Circulation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

East Bidwell Street 

East Bidwell Street is a north-south roadway that connects Highway 50 with 

downtown Folsom. Within the Folsom DS/FDR study area, East Bidwell Street 

varies between four and six divided lanes. A marked bicycle lane and sidewalks are 

present along some sections of East Bidwell Street. The roadway is classified as a 

divided arterial. The speed limit is posted at 45 mph. Land use along much of the 

roadway is predominantly commercial and residential. 

Major intersections along East Bidwell Street include: 

East Bidwell Street at Highway 50 Interchange Off-Ramp: The traffic flow at this 

intersection consists of three intersection approaches. East Bidwell Street enters 

from the north with three though lanes and from the south with two through lanes. 

The Highway 50 westbound traffic exits East Bidwell Street to a highway entrance 

ramp before the intersection. The Highway 50 interchange off-ramp enters the 

intersection from the east and consists of two exclusive left turn lanes and two right 

turn lanes. The intersection is signalized, and a pedestrian crosswalk is provided 

across the Highway 50 ramp. There are no marked bicycle lanes at this location. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-25 

Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Bidwell Street at Iron Point Road: The intersection of East Bidwell Street and 

Iron Point Road has four approaches. The northbound and southbound legs of East 

Bidwell Street have two exclusive left turn lanes, three though lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. The Iron Point Road eastbound approach consists of one 

left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. The westbound 

Iron Point Road approach has two exclusive left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. Bicycle lanes are present on all four intersection 

approach legs. Crosswalks are provided across all four approaches and pedestrian 

signal heads and timings are included. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Bidwell Street at Broadstone Parkway: The intersection of East Bidwell Street 

and Broadstone Parkway has four intersection legs. The northbound East Bidwell 

Street approach has one left turn lane, three through lanes, and a channelized right 

turn lane. The southbound approach on East Bidwell Street consists of two left turn 

lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The eastbound and 

westbound Broadstone Parkway approaches both have two left turn lanes, three 

through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. Marked bicycle lanes are provided 

on all four intersection approaches as are pedestrian crosswalks and pushbuttons. 

Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Bidwell Street at Scholar Way and Clarksville Road: The intersection of East 

Bidwell Street at Scholar Way/Clarksville Road consists of four approaches. The 

northbound East Bidwell Street approaches has two left turn lanes, two through 

lanes, and a channelized right turn lane; the southbound approach has two left turn 

lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The Scholar Way 

westbound and Clarksville Road eastbound approaches consist of one left turn lane, 

two through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. Bicycle lanes are present on all 

four approach legs. Pedestrian accommodations, including crosswalks and 

pushbuttons, are included on all approaches. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

East Bidwell Street at Oak Avenue Parkway: The intersection of East Bidwell Street 

and Oak Avenue Parkway has four intersection approaches. All of the approaches 

have the same lane configuration: two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. Bicycle lanes are marked between the through and right 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

turn lanes on all of the intersection legs. Crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons are 

included for all approaches. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were 

not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the 

traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Oak Avenue Parkway 

Oak Avenue Parkway is a six-lane divided roadway. Within the Folsom DS/FDR 

study area – between East Bidwell Street and Blue Ravine Road – there are no center 

left turn lanes for access to off-side driveways. All changes of direction are made at 

the intersections. Oak Avenue Parkway is classified as a divided arterial. The speed 

limit is posted at 45 mph. Land use along much of the roadway is predominantly 

residential with some small retail. Marked bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided 

intermittently along the roadway. 

Major intersections along Oak Avenue Parkway include: 

Oak Avenue Parkway at East Bidwell Street: The intersection of Oak Avenue 

Parkway and East Bidwell Street has four intersection approaches. Each of the 

approaches consists of two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a channelized 

right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of all approach legs. Bicycle 

lanes are marked between the through and right turn lanes on all of the intersection 

legs. Crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons are included for all approaches. 

Sidewalks are present on all four intersection corners. Recent capacity analysis data 

for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Oak Avenue Parkway at South Lexington Drive: The intersection of Oak Avenue 

Parkway and South Lexington Drive consists of four intersection approaches. The 

northbound and southbound Oak Avenue Parkway approaches have one left turn 

lane, two through lanes, and a shared through/right turn lane. The east and 

westbound South Lexington Drive approaches have one left turn lane and a shared 

through/right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on all four intersection approaches. 

Marked bicycle lanes are present on both Oak Avenue Parkway approach legs. 

Crosswalks with pedestrian pushbuttons are provided for all four approaches. Recent 

capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, 

contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR 

action. 

Oak Avenue Parkway at North Lexington Drive: The intersection of Oak Avenue 

Parkway and North Lexington Drive has four intersection approaches. The north and 

south Oak Avenue Parkway intersection legs have one left turn lane, two through 

lanes, and a shared through/right turn lane. The North Lexington Drive approaches 

consist of a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Pedestrian 

accommodations, including sidewalks, crosswalks and pushbuttons, are provided for 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-27 

all four intersection approaches. There are marked bicycle lanes on the northbound 

and southbound Oak Avenue Parkway approaches. Recent capacity analysis data for 

this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Oak Avenue Parkway at Blue Ravine Road: The Oak Avenue Parkway at Blue 

Ravine Road intersection has four approach legs. The Oak Avenue Parkway 

northbound approach leg consists of one left turn lane, three through lanes, and a 

channelized right turn lane. There is a marked bicycle lane between the through and 

right turn lanes. The southbound Oak Avenue Parkway approach has one left turn 

lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. The eastbound 

approach on Blue Ravine Road consists of five lanes: two left turn lanes, two 

through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. The Blue Ravine Road westbound 

approach has two left turn lanes, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn 

lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of all of the intersection approaches; 

pedestrian crosswalks are provided across all four legs of the intersection. The Blue 

Ravine Road at Oak Avenue Parkway intersection is signalized and provides 

pushbuttons and signal heads for pedestrian access. Recent capacity analysis data for 

this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Greenback Lane 

Greenback Lane is a four-lane, divided roadway with center left turn lanes for crossstreet and driveway access. It runs predominantly in an east-west direction and 

connects the City of Folsom with Interstate 80 and points west. Sidewalks are 

present intermittently on both sides of the roadway; there are marked bicycle 

facilities from Auburn-Folsom Road to Madison Avenue. It is classified as a divided 

arterial. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. The land use along much of the roadway 

within the Folsom DS/FDR study area is predominantly residential and small 

commercial/retail. 

Major intersections along Greenback Lane include: 

Greenback Lane at Folsom Boulevard/Auburn-Folsom Road: The Greenback Lane at 

Auburn-Folsom Road/Folsom Boulevard intersection traffic flow is comprised of 

four approaches. The northbound approach on Folsom Boulevard (on the American 

River Bridge) has two exclusive left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right turn 

lane. The Auburn-Folsom Road southbound approach and Greenback Lane 

westbound approaches consist of an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a 

right turn lane. The eastbound Greenback Lane approach lane configuration is two 

exclusive left lanes, one through lane, and a channelized right turn lane. AuburnFolsom Road northbound has bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway; Greenback 

Lane eastbound has a marked bicycle lane on the south side of the roadway. 

Pedestrian crosswalks are provided on all four intersection approaches and include 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

pedestrian pushbuttons. The intersection is signalized. The intersection is signalized. 

This intersection currently experiences a LOS F during the peak hour periods as 

illustrated in the Bridge EIS/EIR. 

Greenback Lane at Madison Avenue/Lake Natoma Drive: The intersection of 

Greenback Lane and Madison Avenue/Lake Natoma Drive consists of four approach 

legs. Greenback Lane westbound has one exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, 

and a channelized right turn lane. The Greenback Lane southbound approach 

consists of one left turn lane and one shared left/through/right lane. The Madison 

Avenue eastbound approach has one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a 

shared through/right turn lane. The northbound Lake Natoma Drive approach 

consists of one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The 

intersection is signalized. Sidewalks are present on both sides of all three roadways. 

Pedestrian crossings are located across the Madison Avenue, Lake Natoma Drive, 

and Greenback Lane southbound legs of the intersection. Recent capacity analysis 

data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Greenback Lane at Main Street: The intersection of Greenback Lane and Main Street 

has four approach legs. All of the approaches have the same lane configuration: one 

exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. 

There is sidewalk present on all four approaches; pedestrian facilities are provided 

for all legs of the intersection. The Greenback Lane at Main Street intersection is 

signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Greenback Lane at Hazel Avenue: The Greenback Lane and Hazel Avenue 

intersection consists of four approach legs. The approaches each have five lanes: 

two exclusive left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. Sidewalks are 

available on all approaches. Pedestrian facilities, including crosswalks and 

pushbuttons, are provided on all four intersection legs. The Greenback Lane and 

Hazel Avenue location is signalized. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Scott Road 

Scott Road is a narrow two-lane, undivided roadway. Scott Road has a limited 

paved shoulder and minimal pavement markings. There are no sidewalks or marked 

bicycle facilities along Scott Road within the Folsom DS/FDR route. The posted 

speed limit is 35 mph. The land use along much of the roadway is predominantly 

agricultural. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-29 

White Rock Road 

White Rock Road is a narrow two-lane, undivided roadway with limited paved 

shoulder and pavement markings. Sidewalks and marked bicycle facilities are not 

provided within the Folsom DS/FDR area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Land 

use along much of the roadway is mainly agricultural. 

Regional Access Routes 

In addition to the local roadway access routes, sand is expected to be hauled to the 

Folsom DS/FDR site from the City of Marysville, located approximately 50 miles to 

the northwest of the Folsom Facility. The Regional Routes accessing the Folsom 

DS/FDR area are listed in Table 3.9-4. 

Table 3.9-4 

Regional Access Routes 

Roadway Segment Limits City/Community County Jurisdiction 

HammontonSmartville (H-S) 

Road 

From Teichert Aggregate to 

N. Beale Road 

Marysville Yuba County Yuba County 

N Beale Road From H-S Road Marysville Yuba County Yuba County 

Feather River 

Boulevard 

From N Beale Road to 

Highway 70 

Marysville Yuba County Yuba County 

Highway 70 Feather River Boulevard to 

Highway 65 

Marysville Yuba County Yuba County 

Highway 65 From Highway 70 to County 

Line (south of Wheatland) 

Marysville/ 

Wheatland 

Yuba County Caltrans 

Highway 65 County Line (south of 

Wheatland) to Interstate 80 

Lincoln, Roseville Placer County Caltrans 

Interstate 80 Highway 65 to Sierra College 

Boulevard 

Roseville, Rocklin Placer County Caltrans 

Interstate 80 Highway 65 to Eureka Road Roseville, Rocklin Placer County Caltrans 

Roadway – STAA Federal Route 

Hammonton-Smartville Road 

Hammonton-Smartville Road is an east-west roadway that runs from State Highway 

20 to Chestnut Road (beneath Scenic Route 70). It is classified as a collector 

roadway. Hammonton-Smartville Road consists of two undivided lanes. There is 

limited paved shoulder and minimal pavement markings. The posted speed limit is 

35 mph from North Beale Road to Dunning Avenue and then increases to 55 mph 

from Dunning Avenue to the Teichert Industries location. The land use along the 

roadway is predominantly agricultural. 

Major intersections along Hammonton-Smartville Road include: 

Hammonton-Smartville Road at North Beale Road: The Hammonton-Smartville 

Road at North Beale Road intersection consists of four intersection legs. The North 

Beale approaches have an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and a 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

channelized right turn lane. The Hammonton-Smartville Road approaches have one 

exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a channelized right turn lane. 

Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across all four intersection approaches with 

pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

North Beale Road 

North Beale Road is an east-west roadway in the City of Marysville that runs from 

Hammonton-Smartville Road to the Highway 70 westbound on-ramp. It is classified 

as a minor arterial. The roadway consists of four, undivided lanes. A center turn 

lane is provided intermittently along the roadway. A marked bicycle lane is present 

on both sides of the segment with the Folsom DS/FDR study area. The posted speed 

limit is 35 mph. Land use in the area is mixed use residential, commercial and retail. 

Major intersections along North Beale Road include: 

North Beale Road at Hammonton-Smartville Road: The North Beale Road at 

Hammonton-Smartville Road intersection consists of four intersection legs. The 

North Beale Road approaches have an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, 

and a channelized right turn lane. The Hammonton-Smartville Road approaches 

have one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a channelized right turn lane. 

Pedestrian crosswalks are provided across all four intersection approaches with 

pedestrian pushbuttons and signal heads. Recent capacity analysis data for this 

intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed 

as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

North Beale Road at Lindhurst Avenue: The North Beale Road at Lindhurst Avenue 

intersection consists of four intersection legs. The North Beale Road southbound 

approach has an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and two right turn lanes 

which are channelized well away from the intersection. The North Beale Road 

westbound approach has one exclusive left turn lane, a shared left/through lane, one 

through lane, and a channelized right turn lane. Lindhurst Avenue approaches 

eastbound; it consists of one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a 

channelized right turn lane. The forth approach is a driveway for a retail center and 

has one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a channelized right turn lane. Bike 

lanes are present on all of the intersection approaches. Pedestrian crosswalks are 

provided across the Lindhurst Avenue and driveway approaches. Pushbuttons and 

signal heads are also provided for pedestrian access. Recent capacity analysis data 

for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and documents 

reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

North Beale Road at Walmart Drive: The North Beale Road at Walmart Drive 

intersection consists of four intersection legs. The North Beale Road approaches 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-31 

have an exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through/right lane. 

The Walmart Drive approach consists of one shared left/through lane and an 

exclusive right turn lane. The driveway approach has one shared left/through/right 

lane. Crosswalks are provided on all approach legs with pushbuttons and pedestrian 

signals. A bicycle lane is marked on the North Beale Road legs. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

North Beale Road at Feather River Boulevard: The intersection of North Beale Road 

and Feather River Boulevard consists of four approach legs. The North Beale Road 

westbound approach has one exclusive left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared 

through/right lane. The eastbound North Beale Road approach consists of one 

exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes; a right turn lane is present further to 

west of the intersection keeping those vehicles out of the intersection traffic stream. 

The Feather River Boulevard approach has one shared left/through lane and a 

channelized right turn lane. The forth leg of the intersection is a driveway approach 

with a shared left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. Pedestrian 

crosswalks and pushbuttons are provided on all four intersection approaches. A 

bicycle lane is marked on the North Beale Road approaches. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Feather River Boulevard 

Feather River Boulevard is a north-south roadway that connects North Beale Road in 

the City of Marysville to Highway 70 south of the city. It is classified as a collector 

roadway. Within the study area, Feather River Boulevard has sidewalks provided on 

both sides of the roadway. The roadway consists of four, undivided lanes. 

Major intersections along Feather River Boulevard include: 

Feather River Boulevard at North Beale Road: The intersection of Feather River 

Boulevard at North Beale Road consists of four approach legs. The North Beale 

Road westbound approach has one exclusive left turn lane, a through lane, and a 

shared through/right lane. The eastbound North Beale Road approach consists of 

one exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes; a right turn lane is present further 

to west of the intersection keeping those vehicles out of the intersection traffic 

stream. The Feather River Boulevard approach has one shared left/through lane and 

a channelized right turn lane. The forth leg of the intersection is a driveway 

approach with a shared left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. Pedestrian 

crosswalks and pushbuttons are provided on all four intersection approaches. A 

bicycle lane is marked on the North Beale Road approaches. Recent capacity 

analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, contacts, and 

documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR action. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Scenic Route 70 

Scenic Route 70 is an east-west highway that connects Route 99 near Sacramento to 

Highway 395 north of Reno, Nevada. It is part of both the California Freeway and 

Expressway system and the Scenic Route system. The freeway section of Highway 

70 ends at the North Beale/Feather River Road exits and then continues east as a 

scenic route. Scenic Route 70 is classified as principal arterial with a posted speed 

limit of 65 mph. It is a four-lane divided highway from the North Beale/Feather 

River Road exit south to the junction with Highway 65. 

Scenic Route 65 

Scenic Route 65 is a north-south state highway composed of two sections connecting 

Bakersfield to Exeter and Roseville to Yuba City. A highway section to connect the 

two pieces has not been constructed. Highway 65 is part of the California Freeway 

and Expressway system. The section of Highway 65 used as a regional haul route – 

between Highway 70 and Interstate 80 – is classified as a principal arterial. It 

consists of two, undivided lanes with varying shoulder width. The posted speed limit 

varies along the route, from low 25-30 mph sections through higher population areas 

to 55-65 mph sections through the rural/agricultural areas. 

Major intersections along Scenic Route 65 include: 

Highway 65 at 7th Street: The Highway 65 at 7th Street intersection consists of four 

intersection approaches. All four approaches have the same lane configuration: one 

left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on both 

sides of all intersection approaches. Pedestrian crosswalks and pushbuttons are also 

present. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Highway 65 at 5th Street: The Highway 65 at 5th Street intersection has four 

approaches. The northbound and southbound Highway 65 legs both consist of an 

exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The eastbound 5th Street 

approach has one shared use lane; the westbound approach has an exclusive left turn 

lane and a shared through/right turn lane. There are sidewalks on both sides of all 

approaches. Pedestrian crosswalks and pushbuttons are also provided for all 

intersection legs. Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident 

in the information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for 

the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Highway 65 at McBean Park Drive: The intersection of Highway 65 at McBean 

Park Drive has four approach legs. The northbound Highway 65 approach consists 

of an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The southbound 

Highway 65 approach is a single shared use lane. McBean Park Drive eastbound has 

a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane; westbound is a single shared use 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-33 

lane. All of the Highway 65 at McBean Park Drive approaches has pedestrian 

crosswalks and pushbuttons. Sidewalks are provided on all legs to the intersection. 

Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Highway 65 at 3rd Street: The Highway 65 at 3rd Street intersection consists of four 

approaches. The four approaches all have the same lane configuration with one left 

turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of 

all of the Highway 65 at 3rd Street approaches. Pedestrian accommodations, both 

crosswalks and pushbuttons, are also provided on all intersection legs. Recent 

capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the information, 

contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the Folsom DS/FDR 

action. 

Highway 65 at 1st Street: The intersection of Highway 65 at 1st Street has four 

approach legs. Each approach consists of one left turn lane and a shared 

through/right turn lane. Crosswalks with pedestrian pushbuttons are provided for 

each intersection approach. Sidewalks are present along both sides of each leg. 

Recent capacity analysis data for this intersection were not evident in the 

information, contacts, and documents reviewed as part of the traffic study for the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. 

Interstate 80 

Interstate 80 is the second-longest interstate highway in the United States. The 

section of Interstate 80 located within the study area runs from Eureka Road to Sierra 

College Boulevard in a predominantly north-south direction within the analysis area, 

but, in general, is considered an east-west route. It is classified as a freeway. 

Interstate 80 consists of six lanes, divided by barriers, within the analysis area with 

acceleration/deceleration lanes at the interchanges. 

Major intersections with Interstate 80 ramps include: 

Eureka Road at Taylor Road and the Interstate 80 Off-Ramp: The intersection of 

Eureka Road at Taylor Road and Interstate 80 has four intersection approaches. The 

northbound Eureka Road approach consists of three through lanes and a channelized 

right turn lane. The southbound Eureka Road approach has one exclusive left turn 

lane, and two though lanes. The Taylor Road westbound approach consists of two 

exclusive left turn lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. The Interstate 80 off-ramp 

approach eastbound has one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and a 

channelized right turn lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the Taylor Road 

approach and the Eureka Road northbound approach. Crosswalks are marked across 

all four legs of the intersection. The Eureka Road at Taylor Road and Interstate 80 

intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian signal heads and pushbuttons. This 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

intersection currently experiences a LOS D during the peak hour period as illustrated 

in the Circulation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

Sierra College Boulevard at Interstate 80 Ramps: The Sierra College Boulevard at 

Interstate 80 Ramps intersection consists of three approaches. The northbound 

Sierra College Boulevard approach has one left turn lane and one through lane. The 

southbound Sierra College Boulevard approach has a through lane and an exclusive 

right turn lane. The Interstate 80 eastbound approach consists of one left turn lane 

and a right turn lane. There are no sidewalks at this intersection location; however, 

crosswalks are provided across the Sierra College northbound and Interstate 80 

approaches. These crossings have pedestrian pushbuttons and signals. This 

intersection currently experiences a LOS D during the peak hour period as illustrated 

in the Circulation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan. 

Douglas Boulevard 

Douglas Boulevard is an east-west roadway and is functionally classified as an 

Arterial. Douglas Boulevard consists of three lanes in each direction, divided, from 

Interstate 80 to Sierra College Boulevard. Between Sierra College Boulevard and 

Auburn-Folsom Road, Douglas Boulevard consists of two lanes in each direction. 

Continuing east, it further narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway. Land uses 

along much of the roadway are offices and commercial to Sierra College Boulevard; 

residential/vacant/open space with limited commercial between Sierra College 

Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road; and primarily residential east of AuburnFolsom Road. Douglas Boulevard west of Interstate 80 is 2 lanes in each direction 

through heavily developed and densely populated areas. 

A full description of major intersections on Douglas Boulevard can be found above 

in the description of Local Access Routes. 

Eureka Road 

Eureka Road is a north-south roadway; within the Folsom DS/FDR study area it 

begins at the intersection of Eureka Road and Douglas Boulevard and ends at the 

Interstate 80 interchange intersection. It is classified as an arterial. The roadway 

consists of six lanes, divided, with marked bicycle lanes on both sides. The posted 

speed limit within the Folsom DS/FDR limits is 45 mph. Land use along much of 

the roadway is predominantly commercial/retail and large office space. 

Full intersection descriptions for the locations on Eureka Road can be found above in 

the description of Local Access Routes. 

Sierra College Boulevard 

Sierra College Boulevard is a north-south roadway that begins at its intersection with 

Hazel Avenue and Old Auburn Road and continues north to Interstate 80 and ends at 

the Caperton Reservoir. From Old Auburn Road to Seymour Place, Sierra College 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-35 

Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway. At Seymour Place, the northbound side 

reduces to one lane. Sierra College Boulevard continues as a three-lane divided 

roadway to the Rocklin line north of Olympus Drive where it further reduces to a 

two-lane undivided roadway. Sierra College Boulevard is posted at 45 mph through 

the Folsom DS/FDR area. Land use along much of the roadway varies from 

residential to commercial/retail. 

A description of major intersections on Sierra College Boulevard can be found in the 

local haul routes section above. 

Auburn-Folsom Road 

Auburn-Folsom Road is functionally classified as an urban arterial and provides 

north-south access between the cities of Auburn to the north and Folsom to the south. 

Beginning at the intersection of Greenback Lane/Riley Street/Folsom Boulevard, 

Auburn-Folsom Road is a four-lane divided roadway. Heading north, AuburnFolsom Road continues with two lanes in each direction, becoming an undivided 

roadway outside of the City of Folsom limits, to its intersection with Folsom Dam 

Road. Continuing north, Auburn-Folsom Road narrows to one lane in each 

direction, crosses the Sacramento/Placer County line, and remains a two-lane 

undivided roadway to the Douglas Boulevard intersection. The speed limit is posted 

at 50 mph. Land use along Auburn-Folsom Road is mixed; commercial, residential 

and light industrial, however in downtown Folsom the land use becomes mainly 

commercial. 

A description of major intersections on Auburn-Folsom Road can be found in the 

local haul routes section above. 

Access Route Incident (Collision) History 

Incident or collision history along the local access routes has been collected and 

analyzed for the most recent three-year period available. The purpose of the 

collision analysis is to identify routes that may currently experience safety concerns 

as demonstrated by a high number of incidents. If a corridor currently experiences 

substantial safety concerns, the corridor may be ruled out as an access route to avoid 

a potential increase in collisions due to the construction traffic from the Folsom 

DS/FDR action, or the Folsom DS/FDR action may provide safety improvements as 

mitigation measures if there are no alternative routes available. 

Collision rates at individual intersections have not been calculated. Instead, the 

intersection collision numbers have been included in the corridor collision rates. 

Including these collisions within the calculation will cause the corridor collision rate 

to be higher; however, it will help represent a conservative value for each roadway. 

The Hundred Million Vehicle Miles traveled (HMVM) crash rate was determined for 

each roadway segment within the Folsom DS/FDR study area as a method of 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

demonstrating overall corridor safety. Based on the latest three years of crash data 

available, crash rates should be calculated for roadway segments based on HMVM as 

follows: 

 HMVM = (A x 100,000,000)/ (ADT x D x L) 

A = number of total crashes at the study location during a 

given period 

ADT = Average Daily Traffic 

D = number of days in the study period 

L = length of study location in miles 

The results of these calculations are contained in Table 3.9-5. 

Based on the most recent motor vehicle safety data from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), there was a national average crash rate of 

221 crashes per hundred million vehicle miles traveled in 2002. Thus, any rate 

higher than 221 may be indicative of a safety concern. A review of the collision data 

indicates that the following roadways may pose potential safety concerns relative to 

the selection of haul routes: 

• Douglas Boulevard – Eureka Road to Sierra College Boulevard 

• Douglas Boulevard – Barton Road to Auburn-Folsom Road 

• East Bidwell Street – Blue Ravine Road to Oak Avenue Parkway 

• Folsom Boulevard – Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road/US 50 to Greenback 

Lane 

Again, the calculations prepared include collisions that occurred at major 

intersections, which are typically not included in the HMVM calculation. Therefore, 

the results of the collision analysis are conservative (i.e., high). Specific intersection 

‘crash rates’ are typically calculated separately from the HMVM. 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

ADT Accidents 1

Length of 

Roadway 

Section (miles)

Accident 

Rate 2

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road 38,398

Folsom Boulevard US50 to Greenback Lane 34,900

Folsom-Auburn Road Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road 32,292

Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue 29,591

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road 31,563

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive 27,097

Blue Ravine Road Folsom Boulevard to Sibley Street 19,410 24 0.73 154.69

Blue Ravine Road Sibley Street to Riley Street 29,631 33 0.77 132.09

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street 19,122 25 3.07 38.89

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom Dam Road 19,967 11 0.81 62.11

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road 18,054 17 1.27 67.71

Natoma St Folsom Blvd to Cimmaron Circle ~~ 154 1.58 ~~

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to Sophia Parkway 26,681 ~~ 1.20 ~~

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison Avenue 24,390 32 1.63 73.51

Greenback Lane Madison Avenue to Folsom Blvd ~~ 43 1.04

Douglas Boulevard Eureka Road to Sierra College 12,800 81 1.12 515.99

Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road 37,452 164 1.01 395.94

Sierra College Boulevard between I-80 and Douglas Boulevard 24,549 ~~ ~~ ~~

Eureka Road between I-80 and Douglas Boulevard 37,774 ~~ ~~ ~~

Oak Avenue Hazel Avenue to Santa Juanita Avenue 10,620 ~~ ~~ ~~

East Bidwell Street Blue Ravine Road to Oak Avenue Parkway 26,216 76 0.99 267.42

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road 36,371 40 1.00 100.44

Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street 18,586 12 0.94 62.73

Oak Avenue Parkway East Bidwell St to Riley St 12,145 3 0.38 59.36

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road 1,604 ~~ ~~ ~~

White Rock Road between Scott Road (south) and Scott Road (north) 8,822 ~~ ~~ ~~

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road 6,140 ~~ ~~ ~~

US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom Boulevard 116,811 ~~ ~~ ~~

US50 Folsom Boulevard to Prairie City Road 98,424 ~~ ~~ ~~

US50 Prairie City Road to East Bidwell Street 75,161 ~~ ~~ ~~

US50 82,051 ~~ ~~ ~~

Hammonton-Smartville (H-S) Road 8,780 ~~ ~~ ~~

N Beale Road 26,995 ~~ ~~ ~~

Feather River Blvd. 0 ~~ ~~ ~~

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of Feather River Boulevard interchange 53,371 ~~ ~~ ~~

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of Route 80 94,382 ~~ ~~ ~~

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th Street 20,899 ~~ ~~ ~~

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of Evergreen Drive 21,910 ~~ ~~ ~~

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of Route 65 123,064 ~~ ~~ ~~

Interstate 80 Rocklin, northeast of Sierra College Boulevard 101,846 ~~ ~~ ~~

1

 Accident totals represent most recent 3-years of available information

2

 Accident Rate is skewed high due to accidents at intersections being included in the calculation

296 3.10 227.10

Table 3.9-5

Accident History - Corridor Collision Rate

2006

No Action/No Project

Roadway Location

Regional Access Routes

144.67

2.20 208.25

88

162

1.76

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 3.9-37
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

3.9.2.1 Assessment Methods of Future Traffic Conditions 

While a typical traffic impact analysis for a development project in the SACOG area 

would involve the use of trip modeling software such as MINUTP, the transportation 

impacts associated with the Folsom DS/FDR are only related to the construction 

elements of the project. No long-term or permanent traffic volume increases or longterm changes in traffic patterns are expected as a result of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

Therefore, any incremental transportation impacts associated with the Folsom 

DS/FDR are limited to the proposed construction years. According to the schedule, 

the Folsom DS/FDR is expected to be under construction from 2007 through 2014. 

Therefore, the analysis years include all construction years from Folsom DS/FDR 

startup in 2007 to Folsom DS/FDR completion in 2014, as well as the 2006 baseline 

conditions required by CEQA. 

Two components of traffic growth are typically considered when evaluating future 

year conditions. First, an annual background growth rate is determined based on 

historical data. Second, any increase in traffic volumes expected from approved 

development projects are added into the network. 

However, given the size of the Folsom DS/FDR area and the varying full buildout 

dates of the multitude of projects expected in the region over the next 10 years, an 

individual breakdown of traffic growth factors along every roadway in the Folsom 

DS/FDR area is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Instead, the SACOG Projections Data Set, approved by the Board of Directors 

December 16, 2004, has been utilized to develop an appropriate growth rate. Table 

3.9-6 illustrates the expected population, household and job growth projects; growth 

rates vary widely throughout the region. The growth rates can be broken down into 

the two distinct project areas studied for the Folsom DS/FDR: Local Routes and 

Regional Routes. 

According to the projections, with the exception of the Roseville jobs projection, the 

Local Access Routes area is generally expected to experience a growth rate of 3% or 

less per year for the next five years (2010), and 2% or less per year for the following 

five years (2015). Therefore, a conservative annual growth rate for the local routes 

has been selected as 3% per year compounded through 2010 and 2% per year 

compounded through 2015. Impacts associated with potential developments in the 

study area are already incorporated in the population, household and job growth 

rates. Consequently, only the growth rate will be applied to each construction year 

with no additional development project-specific traffic volume increases. 
Population Households Jobs 

% increase 

per year from 

2005

% increase 

per year 

from 2005

% increase 

per year from 

2005

% increase 

per year from 

2010

% incr

per yea

201

El Dorado County 147,045 56,111 51,644 159,422 1.63% 59,074 1.03% 58,267 2.44% 171,212 1.44% 64,526 

Unincorp. El Dorado County 136,974 51,819 38,241 148,169 1.58% 54,488 1.01% 43,837 2.77% 158,772 1.39% 59,444 

Placer County 301,560 121,507 156,237 330,381 1.84% 128,711 1.16% 180,607 2.94% 358,488 1.65% 141,461 

Lincoln 26,661 11,741 6,158 28,364 1.25% 11,644 -0.17% 8,354 6.29% 29,883 1.05% 11,926 

Rocklin 52,035 19,999 15,003 56,765 1.76% 21,038 1.02% 17,349 2.95% 61,338 1.56% 22,961 

Roseville 104,136 42,244 66,250 107,038 0.55% 42,379 0.06% 80,211 3.90% 108,692 0.31% 43,976 

Sacramento County 1,361,637 502,142 657,100 1,454,596 1.33% 525,837 0.93% 734,253 2.25% 1,539,049 1.14% 571,255 

Unincorp. Sacramento County 540,521 201,673 225,261 564,736 0.88% 207,112 0.53% 235,388 0.88% 583,772 0.67% 220,474 

Folsom 67,325 23,178 31,654 70,372 0.89% 23,971 0.68% 34,981 2.02% 72,778 0.67% 25,709 

Yuba County 65,952 21,533 22,988 75,792 2.82% 24,880 2.93% 28,751 4.58% 85,979 2.55% 29,619 

Marysville 12,916 4,727 8,982 13,314 0.61% 4,839 0.47% 10,235 2.65% 13,563 0.37% 5,134 

Wheatland 3,698 1,219 365 4,847 5.56% 1,596 5.54% 683 13.34% 6,100 4.71% 2,090 

Local RoutesRegional Routes

Source: http://www.sacog.org/demographics/projections/index.cfm* Note that the base year population numbers are estimates made by the State Department of Finance's Demographic Research Unit

SACOG Projections Adopted 12.16.04 for Jurisdictions 2005 - 2015

Table 3.9-6

Population Households Jobs Population Households

2005 * 2010 2015

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-40 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

According to the projections, with the exception of the Marysville area, the Regional 

Access Routes area is generally expected to experience substantial growth between 

2005 through 2015. Based on the data illustrated by SACOG, a 6% per year 

compounded growth rate would be applicable to the Regional Access Routes. 

However, since the regional routes involve a larger area of influence than the local 

access routes, historical traffic volume data from Caltrans has been evaluated. Table 

3.9-7 illustrates the historical traffic growth data over the past ten years, and the past 

five years. According to this research near the communities of Lincoln and 

Wheatland, traffic volumes along Highway 65 have grown 8 to 9% per year over the 

past five years and 6% per year over the past ten years. Highway 65 near Interstate 

80 has experienced traffic growth of 11% per year over the past five years and 12% 

per year over the past 10 years. Contrarily, Interstate 80 in Rocklin and Roseville 

has experienced a consistent 2 to 4% annual growth in traffic volumes since 1994. 

Therefore, varying growth rates are applied to the regional routes, as these routes 

involve a larger area of influence. A 6% annual growth rate is applied to Highways 

65 and 70, while the 3%/2% annual growth rate applied to the local access routes 

will be applied to Interstate 80 and the roadways in Marysville. 

Hereon, sections of the Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR are incorporated by reference into 

this analysis. This document is available for public review at local Corps offices, 

City of Folsom, and online at http://www.folsom.ca.us/about/whats_new/bridge.asp. 

Table 3.9-8 illustrates the No Action/No Project traffic volumes expected along each 

route evaluated in the Folsom DS/FDR study area. Given the smaller scope of the 

Folsom Bridge Project relative to the Folsom DS/FDR, the Folsom Bridge EIR/EIS 

analysis applied ‘site specific’ growth rates to each roadway studied. These 

individual growth rates were applied to each roadway studied in the Folsom DS/FDR 

action to determine the 2007 baseline conditions for No Action Alternative and 

Alternatives 1 through 5. If the Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR did not include one of the 

Folsom DS/FDR study roadways, then the 2006 baseline data was determined by 

applying the background growth rates as described above. The CEQA baseline 2006 

traffic volume data for the Folsom DS/FDR was established by interpolating between 

the 2004 and 2007 No Action Alternative Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR data. 

Table 3.9-8 illustrates the future traffic volumes expected along the local and 

regional access routes without implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR. Furthermore, 

Table 3.9-8 also illustrates the expected LOS based on the facility type code 

expected to be in place during each analysis year (i.e., in terms of the number of 

lanes and type of roadway expected to be in place, such as a two-lane undivided 

arterial road coded as "2AU", or a four-lane divided arterial "4AD", or a freeway 

"F", etc.). Most of the codes illustrated in Table 3.9-8 are provided in the Folsom 

Bridge EIS/EIR for 2004 as well as 2007. The Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR determined 

facility type code and LOS for 2004, 2007 and 2025. 
T

1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1994-

AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT

% incre

year o

yea

65 Placer 4.86 Roseville, Jct. Rte. 80 27,000 50,000 56000 60000 60000 70000 84000 65 Placer 14.05 Lincoln, 7th Street 10,800 12,500 14200 14200 14200 16600 18600 65 Yuba 1.5 Wheatland, Evergreen Drive 10,500 12,900 14200 14200 14200 18200 19500 70 Yuba 0.35 Feather River Boulevard 10,000 11,600 37500 11600 40000 12600 13000 80 Placer 4.16 Roseville, Jct. Rte. 65 80,000 96,000 109000 103000 10300 10800 116000 80 Placer 7.42 Rocklin, Sierra College Blvd 77,000 87,000 93000 85000 90000 90000 96000 

Table 3.9-7

Historical Traffic Data - Background Growth Rates

AADT = Annual Average Daily TrafficSource: http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/

Route County Postmile Description

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-42 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

This page intentionally left blank
i

Table 3.9-8

No Action/No Project Traffic Volume Data

Local Access Routes

*Existing Conditions Future 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS Interpolated 

Folsom Bridge No 

Action Alternative

Folsom Bridge 

Allternatives 2-5 3% per year background 

Roadway Location

Materials, Equipment, Batch Plant Routes Worker Routes ADT code LOS ADT code LOS ADT code LOS ADT code LOS ADT code LOS ADT 

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W-5B, 

W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W-5D, W-3E, W-5E 37,800

4AD F 38,398 4AD F 38,700 4AD F

37,800 4AD

F

38,934 4AD F 40,103

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to Greenback 

Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 34,900

4AD D 34,900 4AD D 38,000 4AD F

32,600 4AD

D

33,578 4AD D 34,586

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 7C, 

1D,2D, 2E, W-3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 31,300

2A F 32,292 2A F 32,800 4AU F

40,300 4AU

F

41,509 4AU F 42,755 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 

7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 28,600

4AU E 29,591 4AU F 30,100 4AU F

21,400 4AU

D

22,042 4AU D 22,704 

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O- 4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 30,900 2A F 31,563 2A F 31,900 4AU F 34,300 4AU F 35,329 4AU F 36,389 Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 26,500 2A F 27,097 2A F 27,400 2A F 30,500 2A F 31,415 2A F 32,358 Sierra College north of Douglas Boulevard A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W-2D, W-2E 22,465 23,139 4AD C 24,549 4AD C 25,286 4AD C 25,286 4AD C 26,045 4AD C 26,827 

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 34,568 35,605 6AD C 37,774 6AD C 38,908 6AD C 38,908 6AD C 40,076 6AD C 41,279 Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W-4A, W-5A, 

W-6A, W-7A

2A C 12,800 2A C 13,184 2A C

13,184 2A

C

13,580 2A C 13,988 

Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, O2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W-1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, 

W-1E, W-2E 36,000

4AD E 37,452 4AD F 38,200 4AD F

40,200 4AD

F

41,406 4AD F 42,649

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg Blvd. 41,305 42,544 4AD F 45,136 4AD F 46,491 4AD F 46,491 4AD F 47,886 4AD F 49,323 Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to Green A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, W-6D, W-6E 18,200 4AD C 19,122 4AD C 19,600 4AD D 19,500 4AD D 20,085 4AD D 20,688 East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom Dam 

Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 18,400

2A E 19,967 2A F 20,800 4AU D

16,600 4AU

C

17,098 4AU D 17,611 

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley 

Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 16,300

2A D 18,054 2A E 19,000 4AU D

27,100 4AU

D

27,913 4AU F 28,751 

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to Sophia 

Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W-4E, W-5E, 

W-6E 24,400

2A F 26,681 2A F 27,900 4AU D

32,000 4AU

F

32,960 4AU F 33,949 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison Avenue W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E 23,400 4AMD B 24,390 4AMD B 24,900 4AMD B 24,100 4AMD B 24,823 4AMD B 25,568 East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

32,800

4AD D 36,371 4AD E 38,300 4AD F

39,300 4AD

F

40,479 4AD F 41,694

Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

17,600

6AD C 18,586 6AD C 19,100 6AD C

22,200 6AD

C

22,866 6AD C 23,552 

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 1,468 2C A/B 1,604 2C A/B 1,652 2C A/B 1,652 2C A/B 1,702 2C A/B 1,754 White Rock Road between Scott Road (south) and 

Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 8,565 2C C 8,822 2C C 9,087 2C D

9,087

2C D

9,360

2C

D 9,641

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 5,455 2C C 6,140 2C C 6,324 2C C 6,324 2C C 6,514 2C C 6,710 

US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom Boulevard O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W-5D, W-5E 111,800 4FA F 116,811 4FA F 119,400 4FA F 116,800 4FA F 120,304 4FA F 123,914 US50 Folsom Boulevard to Prairie City 

Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

94,400

4F F 98,424 4F F 100,500 4F F

99,000 4F

F

101,970 4F F 105,030 

US50 Prairie City Road to East Bidwell 

Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

71,800

4F E 75,161 4F E 76,900 4F E

71,800 4F

E

73,954 4F E 76,173 

US50 East Bidwell St to County Line W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W-6D, W-6E 77,000 4F E 82,051 4F F 84,700 4F F 81,900 4F F 84,357 4F F 86,888 

Regional Access Routes

3% per year background growth 

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2 7801 8,780 2C C

9,043 2C D 9,043 2C D 9,315 2C D 9,594 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 23,985 26,995 4AU C 27,805 4AU D 27,805 4AU D 28,639 4AU D 29,499 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2 4AU

0 0 0 

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of Feather River Boulevard interchange A-1, A-2 47,500 53,371 4AMD F 56,574 4AMD F 56,574 4AMD F 59,969 4AMD F 63,568 Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of Route 80 A-1, A-2 84,000 94,382 4F F 100,046 4F F 100,046 4F F 106,049 4F F 112,412 Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th Street A-1, A-2 18,600 20,899 2A F 22,153 2A F 22,153 2A F 23,483 2A F 24,892 Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of Evergreen Drive A-1, A-2 19,500 21,910 2A F 23,225 2A F 23,225 2A F 24,619 2A F 26,097 

3% per year background growth 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of Route 65 A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 116,000 123,064 4FA F 126,757 4FA F 126,757 4FA F 130,560 4FA F 134,477 Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra College Boulevard A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 96,000 101,846 4FA E/F 104,902 4FA F 104,902 4FA F 108,050 4FA F 111,292 Source: American River Watershed Project Folsom Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge Supplemental EIS/EIR May 2006; El Dorado County online traffic volume data; 2004 Caltrans online traffic volume data; 2003 data source:http://maps.roseville.ca.us/trafficinfotool/With the exception of Highway 65, 70 and Interstate 80 data, 2004 data from the Amer

2007 data from Bridge EIS/EIR year 20072006 data interpolated between 2004 and 2007 data from Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR May 20062004 data for Sierra College Boulevard and Eureka Road based on 3% growth rate applied to 2003 data.*code and LOS information for Existing Conditions and 2007 provided in Bridge EIS/EIR.X,XXX volumes based on 3% per year growth rateX,XXX collected in April 2006No Action/No Project Alternative assumes no major roadway reconstruction projects that modfiy roadway classification on the horizon for the project area.

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation this page intentionally left blank 3.9-44 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-45 

Specifically, the LOS designations were identified using Table 3-2 Functional Class 

and Daily Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds from the Bridge EIS/EIR, as 

developed by Fehr & Peers. Because the Folsom DS/FDR years are from 2007 

through 2014, this analysis determined facility codes and LOS for remaining years 

not used in the Bridge EIS/EIR based on major roadway expansion projects 

described in the General Plans reviewed. A further discussion of LOS follows. 

Level of Service 

The evaluation of transportation impacts associated with any Folsom DS/FDR 

focuses on capacity analysis. A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment 

of levels of service to traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. The 

capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures in the 

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).1 The concept of level of service is defined as a 

qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and 

their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition 

provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel 

time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. 

Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are assigned letter 

designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and 

LOS F the worst. Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the 

traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of 

service, depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of year. 

A description of the operating condition under each level of service is provided 

below: 

• LOS A describes conditions with little to no delay to motorists. 

• LOS B represents a desirable level with relatively low delay to motorists. 

• LOS C describes conditions with average delays to motorists. 

• LOS D describes operations where the influence of congestion becomes more 

noticeable. Delays are still within an acceptable range. 

• LOS E represents operating conditions with high delay values. This level is 

considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. 

• LOS F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers with high delay values 

that often occur, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. 

 

1Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board; Washington, D.C.; 2001. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-46 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Roadway Segments 

Fehr & Peers developed a listing of LOS thresholds based on daily volumes, number 

of lanes and facility type as presented in Table 3-2, of the Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR 

(Corps 2006b). These thresholds were calculated based on the HCM and will be used 

to evaluate roadway segment level of service for the purposes of this Folsom 

DS/FDR EIS/EIR. 

Unsignalized Intersections 

Levels of service for unsignalized intersections are calculated using the operational 

analysis methodology of the HCM. The procedure accounts for lane configuration 

on both the minor and major street approaches, conflicting traffic stream volumes, 

and the type of intersection control (STOP, YIELD, or all-way STOP control). The 

definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is a function of average 

control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up 

time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The level-of-service criteria for 

unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 3.9-9. 

Table 3.9-9 

Local Access Route Existing Traffic Volumes and Arterial LOS

Level of Service

Unsignalized Intersection Criteria

Average Control Delay 

(Seconds per Vehicle) 

Signalized Intersection Criteria

Average Control Delay 

(Seconds per Vehicle) 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

≤10 

>10 and ≤15 

>15 and ≤25 

>25 and ≤35 

>35 and ≤50 

>50 

≤10 

>10 and ≤20 

>20 and ≤35 

>35 and ≤55 

>55 and ≤80 

>80 

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, 2001, pages 16-2 and 17-2. 

Signalized Intersections 

Levels of service for signalized intersections are also calculated using the operational 

analysis methodology of the HCM. The methodology for signalized intersections 

assesses the effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and 

geometrics on average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration 

delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. 

Table 3.9-9 LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between level of service and 

average control delay. 

For signalized intersections, this delay criterion may be applied in assigning LOS 

designations to individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or to 

the entire intersection. For unsignalized intersections, this delay criterion may be 

applied in assigning LOS designations to individual lane groups or to individual 

intersection approaches. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-47 

As illustrated in Table 3.9-9, a good LOS consists of minimal delays, while a poor 

LOS consists of extended delays. Delays can be correlated to the ratio between 

traffic volume and capacity. For example, if the volume of traffic approaching an 

intersection is greater than the capacity for that volume of traffic, the end result is a 

poor LOS. Conversely, if the volume of traffic approaching an intersection is 

significantly less than the capacity, the end result is a good LOS. 

Assessment Periods 

According to Caltrans’ Guidelines for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the 

following scenarios are typically evaluated: 

• Existing Conditions - Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis 

of effected State highway facilities. 

• Proposed Project Only - Trip generation, distribution, and assignment in the year 

the Folsom DS/FDR is anticipated to complete construction. 

• Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending 

Projects Without Proposed Project) - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS 

analysis in the year the Folsom DS/FDR is anticipated to complete construction. 

• Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Project (Existing Conditions Plus Other 

Approved and Pending Projects Plus Proposed Folsom DS/FDR) - Trip 

assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the Folsom DS/FDR is 

anticipated to complete construction. 

• Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Phases (Interim Years) - Trip assignment 

and peak hour LOS analysis in the years the Folsom DS/FDR phases are 

anticipated to complete construction. 

Transportation impacts associated with the Folsom DS/FDR are evaluated in two 

ways; one regarding average daily traffic and the other in terms of specific time 

periods during the day (i.e., hourly basis, as needed). The analysis is based on the 

following criteria: 

• Material hauling activity will occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 3pm. 

• Equipment hauling activity will occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 

3pm. 

• Two work shifts will operate as follows: 

- 5am to 2pm 

- 2pm to 11pm 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-48 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The first component of the traffic impact analysis is an evaluation of the increase in 

traffic volumes on a daily basis. As illustrated earlier in Table 3.9-3, there are a 

variety of thresholds established by the communities and counties through which the 

project transportation components are expected to pass. Most of the thresholds focus 

on whether the existing LOS along a roadway is degraded by one or more letter 

grades due to project-related traffic, (i.e., LOS C to LOS D or worse). However, 

when a facility is already experiencing a LOS F, the Sacramento County guidelines 

illustrate that an increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.05 is 

also of concern. And finally, El Dorado County presents the most stringent 

thresholds that include determining whether project-related traffic exceeds a 2% 

increase in traffic during the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, or daily. 

Therefore, only those roadways that are expected to experience LOS deterioration, or 

currently operate at LOS F and would experience an increase in the V/C ratio of 

more the 0.05 due to the Folsom DS/FDR, or would experience an increase in daily 

traffic volumes of 2% or more would typically be evaluated for hourly impacts, 

which is normally the second component of detailed traffic impact analysis 

conducted for a specific project. At this time, however, given the variety of 

alternatives evaluated and access routes to the Folsom DS/FDR features currently 

being considered a programmatic level of planning, it is beyond the scope of this 

EIS/EIR to conduct such a peak hour analyses of the roads and intersections 

distributed throughout the study area. 

The work shifts illustrated above result in four potential impact hours: 4a.m. to 

5a.m.; 1p.m. to 2p.m.; 2p.m. to 3p.m.; and 11p.m. to 12a.m. Based on 24-hour 

existing traffic data volumes collected, the critical peak hours to be evaluated based 

on the worker schedule are 1p.m. to 2p.m. and 2p.m. to 3p.m. Therefore, hourly 

impacts associated with workers should only be evaluated for the higher of the two 

hourly periods. For example, if a Folsom DS/FDR roadway carries approximately 

1,200 vehicles from 1p.m. to 2p.m., and 1,800 vehicles from 2p.m. to 3p.m., then 

only the 2p.m. to 3p.m. hour would be evaluated since the number of new worker 

trips would be the same for each hour (i.e., ten workers will arrive from 1p.m. to 

2p.m., ten workers will depart from 2p.m. to 3pm). 

Trip Generation 

Expected traffic volume increases associated with a development project are 

typically determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip 

Generation Manual, 7th Edition land use trip generation rates. However, there are no 

empirical data sources in the Manual related to construction activities. Alternatively, 

projects will typically collect local data to develop empirical data representative of 

the proposed development project. 

Unfortunately, the Folsom DS/FDR and prior studies associated with it do not have 

empirical data sources available to determine the expected traffic volume increases 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-49 

due to construction activities. Instead, new trips have been determined by 

calculating the amounts of aggregate or ‘raw’ materials, and ‘offsite’ materials 

required for the Folsom DS/FDR. In addition, trip calculations are required for 

equipment deliveries and labor forces. 

Aggregate and Offsite Materials 

Aggregate materials include fine filters, coarse filters, cement, fine aggregate (for 

concrete), coarse aggregate (for concrete), road base, and asphalt. Offsite materials 

include Slope U/S, Toe Drain, HDPE Pipe, Pipe Filter, U/S Filter, Seeding, and rebar 

(steel) (see Chapter 2 for definitions). In order to determine the number of trips 

necessary to deliver the materials required, certain assumptions were made in 

assigning the number of trucks per material required based on the weight of each 

material being hauled. 

Table 3.9-10 illustrates the assumptions made with respect to the weight of each 

material being hauled. 

Table 3.9-10 

Assumptions for Total Truck Calculations

Material Unit Weight 

CY per 

Load 

Use 

(CY/load) Use Notes Source 

Fine Filter 2,400 #/cy 20.83 20 UNB Transportation Group 

Coarse Filter 2,800 #/cy 17.86 17 UNB Transportation Group 

Slope Protection U/S 

face 3,300 #/cy 15.15 15 UNB Transportation Group 

Toe Drain Pipe 30.8 #/20 ft 276.00 276 # pipes/per load ADS Pipe 

Road Base 2,700 #/cy 18.52 18 UNB Transportation Group 

Asphalt 3,919 #/cy 12.76 12 

National Asphalt Paving 

Association 

FHWA BPMs for Sediment 

and Erosion Control Seeding (assume 1" 

depth) 304 #/cy 150 #/acre 

Univ. of Missouri Extension 

8" HDPE Drain Pipe 30.8 #/20 ft 276.00 276 # pipes/per load ADS Pipe 

CIP Concrete 4,946 #/cy 10.11 10 See cement 

Rebar (Steel 

Reinforcement) 490 #/cy 50,000 lbs. max 

ASTM Standard 

(Rinker.com) 

Cement 4,946 #/cy 10.11 10 Constructionwork.com 

Coarse Filter for drain 

pipe 2,800 #/cy 17.86 17 UNB Transportation Group 

Coarse Filter U/S 

bedding 2,800 #/cy 17.86 17 UNB Transportation Group 

# = pounds 

cy = cubic yards 

ft = foot 

Hauling materials will occur in two types of vehicles: the “California Transfer 

Dump” 20 cubic yard (CY) and a standard tractor trailer or flatbed. The capacity of 

each truck is not as critical in this exercise as is the weight limit of the proposed haul 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-50 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

routes. Therefore, the following assumptions were made relative to the proposed 

truck use and weight limits: 

• Standard hauling vehicle is a 20CY dump truck (10 wheel); weight =15 tons 

(30,000 pounds) 

• Standard tractor weight = 7.5 tons (15,000 pounds) 

• Standard flatbed trailer = 48 feet long x 102 inches wide; weight = 6.25 tons 

(12,500 pounds) 

• Maximum allowed Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) as per California Vehicle Code 

(CVC) = 40 tons (80,000 pounds) 

However, additional weight restrictions on city and county streets can be imposed by 

the owning agency. For roadways with maximum allowed GVW less than 40 tons, 

waivers will be required. Table 3.9-11 illustrates the weight limits available for the 

proposed haul routes. Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) routes require 

states to allow large trucks on identified routes. Large trucks include: (1) doubles 

with 28.5-foot trailers; (2) singles with 48-foot semi-trailers and unlimited kingpinto-rear axle (KPRA) distance; (3) unlimited length for both vehicle combinations; 

and (4) widths up to 102 inches. California (Assembly Bill 866) increased the 

California legal vehicle length from 60 to 65 feet and its width from 8.0 to 8.5 feet. 

Equipment 

Equipment needs for the Folsom DS/FDR for each alternative have been illustrated 

in Appendix F. Each equipment-related trip will include fuel deliveries as well as 

the initial delivery of all equipment to each staging area for each Folsom DS/FDR 

feature. The initial delivery of equipment is expected to occur at the beginning of 

each Folsom DS/FDR feature sequence. The daily impact calculations represent a 

conservative analysis, as once the equipment has been delivered to each staging area, 

additional daily trips will not be incurred until removal or haul out of the equipment 

at the completion of each Folsom DS/FDR feature. The equipment deliveries 

include but are not limited to: Drill Rig for Setting Charges, Dozers, Rippers, 

Scrapers, Excavators, Loaders, Small Crane, Compactors, 20CY Dump Trucks, 

50CY Dump Trucks, Fuel Trucks, and Water Trucks. 

All equipment is expected to be delivered to the staging areas immediately adjacent 

to each Folsom DS/FDR feature. 

Labor Forces 

Labor force needs for the Folsom DS/FDR have been illustrated in Tables 3.9-12 

through 3.9-16. The labor force numbers are doubled to represent two shifts per 

day and doubled again to represent four trips per day. 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

Roadway Location

Designated Truck 

Route

Designation (or Weight 

Limit) Exception

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Folsom Boulevard US50 to Greenback Lane Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Folsom-Auburn Road Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

Blue Ravine Road Folsom Boulevard to Sibley Street Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Blue Ravine Road Sibley Street to Riley Street Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Blue Ravine Road

Oak Avenue Parkway to Green Valley 

Road/East Natoma Street Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom Dam Road No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

East Natoma St

Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley 

Road No 10,000 lbs

pick up/delivery 

allowed

Natoma St Folsom Blvd to Cimmaron Circle No 10,000 lbs permit

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to Sophia Parkway Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison Avenue Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Greenback Lane Madison Avenue to Folsom Blvd Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Douglas Boulevard Eureka Road to Sierra College Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Sierra College Boulevard between I-80 and Douglas Boulevard Yes CA Legal n/a

Eureka Road between I-80 and Douglas Boulevard Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Oak Avenue Hazel Avenue to Santa Juanita Avenue

East Bidwell Street

Blue Ravine Road to Oak Avenue 

Parkway Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road Yes City of Folsom Route n/a

Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street No 10,000 lbs permit

Oak Avenue Parkway East Bidwell St to Riley St No 10,000 lbs permit

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road Yes CA Legal n/a

White Rock Road

between Scott Road (south) and Scott 

Road (north) Yes CA Legal n/a

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road Yes CA Legal n/a

US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom Boulevard Yes STAA - Federal n/a

US50 Folsom Boulevard to Prairie City Road Yes STAA - Federal n/a

US50 Prairie City Road to East Bidwell Street Yes STAA - Federal n/a

US50

Hammonton-Smartville (HS) Road Yes CA Legal n/a

N Beale Road Yes CA Legal n/a

Feather River Blvd. Yes CA Legal n/a

Highway 70 

Yuba County, east of Feather River 

Boulevard interchange Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of Route 80 Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th Street Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Highway 65

Wheatland, northeast of Evergreen 

Drive Yes STAA - Federal n/a

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of Route 65 Yes STAA-Federal n/a

Interstate 80

Rocklin, northeast of Sierra College 

Boulevard Yes STAA-Federal n/a

Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/trucksize/truckmap/; 

http://www.roseville.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2144; 

http://ci.folsom.ca.us/agendas/MG65540/AS65552/AI66593/DO66829/DO_66829.PDF

STAA- Federal = Surface Transportation Assisstance Act

Table 3.9-11

Truck Routes - Weight Limits

Regional Access Routes

Local Access Routes

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 3.9-51
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

Project Feature

Route Letter 

Designation

Number of Workers per 

day all alternatives 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yds max) A 30Dikes 1, 2, 3 Stripping, Excavation and Construction A 23Beals Point South/North Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) B 20 20 20 20Dike 4&5 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 27 27Dike 6 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 20 20Mooney Ridge Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 30Right Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction C 60 60 60Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yds) D 32 32 32 32Auxiliary Spillway Construction D 60 60 60 60Tunnel Construction D 30Left Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 60 

Dike 7 & 8 Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 40Main Concrete Dam Raise D 45Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears D 40 

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing (1,673,000 cu yd max) E 25MIAD -Stripping/Excavation and Construction E 30 30 30 30MIAD Jet Grouting E 20 20 20

Total Number Workers 

per shift per year 52 129 222 170 60 

Total workers per day 

(two shifts per day) 104 258 444 340 120 

# of trips per day (two 

trips per worker) 208 516 888 680 240 

Daily Number of Workers Trips Per Construction Year

Table 3.9-12

Alternative 1

3.9-52 Folsom DS/F
Project Feature

Route Letter 

Designation

Number of Workers per day all 

alternatives 2007 2008 2009 2010 20

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yds max) A 30Dikes 1, 2, 3 Stripping, Excavation and Construction A 23 Beals Point South/North Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) B 20 20 20 20Dike 4&5 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 27 27Dike 6 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 20 20Right Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction C 60 60 60Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yds) D 32 32 32 32Auxiliary Spillway Construction D 60 60 60 Tunnel Construction D 30 30 30 Left Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 60 

Dike 7 & 8 Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 40 Main Concrete Dam Raise D 45 Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears D 40 

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing (1,673,000 cu yd max) E 25MIAD -Stripping/Excavation and Construction E 30 30 30 30 MIAD Jet Grouting E 20

Total Number Workers per shift per 

year 52 129 232 180 

Total workers per day (two shifts per

day) 104 258 464 360 

# of trips per day (two trips per

worker) 208 516 928 720 

The number of workers illustrated on this spreadsheet is equal to the number of workers as illustrated on Table 3-9 X Personnel Schedule. 

Table 3.9-13

Alternative 2

Daily Number of Workers Trips Per Construction Year

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

Project Feature

Route Letter 

Designation

Number of Workers per day all 

alternatives 2007 2008 2009 2010 20

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yds max) A 30Dikes 1, 2, 3 Stripping, Excavation and Construction A 23 23Beals Point South/North Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) B 20Dike 4&5 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 27 27Dike 6 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 20 20Right Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction C 60 60Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yds) D 32 32 32 32Auxiliary Spillway Construction D 60 60 60 Tunnel Construction D 30Left Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 60 

Dike 7 & 8 Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 40 

Main Concrete Dam Raise D 45 Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears D 40 

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing (1,673,000 cu yd max) E 25MIAD -Stripping/Excavation and Construction E 30 30 30 30MIAD Jet Grouting E 20 20 20

Total Number Workers per shift 

per year 32 169 165 110 

Total workers per day (two shifts

per day) 64 338 330 220 

# of trips per day (two trips per

worker) 128 676 660 440 

Daily Number of Workers Trips Per Construction Year

Table 3.9-14

Alternative 3

3.9-54 Folsom DS/
Project Feature

Route Letter 

Designation

Number of Workers per day all 

alternatives 2007 2008 2009 2010 201

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yds max) A 30 

Dikes 1, 2, 3 Stripping, Excavation and Construction A 23 

Beals Point South/North Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) B 20 20 20 20Dike 4&5 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 27 27Dike 6 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 20 20Right Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction C 60 60 60Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yds) D 32 32 32 32Auxiliary Spillway Construction D 60 60 60 Tunnel Construction D 30Left Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 60 Dike 7 & 8 Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 40 Main Concrete Dam Raise D 45 Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears D 40 

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing (1,673,000 cu yd max) E 25MIAD -Stripping/Excavation and Construction E 30 30 30 30MIAD Jet Grouting E 20 20 20

Total Number Workers per shift per year 52 129 222 170 

Total workers per day (two shifts per day) 104 258 444 340 

# of trips per day (two trips per worker) 208 516 888 680 

Daily Number of Workers Trips Per Construction Year

Table 3.9-15

Alternative 4

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

Project Feature

Route Letter 

Designation

Number of Workers per day all 

alternatives 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yds max) A 30 

Dikes 1, 2, 3 Stripping, Excavation and Construction A 23 Beals Point South/North Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) B 20 20 20 20 20 20 Dike 4&5 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 27 27Dike 6 Stripping/Excavation and Construction B 20 20Right Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction C 60 60 60 60 Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yds) D 32Auxiliary Spillway Construction D 60Tunnel Construction D 30Left Wing Dam Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 60 

Dike 7 & 8 Stripping/Excavation and Construction D 40 

Main Concrete Dam Raise D 45 45 Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears D 40 Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing (1,673,000 cu yd max) E 25 25 25 25 25 25 MIAD -Stripping/Excavation and Construction E 30 30 30 30 30MIAD Jet Grouting E 20

Total Number Workers per shift 

per year 45 122 135 135 180 

Total workers per day (two shifts 

per day) 90 244 270 270 360 

# of trips per day (two trips per 

worker) 180 488 540 540 720 

Daily Number of Workers Trips Per Construction Year

Table 3.9-16

Alternative 5

3.9-56 Folsom DS
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-57 

Trip Distribution 

Distributing the material, equipment and labor force trips throughout the Folsom 

DS/FDR study area roadway network is a complex task and one that employs a 

thorough knowledge of the Folsom DS/FDR area and Folsom DS/FDR features, 

recognizing that the specific details of each feature have not yet been defined, 

consequently some reasonable estimates, assumptions, and projections must due for 

now. The following describes how the expected trips generated by the Folsom 

DS/FDR are distributed and assigned to the Folsom DS/FDR area roadway network. 

The Folsom DS/FDR site has been divided into two distinct areas: 

• West Project Features include: Dikes 1 through 6, and RWD 

• East Project Features include: Auxiliary Spillway, Tunnel, Main Concrete Dam, 

LWD, Dikes 7, 8 and MIAD. 

Aggregate and Batch Plant Materials 

Two sources for aggregate and batch plant materials have been identified for the 

Folsom DS/FDR: 

• Tiechert Marysville Borrow Source located on Hammonton-Smartville Road in 

Marysville, Yuba County 

• Tiechert Prairie City Borrow Source located on Scott Road south of White Rock 

Road in Sacramento County. 

The following assumptions have been made to distribute the aggregate materials to 

each Folsom DS/FDR feature: 

• West Project features will receive aggregate materials (sand, gravel, road base 

and paving) from the Tiechert Marysville Borrow. 

• East Project Features will receive aggregate materials (sand, gravel, road base 

and paving) from the Tiechert Prairie City Borrow. 

Pre-mixed concrete for West Project Features will come from Marysville Borrow to 

the project Features; Cement and concrete aggregates for East Project Features 

(except for MIAD) would come from Prairie City to Plant #2 (located at LWD); 

cement for MIAD would come from Prairie City to Plant #3 (located at MIAD). 

Plant #1 is limited to processing only. 

Tables 3.9-17 and 3.9-18 illustrate the daily total truck numbers and the overall total 

truck trip numbers, respectively, required for each material for each Folsom DS/FDR 

feature per alternative. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-58 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

This page intentionally left blank 
Number 

of 

Workers

All Alts

Alt 1 

No Raise

Alt 2 

4-ft 

Raise/Tunnel

Alt 3 

3.5-ft raise

Alt 4 

7-ft raise

Alt 5 

17-ft Raise

Alt 1 

No Raise

Alt 2 

4-ft 

Raise/Tunnel

Alt 3 

3.5-ft raise

Alt 4 

7-ft raise

Alt 5 

17-ft Raise

Alt 1 

No Raise

Alt 2 

4-ft 

Raise/Tunnel

Alt 3 

3.5-ft raise

Alt 4 

7-ft raise

Alt 5 

17-ft Raise

Alt 1 

No Raise

Alt 2 

4-ft 

Raise/Tunnel

Alt 3 

3.5-ft raise

Alt 4 

7-ft raise

A

17-ft 

Main Concrete Dam Raise 2011 45

14 trucks for 

90 days

14 trucks 

for 90 days

15 trucks 

for 120 

days

17 trucks 

for 180 

days 0

Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears 2013-2014 40

4 trucks 

for 180 

days

4 trucks for 

180 days

4 trucks 

for 180 

days

4 trucks 

for 180 

days

4 trucks for 

180 days

5 Trucks 

for 440 

days

5 Trucks for 

440 days

5 Trucks 

for 440 

days

5 Trucks 

for 440 

days

5 Trucks 

for 440 

days

Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development (3,190,000 cu yd) 2007-2009 32 NA NA

Auxiliary Spillway Construction 2009-2011 60

14 Trucks 

for 440 

days

14 Trucks for 

440 days

14 Trucks 

for 440 

days

14 Trucks 

for 440 

days

42 RT/day 

for 440 

days

42 RT/day for 

440 days

42 RT/day 

for 440 

days

42 RT/day 

for 440 

days

Tunnel Construction 2009-2011 30

19 Trucks for 

360 days

Right Wing Dam Construction 2009-2010 60

2 Trucks for 

10 days

17 Trucks 

for 280 

days

24 Trucks for 

200 days

18 Trucks 

for 200 

days

30 

Trucks 

for 120 

days

31 Trucks 

for 120 

days

44 Trucks for 

200 days

10 Trucks for 

200 days

Left Wing Dam Construction 2012-2013 60

2 Trucks for 

30 days

12 Trucks 

for 120 

days

19 Trucks for 

240 days

5 Trucks 

for 240 

days

4 Trucks 

for 240 

days

3 Trucks 

for 440 

days

27 Trucks for 

100 days

6 Trucks for 

100 days

Beals Point/Mooney Ridge Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) 2007 -2010 20Dike 5 Construction 2008 20

16 Trucks 

for 90 

days

3 Trucks for 

90 days

2 Trucks 

for 140 

days

2 Trucks 

for 140 

days

2 Trucks 

for 260 

days

Dike 6 Construction 2008 20

20 Trucks

for 45 

days

2 Trucks for 

45 days

7 Trucks

for 120 

days

2 Trucks

for 100 

days

2 Trucks

for 150 

days

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing 2007-2012 25MIAD Construction

2010-2011 

(2012) 30

34 Trucks 

for 360 

days

35 Trucks for 

480 days

34 Trucks 

for 360 

days

34 

Trucks 

for 360 

days

35 Trucks 

for 480 

days

MIAD Jet Grouting 2008-2009 20

11 RT for 

360 days

11 RT for 

360 days

11 RT for 

360 days

Dike 7 Construction 2012 20

35 Trucks

for 15 

days

2 Trucks for 

30 days

13 Trucks

for 45 

days

5 Trucks

for 90 

days

6 Trucks 

for 90 days

Dike 8 Construction 2012 20 0

9 Trucks for 2 

days

7 Trucks 

for 45 

days

12 

Trucks 

for 45 

days

7 Trucks 

for 90 days

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yd max) 2013-2014 30 NA NA NADike 4 Construction 2013-2014 20

19 Trucks 

for 15 

days

1 Trucks for 

30 days

3 Trucks 

for 60 

days

3 Trucks 

for 60 

days

3 Trucks 

for 120 

days

Dikes 1, 2, 3, 4 Construction 2013-2014 20 0

2 Trucks for 

60 days 0

9 Trucks 

for 240 

days

7 Trucks 

for 400 

days

Table 3.9-17

Raw Concrete Hauling Filter Material Hauling 

Folsom Safety of Dams Offsite Material Haul Schedule

Reinforcement Steel Hauling Pre-Cast Parapet Wall Hauling

Project Feature Year

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

Number 

of 

Workers

All 

Alternative

s

Alternative 

1 - No 

Raise

2 - 4-ft 

Raise/Tun

nel

Alternative 3 

- 3.5-ft raise

Alternative 

4 - 7-ft 

raise

Alternative 

5 - 17-ft 

Raise

Alternative 

1 - No 

Raise

2 - 4-ft 

Raise/Tun

nel

Alternative 3 - 

3.5-ft raise

Alternative 

4 - 7-ft 

raise

Alternative 

5 - 17-ft 

Raise

Alternative 

1 - No 

Raise

2 - 4-ft 

Raise/Tun

nel

Alternative 

3 - 3.5-ft 

raise

Alternative 

4 - 7-ft 

raise

Alternative 

5 - 17-ft 

Raise

Alternative 

1 - No 

Raise

2 - 4-ft 

Raise/Tun

nel

Alternative 

3 - 3.5-ft 

raise

Alternative 

4 - 7-ft 

raise

Alternative 

5 - 17-ft 

Raise

Alternative 

No Raise

Main Concrete Dam Raise 2011-2012 45 1260 1260 3060 0Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears 2013-2014 40 2500 720 720 720 166 2200 2200 2200

Auxiliary Spillway Borrow Development 

(3,190,000 cu yd) 2007-2009 32 NA NA

Auxiliary Spillway Construction 2009-2011 60 12481 6160 28081 6160 904 82 18480 367 18480 1250 

Tunnel Construction 2009-2011 30 6840Right Wing Dam Construction 2008-2012 60 20 318 3522 4800 287 3600 3720 8800 6 2000 334 

Left Wing Dam Construction 2012-2013 60 60 100 1111 4560 90 1200 1320 2700 2 600 100 

Beals Point/Mooney Ridge Borrow Development (1,250,000 cu yd max) 2007 -2012 20

Dike 5 Construction 2008 20 89 1621 270 88 280 520 2 100 

Dike 6 Construction 2008 20 y g 75 973 90 68 840 300 2 73 

Folsom Point Area Borrow Development and processing 2007-2013 25

MIAD Construction 2008-2011 30 228 18089 16800 206 12240 16800 4 295 

MIAD Jet Grouting 2009-2010 20 4100 3960

Dike 7 Construction 2012 20 43 0 60 39 585 540 1 0 

Dike 8 Construction 2012 20 43 0 18 38 315 630 1 

Granite Bay Borrow Development (913,000 cu yd max) 2009-2014 30 NA NA NA

Dike 4 Construction 2008 20 65 785 30 58 180 360 2 78 

Dikes 1, 2, 3 Construction 2009-2014 20

1203/926/88

0 0 120

1665/4088/12

17 0 2800 39/34/1 

Table 3.9-18

Filter Material Hauling Reinforcement Steel Hauling Pre-Cast Parapet Wall Hauling 

Folsom Safety of Dams Offsite Material Haul Schedule

Raw Concrete Hauling

Project Feature Year

3.9-60 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-61 

Offsite Materials and Equipment 

Offsite materials such as Slope U/S, Toe Drain, HDPE Pipe, Pipe Filter, U/S Filter, 

Seeding, Rebar will be delivered to the West Project Features from Interstate 80 and 

to the East Project Features (including Main Concrete Dam) via US Highway 50. 

In addition, equipment needs, will be delivered to the west facilities from Interstate 

80 and to the east facilities via US Highway 50. 

Labor Force 

According to data from the California Labor Market Info Data Library 

Unemployment rates 2005 data, there are 5,700 total unemployed workers in the 

region. Since 82% of the unemployed are located in Sacramento area, with 11% in 

Placer County and 7% in El Dorado County. Table 3.9-19 presents the assumptions 

used on where the workers are expected to originate their trips. 

Table 3.9-19 

Distribution of Labor Force

Region Folsom DS/FDR Worker 

Distribution 

Rocklin area (Placer County to 

the north) 

5% 

Roseville area (Placer County to 

the west) 

5% 

Folsom 5% 

El Dorado area (Green Valley 

Road) 

2.5% 

El Dorado area (US50) 2.5% 

Sacramento area (I-80) 40% 

Sacramento area (US50) 40% 

Total 100% 

Based on California Unemployment Rates in 2005, Department of Finance 

Trip Assignment 

Figures 3.9-1 through 3.9-3 illustrate the proposed routes. Based on the existing 

traffic volume conditions, the truck route restrictions/designations and general 

knowledge of the Folsom DS/FDR area, Tables 3.9-20 and 3.9-21 illustrate the 

proposed access routes for the Folsom DS/FDR. The Local Access Routes and the 

Regional Access Routes have been further broken down into five types of routes: 

• Aggregate Materials 

• Offsite Materials 

• Batch Plant 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-62 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• Equipment 

• Workers 

Table 3.9-20 illustrates the proposed routes and their corresponding designations for 

hauling of aggregate, offsite, and batch plant materials. Equipment deliveries are 

expected to use the same routes as the offsite materials. 

Table 3.9-21 illustrates the expected routes that workers would use for access/egress 

for each Folsom DS/FDR feature. 

The following assumptions relate to the personnel access routes: 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Rocklin area would use Sierra College 

Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard and further south along Auburn-Folsom Road, 

Folsom-Auburn Road and East Natoma Street as required to access the Folsom 

DS/FDR area. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Roseville area would use Douglas Boulevard 

and head south as required along Auburn-Folsom Road, Folsom-Auburn Road 

and East Natoma Street as required to access the Folsom DS/FDR area. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Folsom would use East Natoma Street to access 

the east facilities and Folsom-Auburn Road, Auburn-Folsom Road, Douglas 

Boulevard to access West Project Features. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Sacramento Interstate 80 would use Greenback 

Lane to Folsom-Auburn Road to East Natoma Street to access the East Project 

Features and Interstate 80 to Douglas Boulevard to access the West Project 

Features. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Sacramento US Highway 50 would use Folsom 

Boulevard to Folsom-Auburn Road to Auburn-Folsom Road and Douglas 

Boulevard as required to reach the West Project Features. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from Sacramento US Highway 50 would use Folsom 

Boulevard to Folsom-Auburn Road to East Natoma Street to access the East 

Project Features. 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from El Dorado US Highway 50 would use East 

Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway to Blue Ravine Road to East Natoma 

Street to access the East Project Features. 
Route 

Designation 

A-1 From Tiechert Borrow (hammonton-smartville to N. Beale Road to Feather River Boulevarto Highway 70 to Highway 65 to Interstate 80 to Sierra 

A-2 From Tiechert Borrow (hammonton-smartville to N. Beale Road to Feather River Boulevarto Highway 70 to Highway 65 to Interstate 80 to Sierra A-3 From Tiechert Borrow (hammonton-smartville to N. Beale Road to Feather River Boulevarto Highway 70 to Highway 65 to Interstate 80 to EurekA-4 From Tiechert Borrow (hammonton-smartville to N. Beale Road to Feather River Boulevarto Highway 70 to Highway 65 to Interstate 80 to Eurek

Route 

Designation 

A-5 From Prairie City Borrow (White Rock/Scott Road) to Scott Road to East Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to A-6 From Prairie City Borrow (White Rock/Scott Road) to Scott Road to East Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to Green 

BP-2 From Prairie City Borrow (White Rock/Scott Road) to Scott Road to East Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to 

BP-3 From Prairie City Borrow (White Rock/Scott Road) to Scott Road to East Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to Green 

Route 

Designation

O-1 From Interstate 80 to Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to SiteO-2 From Interstate 80 to Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to Mooney Ridge, Beals Point Borrow Site

O-3 From Interstate 80 to Eureka Road to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to Dikes 4,5,6O-4 From Interstate 80 to Eureka Road to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to RWD

Route 

Designation

O-5 From US50 to East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma to Main O-6 From US50 to East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma to Green Valley Road to MIAD

Aggregate materials include: Fine Filters, Coarse Fiters, Cement and AsphaltOffsite materials include: Slope U/S, toe drain, HDPE Pipe, Pipe Filter, U/S Filter, Seeding, RebarAccess to Dikes 7,8 via East Natoma Street - may require waiver from City of FolsomMain Dam materials come from US 50 and are staged east of the dam

AGGREGATE MATERIALS (from Prairie City)

Material Route Designations

ROUTE

Table 3.9-20

AGGREGATE MATERIALS (from Marysville)

ROUTE

OFFSITE MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT (FROM I-80) 

ROUTE FACILITY

Folsom Dam Road is not open to construction trafficAssumptions:

ROUTE

OFFSITE MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT (FROM US50) 

FACIL

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

WORKER 

ROUTE 

DESIGNATION

W-1A Roseville area Douglas Boulevard to 

W-2A Rocklin area Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to W-3A Folsom E Natoma Street to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to Douglas Boulevard to W-4A Sacramento I-80 Douglas Boulevard to W-5A Sacramento US50 Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to Douglas Boulevard to W-6A El Dorado (US50) US50 to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to Douglas Boulevard to W-7A El Dorado (GVR) Green Valley Road to E. Natoma Street to F-A Road to A-F Road to Douglas Boulevard to W-1B Roseville area Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to W-2B Rocklin area Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to W-3B Folsom E Natoma Street to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to W-4B Sacramento I-80 Greenback Lane to F-A Road to A-F Road to W-5B Sacramento US50 Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to W-6B El Dorado (US50) US50 to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to A-F Road to W-7B El Dorado (GVR) Green Valley Road to E. Natoma Street to F-A Road to A-F Road to 

W-1C Roseville area Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to W-2C Rocklin area Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to W-3C Folsom E. Natoma Street to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to W-4C Sacramento I-80 Greenback Lane to F-A Road to W-5C Sacramento US50 Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to W-6C El Dorado (US50) US50 to Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to W-7C El Dorado (GVR) Green Valley Road to E. Natoma Street to F-A Road to W-1D Roseville area Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to E. Natoma Street to W-2D Rocklin area Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to E.Natoma Street to W-3D Folsom E. Natoma Street to W-4D Sacramento I-80 Greenback Lane to F-A Road to E. Natoma Street to W-5D Sacramento US50 Folsom Boulevard to F-A Road to E. Natoma Street to W-6D El Dorado (US50) US50 to E. Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to W-7D El Dorado (GVR) Green Valley Road to E. Natoma Street to 

W-1E Roseville area Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to Folsom Boulevard to E. Natoma Street to Green Valley W-2E Rocklin area Sierra College Boulevard to Douglas Boulevard to A-F Road to F-A Road to Folsom Boulevard to E.Natoma SW-3E Folsom E. Natoma Street to Green Valley Road to W-4E Sacramento I-80 Greenback Lane to Folsom Boulevard to E. Natoma Street to Green Valley Road to W-5E Sacramento US50 Folsom Boulevard to E. Natoma Street to Green Valley Road to W-6E El Dorado (US50) US50 to E. Bidwell St to Oak Ave. Parkway to Blue Ravine to E. Natoma Street to Green Valley W-7E El Dorado (GVR) Green Valley Road to 

Assumptions:

5% Rocklin area5% Roseville area5% Folsom area

40% Sacramento I-8040% Sacramento US50

2.5% El Dorado (US50)2.5% El Dorado (GVR = Green Valley Road)

worker population comes fworker population comes f

Personnel Access Route Designations

worker population comes fworker population comes f

ROUTE 

Table 3.9-21

worker population comes fworker population comes fworker population comes f

3.9-64 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-65 

• Folsom DS/FDR personnel from El Dorado Green Valley Road (GVR) would 

use Green Valley Road to East Natoma Street to access east facilities, and East 

Natoma Street to Folsom-Auburn Road and Douglas Boulevard as required to 

reach the West Project Features. 

Daily Trips 

Materials and Equipment 

Determination of daily truck trips associated with each Folsom DS/FDR alternative 

includes the following assumptions: 

• Total truck trips are distributed evenly over multiple year construction periods. 

• Daily trips are not applicable for the entire construction period. The daily trips 

illustrate conservative scenario at the beginning of each construction phase when 

both materials and equipment will be delivered to the site. 

• Quantities of delivered materials will be met prior to the end of each construction 

period. 

• Daily truck calculations assume 244 hauling days per year. 

Tables 3.9-22 through 3.9-29 in Appendix F illustrate the daily trips associated with 

hauling in materials and equipment. Tables 3.9-30 through 3.9-37 in Appendix F 

illustrate the trips assigned to each route. 

Personnel 

• Determination of daily worker trips associated with all Folsom DS/FDR 

alternatives includes the following assumptions:

• Each worker number represents four daily trips (workers are illustrated per shift). 

• Worse case scenario assumes each worker will travel alone and not carpool. 

• Each worker will drive to each Folsom DS/FDR feature as opposed to meeting at 

a staging area to be dispersed to their respective work sites. 

Tables 3.9-38 through 3.9-77 (included in Appendix F) illustrate the distribution of 

workers to each Folsom DS/FDR feature from each unemployment region as 

identified in Trip Distribution. Tables 3.9-38 through 3.9-77 illustrate slightly 

higher worker and trip numbers than the summary illustrated on Table 3.9-12 

through 3.9-16 due to rounding. 

Tables 3.9-78 through 3.9-85 (included in Appendix F) illustrate the assignment of 

truck and worker trips as well as the daily impacts of each alternative associated with 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-66 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

hauling materials and equipment and personnel arrivals and departures. Tables 3.9-

86 through 3.9-93 illustrate the expected changes in Average Daily Trips (ADT), if 

any, the changes, if any in LOS, the V/C ratios for all roadways experiencing LOS F, 

and the percent increase in ADT, if any, for each alternative for each construction 

year. Emergency operations are currently not included in this analysis and it is not 

yet determined if its inclusion will impact the analysis presented thus far. 

3.9.2.2 Significance Criteria 

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides general guidance that can be 

considered in determining whether a project would result in a significant impact 

related to transportation/traffic. Considerations identified therein include the 

following: 

Would the project: 

A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing 

traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 

increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on 

roads, or congestion at intersections)?

B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 

established by the county congestion management agency for designated 

roads or highways?

C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic 

levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 

D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

E. Result in inadequate emergency access?

F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

G. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative 

transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Relative to the Folsom DS/FDR, the CEQA considerations presented above, with the 

exception of Criterion C (i.e., none of the alternatives would have any influence on 

air traffic patterns), and the local significance thresholds presented earlier in Table 

3.9-3 were taken into account in evaluating whether the Folsom DS/FDR's traffic 

impacts are significant. 
Materials/ Equip. ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C % code LOS New ADT V/C % code LOS New V/C % 

Folsom Boulevard

Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W5D, W-3E, W-5E 37,800 1.01 4AD F 37,900 1.01 0.26% 4AD F 37,900 1.01 0.26% 4AD F 37,860 1.01 

Folsom Boulevard

Leidesdorff Street to Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 32,600 4AD D 32,640 0.12% 4AD D 32,640 0.12% 4AD D 32,600 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 

6C, 7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 40,300 1.39 4AU F 40,356 1.40 0.14% 4AU F 40,316 1.40 0.04% 4AU F 40,316 1.40 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 21,400 4AU D 21,476 0.36% 4AU D 21,476 0.36% 4AU D 21,400 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road

A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 

2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 34,300 1.19 4AU F 34,402 1.19 0.30% 4AU F 34,402 1.19 0.30% 4AU F 34,316 1.19 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive

A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 

3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 30,500 1.63 2A F 30,602 1.64 0.33% 2A F 30,602 1.64 0.33% 2A F 30,508 1.63 

Sierra College Boulevard

north of Douglas Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W2D, W-2E 25,286 4AD D 25,300 0.06% 4AD D 25,300 0.06% 4AD D 25,294 

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 38,908 6AD D 38,908 6AD D 38,908 6AD D 38,908 Douglas Boulevard

east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W4A, W-5A, W-6A, W-7A 13,184 2A D 13,184 2A D 13,184 2A D 13,184 

Douglas Boulevard

Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, O2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W- 1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, 

W 2C W 1D W 2D W

40,200 1.07 4AD F 40,258 1.08 0.14% 4AD F 40,258 1.08 0.14% 4AD F 40,216 1.08 

Douglas Boulevard

Barton to Sierra Colleg Blvd. 46,491 1.24 4AD F 46,491 1.24 4AD F 46,491 1.24 4AD F 46,491 1.24 

Blue Ravine Road

Oak Avenue Parkway to Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-6D, W-6E

19,500 4AD D 19,504 0.02% 4AD D 19,504 0.02% 4AD D 19,504 

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to 

Folsom Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 16,600 4AU C 16,720 0.72% 4AU C 16,720 0.72% 4AU C 16,720 

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 27,100 4AU D 27,240 0.52% 4AU D 27,236 0.50% 4AU D 27,236 

Green Valley Road

East Natoma Street to Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W4E, W-5E, W-6E 32,000 1.11 4AU F 32,000 1.11 4AU F 32,000 1.11 4AU F 32,000 1.11 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison 

Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E

24,100 4AMD B 24,184 0.35% 4AMD B 24,184 0.35% 4AMD B 24,152 

East Bidwell Street

Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

39,300 4AD F 39,300 4AD F 39,300 4AD F 39,300 

Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

22,200 6AD C 22,204 0.02% 6AD C 22,204 0.02% 6AD C 22,204 

Scott Road (south)

south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

1,652 2C A/B 1,652 2C A/B 1,652 2C A/B 1,652 

White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

9,087 2C E 9,087 2C E 9,087 2C E 9,087 

Scott Road (north)

north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

6,324 2C D 6,324 2C D 6,324 2C D 6,324 

US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W5D, W-5E 116,800 1.16 4FA F 116,884 1.16 0.07% 4FA F 116,884 1.16 0.07% 4FA F 116,852 1.16 

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

99,000 1.23 4F F 99,004 1.23 0.00% 4F F 99,004 1.23 0.00% 4F F 99,000 1.23 

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

71,800 4F E 71,804 0.01% 4F E 71,804 0.01% 4F E 71,800 

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W6D, W-6E 81,900 1.02 4F F 81,908 1.02 0.01% 4F F 81,908 1.02 0.01% 4F F 81,904 1.02 

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

9,043 2C E 9,043 2C E 9,043 2C E 9,043 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 27,805 4AU E 27,805 4AU E 27,805 4AU E 27,805 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

56,574 1.57 4AMD F 56,574 1.57 4AMD F 56,574 1.57 4AMD F 56,574 1.57 

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

100,046 1.25 4F F 100,046 1.25 4F F 100,046 1.25 4F F 100,046 1.25 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

22,153 1.18 2A F 22,153 1.18 2A F 22,153 1.18 2A F 22,153 1.18 

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

23,225 1.24 2A F 23,225 1.24 2A F 23,225 1.24 2A F 23,225 1.24 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

126,757 1.26 4FA F 126,759 1.26 0.00% 4FA F 126,759 1.26 0.00% 4FA F 126,757 1.26 

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

104,902 1.04 4FA F 104,904 1.04 0.00% 4FA F 104,904 1.04 0.00% 4FA F 104,902 1.04 

Table 3.9-86

 2007 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Regional Access Routes

2007

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Altern

Roadway Location

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Worker Routes

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project New Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

DESIGNATIONS

Roadway Location

Materials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C

% increase code LOS New ADT V/C

% increase code LOS

New ADT V/C

% increase 

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W5D, W-3E, W-5E 38,934 1.04 4AD F 39,182 1.05 0.64% 4AD F 39,182 1.05 0.64% 4AD F 39,258 1.05 0.83

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 33,578 4AD D 33,710 0.39% 4AD D 33,710 0.39% 4AD D 33,786 0.62

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 

6C, 7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 41,509 1.44 4AU F 41,673 1.44 0.40% 4AU F 41,673 1.44 0.40% 4AU F 41,886 1.45 0.91

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 22,042 4AU D 22,310 1.22% 4AU D 22,310 1.22% 4AU D 22,330 1.31

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 

1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 35,329 1.22 4AU F 35,666 1.23 0.95% 4AU F 35,657 1.23 0.93% 4AU F 35,595 1.23 0.75

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP- 1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 

1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 31,415 1.68 2A F 31,737 1.70 1.02% 2A F 31,725 1.70 0.99% 2A F 31,669 1.69 0.81

Sierra College Boulevard

north of Douglas Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W2D, W-2E 26,045 4AD D 26,065 0.08% 4AD D 26,075 0.12% 4AD D 26,081 0.14

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP1 40,076 6AD D 40,103 0.07% 6AD D 40,094 0.04% 6AD D 40,094 0.04Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W4A, W-5A, W-6A, W-7A 13,580 2A D 13,580 2A D 13,580 2A D 13,580 Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O1, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W- 1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, 

W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, W1E, W-2E 41,406 1.11 4AD F 41,599 1.11 0.47% 4AD F 41,590 1.11 0.44% 4AD F 41,572 1.11 0.40

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg 

Blvd. 47,886 1.28 4AD F 47,886 1.28 4AD F 47,886 1.28 4AD F 47,886 1.28 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP2, BP3 W-6D, W-6E

20,085 4AD D 20,190 0.52% 4AD D 20,101 0.08% 4AD D 20,102 0.08

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom 

Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 17,098 4AU C 17,338 1.40% 4AU C 17,338 1.40% 4AU C 17,338 1.40

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP2, BP3 W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 

1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 27,913 4AU E 28,282 1.32% 4AU E 28,193 1.00% 4AU E 28,182 0.96

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to 

Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W4E, W-5E, W-6E 32,960 1.14 4AU F 33,164 1.15 0.62% 4AU F 33,158 1.15 0.60% 4AU F 33,092 1.15 0.40

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison 

Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W4E 24,823 4AMD B 25,031 0.84% 4AMD B 25,031 0.84% 4AMD B 25,095 1.10

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron 

Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP2, BP-3 W-6D, W-6E 40,479 4AD F 40,695 0.53% 4AD F 40,695 0.53% 4AD 40,499 0.05

Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

22,866 6AD C 22,874 0.03% 6AD C 22,874 0.03% 6AD C 22,874 0.03

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 1,702 2C A/B 1,794 5.41% 2C A/B 1,702 2C A/B 1,709 0.41White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

9,360 2C E 9,452 0.98% 2C E 9,360 2C E 9,367 0.07

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 6,514 2C D 6,594 1.23% 2C D 6,519 0.08% 2C D 6,515 0.02US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W5D, W-5E 120,304 1.19 4FA F 120,517 1.20 0.18% 4FA F 120,517 1.20 0.18% 4FA F 120,577 1.20 0.23

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

101,970 1.27 4F F 101,991 1.27 0.02% 4F F 101,987 1.27 0.02% 4F F 101,987 1.27 0.02

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

73,954 4F E 73,975 0.03% 4F E 73,971 0.02% 4F E 73,971 0.02

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W6D, W-6E 84,357 1.05 4F F 84,377 1.05 0.02% 4F F 84,377 1.05 0.02% 4F F 84,381 1.05 0.03

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

9,315 2C E 9,315 2C E 9,315 2C E 9,315 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 28,639 4AU E 28,639 4AU E 28,639 4AU E 28,639 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

59,969 1.67 4AMD F 59,969 1.67 4AMD F 59,969 1.67 4AMD F 59,969 1.67 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

106,049 1.32 4F F 106,049 1.32 4F F 106,049 1.32 4F F 106,049 1.32 

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

23,483 1.26 2A F 23,483 1.26 2A F 23,483 1.26 2A F 23,483 1.26 

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

24,619 1.32 2A F 24,619 1.32 2A F 24,619 1.32 2A F 24,619 1.32 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

130,560 1.30 4FA F 130,562 1.30 0.00% 4FA F 130,566 1.30 0.00% 4FA F 130,560 1.30 

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

108,050 1.07 4FA F 108,052 1.07 0.00% 4FA F 108,056 1.07 0.01% 4FA F 108,050 1.07 

2008 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Table 3.9-87

Regional Access Routes

2008

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not New Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent 

3.9-68 
DESIGNATIONS

Roadway Location

Materials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS

New 

ADT V/C 

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue Ravine Road W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, 

W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W-5D, W-3E, W-5E 40,103 1.07 4AD F 40,519 1.08 1.04% 4AD F 40,539 1.08 1.09% 4AD F 40,407 

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to Greenback 

Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 34,586 4AD D 34,742 0.45% 4AD D 34,742 0.45% 4AD D 34,630 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 

7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W-3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 42,755 2.29 2A F 43,123 2.31 0.86% 2A F 43,183 2.31 1.00% 2A F 42,866 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 

5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 22,704 4AU D 22,900 0.86% 4AU D 22,892 0.83% 4AU D 22,776 

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O- 4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 

1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 36,389 4AU E 36,581 0.53% 4AU F 36,643 0.70% 4AU F 36,504 

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 

1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 32,358 1.73 2A F 32,530 1.74 0.53% 2A F 32,541 1.74 0.57% 2A F 32,473 

Sierra College Boulevard

north of Douglas Boulevard A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W-2D, 

W-2E 26,827 4AD D 26,875 0.18% 4AD D 26,881 0.20% 4AD D 26,876 

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 41,279 6AD D 41,299 0.05% 6AD D 41,351 0.17% 6AD D 41,282 Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W-4A, 

W-5A, W-6A, W-7A 13,988 2A D 13,988 2A D 13,988 2A D 14,093 

Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, 

O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1

W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W-1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, W-1E, W-2E 42,649 1.14 4AD F 42,797 1.14 0.35% 4AD F 42,859 1.15 0.49% 4AD F 42,773 

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg Blvd.

49,323 1.32 4AD F 49,323 1.32 4AD F 49,323 1.32 4AD F 49,323 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to Green 

Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP3

W-6D, W-6E

20,688 4AD D 20,871 0.88% 4AD D 20,883 0.94% 4AD D 20,834 

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom Dam 

Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 17,611 4AU D 18,143 3.02% 4AU D 17,983 2.11% 4AU D 18,143 

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley 

Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 28,751 4AU E 29,510 2.64% 4AU F 29,570 2.85% 4AU F 29,465 

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to Sophia 

Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W-4E, 

W-5E, W-6E 33,949 1.17 4AU F 34,233 1.18 0.84% 4AU F 34,113 1.18 0.48% 4AU F 34,157 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison Avenue W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E 25,568 4AMD C 25,924 1.39% 4AMD C 25,940 1.45% 4AMD C 25,796 East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP2, BP-3 W-6D, W-6E 41,694 4AD F 42,104 0.98% 4AD 42,172 1.15% 4AD 42,071 Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

23,552 6AD C 23,572 0.08% 6AD C 23,572 0.08% 6AD C 23,572 

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 1,754 2C A/B 1,902 8.44% 2C A/B 1,844 5.13% 2C A/B 1,872 White Rock Road between Scott Road (south) and 

Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

9,641 2C E 9,789 1.54% 2C E 9,731 0.93% 2C E 9,759 

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 6,710 2C D 6,725 0.22% 2C D 6,795 1.27% 2C D 6,718 US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom Boulevard O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W-5D, 

W-5E 123,914 1.23 4FA F 124,285 1.23 0.30% 4FA F 124,371 1.24 0.37% 4FA F 124,186 

US50 Folsom Boulevard to Prairie City 

Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

105,030 1.31 4F F 105,057 1.31 0.03% 4F F 105,127 1.31 0.09% 4F F 105,042 

US50 Prairie City Road to East Bidwell 

Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

76,173 4F E 76,200 0.04% 4F E 76,270 0.13% 4F E 76,185 

US50 East Bidwell St to County Line W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W-6D, 

W-6E 86,888 1.08 4F F 86,920 1.08 0.04% 4F F 86,920 1.08 0.04% 4F F 86,912 

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

9,594 2C E 9,594 2C E 9,594 2C E 9,602 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 29,499 1.02 4AU F 29,499 1.02 4AU F 29,499 1.02 4AU F 29,507 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of Feather River 

Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

63,568 1.77 4AMD F 63,568 1.77 4AMD F 63,568 1.77 4AMD F 63,576 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of Route 80 A-1, A-2 112,412 1.40 4F F 112,412 1.40 4F F 112,412 1.40 4F F 112,420 Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th Street A-1, A-2 24,892 1.33 2A F 24,892 1.33 2A F 24,892 1.33 2A F 24,900 Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of Evergreen 

Drive

A-1, A-2

26,097 1.40 2A F 26,097 1.40 2A F 26,097 1.40 2A F 26,105 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of Route 65 A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 134,477 1.34 4FA F 134,477 1.34 4FA F 134,483 1.34 0.00% 4FA F 134,503 Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra College 

Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

111,292 1.11 4FA F 111,292 1.11 4FA F 111,294 1.11 0.00% 4FA F 111,301 

2009 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Table 3.9-88

Regional Access Routes

2009

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featuresNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

ROUTE 

Roadway Location

Materials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C

% increase code LOS

New 

ADT V/C

% increase code LOS

New 

ADT V/C

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W6C, W-3D, W-5D, W-3E, W- 40,906 1.09 4AD F 41,222 1.10 0.77% 4AD F 41,242 1.10 0.82% 4AD F 41,106 1

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W- 35,278 4AD D 35,394 0.33% 4AD D 35,394 0.33% 4AD D 35,278 

Folsom-Auburn Road Oak Hill Drive to Folsom 

Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 

7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W-3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 43,611 2.33 2A F 43,923 2.35 0.72% 2A F 43,983 2.35 0.85% 2A F 43,659 2

Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Dam Road to Oak 

Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 23,159 4AU D 23,279 0.52% 4AU D 23,271 0.48% 4AU D 23,183 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road

A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 

2D, 1E, 2E 37,117 1.28 4AU F 37,209 1.29 0.25% 4AU F 37,269 1.29 0.41% 4AU F 37,165 1

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive

A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 

4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 33,006 1.77 2A F 33,078 1.77 0.22% 2A F 33,087 1.77 0.25% 2A F 33,054 1

Sierra College Boulevard north of Douglas Boulevard A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W-2D, W2E 27,364 4AD D 27,400 0.13% 4AD D 27,404 0.15% 4AD D 27,388 Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 42,105 6AD D 42,125 0.05% 6AD D 6AD D Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W-4A, W5A, W-6A, W-7A 14,268 2A D 14,268 2A D 14,268 2A D 14,268 Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, 

O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1

W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W-1B, W2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W1D, W-2D, W-1E, W-2E 43,502 1.16 4AD F 43,594 1.17 0.21% 4AD F 43,654 1.17 0.35% 4AD F 43,550 1

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg 

Blvd. 50,310 1.35 4AD F 50,310 1.35 4AD F 4AD F 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-6D, W-6E

21,102 4AD D 21,280 0.84% 4AD D 21,279 0.84% 4AD D 21,243 

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom 

Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 17,964 4AU D 18,388 2.36% 4AU D 18,412 2.49% 4AU D 18,376 

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 29,327 1.01 4AU F 29,945 1.04 2.11% 4AU F 29,992 1.04 2.27% 4AU F 29,904 1

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to 

Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W-4E, W5E, W-6E 34,628 1.20 4AU F 34,919 1.21 0.84% 4AU F 34,824 1.20 0.57% 4AU F 34,839 1

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison 

Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E

26,080 4AMD C 26,352 1.04% 4AMD C 26,368 1.10% 4AMD C 26,256 

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron 

Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

42,528 4AD F 42,935 0.96% 4AD F 42,528 4AD F 42,902 

Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Road to East 

Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

24,024 6AD C 24,040 0.07% 6AD C 24,040 0.07% 6AD C 24,040 

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 1,790 2C A/B 1,938 8.27% 2C A/B 2C A/B White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road 

(north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

9,834 1.00 2C F 9,982 1.02 1.50% 2C F 2C F 

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 6,845 2C D 6,859 0.20% 2C D 2C D US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W-5D, W5E 126,393 1.26 4FA F 126,679 1.26 0.23% 4FA F 126,764 1.26 0.29% 4FA F 126,576 1

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

107,131 1.34 4F F 107,153 1.34 0.02% 4F F 107,222 1.34 0.08% 4F F 107,138 1

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

77,697 4F E 77,719 0.03% 4F E 77,788 0.12% 4F E 77,704 

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W-6D, W6E 88,626 1.11 4F F 88,650 1.11 0.03% 4F F 88,650 1.11 0.03% 4F F 88,642 1

Hammonton-Smartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

9,786 2C E 9,786 2C E 9,786 2C E 9,786 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 30,088 1.04 4AU F 30,088 1.04 4AU F 30,088 1.04 4AU F 30,088 1Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

67,383 1.87 4AMD F 67,383 1.87 4AMD F 67,383 1.87 4AMD F 67,383 1

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

119,157 1.49 4F F 119,157 1.49 4F F 119,157 1.49 4F F 119,157 1

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

26,386 1.41 2A F 26,386 1.41 2A F 26,386 1.41 2A F 26,386 1

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

27,663 1.48 2A F 27,663 1.48 2A F 27,663 1.48 2A F 27,663 1

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

138,512 1.38 4FA F 138,512 1.38 4FA F 138,512 1.38 4FA F 138,512 1

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

114,631 1.14 4FA F 114,631 1.14 4FA F 114,631 1.14 4FA F 114,631 1

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalNew Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, reba

New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featurNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation

Table 3.9-89

2010 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Regional Access Routes

2010

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 A

3.9-70 
DESIGNATIONS

Roadway Location Materials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New V/C % 

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W5D, W-3E, W-5E 41,725 1.12 4AD F 41,833 1.12 0.26% 4AD F 42,025 1.12 0.72% 4AD F 41,913 1.12 

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 35,984 4AD E 35,984 4AD E 35,984 4AD E 35,984 

Folsom-Auburn Road Oak Hill Drive to Folsom 

Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 

6C, 7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W-3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 44,484 2.38 2A F 44,508 2.38 0.05% 2A F 44,556 2.38 0.16% 2A F 44,524 2.38 

Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Dam Road to 

Oak Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 23,623 4AU D 23,623 4AU D 23,639 0.07% 4AU D 23,623 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road

A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 37,860 1.31 4AU F 37,884 1.31 0.06% 4AU F 37,932 1.31 0.19% 4AU F 37,900 1.31 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive

A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 

3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 33,667 1.80 2A F 33,691 1.80 0.07% 2A F 33,739 1.80 0.21% 2A F 33,707 1.80 

Sierra College Boulevard north of Douglas 

Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W2D, W-2E 27,912 4AD D 27,924 0.04% 4AD D 27,948 0.13% 4AD D 27,932 

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise 

Avenue

A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1

42,948 6AD D 42,948 6AD D 6AD D 

Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W4A, W-5A, W-6A, W-7A 14,554 2A D 14,554 2A D 14,554 2A D 14,554 Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, O2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W- 1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, 

W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, W1E, W-2E 44,373 1.19 4AD F 44,397 1.19 0.05% 4AD F 44,445 1.19 0.16% 4AD F 44,413 1.19 

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg 

Blvd. 51,317 1.37 4AD F 51,317 1.37 4AD F 4AD F 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-6D, W-6E

21,525 4AD D 21,603 0.36% 4AD D 21,714 0.88% 4AD D 21,659 

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 18,324 4AU D 18,540 1.18% 4AU D 18,932 3.32% 4AU D 18,700 East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 29,914 1.04 4AU F 30,224 1.05 1.04% 4AU F 30,755 1.06 2.81% 4AU F 30,456 1.05 

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to 

Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W4E, W-5E, W-6E 35,321 1.22 4AU F 35,321 1.22 4AU F 35,519 1.23 0.56% 4AU F 35,321 1.22 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to 

Madison Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E

26,602 4AMD C 26,698 0.36% 4AMD C 26,866 0.99% 4AMD C 26,770 

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron 

Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

43,379 4AD F 43,573 0.45% 4AD F 43,610 0.53% 4AD F 43,745 

Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Road to 

East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

24,505 6AD C 24,513 0.03% 6AD C 24,525 0.08% 6AD C 24,517 

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock 

Road

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

1,826 2C A/B 1,882 3.07% 2C A/B 2C A/B 

White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

10,031 1.02 2C F 10,087 1.03 0.56% 2C F 2C F 

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock 

Road

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

6,982 2C D 6,992 0.14% 2C D 2C D 

US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W5D, W-5E 128,921 1.28 4FA F 129,027 1.28 0.08% 4FA F 129,236 1.28 0.24% 4FA F 129,095 1.28 

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

109,274 1.36 4F F 109,284 1.36 0.01% 4F F 109,325 1.36 0.05% 4F F 109,280 1.36 

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

79,251 4F E 79,261 0.01% 4F E 79,302 0.06% 4F E 79,257 

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W6D, W-6E 90,399 1.13 4F F 90,495 1.13 0.11% 4F F 90,419 1.13 0.02% 4F F 90,411 1.13 

Hammonton-Smartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

9,982 1.02 2C F 9,982 1.02 2C F 9,982 1.02 2C F 9,982 1.02 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 30,690 1.06 4AU F 30,690 1.06 4AU F 30,690 1.06 4AU F 30,690 1.06 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

71,426 1.98 4AMD F 71,426 1.98 4AMD F 71,426 1.98 4AMD F 71,426 1.98 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

126,307 1.57 4F F 126,307 1.57 4F F 126,307 1.57 4F F 126,307 1.57 

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

27,970 1.50 2A F 27,970 1.50 2A F 27,970 1.50 2A F 27,970 1.50 

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

29,323 1.57 2A F 29,323 1.57 2A F 29,323 1.57 2A F 29,323 1.57 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

141,283 1.40 4FA F 141,283 1.40 4FA F 141,283 1.40 4FA F 141,283 1.40 

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

116,924 1.16 4FA F 116,924 1.16 4FA F 116,924 1.16 4FA F 116,924 1.16 

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featuresNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

Table 3.9-90

2011 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Regional Access Routes

2011

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alter

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Roadway Location Materials/ Equip. RouteWorker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADT V/C % incre

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W-5D, W-3E, W-5E 42,560 1.14 4AD F 42,668 1.14 0.25% 4AD F 42,740 1.14 0.42% 4AD F 42,740 1.14 0.4

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 36,704 4AD E 36,704 4AD E 36,704 4AD E 36,704 

Folsom-Auburn Road Oak Hill Drive to Folsom 

Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 

6C, 7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 45,374 2.43 2A F 45,398 2.43 0.05% 2A F 45,414 2.43 0.09% 2A F 45,414 2.43 0.0

Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Dam Road to Oak 

Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 24,096 4AU D 24,096 4AU D 24,096 4AU D 24,096 

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road

A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 

7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 38,618 1.34 4AU F 38,642 1.34 0.06% 4AU F 38,658 1.34 0.10% 4AU F 38,658 1.34 0.

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) Road

Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive

A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 

2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 34,341 1.84 2A F 34,365 1.84 0.07% 2A F 34,381 1.84 0.12% 2A F 34,381 1.84 0.

Sierra College Boulevard north of Douglas Boulevard A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, 

W-2D, W-2E 28,471 4AD D 28,483 0.04% 4AD D 28,491 0.07% 4AD D 28,491 0.0

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise Avenue A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 43,807 6AD D 43,807 6AD D 6AD D Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, 

W-4A, W-5A, W-6A, 14,846 2A D 14,846 2A D 14,846 2A D 14,846 

Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, 

O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1

W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W-1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, W-1E, W-2E 45,261 1.21 4AD F 45,285 1.21 0.05% 4AD F 45,301 1.21 0.09% 4AD F 45,301 1.21 0.0

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg 

Blvd. 52,344 1.40 4AD F 52,344 1.40 4AD F 4AD F 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP3

W-6D, W-6E

21,956 4AD D 21,977 0.10% 4AD D 22,017 0.28% 4AD D 21,983 0.

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to Folsom 

Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 18,691 4AU C 18,907 1.16% 4AU D 19,051 1.93% 4AU D 19,051 1.9

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, 

BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 30,513 4AU D 30,757 0.80% 4AU F 30,966 1.48% 4AU F 30,932 1.3

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to 

Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, 

W-4E, W-5E, W-6E 36,028 1.25 4AU F 36,028 1.25 4AU F 36,028 1.25 4AU F 36,028 1.25 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison 

Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E 27,135 4AMD C 27,231 0.35% 4AMD C 27,295 0.59% 4AMD C 27,295 0.5

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron 

Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP2, BP-3 W-6D, W-6E 44,247 4AD F 44,269 0.05% 4AD F 44,288 0.09% 4AD F 44,289 0.0

Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Road to East 

Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

24,996 6AD C 25,004 0.03% 6AD C 25,008 0.05% 6AD C 25,008 0.0

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 1,863 2C A/B 1,868 0.27% 2C A/B 2C A/B White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

10,232 1.04 2C F 10,237 1.04 0.05% 2C F 2C F 

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3 7,122 2C D 7,126 0.06% 2C D 2C D US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, 

W-5D, W-5E 131,500 1.31 4FA F 131,600 1.31 0.08% 4FA F 131,687 1.31 0.14% 4FA F 131,669 1.31 0.

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

111,460 1.39 4F F 111,464 1.39 0.00% 4F F 111,487 1.39 0.02% 4F F 111,469 1.39 0.0

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

80,837 1.01 4F F 80,841 1.01 0.00% 4F F 80,864 1.01 0.03% 4F F 80,846 1.01 0.0

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W-6D, W-6E 92,207 1.15 4F F 92,303 1.15 0.10% 4F F 92,219 1.15 0.01% 4F F 92,219 1.15 0.0

Hammonton-Smartville (HS) Road north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2 10,181 1.04 2C F 10,181 1.04 2C F 10,181 1.04 2C F 10,181 1.04 N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 31,304 1.08 4AU F 31,304 1.08 4AU F 31,304 1.08 4AU F 31,304 1.08 Feather River Blvd. Ramp south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

75,712 2.10 4AMD F 75,712 2.10 4AMD F 75,712 2.10 4AMD F 75,712 2.10 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

133,886 1.67 4F F 133,886 1.67 4F F 133,886 1.67 4F F 133,886 1.67 

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

29,649 1.59 2A F 29,649 1.59 2A F 29,649 1.59 2A F 29,649 1.59 

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

31,083 1.66 2A F 31,083 1.66 2A F 31,083 1.66 2A F 31,083 1.66 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

144,109 1.43 4FA F 144,109 1.43 4FA F 144,109 1.43 4FA F 144,109 1.43 

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

119,263 1.18 4FA F 119,263 1.18 4FA F 119,263 1.18 4FA F 119,263 1.18 

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featuresNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

2012 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Table 3.9-91

Regional Access Routes

2012

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

3.9-72 
ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Roadway Location Materials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADT V/C % increase code LOS New ADTV/C 

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W-5D, W-3E, W-5E 43,412 1.16 4AD F 43,484 1.16 0.17% 4AD F 43,696 1.17 0.65% 4AD F 43,592 

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W-3B, W5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 37,439 1.00 4AD F 37,439 1.00 4AD F 37,543 1.00 0.28% 4AD F 37,439 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 7C, 

1D,2D, 2E, W-3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 46,282 2.47 2A F 46,298 2.48 0.03% 2A F 46,426 2.48 0.31% 2A F 46,322 

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 24,578 4AU D 24,578 4AU D 24,738 0.65% 4AU D 24,578 

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 

1E, 2E 39,391 1.36 4AU F 39,407 1.36 0.04% 4AU F 39,612 1.37 0.56% 4AU F 39,431 

Auburn-Folsom (AF) Road Eureka Road to Oak Hill Drive A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 

1E, 2E 35,028 1.87 2A F 35,044 1.87 0.05% 2A F 35,249 1.88 0.63% 2A F 35,068 

Sierra College Boulevard

north of Douglas Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W-2D, W2E 29,041 4AD D 29,049 0.03% 4AD D 29,095 0.19% 4AD D 29,061 

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise 

Avenue

A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1

44,684 6AD D 44,684 6AD D 6AD D 

Douglas Boulevard

east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W-4A, W5A, W-6A, W-7A 15,143 2A D 15,143 2A D 15,252 0.72% 2A 15,143 

Douglas Boulevard

Barton Road to A-F Road

A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP1 W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W-1B, W- 2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W-1D, 

W-2D, W-1E, W-2E 46,167 1.23 4AD F 46,183 1.23 0.03% 4AD F 46,337 1.24 0.37% 4AD F 46,207 

Douglas Boulevard

Barton to Sierra Colleg Blvd. 53,391 1.43 4AD F 53,391 1.43 4AD F 4AD F 

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3 W-6D, W-6E

22,396 4AD D 22,413 0.08% 4AD D 22,457 0.27% 4AD D 22,415 

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to 

Folsom Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 19,065 4AU D 19,209 0.76% 4AU D 19,425 1.89% 4AU D 19,425 

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3 W-7A, 7B, 7C, 

1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 31,124 1.08 4AU F 31,297 1.08 0.56% 4AU F 31,585 1.09 1.48% 4AU F 31,535 

Green Valley Road

East Natoma Street to Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W-4E, W5E, W-6E 36,749 1.27 4AU F 36,749 1.27 4AU F 36,749 1.27 4AU F 36,749 

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to 

Madison Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W-4E

27,678 4AMD C 27,742 0.23% 4AMD C 27,886 0.75% 4AMD C 27,838 

East Bidwell Street

Clarksville Road to Iron Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP-3 W-6D, W-6E

45,132 4AD F 45,171 0.09% 4AD F 45,192 0.13% 4AD F 45,152 

Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

25,496 6AD C 25,500 0.02% 6AD C 25,508 0.05% 6AD C 25,508 

Scott Road (south)

south of White Rock Road

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

1,901 2C A/B 1,912 0.58% 2C A/B 2C A/B 

White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

10,437 1.07 2C F 10,448 1.07 0.11% 2C F 2C F 

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock 

Road

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP-3

7,265 2C D 7,267 0.03% 2C D 2C D 

US50 Hazel Avenue to 

Folsom Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W-5D, W5E 134,130 1.33 4FA F 134,196 1.33 0.05% 4FA F 134,401 1.33 0.20% 4FA F 134,295 

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

113,690 1.42 4F F 113,692 1.42 0.00% 4F F 113,723 1.42 0.03% 4F F 113,695 

US50 Prairie City Road to 

East Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

82,454 1.03 4F F 82,456 1.03 0.00% 4F F 82,487 1.03 0.04% 4F F 82,459 

US50 East Bidwell St to 

County Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W-6D, W6E 94,052 1.17 4F F 94,056 1.17 0.00% 4F F 94,072 1.17 0.02% 4F F 94,064 

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

10,385 1.06 2C F 10,385 1.06 2C F 10,393 1.06 0.08% 2C F 10,385 

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 31,930 1.10 4AU F 31,930 1.10 4AU F 31,938 1.11 0.03% 4AU F 31,930 Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

80,255 2.23 4AMD F 80,255 2.23 4AMD F 80,263 2.23 0.01% 4AMD F 80,255 

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

141,920 1.77 4F F 141,920 1.77 4F F 141,928 1.77 0.01% 4F F 141,920 

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

31,428 1.68 2A F 31,428 1.68 2A F 31,436 1.68 0.03% 2A F 31,428 

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

32,948 1.76 2A F 32,948 1.76 2A F 32,956 1.76 0.02% 2A F 32,948 

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

146,992 1.46 4FA F 146,992 1.46 4FA F 147,054 1.46 0.04% 4FA F 146,992 

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

121,649 1.21 4FA F 121,649 1.21 4FA F 121,667 1.21 0.01% 4FA F 121,649 

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featuresNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

2013 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Table 3.9-92

Regional Access Routes

2013

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.9

Transportation and Circulation

DESIGNATIONSMaterials/ Equip. Routes Worker Routes ADT V/C code LOS

New ADT V/C

% increase code LOS

New ADT V/C % increase code LOS

New ADT V/C

% increase c

Folsom Boulevard Natoma Street to Blue 

Ravine Road

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C, W-3D, W5D, W-3E, W-5E 44,715 1.20 4AD F 44,833 1.20 0.26% 4AD F 44,715 1.20 4AD F 44,715 1.20 4

Folsom Boulevard Leidesdorff Street to 

Greenback Lane

W-3A, W-5A, W-6A, W3B, W-5B, W-6B, W-3C, W-5C, W-6C 38,563 1.03 4AD F 38,563 1.03 4AD F 38,563 1.03 4AD F 38,563 1.03 4

Folsom-Auburn Road

Oak Hill Drive to Folsom Dam Road

A-4, O-4, BP-1 W-1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 

6C, 7C, 1D,2D, 2E, W3A, 5A, 6A, 3B, 5B, 6B,1E 47,671 2.55 2A F 47,671 2.55 2A F 47,671 2.55 2A F 47,671 2.55 2

Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom Dam Road to Oak Avenue

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1E, 2E, 5C 25,316 4AU D 25,316 4AU D 25,316 4AU D 25,316 4

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) 

Road

Douglas Boulevard to Eureka Road

A-2,A-3,A-4, O-2, O3, O-4, BP-1 W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 

1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 40,573 1.40 4AU F 40,573 1.40 4AU F 40,573 1.40 4AU F 40,573 1.40 4

Auburn-Folsom (A-F) 

Road

A-2, A-3, O-2, O-3, BP-1

W-3A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E, 2E 36,079 1.93 2A F 36,079 1.93 2A F 36,079 1.93 2A F 36,079 1.93 2

Sierra College Boulevard

north of Douglas Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2 W-2A, W-2B, W-2C, W2D, W-2E 29,913 4AD D 29,913 4AD D 29,913 4AD D 29,913 4

Eureka Road east of N. Sunrise 

Avenue

A-3, A-4, O-3, O-4, BP-1 46,025 6AD D 46,025 6AD D 6AD D 6

Douglas Boulevard east of A-F Road A-1,O-1 W-1A, W-2A, W-3A, W4A, W-5A, W-6A, W-7A 15,598 2A D 15,598 2A D 15,598 2A D 15,598 2Douglas Boulevard Barton Road to A-F Road A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, 

O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, BP-1

W-1A, W-2A, W-4A, W1B, W-2B, W-4B, W-1C, W-2C, W-1D, W-2D, W1E, W-2E 47,553 1.27 4AD F 47,553 1.27 4AD F 47,553 1.27 4AD F 47,553 1.27 4

Douglas Boulevard Barton to Sierra Colleg 

Blvd. 54,993 1.47 4AD F 54,993 1.47 4AD F 4AD F 4

Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Parkway to 

Green Valley Road/East Natoma Street

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-6D, W-6E

23,068 4AD D 23,068 4AD D 23,068 4AD D 23,068 4

East Natoma St Cimmaron Circle to 

Folsom Dam Road

W-1D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E 19,637 4AU D 19,637 4AU D 19,637 4AU D 19,637 4

East Natoma St Folsom Dam Road to 

Green Valley Road

A-5, A-6,O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP3

W-7A, 7B, 7C, 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, 6E 32,058 1.11 4AU F 32,058 1.11 4AU F 32,058 1.11 4AU F 32,058 1.11 4

Green Valley Road East Natoma Street to 

Sophia Parkway

A-6, O-6 W-1E, W-2E, W-3E, W4E, W-5E, W-6E 37,852 1.31 4AU F 37,852 1.31 4AU F 37,852 1.31 4AU F 37,852 1.31 4

Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue to Madison 

Avenue 

W-4B, W-4C, W-4D, W4E 28,509 4AMD C 28,509 4AMD C 28,509 4AMD C 28,509 4

East Bidwell Street Clarksville Road to Iron 

Point Road

A-5, A-6, O-5, O-6, BP-2, BP-3

W-6D, W-6E

46,486 4AD F 46,486 4AD F 46,486 4AD F 46,486 4

Oak Avenue Parkway

Blue Ravine Road to East Bidwell Street

W-6D, W-6E

26,261 6AD C 26,261 6AD C 26,261 6AD C 26,261 6

Scott Road (south) south of White Rock 

Road

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP3 1,959 2C A/B 1,959 2C A/B 2C A/B 2

White Rock Road between Scott Road 

(south) and Scott Road (north)

A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP3

10,751 1.10 2C F 10,751 1.10 2C F 2C F 2

Scott Road (north) north of White Rock Road A-5, A-6, BP-2, BP- 7,483 2C D 7,483 2C D 2C D 2US50 Hazel Avenue to Folsom 

Boulevard

O-5, O-6 W-5A, W-5B, W-5C, W5D, W-5E 138,154 1.37 4FA F 138,154 1.37 4FA F 138,154 1.37 4FA F 138,154 1.37 4

US50 Folsom Boulevard to 

Prairie City Road

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

117,101 1.46 4F F 117,101 1.46 4F F 117,101 1.46 4F F 117,101 1.46 4

US50 Prairie City Road to East 

Bidwell Street

O-5, O-6 W-6A, W-6B, W-6C

84,928 1.06 4F F 84,928 1.06 4F F 84,928 1.06 4F F 84,928 1.06 4

US50 East Bidwell St to County 

Line

W-6A, W-6B, W-6C, W6D, W-6E 96,874 1.21 4F F 96,874 1.21 4F F 96,874 1.21 4F F 96,874 1.21 4

HammontonSmartville (H-S) Road

north of N. Beale Road A-1, A-2

10,593 1.08 2C F 10,593 1.08 2C F 10,593 1.08 2C F 10,593 1.08 2

N Beale Road south of H-S Road A-1, A-2 32,569 1.13 4AU F 32,569 1.13 4AU F 32,569 1.13 4AU F 32,569 1.13 4Feather River Blvd. Ramp

south of N. Beale Street A-1, A-2

Highway 70 Yuba County, east of 

Feather River Boulevard interchange

A-1, A-2

85,071 2.36 4AMD F 85,071 2.36 4AMD F 85,071 2.36 4AMD F 85,071 2.36 4

Highway 65 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 80 

A-1, A-2

150,436 1.88 4F F 150,436 1.88 4F F 150,436 1.88 4F F 150,436 1.88 4

Highway 65 Lincoln, northeast of 7th 

Street

A-1, A-2

33,314 1.78 2A F 33,314 1.78 2A F 33,314 1.78 2A F 33,314 1.78 2

Highway 65 Wheatland, northeast of 

Evergreen Drive

A-1, A-2

34,925 1.87 2A F 34,925 1.87 2A F 34,925 1.87 2A F 34,925 1.87 2

Interstate 80 Roseville, northeast of 

Route 65 

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

149,932 1.49 4FA F 149,932 1.49 4FA F 149,932 1.49 4FA F 149,932 1.49 4

Interstate 80 Rocklin, south of Sierra 

College Boulevard

A-1, A-2, O-1, O-2

124,082 1.23 4FA F 124,082 1.23 4FA F 124,082 1.23 4FA F 124,082 1.23 4

New Aggregate trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (fine & coarse filters, road base and asphalt)

New Offsite trips are those trips hauling offsite materials (slope u/s, toe drain, hdpe pipe, pipe filter, u/s filter, seeding, rebar)New BP trips are those trips hauling aggregate materials (cement, fine & coarse aggregates) directly to the batch plants. This does not include trips from the batch plants to the project featuresNew Equipment trips are those trips hauling in equipment to each project feature staging area (staging area assumed adjacent to project feature for hauling evaluation). 

2014 Daily Project Impacts Alternatives 1 though 5

Table 3.9-93

Regional Access Routes

2014

No Action/No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Roadway Location

3.9-74 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-75 

For the purpose of quantitatively determining significant traffic impacts, the analysis 

conducted for the Folsom DS/FDR applies the significance criteria described earlier 

in Section 3.9.3.1 to the Folsom DS/FDR related ADT increases occurring on 

roadways within the Folsom DS/FDR study area. Specifically, a significant impact 

is considered to occur if the addition of Folsom DS/FDR related traffic causes a 

roadway to experience an LOS deterioration (i.e., change of LOS grade downward), 

or experience an increase in the V/C ratio of more the 0.05 if it is currently operating 

at LOS F, or would experience an increase in daily traffic volumes of 2%. It is 

important to note that these significance thresholds are considered, for the purposes 

of this EIS/EIR analysis, to be extremely conservative (i.e., stringent) inasmuch as 

the standards from which they are derived, presented in Table 3.9-3, are intended to 

apply primarily to permanent increases in traffic such as from long-term operation of 

development projects and not necessarily to temporary increases associated with 

construction activities. 

3.9.2.3 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

There would be no impacts associated with implementation of the No Action/No 

Project Alternative. As illustrated in Table 3.9-8, the impact of not implementing the 

Folsom DS/FDR and not conducting the associated construction activities would 

have no impact on existing and future ‘no build’ traffic volumes. The CEQA 

baseline 2006 and the 2007 through 2014 ‘no build’ conditions would not experience 

an increase in traffic aside from that of normal background growth due to other 

unrelated development projects as well as, general population, job and household 

growth in the area. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on transportation resources.

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Project construction under this alternative would result in traffic impacts.

Tables 3.9-86 through 3.9-93 present the traffic impacts associated with each of the 

alternatives for each construction year from 2007 through 2014. Included therein are 

the ADT, V/C ratio, and LOS rating for each key roadway in the study area, as 

estimated for the No Action/No Project Alternative and each action alternative. 

Inasmuch as the No Action/No Project Alternative would result in no traffic impacts, 

as described above, it is considered to be, for both NEPA purposes and CEQA 

purposes, the basis of comparison for determining the impacts of each action 

alternative. Any deterioration in LOS rating, increase in V/C of 0.05 for roadways 

with an existing LOS of F, increase in ADT of more than 2% for an action 

alternative compared against the No Action/No Project Alternative is considered a 

significant impact. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-76 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both, for Alternative 1, implementation of 

this alternative would result in significant impacts to traffic in the study area, as 

described below.

LOS Deterioration 

No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, or 2013. In 2009, 

East Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road would be 

expected to degrade LOS from E to F under Alternative 1. In 2012, traffic on East 

Natoma Street would decrease from a LOS C to LOS D and LOS D to LOS F. 

ADT Increase > 2% 

There would be some roadways in certain years that would experience an increase in 

ADT of greater than 2%, up to a maximum of approximately 8.44%; however the 

vast majority of roadways would experience ADT increases of far less than 2%, and 

there are some years (i.e., 2007, 2012, 2013, and 2014) with no roadways experience 

and ADT increase of 2% or more. The following roadways would be expected to 

experience an increase of 2% or more in ADT: 

• East Natoma Street from Cimmaron Circle to Folsom Dam Road (2009 and 

2010). 

• East Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road (2009 and 

2010). 

• Scott Road, south of White Rock Road (2008 through 2011). 

LOS F V/C Increase >0.05 

There are no instances of this occurring under Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address the potential traffic impacts 

presented above. 

Increased traffic on roadways within the study area, including increased truck

travel, could incrementally increase the risk of collisions or affect alternative 

transportation. 

This would include increased traffic on Douglas Boulevard, East Bidwell Street, and 

Folsom Boulevard, which are identified in Section 3.9.1.3 as posing a possible safety 

concern. As such, the project-related increased traffic on those and other roadways in 

the study area is considered to have the potential for resulting in a significant safety 

impact. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-77 

Increased traffic resulting from the project, especially truck traffic, could ostensibly 

affect alternative transportation, to the extent that bike lanes and routes are 

temporarily constrained, if at all. Mitigation Measures T-1 to T-3 would address this 

impact.

Implementation of the proposed project will draw a large construction workforce, 

which, in turn, will create the need for worker vehicle parking areas. 

It is anticipated that much of the needed parking area will be provided within open 

areas at/near Folsom Facility, in areas not currently used for parking. There may, 

however, be the need or opportunity for centralized off-site parking, with a shuttle to 

transport workers to and from the site. The designation and use of areas for parking 

would be coordinated with other existing demands, if any, for use of the same area. 

It is possible that existing parking along certain segments of designated truck haul 

routes may be temporarily restricted from time to time in order to enhance capacity 

and flow along the route during construction hours. Similar to above, any temporary 

restrictions on street parking would be designed, timed, and implemented in 

coordination with the existing needs for that parking, and would include provisions 

for temporary replacement parking nearby, if appropriate. Mitigation Measures T-1 

through T-3 are intended to address such impacts. 

Based on the above, implementation of this alternative poses the potential to result in 

significant traffic impacts. 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address those significant impacts and 

are intended to reduce them to a less-than-significant level; however, the specific 

design, application, and degree of effectiveness of those measures requires certain 

detailed project information that is not yet available. In particular, more detailed 

information regarding the construction approach, phasing, timeframe, and other such 

considerations is required to confirm the exact nature and extent of impacts on the 

individual roads and intersections described above, which, in turn, provides the basis 

for identifying the specific traffic improvement measures tailored to the impacts 

measures. Such additional project details and traffic mitigation design would occur 

in conjunction with the further engineering and design that would occur for the 

selected alternative. Until that more detailed evaluation and traffic mitigation design 

is completed, and its effectiveness can be more fully assessed, the traffic impacts 

associated with this alternative are considered, for now, to remain potentially 

significant. 

Construction activities at the Folsom Facility would not affect emergency vehicle access

routes.

Some construction activities are within the City of Folsom. Construction vehicles could 

potentially impede emergency vehicles accessing emergency sites. Section 3.14 addresses 

potential effects to police and fire services and Section 3.17 addresses potential risks to 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-78 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

public safety. All construction activities of the Folsom DS/FDR action would be 

coordinated with police and fire services to establish emergency routes before construction 

and avoid effects to emergency vehicle routes. A fire management plan will be developed to 

address potential public safety effects. 

This impact would be less than significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Project construction under this alternative would result in traffic impacts.

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both, for Alternative 2, implementation of 

this alternative would result in significant impacts to traffic in the study area, as 

described below.

LOS Deterioration 

No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, or 2013. In 2009, 

East Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road is expected to 

degrade LOS from E to F under Alternative 2 in 2009. In 2012, traffic on East 

Natoma Street would decrease from a LOS C to LOS D and LOS D to LOS F. 

ADT Increase > 2% 

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both, for Alternative 2, implementation of 

this alternative would result in an impact to traffic with an increase in ADT of 

approximately 5.13%, or less, on a daily basis during each construction year. Roads 

with an increase of 2% or more include: 

• East Natoma Street in 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

• Scott Road, south of White Rock Road in 2009. 

LOS F V/C Increase >0.05 

There are no instances of this occurring under Alternative 2. 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address the potential traffic impacts 

presented above. 

Other traffic related impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Based on the above, implementation of this alternative poses the potential to result in 

significant traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address 

those significant impacts and are intended to reduce them to a less than significant 

level; however, the specific design, application, and degree of effectiveness of those 

measures requires certain detailed project information that is not yet available. In 

particular, more detailed information regarding the construction approach, phasing, 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-79 

timeframe, and other such considerations is required to confirm the exact nature and 

extent of impacts on the individual roads and intersections described above, which, 

in turn, provides the basis for identifying the specific traffic improvement measures 

tailored to the impacts measures. Such additional project details and traffic 

mitigation design would occur in conjunction with the further engineering and design 

that would occur for the selected alternative. Until that more detailed evaluation and 

traffic mitigation design is completed, and its effectiveness can be more fully 

assessed, the traffic impacts associated with this alternative are considered, for now, 

to remain potentially significant. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would result in traffic impacts.

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both, for Alternative 3, implementation of 

this alternative would result in significant impacts to traffic in the study area, as 

described below.

LOS Deterioration 

No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, or 2013. In 2009, 

East Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road is expected to 

degrade LOS from E to F under Alternative 3 in 2009. In 2012, traffic on East 

Natoma Street would decrease from a LOS C to LOS D and LOS D to LOS F. 

ADT Increase > 2% 

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both for Alternatives 3, implementation of 

this alternative would result in an impact to traffic with an increase in ADT of 6.73% 

or less on a daily basis during each construction year. Roads with an increase of 2% 

or more include: 

• East Natoma Street in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Alternative 3 would not affect the 

road segment from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road in 2010 or 2011. 

• Scott Road, south of White Rock Road in 2009. 

LOS F V/C Increase >0.05 

There are no instances of this occurring under Alternative 3. 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address the potential traffic impacts 

presented above. 

Other traffic related impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Based on the above, implementation of this alternative poses the potential to result in 

significant traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-80 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

those significant impacts and are intended to reduce them to a less than significant 

level; however, the specific design, application, and degree of effectiveness of those 

measures requires certain detailed project information that is not yet available. In 

particular, more detailed information regarding the construction approach, phasing, 

timeframe, and other such considerations is required to confirm the exact nature and 

extent of impacts on the individual roads and intersections described above, which, 

in turn, provides the basis for identifying the specific traffic improvement measures 

tailored to the impacts measures. Such additional project details and traffic 

mitigation design would occur in conjunction with the further engineering and design 

that would occur for the selected alternative. Until more detailed evaluation and 

traffic mitigation design is completed, and its effectiveness can be more fully 

assessed, the traffic impacts associated with this alternative are considered, for now, 

to remain potentially significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Project alternative would result in traffic impacts.

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both for Alternative 4, implementation of 

this alternative would result in significant impacts to traffic in the study area, as 

described below.

LOS Deterioration 

No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, or 2013. In 2009, 

East Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road is expected to 

degrade LOS from E to F under Alternative 4 in 2009. In 2012, traffic on East 

Natoma Street would decrease from a LOS C to LOS D and LOS D to LOS F. 

ADT Increase > 2% 

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes, or both for Alternatives 4, implementation of 

this alternative would result in an impact to traffic with an increase in ADT of 4.68% 

or less on a daily basis during each construction year. Roads with an increase of 2% 

or more include: 

• East Natoma Street in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Alternative 4 would not affect the 

road segment from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road in 2011. 

• Scott Road, south of White Rock Road in 2008 and 2009. 

LOS F V/C Increase >0.05 

There are no instances of this occurring under Alternative 4. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-81 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address the potential traffic impacts 

presented above. 

Other traffic related impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Based on the above, implementation of this alternative poses the potential to result in 

significant traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address 

those significant impacts and are intended to reduce them to a less than significant 

level; however, the specific design, application, and degree of effectiveness of those 

measures requires certain detailed project information that is not yet available. In 

particular, more detailed information regarding the construction approach, phasing, 

timeframe, and other such considerations is required to confirm the exact nature and 

extent of impacts on the individual roads and intersections described above, which, 

in turn, provides the basis for identifying the specific traffic improvement measures 

tailored to the impacts measures. Such additional project details and traffic 

mitigation design would occur in conjunction with the further engineering and design 

that would occur for the selected alternative. Until more detailed evaluation and 

traffic mitigation design is completed, and its effectiveness can be more fully 

assessed, the traffic impacts associated with this alternative are considered, for now, 

to remain potentially significant. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Project alternative would result in traffic impacts.

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes or both for Alternative 5, would result in 

significant impacts to traffic in the study area, as described below.

LOS Deterioration 

No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2007, 2008, 2011, or 2013. In 2009, East 

Natoma Street from Folsom Dam Road to Green Valley Road is expected to degrade 

LOS from E to F under Alternative 2 in 2009. In 2010, Folsom Boulevard from 

Liedesdorff Street to Greenback Lane would decrease from LOS D to LOS E. In 

2012, traffic on East Natoma Street would decrease from a LOS C to LOS D and 

LOS D to LOS F. 

ADT Increase > 2% 

According to the trip generation, distribution and assignment, each of the routes to be 

used for hauling routes, worker routes or both for Alternatives 5.Implementation of 

this alternative would result in an impact to traffic with an increase in ADT of 3.93% 

or less on a daily basis during each construction year. Roads with an increase of 2% 

or more include: 

• East Natoma Street in 2011, 2012, and 2013 

• Scott Road, south of White Rock Road in 2008 and 2009 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-82 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

LOS F V/C Increase >0.05 

There are no instances of this occurring under Alternative 5. 

Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address the potential traffic impacts 

presented above. 

Other traffic related impacts under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Based on the above, implementation of this alternative poses the potential to result in 

significant traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would address 

those significant impacts and are intended to reduce them to a less than significant 

level; however, the specific design, application, and degree of effectiveness of those 

measures requires certain detailed project information that is not yet available. In 

particular, more detailed information regarding the construction approach, phasing, 

timeframe, and other such considerations is required to confirm the exact nature and 

extent of impacts on the individual roads and intersections described above, which, 

in turn, provides the basis for identifying the specific traffic improvement measures 

tailored to the impacts measures. Such additional project details and traffic 

mitigation design would occur in conjunction with the further engineering and design 

that would occur for the selected alternative. Until more detailed evaluation and 

traffic mitigation design is completed, and its effectiveness can be more fully 

assessed, the traffic impacts associated with this alternative are considered, for now, 

to remain potentially significant. 

3.9.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, Scott Road would be expected to experience the highest 

increase in traffic volumes, thereby establishing the upper limit of percentage 

increase impacts as illustrated above. However, Scott Road currently carries a 

minimal amount of traffic on a daily basis, and the percentage increase is somewhat 

skewed as compared with the remainder of the roadways analyzed. 

During construction years 2007 and 2008, no roadways with the exception of Scott 

Road would be expected to experience a change in LOS, change in V/C if operating 

at LOS F, nor an increase in daily traffic volumes of 2% or more under all 

alternatives. 

During 2009, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be expected to result in an increase of 

3.02% or less along East Natoma Street. Also during 2009, all alternatives would 

result in East Natoma Street degrading from LOS E to LOS F. 

During 2010 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be expected to result in an increase of 

2.27% or less along East Natoma Street. During 2010 Folsom Boulevard between 

Leidesdorff Street and Greenback Lane would be expected to degrade from LOS D 

to E under Alternative 5 only. 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.9-83 

During 2011, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 East Natoma Street would be expected to 

experience an increase in daily traffic of 3.32% or less, yet no change in LOS nor 

change in V/C if operating at LOS F. 

During 2012, only Alternative 5 would be expected to increase traffic by more than 

2% on all study roadways, with East Natoma Street experiencing an increase of 

3.27%. 

During 2013, only Alternative 5 would be expected to increase traffic by more than 

2% on all study roadways, with East Natoma Street experiencing an increase of 

2.37% or less. 

During 2014, all Alternatives would result in less than a 2% increase in daily traffic, 

no change to LOS, nor a change to V/C if operating at LOS F. 

Alternative 1 during construction year 2009 would result in the greatest total increase 

in use (8.44% increase) of the routes by trucks hauling daily material and equipment, 

and employees due to the Folsom DS/FDR. However, discounting Scott Road, 

during 2009, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would experience a similar increase of 3.02% 

in traffic along East Natoma Street between Cimmaron Circle and Folsom Dam 

Road. Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 experience almost one full percentage point 

less increase in traffic along East Natoma Street between Cimmaron Circle and 

Folsom Dam Road as compared with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

East Natoma Street between Folsom Dam Road and Green Valley Road during 2009 

under Alternative 2 would be expected to experience an increase in daily traffic of 

2.85%. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would be within one third percentage of Alternative 2 

along East Natoma between Folsom Dam Road and Green Valley Road and 

Alternative 5 would be more than one and one half percentage point less in terms of 

increase in ADT at 1.07%. 

Mitigation for each of the alternatives would the same and will be further refined 

during the next phase of engineering. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would 

reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 

3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures will be required of the Folsom DS/FDR whenever the impacts 

of the Folsom DS/FDR exceed the thresholds identified in Section 3.9.3.2. 

The following mitigation measures will be implemented: 

T-1: In conjunction with the development and review of more detailed project design 

and construction specifications, a peak hour capacity analysis will be performed on 

specific intersections to evaluate the need for changes to traffic signal timing, 
Section 3.9 

Transportation and Circulation 

 

3.9-84 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

phasing modification, provision of additional turn lanes through restriping or 

physical improvements, as necessary and appropriate to reduce project-related 

impacts to an acceptable level. In conjunction with that assessment, the potential 

need for roadway improvements or operation modifications (i.e., temporary 

restrictions on turning movements, on-street parking, etc.) to enhance roadway 

capacity in light of additional traffic from the project will be evaluated. The 

completion of these evaluations and the identification of specific traffic improvement 

measures, as deemed necessary and appropriate in light of the temporary nature of 

impacts, will be coordinated with the transportation departments of the affected 

jurisdictions. 

T-2: Construction contractor will prepare a transportation management plan, 

outlining proposed routes to be approved by the appropriate local entity, and 

implement it. High collision intersections will be identified and avoided if possible. 

Drivers will be informed and trained on the various types of haul routes, and areas 

that are more sensitive (e.g., high level of residential or education centers, or narrow 

roadways). 

T-3: Construction contractor will develop and utilize appropriate signage to inform 

the general public of the haul routes and route changes, if applicable. 

3.9.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 lists projects considered in the cumulative analysis. Most of the projects 

include construction within the study region that will require transport of materials to 

and from the site. In addition, population is increasing in the region, which will 

further increase traffic congestion in the study area. Under the cumulative condition, 

all Folsom Facility construction projects will have the potential for significant 

transportation and circulation effects should construction activities occur 

concurrently. Cumulative effects of traffic near the Main Concrete Dam will be 

limited by restricted access, staging, and closed construction areas. Also, cumulative 

effects of construction projects could be controlled through the scheduling and 

sequencing of haul truck traffic. Once completed, the new Folsom Bridge will 

greatly alleviate traffic congestion within the vicinity of the Folsom construction 

areas. 

Alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR would have significant impacts to transportation 

and circulation at select roads, including East Natoma Street and Scott Road, from 

increased trip generation. The Folsom DS/FDR would further increase traffic in a 

highly congested area along East Natoma Street. 

This would be considered a cumulative considerable effect. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-1 

3.10 Noise 

This section addresses potential noise impacts associated with construction of the 

Folsom DS/FDR features proposed under each of the six alternatives, including the 

No Action/No Project Alternative and Alternatives 1 through 5. The discussion 

herein includes an explanation of noise descriptors, to provide the reader with an 

understanding of the basic noise concepts and terminology reflected in the analysis, a 

delineation of the geographic analysis area, and a description the affected 

environment and existing conditions within the Folsom DS/FDR construction area 

and along the potential truck hauling routes. This discussion is followed by the noise 

impacts discussion, which includes the delineation of criteria used to define and 

determine significant noise impacts, an explanation of the assessment methodology, 

a discussion of the noise impacts associated with each alternative and comparison of 

alternatives, recommendations for noise mitigation measures, and an analysis of 

cumulative effects. The focus of the analysis is on potential noise impacts to local 

noise receptors resulting from construction activities. Whereas noise analyses for 

development projects also typically include an evaluation of the potential for noise 

impacts to the project, such as if a new residential development is proposed adjacent 

to a freeway, such analysis is not warranted for the Folsom DS/FDR, because the 

Folsom DS/FDR is not a noise-sensitive use and the focus of this EIS/EIR analysis is 

on the construction activities associated with the Folsom DS/FDR. 

3.10.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.10.1.1 Noise Descriptors 

Noise is measured in decibels (dB) and is a 

measurement of sound pressure level. The 

human ear perceives sound, which is 

mechanical energy, as pressure on the ear. 

The sound pressure level is the logarithmic 

ratio of that sound pressure to a reference 

pressure, and is expressed in decibels. 

Environmental sounds are measured with the 

A-weighted scale of the sound level meter. 

The A scale simulates the frequency 

response of the human ear, by giving more 

weight to the middle frequency sounds, and 

less to the low and high frequency sounds. 

A-weighted sound levels are designated as 

dBA. Figure 3.10-1 shows the range of 

sound levels for common indoor and outdoor 

activities, in dBA. 

Sound Sound 

Pressure Pressure

COMMON OUTDOOR NOISES (uPa) (dB) COMMON INDOOR NOISES

Jet Fly Over at 300 feet 6,324,555 110 Rock Band at 15 feet

Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet 2,000,000 100 Inside Subway Train (New York)

Diesel Truck at 50 m 632,456 90 Food Blender at 3 feet

Noisy Urban Daytime 200,000 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet 

Shouting at 3 feet

Gas Lawn Mower at 100 

feet Commercial Area

63,246 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet 

Normal Speech at 3 feet

20,000 60 Large Business Office

Quiet Urban Daytime 6,325 50 Dishwasher Next Room

Quiet Urban Nighttime 

Quiet Suburban Nighttime

2,000 40 Small Theatre, Large 

Conference Room Library

Quiet Rural Nighttime

632 30 Bedroom at Night 

Concert Hall (Background)

200 20 Broadcast and Recording Studio

63 10 Threshold of Hearing

20 0

Source: FHWA, Noise Fundamentals Training Document, “Highway 

Noise Fundamentals,” September 1980. 

Figure 3.10-1 

Common Indoor and Outdoor Noises 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Because sounds in the environment usually vary with time they cannot simply be 

described with a single number. Two methods are used to describe variable sounds. 

These are exceedance levels and equivalent levels, both of which are derived from a 

large number of moment-to-moment A-weighted noise level measurements. 

Exceedance levels are values from the cumulative amplitude distribution of all the 

noise levels observed during a measurement period. Exceedance levels are 

designated Ln, where n represents a value from 0 to 100 percent. For example, L50 is 

the median noise level, or the noise level in dBA exceeded 50 percent of the time 

during the measurement period. Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer Counties have 

established L50 noise limits for non-transportation noise sources in residential areas. 

The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the constant sound level that in a given period has 

the same sound energy level as the actual time-varying sound pressure level. Leq

provides a methodology for combining noise from individual events and steady state 

sources into a measure of cumulative noise exposure. It is used by local jurisdictions 

and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to evaluate noise impacts. 

The day-night noise level (Ldn) is the energy average sound level for a 24-hour day 

determined after the addition of a 10-dBA penalty to all noise events occurring at 

night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn is a useful metric of community 

noise impact because people in their homes are much more sensitive to noise at 

night, when they are relaxing or sleeping, than they are to noise in the daytime. The 

Ldn is used by local jurisdictions to rate community noise impacts from 

transportation noise sources. 

In the State of California, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is widely 

used. It is similar to the Ldn noise level, except it weights events occurring between 

the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. by increasing noise levels by 5 dBA. 

In addition to evaluating noise impacts based on complying with noise standards, 

project noise impacts can also be assessed by annoyance criteria, or the incremental 

increases in existing noise levels. The impact of increasing or decreasing noise levels 

is presented in Table 3.10-1. For example, it shows that a change of 3 dBA is barely 

perceptible and that a 10-dBA increase or decrease would be perceived by someone 

to be a doubling or halving of the noise level (loudness). 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-3 

Table 3.10-1 

Decibel Changes, Loudness, and Energy Loss

Sound Level Change (dBA) Relative Loudness Acoustical Energy Loss (%) 

0 Reference 0 

-3 Barely Perceptible Change 50 

-5 Readily Perceptible Change 67 

-10 Half as Loud 90 

-20 1/4 as Loud 99 

-30 1/8 as Loud 99.9 

Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, June 1995.

3.10.1.2 Area of Analysis 

Potential sources of noise impacts from the Folsom DS/FDR actions include both 

construction- and transportation-related noise sources. The construction noise 

impact analysis focuses on the areas adjacent to construction sites and rock crushing 

areas adjacent to Folsom Reservoir. Proposed rock crushing and screening activities 

would occur at up to eight locations along the western and southern areas of Folsom 

Reservoir. In addition, concrete batch plant operations would occur near Beal's 

Point, Folsom Dam, and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD). 

The transportation noise impacts associated with trucks hauling construction 

materials focuses on sensitive land uses along both local and regional roadways. 

Regional haul routes refer to potential routes for trucking earthen and construction 

materials into the Folsom DS/FDR site. From the north, these routes include State 

Routes 70 and 65 from Marysville to Folsom, using either Sierra College Boulevard 

or Douglas Boulevard to reach the site. From the south, US Highway 50 may also 

provide access to the local area for trucks hauling earthen and construction materials 

(i.e., concrete and steel). 

Local haul routes refer to roadways in the vicinity of Folsom Dam that may be used 

for trucks hauling materials to and from borrow sites, as well as to the various dams 

and dikes from regional routes. Potential local haul routes include Folsom-Auburn 

Road, Folsom Boulevard, Douglas Boulevard, Sierra College Boulevard, East 

Natoma Road, Green Valley Road, Oak Avenue Parkway, Blue Ravine Road, East 

Bidwell Street and Eureka Road. Section 3.9, Transportation and Circulation, 

provides a detailed description of the regional and local access routes assumed for 

construction activities. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

3.10.1.3 Regulatory Setting 

The area of analysis includes noise-sensitive land uses in the following jurisdictions: 

• Counties: Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado. 

• Communities: Cities of Folsom, Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin and Marysville and 

Communities of Wheatland and Granite Bay. 

Most jurisdictions have adopted noise standards for both transportation and nontransportation noise sources in their Noise Element of their General Plan. In addition 

to the local Noise Elements, because this is a NEPA/CEQA action, it is also 

appropriate to apply federal and state traffic noise impact assessment criteria to 

evaluate haul truck noise impacts. 

Presented below is a summary of the applicable noise standards for actions under the 

Folsom DS/FDR. 

Local Jurisdictions 

A project would have a potentially significant effect on the environment if it 

conflicts with the adopted noise standards, substantially increases the ambient noise 

levels for adjacent areas, or causes severe noise impacts for exposed people. All 

jurisdictions where construction or truck hauling would occur have adopted local 

ordinances regulating noise levels in order to minimize impacts on sensitive land 

uses. These local standards have been established for both non-transportation and 

transportation noise sources. Table 3.10-2 lists the non-transportation noise 

standards in the relevant jurisdictions, and Table 3.10-3 lists the transportation noise 

standards in those jurisdictions where actions may involve trucks hauling materials. 

Construction noise may potentially impact five jurisdictions (City of Folsom, Granite 

Bay, and unincorporated areas of Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer Counties). 

These jurisdictions either have non-transportation noise standards based on time of 

day and land use sensitivity or provide exemptions for construction as long as those 

activities occur during the daytime. Residential areas are considered the most noisesensitive land use and have the strictest noise standards. However, El Dorado and 

Placer Counties have also adopted noise standards for other sensitive land uses such 

as commercial areas and open space. All of the jurisdictions, except for Placer 

County, have established maximum allowable exterior one-hour noise limits for both 

daytime and nighttime hours. Placer County is the only jurisdiction that has adopted 

noise standards specific to non-transportation construction activities. These noise 

standards are based on maximum allowable Ldn noise levels. Furthermore, it is the 

only jurisdiction with a blasting noise standard, which states that blasting shall not 

exceed a peak linear overpressure of 122 dB, or a C-weighted Sound Exposure Level 

(SEL) of 98 dBC. The City of Folsom Noise Element exempts construction 

activities provided that construction does not take place before 7 a.m. or after 6 p.m. 

during weekdays and before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on weekends. 
Section 3.10

Noise

Noise Element Jurisdiction/Land Use Category

Sacramento County L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax

 Residential Areas 50 70 50 70 45 65

City of Folsom3,4

El Dorado County 1 Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax

 Residential areas (Community Areas) 55 75 50 65 45 60

 Residential Areas (Rural Regions) 50 60 45 55 40 50

 Commercial areas (Community Areas) 70 90 65 75 65 75

 Commercial areas (Rural Regions) 65 75 60 70 60 70

 Open Space, Natural Resource (Rural Regions) 65 75 60 70 60 70

Placer County2 including Granite Bay Community

 Residential 

 Residential Areas Adjacent to Industrial

 General Commerical 

 Heavy Commercial/Industrial Park

 Recreation & Forestry

 All land uses interior allowable noise level

Notes: 

1 Non-transportation construction noise standards.

4

Based on cumulative 30 minutes in any one-hour time period.

Sources:

County of Sacramento General Plan Noise Element (December 1993, amended 1998)

City of Folsom Municipal Code, Chapter 8.42 Noise Control

El Dorado County General Plan, Public Health, Safety and Noise Element (July 2004)

Placer County General Plan Update, Section 9 Noise (August 1994)

Granite Bay Community Plan Noise Element (Amended 1996)

45

70

7 p.m. - 10 p.m.

2

 Single event impulsive noise levels produced by blasting shall not exeed a peak linear overpressure of 122 dB, or a C-weighted Sound 

Exposure Level (SEL) of 98 dBC. The cumulative noise level from blasting shall not exceed 60 dB LCdn or CNELC on any given day.

Hourly Hourly

Ldn

50

Hourly Hourly

75

Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Levels 

Hourly

Local Government Non-Transportation Noise Standards (dBA)

Hourly

Table 3.10-2

Daytime 

7a.m. - 7p.m.

Evening Nighttime

10p.m. - 7 a.m.

3

Construction noise is exempt from the City of Folsom Noise Element provided that construction does not take place before 7 a.m. or after 6 

p.m. during weekdays and before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m on weekends.

Hourly Hourly

Leq

50

Leq

45

70

60

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 3.10-5
Section 3.10

Noise

Exterior Interior

Noise Element Jurisdiction/Land Use Category Ldn/CNEL1 Ldn/CNEL

Sacramento County

 Residential areas 60 45

City of Folsom

60 45

 El Dorado County, Placer County and Granite Bay 

Community5

 Residential areas 60 45

 Commercial areas --

 Other sensitive areas - Parks 70

City of Roseville5

 Residential areas 60 45

 Commercial areas - office buildings 65 --

 Other sensitive areas - parks 70 --

 Other sensitive areas: hospitals, nursing 

 homes, churches, transient lodging 60 45

City of Rocklin5

 Residential areas 60 45

 Commercial areas - office buildings -- --

 Other sensitive areas - playground and parks 70 --

 Hospitals and nursing homes 60 45

 Non-commercial places of public assembly 60

Yuba County 2

City of Marysville 3

City of Wheatland5 

 Residential areas 60 45

 Commercial areas - office buildings -- --

 Other sensitive areas - playground and parks 70 --

City of Lincoln 4

Notes:

4

 There is no numermic noise standard.

Sources:

County of Sacramento General Plan Noise Element (December 1993, amended 1998)

City of Folsom Municipal Code, Chapter 8.42 Noise Control

El Dorado County General Plan, Public Health, Safety and Noise Element (July 2004)

Placer County General Plan Update, Section 9 Noise (August 1994)

Granite Bay Community Plan Noise Element (Amended 1996)

City of Roseville General Plan (1992, updated 2003)

City of Rocklin Draft General Plan, Noise Element (March 2005)

Yuba County General Plan, Noise Element (1976)

Yuba County Ordinance, 8.20 Noise Regulations

Marysville General Plan (August 1985)

City of Wheatland General Plan Update, Chapter 4.11 Noise (December 2005) 

City of Lincoln General Plan, Noise Element (1988)

Maximum Allowable Noise Levels 

3 From General Plan 1985 Noise Goals and Policies: "To examine any new source of noise projected at or above 70 dB at 50 feet for 

compatibility with existing or projected planned neighboring land uses prior to the granting of a rezoning or building permit.

Table 3.10-3

Local Government Transportation Noise Standards (dBA)

 Other sensitive areas: hospitals, nursing 

 homes, churches, transient lodging 60 45

 Residential areas including single- or multiple- 

 family residence,school, church, hospital or 

 public library)

5

 Interior spaces worst-case one hour Leq noise standards of 35-45 dBA have been adopted for theaters, auditoriums, music halls, 

churches, meeting halls, office buildings, schools, libraries and museums.

2 Yuba County General Plan Noise Element 1976, and County Ordinance on Noise Chapter 8.20. Maximum daytime ambient noise levels 

will be used as a guideline for transportation related noise impacts in the absence of transportation-specific guideline. There is no numeric 

noise standard.

1 The jurisdictions along the haul routes with standards for transportation noise impacts have adopted a maximum Ldn/CNEL noise limit of 

60 dBA for residential land uses, with a potential allowable Ldn/CNEL exceedance level 65 dBA, if 60 dBA is not practicable in a situation 

given the application of the best-available noise reduction measures. 

 Other sensitive areas: hospitals, nursing 

 homes, churches, transient lodging 60 45

3.10-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-7 

Noise generated by transportation sources is also regulated according to land use. All 

of the jurisdictions along the haul routes with standards for transportation noise 

impacts have adopted a maximum Ldn/CNEL noise limit of 60 dBA for residential 

land uses, with a potential allowable Ldn/CNEL exceedance level of 65 dBA, if 60 

dBA is not practicable in a situation given the application of the best-available noise 

reduction measures. Many of the jurisdictions have adopted a maximum Ldn/CNEL 

noise limit of 70 dBA for playgrounds and parks. 

FHWA and Caltrans Noise Impact Criteria 

In addition to local noise standards, there are federal regulations that apply to the 

Folsom DS/FDR. These include the applicable FHWA noise abatement criteria 

(NAC) (23 CFR Part 772), which have been interpreted and implemented for 

projects in California by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). These 

criteria are included in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October 1998 

(herein referred to as the Protocol). 

The FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC), presented in Table 3.10-4, are based on 

specific land use categories. These NAC are based on one-hour average Leq noise 

levels (FHWA, Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, 

Section 3, August 9, 1980). 

Table 3.10-4 

FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)

Activity 

Category 

 Leq(1hr) (1)

 (dBA) Description of Activity Category 

A 57 (exterior)

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 

significance and serve an important public need and where the 

preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to 

continue to serve intended purpose.

B 67 (exterior)

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports 

areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, 

libraries, and hospitals.

C 72 (exterior)

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in 

Categories A or B above.

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E 52 (interior)

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, 

churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

(1) No single hourly average Leq in a 24-hour day can exceed this value. 

Source: 23 CFR Part 772. 

 

Land uses along the local and regional haul routes are predominantly Activity 

Categories B and C, and, to a lesser degree, Activity Category E (i.e., residential). 

The FHWA noise standards indicate that noise mitigation must be considered when 

the Horizon Year project levels approach or exceed the stated NAC. In addition, the 

FHWA noise standards also indicate that noise mitigation must be considered when 

the Future-Year or Horizon-Year project levels “substantially” exceed existing noise 

levels. The Protocol defines “approach the noise abatement criteria” (23 CFR 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

772.5(g)) as 1 dBA below the NAC and defines “substantially” as a predicted 

incremental impact equal to or greater than 12 dBA over existing noise levels. 

3.10.1.4 Existing Conditions 

The Folsom DS/FDR study area is a very unique land use and noise setting. The 

southern portion of the site is more of an urban locale with constant noise generated 

from the Folsom Prison shooting range and traffic along busy arterial roadways. The 

area of analysis transitions to a more rural character heading to the north and east of 

the site where there is less human activity. Therefore, background noise levels are 

higher at the southern portion of Folsom Reservoir and trend lower as one heads 

north and east. In addition, there are seasonal variations with the reservoir being an 

active site for recreational boating and jet and water skis activities during the 

summer, which tends to increase background noise levels. During the winter 

months, human and recreational activity is less; therefore, background noise levels 

tend to be lower. 

Noise data for the Folsom DS/FDR area available from recent noise studies in the 

Folsom Reservoir area were used to help define the existing noise conditions in the 

Folsom DS/FDR area and along proposed truck hauling routes. These recent noise 

studies include: 

• Reclamation, Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement: Section 3.3 (April 2005); 

• Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al., Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, Draft 

Resource Inventory, Environmental Conditions: Noise (April 2003); and 

• USACE, Folsom Dam Bridge SEIR/SEIS (Draft 2006). 

These studies, along with United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

documentation and the results of the roadway existing noise modeling analysis were 

used to describe ambient noise conditions. 

Noise monitoring data presented in the Draft Resources Inventory Folsom Lake State 

Recreational Area (April 2003) were used to provide guidance for defining existing 

ambient noise conditions in the Folsom DS/FDR area. Noise monitoring data was 

collected at 10 locations around Folsom Reservoir. The closest locations to the 

proposed site included four locations on the southern, eastern, and western sides of 

the reservoir. Ambient noise monitoring conducted between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 

documented that daytime Leq noise levels in the Folsom DS/FDR area ranged from 

37.2 dBA at Granite Beach in Granite Bay to 65.3 dBA in near Lake Hills Drive in 

El Dorado. The monitoring locations with the highest noise levels were influenced 

by constant noise sources, such as traffic along local roads or by a single noisy 

activity, such as lawn mowing, construction activity or cement truck turning around 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-9 

near a monitoring location. At the monitoring locations with the lowest noise levels 

there was minimal human activity influencing ambient noise conditions. Since these 

noise level measurements only represented a 20-minute daytime sample at each 

location, and given the seasonal variability of noise conditions around Folsom 

Reservoir, background noise levels for this noise analysis were based on USEPA 

noise descriptors for various land uses. 

Data provided in the USEPA Levels Document1 was used to define average ambient 

daytime and nighttime Leq and Ldn noise conditions around the Folsom Dam site. 

The Ldn noise levels are based on the various land use descriptors. The daytime and 

nighttime Leq noise levels were estimated based on the Ldn noise levels. According to 

this USEPA document, typically, there is a 10-dBA change in noise levels between 

the daytime and nighttime. Table 3.10-5 presents summary of the ambient noise 

levels for various land uses. 

Table 3.10-5 

Average Ambient Noise Levels for Various Land Uses

Land Use Description 

Average 

Ldn1

(dBA) 

Daytime 

Leq

(dBA) 

Nighttime 

Leq

(dBA) 

Wilderness 35 35 25 

Rural Residential 40 40 30 

Quiet Suburban Residential 50 50 40 

Normal Suburban Residential 55 55 45 

Urban Residential 60 60 50 

Noisy Urban Residential 65 65 55 

Very Noisy Urban Residential 70 70 60 

Source: 1U.S. EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

 Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974. 

A review of existing topographic and aerial photographs was used to select six noisesensitive receptor locations that represent residential areas closest to the proposed 

construction sites. Furthermore, each noise-sensitive receptor represents the closest 

point to the proposed construction activities. Figure 3.10-2 shows the six noisesensitive receptors that could be impacted by construction activities. The most 

appropriate land use descriptors and noise levels to describe the Folsom Dam area 

range from “rural residential/quiet suburban residential” to “urban residential.” 

Table 3.10-6 presents the ambient noise levels representative of the Folsom DS/FDR 

site at each noise-sensitive receptors. 

 

1

 U.S. EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
El D orado Co. 

El Dorado Co. P

al cer Co. 

P al cer Co.

El Dorado Co. El Dorado Co. Sacramento Co. 

Sacramento

Co.

Placer Co. Placer Co.

Sacramento Co. Sacramento Co.

DIKE 1 

DIKE 2 

DIKE 3 

DIKE 4 

DIKE 5 

DIKE 6 

RIGHT WING 

DAM 

DIKE 7 

DIKE 8 

FOLSOM 

DAM 

LEFT WING 

DAM 

MIAD 

Granite 

Bay 

Beals 

Point 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

2 

Folsom 

Point 



Figure 3.10-2 

Construction Noise-Sensitive Receptors 

Folsom

Reservoir
Section 3.10 

Noise 3.10-12 This page is intentionally left blank. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-13 

Table 3.10-6 

Folsom DS/FDR Site 

Estimated Average Ambient Noise Conditions

Noise- Sensitive Receptors 

Receptor Id. 

(See Figure 3.10-2)

Description 

Daytime 

Leq

(dBA) 

Nighttime 

Leq

(dBA) 

Ldn

(dBA) 

1 

East Natoma St. Residential 

Area, Folsom 60 50 60 

2 

Haley Drive Near Granite 

Beach, Granite Bay 45 35 45 

3 

Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado 

Hills 50 40 50 

4 

400 Lake Ridge Court, El 

Dorado Hills 50 40 50 

5 

Oak Leaf and AuburnFolsom Road 60 50 60 

6 

Lake Shore Drive, Granite 

Bay 45 35 45 

Noise monitoring and traffic data presented in Reclamation’s Folsom Dam Road 

Access Restriction, Final Environmental Impact Statement (April 2005) were used to 

provide guidance for defining existing ambient conditions along the proposed local 

truck hauling routes. A traffic noise modeling analysis, based on 2006 traffic data, 

was conducted to estimate existing peak hour and 24-hour noise levels at nine noisesensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed local truck hauling routes. These nine 

locations represent residential areas adjacent to the proposed local truck hauling 

routes. Figures 3.10-3 and 3.10-4 show the roadway noise-sensitive receptor 

locations. The noise monitoring and traffic data, provided in the Reclamation 

document, were used to calibrate the traffic noise model. Section 3.10.2.2 presents 

the methodologies and assumptions used to estimate existing traffic noise levels. 

Existing peak hour daytime and nighttime Leq and Ldn noise levels were estimated at 

each noise sensitive receptor. Daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 66.9 to 72.5 

dBA and nighttime Leq noise levels ranged from 60.2 to 66.0 dBA. The Ldn noise 

levels ranged from 68.4 to74.2 dBA. The lowest noise levels were estimated along 

East Natoma Street and the highest noise levels were estimated for Folsom-Auburn 

Road and East Bidwell Street. These noise levels are typical for noise-sensitive 

receptors located near busy secondary and arterial roadways. Table 3.10-7 presents a 

summary of the existing ambient noise levels. 


Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.10-7 

Potential Local Hauling Routes 

Existing Ambient Noise Conditions

Receptor Id. Local 

Roadway Description 

Daytime 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

Nighttime 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

Ldn

(dBA) 

1 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

East Bidwell 

Street 

Along Albright Road, adjacent to 

southbound lanes in Folsom, 

Sacramento County 72.5 66.0 74.2 

2 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

Oak Avenue 

Parkway 

Along Thorndike Way, residential 

area adjacent to northbound 

lanes in Folsom, Sacramento 

County 68.9 62.4 70.6 

3 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

Green Valley 

Road 

Residential area along Kipps 

Lane, north of Green Valley 

Road in El Dorado Hills, El 

Dorado County 71.6 65.0 73.2 

4 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

East Natoma 

Street 

End of Sanborn Court, residential 

area along eastbound lanes in 

Folsom, Sacramento County 66.9 60.2 68.4 

5 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

FolsomAuburn Road 

7013 Folsom-Auburn Road in a 

residential area along 

southbound lanes in Folsom, 

Sacramento County 72.5 66.0 74.2 

6 

(Figure 3.10-3) 

Blue Ravine 

Road 

End of Cobblefields Court, 

residential area along the 

southbound lanes in Folsom, 

Sacramento County 69.3 62.7 70.9 

7 

(Figure 3.10-4) 

Sierra College 

Boulevard 

Tenbury Lane in a residential 

area adjacent to northbound 

lanes in Rocklin, Placer County 70.6 64.0 72.2 

8 

(Figure 3.10-4) 

Douglas 

Boulevard 

4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, 

residential area adjacent to 

westbound lanes in Granite Bay, 

Placer County 72.5 65.9 74.1 

9 

(Figure 3.10-4) Eureka Road 

1445 Eureka Road, multi-family 

residential development (225 

units) adjacent to northbound 

lanes in Roseville, Placer County 72.4 65.8 74.0 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-17 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the methods, significance criteria, and analysis results of the 

potential noise impacts from construction and transportation activities. The 

construction noise analysis is presented first, followed by the transportation noise 

analysis. 

3.10.2.1 Construction Noise Analysis 

Assessment Methods 

Construction activities are expected to begin in 2007 and last approximately eight 

years. The construction schedule includes 17 construction activities, which would be 

staggered in the construction timeline. Not all action alternatives would involve all 

the construction activities. For example, Alternative 1 would not include a raise to 

the Main Concrete Dam, Granite Bay or Browns Ravine borrow developments, or 

construction of Dikes 1, 2, and 3. It is anticipated that potential construction noise 

impacts would be of a longer duration along the southern portion of Folsom 

Reservoir compared the northwestern portion of the reservoir. Table 3.10-8 presents 

the proposed construction activities and schedule for the main features of the Folsom 

DS/FDR action. Each of these construction activities were analyzed for their 

potential noise impacts on six noise-sensitive receptors, which are shown in Figure 

3.10-2. The noise impacts associated with each alternative were then identified in 

terms of the specific features included in each alternative and the associated 

construction-related noise impacts were characterized accordingly. 

Table 3.10-8 

Proposed Construction Activities and Schedule

Construction Activity Schedule 

Auxiliary Spillway and Borrow Development 2007 – 2009 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction 2009 – 2011 

Folsom Point Borrow Development 2007 - 2013 

Tunnel Construction (optional under Alternative 2) 2009 – 2011 

Right Wing Dam Construction* 2009 – 2010/2012 

Left Wing Construction 2012 – 2013 

Beal's Point Borrow Development* 2007 – 2009/2012 

Dike 5 & 6 Construction 2008 

MIAD – Stripping, Excavation & Construction* 2008 – 2010/2011 

MIAD Jet Grouting 2009-2010 

Dike 7 & 8 Construction 2012 

Granite Bay Borrow Development* 2013 – 2014 

Dike 1, 2, & 3 Construction* 2013 – 2014 

Dike 4 Construction 2008 

Main Concrete Dam Raise* 2011-2012 

Main Concrete Dam Tendons and Shears* 2013 - 2014 

Note: * Alternative 5 would require additional years of construction. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The construction operations, such as concrete and rock crushing, screening 

operations, and blasting activities, and the types of construction equipment that are 

expected to be used for all of the alternatives are presented in Table 3.10-9. It is also 

anticipated that the Corps may dredge the Auxiliary Spillway approach 40 feet 

deeper than planned by Reclamation under Alternative 3. Because the details of the 

dredging operation are not known at the time of development of this EIS/EIR, noise 

impacts associated with dredging operation are generally considered at a 

programmatic level for now, as reasonable and appropriate at this level of planning 

and environmental review, and may be further evaluated and described in 

supplemental documentation should that alternative, or variation thereof, be 

approved and proceed to more detailed engineering and design. Table 3.10-9 was 

based on information provided the Reclamation and the Corps, Folsom Dam Raise 

and Auxiliary Spillway Alternative PASS II Draft Report (February 2006). It also 

presents the Lmax sound level and percent of time the equipment would be operated at 

full power (usage factor) for each piece of construction equipment used. The Lmax

sound levels represent typical maximum noise that normally occurs during full 

power operation of the equipment. These levels typically only occur for a short 

duration, since the equipment is not operated at full power for an entire workday. A 

detailed discussion of the construction noise modeling methodology is presented in 

Appendix G. 

Table 3.10-9 

Construction Operations, Equipment Types and Their 

Noise Levels

Usage Lmax 

Equipment Types Factor @ 50' 

Scrapers 40% 81 

Dozers 40% 82 

Vibratory Compactors 20% 83 

Haul Trucks 40% 76 

Excavator 40% 81 

Small Crane 16% 81 

Drill Rigs 20% 84 

Loaders 40% 79 

Blasting 1% 94 

Rock/Screening Crushing Operations 80% 94 

Concrete Batch Plant 15% 83 

Sources: 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, September 2006. 

U.S. Army Corps, Folsom Dam Raise and Auxiliary Spillway Alternative 

PASSII Draft Report, February 2006a. 

U.S. DOT, FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. 

P. Yastrow, Laku Landing Sound Level Analysis, April 1990.
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-19 

The methodology used to compare each action alternative’s long-term construction 

noise impacts was based on the projected Ldn noise level at each sensitive receptor 

and the duration of the construction. For major construction phases that would be 

adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, the construction duration, in total number of 

days, and the projected Ldn noise level at each noise-sensitive receptor were used to 

calculate a construction period average Ldn noise level for each action alternative. 

For the alternatives that involve the raising of Folsom Dam and dike structures which 

could result in temporary increases of maximum flood flows in the reservoir, a 

number of auxiliary mini dikes would be required. Because the details on the 

number and placement of the mini dikes are not known at the time of development of 

this EIS/EIR, only a qualitative noise evaluation is presented in this section. 

Rock Blasting Noise and Vibration Assessment Methods 

Construction and rock blasting activities have the potential to produce noise and 

vibration levels that may be annoying or disturbing to humans and may cause 

damage to structures. The rock blasting noise impacts were addressed in the 

construction noise impact analysis. Vibration from construction projects is caused 

by general equipment operations, and is usually highest during pile driving, soil 

compacting, jack hammering and construction related demolition and blasting 

activities. Measurements of vibration are expressed in terms of the peak particle 

velocity (PPV) in the unit of inches per second (ips). The PPV, a quantity commonly 

used for vibration measurements, is the maximum velocity experienced by any point 

in a structure during a vibration event. It is an indication of the magnitude of energy 

transmitted through vibration. PPV is an indicator often used in determining 

potential damage to buildings from stress associated with blasting and other 

construction activities. 

Table 3.10-10 summarizes the levels of vibration and the usual effect on people and 

buildings based on the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) guidelines for 

vibration levels from construction-related activities. Blasting procedures would be 

dictated by site-specific conditions as determined by the construction contractor prior 

to construction, through monitoring during construction. Therefore, a quantitative 

assessment of potential vibration impacts from blasting is not provided. Rather, the 

blasting is discussed in the context of protective measures that would be put in place 

to minimize or avoid adverse vibration effects in the Mitigation Measures section 

(see Appendix G). Table 3.10-11 presents the vibration levels for typical 

construction equipment used to assess potential vibration impacts from the Folsom 

DS/FDR action. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.10-10 

Summary of Vibration Levels and Effects on Humans and Buildings

Peak Particle 

Velocity (in/sec) Effects on Humans Effects on Buildings 

<0.005 Imperceptible No effect on buildings 

0.005 to 0.015 Barely perceptible No effect on buildings 

0.02 to 0.05 Level at which continuous vibrations 

begin to annoy people in buildings No effect on buildings 

0.1 to 0.5 

Vibrations considered unacceptable for 

people exposed to continuous or longterm vibration 

Minimal potential for damage to weak or 

sensitive structures. 

0.5 to 1.0 

Vibrations considered bothersome by 

most people, however tolerable if shortterm in length 

Threshold at which there is a risk of 

architectural damage to buildings with 

plastered ceilings and walls. Some risk 

to ancient monuments and ruins. 

1.0 to 2.0 Vibrations considered unpleasant by 

most people 

U.S. Bureau of Mines data indicates that 

blasting vibration in this range will not 

harm most buildings. Most construction 

vibration limits are in this range. 

>3.0 Vibration is unpleasant Potential for architectural damage and 

possible minor structural damage. 

Source: Michael Minor & Associates, Vibration Primer http://www.drnoise.com/ PDF_files/Vibration%20Primer.pdf, 

downloaded May 2006. 

Table 3.10-11 

Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 

(in./sec) 

upper range 1.518 Pile Driver (impact) typical 0.644 

upper range 0.734 Pile Driver (sonic) typical 0.170 

Clam Shovel Drop (slurry wall) 

0.202 

in soil 0.008 Hydromill (slurry wall) in rock 0.017 

Large Bulldozer 0.089 

Caisson Drilling 0.089 

Loaded Trucks 0.076 

Jackhammer 0.035 

Small Bulldozer 0.003 

 Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995.
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-21 

Construction Noise Control Considerations 

As part of the construction noise impact analysis, a Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) analysis was prepared to evaluate the extent and likelihood that 

unmitigated noise levels associated with certain types of construction equipment 

could be feasibly reduced. In particular, noise associated with quasi-stationary and 

stationary sources, such as drill rigs, blasting, and rock crushing/screening operations 

was evaluated in terms whether provision of a portable or stationary barrier as part of 

the operation of such equipment would be necessary and appropriate to reduce 

construction-related noise at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor to an acceptable 

level. The application of BACT for the subject types of equipment was directed at 

those situations where the overall unmitigated increase in ambient noise level, 

resulting from construction activities, was estimated to exceed 5 dB (i.e., the 

threshold of significance for construction-related noise - see paragraph below). 

Construction Noise Significance Criteria 

There are two principal criteria for evaluating noise impacts of a project: 

1) evaluating the increase in noise levels above the existing ambient levels as a result 

of the project, and 2) compliance with relevant standards and regulations. CEQA 

requires comparing project-related noise impacts with existing noise levels and 

NEPA requires comparing project-related noise levels with the noise levels of the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. For the purposes of complying with CEQA and 

NEPA requirements, it was conservatively assumed that the existing and the future 

no-action noise levels would be same, not including future background noise 

increases associated with potential growth in the area of analysis. The applicable 

CEQA significance criteria for noise include: a substantial increase in ambient noise 

levels in the project vicinity above existing levels, or a substantial temporary or 

periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Because there are no 

specific construction noise limits defined under CEQA, the following general 

guidelines were used to assess short-term (hourly and daily) construction noise 

impacts, as compared to existing ambient levels: 

• A less than 3 dBA increase in sound level is considered no impact; 

• A 3 to 5 dBA increase in sound level is considered a slight impact; 

• A 6 to 10 dBA increase in sound level is considered a moderate impact; and 

• A greater than 10 dBA increase in sound level is considered a severe impact. 

This analysis assumes that an increase greater than 5 dBA would be potentially 

significant and would require evaluating construction noise mitigation measures. 

Several county and local jurisdictions have established noise standards that are 

applicable to construction activities related to the Folsom DS/FDR. Projected 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

construction noise levels were compared with exterior noise standards for the City of

Folsom, Sacramento County, El Dorado County, Placer County, and the Granite Bay 

Community to assess potential noise impacts, and to identify and evaluate noise 

control measures to reduce potential noise impacts. 

Construction Noise Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not generate construction activity noise

impacts relative to the existing conditions. 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, the Folsom DS/FDR action would n

be constructed. This analysis assumes that constructi

ot

on noise under the No

ds. 

No

mpacts of Alternative 1 

Construction activities would generate noise impacts under Alternative 1. 

Action/No Project Alternative would be the same as existing conditions. In some

instances, noise levels under the existing conditions exceed existing noise standar

This is not attributable to the Folsom DS/FDR. There would be no impact of the

Action/No Project Alternative. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental I

ies when construction noise levels at each of the 

noise-sensitive receptors could be higher and lower than those presented below. This 

ay from

vities, as 

e higher

ue to less

ies

The results of the construction noise impact analysis were compared to the 

significance criteria and local regulations in the five jurisdictions with nontransportation noise standards. It should be noted that the results of the construction 

noise impact analysis represent average noise impact conditions. There would be 

times during construction activit

would be true when construction activities occur either closer to or further w

noise-sensitive receptors than at the center of the proposed construction acti

assumed for this noise impact analysis. Furthermore, noise impacts would b

during the fall and winter months when background noise levels are lower d

recreational activities at the reservoir. It is also possible during certain atmospheric 

conditions that construction noise could be heard at locations further away than the 

six noise-sensitive receptors during the nighttime. This could occur under clear sk

and very light winds when there would be a temperature inversion above the ground 

surface, which acts as a “ceiling.” This causes the sound waves to be redirected back 

to the ground level and travel further distances. 

Table 3.10-12 presents a summary of the projected daytime and nighttime

unmitigated noise levels for each alternative at each noise-sensitive receptor and 

compares them to the significance criteria. 

3.10-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
1 East Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 60 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1 

2 Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 45 45 0 47 2 48 3 48 3 

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 

4 400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 5 Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 60 0 6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 45 47 2 47 2 47 2 47 2 

1 East Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 60 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1 2 Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 45 45 0 46 1 46 1 46 1 

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 

4 400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 5 Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 60 0 6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 45 46 1 46 1 46 1 46 1 

1 East Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 50 57 7 56 6 56 6 56 6 2 Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 35 35 0 44 9 45 10 45 10 

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 40 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 

4 400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 40 41 1 41 1 41 1 41 1 5 Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 35 42 7 42 7 42 7 42 7 

1 East Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 50 54 4 53 3 53 3 53 3 

2 Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 35 35 0 39 4 40 5 40 5 

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 40 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 

4 400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 40 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 5 Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 35 39 4 39 4 39 4 39 4 

BACT 

NIghttime 

Leq

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

U

Receptor ID. Receptor Location

No-Action/ 

Existing 

Nighttime 

Leq

Alternative 1

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Unmitigated 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Unmitigated 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

BACT 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

BACT 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

COMPARISON OF NIGHTTIME UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (dBA)

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

BACT 

Daytime 

Leq

Unmitigated 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Receptor ID. Receptor Location Existing 

No-Action/ 

Existing 

Nighttime 

Leq

Unmitigated 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Receptor ID. Receptor Location

Alternative 1

Unmitigated 

Daytime 

Leq

Alternative 2

Receptor ID. Receptor Location

No-Action/ 

Existing 

Daytime 

Leq

Alternative 1

Unmitigated 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

U

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Unmitigated 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Unmitigated 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 

COMPARISON OF NIGHTTIME BACT NOISE LEVELS (dBA)

No-Action/ 

Existing 

Daytime 

Leq

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

BACT 

Daytime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

Table 3.10-12

Summary of Construction Noise Impacts Results

BACT 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

BACT 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

BACT 

NIghttime 

Leq

Increase 

Above 

Existing 

COMPARISON OF DAYTIME UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (dBA)

COMPARISON OF DAYTIME BACT NOISE LEVELS (dBA)

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The unmitigated daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 45 dBA to 61 dBA under 

Alternative 1. These noise levels would represent no change compared to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., existing noise level) at Noise-Sensitive 

Receptors 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a 1- to 2-dBA increase at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 

and 6. 

These impacts to daytime noise levels would be less than significant. 

Under Alternative 1, the unmitigated nighttime Leq noise levels ranged from 35 dBA 

at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2 up to 57 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1. At 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1, noise levels under Alternative 1 would increase by 7 

dBA relative to the No Action/No Project Alternative. 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1 would be significant. The inclusion of a 

noise barrier with the operation of stationary/quasi-stationary equipment and 

activities (i.e., BACT for drill rigs, blasting, rock crushing/screening) would reduce 

the unmitigated increase of 7 dBA to 4 dBA. This measure or other types of noise 

control measures, as reflected in Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10, would reduce the 

construction noise associated with Alternative 1 to a less than significant level. 

In addition to evaluating the potential incremental increase in noise levels over 

existing/No Action/No Project Alternative noise levels, the projected construction 

noise levels for each noise-sensitive receptor were compared to their respective nontransportation noise standards. These noise standards include daytime and nighttime 

Lmax, Leq and L50 noise limits and 24-hour Ldn noise limits. For the purposes of this 

analysis, it was conservatively assumed that L50 noise levels would be the same as 

the Leq noise levels. Table 3.10-13 presents the maximum noise levels for all five 

alternatives and compares them with the respective noise standards to identify any 

exceedances of the noise standards.2 The projected daytime construction Lmax, L50

and Leq noise levels at each noise-sensitive receptor were below the community noise 

standards, except for Natoma Street residences (Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1) where 

the daytime L50 noise level exceeds the Sacramento County L50 noise standard. 

However, this exceedance is not due to the noise impacts related action under the 

Folsom DS/FDR, but that the existing L50 daytime noise level at Natoma Street 

already exceeds the noise standard. Similarly, the projected nighttime construction 

Lmax, L50 and Leq noise levels at each noise-sensitive receptor were below the 

community noise standards, except for Natoma Street residences where the nighttime 

L50 noise level exceeds the Sacramento County L50 noise standard of 45 dBA. 

However, this exceedance is also because the existing nighttime L50 noise level at 

Natoma Street already exceeds the noise standard of 45 dBA. 

 

2

 The differences in noise levels between the individual alternatives are relatively small and do not 

alter the basic conclusions of Table 3.10-13 relative to whether or not the applicable standard is 

exceeded. 
Exceedance Exceedance

Station Id. Description Daytime Standard Yes/No Daytime Standard Yes/No

1

Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 62 70 No 61* 50 Yes

2

Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 46 -- -- 46 -- --

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 50 75 No 50 55 No

4

400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 50 75 No 50 55 No

5

Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 60 -- No 60 -- No

6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 47 -- -- 46 -- --

Exceedance Exceedance

Station Id. Description Nighttime Standard Yes/No Nighttime Standard Yes/No

1

Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 58 65 No 54* 45 Yes

2

Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 42 -- -- 40 -- --

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 40 60 No 40 45 No

4

400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 40 60 No 40 45 No

5

Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 50 -- No 50 -- No

6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 42 -- -- 39 -- --

Exceedance

Station Id. Description Projected Standard Yes/No

1

Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom -- -- --

2

Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 46 50 No

3 Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills -- -- --4

400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills -- -- --

5

Oak Leaf and Auburn-Folsom Road 60* 50 Yes

6 Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 46 50 No

Notes: Exceedances are due to existing background noise levels at or above the standards before adding in project noise levels. Conservatively assumed that L50 noise level is equivalent to Leq noise level. Noise levels represent maximum BACT noise level for all five action alternatives.  The differences in noise levels between the individual alternatives do not alter the conclusions of the table relative  to whether or not the standard is exceeded. * = BACT applied to stationary/quasi-stationary equipment

Receptor Locations

Table 3.10-13

Comparison of Construction Noise Levels to Community Noise Standards

Ldn Level (dBA)

Receptor Locations Lmax Level (dBA) L50/Leq Level (dBA)

Receptor Locations Lmax Level (dBA) L50/Leq Level (dBA)

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

For Noise-Sensitive Receptors 2, 5 and 6, located in Placer County and the Granite 

Bay community, the applicable noise standard is based on an Ldn noise limit. The 

projected BACT noise Ldn noise levels ranged from 46 dBA at Noise-Sensitive 

Receptor 2 and 6 and 60 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 5. The projected Ldn

noise level at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 2 and 6 were below the Ldn standard, but 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 5 exceeded the Ldn noise standard of 50 dBA by 10 dBA. 

However, this exceedance is not due to noise impacts related to action under the 

Folsom DS/FDR, but that the existing Ldn noise levels of 50 to 60 dBA meet or 

exceed the noise standard of 50 dBA. Although noise impacts at residential areas 

would be below the Placer County applicable noise standard, construction and 

borrow activities conducted at Beal's Point would generate noise levels that could 

periodically exceed the Placer County Ldn noise limit of 70 dBA established for 

recreational areas at the Beal's Point campground area due to its close proximity to 

construction activities. However, all reasonable mitigation measures would be used 

to reduce to noise impacts, which would include, but would not be limited to using 

portable noise barriers, limiting construction work to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 

p.m.) and off-season periods (October through April), and erecting staging areas as 

far from the campground as possible. A detailed list mitigation measures is presented 

in Section 3.10.4. 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5 would be potentially significant, 

even with the application of BACT to stationary/quasi-stationary construction 

equipment. Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10 would reduce the impact to less than 

significant.

Blasting and vibration activities would generate construction noise impacts.

The peak rock blasting noise level would be 94 dBA at 50 feet away. Placer County 

is the only county or community with blasting noise limits. It limits impulse noise 

levels from blasting to a peak linear noise level of 122 dB at the property line of a 

receiving land use, which is equivalent to 113 dBA. This noise standard was used to 

assess potential noise blasting impacts at both noise-sensitive receptors within and 

outside of Placer County. Blasting activities would occur in the proposed borrow 

sites located at the Folsom Reservoir shoreline. The distance between the center of 

the construction activities and the noise-sensitive receptors was used to 

conservatively represent the distance from potential blasting activities. Those 

distances range from 935 feet to 4,100 feet from the noise-sensitive receivers. Based 

on those distances the noise impacts from blasting operations could range from 46 to 

63 dBA. These noise levels are well below the Placer County blasting noise limit 

and are considered to be less than significant. 

Vibration impacts associated with construction equipment were calculated for four 

types of construction equipment that would be similar to the equipment anticipated 

to be used during construction. This equipment includes small and large bulldozers, 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

loaded trucks, and jackhammers. Vibration levels from each piece of equipment 

measured at a reference distance of 25 feet away were obtained from Table 3.10-11

The only noise-sensitive receptor that could be impacted by construction equipm

vibration would be at the Natoma Street residences during excavation activities 

occurring adjacent to Natoma Street. The nearest point to the residences is

approximately 150 feet away. Vibration levels calculated at the 150-foot distance fo

each piece of equipment ranged from 0.0002 to 0.06 in/sec. These vibration leve

are considered imperceptible to barely perceptible by humans and are, therefore,

considered to be less than significant. Table 3.10-14 presents the calculated 

vibration levels at 25 feet away and 150 feet away for the four types of construc

equipment. 

Impacts from vibration would be less than significant. 

Table 3.10-14 

Construction Equipment Vibration Impacts

.

ent 

r

ls

tion

Equipment 25 ft 

(in./sec) 

150 ft 

(in./sec) 

Effects on

Humans 

PPV at PPV at 

Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.006 

Barely

Perceptible 

Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.005 

Barely

Perceptible 

Jackhammer 0.035 0.002 Imperceptible 

Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0002 Imperceptible 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Construction activities would generate noise impacts under Alternative 2. 

Table 3.10-12 presents a summary of the projected daytime and nighttime

unmitigated noise levels for each alternative at each noise-sensitive receptor and 

compares them to the significance criteria. 

The unmitigated daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 61 dBA unde

Alternative 2. These noise levels would represent no change compared to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., existing noise level) at Noise-Sensitive

Receptors 3, 4 and 5 and a 1- to 2-dBA increase at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2,

and 6. 

r

These impacts to daytime noise levels would be less than significant. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-27
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Under Alternative 2, the unmitigated nighttime Leq noise levels ranged from 40 dBA 

at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 3 up to 56 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1. At 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1, noise levels under Alternative 2 would increase by 6 

dBA relative to the No Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Receptor 

2, noise levels under Alternative 2 would increase by 9 dBA relative to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Receptor 6, noise levels under 

Alternative 2 would increase by 7 dBA relative to the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. 

These impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2 and 6 would be significant. The 

inclusion of a noise barrier with the operation of stationary/quasi-stationary 

equipment and activities (i.e., BACT for drill rigs, blasting, rock crushing/screening) 

would reduce the unmitigated increases of 6 dB to 3 dB, 9 dBA to 4 dBA, and 7 dBA 

to 4 dBA. This measure or other types of noise control measures, as reflected in 

Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10, would reduce the construction noise associated 

with Alternative 2 to a less than significant level.

As described above in the discussion of Alternative 1, construction activity 

associated with any of the alternatives would result in noise levels that exceed local 

noise standards at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5. 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5 would be potentially significant, 

even with the application of BACT to stationary/quasi-stationary construction 

equipment. Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10 would reduce the impact to less than 

significant.

Blasting and vibration activities would generate construction noise impacts.

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 

1. 

Impacts from vibration and blasting would be less than significant. 

Construction of new embankments would generate construction noise.

Alternative 2 would require the raising of Folsom Facility structures, which could 

result in the temporary increase of maximum flood flows in the reservoir. A number 

of new embankments would need to be constructed at various locations around 

Folsom Reservoir to control these flood flows. The construction of the embankments 

would require using standard earthmoving and construction equipment, such as 

backhoes, dump trucks, cranes and loaders. The construction of embankments would 

occur during the daytime and would take 1 to 2 weeks to construct. The noise 

associated with construction of new embankments is included within the overall 

construction noise levels estimated for Alternative 2, as presented above. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Construction activities would generate noise impacts under Alternative 3. 

Table 3.10-12 presents a summary of the projected daytime and nighttime

unmitigated noise levels for each alternative at each noise-sensitive receptor and 

compares them to the significance criteria. 

The unmitigated daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 61 dBA under 

eq

e Receptor 3 up to 56 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1. At 

eptor

quasieases of 6 dB to 3 dB, 10 dBA 

to 5 dBA, and 7 dBA to 4 dBA. This measure or other types of noise control 

above in the discussion of Alternative 1, construction activity 

associated with any of the alternatives would result in noise levels that exceed local 

with the application of BACT to stationary/quasi-stationary construction 

equipment. Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10 would reduce the impact to less than 

acts.

Alternative 3. These noise levels would represent no change compared to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., existing noise levels) at Noise-Sensitive 

Receptors 3, 4, and 5 and a 1 to 3 dBA increase at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2,

and 6. 

These impacts to daytime noise levels would be less than significant. 

Under Alternative 3, the unmitigated nighttime L noise levels ranged from 40 dBA 

at Noise-Sensitiv

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1, noise levels under Alternative 3 would increase by 6

dBA relative to the No Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Rec

2, noise levels under Alternative 3 would increase by 10 dBA relative to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Receptor 6, noise levels under 

Alternative 3 would increase by 7 dBA relative to the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. 

These impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2 and 6 would be potentially 

significant. The inclusion of a noise barrier with the operation of stationary/

stationary equipment and activities (i.e., BACT for drill rigs, blasting, rock 

crushing/screening) would reduce the unmitigated incr

measures, as reflected in Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10, would reduce the 

construction noise associated with Alternative 3 to a less than significant level.

As described

noise standards at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5. 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5 would be potentially significant, 

even

significant.

Blasting and vibration activities would generate construction noise imp

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-29
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.

Impacts from vibration and blasting would be less than significant. 

Construction of new embankments would generate construction noise.

Construction noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those describ

for Alternative 2. 

ed

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Construction activities would generate noise impacts under Alternative 4. 

Table 3.10-12 presents a summary of the projected daytime and nighttime

unmitigated noise levels for each alternative at each noise-sensitive receptor and 

compares them to the significance criteria. 

The unmitigated daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 61 dBA under 

Alternative 4. These noise levels would represent no change compared to the No

Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., existing noise levels) at Noise-Sensitive 

Receptors 3, 4 and 5 and a 1 to 3 dBA increase at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2, 

and 6. 

These impacts to daytime noise levels would be less than significant. 

Under Alternative 4, the unmitigated nighttime Leq noise levels ranged from 40 dBA

at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 3 up to 56 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1. At 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1, noise levels under Alternative 4 would increase by 6 

dBA relative to the No Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Receptor

2, noise levels under Alternative 4 would increase by 10 dBA relative to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Receptor 6, noise levels under

Alternative 4 would increase by 7 dBA relative to the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. 

These impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1, 2 and 6 would be significant. The 

inclusion of a noise barrier with the operation of stationary/quasi-stationary

equipment and activities (i.e., BACT for drill rigs, blasting, rock crushing/screening)

would reduce the unmitigated increases of 6 dB to 3 dB, 10 dBA to 5 dBA, and 7

dBA to 4 dBA. This measure or other types of noise control measures, as reflec

Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10, would reduce the construction noise associate

with Alternative 4 to a less than significant level.

ted in

d

As described above in the discussion of Alternative 1, construction activity 

associated with any of the alternatives would result in noise levels that exceed local 

noise standards at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5. 

3.10-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5 would be potentially significant, 

even with the application of BACT to stationary/quasi-stationary construction 

equipment. Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10 would reduce the impact to less than 

significant. 

Blasting and vibration activities would generate construction noise impacts.

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative

. 

Impacts from vibration and blasting would be less than significant. Nonetheless, Mitigation 

ntial impacts.

1

Measures N-1 through N-10 are recommended to minimize and avoid any pote

Construction of new embankments would generate construction noise.

Construction noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would include require higher embankments because 

the alternative proposes a 7-foot raise to Folsom Facility structures. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Construction activities would generate slight noise impacts under Alternative 5. 

Table 3.10-12 presents a summary of the projected daytime and nighttime

ve 5. These noise levels would represent no change compared to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative (i.e., existing noise levels) at Noise-Sensitive 

eptors 1, 2, 

ceptor

under Alternative 4 would increase by 7 dBA relative to the No 

Action/No Project Alternative. 

g)

unmitigated noise levels for each alternative at each noise-sensitive receptor and 

compares them to the significance criteria. 

The unmitigated daytime Leq noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 61 dBA under 

Alternati

Receptors 3, 4 and 5 and a 1 to 2 dBA increase at Noise-Sensitive Rec

and 6. 

These impacts to daytime noise levels would be less than significant. 

Under Alternative 5, the unmitigated nighttime Leq noise levels ranged from 40 dBA

at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 3 up to 55 dBA at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 1. At 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2, noise levels under Alternative 5 would increase by 9 

dBA relative to the No Action/No Project Alternative. At Noise-Sensitive Re

6, noise levels

These impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 2 and 6 would be significant. The

inclusion of a noise barrier with the operation of stationary/quasi-stationary 

equipment and activities (i.e., BACT for drill rigs, blasting, rock crushing/screenin

would reduce the unmitigated increases of 9 dB to 4 dB, and 7 dBA to 4 dBA. This 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-31
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

measure or other types of noise control measures, as reflected in Mitigation 

Measures N-1 to N-10, would reduce the construction noise associated with 

Alternative 5 to a less than significant level.

As described above in the discussion of Alternative 1, construction activity 

associated with any of the alternatives would result in noise levels that exceed local 

noise standards at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5. 

This impact at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 5 would be potentially significant, 

even with the application of BACT to stationary/quasi-stationary construction 

equipment. Mitigation Measures N-1 to N-10 would reduce the impact to less than 

significant. 

Blasting and vibration activities would generate construction noise impacts.

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 

1. 

Impacts from vibration and blasting would be less than significant. Nonetheless, Mitigation 

Measures N-1 through N-11 are recommended to minimize and avoid any potential impacts.

Construction of new embankments would generate construction noise.

Construction noise impacts under Alternative 5 would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Alternative 5 would include require higher embankments because 

the alternative proposes a 17-foot raise to Folsom Facility structures.

Comparison of Alternatives Construction Noise Impacts 

The results of the construction noise impact analysis presented in Table 3.10-12 

showed that there would be no daytime impact at any of the noise-sensitive 

receptors, but potentially significant nighttime noise impacts (6 to 10 dBA noise 

level increases over existing/No Action/No Project Alternative conditions) at NoiseSensitive Receptors 1, 2 and 6. The highest nighttime noise impacts for all 

alternatives would occur at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2 (in the Granite Bay area) 

where existing/No Action/No Project Alternative noise levels are the lowest. Overall, 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would produce slightly higher noise impacts and Alternative 1 

would produce slightly lower nighttime noise impacts compared to the other 

alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, in addition to generating moderate noise 

impacts at Noise-Sensitive Receptors 1 and 6, would generate a severe noise impact 

at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2. Alternative 1 would not generate a noise impact at 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2 because there would be no construction activity at 

Granite Bay. However, the differences in nighttime noise levels between 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 at each noise-sensitive receptor are 1 dBA or less, which 

would be imperceptible by most people. Therefore, there would be no perceptible 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-33 

difference in noise impacts between action alternatives, except for Alternative 1 at 

Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2. 

Since there is no notable difference in daily construction noise impacts between 

action alternatives, except at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 2 for Alternative 1, the other 

approach to distinguish noise impacts between the alternatives would be to factor in 

the duration of construction schedule (total number of days) for each alternative. 

Table 3.10-15 presents a comparison of action alternative construction noise impacts 

at each noise sensitive receptor. The Ldn noise levels represent average noise levels 

over the duration of closest major construction phase to each noise-sensitive 

receptor. The table also presents which action alternatives would produce lower or 

higher noise impacts at each noise-sensitive receptor. Overall, it shows that there is 

no substantial difference in Ldn noise levels between the alternatives. In addition, 

when comparing the noise impacts of the action alternatives to the No Action/No 

Project Alternative the difference in noise levels at each noise-sensitive receptor 

would range from 2 to 6 dBA. These incremental differences would be considered 

imperceptible to readily perceptible by most people. The readily perceptible 

unmitigated noise impacts (increase of more than 5 dBA) would occur at NoiseSensitive Receptor 2 (Alternative 5), and Noise-Sensitive Receptor 6 (Alternative 5). 

3.10.2.2 Transportation Noise Analysis 

The following sections describe assessment methods, significance criteria, and 

potential impacts to transportation noise of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

Assessment Methods 

Traffic noise levels generated from construction worker vehicles and trucks hauling 

materials on local roads were evaluated for nine noise-sensitive receptors and 

compared with existing ambient and No Action/No Project Alternative noise levels 

to determine the need to evaluate noise mitigation measures. An initial screening 

analysis was also conducted to evaluate any impacts on regional access routes for 

trucks hauling materials, such as interstates and state highway roads. Section 3.9 

provides traffic data used to estimate traffic noise levels for each model scenario. 

Presented below is the methodology used to evaluate transportation noise impacts.

Traffic Noise on Local Roads 

Traffic noise levels were estimated for construction workers’ commuting vehicles, 

delivery trucks and trucks hauling aggregate materials using the FHWA Traffic 

Noise Model, Version 2.5 (TNM2.5). As of January 15, 2005, Caltrans requires all 

new projects to use TNM2.5 to model potential noise impacts for highway projects. 

TNM2.5 was used to estimate noise levels for the existing, No Action/No Project 
Station Id. Description No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

1

Natoma St. Residential Area, Folsom 60 65 64 64 65 63 

2

Haley Drive Near Granite Beach, Granite Bay 45 47 49 50 50 51 

3

Vista Mar Drive, El Dorado Hills 50 53 52 53 52 52 Al

4

400 Lakeridge Ct, El Dorado Hills 50 53 52 53 52 52 Al

5

Oak Leaf and AuburnFolsom Road 60 62 62 62 63 63 Al

6

Lake Shore Drive, Granite Bay 45 50 50 50 50 51 Alt. 

Note: * Impact evaluation compares Alternatives 1 through 5 amongst each other.

Receptor Locations 

Table 3.10-15

Comparison of Alternatives Construction Noise Impacts

Construction Period Average Ldn Noise Level

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-35 

Alternative and Alternatives 1 through 5 along the proposed truck haul routes. 

TNM2.5 is capable of modeling noise impacts from automobiles, medium trucks (2 

axles), heavy trucks (3 or more axles), buses, and motorcycles factoring in vehicle 

volume, vehicle speed, roadway configuration, distance to the noise-sensitive 

receptors, atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation characteristics. When 

predicting noise levels, TNM2.5 accounts for the effects of different pavement types, 

changes in roadway grades and attenuation due to rows of buildings and dense 

vegetation. TNM2.5 is used to predict hourly Leq and Ldn noise levels for both freeflowing and interrupted-flow conditions (i.e., intersections, and traffic control 

devices). The model is generally considered to be accurate within +/- 3 dB. 

As part of the traffic noise modeling analysis, TNM2.5 was calibrated based on the 

noise level and traffic data collected in the field in order to make any necessary 

adjustments to the Existing Year (2006) and peak construction year modeling results 

based on the results of the calibration modeling analysis. The analysis used traffic 

and noise data for two Folsom-Auburn Road receptors presented in Reclamation’s 

Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction, Final Environmental Impact Statement (April 

2005). Appendix G presents the traffic data and results of the calibration modeling 

analysis. It shows that TNM2.5 reasonably predicted traffic noise levels at both 

receptor locations. Therefore, no adjustments were made to the other TNM2.5 

model results.

Existing, No Action/No Project Alternative, and Alternatives 1 through ADT 

volumes were obtained from Section 3.9. Vehicle classification data by vehicle type 

was based on actual traffic data for Folsom-Auburn Road provided by the City of 

Folsom. These vehicle distributions were applied to all local roadway ADT 

volumes. Additional assumptions used in the traffic noise modeling analysis are 

presented in Appendix G. Traffic noise modeling for the action alternatives was 

conducted only for those construction years with the highest projected number of 

construction worker vehicles and truck trips, since these would be the years that 

would generate the highest traffic noise impacts. Based on the projected ADT 

volumes for each action alternative, it is projected that 2009 would have the highest 

combined construction workers and truck ADT volumes for all alternatives, except 

for Alternative 5. For Alternative 5, the highest number of combined ADT volumes 

would occur in 2013. The No Action/No Project Alternative was modeled for both 

years. Table 3.10-16 presents a summary of the combined worker and truck ADT 

volumes by year for each alternative. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

3.10-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.10-16 

Projected Construction Employee and Truck ADT Volumes

Action Alternatives 

Year Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2007 1,004 960 496 976 1,064 

2008 3,805 3,270 3,252 3,615 3,451 

2009 5,393 5,592 4,275 5,049 3,377 

2010 4,411 4,238 2,913 3,834 3,315 

2011 1,284 2,736 1,952 1,056 1,438 

2012 1,051 1,816 1,594 1,636 4,206 

2013 716 3,248 1,534 3,558 4,860 

2014 0 0 0 0 3,822 

Highest ADT volume for each Alternative indicated in bold. 

For this traffic noise analysis, a single reference point based on a 50-foot distance 

from the roadway centerline to each noise-sensitive receptor was used. This distance 

was selected because the distances from the roadway centerlines to the noisesensitive receptors ranged from 40 to 70 feet, and the incremental difference in 

predicted noise levels at this range of distance is less than 3 dBA. This difference in 

noise levels is considered to be barely perceptible by humans. Therefore, the 50-foot 

distance was selected as a median distance and will represent a uniform evaluation of 

noise impacts for all nine noise-sensitive receptor locations. In addition, since this 

analysis primarily compares traffic noise levels with and without action, those 

differences between receptors would remain constant. The most notable variable 

between alternatives is the projected traffic volume. 

Regional Haul Routes Noise 

The proposed regional haul routes in the Cities of Marysville, Wheatland, Lincoln, 

Rocklin and Roseville include Highways 70 and 65, Interstate 80 and US Highway 

50. The existing and future No Action/No Project Alternative ADT volumes along 

these highways would not be substantially affected by any vehicle additions as a 

result of the Folsom DS/FDR action. The combined construction workers and haul 

truck ADT volumes represent less than one percent of the total ADT volume along 

these proposed regional haul routes. In order to project an appreciable noise level 

increase of 3 dBA or greater would require the traffic volumes to double the existing 

or No Action/No Project Alternative traffic volumes. The projected increase in ADT 

volumes due to the actions would generate less than 0.3 dBA increase in existing 

noise levels. Therefore, a detailed traffic noise modeling analysis was not conducted 

for the regional haul routes. 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Transportation Noise Impacts Significance Criteria 

The existing peak hour noise levels (daytime Leq) exceed FHWA NAC of 66 dBA at

all nine noise-sensitive receptors. In addition, existing L

noise

ted

traffic associated with any of the action alternatives, would be 12 dBA or more 

e

es

onsequences/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

noise

dn noise levels also exceed

the each of the county and community exterior Ldn/CNEL maximum allowable

levels of 60 dBA at all nine noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, noise effects on 

noise-sensitive receptors were considered significant and would require evaluating 

noise mitigation measures if either of the following were predicted by the noise

modeling results: 

• The increase in existing (2006) noise levels, as a result of construction-rela

per Caltrans noise policy; or 

• The incremental change in traffic noise levels due to construction-related traffic 

from actions related to the Folsom DS/FDR would, at any noise-sensitive 

receptor, increase the peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels by 5 dBA or more abov

those of the No-Action/No Project Alternative. A 5-dBA threshold was selected 

since this change in noise levels is considered readily perceptible by humans. 

Transportation Noise Environmental Impacts/Environmental Consequenc

Environmental C

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not generate construction traffic

impacts relative to the existing conditions. 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, the Folsom DS/FDR action wou

be constructed. This analysis assumes that construction traffic under the No 

Action/No Project Alternative would be the same as under existing conditions (i.e

there would be none). There would be no impact of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

ld not

.,

Truck and construction worker traffic would generate transportation noise impacts. 

Tables 3.10-17 through 3.10-25 present a summary of the projected daytime and 

nighttime peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels for each noise-sensitive receptor and 

each action alternative, and compare them to the existing and No Action/No Project 

Alternative noise levels. The details behind results of the traffic noise modeling 

analysis are presented in Appendix G. 

The transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment to the construction 

and borrow sites under Alternative 1 would generate daytime and nighttime peak 

hour Leq and Ldn noise levels increases of less than 4 dBA when compared to existing 

noise levels at each Noise-Sensitive Receptor. These noise level increases would be 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-37
Section 3.10 

Noise 

well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable noise level increase over 

existing conditions. Similarly, Alternative 1 would generate less than a 2 dBA 

increase in peak hour L

Project Altern es are well

below the 5-dBA significance criterion ighest noise impact under 

Alternative ld o t No nsitiv ceptor 4 on East Natoma Street, 

which would be a 3.1 dBA increase over existing conditions. 

This impact w be an cant

Environmenta eq /En enta

Truck and construction worker traffic woul rate t ortatio e impacts.

eq and Ldn noise levels when compared to the No Action/No 

ative noise levels for 2009. These small incremental chang

threshold. The h

1 wou ccur a ise-Se e Re

ould less th signifi and would not require mitigation. 

l Cons uences vironm l Impacts of Alternative 2 

d gene ransp n nois

Tables 3.10-17 through 3.10-25 present a summary of the projected daytime and 

nighttime ensitive receptor and 

ach action d No Action/No Project 

ll

r 4 on East Natoma Street, 

ncrease over existing conditions.

peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels for each noise-s

e alternative, and compare them to the existing an

Alternative noise levels. 

The transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment to the construction 

and borrow sites under Alternative 2 would generate daytime and nighttime peak

hour Leq and Ldn noise levels increases of less than 4 dBA when compared to existing

noise levels at each Noise-Sensitive Receptor. These noise level increases would be 

well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable noise level increase over 

existing conditions. Similarly, Alternative 2 would generate less than a 2 dBA 

increase in peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels when compared to the No Action/No 

Project Alternative noise levels for 2009. These small incremental changes are we

below the 5-dBA significance criterion threshold. The highest noise impact under

Alternative 1 would occur at Noise-Sensitive Recepto

which would be a 3.1 dBA i

This impact would be less than significant and would not require mitigation.

3.10-38 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

72.5 73.1 74.0 74.0 73.9 73.9 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

68.9 70.0 70.3 70.3 70.3 70.3 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

71.6 72.7 73.8 72.9 72.8 73.0 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east bound lanes in Folsom 66.8 68.9 69.9 69.9 69.7 69.7 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

72.5 73.8 73.9 73.9 73.8 73.9 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes in Folsom 69.3 69.7 70.5 70.5 70.3 70.3 7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

70.6 71.0 71.5 71.5 71.6 71.5 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes in Granite 

Bay, Placer County

72.5 73.0 73.1 73.3 73.1 73.1 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

72.4 72.7 72.8 72.9 72.8 72.8 

Table 3.10-17

Summary of Daytime Peak Hour Results

Daytime Peak Hour L eq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10

Noise

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- 1.1 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east bound lanes in Folsom -- 2.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes in Folsom -- 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes in Granite 

Bay, Placer County

-- 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 

Table 3.10-18

Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Noise Levels in 2006

Change in Daytime L eq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

3.10-40 Folsom DS/FDR 
Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- -- 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east bound lanes in Folsom -- -- 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes in Folsom -- -- 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- -- 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes in Granite 

Bay, Placer County

-- -- 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- -- 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 

Table 3.10-19

Comparison of Alternatives to Projected No Action Noise Levels in 2009 and 2013

Daytime L eq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10

Noise

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

66.0 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.5 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

62.4 63.3 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

65.0 66.1 66.2 66.5 66.7 66.7 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

60.2 62.3 63.9 64.1 63.9 63.9 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

66.0 67.3 67.7 67.7 67.4 67.7 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

62.7 63.0 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

64.0 64.3 65.0 65.1 65.0 65.0 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

65.9 66.4 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

65.8 66.2 66.2 66.2 66.2 66.2 

Table 3.10-20

Summary of Nighttime Peak Hour Results

Nighttime Peak Hour Leq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number Local Roadway Description

EXISTING: 2006 NO ACTION: 2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

3.10-42 Folsom DS/FD
Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

-- 2.1 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.7 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

-- 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- 0.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

-- 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Table 3.10-21

Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Noise Levels in 2006

Change in Nighttime L eq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number Local Roadway Description

EXISTING: 2006 NO ACTION: 2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10

Noise

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

Leq 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- -- 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

-- -- 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- -- 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

-- -- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Table 3.10-22

Comparison of Alternatives to Projected No Action Noise Levels in 2009 and 2013

Nighttime L eq Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number Local Roadway Description

EXISTING: 2006 NO ACTION: 2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

3.10-44 Folsom DS/FD
Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

74.2 74.7 75.1 75.1 75.1 75.1 75.0 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

70.6 71.5 71.9 71.9 71.9 71.9 71.9 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

73.2 74.3 74.9 74.6 74.7 74.8 74.6 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

68.4 70.5 71.9 72.0 71.8 71.8 70.8 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

74.2 75.5 75.7 75.7 75.5 75.7 75.8 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

70.9 71.2 71.7 71.7 71.6 71.6 71.6 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

72.2 72.5 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 72.8 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

74.1 74.6 74.8 74.9 74.8 74.8 75.0 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

74.0 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.7 

Table 3.10-23

Summary of 24 Hour Ldn Results

L dn Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 NO ACTIO

2013 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10

Noise

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

-- 2.1 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.4 2.4 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

-- 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

-- 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 

Table 3.10-24

Comparison of Alternatives to Existing Noise Levels in 2006

Change in L dn Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 NO ACTIO

2013 

3.10-46 Folsom DS/FD
Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

Ldn 

(dBA)

1 East Bidwell Street Along Albrighton Drive, residential area adjacent to 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -- 

2 Oak Avenue Parkway Along Thorndike Way, residential area adjacent to 

north bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -- 

3 Green Valley Road

Parking lot adjacent to residential area along Kipps Lane, north of Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills, El Dorado County

-- -- 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 -- 

4 East Natoma Road End of Pomine Court, residential area along east 

bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 -- 

5 Folsom-Auburn Road 7550 Folsom-Auburn Road is in a residential area along the 

south bound lanes in Folsom

-- -- 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 -- 

6 Blue Ravine Road Blackberry Circle, residential area along north bound lanes 

in Folsom

-- -- 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 -- 

7 Sierra College Boulevard

End of Kilmartin Court, residential street adjacent to south bound lanes in Rocklin, Placer County

-- -- 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 -- 

8 Douglas Boulevard 4600-4699 Rolling Oaks Drive, residential area adjacent to west bound lanes 

in Granite Bay, Placer County

-- -- 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 -- 

9 Eureka Road

1445 Eureka Road, multifamily residential development (225 units) on north bound lanes in Roseville, Placer County

-- -- 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 -- 

Table 3.10-25

Comparison of Alternatives to Projected No Action Noise Levels in 2009 and 2013

L dn Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Local Roadways

Sensitive 

Noise 

Receiver 

Number

Local 

Roadway Description

EXISTING: 

2006

NO ACTION: 

2009 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 NO ACTIO

2013 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR - December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Truck and construction worker traffic would generate transportation noise impacts. 

Tables 3.10-17 through 3.10-25 present a summary of the projected daytime and 

nighttime peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels for each noise-sensitive receptor and 

each action alternative, and compare them to the existing and No Action/No Project 

Alternative noise levels. 

The transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment to the construction 

and borrow sites under Alternative 3 would generate daytime and nighttime peak 

hour Leq and Ldn noise levels increases of less than 3 dBA when compared to existing 

noise levels at each Noise-Sensitive Receptor. These noise level increases would be 

well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable noise level increase over 

existing conditions. Similarly, Alternative 3 would generate less than a 2 dBA 

increase in peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels when compared to the No Action/No 

Project Alternative noise levels for 2009. These small incremental changes are well 

below the 5-dBA significance criterion threshold. The highest noise impact under 

Alternative 1 would occur at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 4 on East Natoma Street, 

which would be a 2.9 dBA increase over existing conditions. 

This impact would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Truck and construction worker traffic would generate transportation noise impacts. 

Tables 3.10-17 through 3.10-25 present a summary of the projected daytime and 

nighttime peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels for each noise-sensitive receptor and 

each action alternative, and compare them to the existing and No Action/No Project 

Alternative noise levels. 

The transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment to the construction 

and borrow sites under Alternative 4 would generate daytime and nighttime peak 

hour Leq and Ldn noise levels increases of less than 3 dBA when compared to existing 

noise levels at each Noise-Sensitive Receptor. These noise level increases would be 

well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable noise level increase over 

existing conditions. Similarly, Alternative 4 would generate less than a 2 dBA 

increase in peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels when compared to the No Action/No 

Project Alternative noise levels for 2009. These small incremental changes are well 

below the 5-dBA significance criterion threshold. The highest noise impact under 

Alternative 1 would occur at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 4 on East Natoma Street, 

which would be a 2.9 dBA increase over existing conditions. 

3.10-48 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

This impact would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Truck and construction worker traffic would generate transportation noise impacts. 

Tables 3.10-17 through 3.10-25 present a summary of the projected daytime and 

nighttime peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels for each noise-sensitive receptor and 

each action alternative, and compare them to the existing and No Action/No Project 

Alternative noise levels. 

The transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment to the construction 

and borrow sites under Alternative 4 would generate daytime and nighttime peak 

hour Leq and Ldn noise levels increases of less than 3 dBA when compared to existing 

noise levels at each Noise-Sensitive Receptor. These noise level increases would be 

well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable noise level increase over 

existing conditions. Similarly, Alternative 5 would generate less than a 2 dBA 

increase in peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels when compared to the No Action/No 

Project Alternative noise levels for 2013. These small incremental changes are well 

below the 5-dBA significance criterion threshold. The highest noise impact under 

Alternative 1 would occur at Noise-Sensitive Receptor 4 on East Natoma Street, 

which would be a 2.8 dBA increase over existing conditions. 

This impact would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. 

Comparison of Alternatives Transportation Noise 

Projected daytime and nighttime peak hour Leq and Ldn noise level increases for each 

alternative would be well below the Caltrans noise policy of a 12-dBA allowable 

noise level increase over existing conditions. Similarly, all five action alternatives 

would generate less than a 2-dBA increase in peak hour Leq and Ldn noise levels 

when compared to the noise levels of the No Action/No Project Alternative. These 

small incremental changes are well below the 5 dBA significance criterion threshold. 

3.10.2.3 Combined Construction and Traffic Noise Impacts 

The potential for combined construction and traffic noise impacts would only occur 

at those noise-sensitive receptors located on the southern portion of Folsom 

Reservoir and in particular noise-sensitive receptors along Folsom-Auburn Road, 

East Natoma Street and adjacent to Green Valley Road. The background noise levels 

at these noise-sensitive receptors are dominated by traffic along adjacent roadways. 

On average, the construction employee vehicles and haul trucks would contribute 

less than a 4-dBA increase over existing and No Action/No Project Alternative 

daytime noise levels. Similarly, construction activities would generate less than 1 

dBA increase over existing and No Action/No Project Alternative conditions during 

the daytime, and therefore, would not significantly increase noise impacts (i.e., less 

than a 5 dBA increase). During peak construction activities when construction 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-49 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

would be occurring at its closest point to the noise-sensitive receptors would be when 

combined noise impact of both construction activities and traffic could elevate noise 

eak-hour traffic 

e 

loser to the noise-sensitive receptor then the other two 

 at the six noise-

 noise 

 bear the 

implemented prior to any construction activity. 

 to, temporary sound barriers near the noise source, such 

as those considered in the impacts analysis relative to BACT for stationary/quasiaterial 

levels, but this would occur for only a short period of time during p

conditions. 

During the nighttime, it is expected that construction activities would be the 

dominant noise source at East Natoma Street residential area because there would b

less background and Folsom DS/FDR action related traffic and because the 

construction activities are c

locations. The projected Leq noise level increase from construction activities would 

be approximately 2 to 4 dBA. At the Folsom-Auburn and Green Valley Road noisesensitive receptors the existing and future No Action/No Project Alternative local 

traffic conditions would be the dominant noise source. Therefore, the increase in 

noise levels at these two locations associated with construction activities should be 

minor. 

3.10.3 Mitigation Measures 

The following measures will be implemented to reduce noise impacts. These 

measures will be incorporated into a Noise Control Plan (NCP) to address increased

night time noise levels as a result of the Folsom DS/FDR action. The NCP will 

identify the procedures for predicting construction noise levels

sensitive receptors prior to performing construction activities and describe the

reduction measures required to meet the noise level limitations. The NCP will be 

based on construction activities planned and will be prepared by and

signature of the Acoustical Engineer. The noise mitigation measures will be 

N-1: Appropriate level of sound attenuation will be utilized or constructed to meet 

local ordinances. Potential sound attenuation measures that could be considered 

include, but are not limited

stationary equipment, or otherwise placed between the source(s) of construction 

noise and noise-sensitive receptors, as appropriate. 

N-2: Contractor will be responsible for maintaining equipment to comply with noise 

standards (e.g., exhaust mufflers, acoustically attenuating shields, shrouds, or 

enclosures) 

N-3: If necessary to meet local noise ordinances, enclosing above-ground conveyor 

systems in acoustically-treated enclosures 

N-4: If necessary to meet local noise ordinances, lining or covering hoppers, 

conveyor transfer points, storage bins and chutes with sound-deadening m

3.10-50 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 
Section 3.10 

Noise 

N-5: Scheduling truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so as to reduce 

nighttime noise impacts to less than noticeable levels 

from the City and County 

N-8: Monitoring blasting vibration will be implemented as per Reclamation and 

of 

projects occurring 

concurrently with the Folsom DS/FDR include the New Folsom Bridge project. 

ose 

anticipated for the New Folsom Bridge project. Similar construction activities 

and truck hauling operations. 

the 

N-6: For nighttime or after-hour construction, the Contractor will obtain a permit 

N-7: Schedule restrictions on blasting will be implemented per City and County 

ordinances. Permits will be obtained if necessary or appropriate 

Corps safety guidelines 

N-9: Using blasting mats to cover blasts in order to minimize the possibility of fly 

rock 

N-10: Examining of any properties, structures and conditions where complaints 

damages have been filed will be performed within three weeks of rock excavation 

and blasting work 

3.10.4 Cumulative Effects 

The potential for cumulative noise impacts from other nearby 

Construction activities associated with Folsom DS/FDR would be similar to th

include: earthwork, concrete work, blasting operations 

Cumulative noise impacts would occur for residential areas along Folsom-Auburn 

Road south of Folsom Reservoir and along East Natoma Street in particular when 

Auxiliary Spillway work and the New Folsom Bridge project would be under 

construction during the same period beginning 2008. Both projects include 

mitigation measures to minimize noise impacts and are anticipated to reduce the 

impacts to a less than significant level. 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.10-51 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-1 

3.11 Cultural Resources 

This section presents potential impacts to cultural resources from construction of the 

Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. 

3.11.1 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 

3.11.1.1 Area of Analysis 

This section is based on the results of a record search of documents at the North 

Central Information Center (California State University, Sacramento), documents 

supplied by Reclamation, and archaeological surveys conducted by Pacific Legacy 

(2006) and URS (2006). The results of the records review and archaeological surveys 

document the numbers and types of archaeological and historical resources recorded 

within the Folsom DS/FDR area of analysis. 

The features in the area of analysis are listed beginning in the vicinity of Granite Bay 

and moving counter clockwise around Folsom Reservoir (see Figure 2-1). Following 

this order, the features include: Dike 1 Contractor Staging Area; Dikes 1, 2, and 3; 

Beal’s / Granite Bay Borrow Site; Dike 4 Contractor Staging Area; Dike 4; Dike 5; 

Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 1; Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 2; Beal’s / Dam 

Borrow Site and Right Wing Dam Haul Area; Dike 6; Dike 6 Contractor Staging 

Area; Right Wing Dam; Right Wing Dam Contractor Staging Area; Below Left 

Wing Dam; Dike 7; Dike 7 Contractor Staging Area; Dike 8; Dike 8 / MIAD Borrow 

Site and Left Wing Dam Haul Area; MIAD Borrow Site 2 (D2); MIAD Borrow Site 

1 (D1); MIAD; and, Brown’s Ravine Borrow Site. Additionally, the Main Concrete 

Dam, raised retention area, and new embankments/flood easements were included 

within the area of analysis. 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended through 1992, 

establishes a program for the preservation of historic properties throughout the 

nation. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) administers the national 

historic preservation program at the state level, reviews National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) nominations, maintains data on historic properties that have been 

identified but not yet nominated, and provides consultation for federal agencies 

during NHPA Section 106 review. 

Reclamation, as lead Federal agency, and the Corps, as a cooperating agency, are 

responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NRHP and its implementing 

regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800. Reclamation and the Corps have to take in 

account the effects of its undertaking on historic properties as defined in 36 CFR Part 

800.16 (l). The criteria of determining historic properties are found at 36 CFR Part 

800.4. When the effects of an undertaking are not fully known or the project extends 

over a period of years, Reclamation and the Corps may elect to follow an alternative 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

process following procedures found in 36 CFR Part 800.14 which allows for the 

development of a programmatic agreement between consulting parties. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC) Sections 4321-

4327, Reclamation and the Corps are required to consider potential environmental 

impacts and appropriate mitigation measures for projects with Federal involvement. 

A complete list of pertinent Federal laws, regulations and guidance that direct 

Reclamation cultural resources policies and responsibilities is found in 

Reclamation’s Directives and Standards Manual LND 02-01 for Cultural Resource 

Management. 

Project undertakings by Reclamation must follow directives and guidelines found in 

Reclamation Manuals LND P01, LND 02-01 and LND 07-01. LND P01 establishes 

policy and authority for cultural resource identification, evaluation and management 

of cultural resources. LND 02-01 provides directives and standards and clarifies the 

role of Reclamation regarding implementation of its cultural resources management 

responsibilities. LND 10-01 provides procedures for inadvertent discoveries for 

cultural items which are under the authority of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

Project undertakings by the Corps must follow guidelines found in the Planning 

Guidance Notebook. ER 1105-2-100 provides guidance for consideration of cultural 

resources in Civil Works planning studies, along with compliance requirements 

relevant to the identification, evaluation, and treatment of these cultural resources. 

Assessment of effects focuses on properties listed or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, properties known as historic properties, or sites designated as either historical 

resources or “unique archeological resources” as per the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 1

 Under CEQA, the evaluation of impacts on 

historical resources parallels federal law. Properties protected under CEQA include 

those eligible for listing or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources 

(CRHR) or those properties determined “unique archaeological resources.” It should 

be noted that a property found not eligible for listing on the NRHP may be found to 

have historical significance for listing on the CRHR. 

The CEQA Guidelines state that if a project follows the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the impacts are considered 

“mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact” (CEQA Guidelines 

15064.5[b][3]). Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 

Part 800) require that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 

 

1

 As defined either in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.16(l) for federal actions or in the 

State CEQA Public Resources Code (PRC) (21084.1 and 21083.2) and the CEQA Guidelines 

(15064.5[a]) 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-3 

SHPO, and the interested public, including Native Americans, be provided an 

opportunity to comment on the effects that the proposed action may have on historic 

properties. 

3.11.1.3 Environmental Setting 

Ethnographic Overview 

The area of analysis is located within the territorial boundaries of the ethnographic 

Nisenan. The Nisenan, often referred to as the Southern Maidu in anthropological 

literature, are classified as the southern linguistic group of the Maidu tribe, and 

together with Maidu and Konkow form a subgroup of the California Penutian 

linguistic family (Wilson and Towne 1978). The Nisenan linguistic group is further 

subdivided based on dialect into Northern Hill Nisenan, inhabiting the Yuba River 

drainage; Southern Hill Nisenan, living along the American River; and Valley 

Nisenan, occupying a portion of the Sacramento River Valley between the American 

and Feather Rivers (Beals 1933; Kroeber 1925, 1929). 

Prior to Euroamerican contact, Nisenan territory extended west into the Sacramento 

Valley to encompass the lower Feather River drainage, north to include the Yuba 

River watershed, south comprising the whole of the Bear and American River 

drainages and the upper reaches of the Cosumnes River, and east to the crest of the 

Sierra Nevada (Wilson and Towne 1978). 

The information in this section is derived from a variety of sources, including: 

Bennyhoff (1977); Beals (1933); Gifford (1927); Kroeber (1925, 1929); Littlejohn 

(1928); and, Wilson and Towne (1978). Additional resources on Nisenan and Miwok 

ethnography include: Faye (1923); Levy (1978); Powers (1976); and, Schulz and 

Ritter (1972). The following discussion is a brief synthesis focusing on selected traits 

of Valley Nisenan ethnography that may manifest archaeologically. 

Habitation Patterns 

The Nisenan were organized by tribelet, each tribelet being composed of several 

large, semi-autonomous villages that accepted the leadership of the headman of a 

specific village. Headmen acted as advisors for major decision making, communal 

hunts, and ceremonies. Wilson and Towne (1978) identify three Valley Nisenan 

tribelet centers in the Sacramento Valley: at the mouth of the American River 

(present-day Sacramento); at the mouth of the Bear River; and, at the confluence of 

the Yuba and Feather rivers near present-day Marysville. 

Nisenan villages varied greatly in size, ranging from three to seven houses up to 40 

to 50 houses, with the largest valley villages inhabited by more than 500 people 

(Littlejohn 1928). Villages in the lower valleys tended to be located along low rises 

and mounds adjacent to streams and rivers. 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Nisenan built structures, including semi-permanent houses, which were generally 

conical, measuring 10 to 15 feet in diameter and covered with tule mats, grasses, or 

earth. Smaller, temporary wikiup-like shelters, made of upright poles and cloaked in 

brush, were used in the warm seasons while hunting and gathering (Curtis 1924; 

Kroeber 1925). Other structures commonly associated with village sites include 

semi-subterranean dance houses, acorn granaries, and sweathouses (Wilson and 

Towne 1978). Each Nisenan tribelet controlled the natural resources within a 

bounded tract of land (Littlejohn 1928). These boundaries were often indicated by 

piles of stones (Littlejohn 1928). Beals (1933) estimated that Nisenan tribelet 

territory averaged approximately 100 square miles. 

Subsistence 

The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and 

gathering. Acorns from the California Black Oak, the primary staple, were gathered 

in the fall and stored in granaries for use during the rest of the year. Other plant 

resources included seeds, buckeye, wild onion, wild sweet potato, Indian potato, wild 

garlic, wild carrot, many varieties of berries and fruit, grasses, herbs, and rushes. 

During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect 

food resources particular to higher elevations. 

Communal hunting drives were undertaken to obtain deer, quail, rabbits, and 

grasshoppers. Game was prepared by roasting, baking, or drying. Mountain lions and 

bobcats were hunted for their skins, as well as their meat, and bears were hunted 

ceremonially in the winter when their hides were at their best condition (Wilson and 

Towne 1978). Runs of salmon in the spring and fall provided a regular supply of 

fish, while other fish, such as suckers, pike, whitefish, and trout, were caught with 

hooks, harpoons, nets, weirs, snares, fish traps, or by using fish poisons, such as 

soaproot. Birds were trapped with nooses or large nets, and shot with bow and arrow 

(Wilson and Towne 1978). 

Many wild plants may also have been “managed” by prescribed burning that 

removed underbrush and encouraged growth of edible grasses, seed producing 

plants, and other useful plant resources, such as basketry materials (Blackburn and 

Anderson 1993). The use of fire for environmental modification and as an aid in 

hunting is frequently mentioned in ethnographic literature relating to the Nisenan. 

Littlejohn (1928) noted that the lower foothills in the valley oak zone were thickly 

covered with vegetation that was annually burned by the Nisenan to remove and 

limit its growth while encouraging the growth of oaks and the harvest of acorns. The 

annual fires destroyed seedlings, but did not harm established oak trees. Beals (1933) 

also noted that the Nisenan regularly burned the land, primarily for the purpose of 

driving game. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-5 

Technology and Trade 

Stone technology included flaked stone knives, projectile points, and other tools 

made from obsidian, basalt, and silicates. Ground stone tools included club heads, 

pipes, charms, and mortars and pestles made from local coarser-grained rocks (Beals 

1933; Wilson and Towne 1978). Shells and beads manufactured from bone, shell, 

and minerals, such as magnesite, were used for ornamentation. Wood and bone were 

used for a variety of tools and weapons, including bows, arrow shafts and points, 

fishhooks, looped stirring sticks, flat-bladed mush paddles, pipes, and hide 

preparation tools. Cordage was made from plant material and was used to construct 

fishing nets as well as braided and twined tumplines. 

Baskets were used for a variety of tasks, including storing, cooking, serving, and 

processing foods. Basketry items consisted of burden baskets, traps, cradles, hats, 

cages, seed beaters, and winnowing trays. Basket manufacturing techniques included 

both twining and coiling, and baskets were decorated with a variety of designs and 

materials. Other woven artifacts included tule matting and netting made of 

milkweed, sage fibers, or wild hemp (Hill 1972). In the Sacramento Valley, the 

Nisenan used tule balsa rafts and log canoes (Kroeber 1929) for fishing and used the 

boats extensively for travel among the major river villages. 

Trade and exchange networks were established with neighboring groups for food and 

other items, both practical and ornamental, which were not available within Nisenan 

territory. Clamshell disk beads, used as a mode of currency, were acquired from 

Patwin and other outside sources. Obsidian was highly valued and imported. Nisenan 

informants stated that obsidian only came from a place to the north, outside of 

Nisenan territory (Littlejohn 1928). Abundant archaeological evidence suggests that 

the vast majority of obsidian in southern Nisenan territory is derived from either 

Bodie Hills to the east, or Napa Valley to the west. Nisenan commodities traded to 

neighboring groups included salmon, deer, and acorns (Davis 1961). 

Intergroup Relations 

Nisenan and Miwok peoples frequently interacted as trading partners, at ceremonial 

gatherings, and in armed conflict primarily due to perceived territorial encroachment. 

In fact, the ethnographic literature, particularly in reference to the Nisenan, reports 

rather regular hostilities between Hill and Valley Nisenan, and Nisenan and Sierra 

Miwok (cf., Littlejohn 1928; Beals 1933). Most interactions between the two 

ethnographic groups, however, appear to have been civil, friendly in nature, and 

characterized by considerable intermarriage. 

Ethnohistory 

Initial contact with Euroamericans in the eighteenth century had little effect on the 

Nisenan. The earliest contacts were Spanish exploratory expeditions in the Central 

Valley led by José Canizares and Gabriel Moraga, followed in the 1820s by 

American and Hudson’s Bay Company trappers. Introduced diseases, against which 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

they had no natural immunities, were the single greatest cause of death among 

California Indians after Euroamerican contact. The great epidemic of 1833 (probably 

malaria) devastated the Valley Nisenan population by as much as 75 percent, in 

some instances, wiping out entire villages. 

Captain John Sutter settled in Nisenan territory in 1839. Word of James Marshall’s 

1848 discovery of gold near the Nisenan settlement of Culloma (Coloma) soon 

triggered an influx of thousands of fortune seekers in Hill Nisenan territory (Wilson 

and Towne 1978). From the 1870s until the 1890s, Nisenan culture experienced a 

resurgence with the Ghost Dance revival. Indian “rancherias” were established by 

the federal government in the Maidu area between 1906 and 1937. Today, the 

majority of the estimated 2,500 Maiduan peoples (including persons descended from 

Nisenan, Konkow, and Maidu groups) live within the traditional territory inhabited at 

historic contact by their ancestors. 

Historical Overview 

Exploration into the interior of present-day California began in 1808 with an 

expedition led by the Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga, who sought potential sites 

for new missions (Thompson and West 1880). The British, working for the Hudson’s 

Bay Company based out of Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River, entered the 

region from the north via the Siskiyou Trail in the late 1800s (Dillon 1975). The 

Americans, led by Jedidiah Strong Smith in 1826, followed an overland route 

(Hurtado 1988). Smith led a small band of men across the Sacramento Valley in 

1827, searching for a pass across the Sierra Nevada, and camping at a site that is now 

part of the City of Folsom. 

In the 1840s, fur trappers were followed by military expeditions, which were charged 

with exploring the region in advance of American westward expansion. A 

detachment of the Wilkes expedition, led by Lieutenant George Foster Emmons, 

traveled from the Columbia River to Sacramento in 1841. John Charles Frémont led 

the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers into present-day California twice in the 

1840s on two separate expeditions. 

The area surrounding the Folsom Reservoir was first settled by Euroamericans 

following the discovery of gold at Coloma in 1848. This discovery led to an influx of 

miners, who sought rich placer deposits along the American River and its tributaries. 

As new deposits were discovered, towns and camps were established near the 

discoveries and quickly developed into communities to provide for the needs of the 

expanding population. These communities included Mormon Island, Goose Flat, 

Alabama Bar, Sailor’s Bar, Negro Hill, Salmon Falls, McDowell Hill, Beal’s Bar, 

Condemned Bar, Doton’s Bar, Long Bar, Horseshoe Bar, and Rattlesnake Bar 

(Hoover et al. 1990; Peak and Associates 1990; Waechter and Mikesell 1994). 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-7 

Mormon Island, site of California’s second important gold discovery, was one of the 

most prominent of these early communities. The camp was originally established on 

a gravel bar at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the American River. 

The settlement was located on a branch of the Coloma Road, the first route into the 

region that connected Sutter’s Fort in Sacramento to his sawmill in Coloma. “By 

1853, the camp had some 2,500 inhabitants and had three dry good stores, five 

general merchandise stores, two blacksmith’s shops, a bakery, saloons, hotels, 

schools, a post office, and express offices for both Wells Fargo & Company and 

Adams & Company” (Waechter and Mikesell 1994). As with the majority of the 

communities formed by miners, Mormon Island went into decline as nearby gold 

deposits were exhausted. By the 1880s, the population had dwindled to 20 and no 

residents were present when the town site was inundated by the Folsom Reservoir. 

As hard rock and hydraulic mining replaced placer mining in the 1850s, the need for 

large amounts of water led to the construction of numerous dams, ditches, and 

flumes throughout the region. The largest and most prominent of these endeavors 

were undertaken by two joint stock companies: the Natoma Water and Mining 

Company; and, the American River Ditch Company. Although several smaller 

companies, such as the Salmon Falls Water and Mining Company who constructed 

the Clark-Eastman Ditch and the Negro Hill Ditch Company who constructed the 

Negro Hill Ditch, were involved in the creation of water conveyance systems in the 

region, these operations were overshadowed by the large scale projects of the 

Natoma Water and Mining Company and the later American River Ditch Company. 

First founded by A.P. Catlin in 1851 and later acquired by H.G. Livermore in 1862, 

the Natoma Water and Mining Company completed its first water conveyance from 

near Salmon Falls on the South Fork of the American River to Granite City (Folsom) 

in 1854. That same year, several shareholders organized the American River Ditch 

Company to complete a similar project along the North Fork of the American River. 

Following the company’s acquisition by Livermore in 1862, the company became 

increasingly interested in water development for industry as well as for logging. The 

Natoma Water and Mining Company spawned two additional entities under 

Livermore, the Folsom Water and Power Company, which promoted water-powered 

industry, and the American River Land and Lumber Company, which controlled the 

timber-related activities (Waechter and Mikesell 1994). As part of this move to 

waterpower and logging, the original Folsom Dam was completed in 1893. 

Although mining continued in importance through the second half of the nineteenth 

century, the depletion of gold deposits led to an increased investment in other 

activities, most significantly, agriculture. Initially developed for mining, the series of 

ditches and flumes throughout the Folsom DS/FDR area provided the necessary 

water to provide for the agricultural productivity of the region. In response to the 

switch from mining to agriculture, the Natoma Water and Mining Company as well 

as the American River Ditch Company organized several new companies, including 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

the Natoma Vineyards Company and the North Fork Ditch Company. In the 

twentieth century, through a series of reorganizations and sales, the Natoma Water 

and Mining Company became simply the Natoma Company while the American 

River Ditch Company became the San Juan Suburban Water District (Waechter and 

Mikesell 1994). 

As the twentieth century progressed, agriculture replaced mining as the dominant 

industry in the region. The ample supply of water and the rich soils in the area 

provided for the cultivation of grain, hay, wine grapes, oranges, and other fruits 

(Peak and Associates 1990). Although a small community existed at Salmon Falls, 

none of the numerous mining communities that existed in the area in the nineteenth 

century remained. By the early 1950s, when the federal government acquired the 

land for the construction of Folsom Dam, few people inhabited the Folsom DS/FDR 

area. 

The Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955 and consists of a concrete dam flanked by 

earth wing dams and dikes with a total length of approximately nine miles. The 

reservoir created by the dam has approximately 10,000 surface acres of water when 

full and approximately 75 miles of shoreline. The reservoir extends approximately 

15 miles up the north fork and 11 miles up the south fork of the American River. The 

Folsom Dam is part of the Central Valley Project, which includes a vast network of 

dams, reservoirs, canals, power plants, and pumping plants throughout California’s 

Central Valley. 

Archaeological Overview 

The Folsom DS/FDR area of analysis lies within the eastern Sacramento Valley and 

western Sierra Nevada slope regions. Archaeologists have developed distinct cultural 

histories for each of these regions. 

Sacramento Valley 

Archaeological evidence suggests that the Sacramento Valley was initially settled in 

the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene. Isolated finds of fluted projectile points 

are perhaps the best evidence for occupation of northern California between 12,000 

and 10,000 Before Present (BP), although firm evidence has been elusive. 

Archaeological sites dated to the latter half of the Holocene have been documented 

in much greater numbers and detail in the Sacramento / San Joaquin Delta region 

than the preceding periods. 

The first documented archaeological excavations were those of amateur 

archaeologists J.A. Barr, H.C. Meredith, and E.J. Dawson, who conducted 

archaeological investigations in the Central Valley of California between 1893 and 

1901. Barr’s excavations, which focused on mounds near Stockton, were later 

synthesized and published by H.C. Meredith (Meredith 1900). The first diachronic 

overview of the Northern San Joaquin Valley was published by E.J. Dawson and 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-9 

W.E. Schenck, who presented the findings of investigations of more than 90 

archaeological sites in the region (Schenck and Dawson 1929). 

Numerous investigations of the Central Valley were undertaken in the 1930s by 

Sacramento Junior College. Initial research focused on the mounds above the 

floodplain of the Cosumnes River (Lillard et al. 1939; Lillard and Purves 1936). 

Investigations of the Augustine (CA-SAC-127), Booth (CA-SAC-126), and 

Windmiller (CA-SAC-107) Mounds yielded a variety of features and artifacts 

including burials, shell beads, charmstones, and ornaments. Artifact typologies, 

burial patterns, and the “condition of human bones” (Moratto 1984) were used to 

distinguish cultural strata. Based on their findings, Lillard and Purves (1936) 

developed a three-stage cultural sequence comprised of “cultural levels:” Early, 

Intermediate, and Late. 

This sequence was later elaborated by Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga (1939). A Delta 

Sequence, composed of periods, was proposed by Lillard et al. (1939). The three 

periods, Early, Transitional, and Late, were distinguished based on mortuary 

patterns and ornamental artifacts. Beardsley (1948, 1954), Heizer (1949), and Ragir 

(1972) elaborated the Delta Sequence, which eventually evolved into the Central 

California Taxonomic System (CCTS). The CCTS proposed three cultural horizons: 

Early, Middle, and Late. 

• The Early Horizon is characterized by ventrally extended, westward-oriented 

burials; highly mineralized skeletal material; perforated charmstones; quartz 

crystals in burials; Olivella and abalone beads and ornaments; large and heavy 

stemmed and leaf-shaped, flaked-stone projectile points commonly made of nonobsidian materials; and, rare milling equipment. Sites tended to be very compact 

and away from present water resources. 

• The Middle Horizon is characterized by tightly flexed burials in varying 

orientation, some with powdered red ocher; imbedded projectile points in many 

of the burials (Beardsley 1948); diagnostic Olivella and Haliotis beads and 

ornaments; perforated canid teeth and bear claws; distinctively shaped 

charmstones lacking perforation; cobble mortars and chisel-ended pestles, seen 

by some as evidence of wooden mortars; an elaborate bone industry; large foliate 

and lanceolate concave base projectile points made of obsidian and other lithic 

materials; and, baked clay objects. 

• The Late Horizon is characterized by various types of primary burial and 

cremations as well as pre-interment burning of funerary articles; light and friable 

skeletal material; animals skeletons with burials; an abundance of baked clay 

artifacts; distinctive shell and stone beads and ornaments; flanged tubular 

smoking pipes; small side-notched arrow points commonly made of obsidian; 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

shaped flat-bottom mortars and cylindrical pestles; and, incised bird bone tubes. 

Sites are located near present water sources. 

The CCTS has largely fallen out of favor with researchers because it does not reflect 

the great diversity in the archaeological record of central California. Smaller spheres 

of culture were largely ignored by the CCTS due to its bias towards material remains 

(Waechter and Mikesell 1994). 

Fredrickson (1972, 1973) addressed many of the shortcomings of the CCTS when he 

proposed the use of patterns, modified by distinctive aspects and phases, which are 

not confined by temporal positions and serve to outline a general way of life. Such 

patterns are characterized by particular technological skills, economic forms, 

exchange networks, and ceremonial practices. Fredrickson identifies six such 

patterns in central California, and places them in a chronological framework. Three 

of these patterns are relevant to the prehistory of the Central Valley. 

• The Windmiller Pattern (4,500-3,000 BP) encompasses components ascribed to 

the Early Horizon of the CCTS, and is characterized by a mixed economy that 

includes both game and plant exploitation. The Windmiller Pattern suggests a 

seasonal adaptation of winter habitation sites in the valley and summer camps in 

the foothills (Fredrickson 1973). 

• The Berkeley Pattern (3,500-1,500 BP) corresponds with the Middle Horizon, 

and suggests a shift in milling equipment to a mortar and pestle technology and 

increased dependence on acorns. Projectile points and atlatls suggest that hunting 

game remained an important part of subsistence (Fredrickson 1973). 

• The Augustine Pattern (1,500 BP - Contact) is widespread in central California, 

and represents a mixture of traits retained from the from the Berkeley Pattern as 

well as a number of introduced traits, including bow and arrow technology as 

reflected in Gunther Barbed and other small projectile points. 

Sierra Nevada 

Sierra Nevada prehistoric archaeological deposits were first found during the Gold 

Rush era. Deposits consisting of mortars, charmstones, pestles, and human remains 

were among the cultural resources discovered in the 1850s and 1860s (Moratto 

1984). In the mid nineteenth century, mining led to the discovery of prehistoric sites. 

In the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries, dam construction within the Sierra 

also caused the discovery of numerous archaeological sites. 

In 1952, a total of 26 northern Sierra sites were recorded by University of California 

Berkeley archaeologists, T. Bolt, A.B. Elsasser, and R.F. Heizer. Two archaeological 

cultures were identified from this survey, the Martis Complex (centered in the Martis 

Valley) and the Kings Beach Complex (Lake Tahoe area). The Martis Complex was 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-11 

unusual for its use of basalt rather than obsidian for tool making. Dates from the 

tools suggest the complex is dated from 4000-2000 years BC to AD 500 (Moratto 

1984). 

The Kings Beach Complex (AD 500-1800) was distinguished by flaked obsidian and 

silicate implements, small projectiles points, the bow and arrow, and occasional 

scrapers and bedrock mortars (Moratto 1984). Two archaeologists, W.A. Davis and 

R. Elston, continued to piece together the connection between these two complexes 

and expanded testing. Jacks Lake and Spooner Lake Summit were two of the 

primary sites they used to develop a chronology that spanned about 7000 years 

(Moratto 1984). 

In 1970, Ritter compared various Lake Oroville area sites to the Martis Valley and 

Kings Beach sites to help develop a chronology for the Lake Oroville area. The Lake 

Oroville chronology consists of the Mesilla, Bidwell, Sweetwater, and Oroville 

Complexes, as well as the ethnographic Maidu era, and spans a period of about 3000 

years (Moratto 1984). 

The Mesilla Complex was identified as a sporadic occupation of the foothills. People 

who created this complex hunted with atlatls and processed their food in mortar 

bowls and on millingstones. Shell beads, charmstones, and bone pins show a close 

relationship between the Mesilla Complex and the Sacramento Valley cultures 

between 1000 BC and AD 1 (Moratto 1984). 

After the Mesilla Complex occupation, the cultural sequence continued with the 

Bidwell Complex from AD 1 to AD 800. The Bidwell Complex people lived in 

permanent villages, hunted deer and smaller game with slate and basalt projectile 

points, fished, ground acorns on millingstones, and collected fresh water mussels. A 

new cultural element for this complex was the manufacture of steatite cooking 

vessels (Moratto 1984). 

The Sweetwater Complex (AD 800-1500) is defined by new cultural items and 

forms, which include: particular shell ornament types; wider use of steatite for cups, 

bowls and smoking pipes; and, small, lighter projectile points that indicate the use of 

bows and arrows for hunting (Moratto 1984). 

The Oroville Complex is significant because it represents the protohistoric Nisenan 

(AD 1500 to 1833) (Moratto 1984). The Nisenan culture was characterized by 

bedrock mortars for acorn processing, dance halls, and burials placed in tightly 

flexed positions on their sides marked with stone cairns. The Lake Oroville 

Chronology sequence ended with the historic era and abandonment of traditional 

settlements in the nineteenth century (Moratto 1984). 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Previous Research and Identified Cultural Resources 

Folsom DS/FDR features were listed beginning in the vicinity of Granite Bay and 

moving counter clockwise around Folsom Reservoir (see Figure 2-1). Additionally, 

the Main Concrete Dam, raised retention area, and new embankments/flood 

easements were included within the area of analysis. 

Dike 1 Contractor Staging Area 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Dikes 1, 2, and 3 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

Central Valley Project (CVP). This nomination concludes that the dikes are noncontributing elements to the CVP Multiple Property Nomination (MPN). This 

determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National Register. 

Beal’s / Granite Bay Borrow Site 

The portion of this area located to the north of Mooney Ridge was surveyed by Far 

Western Anthropological Research Group (1992). The portion of this area located 

along and to the south of Mooney Ridge was surveyed by URS (2006). 

The Far Western survey resulted in the discovery of 24 cultural resources. These 

cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-1. The URS survey resulted in the 

discovery of four new sites, two new isolates, and the re-recording or re-visiting of 

four previously known sites. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-2. An 

additional four sites were identified in the records search provided to Pacific Legacy 

by Reclamation. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-3 and are located in 

the area south of Mooney Ridge. 

Dike 4 Contractor Staging Area 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. Accessible/visible portions of the surface area 

were inspected. No cultural resources were located in this area. 

Dike 4 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-13 

Table 3.11-1 

Cultural Resources within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site (Far Western 1992)

Trinomial / 

Temporary 

No. 

Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management Recommendation (Far 

Western 1992) 

CA-PLA-158/ 

255 

PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1975 435-460 Auger and test excavations 

CA-PLA-248 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1977 420 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-254 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1977 380 Auger and test excavations 

CA-PLA-746 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 410 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-747 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 410 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-748 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 400 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-749/H PREHISTORIC AND 

HISTORIC: Lithics and 

Historic Debris 

1992 420 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-750H HISTORIC: Historic 

Debris 

1992 410 Data potential exhausted by recordation 

CA-PLA-751 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 425 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-752 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 420 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-753 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 415 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-754 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 405 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-755 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 418 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-756 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 1992 420 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-759 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1992 440 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-760 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1992 405 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-761 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 395 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-762 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 425 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-763 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 440 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program (Jackson et al. 1988) 

CA-PLA-764 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 430 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-765 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 425 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-768 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1992 405 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 

CA-PLA-769/H HISTORIC: Historic 

Debris 

1992 480 Auger and test excavations 

FD-23/90-1 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

1991 440 Surface collect, record, analyze, and auger 

to test midden potential 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.11-2 

Cultural Resources Within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site (URS 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

CA-PLA-243 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1977 424 Not relocated during survey 

CA-PLA-244 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics 

1977 426 None provided 

CA-PLA-247H HISTORIC: Historic 

Structure and Historic 

Debris 

Unknown 390 Not relocated during survey 

CA-PLA-520H HISTORIC: Large 

Earthen Ditch 

1992 460 Not relocated during survey 

Site M-1 PREHISTORIC: 

Bedrock Mortars and 

Lithics 

2005 420 None provided 

Site M-2 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics 

2005 420 None provided 

Site M-3 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics 

2005 420 None provided 

Site M-4 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics 

2005 420 None provided 

Isolate I-18 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone Fragment 

2005 435 None provided 

Isolate I-19 PREHISTORIC: 

Portable Anvil Stone 

2005 460 None provided 

Table 3.11-3 

Cultural Resources Within Beal’s /Granite Bay Borrow Site (North Central Information 

Center (NCIC) 2005)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

CA-PLA-246 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1977 390 None provided 

CA-PLA-249 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1977 415 None provided 

CA-PLA-250H HISTORIC: Concrete 

Structure near Flume 

Unknown 400 None provided 

CA-PLA-251H HISTORIC: Historic 

Dump 

Unknown 400 None provided 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes are non-contributing elements to the 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-15 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 1 

Portions of this area were surveyed by Welch (2005). The entire area was surveyed 

by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in transects of no greater than 

ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. Two cultural resources were recorded 

by Welch (2005) and re-recorded by Pacific Legacy (2006). These cultural resources 

are listed in Table 3.11-4. 

Table 3.11-4 

Cultural Resources Within Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 1 (Pacific Legacy 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

Dike 5-1 HISTORIC: Concretelined rectangular pit 

with no associated 

artifacts or features 

2005 400 Flag and avoid. Document 

and evaluate through 

historical research and test 

excavation. 

Dike 5-2 HISTORIC: Water 

conveyance system 

consisting of earthen 

ditch, concrete intake, 

and six concrete 

supports for an 

approximately 24-inch 

pipe, which no longer 

is extant 

2005 400 Flag and avoid. Document 

and evaluate through 

historical research. 

Dike 5 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes are non-contributing elements to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 5 Contractor Staging Area 2 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site and Right Wing Dam Haul Area 

The portion of this area located to the south and east of Beal’s Point was surveyed by 

Far Western Anthropological Research Group (1993). The portion of this area 

located along Beal’s Point and to the north and west was surveyed by URS (2006). 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The Far Western survey resulted in the discovery of ten cultural resources within the 

current Folsom DS/FDR area and the re-recording of two previously known cultural 

resources. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-5. The URS survey 

resulted in the discovery of two new isolates. These cultural resources are listed in 

Table 3.11-6. An additional seven previously recorded sites were also noted on the 

records search provided to Pacific Legacy by Reclamation. The documents provided 

to Pacific Legacy by Reclamation did not include site records for six of these cultural 

resources. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-7. 

Dike 6 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes are non-contributing elements to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 6 Contractor Staging Area 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Right Wing Dam 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. Two 

previously recorded cultural resources were noted in the records search, but were not 

relocated during Pacific Legacy’s survey. CA-SAC-412 is close to, but does not 

extend into, the present Folsom DS/FDR area. P-31-60 is an isolated find that was 

not relocated during Pacific Legacy’s survey. The cultural resources are listed in 

Table 3.11-8. 

Folsom Dam, including the Right Wing Dam, was found eligible for listing on the 

NRHP by the Corps in the report titled Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey 

and National Register Evaluation of Folsom Dam and Properties for the Folsom 

Bridge Project and, on June 26, 2006, SHPO concurred with the finding that the dam 

is eligible under Criterion A. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that Folsom Dam, including the central concrete 

structure and both adjacent wing dams, is considered a contributing element to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-17 

Table 3.11-5 

Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site and Right Wing Dam Haul Area 

(Far Western 1993)

Trinomial / 

Temporary 

No. 

Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation (Far 

Western 1992) 

CA-PLA-253H HISTORIC: Historic 

Structure 

1993 380 Historical research, surface 

collection, and subsurface 

testing 

CA-PLA-520H HISTORIC: Large 

Earthen Ditch 

1992 460 None provided 

FD-3(I) PREHISTORIC: Shale 

Stemmed Projectile 

Point Basal Fragment 

1993 410 None provided 

FD-47 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1993 422 Auger and test excavations 

FD-48 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1993 429 Auger and test excavations 

FD-50/H PREHISTORIC AND 

HISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) and 

Historic Debris 

1993 405 Auger and test excavations 

FD-52 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1993 410 Auger to test for subsurface 

deposit and, if none, apply 

Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program 

(Jackson et al. 1988) 

FD-55 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1993 370 Auger and test excavations 

FD-56/H PREHISTORIC AND 

HISTORIC: Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

and Historic Debris 

1993 390 Auger to test for subsurface 

deposit and, if none, apply 

Sparse Lithic Scatter Data 

Acquisition Program 

(Jackson et al. 1988) 

FD-57 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1993 410 Auger and test excavations 

FD-58 PREHISTORIC: Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1993 412 Apply Sparse Lithic Scatter 

Data Acquisition Program 

(Jackson et al. 1988) 

FD-59 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1993 410 Auger and test excavations 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.11-6 

Additional Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site and Right Wing Dam 

Haul Area (URS 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

Isolate I-17 HISTORIC: Fourteeninch-diameter Ferrous 

Pipe 

2005 425 None provided 

Isolate I-20 PREHISTORIC: Basalt 

Biface 

1977 425 None provided 

Table 3.11-7 

Additional Cultural Resources within Beal’s / Dam Borrow Site and Right Wing Dam 

Haul Area (NCIC 2005)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

CA-PLA-435 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and 

Lithics (Potential 

Subsurface) 

1987 400-410 None provided 

CA-PLA-947 Unknown Unknown 400 None provided 

CA-PLA-948 Unknown Unknown 420 None provided 

CA-PLA-949 Unknown Unknown 420 None provided 

CA-PLA-950 Unknown Unknown 400 None provided 

CA-PLA-955 Unknown Unknown 400 None provided 

CA-PLA-959 Unknown Unknown 420 None provided 

Table 3.11-8 

Cultural Resources within Right Wing Dam

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) Management Recommendation 

CA-SAC-412 HISTORIC: Right-ofway of the 

Sacramento, Placer, 

and Nevada Railroad 

1986 330 Resource recorded approximately 

one mile to southwest of Folsom 

DS/FDR area and does not exist in 

projected location within Folsom 

DS/FDR area 

P-31-60 HISTORIC: One 

dressed stone noted 

in fill of American 

River Bike Path 

1987 430 Data potential exhausted by 

recordation 

Right Wing Dam Contractor Staging Area 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-19 

Below Left Wing Dam 

This area was surveyed by Bell (2004). No cultural resources were located during the 

survey. The area was greatly disturbed from dam construction. No cultural resources 

were located in this area. 

Folsom Dam, including the Left Wing Dam, was found eligible for listing on the 

NRHP by the Corps in the report titled Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey 

and National Register Evaluation of Folsom Dam and Properties for the Folsom 

Bridge Project and, on June 26, 2006, SHPO concurred with the finding that the dam 

is eligible under Criterion A. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that Folsom Dam, including the central concrete 

structure and both adjacent wing dams, is considered a contributing element to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 7 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes are non-contributing elements to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 7 Contractor Staging Area 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Dike 8 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes are non-contributing elements to the 

CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

Dike 8 / MIAD Borrow Site and Left Wing Dam Haul Area 

This area was surveyed by URS (2006). The URS survey resulted in the discovery of 

seven new isolates. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-9. 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.11-9 

Cultural Resources within Dike 8/MIAD Borrow Site and Left Wing Dam Haul Area 

(URS 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary 

No. 

Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

Isolate I-6 HISTORIC: Concrete 

Barrier Post 

2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-7 HISTORIC: Iron Ferry 

Platform at end of Dike 

8 

2005 470 None provided 

Isolate I-8 HISTORIC: Concrete 

Blocks at north end of 

Dike 8 

2005 470 None provided 

Isolate I-9 PREHISTORIC: Basalt 

Core 

2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-21 PREHISTORIC: Basalt 

Flake and Quartzite 

Hammerstone 

2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-22 PREHISTORIC: 

Obsidian Biface 

2005 440 None provided 

Isolate I-23 PREHISTORIC: 

Quartzite Flake 

2005 440 None provided 

MIAD Borrow Site 2 (AKA D2) 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. One 

cultural resource was located during survey of area by Pacific Legacy. This resource 

is listed in Table 3.11-10. 

Table 3.11-10 

Cultural Resource within MIAD Borrow Site 2 (D2) (Pacific Legacy 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

PL-FDEIS-1 HISTORIC: Small 

Prospect Pit (3 m by 3 

m) with no associated 

artifacts or features 

2006 500 Flag and avoid. Document 

and evaluate through 

historical research and test 

excavation. 

MIAD Borrow Site 1 (AKA D1) 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 

MIAD 

This area was surveyed by Pacific Legacy (2006). The entire area was walked in 

transects of no greater than ten meters. The entire surface was inspected. No cultural 

resources were located in this area. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-21 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register nomination for the 

CVP. This nomination concludes that the dikes, including MIAD, are noncontributing elements to the CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the 

Keeper of the National Register. 

Brown’s Ravine Borrow Site 

This area was surveyed by URS (2006), Welch et al. (2004), and West (1990). The 

URS survey resulted in the discovery of ten new isolates and the re-recording of one 

previously known site. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-11. An 

additional six previously recorded sites were also noted on the records search 

provided to Pacific Legacy by Reclamation. The documents provided to Pacific 

Legacy by Reclamation did not include site records for these cultural resources. 

These cultural resources are listed in Table 3.11-12. 

Table 3.11-11 

Cultural Resources within Brown’s Ravine Borrow Site (URS 2006)

Trinomial / 

Temporary 

No. 

Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

Site FDSOD-3 PREHISTORIC: Bedrock 

Mortars, Groundstone, and 

Lithic Scatter 

2004 443 None provided 

Isolate I-1 HISTORIC: Red Brick 

Fragment 

2005 400 None provided 

Isolate I-2 HISTORIC: Two-inchdiameter Iron Pipe 

Fragment and White 

Ceramic 

2005 400 None provided 

Isolate I-3 HISTORIC: Wooden 

Platform, Iron Braces, and 

Willows 

2005 400 None provided 

Isolate I-4 HISTORIC: Two-inchdiameter Iron Pipe 2005 430 None provided 

Isolate I-11 HISTORIC: Beer Can 2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-12 HISTORIC: Ovate Schist 

Rock Pile and Red Brick 

Fragments 

2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-13 HISTORIC: Red Brick 

Fragment 

2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-14 HISTORIC: Corrugated 

Metal Pipe 

2005 430 None provided 

Isolate I-16 HISTORIC: One-half-inchdiameter Iron Pipe 2005 450 None provided 

Isolate I-17 HISTORIC: Fourteen-inchdiameter Ferrous Pipe 2005 450 None provided 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 3.11-12 

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within Brown’s Ravine Borrow Site (NCIC 2005)

Trinomial / 

Temporary No. Description Date 

Recorded 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Management 

Recommendation 

CA-ELD-261 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

(Potential Subsurface) 

1977 430-435 None provided 

CA-ELD-1238/H HISTORIC: Natoma Ditch 1996 Unknown None Provided 

Site FDSOD-1 HISTORIC: Historic 

Foundation, Trash Pit, and 

Historic Debris 

2004 405 None provided 

Site FDSOD-2 HISTORIC: Historic 

Foundation, Footings, 

Orchard, and Historic Debris 

2004 410 None provided 

Site FDSOD-4 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

2004 422 None provided 

Site FDSOD-5 PREHISTORIC: 

Groundstone and Lithics 

2004 422 None provided 

Main Concrete Dam 

As part of Alternatives 1 through 5, as outlined in Section 2.2, modifications would 

be made to the Main Concrete Dam structure. The dam was found eligible for listing 

on the NRHP by the Corps in the report titled Cultural Resources Archaeological 

Survey and National Register Evaluation of Folsom Dam and Properties for the 

Folsom Bridge Project and, on June 26, 2006, SHPO concurred with the finding that 

the dam is eligible under Criterion A. If one and/or portions of Alternatives 1 

through 5 are chosen, Reclamation will follow the requirements of Section 106 of the 

NHPA as implemented in 36 CFR Part 800 and Reclamation’s Policies and 

Directives found at LND P01, LND 02-01 and LND 10-01. 

Raised Impoundment Area 

As part of Alternatives 2 through 5 as outlined in Section 2.2, there exists a potential 

for an increased retention area for the reservoir. This increased retention area has not 

been subject to inventory for cultural resources. If one and/or portions of 

Alternatives 2 through 5 are chosen, Reclamation will follow the requirements of 

Section 106 of the NHPA as implemented in 36 CFR Part 800 and Reclamation’s 

Policies and Directives found at LND P01, LND 02-01 and LND 10-01. 

New Embankments/Flood Easements 

As part of Alternatives 2 through 5 as outlined in Section 2.2, new 

embankments/flood easements may need to be constructed at low points surrounding 

the reservoir due to the raised retention area. The locations of the new 

embankments/flood easements have not been subject to inventory for cultural 

resources. If one and/or portions of Alternatives 2 through 5 are chosen, Reclamation 

will follow the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA as implemented in 36 CFR 

Part 800 and Reclamation’s Policies and Directives found at LND P01, LND 02-01 

and LND 10-01. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-23 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

A historic property and/or a historical resource, a cultural resource must possess at 

least one of the criterion of eligibility and retain the quality of integrity. The concept 

of integrity is usually interpreted to mean “intactness” of physical characteristics, but 

in terms of the NRHP and the CRHR, integrity is a measure of the degree to which a 

property retains or is able to convey the essential characteristics defined under one of 

the four eligibility criteria. These characteristics may be expressed through integrity 

of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of a 

property. An archaeological property may retain sufficient integrity to qualify it for 

the NRHP or CRHR if the property retains the ability to yield information important 

to an understanding of history or prehistory. It must be demonstrated to have the 

potential, or to have previously yielded, data that can be used to address important 

research questions. 

The standard for integrity for NRHP eligible properties is more stringent than that for 

CRHR eligible cultural resources. It should be noted that a property found to not 

retain sufficient integrity to be NRHP eligible may be found to possess sufficient 

integrity to be CRHR eligible. One identified cultural resource within the Folsom 

DS/FDR area, the Folsom Dam, has been found eligible for listing on the NRHP and 

is considered a historic property and historical resource. None of the other identified 

cultural resources within the Folsom DS/FDR area have been formally evaluated as 

to their eligibility for listing on either the NRHP or the CRHR. 

Federal significance criteria apply because the proposed action constitutes a federal 

undertaking that requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural 

resource significance is evaluated in terms of eligibility for listing on the NRHP. 

NRHP criteria for eligibility are defined as follows: 

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, 

archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess 

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling 

and association, and that: 

a) are associated with events that have made a contribution to the broad 

pattern of our history; 

b) are associated with the lives of people significant in our past; 

c) embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high 

artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction; or, 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

d) have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history (36 CFR Part 60.4). 

Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) 

require that the ACHP, SHPO, and the interested public, including Native 

Americans, be provided an opportunity to comment on the effects that the proposed 

action may have on historic properties. 

CEQA defines a significant historical resource as “a resource listed or eligible for 

listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Pub. Res. Code Section 

5024.1). For a historical resource to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, it must be 

significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following 

four criteria: 

1) it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of 

California or the United States; 

2) it is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or 

national history; 

3) it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or 

method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses 

high artistic values; or, 

4) it has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the 

prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 

Historical resources automatically listed on the CRHR include those historic 

properties listed on, or formally determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

3.11.2.1 Assessment Methods 

The criteria for determining the historical significance of cultural resources are the 

NRHP eligibility criteria as defined at 36 CFR Part 60.4, and the CRHR eligibility 

criteria as defined at Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code. One 

identified cultural resource within the Folsom DS/FDR area, the Folsom Dam, has 

been found eligible for listing on the NRHP and is considered a historic property and 

historical resource. None of the other identified cultural resources within the Folsom 

DS/FDR area have been evaluated as to their eligibility for listing on either the 

NRHP or the CRHR. Federal agencies are responsible to make determinations of 

NRHP eligibility for cultural resources that will be affected by an undertaking. 

SHPO concurrence with the agencies’ NRHP determinations is necessary for a 

formal determination. Alternatively, an evaluation of a historic property may be 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-25 

submitted to the Keeper of the NRHP for a formal determination of NRHP 

eligibility. 

The analysis of potential impacts to historic properties employs the Criteria of 

Adverse Effect as developed by the ACHP in its regulations for the “Protection of 

Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800.5). Adverse effects and/or significant impacts 

can occur when NRHP eligible or listed sites, structures, buildings, objects, or 

districts are subjected to one or more of the following effects: 

• physical destruction or alteration of all or part of the property; 

• isolation of the property from or alteration of the property’s setting when that 

character contributes to the property’s qualification for the NRHP; 

• introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character 

with the property or alter its setting; 

• neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and, 

• transfer, lease, or sale of the property (36 CFR Part 800.6). 

Because the proposed action must also comply with CEQA, an impact is considered 

potentially significant if an action would have an effect that may change the 

historical significance of the resource (Pub. Res. Code Section 21084.1). Demolition, 

replacement, substantial alteration, and relocation of historic properties are actions 

that would change the historical significance of a property eligible for listing or listed 

on the CRHR. 

3.11.2.2 Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of the No Action/No Project 

Alternative 

Under the No Action/No Project Alternative as outlined in Section 2.2, no 

construction-related activities or changes in current operation would take place. 

Therefore, no construction-related effects would occur. No new operation-related 

effects would result from this alternative. Current existing conditions, such as 

disturbance to cultural resources by looters, vehicles, wave action erosion, 

sedimentation, changing water levels, and redistribution of cultural materials would 

continue. 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would have no effect on cultural resources. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 

Construction would lead to adverse effects to historic properties and/or historical 

resources. 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

All of the Folsom DS/FDR areas associated with Alternative 1, as outlined in Section 

2.2, have been subject to cultural resources survey and inventory. Under this 

alternative, a number of the cultural resources listed in Tables 3.11-1 through 3.11-

12 would be impacted. The exact number of cultural resources that would be 

impacted is dependent upon the water elevation at the time of implementation of the 

alternatives and also the area subject to ground disturbance during construction. One 

identified cultural resource within the Folsom DS/FDR area, the Folsom Dam 

(including the Left Wing Dam and Right Wing Dam), has been found eligible for 

listing on the NRHP and is considered a historic property and historical resource.

However, none of the other identified cultural resources have been evaluated as to 

NRHP and CRHR eligibility. Thus, the total number of historic properties (NRHP) 

or historical resources (CRHR) that would be impacted by implementation of 

Alternative 1 is unknown. Reclamation and the Corps will ensure that those cultural 

resources located within the area of potential effects (APE) will be evaluated for 

possible inclusion within the NRHP and the CRHR. Once historic properties and/or 

historical resources are identified, Reclamation and the Corps will invoke the criteria 

of effect to determine the level of alternative effects to each historic property and 

historical resource. Adverse effects will be resolved, under the NHPA, through 

development of an agreement document. Under NEPA and CEQA, constructionrelated impacts to historic properties and/or historical resources would be significant. 

This impact would be potentially significant if historic properties or historical 

resources are identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce 

this impact to a less than significant level. 

Construction would lead to adverse effects to previously unknown historic properties 

and/or historical resources.

There always exists the possibility that ground disturbing activities could result in 

the inadvertent discovery of potential historic properties and/or historical resources. 

This impact would be potentially significant if historic properties or historical 

resources are identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, as 

appropriate, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2, as outlined in Section 2.2, would have the same effect on cultural 

resources as Alternative 1 with exception to one additional impact. 

Construction would lead to adverse effects upon previously undiscovered and 

potential historic properties and/or historical resources within the area of the 

increased reservoir elevation, and locations of new embankment, or footprints of 

construction work at existing Folsom Facilities. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-27 

Portions of the shoreline around the retention area as well as the locations of the 

necessary new embankments/flood easements have not been subject to cultural 

resources survey and inventory. The remaining Folsom DS/FDR areas associated 

with Alternative 2 have been subject to cultural resources survey and inventory. 

However, identified cultural resources have not been subject to evaluation as to 

NRHP and CRHR eligibility. 

This impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 

CR-1, as appropriate, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequence/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3, as outlined in Section 2.2, would have the same effect on cultural 

resources as Alternative 2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, as 

appropriate, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 4 

Alternative 4, as outlined in Section 2.2, would have the same effect on cultural 

resources as Alternative 2. A 7 foot dam raise could result in more areas of 

inundation during high storm events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, 

as appropriate, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5, as outlined in Section 2.2, would have the same effect on cultural 

resources as Alternative 2. A 17 foot dam raise could result in more areas of 

inundation during high storm events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, 

as appropriate, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

3.11.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

Of the six alternatives presented, only the No Action/No Project Alternative would 

pose no new impacts to potential historic properties and/or historical resources. 

However, impacts associated with the current operation of the facilities (i.e., 

disturbance to cultural resources by looters, vehicles, wave action erosion, 

sedimentation, changing water levels, redistribution of cultural materials, etc.) would 

continue. The remaining five action alternatives pose varying degrees of potential 

impacts to potential historic properties and/or historical resources depending on the 

height of the dam raise and extent of construction activities. All alternative impacts 

would be mitigated to less than significant levels. 

Of the five action alternatives, Alternative 1 poses the least amount of potential 

impacts to historic properties and/or historical resources. Alternative 1 would not 

increase the reservoir maximum surface elevation and, thus, would not result in 

impacts to potential historic properties and/or historical resources located within the 

increased retention area or footprints of the new embankments/flood easements, 

which would not be constructed under this alternative. In addition to impacts 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

associated with current operation of the facilities, Alternative 1 would impact 

potential historic properties and/or historical resources, if found, that have been 

identified within the Folsom DS/FDR area. Ground disturbing activities may also 

impact previously unknown historic properties and/or historical resources 

inadvertently discovered. 

Alternative 2 poses greater potential impacts than Alternative 1 because this 

alternative would extend the Maximum Flood Zone and require the construction dam 

raises and new embankments/flood easements. The increase in Maximum Flood 

Zone may lead to impacts to sites as a result of inundation, wave action, and/or 

erosion. In addition to the impacts posed by Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would result 

in potential impacts to potential historic properties and/or historical resources located 

within the increased retention area and the footprints of the new embankments/flood 

easements. The potential impacts of Alternative 2 are less than those of Alternatives 

4 and 5 due. Alternative 3 poses similar impacts to Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 poses greater potential impacts than Alternatives 1 through 3. This 

alternative would extend the Maximum Flood Zone to a greater level than that of 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would result in potential impacts to potential 

historic properties and/or historical resources located within the increased retention 

area and the footprints of the new embankments/flood easements. Alternative 5 

poses greater potential impacts than Alternatives 1 through 4 because this alternative 

would extend the Maximum Flood Zone to a greater level than that of Alternatives 2 

through 4. 

3.11.4 Mitigation Measures 

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce all potential impacts to a 

less than significant level. Adverse effects to historic properties, under Section 106, 

are resolved through development of an agreement document. 

CR-1: Identification, Evaluation and Mitigation (Treatment) of Impacts to Historic 

Properties and/or Historical Resources. 

All cultural resources located within the APE will be evaluated for inclusion in the 

NRHP and the CRHR using criteria found at 36 CFR Part 800.4 or CRHR 

Guidelines. A memorandum of agreement or a programmatic agreement will be 

developed, in consultation with SHPO and consulting parties, to mitigate impacts to 

any identified historic properties or historic resources. The implementation of the 

agreement document will reduce impacts to historic properties or historic resources 

to less than significant levels, per NEPA and CEQA. Cultural resources that are 

determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR require no 

further management. It should be noted that some cultural resources may not meet 

NRHP eligibility criteria, but still may be CRHR eligible and could be managed per 

CEQA but not per NEPA. 
Chapter 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 3.11-29 

If human remains are discovered, procedures outlined in Reclamation’s Directive 

and Standards for the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains (LND 07-01) will 

be followed. 

The standard contract specifications contain directions to follow in the unlikely event 

of the discovery of other cultural resources during the construction phase of this 

project. Any such discovery will also be considered under the provisions of 36 CFR 

Part 800.13. 

3.11.5 Cumulative Effects 

Table 5-1 presents the projects that were considered in the analysis of cumulative 

effects. These are the New Folsom Bridge, Future Redundant Water Supply Intake 

and Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom and San Juan Water District, Folsom Dam Road 

Closure, L.L. Anderson Dam, Lower American River Common Features Project, 

Long Term Reoperation of Folsom Reservoir, and Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District Transmission Line Relocation. In addition to these projects, continued 

county, municipal, and private development in the region surrounding Folsom Dam 

should also be considered in this cultural resources analysis. Non-federal 

development in the surrounding region, not subject to NEPA or CEQA, has resulted 

in impacts to historic and prehistoric resources. 

For some of the cumulative projects listed above, the impacts on historic properties 

would not be known until further site-specific historic resource studies have been 

undertaken, project designs have been more fully developed, and projects 

implemented. For federal projects, the lead federal agency would carry out any 

necessary inventories and evaluations of NRHP significance; consultation with the 

SHPO and Native American groups and interested parties; and treatment/mitigation 

required by Section 106 of the NRHP. 

Cultural resources have been affected by past actions since Folsom Dam was 

constructed in 1956. Cultural resources could be subject to damage from ongoing 

maintenance, new construction, demolition, rehabilitation of existing facilities, and 

natural processes (e.g., wave erosion). The No Action/No Project Alternative would 

not result in a substantial change to the current condition of known or previously 

undiscovered cultural resources. Alternatives 1 through 5 have the potential to 

contribute to the loss of regional cultural resources as a consequence of disturbance 

or degradation of known or previously undiscovered archaeological sites. Alternative 

1 would have the least potential to impact cultural resources. Alternatives 2 through 

5 would incrementally increase the potential to impact cultural resources. 

With the growth potential of the area around the Folsom DS/FDR, private 

development in El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties may lead to incremental 

adverse impacts to cultural resources. However, provided that proper mitigation 

consistent with Section 106 of the NHPA for federal actions and CEQA for state, 
Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 

3.11-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

county and municipal actions, is implemented in conjunction with development of 

related projects in these counties and the surrounding region, no significant 

cumulative impacts are anticipated. The Folsom DS/FDR, in conjunction with the 

cumulative projects listed above, and the growth potential of the region, could lead to 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources. However, provided that proper mitigation 

consistent with Section 106 of the NHPA for federal actions and CEQA for state, 

county and municipal actions, is implemented for all projects, cumulative impacts 

would likely be avoided. The Folsom DS/FDR would implement appropriate 

mitigation measures and would therefore not contribute to a significant cumulative 

impact to cultural resources. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-1 

Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

This chapter presents potential economic effects of implementing the Folsom 

DS/FDR alternatives. This chapter is separate from other resources in Chapter 3 

because economic effects are treated differently under CEQA and NEPA. See 

Section 4.2.1 below. Therefore, this chapter is also organized differently than the 

resource analyses contained in Chapter 3 of this EIS/EIR. 

4.1 Regional Socioeconomic Setting 

The study area includes Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties where potential 

economic effects could occur from implementation of the alternatives. These 

counties are included because they border Folsom Reservoir and the Folsom Lake 

State Recreation Area (FLSRA) where the action alternatives would be implemented. 

This section includes a description of the local economy in the three-county region, 

as well as for the City of Folsom, which is adjacent to Folsom Reservoir and Dam. 

This section also includes a description of recreational activity in three recreation use 

areas; Folsom Point, Beal's Point, and Granite Bay within the FLSRA. 

4.1.1 Sacramento County 

4.1.1.1 Population and Income1

In 2005, Sacramento County had a population of about 1.37 million, an increase of 

25,000 people from 2004. From 1990 to 2000, the compound annual growth rate was 

1.6 percent; and, from 2000 to 2005, the compound annual growth rate increased to 

2.3 percent. The county’s population is projected to reach 2 million by 2020 (EDD 

2004). According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Sacramento County’s population was 64 

percent white, 10 percent black or African American, 1 percent Native American, 11 

percent Asian, 1 percent Pacific Islander, and the remaining classified as other or 

more than one race. 

In 2003, total personal income in Sacramento County was about $40.1 million and 

per capita personal income was $30,129 (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 

2005). From 1993-2003, average annual growth rate of per capita personal income in 

Sacramento County was 3.8 percent. Sacramento County ranked 10th among counties 

in the state in total personal income and 22nd in per capita personal income. In 1999, 

median family income was $50,717; 10 percent of families lived below the poverty 

level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a). In 2004, the poverty level for a family of two was 

an annual income of $12,490 and $18,550 for a family of four. 

 

1

 Population data presented in this chapter may differ from data in Section 3.16 Population and 

Housing. The population and housing analysis relies on specific Census Tract Data; and data in this 

chapter is presented at the county-level for background purposes. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

4.1.1.2 Industry 

Table 4-1 shows 2001 to 2003 industry earnings in Sacramento County. Top earning 

industries include government and government enterprises, health care and social 

assistance, finance and insurance, construction and retail trade. From 2001 to 2003, 

total industry earnings grew the most in absolute terms in the government and 

government enterprises sector, about $899.1 million. Finance and insurance industry 

earnings grew about $514.5 million from 2001 to 2003. In terms of percentage, the 

fastest growing industries from 2001 to 2003 were real estate and rental and leasing 

(29 percent increase), finance and insurance (24 percent increase), educational 

services (23 percent increase), health care and social assistance (19 percent increase), 

and arts, entertainment, and recreation (19 percent increase). 

Table 4-1 

Industry and Industry Earnings, Sacramento County, 2001 to 2003 

(in thousands) 

Industry 2001 2002 2003 

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other $37,602 $36,292 $37,365 

 Mining $50,309 $43,427 $45,755 

 Construction $2,255,393 $2,435,238 $2,623,129 

 Manufacturing $2,138,755 $2,122,699 $2,132,785 

 Wholesale trade $1,023,739 $1,070,828 $1,199,264 

 Retail trade $2,205,556 $2,291,242 $2,404,667 

 Transportation and warehousing $557,641 $528,025 $542,263 

 Information $1,157,718 $1,310,808 $1,306,141 

 Finance and insurance $2,160,665 $2,351,648 $2,675,182 

 Real estate and rental and leasing $606,564 $614,260 $779,951 

 Management of companies and enterprises $508,441 $486,469 $499,216 

 Administrative and waste services $1,183,837 $1,157,217 $1,172,318 

 Educational services $231,920 $264,631 $286,381 

 Health care and social assistance $2,546,460 $2,744,616 $3,039,722 

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $227,949 $248,086 $271,704 

 Accommodation and food services $664,808 $721,401 $742,131 

 Other services, except public administration $993,337 $1,075,193 $1,156,802 

 Government and government enterprises $10,249,518 $10,833,501 $11,148,663 

Source: BEA 2005, Regional Economic Information System 

4.1.1.3 Employment 

Table 4-2 shows industry employment and compensation in Sacramento County 

from 2001 to 2003. In 2003, government and government enterprises employed the 

most people, followed by retail trade, health care and social assistance, and 

construction. Finance and insurance had the largest increase in employment from 

2001 to 2003. Average compensation per job in Sacramento County was $46,036 in 

2001, $48,597 in 2002, and $50,939 in 2003. 

Major employers in Sacramento County in 2005 include: Aerojet Fine Chemicals, 

LLC, Gen Corp Inc, Wild Zone, American River College, California State 

University, Sacramento City College, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Mercy General 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-3 

Hospital, Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Sutter Memorial Hospital, UC Davis 

Medical Center, University of California Surgery Clinic, Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District (SMUD), and the Sacramento Bee Newspaper. State government 

departments with high employment include Corrections, Health Services, 

Employment Development, Social Services, Water Resources, and Education. In 

2003, Sacramento County unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. 

Table 4-2 

Industry Employment and Compensation, Sacramento County, 2001 to 2003 

2001 2002 2003 

Industry Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Forestry, fishing, 

related activities, 

and other 

1,724 23,453 1,527 22,622 1,498 23,578 

Mining 643 18,326 550 17,809 488 18,095 

Utilities 739 74,077 859 93,984 869 98,277 

Construction 47,200 1,803,191 48,337 1,995,348 50,469 2,117,798 

Manufacturing 34,048 2,082,225 33,260 2,068,202 31,851 2,075,531 

Wholesale trade 20,870 964,751 20,754 999,424 21,312 1,099,592 

Retail trade 77,170 1,931,694 77,822 2,036,071 80,478 2,140,781 

Transportation 

and warehousing 15,627 477,039 14,999 465,475 14,667 477,840 

Information 19,344 1,029,149 20,218 1,184,907 18,942 1,161,309 

Finance and 

insurance 42,904 2,035,798 43,504 2,246,739 46,214 2,568,520 

Real estate and 

rental and leasing 25,211 338,694 25,326 346,458 26,680 463,150 

Professional and 

technical services 49,326 2,109,845 49,217 2,141,205 49,881 2,123,984 

Management of 

companies and 

enterprises 

8,372 507,911 7,520 484,377 7,160 497,148 

Administrative 

and waste 

services 

49,328 1,074,527 47,035 1,024,723 46,071 1,036,693 

Educational 

services 9,955 214,249 11,112 249,267 11,976 272,202 

Health care and 

social assistance 62,595 2,231,775 61,950 2,404,170 64,324 2,676,206 

Arts, 

entertainment, 

and recreation 

12,307 188,189 12,627 206,335 12,932 227,694 

Accommodation 

and food services 43,886 625,053 44,937 685,460 45,167 704,571 

Other services, 

except public 

administration 

39,764 836,751 41,563 918,529 42,698 995,143 

Government and 

government 

enterprises 

183,042 10,249,518 184,768 10,967,368 181,926 11,437,807 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

4.1.2 Placer County 

4.1.2.1 Population and Income 

In 2005, Placer County had a population of about 305,675, an increase of close to 

9,000 people from 2004. From 1990 to 2000, the compound annual growth rate was 

3.6 percent; and, from 2000 to 2005, the compound annual growth rate increased to 

4.2 percent. The county’s population is projected to exceed 456,000 by 2020 (EDD 

2004). In 2000, Placer County’s population was 89 percent white, 1 percent black or 

African American, 1 percent Native American, 3 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Pacific 

Islander, and the remaining classified as other or more than one race. 

In 2003, total personal income in Placer County was about $10.8 million and per 

capita personal income was $36,613 (BEA 2005). From 1993-2003, average annual 

growth rate of per capita personal income in Placer County was 4.2 percent. Placer 

County ranked 22nd among counties in the state in total personal income and 10th in 

per capita personal income. In 1999, median family income was $65,858; 3.9 percent 

of families lived below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a). 

4.1.2.2 Industry 

Table 4-3 shows 2001 to 2003 industry earnings in Placer County. Top earning 

industries included manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, 

accommodation and food services, and real estate, rental, and leasing. The 

manufacturing industry grew the most from 2001 to 2003 in earnings, about $2.56 

million. Real estate grew about $2.12 million from 2001 to 2003. 

Table 4-3 

Industry and Industry Earnings, Placer County, 2001 to 2003 (in thousands) 

Industry 2001 2002 2003 

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other $4,922 $4,591 $7,518 

 Mining $10,975 $9,248 $11,031 

 Construction $37,241 $41,887 $49,058 

 Manufacturing $901,263 $980,166 $1,157,539 

 Wholesale trade $852,240 $822,349 $787,771 

 Retail trade $174,041 $188,765 $174,608 

 Transportation and warehousing $666,449 $718,250 $771,645 

 Information $195,687 $190,890 $182,186 

 Finance and insurance $189,955 $172,335 $169,998 

 Real estate and rental and leasing $361,093 $445,806 $573,687 

 Management of companies and enterprises $218,644 $244,938 $285,636 

 Administrative and waste services $358,287 $388,465 $447,897 

 Educational services $142,512 $112,365 $123,698 

 Health care and social assistance $246,249 $235,763 $250,393 

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $46,533 $57,189 $62,300 

 Accommodation and food services $489,273 $587,032 $639,535 

 Other services, except public administration $65,846 $67,793 $75,291 

 Government and government enterprises $216,313 $227,633 $251,391 

Source: BEA 2005, Regional Economic Information System 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-5 

4.1.2.3 Employment 

Table 4-4 shows industry employment and compensation in Placer County from 

2001 to 2003. In 2003, retail trade employed the most people, followed by 

construction, government and government enterprises, accommodation and food 

service, and health care and social assistance. Construction had the largest increase 

in employment from 2001 to 2003, about 2,600 people or 14 percent. Average 

compensation per job in Placer County was $41,602 in 2001, $43,505 in 2002, and 

$45,262 in 2003. 

Table 4-4 

Industry Employment and Compensation(1), Placer County, 2001 to 2003 

2001 2002 2003 

Industry Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Forestry, fishing, 

related activities, 

and other 

311 1,136 337 540 547 3,464 

Mining 243 5,959 209 5,291 211 6,776 

Utilities 494 36,963 502 42,251 494 49,573 

Construction 18,888 671,474 19,439 751,680 21,470 896,463 

Manufacturing 12,458 852,202 10,996 821,051 10,400 786,859 

Wholesale trade 3,768 161,484 3,914 174,296 3,349 183,801 

Retail trade 21,446 575,794 22,600 627,940 24,019 678,612 

Transportation and 

warehousing 3,757 178,623 3,542 177,249 3,245 168,450 

Information 3,215 181,129 3,223 163,766 3,106 159,696 

Finance and 

insurance 7,469 302,149 8,417 392,317 9,488 520,444 

Real estate and 

rental and leasing 8,841 89,738 9,134 109,630 9,606 125,808 

Professional and 

technical services 9,069 241,728 9,528 275,615 10,661 330,717 

Management of 

companies and 

enterprises 

2,388 142,480 1,831 111,988 1,905 123,343 

Administrative and 

waste services 9,782 221,824 9,497 206,516 9,942 220,560 

Educational 

services 2,517 44,665 2,724 56,983 2,850 63,065 

Health care and 

social assistance 11,698 377,342 13,106 458,065 13,420 501,602 

Arts, entertainment, 

and recreation 4,108 58,299 4,430 60,331 4,693 67,906 

Accommodation 

and food services 13,121 204,020 13,277 209,781 14,122 233,237 

Other services, 

except public 

administration 

9,067 173,656 8,837 169,603 8,274 147,196 

Government and 

government 

enterprises 

15,791 683,309 16,014 734,297 16,998 813,132 

(1) Employment includes full- and part-time workers. Compensation is the sum of wage and salary disbursements and supplements, such a

bonuses 

Source: BEA 2005, Regional Economic Information System 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Major employers in Placer County in 2005 include: Adventist Health, Formica Corp, 

Future Ford, Hewlett Packard Co, Home Depot, JR Pierce Plumbing Co Inc, NEC 

Electronic USA, Oracle Corp, Sierra Community College District, Sierra West 

Drywall Inc, Sutter Roseville Medical Center, Thunder Valley Casino, and 

Underground Construction Co. In 2003, Placer County unemployment rate was 4.6 

percent. 

4.1.3 El Dorado County 

4.1.3.1 Population and Income 

In 2005, El Dorado County had a population of about 173,407, an increase of 

approximately 3,000 people from 2004. From 1990 to 2000, the compound annual 

growth rate was 2.2 percent; and, from 2000 to 2005, the compound annual growth 

rate remained relatively constant at 2.1 percent. The county’s population is projected 

to exceed 221,000 by 2020 (EDD 2004). In 2000, El Dorado County’s population 

was 90 percent white, 0.5 percent black or African American, 1 percent Native 

American, 2 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander, and the remaining classified 

as other or more than one race. 

In 2003, total personal income in El Dorado County was about $6.2 million and per 

capita personal income was $36,373 (BEA 2005). From 1993-2003, average annual 

growth rate of per capita personal income in El Dorado County was 4.9 percent. El 

Dorado County ranked 26th among counties in the state in total personal income and 

12th in per capita personal income. In 1999, median family income was $60,250; 5 

percent of families lived below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a). 

4.1.3.2 Industry 

Table 4-5 shows 2001 to 2003 industry earnings in El Dorado County. Top earning 

industries in 2003 include manufacturing, administrative and waste services, 

accommodation and food services, and transportation and warehousing. The real 

estate, rental and leasing industry grew the most in earnings from 2001 to 2003, 

about $7.1 million. Accommodations and food services grew about $6.1 million and 

manufacturing grew about $5.9 million in earnings from 2001 to 2003. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-7 

Table 4-5 

Industry and Industry Earnings, El Dorado County, 2001 to 2003 

(in thousands) 

Industry 2001 2002 2003 

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other $23,451 $24,497 $23,965 

 Mining $6,490 $5,010 $5,247 

 Construction $10,168 $10,763 $11,761 

 Manufacturing $400,330 $409,813 $459,193 

 Wholesale trade $120,151 $104,080 $114,913 

Retail trade $52,586 $60,261 $57,736 

Transportation and warehousing $233,876 $237,560 $236,466 

Information $25,085 $29,064 $26,404 

Finance and insurance $30,563 $31,053 $33,764 

Real estate and rental and leasing $103,020 $146,883 $173,045 

Management of companies and enterprises $101,760 $108,077 $117,124 

Administrative and waste services $402,939 $398,346 $401,838 

Educational services $9,797 $9,557 $11,221 

Health care and social assistance $75,359 $84,369 $82,421 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation $8,628 $10,880 $8,841 

Accommodation and food services $225,799 $256,717 $287,072 

Other services, except public administration $54,888 $62,945 $62,033 

Government and government enterprises $85,523 $91,697 $102,310 

Source: BEA 2005, Regional Economic Information System 

4.1.3.3 Employment 

Table 4-6 shows industry employment and compensation in El Dorado County from 

2001 to 2003. In 2003, retail trade employed the most people, followed by 

government and government enterprises, professional and technical services, and 

construction. Finance and insurance had the largest increase in employment from 

2001 to 2003, about 1,700 people or 47 percent. Average compensation per job in El 

Dorado County was $36,901 in 2001, $38,154 in 2002, and $39,456 in 2003. 

Major employers in western El Dorado County in 2005 include: AmDocs Ltd, DST 

Output, Fortune 800, McClone Construction Co, and Sierra Pacific Industries. In 

2003, El Dorado County unemployment rate was 5.1 percent. 

4.1.4 City of Folsom 

The City of Folsom is within Sacramento County, approximately 25 miles east of 

downtown Sacramento on Highway 50. Because of availability of data on a city 

level, data presented below differs from county economic discussions. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 4-6 

Industry Employment and Compensation(1), Placer County, 2001 to 2003 

Industry 2001 2002 2003 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Employment 

# Jobs 

Compensation 

$ 

Forestry, fishing, 

related activities, 

and other 

614 8,581 696 8,965 675 8,332 

Mining 166 2,455 135 2,106 125 2,124 

Utilities 168 9,873 142 10,645 133 11,661 

Construction 8,579 215,792 8,260 215,955 8,396 235,356 

Manufacturing 2,385 120,122 2,140 104,681 2,250 111,518 

Wholesale trade 1,387 44,351 1,551 52,088 1,552 49,109 

Retail trade 9,645 183,716 9,725 191,682 9,706 188,452 

Transportation and 

warehousing 951 14,766 1,027 20,781 910 17,620 

Information 1,058 21,582 966 21,072 889 23,490 

Finance and 

insurance 3,529 64,710 4,551 112,691 5,199 138,982 

Real estate and 

rental and leasing 6,030 25,391 6,179 30,378 6,254 25,610 

Professional and 

technical services 8,766 284,858 8,953 280,927 9,241 280,018 

Management of 

companies and 

enterprises 

230 9,749 207 9,492 304 11,143 

Administrative and 

waste services 3,770 55,450 3,848 60,326 3,672 57,415 

Educational 

services 855 5,987 958 8,461 978 6,140 

Health care and 

social assistance 6,243 157,789 6,518 182,583 6,944 207,262 

Arts, entertainment, 

and recreation 3,455 36,439 3,500 38,303 3,443 36,787 

Accommodation and 

food services 6,054 77,448 6,278 84,514 6,673 94,810 

Other services, 

except public 

administration 

5,090 54,093 5,407 64,198 5,724 74,145 

Government and 

government 

enterprises 

9,201 401,678 9,429 436,073 9,278 455,347 

(1) Employment includes full- and part-time workers. Compensation is the sum of wage and salary disbursement and supplements 

Source: BEA 2005, Regional Economic Information System 

4.1.4.1 Population and Income 

In 2005, the City of Folsom (Folsom) had a population of about 68,033, an increase 

of 2,000 people from 2004. In 1990, Folsom had a population of 29,802. From 1990 

to 2000, the compound annual growth rate was 5.5 percent; and, from 2000 to 2005, 

the compound annual growth rate remained relatively constant at 5.6 percent. In 

2000, Folsom’s population was 78 percent white, 6 percent black or African 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-9 

American, 0.6 percent Native American, 7 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Pacific 

Islander, and the remaining classified as other or more than one race. 

In 1999, median family income was $82,448; 3 percent of families lived below the 

poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004a). 

4.1.4.2 Industry 

Table 4-7 shows the number of establishments and sales of major industries in 

Folsom. Retail trade has the most establishments and generates the highest sales for 

the city. Folsom has an outlet mall with 80 stores and the relatively new Folsom 

Gateway mall includes major retailers, such as Best Buy, Sam’s Club, Staples, and 

REI. 

Table 4-7 

Major Industries in Folsom 

Industry Number of 

Establishments Sales (1000 $) 

Wholesale trade 38 $741,726 

Retail trade 207 $1,364,104 

Information 38 N/A 

Real estate, rental, and leasing 58 $41,509 

Professional, scientific, technical services 172 N/A 

Administrative, support, waste management and 

remediation service 

54 $55,204 

Educational service 10 $4,719 

Healthcare and social assistance 138 $157,960 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 15 $10,884 

Accommodation and food services 137 $100,746 

Other services (except public administration) 804 $39,428 

N/A – Not available 

Source: 2002 Economic Census, U.S. Census Bureau 2006 

4.1.4.3 Employment 

Table 4-8 shows industry employment in Folsom. Education, health, and social 

services and manufacturing industries employ the most people, 16.3 and 13.5 percent 

of total employment, respectively. 

Major employers in Folsom include: Intel Corporation, Folsom-Cordova Unified 

School District, Mercy Hospital, Kaiser Permanente, Maximus, Verizon, Costco, 

Walmart, Folsom State Prison, Home Depot, Mervyn's, Target, Lowe's, Trader Joe's, 

Kohl's, Best Buy, Winco, REI, Sam's Club, Video Products Distributors, and CalISO. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 4-8 

Folsom Employment, 2000

Industry Employment Percent

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 271 1.2 

Construction 1,335 5.7 

Manufacturing 3,157 13.5 

Wholesale trade 896 3.8 

Retail trade 2,477 10.6 

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 814 3.5 

Information 727 3.1 

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 2,487 10.6 

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services 2,805 12.0 

Educational, health and social services 3,833 16.3 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 1,192 5.1 

Other services (except public administration) 907 3.9 

Public administration 2,564 10.9 

Source: Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004b) 

4.1.5 Recreation at Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

This analysis is focused on the existing conditions for three recreation use areas; 

Folsom Point, Beal's Point, and Granite Bay within the FLSRA that would be used 

for staging, borrow material excavation and processing, and materials stockpiling 

under all of the action alternatives. FLSRA is part of the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation (DPR) park system. 

FLSRA is an important local, regional, and state recreation resource. With more than 

1.5 million visitors in 2000, the FSLRA is one of the most popular areas in the DPR 

system. Recreational uses include both water-based activities and land-based 

activities. Water-based activities account for approximately 85 percent of all visits to 

the FLSRA. Approximately 75 percent of users visit the FSLRA during the warmer 

spring and summer months. DPR obtains revenue from use fees paid by the public 

and rental fees associated with concession operations in the FLSRA. 

Use fees are directly related to the number of visitors and overnight users. Fees 

collected for both day use and overnight use vary between peak-season and offseason as illustrated in Table 4-9. Numerous other fees collected in the FLSRA are 

collected dependent upon the amenities offered in particular recreational areas 

including pay showers, special events, and boat launches. Total fees collected for the 

three focus areas in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004/2005 are listed in Table 4-10. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-11 

Table 4-9 

FLSRA Use Fees 

 Peak Season(1) Off-Peak Season 

Day Use Fees(2) 

Developed Parking $7 $5 

Undeveloped Parking $3 $3 

Boat Launch $8 $5 

Camping Fees per night(3) $20 $15 

(1) Camping peak season May 15 – September 15; all other activities April 1 – September 30 (2) Effective July 1, 2004 (3) Effective January 1, 2005 

Source: CDPR 2006c, CDPR 2006d 

Table 4-10 

Use Fees Collected (Fiscal Year 2004/2005) 

Location Regular 

Day Use 

Boat 

Launch 

Annual 

Pass 

Special 

Events Camping Reserve America 

Pay 

Showers Rafting Total 

Folsom Point $80,281 $46,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $126,678 

Beal's Point $219,434 $6,740 $2,750 $467 $103,337 $109,701 $4,471 $480 $447,380 

Granite Bay $888,572 $283,028 $447,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,618,940 

Total $1,188,287 $336,165 $450,090 $467 $103,337 $109,701 $4,471 $480 $2,192,998 

Source: CDPR 2006b 

Twelve concessionaires operated in the FLSRA in calendar year 2005. Services 

provided include aquatic recreation equipment rentals, land equipment rentals, and 

food services. Total concession gross sales for the entire FLSRA in calendar year 

2005 were $1,938,065 (see Table 4-11). Total rental revenues received by DPR as a 

result of concession operations were $342,101. 

Table 4-11 

Concession Gross Sales and Rental Payments (2005) 

Location 

Concession Gross 

Sales Rental Payment 

Granite Bay $164,391 $21,722 

Brown's Ravine $1,425,047 $296,722 

Beal's Point $152,934 $11,737 

Lake Natoma $195,693 $11,920 

Total for FLSRA $1,938,065 $342,101 

Sources: CDPR 2006b.
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

4.1.5.1 Folsom Point 

Folsom Point is the most popular day use area on the Folsom Lake eastern shore. In 

2000, 112,200 visitors utilized this area. Facilities include a picnic area with parking 

for 77 vehicles, and the largest formal boat launch area on the east side of the lake 

with parking for 129 vehicles. Aquatic and day use facilities quickly reach capacity 

during peak season weekends as it is a popular site for staging special aquatic events. 

Use fees collected for this area include day use fees and boat launch fees. In FY 

2004/2005 total day use fees collected were $80,281 or approximately seven percent 

of the total day use fees collected for the three focus areas (see Table 4-10). Total 

boat launch fees collected were $46,397 or approximately 14 percent of the total boat 

launch fees collected for the three focus areas. When compared to the other two 

focus areas, Folsom Point had the lowest total day use fees collected and was in the 

middle with regards to the total boat launch fees collected. Overall, total use fees 

collected at Folsom Point in FY 2004/2005 were the lowest of all three sites at 

$126,678 or approximately 6 percent of all uses fees collected between the three 

sites. Folsom Point does not have any concessionaires that pay monthly rental fees to 

DPR. 

4.1.5.2 Beal’s Point 

Beal’s Point includes day use facilities and a campground. Annual attendance in 

2000 was 219,986 visitors. Facilities include a guarded swim beach for summer use, 

parking for approximately 400 vehicles, one boat launch ramp, hiking trails, picnic 

areas, 49 single camp sites, and 20 RV sites. Concessions include a snack bar and 

beach equipment rentals. 

Fees collected for this area include day use, boat launch, annual passes, camping, 

special events, Reserve America fees, pay showers, and rafting (see Table 4-10). In 

FY 2004/2005 total day use fees collected were $219,434 or approximately 18 

percent of the total day use fees collected for the three focus areas. Total boat launch 

fees collected were $6,740 or approximately 2 percent of the total boat launch fees 

collected for the three focus areas. Out of the three focus areas, Beal's Point had the 

lowest total boat launch fees collected and was in the middle with regards to the total 

regular day use fees collected. Beal's Point is the only focus area that collected fees 

for uses other than regular day use, boat launch, and annual passes. Overall, total use 

fees collected at Beal's Point in FY 2004/2005 were the second highest of the three 

sites at $447,380 or approximately 20 percent of all uses fees collected between the 

three sites. 

In calendar year 2005, Beal’s Point concessions had gross sales of about $153,000 

(see Table 4-11). Total rental fees paid to DPR for concessions operating at Beal's 

Point in 2005 were about $11,700. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-13 

4.1.5.3 Granite Bay 

Granite Bay is the most popular day use facility within the FLSRA. Annual 

attendance in 2000 was 507,712 visitors. Facilities include picnic areas, a guarded 

swim beach for summer use, informal unguarded swim areas, tot lot, equestrian 

staging area, hiking trails including an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only 

trail, parking, reservable group picnic area, fishing, and boating. Dependent upon 

water levels, a maximum of 14 boat launch ramps are available. Concessions in the 

area include a snack bar and beach equipment rentals. 

Fees collected for this area include day use, boat launch, and annual pass (see Table 

4-10). In FY 2004/2005, total day use fees collected were $888,572 or approximately 

75 percent of the total day use fees collected for the three focus areas. Total boat 

launch fees collected were $283,028 or approximately 84 percent of the total boat 

launch fees collected for the three focus areas. Out of the three focus areas, Granite 

Bay had the highest fees collected for each category for which fees are collected at 

Granite Bay. Overall, total use fees collected at Granite Bay in FY 2004/2005 were 

$1,618,940 or approximately 74 percent of all uses fees collected between the three 

sites. 

In calendar year 2005, Granite Bay concessions had gross sales of about $164,400 

(see Table 4-11). Total rental fees paid to DPR for concessions operating at Granite 

Bay in 2005 were about $21,700. 

4.2 Methods of Economic Analysis 

4.2.1 CEQA/NEPA Analysis 

This economic analysis is part of the CEQA and NEPA environmental 

documentation for the Folsom DS/FDR action. For CEQA and NEPA analyses, 

social and economic changes resulting from a project are addressed differently than 

physical environmental effects, and furthermore, somewhat differently under CEQA 

than under NEPA. CEQA does not consider economic or social changes resulting 

from a project as adverse effects on the environment. If a physical change in the 

environment is caused by economic or social effects, the physical change may be 

regarded as an adverse effect. Because the economic effects of project components 

do not change the physical environment, a CEQA analysis is not necessary. 

Under NEPA, economic or social effects must be discussed if they are inter-related 

to the natural or physical environmental effects of a project. Since economic effects 

of the upgrades to the Folsom Facility are related to physical environmental effects, a 

NEPA analysis is required. However, NEPA does not require that economic impacts 

be judged for significance. 

The following sections describe the economic analysis tools and related assumptions 

for estimating economic impacts from the upgrades at the Folsom Facility. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

4.2.2 Assessment Tool 

This economic analysis focuses on economic impacts caused by 1) reductions in 

recreational spending from the temporary closure of recreation facilities and 2) 

increased labor demands associated with construction-related activities. The analysis 

uses IMPLAN (Impact Planning and Analysis), an input-output (I-O) database and 

modeling software, to estimate economic impacts of the project alternatives2. An I-O 

analysis describes and analyzes the relationship among industries. 

Any given industry typically purchases goods and services from -- and sells goods 

and services to -- another industry within a given geographic area, which in turn, 

sells to or buys from other industries or supplies final consumers. IMPLAN uses 

these inter-industry linkages and provides a tool to estimate the total economic 

effects within a region from a change in final demand to one economic sector. Total 

economic effects include: 

• Direct effects – changes in final demand 

• Indirect effects – changes in expenditures within the region in industries 

supplying goods and services 

• Induced effects – changes in expenditures of household income 

IMPLAN is a widely used regional economic modeling and forecasting software that 

uses the most recent available individual industry data from a variety of government 

economic censuses to build a computer model of a specified regional economy. The 

regional economy could be defined at state, county, and zip code levels. IMPLAN 

estimates regional economic effects by constructing social accounting matrices3

 and 

converting them to input-output accounts and multipliers for each industry. 

A chain of supplies and services, including labor and government, links base and 

service industries; these relationships are sometimes referred to as backward 

linkages. Forward linkages, on the other hand, usually referred to as “downstream 

processing,” consist of support industries that take products produced by the base 

industry and enhance product value through further processing and packaging. 

Consumers, both other industries and households, form the final link in the chain. 

Figure 4-1 shows the general flows of money between industries and consumers that 

is captured by IMPLAN. 

 

2

 Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) 2003 http://www.implan.com/index.html 3

 Social accounts represent the flow of commodities to industries from producers and consumers 

and the consumption of production factors from outside the region. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-15 

Input-output modeling is built around quantifying interactions between basic and 

service sectors/industries of an economy. Each industrial or service activity within an 

economy is assigned to an economic sector within a so-called “transactions” table 

that reflects the value of goods and services exchanged between sectors of the 

economy. In any transaction table, the level of detail and method of identifying 

industries is arbitrary. But, in general, sectors are classified according to government 

standards such as the North American Industry Code Standards (i.e., NAICS codes), 

and the level of aggregation is fairly high. 

The regional economic model for this analysis includes 2002 IMPLAN data for 

Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. IMPLAN estimates impacts on an 

annual basis. If the project effects occurred over a shorter period of time, economic 

effects would be less. This analysis presents estimates of impacts to value of output, 

value added, and employment. Value of output is the total value of an industry’s 

production. Value added includes wages and salaries, proprietor’s income, dividends 

and interest, and indirect business taxes. Employment is the number of jobs in each 

industry. 

4.2.3 Assessment Methods 

The following sections describe the methods to analyze economic effects of the 

Folsom DS/FDR alternatives to recreational spending and construction activities. It 

is important to note that these estimated impacts are temporary and would only occur 

during the period of construction. 

Figure 4-1 

Economic Linkages in a Hypothetical Industry 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

4.2.3.1 Recreation Economic Impact Assessment 

FLSRA is an important local, regional, and state recreation resource. Recreation 

generates sales, profits, jobs, tax revenues, and income in the study area. Any change 

to recreation opportunities as a result of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would 

affect the study area’s economy. This recreation economic impact analysis focuses 

on reductions in direct visitor spending for recreation activities, such as user fees, 

boat rentals, and retail sales as a result of site closures due to storing borrow 

materials or processing construction materials on recreation facilities. The analysis 

calculates indirect and induced economic impacts through the use of IMPLAN. The 

economic analysis makes some key assumptions to estimate direct impacts from 

reduced recreational spending. IMPLAN also has some built in coefficients and 

assumptions to determine secondary impacts. 

Calculating Direct Economic Effects 

To estimate direct effects, it is important to understand the amount of local visitors to 

the FLSRA versus the amount of visitors that come from outside the region. This 

analysis assumes that the majority of users of FLSRA are residents of the study area. 

Specifically, this analysis assumes that all day users are from within the study area 

and campers and other overnight users arrive from outside the region. A California 

State Parks survey indicated that 87 percent of users of major state recreation areas 

live within 60 minutes of the site and the average travel time for all visitors is 45 

minutes (DPR 2003). An on-site survey of recreation users for FLSRA indicated that 

70 percent of visitors to FLSRA originated from the 3-county region (Fletcher 2004). 

Because of the majority of local visitors, it is more likely that recreational spending 

intended for FLSRA would be spent elsewhere in the regional economy and the 

direct effects to the economy would be less than if most visitors were from outside 

the region. 

In general, for a recreation activity, visitors typically spend money on food, hotels, 

restaurants, gasoline, boat rentals and/or other supplies required for outdoor 

activities. These expenditures would occur in various sectors. This analysis assumes 

that local visitors would find a substitute recreation activity within the study area and 

continue to spend money within these sectors. Therefore, local spending for food, 

restaurants, and gasoline would continue in the study area. In some instances, money 

may not be spent on the exact goods, such as picnic supplies, but it would likely be 

spent elsewhere in the local economy (for example, on movie tickets). Campers and 

other overnight users would generally be from outside the region; therefore, 

reductions in spending would be expected in services, retail, and food and 

accommodation sectors. FLSRA entrance fees for all users (day and overnight) 

would be counted as a loss to the state treasury, particularly if users do not visit a 

state sponsored site as a substitute for FLSRA. This analysis includes an estimate of 

funds lost to the state treasury from temporary interruptions to identified FLSRA 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-17 

facilities and assumes that these revenues are not recollected via visits to other state 

recreational areas in the study region. 

The following sections further describe how the analysis calculated direct effects for 

input into the IMPLAN model. In short, direct effects are based on number of 

visitors affected and the average daily spending by each visitor. This economic 

analysis makes a number of assumptions regarding visitor use and spending in the 

3-county region for each alternative. A sensitivity analysis of economic effects could 

be conducted by varying some of these assumptions. For example, if number of 

visitors is allowed to increase in the future, regional economic effects from reduced 

recreational spending would increase. 

Number of Visits Affected 

The number of visits affected represents the loss of visitors at the FLSRA from 

temporarily interrupting recreation at Beal’s Point, Folsom Point, and Granite Bay 

facilities. Section 3.13, Recreation Resources, identifies the number of visitors that 

would be affected by each alternative for each facility. It is important to distinguish 

the type of user to determine a more detailed representation of the total recreational 

spending contribution lost to the economy. 

For purposes of this economic analysis, existing visitation assumptions were used to 

determine the type of user, for example, day use vs. overnight use or water activity 

vs. non-water activity. Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, et al. (2003) states that 85 

percent of visitors use the recreation area for water-related activities, including 

boating, wind surfing, jet skis, water skiing, rafting, swimming, and fishing. Of the 

85 percent, boating is the most popular water-related activity, accounting for 

approximately 30 percent of water-related activities. The remaining 15 percent of 

recreation visits are for non-water activities, such as picnicking, camping, and trail 

use (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, et al 2003). According to FLSRA visitation data 

from 2001 to 2005, about 95 percent of users are day users and 5 percent are 

overnight users at camping facilities. Some overnight users may choose to stay at 

nearby hotels or other accommodations and use the FLSRA for day use. About 85 

percent of the day users pay entrance fees. All others use free facilities, such as 

biking and walking trails. This analysis divides the visitors into types of use based on 

the above percentages. 

The construction period for the Folsom DS/FDR spans from 2007 to 2013 or 2014 

depending on the alternative. This analysis estimates the economic effects during the 

year when maximum interruptions to recreation are estimated to occur for each 

alternative. Table 4-12 summarizes the maximum annual number of visitors affected 

at Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point. Maximum interruptions to recreation 

would occur during 2008 under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3; during 2009 under 

Alternative 4; and during 2012 under Alternative 5. Section 3.13 further discusses 

effects to recreation. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 4-12 

Breakdown of Visitors Affected by FLSRA Closures

Maximum Annual Number of Visitors Affected 

 

Type of Use 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Campers who boat 347 347 297 1,770 1,884 

Campers who do not boat 809 809 693 4,131 4,397 

Day users who boat 43,930 43,930 42,874 74,754 79,563 

Day users who do not boat 102,503 102,503 100,039 174,425 185,646 

Other overnight visitors who boat 1,965 1,965 1,960 2,164 2,303 

Other overnight visitors who do not 

boat 4,586 4,586 4,573 5,049 5,374 

Total 154,139 154,139 150,435 262,293 279,167 

Based on Recreation analysis Section 3.13, assumptions include: 

95% are day users, 5% are overnight users 

85% are day users who do not pay boat fees 

85% of total users participate in water-related activities, 30% is boating 

Source: Wallace, Robert and Todd, LLC 2003; CDPR 2006b 

Average Spending per Visit 

The average spending per visitor depends on the types of recreational activity in 

which visitors participate. Table 4-9 shows the user fees for each use. It is assumed 

that all visitors would have to pay either a day use fee or an overnight fee. Additional 

recreational spending within the FLSRA includes boat rental fees, other equipment 

fees, and concessions. Visitors also spend money outside of the FLSRA for food, 

drinks, gasoline and other recreational needs. This analysis uses local fee data and 

the Corps national spending profiles to estimate average visitor spending. Table 4-13 

shows the assumed average daily visitor spending at FLSRA for each type of visitor. 

Boat rentals and user fees are based on local rates at Folsom Reservoir for a full day 

boat use and on FLSRA standards. Spending for “other expenses” (food, gas, and 

other goods) are based on average spending profiles by the Corps (2003) study. 

Table 4-13 

Average Daily Visitor Spending at FLSRA, 2002 Dollars 

Type of Visitor Boat Rentals, 

User Fees(1) Other Expenses 

(e.g., food, gas) 

Total Average 

Daily Spending 

Campers who boat $53.03 $53.02 $106.05 

Campers who do not boat $3.64 $41.11 $44.75 

Day users who boat $52.12 $20.39 $72.51 

Day users who do not boat $1.27 $12.25 $13.52 

Other overnight visitors who boat $52.12 $85.76 $137.88 

Other overnight visitors who do not boat $1.27 $51.11 $52.38 

(1) User fees and boat rentals are based on a 5-person party (2) All day users are from the local area, all overnight users and campers are from outside the region 

Source: CDPR 2003, Corps 2003, Folsom Lake Boat Rentals 2005 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-19 

Direct Effects 

The values in Table 4-12 and 4-13 were used to estimate direct effects to the local 

economy for input into the IMPLAN model. The effects are assumed to represent 

changes in final demand. IMPLAN requires distribution of direct effects to specific 

sectors of the economy. For purposes of this analysis, direct effects are distributed to 

the retail trade, services, camping, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation 

and food services sectors. It is assumed that these sectors best represent the reduction 

in recreational spending for boat rentals, hotel costs, camping supplies, gasoline, 

food, restaurants, and other expenses associated with recreation at FLSRA. As stated 

above, all the day users would be from the local region; therefore, all spending on 

“other expenses” would continue to be spent within the region.4 For campers and 

other overnight users, spending on “other expenses” would be lost to the region. 

These losses are represented by effects to retail trade, services, and accommodation 

and food service sectors. Table 4-14 identifies the estimated annual direct effects in 

the region for Alternatives 1and 5. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar overall 

economic effects to Alternative 1 because losses in recreation would be similar. 

Alternative 4 would have similar effects to Alternative 5 because total losses in 

recreation would be similar. 

Table 4-14 

Annual Direct Effects from Reduced Recreational Activity at FLSRA (2002 dollars)

Sector Alternative 1 Alternative 5 

Retail trade -$174,500 -$356,200

Services -$33,600 -$51,400

Camping, entertainment and recreation -$1,682,900 -$3,053,300

Accommodation and food services -$163,100 -$229,300

Institutions -$950,300 -$1,688,800

Total -$3,004,400 -$5,379,000

The institutions sector captures the transfer of money between institutions in various 

regions and is estimated by IMPLAN. In this instance, it represents lost non-market 

monetary transfers from the study area to other regions. Such transfers typically 

occur when goods and services sold in the local market are partially or wholly 

produced outside the region. As a result some of the local spending dollars are 

exported to other regions. For example, a final product such as gasoline is produced 

in multiple regions; therefore, only a portion of the lost dollars from gasoline sales 

within the study area would have remained in the region. A recreational visitor who 

chooses to no longer travel to the region may not purchase $50 worth of gasoline at a 

local gas station. If the local gas station purchases $30 worth of gasoline from a 

wholesaler outside the region then only $20 would be lost to the local region and the 

 

4

 “Other expenses” include food, gas, restaurants, hotels, and anything associated with recreational 

activity at FLSRA besides entry fees and boat rentals. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

remaining $30 would be lost to another region. The institutions sector represents 

those dollars that would have been transferred to outside regions. 

Using IMPLAN to Estimate Secondary Economic Effects 

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, IMPLAN identifies economic linkages between 

industries by estimating multiple economic parameters. Direct impacts are an input 

into the regional model. IMPLAN default models are generated based on national 

and state level data and some parameters may be modified for studies that focus on 

areas smaller than a state. Figure 4-2 presents a flowchart of the regional analysis 

and its components. The following sections discuss important parameters and any 

modifications to the default IMPLAN model performed during the model 

development phase. 

Regional Capture Rate 

The capture rate represents the percentage of spending that accrues to the region’s 

economy as direct sales or final demand. In many cases, visitors purchase goods that 

are produced outside of the region. Any loss in demand of these goods would not 

affect the region’s economy; therefore, loss of these purchases should not be used to 

determine any change in final demand from within the region. A low capture rate 

would indicate that many goods or supply inputs are purchased from outside the 

region. IMPLAN sets default capture rates based on national and state level data. 

Generally, for tourism activities, 60 to 70 percent of visitor spending appears as final 

demand in the identified region (Stynes undated). The Corps (2003) study defines an 

average capture rate at 66 percent for multiple Corps projects (Corps 2003). Based 

on the high level of local use at the FLSRA and the existing studies, the IMPLAN 

default capture rate was adjusted from 40 percent to 66 percent for the parks sector. 

Industry Multipliers 

IMPLAN provides the regional economic multipliers for this analysis. Multipliers 

capture the indirect and induced effects of recreation activity. For example, a 

multiplier of 2.0 indicates that each dollar of direct sale generates another dollar of 

secondary sales in the regional economy; a multiplier of 3.0 indicates that each dollar 

Figure 4-2 

Regional Economic Analysis Flowchart 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-21 

of direct sale generates an additional $2 of secondary sales in the regional economy, 

and so on. For the 3-county study area, the default IMPLAN multiplier for camping, 

entertainment, and recreation is 2.02. Therefore, for every dollar lost to this sector, 

$1.02 would be lost to the total regional economy in indirect and induced effects. In 

addition to output multipliers, IMPLAN generates multipliers for value added and 

employment effects. 

Deflators 

Deflators convert expenditures over time to a specified base year. The regional 

IMPLAN model is based on year 2002 economic activity and results are expressed in 

2002 dollars.5 The economic effects from reduced recreation would occur during the 

length of the construction period. Table 4-15 shows the construction schedule for 

each alternative. Annual visitation would be affected in time period construction 

occurs. If construction does not occur throughout an entire year or if visitors are 

allowed to use the facilities for a portion of the year, economic impacts would be 

less. 

Table 4-15 

Construction Activity Timeframe

Granite Bay

Alternative 1 None 

Alternative 2 Late summer (August, September, October) 2013 

Alternative 3 Late summer 2009 

Alternative 4 Late summer 2013 to end 2014 

Alternative 5 Late summer 2013 to end 2014 

Beal's Point

Alternative 1 Fall 2007 to early summer (May, June) 2009 

Alternative 2 Fall 2007 to early summer 2009 

Alternative 3 Spring 2008 through summer 2008 

Alternative 4 Fall 2007 to end 2009 

Alternative 5 Fall 2007 to end 2012 

Folsom Point

Alternative 1 Fall 2007 to end 2012 

Alternative 2 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 3 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 4 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

Alternative 5 Fall 2007 to end 2013 

4.2.3.2 Construction-related Economic Impact Assessment 

Construction associated with the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would create jobs and 

generate additional economic activity within the local region during the period of 

 

5

 Economic impacts can be adjusted to price levels for other years using economic price indices, 

such as the Consumer Price Index. Despite the price adjustment, the region’s economy is still 

based on 2002 conditions. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

construction.6 Table 4-16 summarizes the total number of workers required for each 

year of project construction (2007 through 2014). The number of workers remains 

constant for each alternative, but construction periods vary. IMPLAN estimates 

effects on an annual basis. If construction is shorter than a year, economic benefits 

would be less. 

Table 4-16 

Total Number of 

Construction Workers 

Required per Year for All 

Alternatives

Year All Alternatives 

2007 34 

2008 181 

2009 287 

2010 207 

2011 169 

2012 133 

2013 188 

2014 127 

The analysis assumes that the 3-county region labor pool would supply the 

construction workers necessary for the Folsom DS/FDR. Using the data in Table 4-

16, the economic analysis can estimate direct effects to labor associated with 

construction activities on the region’s economy. IMPLAN converts jobs created into 

a value of output for the economy based on an estimated amount that each worker 

can contribute in terms of output. No changes were made to the IMPLAN economic 

parameters for the construction economic impacts analysis. 

4.3 Estimated Economic Effects 

This section describes the economic effects of implementation of the Folsom 

DS/FDR alternatives. The analysis assumes constant 2000 visitation levels. Chapter 

2 describes the alternatives in detail. 

4.3.1 No Action/No Project Alternative Economic Effects 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would maintain the current recreation 

activities and operations at FLSRA without construction or operations of any of the 

infrastructure alterations proposed under the five action alternatives. No changes to 

economic conditions and trends are expected to occur under the No Action/No 

 

6

 Because the Folsom DS/FDR would be a government funded project, economic impacts of 

increased construction activity at the State level may be offset because funding could be 

unavailable for another project. Therefore, the benefits of construction-related economic effects 

are focused on the local region. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-23 

Project Alternative. Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, current recreational 

activities at the FLSRA would continue with no reduction in recreational spending or 

revenues. 

The analysis recognizes that development would increase under the No Action/No 

Project Alternative relative to existing conditions. The cumulative analysis addresses 

economic growth as a result of increased development. For purposes of the economic 

analysis of recreational spending and construction impacts of the proposed 

alternatives, this section assumes that the No Action/No Project Alternative is the 

same as the existing conditions. 

4.3.2 Action Alternatives Economic Effects 

Table 4-17 describes the baseline economy in terms of value of output, employment, 

and value added of the Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado 3-county region. These 

values differ slightly from those presented in Section 4.1, Regional Socioeconomic 

Setting, because IMPLAN has some varying accounting measures. 

Table 4-17 

Economic Baseline in 3-County Region, 2002 Values 

Value of Output, 

1000 $ 

Value Added, 

1000 $ 

Employment, 

Jobs 

3-County Region $100,104,188 $63,913,630 1,067,438 

Source: MIG 2003 

4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 Economic Effects 

Economic Impacts from Reduced Recreational Spending Relative to the Baseline Condition

Construction of Alternative 1 would affect recreation opportunities at Beal’s Point 

and Folsom Point facilities in the FLSRA. Reductions in recreation would decrease 

visitor spending in the regional economy. Visitors would not pay entry fees, rent 

boats or other equipment, and may reduce purchases of food, gas, and other 

recreation supplies. These reductions in spending would ripple through other sectors 

of the economy. Under this alternative, Granite Bay facilities would not be affected. 

The Beal’s Point facilities would remain open during the entire construction period 

for the Right Wing Dam, and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. It is anticipated that there would only 

be minor use of the Beal’s Point area for construction activities, such as the 

movement of construction vehicles. One or two staging areas would be created using 

fill material to ensure that the level of impacts to the recreation area are minimized. 

Construction is estimated to begin in November 2007 extending through early 

summer 2009. About 10 percent of users would be affected by this alternative. Beal's 

Point has both day users and overnight users. 

Folsom Point facilities would be fully closed during borrow development and 

construction on MIAD, the Auxiliary Spillway, the Left Wing Dam, and Dikes 7 and 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

8. Construction is estimated to occur from 2007 to 2013. Folsom Point only offers 

day use activities, including a boat launch. 

Table 4-18 presents the estimates of total economic impacts to value of output, value 

added, and employment from reduced recreational area spending for Beal’s Point 

and Folsom Point facilities associated with construction of Alternative 1. The total 

output effects are direct inputs into the IMPLAN model; IMPLAN estimates direct 

effects to value added and employment based on total output. As discussed in 

Section 4.2.3.1, the direct impacts are a result of reduced day use and overnight entry 

fees into the FLSRA and spending on additional food, accommodations, and supplies 

by overnight users. For day users, all additional recreational spending is assumed to 

continue in the study area because of the many recreation substitutes that the study 

area offers. 

Table 4-18 

Annual Economic Impacts to Total Value of Output, Value Added, and 

Employment of Reduced Recreational Spending under Alternative 1, 

2008 Visits, 2002 Dollars 

Alternative 1 (2008 

Visits) Total Output, $ Total Value Added, $ Employment, Jobs 

Direct Impacts -$3,004,400 -$1,115,800 -25

Indirect Impacts -$741,000 -$470,600 -8

Induced Impacts -$1,185,800 -$760,000 -13

Total Impacts -$4,931,200 -$2,346,400 -46

For each year Beal’s Point and Folsom Point facilities are closed, this analysis 

estimates that value of output in the region would decrease by about $4.9 million 

(0.005 percent of 2002 baseline output), total value added would decrease about $2.3 

million (0.002 percent of 2002 baseline value added), and employment would 

decrease by about 46 jobs (0.004 percent of 2002 baseline employment). These 

estimates are based on estimated losses of visitation described in Section 3.13 and 

average visitor spending identified in Section 4.2.3.1. These are the maximum 

expected impacts that would occur annually during the construction periods 

identified in Table 4-15. 

Table 4-19 presents Alternative 1 average daily total economic impacts to the 3-

county region to value of output, value added, and employment based on annual 

impacts. If construction does not occur throughout the year, these daily impacts 

would be less. The daily level of impact would change based on weather, time of 

year, construction schedule, and other factors; however, these values provide general 

impact estimates that can be used if construction schedules or project implementation 

changes, causing FLSRA facilities to be closed longer than anticipated or for periods 

that do not correspond to one or more annual periods. In general, these estimates 

should be adjusted to the time of year when additional construction would occur. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-25 

Loss of recreational spending would be larger during peak use seasons, generally 

May through September. 

Table 4-19 

Average Daily Impacts of Reduced Recreational Spending under Alternative 1, 

2008 Visits, 2002 Values 

 Value of Output, 

$/Day 

Value Added, 

$/Day 

Employment, 

Jobs/Day 

3-County Region -$13,400 -$6,400 -0.12 

A decline in FLSRA entry fees would reduce funds into the State treasury. Multiple 

concessionaires also pay rental fees to the State. If FLSRA facilities are closed, 

concessionaires would move out of the area and rental payments would stop. This 

analysis evaluates decreases to the State funds by estimating total loss in revenues 

from decreased entry fees based on estimated visitation losses and rental payments. 

Tables 4-9 and 4-12 present daily and overnight entry fees and estimated visitation 

losses for each alternative, respectively. Based on these values, funds to the State 

would decrease by about $927,000 from construction of Alternative 1. Table 4-20 

shows the breakdown per visitor category of reduced entry fees assuming peak 

season rates. Under Alternative 1, concessionaires at Beal’s Point would not be 

affected by construction activities; therefore, rental payments to DPR would not 

reduce. 

Table 4-20 

Estimated Annual Reductions in State Revenues Due to Reductions 

in FLSRA Entry and Boat Launch Fees under Alternative 1, 

2008 Visits 

Campers who boat $ 18,500 

Campers who do not boat $ 5,400 

Day users who boat $ 820,000 

Day users who do not boat $ 35,900 

Other overnight visitors who boat $ 36,700 

Other overnight visitors who do not boat $ 10,700 

Total visitors affected $ 927,200 

Day use fees are $7 per party, camping fees are $20 per party per night, $8 boat 

launch fees per party 

Economic Impacts from Construction at the Folsom Facility 

Construction required by Alternative 1 would generate economic activity within the 

region by increasing employment, wages and salaries, and total output. 

Approximately 1,330 workers would be needed to complete construction during the 

2007 to 2013 Folsom DS/FDR timeframe. Total construction is estimated to occur 

from 2007 to 2013 or 2014 depending on alternative. Table 4-16 details the workers 

required per year. Construction labor would likely be supplied from laborers within 

the 3-county region. The region’s labor pool is assumed to be sufficient to supply the 

construction’s annual labor needs. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

IMPLAN was used to determine indirect and induced effects to the regional 

economy. Table 4-21 shows the direct, indirect, induced and total economic effect of 

employing 100 construction workers, as calculated by IMPLAN. This value is used 

to estimate potential employment benefits for all the alternatives. The total economic 

effect would be an increase of about $15.7 million in total value of output, $9.3 

million in value added, and 168 jobs. 

Table 4-21 

Total Annual Economic Effects of Employing 100 Construction 

Workers, 2002 Values 

 Value of Output, $ Value Added, $ 

Employment, 

Jobs 

Direct Impacts $9,409,900 $5,323,400 100 

Indirect Impacts $2,503,800 $1,520,200 27 

Induced Impacts $3,856,400 $2,471,700 41 

Total Impacts $15,770,200 $9,315,300 168 

Table 4-22 presents economic impacts based on the existing construction worker 

schedule. These economic impacts would benefit the local region and would only 

occur during the construction period. The impacts would be larger during years when 

more construction labor is required. Under Alternative 1, construction would be 

complete by 2013. 

Table 4-22 

Annual Total Economic Impacts During Construction of Alternative 1, 2002 

Values 

Year Number of 

Workers Value of Output, $ Value Added, $ Employment, Jobs 

2007 34 $5,361,900 $3,167,200 57 

2008 181 $28,543,900 $16,860,600 304 

2009 287 $45,260,500 $26,734,700 482 

2010 207 $32,644,300 $19,282,600 348 

2011 169 $26,651,600 $15,742,800 284 

2012 133 $20,974,400 $12,389,300 223 

2013 188 $29,648,000 $17,512,700 316 

2014 127 $20,028,200 $11,830,400 213 

IMPLAN generates direct employment numbers estimates based on the expected 

value of output that a full time worker could produce. Induced effects are then 

estimated with average wage data, which IMPLAN bases on state levels. IMPLAN 

data shows that average annual salary for full-time construction laborer ranges from 

$46,000 to $50,000, or about $22.10 to $24.04 per hour. These values are slightly 

higher than local data. According to California Labor Market Data Library wage and 

salary data for employment in California industries, construction laborers in the 

Sacramento MSA earned an average hourly wage of $15.38 per hour in 2002. Skilled 

laborers received $17.95 per hour (California Labor Market Information Data 

Library 2006). The IMPLAN wage averages include regions of California, such as 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-27 

Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, where wages area typically higher. 

Considering this data, the level of total economic effects may be less than those 

identified in Table 4-22. 

4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 Economic Effects 

The recreation-related economic impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to 

those described for Alternative 1. Recreation impacts are determined on an annual 

visitor basis. Under this alternative, construction activities would occur near the 

Granite Bay recreation facilities; however, it is not expected that recreation activity 

would be affected. Construction is anticipated to occur during late summer 2013. 

Effects to Beal’s Point and Folsom Point facilities would be similar to Alternative 1, 

except Folsom Point facilities would be closed for an additional year. 

Under Alternative 2, state revenues would decrease similar to Alternative 1. Because 

construction at Folsom Point would be longer under Alternative 2, total reduction to 

state revenues would be more than Alternative 1. Funds to the State are estimated to 

decrease by approximately $927,000 in 2008, which is the year with the most 

expected interruptions to recreation. In total, reductions in state revenues would be 

slightly larger under this alternative relative to Alternative 1 because of an additional 

year of closure at Folsom Point. 

The number of construction workers required under this alternative would be the 

same as under Alternative 1. This alternative is scheduled over a longer construction 

period; however, the economic benefits from additional construction time would be 

minimal. 

4.3.2.3 Alternative 3 Economic Effects 

This alternative would require less construction relative to Alternatives 1 and 2; 

therefore, FLSRA recreational facilities may be closed for a shorter period of time. 

Under this alternative, construction north of Granite Bay is anticipated to occur 

during late summer 2009; however, interruptions to recreation are not expected to 

occur because of the distance of the staging area to the recreational facilities. 

Recreation at Beal’s Point would be interrupted during construction on the Right 

Wing Dam and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. Construction at Beal's Point is estimated to begin 

in April 2008 and continue through summer. The construction timeframe at Beal’s 

Point is shorter than the other alternatives. Similar to Alternative 2, Folsom Point 

facilities are expected to be completely closed during the 2007 to 2013 construction 

period. The difference in economic effects of this alternative compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

Under Alternative 3, reductions to state funds would be slightly less than under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 because of the shorter construction period. Funds to the State 

are estimated to decrease by about $900,000 during the year with maximum 

estimated impacts (2008). 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

The number of construction workers required would be the same under Alternative 3 

as under Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the construction period would be shorter. 

The economic effects of fewer construction days would likely be small. 

4.3.2.4 Alternative 4 Economic Effects 

This alternative would require more construction relative to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3; 

therefore, the FLSRA facilities would be interrupted for a longer period of time. 

Construction at Granite Bay is expected to occur from late summer 2013 through 

2014. Approximately 25 percent of users of Granite Bay facilities would be affected 

by this alternative. Beal’s Point facilities would be interrupted during borrow 

development and construction on the RWD and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. Construction at 

Beal's Point is expected to begin in November 2007 and continue through 2009. 

Approximately 50 percent or less of users of Beal’s Point facilities would be affected 

by this alternative. Effects would be greater if borrow excavation at the north end of 

Beal’s Point is needed. Facility closures at Folsom Point would be similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Maximum visitation losses under this alternative are expected 

to occur in 2009. 

Under Alternative 4, reductions to State funds would be greater than under 

Alternatives 1 through 3 because of the longer construction period. Funds to the 

State are estimated to decrease by about $1.6 million during the year with maximum 

estimated recreation losses (2009). 

The number of construction workers required would be the same under Alternative 4 

as under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3; however, the economic benefits of construction to 

the local economy would last longer under this alternative because of the a longer 

construction period. The economic effects of additional construction days would 

likely be small. 

4.3.2.5 Alternative 5 Economic Effects 

This alternative would require additional construction relative to the other action 

alternatives; therefore; FLSRA recreational facilities would be affected for a longer 

time period. Construction at Granite Bay is estimated to begin in late summer 2013 

and continue through 2014. Approximately 50 percent of facility users would be 

affected by this alternative. Beal’s Point facilities would be partially closed during 

borrow development and construction of the RWD and Dikes 4, 5, and 6. 

Construction is estimated to occur from November 2007 through 2012, affecting 

approximately 75 percent of its users. Under this alternative, it is likely that borrow 

activity would occur at the south and north end of Beal’s Point. Folsom Point facility 

closures would be similar to Alternatives 2 through 4. Table 4-23 presents total 

economic impacts to value of output, value added, and employment from reduced 

recreational spending for Granite Bay, Beal’s Point, and Folsom Point facilities 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-29 

during the year when maximum visitation losses are expected to occur (2014) under 

this alternative. 

Table 4-23 

Annual Economic Impacts to Total Value of Output, Value Added, and 

Employment of Reduced Recreational Spending under Alternative 5, 

2014 Visits, 2002 Dollars 

Alternative 5 

(2014 Visits) Total Output, $ Total Value Added, $ Employment, Jobs 

Direct Impacts -$5,379,001 -$2,002,879 -$44

Indirect Impacts -$1,336,472 -$849,239 -$15

Induced Impacts -$2,142,285 -$1,373,019 -$23

Total Impacts -$8,857,758 -$4,225,137 -$82

Under Alternative 5, reductions to state funds would be greater than under 

Alternatives 1 through 4 because of the longer construction period. Funds to the 

State are estimated to decrease by about $1.7 million during the year with maximum 

estimated impacts (2014). 

The economic benefits of construction to the local economy would last longer under 

this alternative because of more worker days. The economic effects of additional 

construction days would likely be small. 

4.3.3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 

The economic impacts of the action alternatives depend on the amount of time that 

the recreational facilities at FLSRA would be closed and the amount and time of 

construction labor required for project components. The impacts under each 

alternative would vary as these factors change. Table 4-24 qualitatively compares the 

effects of all alternative. 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

4-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 4-24 

Alternatives Comparison of Economic Effects 

Economic 

Impact 

Description 

Alternative 1 

Economic 

Effects 

Alternative 2 

Economic 

Effects 

Alternative 3 

Economic 

Effects 

Alternative 4 

Economic 

Effects 

Alternative 5 

Economic 

Effects 

Reduced 

recreational 

spending 

Value of Output: 

-$4.9 million 

Value Added: 

-$2.3 million 

Employment: 

-45 jobs 

Slightly 

greater than 

Alternative 1 

Less impacts than 

Alts 1 and 2 

because fewer 

construction days 

and FLSRA could 

be closed for a 

shorter time 

Slightly less 

than Alternative 

5, Greater 

impacts than 

Alts 1-3 

Value of Output: 

-$8.4 million 

Value Added: 

-$4 million 

Employment: 

-77 jobs 

Reduced State 

revenues 

-$940,000 Slightly 

greater than 

Alternative 1 

because of 

longer 

construction 

at Folsom 

Point

Less impacts than 

Alts 1 and 2 

because FLSRA 

could be closed 

for a shorter time 

Greater impacts 

than Alts 1-3 

because FLSRA 

closed for a 

longer time 

-$1.7 million 

Greater impacts 

than Alts 1-4 

because FLSRA 

closed for a 

longer time 

Increase 

economic 

activity from 

construction 

per 100 jobs 

(impact vary 

per year based 

on number of 

workers) 

Value of Output: 

$15.7 million 

Value Added: 

$9.3 million 

Employment: 

168 jobs 

Same as 

Alternative 1 

Slightly less 

beneficial impacts 

than Alts 1 and 2 

because shorter 

construction 

period 

More beneficial 

impacts than 

Alts 1-3 

because longer 

construction 

period 

More beneficial 

impacts than 

Alts 1-4 

because longer 

construction 

period 

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 

Chapter 5 presents projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Implementation of these projects would produce economic benefits to the region by 

providing employment and increasing output. Projects planned to alleviate traffic 

congestion in the Folsom area would ease access within and out of the region. Local 

residents may be more willing to drive to shopping centers, restaurants, and 

recreation areas with less traffic. Also, outside visitors may drive into the region for 

recreation, shopping, and other activities. Increased spending at the retail and 

recreation levels would ripple through other sectors the economy. 

Under the cumulative condition, population growth is expected to continue at 

forecasted rates for the 3-county region. In Sacramento County, the total population 

is expected to increase from 1.37 million in 2005 to approximately 2 million in 2020; 

in Placer County, the population is expected to increase 305,675 in 2005 to 

approximately 456,000 in 2020. El Dorado County’s population is expected to 

increase 173,407 in 2005 to approximately 221,000 in 2020 (EDD 2004). Urban 

development necessary to accommodate growth would provide construction jobs for 
Chapter 4 

Socioeconomics 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 4-31 

housing and commercial building. Increased economic opportunities would attract 

businesses to the region, providing more economic activity. Increased population 

growth would also increase demand for recreation in the region, including FLSRA 

facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would temporarily close Folsom Point, Granite 

Bay, and Beal’s Point facilities at FLSRA. This would decrease economic activity in 

the region as discussed above. This analysis assumes that users would likely find a 

substitute recreation activity in the region and continue to spend money within the 

economy. Therefore, economic activity would not decrease as much as if local 

residents left the region for recreation opportunities. Under the cumulative condition, 

the region’s economy would continue to grow. FLSRA facilities would be open 

when construction of the Folsom DS/FDR is complete and recreation activity would 

be restored and likely improved. No other identified cumulative project would result 

in permanent or temporary closure of recreational facilities and a reduction of 

recreational spending in the region. 
 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-1 

Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5.1 Introduction 

Cumulative effects analyses are an important element of the environmental 

documentation and approval process and are required by both NEPA and CEQA. 

Cumulative effects are two or more effects that may be considered insignificant 

when analyzed separately, but become significant when considered together. 

Cumulative effects must take into consideration related past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. The cumulative effect is the change in the environment 

that occurs from the incremental effects of a project when considered with the effects 

of other past, present, and probable future projects. 

The cumulative effects analyses in this EIS/EIR evaluate the combined effects of the 

Folsom DS/FDR action and other projects that could have effects similar to the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. The subsequent sections describe the regulatory basis for 

cumulative effects, the methodology used to analyze cumulative effects in this 

document, the related projects considered in the analyses, and finally, the cumulative 

effects by environmental resource. 

5.2 Regulatory Basis 

5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR Section 1508.25) require an Environmental Impact 

Statement to discuss impacts which may be cumulative. NEPA defines a cumulative 

impact as: 

“...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time” (40 CFR Section 1508.7). 

5.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act 

According to Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency must discuss 

the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is 

“cumulatively considerable”, that is, when impacts of a project, combined with 

impacts from other projects, are considered significant. Cumulative impacts are 

defined in the CEQA Guidelines as: 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

“...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are 

considerable or which compound or increase other environmental 

impacts. 

 (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single 

project or a number of separate projects. 

 (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

project when added to other closely related past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant projects taking place over a period of time” (CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15355). 

5.3 Methodology 

This cumulative effects analysis uses the “list” approach as defined in CEQA 

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)). Section 5.4 presents a comprehensive 

list of past, present, and probable future projects that could have effects similar to 

those of the Folsom DS/FDR action. 

5.3.1 Study Area 

The study area for the cumulative effects analysis includes the entire area 

surrounding the Folsom Reservoir and the area of the lower American River to Lake 

Natoma. Several resource areas may expand the study area to include additional 

areas (local roads, etc.) in order to fully analyze the cumulative effects. 

5.3.2 Timeframe 

The timeframe for this cumulative analysis extends from 2007 through 2014, which 

is the length of the Folsom DS/FDR construction period. Because one possible 

outcome of the Folsom DS/FDR action could be the requirement to amend the 

current reservoir flood control operations plan (scheduled for 2018), reoperation of 

the reservoir is mentioned as a cumulative effect project. Reoperation will have its 

own separate environmental analysis and EIS/EIR, and thus is not addressed in detail 

within this section. 

5.4 Related Projects 

Table 5-1 provides a list of past, present and probable future projects in the general 

vicinity of the study area that are included in the cumulative effects analysis. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-3 

Table 5-1 

Cumulative Projects 

No. Project Name Description Date of Completion 

1. New Folsom Bridge 

New bridge downstream of 

Main Concrete Dam Late 2008 

2. 

Future Redundant Water Supply Intake 

and Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom, and 

San Juan Water District 

A new 84-inch-diameter 

inlet water pipe connected 

to the proposed Auxiliary 

Spillway side approach 

channel. 

 When new Flood 

Control Diagram is 

implemented, not to 

exceed 2018. 

3. Folsom Dam Road Closure 

Closure of Dam Road for 

public safety and security 

reasons. 2003 

4. L.L. Anderson Dam Improvements 

Widen the spillway of 

French Meadows 

Reservoir. Unknown 

5. 

Lower American River Common 

Features Project 

Levee stabilization and 

raising in Lower American 

River, Natomas Cross 

Canal, and elsewhere in 

Sacramento region. Ongoing 

6. 

Long-Term Reoperation of Folsom 

Dam and Reservoir 

Interim operation 

agreement with SAFCA 

expires. 2018 

7. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

(SMUD) 230kV Transmission Line 

Relocation 

Relocation of transmission 

lines and towers because 

of construction of New 

Folsom Bridge. Late 2006 or early 2007 

5.4.1 Folsom Bridge Project 

The Corps is proposing to construct a new bridge downstream of Folsom Dam Road. 

This new bridge would be part of the American River Watershed Project and is 

proposed to alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Folsom as a result of the 

closure of Folsom Dam Road. That road once accommodated 18,000 vehicles per 

day. Construction of the new bridge is scheduled to begin in 2007 and traffic is 

expected to be on the bridge by December 2008. 

5.4.2 Future Redundant Pipeline 

Several water agencies are proposing to construct a parallel pipeline within an 

existing pipeline right-of-way to improve water transport capability and reliability. 

The project would also include a new water supply intake. The new intake and 

pipeline may be completed together or as separate projects. 

5.4.3 Folsom Dam Road Closure 

In February of 2003, Folsom Dam Road was closed to public use due to dam safety 

concerns. Following a Record of Decision issued May 2005, Reclamation allowed 

the road to be opened to commuter traffic for 3-hour periods during the morning and 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

evening peak periods subject to the City of Folsom providing safety and 

infrastructure improvements. The City of Folsom is currently unable to open the 

roads subject to Reclamation’s conditions; therefore, the road remains temporarily 

closed. Relative to the impacts analysis conducted for this EIS/EIR, it was assumed 

that the Dam Road remains closed for the foreseeable future (i.e., through the 

construction period); hence, the transportation impacts analysis is considered to be 

conservative (i.e., potential impacts on nearby streets resulting from Folsom DS/FDR 

construction would, for the most part, be greater than would otherwise occur if the 

Dam Road is opened pursuant to the ROD)." 

5.4.4 L.L. Anderson Dam Improvements 

As part of the American River Watershed Project, the Corps plans modifications to 

L.L. Anderson dam at French Meadows Reservoir thereby reducing the PMF levels 

that would otherwise reach Folsom Reservoir. 

5.4.5 Lower American River Common Features Project 

The Corps, SAFCA, and the Reclamation Board are implementing ongoing programs 

for levee stability in the lower American River region, and elsewhere along the 

Sacramento River. Substantial levee improvement has been completed and the vast 

majority of the project will be constructed prior to implementation of the Folsom 

DS/FDR. 

5.4.6 Long-Term Reoperation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir 

The current approved flood control diagram for Folsom Reservoir requires 400,000 

acre-ft of flood storage capacity during the flood season. However, the reservoir is 

currently operated for additional flood storage capacity through an agreement 

between Reclamation and SAFCA. This “interim reoperation” requires a variable 

flood storage capacity of 400,000 to 670,000 acre-ft, depending on upstream storage 

conditions. A long-term reoperation plan is currently in the planning phase to update 

the approved flood control diagram to a variable 400,000 to 600,000 acre-ft of 

required flood storage capacity. An EIS/EIR would be developed by the Corps to 

address reoperation of the Folsom Facility based on the constructed features and 

reoperation potential of the Proposed Action. 

5.4.7 SMUD 230kV Transmission Line Relocation 

SMUD owns and operates a 230kV transmission line that extends along the northern 

boundary of Folsom Prison and provides electricity from the Upper American River 

Project hydropower facilities to Sacramento County and a portion of Placer County. 

This transmission line and nine existing lattice steel towers are currently in the 

corridor proposed for the New Folsom Bridge Project and will be relocated north of 

the proposed New Folsom Bridge and road, to avoid construction conflicts. A Draft 

Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is currently being 

prepared for this utility relocation. The relocation of the transmission line and towers 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-5 

would also allow for a possible future connection into the Western Area Power 

Association (WAPA) Folsom substation (Reclamation 2006e). 

5.5 Summary of Cumulative Effects for Individual 

Resource Areas 

The following section presents a summary of the cumulative effects analysis by 

environmental resource area. A complete cumulative analysis is included in each 

resource section. These brief descriptions explain the Folsom DS/FDR action’s 

contribution to cumulative effects on each resource. 

5.5.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

Flood protection would improve as a result of the Folsom DS/FDR and the other 

cumulative projects. This would result in positive cumulative benefits. Folsom 

DS/FDR-related construction activities could potentially influence water quality, 

change the viability of wetlands, and alter groundwater and surface water levels. 

When combined with construction of the New Folsom Bridge; Future Redundant 

Water Pipeline for Roseville, Folsom, and San Juan Water Districts; and the Lower 

American River Common Features Project, there is a possibility that water resources 

would be affected. However, each project’s associated Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), Best Management Practices (BMPs), pertinent permits, 

and appropriate monitoring and testing would ensure that measures are implemented 

to avoid hydrologic resource impairment including water quality degradation, 

changing water levels, and detrimental effects to wetlands. This would result in 

effective mitigation of significant cumulative impacts. 

5.5.2 Water Supply 

Of the projects identified in Table 5-1 only the Long-term Reoperation of Folsom 

Dam and Reservoir would potentially affect water supply. Impacts of reoperation are 

unknown and would be addressed in separate environmental compliance 

documentation; however, for this cumulative analysis, the impact is assumed to be 

less than significant after mitigation. Other projects in Table 5-1 would not have any 

effects on water supplies. The Folsom DS/FDR could potentially reduce reservoir 

storage by approximately 0 to 1,243 acre-feet which would be considered less than 

significant. No other known projects would reduce reservoir storage; therefore, the 

Folsom DS/FDR’s incremental contribution to the cumulative condition would be 

less than significant. 

5.5.3 Air Quality 

Many of the projects in Table 5-1, including the New Folsom Bridge, include 

construction within the study region. Construction of these projects would increase 

emissions of criteria pollutants, including VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM emissions, 

from onsite construction and transport of materials. If these construction projects are 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

implemented concurrently, the combined cumulative effects would be above CEQA 

thresholds for air quality emissions and the General Conformity de minimus 

thresholds. Each project would need to mitigate individual air quality effects, which 

could decrease overall cumulative effects. However, without consideration of 

scheduling and sequence of activities, concurrent construction projects within and 

adjacent to Folsom Reservoir would have significant cumulative air quality impacts. 

The effects of the Folsom DS/FDR to air quality would be cumulatively 

considerable. Additionally, mitigated NOx, PM10 and CO emissions associated with 

the Folsom DS/FDR would be greater than the General Conformity de minimis

threshold. Therefore, these incremental effects would be significant under the 

cumulative condition. 

5.5.4 Aquatic Resources 

The Folsom Bridge Project is expected to result in limited impacts to fishery 

resources, in part in areas also potentially affected by the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects of the Folsom Bridge Project and the Folsom 

DS/FDR actions would not be cumulatively considerable for fishery resources in 

general. 

5.5.5 Terrestrial Resources 

Vegetation 

The Folsom Bridge Project is expected to result in limited impacts to native 

vegetation, in part in areas also potentially affected by the Folsom DS/FDR Action. 

These impacts include impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The project provides 

mitigation to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District Transmission Line Project will result in limited impacts to 

native vegetation, primarily in areas also potentially affected either by the Folsom 

Bridge Project or the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Additional impacts to native 

vegetation in the Folsom DS/FDR Action area are not expected from this project. 

Potential alterations to stream flow due to modification of the spillway at French 

Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in the long distance between L.L. Anderson 

Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area and are not likely to affect vegetation in 

the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. Although work related to the Lower American 

River Common Features Project is on-going, it is close to completion and consists 

primarily of levee work outside the floodway. 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for vegetation in general, for riparian 

vegetation, or for wetland vegetation. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-7 

Special-status Plant Species 

The Folsom Bridge Project is not expected to result in impacts to special-status plant 

species. The SMUD Transmission Line Project is not expected to result in impacts to 

special-status plant species. Potential alterations to stream flow due to modification 

of the spillway at French Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in the long 

distance between L.L. Anderson Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area and are 

not likely to affect vegetation in the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. Although work 

related to the Lower American River Common Features Project is on-going, it is 

close to completion and consists primarily of levee work outside the floodway. 

Cumulative impacts to federally or state-listed plant species from the Folsom 

DS/FDR Action are not expected to occur because species in those categories are 

unlikely to occur in the project area. In addition, other special-status plant species are 

unlikely to be affected by the Folsom DS/FDR Action. While complete avoidance of 

such species may not be possible, should they be found in the interim, the proposed 

mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 

implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR Action, its implementation along with the 

Folsom Bridge Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for special-status plant species. 

Special-status Wildlife Species 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect elderberry shrubs, the host plant for the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle. Mitigation measures specified in Section 3.5.2 would reduce this 

impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation for these impacts may be 

compensated in a joint area with elderberry compensation for the Folsom Bridge 

Project to provide better quality habitat and greater cost efficiency. 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect only small amounts of existing amphibian aquatic habitat, 

most of which is unsuitable to marginally suitable for amphibian species, including 

special-status species. Terrestrial habitat potentially utilized by western spadefoot 

toad may be altered temporarily or permanently, but since the distribution of this 

species appears to be limited by the lack of aquatic breeding habitat rather than 

terrestrial habitat, none of the proposed alternatives are likely to affect the overall 

habitat value for this species. Mitigation measures, such as performing preconstruction surveys and implementation of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting 

Plan for wetlands affected by the project, would reduce both direct and indirect 

impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, these impacts would result in only 

a very minor contribution to ongoing cumulative effects caused by other projects 

within the region. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Construction-related disturbances for all alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR Action 

have the potential to affect special-status reptiles, birds, and bats and their habitat, 

and other breeding migratory birds. However, other habitat is available adjacent to 

the project area. With the mitigation measures described in Section 3.5.2, these 

potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 

The DEIS/EIR for the Folsom Bridge project (Corps 2006b) found there would be no 

adverse effects to the California red-legged frog or the giant garter snake from any of 

the alternatives evaluated for that project because “...no suitable habitat for specialstatus reptiles, amphibians, or invertebrates was noted during the wetland delineation 

for the proposed project” (Corps 2006b). The DEIS/EIR for the Folsom Bridge 

project did identify potential impacts to the white-tailed kite and for the bald eagle if 

these species were to be present during construction. This document also provided 

mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

Construction activities for three other projects would be implemented concurrently 

with, and generally within the footprint of, construction activities implemented for 

the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Therefore, they would not contribute to additional 

direct or indirect impacts. These projects include the Reliable Water Supply Project 

for the City of Roseville, City of Folsom, the San Juan Water District project and the 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Transmission Line Project.

Because environmental documents to fulfill NEPA/CEQA requirements have not yet 

been completed for the redundant water pipeline for the City of Roseville, City of 

Folsom, the San Juan Water District project, or the Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District Transmission Line Project impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, including 

special-status species, have not been identified. However, any alternative that would 

install a new intake and redundant delivery pipeline would affect habitat already 

disturbed by the existing infrastructure. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the 

construction-related impacts would occur concurrently with, and within the footprint 

of, construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR Action. Likewise, a substantial 

portion (possibly all) of the construction-related impacts for Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District Transmission Line Project would occur within the footprint of, 

construction activities for the Folsom DS/FDR Action or the Folsom Bridge project. 

Potential alterations to stream flow due to modification of the spillway at French 

Meadows Reservoir would be attenuated in the long distance between L.L. Anderson 

Dam and the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. Although work related to the Lower 

American River Common Features Project is on-going, it is close to completion. 

Impacts to wildlife and their habitat due to the Folsom DS/FDR Action are less-thansignificant with mitigation and, therefore, would not contribute to cumulative 

impacts with the remaining levee work. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-9 

Therefore, the effects of these projects in combination with the Folsom DS/FDR 

Action would not be cumulatively considerable for wildlife in general or for specialstatus wildlife. 

5.5.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

Blasting could potentially be required for the Folsom DS/FDR and the New Folsom 

Bridge. However, blasting would be of sufficient distance from the Bear Mountains 

Fault system and would not trigger seismic activity. Cumulative adverse effects 

associated with seismic activity would be less than significant. 

Although the construction of the New Folsom Bridge and the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions would involve a substantial amount of soil and material displacement, the 

potential for landslides within the study area is low and construction techniques 

would be implemented to minimize the potential for landslides. Cumulative adverse 

effects associated with landslides would be less than significant. 

Although the construction of the New Folsom Bridge and the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions would involve a substantial amount of soil and material displacement, 

impacts associated with this loss would be less than significant. Any minerals that 

would be excavated would not be used for commercial purposes and therefore would 

not be considered an economic loss. Similarly, excavated topsoil is not of a high 

ecological or agricultural value. Cumulative adverse effects associated with soil 

losses would be less than significant. 

Combined construction activities would result in significant impacts associated with 

soil erosion. However, both action would be mitigated through the implementation of 

BMPs set forth in the SWPPP. The development and implementation of an SWPPP 

for each project would effectively mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. 

5.5.7 Visual Resources 

Cumulative effects on visual resources were evaluated considering the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Table 5-1 summarizes projects in 

the cumulative analysis. Under the cumulative condition, only the New Folsom 

Bridge Project and Folsom DS/FDR would affect visual resources within the local 

visual setting. However, because the New Folsom Bridge Project would not be 

visible from the same FLSRA view points, it would not create a noticeable change in 

the characteristic visual landscape. The Folsom DS/FDR would not contribute to any 

cumulative effects. 

5.5.8 Agricultural Resources 

Because none of the alternatives, including the No Action/No Project Alternative, 

would affect agricultural resources, there would be no cumulative effects. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

5.5.9 Transportation and Circulation 

Most of the projects include construction within the study region that will require 

transport of materials to and from the site. In addition, population is increasing in the 

region, which will further increase traffic congestion in the study area. Under the 

cumulative condition, all Folsom Facility construction projects would have the 

potential for significant transportation and circulation effects should construction 

activities occur concurrently. Cumulative effects of traffic near the Main Concrete 

Dam would be limited by restricted access, staging, and closed construction areas. 

Also, cumulative effects of construction projects could be controlled through the 

scheduling and sequencing of haul truck traffic. Once completed, the new Folsom 

Bridge will greatly alleviate traffic congestion within the vicinity of the Folsom 

construction areas. 

Alternatives of the Folsom DS/FDR would have significant impacts to transportation 

and circulation at select roads, including East Natoma Street and Scott Road, from 

increased trip generation. The Folsom DS/FDR would further increase traffic in a 

highly congested area along East Natoma Street. This would be considered a 

significant cumulative effect. 

5.5.10 Noise 

The potential for cumulative noise impacts from other nearby projects occurring 

concurrently with the Folsom DS/FDR include the New Folsom Bridge Project. 

Construction activities associated with Folsom DS/FDR would be similar to those 

anticipated for the Folsom DS/FDR. Similar construction activities include: 

earthwork, concrete work, blasting operations and truck hauling operations. 

Cumulative noise impacts would occur for residential areas along Folsom-Auburn 

Road south of Folsom Reservoir and along East Natoma Street in particular when the 

Auxiliary Spillway work and the New Folsom Bridge Project would be under 

construction during the same period beginning 2008. Both the Folsom Bridge 

Project and the Folsom DS/FDR include mitigation measures to minimize noise 

impacts and are anticipated to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. 

5.5.11 Cultural Resources 

The Folsom DS/FDR, in conjunction with the cumulative projects listed above, and 

the growth potential of the region, could lead to cumulative impacts to cultural 

resources. However, provided that proper mitigation consistent with Section 106 of 

the NHPA for federal actions and CEQA for state, county and municipal actions, is 

implemented for all projects, cumulative impacts would likely be avoided. The 

Folsom DS/FDR would implement appropriate mitigation measures and would 

therefore not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-11 

5.5.12 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

Any land use action taken, such as building a flood protection structure and/or 

acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title), that could change the existing 

land use operation or function of an impacted parcel would be a potentially 

significant impact to land use. It is unlikely that the projects identified in Table 5-1 

would have any notable adverse impact on local land use designations or zoning 

designations. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the Folsom DS/FDR action would 

be less than significant. 

5.5.13 Recreation Resources 

Table 5-1 describes the projects included in the cumulative analysis. Besides, the 

Folsom DS/FDR, the other projects would not restrict access to or use of major 

recreation sites at the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA). The Folsom 

Dam Road Closure will continue to redirect traffic through city streets and may 

cause further traffic interruptions to those trying to access FLSRA facilities. The 

New Folsom Bridge should relieve some of the traffic interruptions. Construction of 

the bridge should not have any direct effect on FLSRA facilities. The DPR, in 

partnership with Reclamation, recently began work on the integrated FLSRA 

General Plan and Resource Management Plan Update. This process would update the 

current general plan, as well as the long-range vision for the area. The General Plan 

will result in improvements to the FLSRA facilities. 

The Folsom DS/FDR impacts to recreation would be cumulatively considerable 

during the construction period because of the magnitude of potential decreases in 

visitation at FLSRA facilities. 

5.5.14 Public Services and Utilities 

The Folsom DS/FDR would not have cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities 

and public services, including electricity, natural gas, stormwater, solid waste, water 

and wastewater infrastructure, telecommunication infrastructure, and existing roads. 

5.5.15 Hydropower Resources 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions would have no impacts to hydropower generation; 

therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. 

5.5.16 Population and Housing 

No significant impact on population and housing would occur as a result of the 

Folsom DS/FDR action. It is unlikely that the projects identified in Table 5-1 would 

have any impact on population and housing in a negative way. Therefore, the 

cumulative effect of the Folsom DS/FDR action would be less than significant. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

5.5.17 Public Health and Safety 

Cumulatively, the Folsom DS/FDR action would have a beneficial effect on public 

health and safety with respect to natural disasters. The Folsom DS/FDR action would 

reduce current dam deficiencies, such as potential failure due to seismic 

(earthquake), static (seepage), and hydrologic concerns (probable maximum flood 

events), and provide greater protection to downstream populations in the Sacramento 

metropolitan area from potential flood impacts. Effects on public health and safety 

with respect to hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste were found not to have the 

potential to contribute to cumulative effects because the effects are either temporary 

or have no potential to be additive to other projects. Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR 

action would not have an adverse cumulative effect on public health and safety. 

5.5.18 Indian Trust Assets 

The Folsom DS/FDR would not affect any Indian Trust Assets; therefore, it would 

not have any cumulative considerable impacts. 

5.5.19 Environmental Justice 

The Folsom DS/FDR would have no significant environmental justice impacts and 

would not contribute to any cumulative environmental justice impacts. 

5.5.20 Socioeconomics 

Population and economic development in the Folsom DS/FDR study area is 

increasing. The Folsom DS/FDR would not have a cumulative considerable impact 

to the region’s economy. 

5.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The CEQA Guidelines state that any significant environmental impacts that cannot 

be avoided if the project is implemented must be described. This description extends 

to those significant impacts that can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level of 

insignificance. The following section discusses significant and unavoidable impacts 

related solely to the project, as well as cumulative impacts of the project in 

combination with existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

5.6.1 Project-Related Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 

The Folsom DS/FDR would have a significant unavoidable impact on the following 

resources: 

5.6.1.1 Recreation 

Folsom DS/FDR construction would result in a temporary loss of recreational use at 

major recreation sites and trails. Folsom Point would be closed to the public during 5 

to 6 peak seasons, depending on the alternative. This would result in a significant 

and unavoidable impact to the region’s recreation and potential overcrowding of 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-13 

other regional facilities. Partial closure and reduced access to the Folsom PointBrowns Ravine Trail would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Construction 

would also cause the cancellation of some special events scheduled at FLSRA 

because of the shutting down of Folsom Point. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, there 

would be significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation at Granite Bay and 

Beal’s Point. All significant and unavoidable impacts would be temporary and last 

only during the construction period. 

5.6.1.2 Visual 

Borrow areas and processing facilities at Beal’s Point would be within the 

foreground views from most all vantage points at Beal’s Point for Alternatives 1 

through 5. These activities would significantly impact Class A and B visual 

resources. Impacts from borrow areas and processing facilities at Granite Bay for 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would be within the foreground views from the beach area and 

could affect Class A and Class B visual resources. The borrow area and processing 

plant at MIAD Left would be within the foreground views from most all vantage 

points at Browns Ravine/Folsom Reservoir Marina under Alternatives 4 and 5. These 

impacts would be significant and unavoidable until completion of construction. 

Several residential developments contain homes with lake views. These residents 

would potentially view construction activities throughout the day and evening 

throughout the duration of the Folsom DS/FDR under all the alternatives. 

Construction-related impacts to visual resources as perceived scenic views from 

residential developments would be significant and unavoidable for the duration of 

the construction period. Alternatives 2 through 4 would involve raises to Folsom 

Facility that could permanently impair views of the reservoir from several private 

residential developments; these impacts would be considered significant and 

unavoidable. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, construction of parapet walls would impair views of 

hikers along trails that circumnavigate the western and southern part of the reservoir. 

This view impact would be further impaired by placement of a safety rail at the top 

of each wall to prevent walking on top of and falling off of the walls. This permanent 

visual impact would be significant and unavoidable. 

This construction would also cause a significant and unavoidable permanent impact 

on the visual character of the Folsom Facility. Under Alternatives 2 through 5 the 

raising of existing embankments and the construction of new embankments could 

impair view of the reservoir from the shoreline. These impacts would be permanent, 

and considered significant and unavoidable. 

5.6.1.3 Terrestrial Resources 

Inundation caused by emergency flood retention could adversely affect other specialstatus wildlife. Inundation above the OHWM could adversely affect special status 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

wildlife such as western burrowing owls, northwestern pond turtles, California 

horned lizards, giant garter snakes, long billed curlew, white faced ibis, mountain 

plovers, and various bat species. 

Because such inundation would be a rare event and even for a 151-year flood would 

last for less than two days, with the water being progressively lowered, little or no 

impacts to reptiles and to ground-foraging birds that do not breed in the project area 

would occur. 

The nests of ground nesting birds may be inundated if emergency retention occurs 

after eggs have been laid. Any western burrowing owls that occupy areas that lie 

between the current OHWM and the maximum reservoir elevation that would result 

from implementation of the project could be subject to drowning, loss of burrows 

and loss of eggs. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 

5.6.1.4 Land Use 

Under Alternatives 2 through 5, if substantial inundation of non-federal property 

surrounding Folsom Reservoir could not be avoided through other flood protection 

measures (such as a flood protection berm) under an extreme flood or Probable 

Maximum Flood (PMF) event, fee title would be acquired for the impacted nonfederal parcel. The effect of acquiring fee title for an impacted non-federal parcel 

and associated discontinuation of the existing land use function or operation would 

be a significant and unavoidable impact to land use. 

5.6.2 Cumulative Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 

Without proper scheduling and sequencing, the Folsom DS/FDR would have 

significant and unavoidable adverse cumulative impacts to recreation, traffic and air 

quality. 

5.7 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and LongTerm Productivity 

NEPA guidance (NEPA Section 102(2)(c)(iv) and 40 CFR 1502.16) requires a 

discussion of long-term versus short-term effects. At issue is whether short-term 

effects are counterbalanced by long-term effects. The discussion of effects should 

include effects that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose 

long-term risks to health and safety. 

All action alternatives implement dam safety measures that involve construction of 

new features, raising dam and/or dike elevations, constructing seismic and static 

retrofits, and construction of staging and borrow sites. These would include shortterm uses of capital, labor, fuels, and construction materials, habitats, and recreation 

areas. General construction material resource commitments are largely irreversible, 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-15 

since most of the construction materials are unsalvageable. The labor and fuel used 

in the construction and operation of the Folsom DS/FDR are irretrievable. Habitat 

and recreation area losses would only be temporary during construction activities and 

would be recommitted as habitat and recreation areas or mitigated elsewhere. 

Benefits include reduction of potential flooding-related loss of resources, property, 

and human life. The environmental uses of these areas would not change, and habitat 

for a variety of species would still exist in the creek, levees, and streambanks. There 

are no adverse effects that would pose a long-term risk to health and safety. 

5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources/Significant Irreversible Changes 

In accordance with the NEPA and CEQA Guidelines (NEPA Section 102(2)(c)(v) 

and 40 CFR 1502.16 and Public Resources Code 21100(b)(2)(B) and CEQA 

Guidelines 15126(c), 15126.2(c), and 15127), this EIS/EIR discusses any irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources that would be consumed with the 

implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR. Significant irreversible environmental 

changes are defined as uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and 

continued phases of the project which may be irreversible, since a large commitment 

of these resources makes future removal of nonuse unlikely. 

Construction activities would involve the consumption of nonrenewable natural 

resources such as the earthen borrow material, concrete and slurry mixture, and 

petroleum for fuel. The resources used in site preparation, construction material 

transportation, borrow material transportation, excavation, and disposal of excess 

excavated materials would be permanently committed to the Folsom DS/FDR 

alternatives. In addition, continued operation and maintenance of the completed 

Folsom DS/FRD would use petroleum for fuel and potentially soil and concrete. 

Additionally, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 could require dam raises and construction of 

new embankments. Views of the reservoir from nearby residences could be impaired 

by the raised and new embankments. The visual character of the Folsom Facility 

would also be permanently altered with any raise. This loss in scenic quality would 

be considered a significant irreversible change since there is no feasible mitigation to 

reduce the visual impacts of new embankments or a raise to the Folsom Facility. 

5.9 Growth Inducement 

Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an environmental document to: 

“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or 

population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either 

directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this 

are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth...” 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

5-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

In general, an action would be considered growth inducing if it caused or contributed 

to economic or population growth. Growth-inducing actions would result in more 

economic or population growth than would have occurred otherwise from other 

factors. Thus, a growth-inducing action would promote or encourage growth beyond 

that which could be attributed to other factors known to have a significant 

relationship to economic or population growth. 

The various alternatives currently being considered for the Folsom DS/FDR action 

would not contribute directly to population or economic growth by constructing 

additional housing or by building new businesses. However, the Folsom DS/FDR 

would generate additional economic benefits during construction and would 

contribute to greater flood protection for the Sacramento area once complete. 

Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR may have some limited growth inducing potential. 

Although the Folsom DS/FDR has limited growth inducing potential, it would not 

necessarily result in growth. Each municipality or county controls growth at the 

local level through land use policies in each jurisdiction. Decision-makers alone are 

able to transform growth-inducing potential or pressure, created by economic or 

social conditions, into actual growth. 

Within the study area, growth and development are controlled by the local 

governments of the City of Sacramento, City of Folsom, County of Sacramento, 

County of El Dorado, and County of Placer. Consistent with California law, each of 

these local governments has adopted a general plan and each general plan provides 

an overall framework for growth and development within the jurisdiction of each 

local government. Local, regional, and national economic conditions also directly 

affect growth and development. 

Additionally, although the Folsom DS/FDR would provide for greater flood 

protection, there are many other components to the flood protection system along the 

American River. For instance, the Corps is responsible for the levee system along the 

lower American River, and FEMA is responsible for flood hazard mapping and the 

Flood Insurance Program. Recent improvements by the Corps to the lower American 

River levees resulted in FEMA issuing a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) on 

February 18, 2005 removing a number of properties from the Special Flood Hazard 

Area and from flood insurance requirements. Any additional flood damage reduction 

benefits offered by the Folsom DS/FDR would not result in new LOMRs. Moreover, 

development has already occurred in significant portions of the American River 

floodplain and is currently expanding despite floodplain designation and costs 

associated with providing flood insurance. Thus, eliminating the flood risk 

designations or reducing the area within the floodplain would not increase growth or 

development in the American River floodplain. 
Chapter 5 

Cumulative Effects 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 5-17 

Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR would not promote or encourage growth beyond that 

which could be attributed to the other factors noted above that are known to have a 

significant relationship to economic or population growth. 
 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 6-1 

Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

6.1 Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive 

Orders 

Implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR is subject to multiple Federal and State 

statutes and local planning regulations. Chapters 1 and 3 describe the regulations 

related to each environmental resource. This section identifies compliance efforts 

for applicable regulations. Table 6-1 lists the statute, the section it is described in, 

any relevant permits or processes required, and the status of compliance. 

Table 6-1 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

Federal Statute

National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

Section 1.8 EIS, Record of Decision Ongoing 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NHPA) 

Section 1.8, 

Section 3.11.1.2 

Section 106 Consultation Ongoing 

Clean Air Act Section 1.8, 

Section 3.2.2.1 

Conformity provisions, mitigation 

measures 

Ongoing 

River and Harbors Act Section 1.8 Analyzed in EIS/EIR(1) In Compliance 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 1.8, 

Section 3.1.1.2 

Section 401 and 404 requirements, 

NPDES permit 

Ongoing 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) 

Section 1.8, 

Section 3.4.1.3, 

Section 3.5.1 

Section 7 Consultation, Biological 

Assessment, 

Ongoing 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (FWCA) 

Section 1.8 Coordination Action Report Ongoing 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Section 1.8, 

Section 3.5.1 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Executive Order 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands 

Section 3.5.1 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Executive Order 12898, 

Environmental Justice 

Section 1.8, 

Section 3.22 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Farmland Protection Policy Act Section 1.8, 

Section 3.8.1 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Indian Trust Assets Section 3.18 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

 

6-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Table 6-1 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

State Statute 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act 

Section 1.8, 

Section 3.1.1.2 

NPDES, Waste Discharge 

Requirements 

Ongoing 

California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) 

Section 1.8 EIR Ongoing 

California ESA Section 1.8 DFG consultation Ongoing 

Natural Community 

Conservation Planning Act 

Section 1.8 DFG consultation Ongoing 

Government Code Section 

65040.12(e) Environmental 

Justice 

Section 1.8 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

California Land Conservation 

Act (Williamson Act) 

Section 3.8.1 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

California Clean Air Act Section 3.2.2.1 Ambient air quality standards, 

mitigation measures 

Ongoing 

Local Statute 

Sacramento County General 

Plan 

Section 3.10.1 Zoning requirements In Compliance 

El Dorado County General 

Plan 

Section 3.10.1 Zoning requirements In Compliance 

Placer County General Plan Section 3.10.1 Zoning requirements In Compliance 

(1) regulation addressed through EIS/EIR process 

Note: Ongoing – Some requirements of the regulation remain to be met by subsequent installation actions before 

implementation of some of the actions associated with this project. Once the statutory requirement for each action has 

been met, compliance will be labeled “in compliance”. 

6.2 Public Scoping Meetings 

On October 6, 2005, the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) published the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to correct seismic, 

static, and hydrologic issues associated with the structures that make up Folsom 

Dam. The Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR, which in addition to Reclamation, includes the 

Corps, SAFCA, DWR, and the State Reclamation Board. These agencies held public 

scoping meetings at the following locations to receive comments: 

• Granite Bay, December 12, 2005. 

• Folsom, December 14, 2005. 

• Sacramento, December 15, 2005. 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 6-3 

Approximately 90 people attended the three meetings, including members of the 

public, elected officials, and representatives from public agencies, water resources, 

waterways, and electric power and flood control. All three public meetings were 

held in an open house forum. Displays were set up to provide information on issues, 

impacts, agency roles, and opportunities for public involvement. The displays 

included the following information: 

Display 1. Project Overview 

• Background information about the Folsom Dam, its role in the Central Valley 

Project, its role as a flood control facility for the Sacramento area, the critical 

need for improvements, and the proposed alternatives. 

Display 2. Issues 

• The three main issues (hydrologic, seismic and static) that need to be addressed 

in order to maintain the long term safety of Folsom Dam. 

• Associated structures explained in detail with graphics. 

Display 3. Impacts 

• Potential impacts to both the reservoir and the Folsom area during construction 

and after modifications are complete. 

Display 4. Roles & Responsibilities 

• The collaborative relationship of Reclamation with the Corps to improve the 

structural integrity of Folsom Dam and protect the region from floods. 

Display 5. EIR/EIS Process 

• A timeline and explanation of the complete environmental review process from 

developing the purpose and need, to adopting the Record of Decision, with 

information describing continued public involvement. 

At the scoping meetings, the public had the opportunity to comment, either verbally 

or written, on the Folsom Dam project. The following bullets provide a summary of 

major issues from public comments received including verbal comments made 

during the public scoping meetings, and all written comments submitted during the 

comment period where possible. These comments were addressed during 

development of the EIS/EIR. 

• What is the role of each of the agencies and how will the two Federal agencies 

interact in completing the project? 

• What are the major impacts from this project and how will they be mitigated? 

• How will traffic be affected? 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

 

6-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

• What level of safety will the new dam features provide? 

• What downstream affects will the new facilities have? 

• How will agencies keep the public informed about future meetings and other 

project updates? 

• What will the impacts be on local homeowners during construction? 

• What are the recreational, cultural, and natural resource impacts and how will 

they be mitigated? 

6.3 Agency Coordination 

Table 6-2 presents the agencies involved in development of the Folsom DS/FDR 

EIS/EIR. The following sections further describe these agencies’ roles in the process 

and the involvement of other Federal, State, and local agencies. These efforts are 

ongoing and agencies in addition to those listed below could be consulted throughout 

the project implementation. 

Table 6-2 

Agencies involved in Developing the Folsom DS/FDR

Agency Role in Folsom DS/FDR 

Reclamation NEPA Lead Agency 

Corps Cooperating Agency under NEPA 

Reclamation Board/DWR CEQA Lead Agency 

SAFCA Responsible Agency under CEQA 

6.3.1 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

Reclamation is participating in the Folsom DS/FDR pursuant to the Safety of Dams 

Program and the Energy and Water Development Act of 2006. Reclamation’s main 

objective under the Dam Safety Program is to ensure the Folsom Facility can safely 

pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)1

. The Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act of 2006 directed Reclamation and the Corps to collaborate on 

authorized activities to maximize flood damage reduction improvements and address 

dam safety needs at the Folsom Facility. As the Federal lead agency, Reclamation is 

responsible for complying with NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, FWCA, ESA, and 

CWA. 

 

1

 The PMF is defined as “the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of 

critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in a particular 

drainage area” (Corps 2002). 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 6-5 

6.3.2 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

The Corps is participating in the Folsom DS/FDR pursuant to the flood damage 

reduction objectives and the Energy and Water Development Act of 2006. The 

Corp’s flood damage reduction objective is to provide the region downstream of the 

Folsom Facility with a level of flood protection that the community has interpreted 

as a minimum of a 1-in-100-year flood protection. 

6.3.3 California Department of Water Resources and State Reclamation 

Board 

With increased development in flood prone areas and recent legal decisions, the State 

is at financial risk for flood damages. DWR and the State Reclamation Board are 

participating in the Folsom DS/FDR to improve flood protection and management in 

the region. The State Reclamation Board is the State lead agency responsible for 

CEQA compliance of the Folsom DS/FDR. The Reclamation Board’s mission 

includes controlling flooding along the Sacramento River and its tributaries in 

cooperation with the Corps. 

6.3.4 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SAFCA is the local agency involved in the Folsom DS/FDR. In 1989, the City of 

Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, the American River 

Flood Control District and Reclamation District 1000 created SAFCA through a 

Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (SAFCA Undated, Corps 1996). The purpose of 

SAFCA was to represent local interests during the flood protection planning process 

(SAFCA Undated, Corps 1996). 

6.3.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USFWS is participating in the Folsom DS/FDR pursuant to the ESA and FWCA. 

The project agencies are consulting with USFWS for preparation of a Biological 

Opinion and Coordination Action Report. 

6.3.6 California Department of Fish and Game 

CDFG participation is based on its responsibilities for protecting California’s fish 

and wildlife resources and native plants and habitat. CDFG also protects special 

status species through implementing the California ESA. The project agencies and 

sponsors are consulting with CDFG for effects to sensitive species and plant 

communities. 

6.3.7 State Water Resources Control Board 

SWRCB has authority over California water quality and appropriative surface water 

rights. The SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) 

carry out the NPDES permitting process for point source discharges and the CWA 

Section 303 water quality standards program. The Folsom DS/FDR agencies and 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and Coordination 

 

6-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

sponsors are consulting with the Central Valley RWQCB for potential effects to 

water quality from construction activities. 

6.3.8 CVP Water and Power Users 

Reclamation has been actively coordinating with approximately 240 CVP water and 

power users who will be responsible for 15 percent of the cost of the Dam Safety 

portion of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

6.4 Project Management and Technical Teams 

Many management and technical teams studied and reviewed the construction and 

environmental impacts of the Folsom DS/FDR. These teams included 

representatives from multiple agencies. 

• PASS Team - Project Alternative 

Solutions Study Team 

• PMT - Project Management Team 

• PASS II Team - Project Alternative 

Solutions Study II Team 

• Mitigation and Monitoring Team 

• OMG - Oversight Management 

Group 

• PMG - Project Management Group 

• PDT - Project Development Team 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-1 

Chapter 7 

References 

 

Ahl, J. S. B. 1991. Factors affecting contributions of the tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus 

packardi, to its oversummering egg reserves. Hydrobiologia 212 (1):137-143. 

Aspen Environmental Group. 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company’s Application for Authorization to Divest Its Hydroelectric 

Generating Facilities and Related Assets. 

Auerbach, Joanne (Placer County Redevelopment Agency). 21 March 2006. 

Telephone conversation with Suzanne Wilkins of CDM, Tahoe City, California. 

Barbour, R. W. and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Lexington, Kentucky: 

University of Kentucky Press. 

Beals, R. L. 1933. “Ethnology of the Nisenan”. University of California Publications 

in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 31(6):335-414. 

Beardsley, R.K. 1948. Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. 

American Antiquity. 14(1):1-28. 

Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton. 1997. Tricolored blackbird: status update and 

management guidelines. (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 97-099.) Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR and California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Bell, D.A. 2004. Memorandum for Record: Area of Potential Effects and 

Archaeological Survey, Resident Office and Staging Area, Folsom Dam 

Modifications Project, Sacramento County, California. 

Belk, D. and M. L. Fugate. 2000. Two new Branchinecta (Crustacea: Anostraca) 

from the southwestern United States. The Southwestern Naturalist 45(2):111–117. 

Bennyhoff, J.A. 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for 

Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis. 

Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson. 1993. Before the Wilderness: Environmental 

Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. 

Brinkman, Tom (Senior Traffic Engineer, Placer County). 2006. Personal electronic 

mail regarding minimum LOS thresholds with Lisa Sherman, CDM, Rhode, Island, 

March 1, 2006. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Brode, J. M. 1988. Natural history of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi 

gigas). In: Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology, H. F. Delisle, P. 

R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B. M. McGurty (eds.). Southwestern Herpetologists 

Society, Special Publication No. 4:25-28. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. Local Area Annual Estimates for Sacramento, 

Placer, and El Dorado Counties. Accessed:10 April 2006. Available from: 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm 

Burrowing Owl Consortium (BOC). 2006. Survey protocol and mitigation 

guidelines. Accessed: 17 May 2006 Available from: 

http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/PDFFiles/surveyprotocol.pdf. 

Bury, R. B. 1971. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Adm. Rep. No. 72-2. 31pp. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2006a. “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” 

Sacramento, CA (May 6).

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2006b. “2004 Estimated Annual Average 

Emissions – Sacramento County,” Accessed 9 June 2006. Available from: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/statemap/cntymap.htm. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2006c. “Air Quality Data Statistics,” 

Accessed 13 March 2006. Available from: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2006d. “Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly 

Nitrogen Dioxide Measurements,” Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgibin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start

California Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation. 2006. SMARA 

Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed: 11 May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/OMR/smara/faq.htm. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR). 2006a. Folsom 

State Prison. Accessed: 31 March 2006. Available from: 

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Vistors/fac_prison_FSP.html. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 2006b. California 

State Prison, Sacramento (SAC). Accessed on: 3/13/2006. Available at: 

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Vistors/fac_prison_SAC.html. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-3 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000. California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships System: (CWHR Database Version 8.0). CDFG Natural Heritage 

Division. Rancho Cordova, CA. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Rarefind, California Natural 

Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005a. Rarefind 2, California Natural 

Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005b. State of California, Resources 

Agency, Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife and 

Habitat Data Analysis Branch California Natural Diversity Database. Special 

Animals. July 2005. Accessed: February 2006. Available from: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006a. California Department of Fish and 

Game, Natural Diversity Database. January 2006. Special vascular plants, 

bryophytes, and lichens list. Quarterly publication. Accessed: February 2006. 

Available from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/spplants.pdf. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006b. State of California, The Resources 

Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife and 

Habitat Data Analysis Branch California Natural Diversity Database. State and 

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animal of California. January 2006. 

Accessed: February 2006. Available from: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). 1979. Folsom Lake State 

Recreation Area General Plan. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Public Opinions and Attitudes 

on Outdoor Recreation in California, 2002. State of California Resources Agency. 

Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2004. Authorities and 

Responsibilities of the Commission. Accessed: 11 April 2005. Available from: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=933 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2004a. Folsom Dam, Folsom Lake 

SRA. Accessed on: 05 04 2006. Available at: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=882
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2004. Folsom Dam FAQ’s. 

Accessed on: 05 12 2006. Available at: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=883

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006a. Letter dated April 6, 2006. 

Topic: Impacts to recreation use areas and recommended mitigation measures. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006b. Recreation use and revenues 

data at FLSRA. Email correspondence from Michael Gross (Gold Fields District, 

Folsom Lake Sector, CDPR) to CDM received on 15 May 2006 and 9 May 2006. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006c. Day Use Fees. Accessed: 11 

May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/737/files/Day%20Use%20Fees%202006.pdf. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006d. Camping Fees. Accessed 11 

May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/737/files/camping%20fee%20schedule.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).1998. Traffic Noise Analysis 

Protocol. 

Caltrans. 2006. Legal Truck Size & Weight. 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/trucksize/

Caltrans. 2002. Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. 

California Department of Transportation. 2006a. 1994 - 2004 Traffic and Vehicle 

Data Systems Unit. State of California Department of Transportation. http://trafficcounts.dot.ca.gov/

California Department of Transportation. 2006b. District 3 and North Region 

Projects. Accessed: April 2006. 

California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Division of Flood Management. 

Reservoir Elevation Records for Folsom Lake. Accessed: July 2006. Available from: 

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgiprogs/selectQuery?station_id=FOL&dur_code=D&sensor_num=6&start_date=1985

&end_date=now

CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G Environmental 

Checklist Form. http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/Appendix_G.html

California Fire Alliance. 2004. California Fire Planning and Mapping Tools. 

Accessed: 10 May 2006. Available from: http://wildfire.cr.usgs.gov/FirePlanning/ 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-5 

California Geological Survey. 2003. Seismic Hazards Mapping. Accessed: 11 May 

2006. Available from: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/article10.htm 

California Geological Survey. 2006. Interactive Ground Motion Map. Accessed: 11 

May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html 

California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(o). 

Available from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=25001-26000&file=25500-25520 

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2004. Title 14, 

California Code of Regulations. Accessed: 24 February 2005. Accessed at: 

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Regulations/Title14/ . 

California Labor Market Information Data Library. 2006. Construction Laborers in 

Sacramento County. Accessed: 11 May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/occExplorerQSDetails.asp

?searchCriteria=construction+worker&careerID=&menuChoice=occExplorer&geog

Area=0604000067&soccode=472061&search=Explore+Occupation 

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of 

California (6th edition, electronic version). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory 

Committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor. Sacramento: California Native Plant 

Society. 

California Office of State Fire Marshall (COSFM). 2003. About Us. Accessed: 14 

April 2005. Available from: http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/aboutus.html 

California State Water Code, Part 2.75 Groundwater Management. Section 10753 

Groundwater Management Plans. Accessed: April 2006. Available from: 

http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwab3030.cfm. 

California State Water Code. Section 13050(f). Accessed: October 2006. Available 

from: 

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/code.html?sec=wat&codesection=13050-

13051

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA 2003). California BMP 

Handbooks-Construction. Available at: 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Construction.asp. 

Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), 2006. Email Correspondence between Lisa 

Sherman, CDM and Darrow Mathew, Sacramento County, April 24, 2006. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

City of Folsom. 2002a. City of Folsom Fire Department. Accessed: 24 February 

2006. Available from: http://ww.folsom.ca.us/index.asp?page=58 

City of Folsom. 2002b. City of Folsom Police Department. Accessed: 24 February 

2006. Available from: http://www.folsom.ca.us/index.asp?page=64 

City of Folsom, 1993. City of Folsom General Plan. 

City of Folsom. 2004. City of Folsom Zoning Ordinance. 

City of Folsom. 2006. Chapter 8.42 Noise Control. Municipal Code. 

City of Lincoln. 1988. Noise Element. General Plan. 

City of Lincoln Community Development Department Planning Division. 2005. City 

of Lincoln General Plan Public Draft Goals & Policies Report. 

City of Lincoln Department of Public Works. 2004. Department of Public Works 

Design Criteria and Procedures Manual. 

City of Marysville. 1985. General Plan. 

City of Roseville. 2003. General Plan, 1992, updated 2003. 

City of Rocklin. 2005. Noise Element. Draft General Plan 

City of Wheatland. 2006. Chapter 4.11 Noise. General Plan Update. 

Cocke, Joe. 22 March 2006. (Folsom State Prison Public Information Officer). 

Telephone conversation with Suzanne Wilkins of CDM, Tahoe City, California. 

Colgate, K. A. 2005. Personal Communication with K. A. Colgate regarding sighting 

of a Canada goose at Beal Point. December 2005. 

Community Development. City of Marysville. 1985. City of Marysville General 

Plan. Marysville, California. 

Council of Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance. 

County of Sacramento, Planning and Community Development Department General 

and Advance Planning Section. 1993a. Safety Element of the County of Sacramento 

General Plan. Includes revisions as of 2 May 1997. p. 2. 

County of Sacramento. 1993b. Planning and Community Development Department 

General and Advance Planning Section. Conservation Element of the County of 

Sacramento General Plan. County of Sacramento General Plan. Revised 5/2/1997. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-7 

County of Sacramento. 1998. County of Sacramento General Plan, Noise Element, 

December 1993, amended 1998. 

Curtis, E.S. 1924. The Maidu. The North American Indian. 14: 99-126, 173-176, 

192-195, 230-237. 

Darrow Mathew. 2006. (Sacramento County). Email Correspondence with Lisa 

Sherman of CDM. 24 April 2006 

Davis, J.T. 1961. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of 

California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 54.. 

Department of Public Works, Yuba County. 2006. Transportation Master Plan Yuba 

County. Accessed: 20 March 2006. Available from: 

http://www.co.yuba.ca.us/content/departments/pubworks/documents/COMPLETE_

MSTRPLN2006.pdf

Department of Water Resources, California (DWR). 2003. California’s 

Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update. 

Department of Water Resources. 2004. California Water Plan Draft Volume 4 

Reference Guide, Legislation. Accessed: 24 February 2005. Available from: 

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/b160/B160.Draft.June.7.2004/Vol_4/legislation.

pdf 

Dillon, R. 1975. Siskiyou Trail: The Hudson’s Bay Company Route to California. 

McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C

DKS Associates. 2003. Southeast Placer Transportation Study. Accessed: April 

2006. Available from: 

http://www.placer.ca.gov/upload/dpw/projects/documents/sptsfinalreport.pdf

EDR. 2006. EDR DataMap Corridor Study for Folsom Dam. Inquiry Number 

01637093.lr. March 23. 

El Dorado County. 1987, Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan. 

El Dorado County. 2002. “Guide to Air Quality Assessment - Determining 

Significance of Air Quality Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality 

Act, First Edition,” Placerville, CA (February). 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

El Dorado County. 2003. The Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Dust Protection 

Ordinance Chapter 8.44. 

El Dorado County website. 2003. Stories in El Dorado County’s History. Accessed 

on: 08 29 2006. Available at: http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/stories/alabaster.html 

El Dorado County. 2006. El Dorado County Zoning Map. 

El Dorado County Planning Department. 2004. A Plan for Managed Growth and 

Open Roads; A Plan for Quality Neighborhoods and Traffic Relief. El Dorado 

County General Plan. El Dorado County, California 

El Dorado County Department of Transportation. 2006. 2005 Traffic Counts Annual 

Summary. Available from: http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/dot/trafficcounts.asp

El Dorado County Public Library Website. 2002. Mines of El Dorado County By 

Doug Noble. Accessed on: 08 24 2006. Available at: http://www.eldoradolibrary.org

Employment Development Division (EDD). 2006. 2004 County Snapshots for El 

Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties. Accessed: 10 March 2006. Available 

from: 

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/?PageID=4&SubID=147 

Eng, L. L., D. Belk and C. H. Eriksen. 1990. “California Anostraca: distribution, 

habitat and status.” Journal of Crustacean Biology. 10:247-277. 

Entrix, Inc. 2005. Turbidity and suspended sediment effects on salmonids and 

aquatic biota in flowing systems. Final report prepared for Rock Creek-Cresta 

Project No. 1962 Ecological Resources Committee. 

Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and 

playas. Mad River Press. Eureka, CA. 

Far Western Anthropological Research Group. 1992. Folsom Reservoir Reoperation 

Study, El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, California. On file, Corps, 

Sacramento. 

Far Western Anthropological Research Group. 1993. Final Report on a Cultural 

Resources Inventory of a Portion of the Folsom Reservoir Study Area. On file, 

Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Faye, P. 1923. “Notes of the Southern Maidu”. University of California Publications 

in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(3):35-53. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-9 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Federal Guidelines for 

Dam Safety, FEMA Publication 93. April. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Federal Guidelines for 

Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, FEMA 

Publication 94. April. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1980. Noise Fundamentals Training 

Document, Highway Noise Fundamentals. 

Federal Highway Administration. 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and 

Abatement Policy and Guidance. 

Federal Register. 1980. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 52803-52807. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle with critical habitat. 1980 (Volume 45, Number 155). 

Federal Register. 1993. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 54053-54066. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the giant garter 

snake. October 20, 1993 (Volume 58, Number 201). 

Federal Register. 1994. “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of endangered status for the Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy 

shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and the threatened status for the vernal 

pool fairy shrimp.” 50 CFR Part 17. 58(180): 48136-48153. 

Federal Register. 1996. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 25813-25833. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the California 

red-legged frog. May 23, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 101). 

Federal Register . 2003. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 46684-46867. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; final designation of critical habitat for four vernal 

pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in California and southern Oregon . 

August 6, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 151). 

Federal Register. 2004. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 47212-47248. Determination of 

threatened status for the California tiger salamander; and special rule exemption for 

existing routine ranching activities. August 4, 2004 (Volume 60, Number 149). 

Federal Register. 2005. 40 CFR Part 51, Page 63218-68621. Revision to the 

Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of Preferred General Purpose (Flat and 

Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions. November 5, 2005. 

(Volume 70, Number 216). 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Federal Register. 2005a. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 49380-49458. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the California tiger 

salamander, Central Population; final rule. August 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 

162). 

Federal Register. 2005b. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 66905-67064. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii); proposed rule. November 3, 

2005 (Volume 70, Number 212). 

Federal Register. 2005c. 40 CFR Part 81, Page 19344-19356. Air Quality 

Designations for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards—Supplemental Amendments; Final Rule. April 14, 2005. 

Federal Register, 2005d. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 81, Page 44470-44478. Identification 

of Ozone Areas for which the 1-Hour Standard has been Revoked and Technical 

Correction to Phase 1 Rule. August 3, 2005. Volume 70, Number 148. 

Federal Register. 2005e. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 81, Page 71776-71789. Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; California; Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Update for Ten 

Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; Technical Correction. November 

30, 2005. Volume 70, Number 229. 

Federal Register. 2006. 50 CFR Part 17, Page19244-19346. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California 

Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for 

Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, 

Number 71). 

Federal Register. 2006a. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 2893. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Extension of Public Comment Period. May 

16, 2006. (Volume 71, Number 94). 

Federal Register. 2006b. 50 CFR Part 17, Page 7118-7166. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool 

Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule. February 10, 2006. (Volume 

71, Number 28). 

Federal Transit Authority (FTA), 1995. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment,” April 1995. 

Ferris C. R. 1979. Effects of interstate 95 on breeding birds in northern Maine. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 43:421-427. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-11 

Fitch, H. S. 1941. Geographic variation in garter snakes of the genus Thamnophis 

sirtalis in the Pacific coast region of North America. American Midland Naturalist, 

26:570-592. 

Fletcher, J. E. 2004. A Report of Findings for the On-Site Survey of Recreation 

Users and Telephone Survey of Area Residents for Folsom Lake State Recreation 

Area 2003. Chico, California. 

Folsom Lake Boat Rentals. 2005. Boat Rental Prices. Accessed: 19 May 2006. 

Available from: http://www.folsomlakerentals.com/. 

Fredrickson, D. A. 1972. Early Cultures of the North Coast of the North Coast 

Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 

University of California, Davis. 

Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. “Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View 

from the North Coast Ranges.” Journal of California Anthropology 1:41-53. 

Federal Transit Administration.1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment. 

Gallagher, S. P. 1996. “Seasonal occurrence and habitat characteristics of some 

vernal pool Branchiopoda in northern California,” U.S.A. Journal of Crustacean 

Biology 16:323-329. 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 2003. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area Resource 

Inventory Environmental Conditions Geology. Accessed on: 03 05 2006. Available 

at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=22741. pp G-1, G-3, G-6, G-7, G-9, 

G-13 G-16. 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 2003. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area Resource 

Inventory Environmental Conditions Soils. Accessed on: 05 10 2006. Available at: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=22741. pp S-1, S-15. 

Gifford, E.W. 1927. “Southern Maidu Religious Ceremonies”. American 

Anthropologist 29(3):214-257. 

Granite Bay Community. 1996a. Community Plan Noise Element. Granite Bay 

Community Plan. Granite Bay, California. 

Granite Bay Community. 1996b. January 23, 1996 amendment. Granite Bay 

Community Plan. Granite Bay, California. 

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. 

Coast Avifauna No. 27 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Hansen, R. W. and G. E. Hansen. 1990. Thamnophis gigas (giant garter snake) 

reproduction. Herpetological Review. 21(4): 93-94. 

Harris, C.M. 1991. Handbook of Acoustic Measurements and Noise Control, 3

rd

Edition.

Heizer, R.F. 1949. “The Archaeology of Central California I: The Early Horizon.” 

University of California Anthropological Records 12(1):1-84. 

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 

Hill, D. 1972. Maidu Use of Native Flora and Fauna. Unpublished manuscript on 

file, Pacific Legacy, Cameron Park. 

Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. U.S. Department 

of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 11 chapters + 

appendices 

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities 

of California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game. 

Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch, and W.N Abeloe. 1990. Historic Spots in 

California. 4

th

 ed, revised by D.E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 

Hurtado, A.L. 1988. Indian Survival on the California Frontier. Yale University 

Press, New Haven. 

Jackson, R., M. Boynton, W. Olsen, and R. Weaver. 1988. California 

Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse 

Lithic Scatters. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged 

frog (Rana boylii): implications for management. In: Proceedings of the symposium 

on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. 

R. Sarzo, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton, (technical coordinators). U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service General Technical Report RM-166, pp. 144-158. 

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of Special 

Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, 

CA. 

Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-13 

and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Keast, A. and J. Harker. 1977. “Fish distribution and benthic invertebrate biomass 

relative to depth in an Ontario lake.” Env. Biol. Fish. 2(3): 235-230. 

Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., 

New York. 

Kunz, T. H. and R. A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. American Society Mamm., 

Mammalian Species No. 175. 6 pp 

Larry Walker Associates. 1999. 1998/99 Annual Monitoring Report and 

Comprehensive Evaluation, 1990-1999. 

Leonard, M., and M. Fenton. 1983. Habitat use by spotted bats (Euderma 

maculatum, Chriroptera: Vespertilionidae): roosting and foraging behavior.. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61:1487-1491. 

Leonard, M., and M. Fenton. 1984. Echolocation calls of Euderma maculatus

(Vespertilionidae): use in orientation and communication.. Journal of Mammalogy, 

65:122-126. 

Lessard, Drew. 2006. (Bureau of Reclamation). Email regarding reductions in 

reservoir storage from excess material to Stacy Porter of CDM, Sacramento (Sept 9 

2006). 

Levy, R. 1978. Eastern Miwok in California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Smithsonian 

Institute, Washington, D.C pp. 398-413. 

Lillard, J.B., and W.K. Purves. 1936. The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes 

Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College Department of 

Anthropology Bulletin 1. 

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. “An Introduction to the 

Archaeology of Central California.” Sacramento Junior College Department of 

Anthropology Bulletin 2. 

Littlejohn, H.W. 1928. Nisenan Geography. Manuscript on file, Bancroft Library, 

University of California, Berkeley. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Lucchi, Joe (City of Folsom, Economic Development Director). 23 March 2006. 

Telephone conversation with Suzanne Wilkins of CDM, Tahoe City California. 

Martin, J. W. 1989. Harriers and kites. In: Proceedings of the Western Raptor 

Management Symposium and Workshop. B.G. Pendleton, ed. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. 

Tech. Ser. No. 12, pp. 83-91. 

Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of 

California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 

Meredith, H. C. 1900. “Archaeology of California: Central and Northern California.” 

Prehistoric Implements: A Reference Book, edited by W.K. Moorehead. Robert 

Clarke, Cincinnati. 

Michael Minor & Associates. Vibration Primer. 2006. Accessed: May 2006. 

Available from: http://www.drnoise.com/PDF_files/Vibration%20Primer.pdf. 

Midwest Research Institute (MRI). 1996. “Improvement of Specific Emission 

Factors (BACM Project No. 1) – Final Report,” Kansas City, MO (March 29). 

Miller, D. 2002. Antrozous pallidus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed 19 

January 2006. Available from: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/

Antrozous_pallidus.html. 

Mintier & Associates. 2005. Wheatland General Plan Policy Document Part II. 

California. 

Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. 

Berkeley, CA. 

MWH Laboratories. 2003. Laboratory Report for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Department of Interior. 

Navo, K., J. Gore, and G. Skiba. 1992. Observations of the spotted bat, Euderma 

maculatum, in northwest Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy, 73 (3): 547-551. 

North Central Information Center (NCIC). 2005. Summary of Records Search 

Results, Folsom Dam Safety of Dams Borrow Sites Project, Sacramento, Placer, and 

El Dorado Counties, California. NCIC File Nos. ELD-05-95, PLA-05-81, SAC-05-

117. On file, Reclamation, Sacramento. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-15 

Office of Truck Services, Caltrans. 2006. Legal Truck Size & Weight. Accessed: 

2006. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/trucksize/

Pacific Legacy. 2006. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory for the Folsom Dam 

JFP EIS/EIR Project, El Dorado, Placer and Sacramento Counties, California. 

Prepared for Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Peak and Associates. 1990. Folsom Lake Reoperation: Historical Resources 

Overview. Submitted to Corps, Sacramento. 

Perazzo, Peggy B. 2006. Stone Quarries and Beyond, Auburn (Rattlesnake Bridge) 

Through Clipper Gap. Accessed on: 09 06 2006. Available at: 

http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/states/ca/quarry_photo/cael_dorado_auburn_rattlesnake_bridge-clipper.html

Perry, T., P. Cryan, S. Davenport, and M. Bogan. 1997. New locality for Euderma 

maculatum (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist, 

42:99-101. 

Pierson, E., and W. Rainey. 1998. Distribution of the spotted bat, Euderma 

maculatum, in California. Journal of Mammalogy, 79(4):1296-1305. 

Petrinovich, Mike (Reclamation). 2006. Personal communication with John Baas 

(ENTRIX) regarding Reclamation planning process. 14 April 2006. 

Placer County. 1994. Placer County General Plan Update Countywide General Plan 

Policy Document. Placer County, California. 

Placer County, 2003. Placer County Zoning Ordinance. 

Placer County. 2004. Placer County General Plan Update Countywide General Plan 

Policy Document. August, 2004. pp. 128.

Planning and Community Development Department, Sacramento County. 1993. 

1993 County of Sacramento General Plan. Sacramento, California. 

Planning Department, City of Roseville. 2004. City of Roseville General Plan 2020. 

Roseville, California. 

Planning Services, City of Folsom. 1988/1993 City of Folsom General Plan. Folsom, 

California. 

Poche, R. 1981. Ecology of the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) in southwest Utah. 

Utah Division Wildlife Resources, 81-1: 1-63. Robertson, J. M. 1929. Some 

observations on the feeding habits of the burrowing owl. Condor 31:38-39. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Powers, S. 1976. “Tribes of California”. Contributions to North American Ethnology

Volume III. Reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley from original 

1877 manuscript. 

Public Works Department, City of Roseville. 2002 – 2004. Traffic Information Tool

Accessed: April 2006. Available from: http://maps.roseville.ca.us/trafficinfotool/

Public Works Department, City of Roseville. 2003. Truck Routes (Map). Accessed: 

April 2006. Available from: 

http://www.roseville.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2144

Public Works Department, City of Roseville. 2004. Traffic Impact Studies. Roseville, 

California.

Public Works Department, City of Folsom. 2004. Capital Improvement Projects 

Quarterly Report. Available from: 

http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/public_works/default.asp

Public Works Department, City of Roseville. 2005. Douglas/I-80 Interchange 

Improvement Project. Available from: http://www.roseville.ca.us/pw/default.asp 

Public Works Engineering Division, City of Roseville. Engineering Division List of 

Projects between 5/5/06 and 2010. Available from:

http://www.roseville.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2176 

Ragir, S. 1972.“The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory.” Contributions 

to the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Central Valley Region.1998. The 

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin 

River Basins. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. 2004. The 

Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. The Water Quality 

Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Valley Region. Fourth Edition. Revised September 2004 (with Approved 

Amendments). 

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird 

populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers 

(Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J. Appl. Ecol. 31:85-94. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. Terbraak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic 

on breeding bird populations in woodland. 3. Reduction of density in proximity of 

main roads. - J. Appl. Ecol. 32:187-202. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-17 

Rheindt, F.E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in 

determining susceptibility to noise pollution? - J. Ornithol. 144:295-306. 

Rossman, D. A. and G. R. Stewart. 1987. Taxonomic reevaluation of Thamnophis 

couchii (Serpentes: Colubridae). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, 

Louisiana State University (63):1-25. 

Rossman, D. A., N. B. Ford, and R. A. Siegel. 1996. The garter snakes: evolution 

and ecology. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 332pp. 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). Undated. About SAFCA. 

Accessed on: 03 09 2006. Available at: http://www.safca.org/about/index.html

Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). 1990. SACOG Population and 

Housing Inventory. 

SACOG. 2004. Projection Data Jurisdictions from 2005 to 2025. Accessed: April 

2006. Available from: http://www.sacog.org/demographics/projections/index.cfm 

Sacramento County. 2004. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Sacramento, 

California.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2004. 

“Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County,” Sacramento, CA (July). 

Sawyer, John O., and Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. 

California Native Plant Society. 

SMAQMD 2006a. “Air Quality Standards Attainment Status Chart,” Accessed: 9 

June 2006. Available from: http://www.airquality.org/aqdata/attainmentstat.shtml 

SMAQMD 2006b. Personal communication, telephone conversation with P. 

Christensen, SMAQMD and J. Pehrson, CDM (June 9). 

SMAQMD 2006c. Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Rateof-Progress Plan Final Report. February 2006. 

Schell, Rob. 2005. Personal communication with Rob Schell, biologist with 

ENTRIX, regarding Cooper’s hawk and oak titmouse sightings. December 2005. 

Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson. 1929. “Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin 

Valley.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and 

Ethnology 25(4): 289-413. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Schulz, P.D., and E.W. Ritter (editors). 1972. Papers on Nisenan Environment and 

Subsistence. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis. 

Schwartz, O. A. and V. C. Bleich. 1985. Optimal foraging in barn owls? Rodent 

frequencies in diet and fauna. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of 

Sciences 84:41-45. 

Seltenrich, C. and A. Pool. 2002. A standardized approach for habitat assessments 

and visual encounter surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Sherer, Steve (Reclamation). 2006. Email regarding MIAD connectivity with Stacy 

Porter of CDM, Sacramento, California 

Sherer, Steve (Reclamation). 2006a. Email with Shawn Oliver (Reclamation) 

regarding blasting, forwarded to Stacy Porter with CDM, Sacramento, California. 

Sherer, Steve (Reclamation). 2006b. Email with Larry Hobbs, forwarded to John 

Wondolleck with CDM, Sacramento, California. 

Sherer, Steve (Reclamation). 2006c. Email regarding abandoned mines and 

chromium with Rose Stefani, forwarded to Stacy Porter with CDM, Sacramento, 

California. 

Sibley, D. A. 2001. The Sibley guide to bird life and behavior. New York: Alfred A. 

Knopf. Stebbins, R. C. 1951. Amphibians of western North America. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 

Sonoma County 2005. Blue Rock Quarry Expansion, Draft Environmental Impact 

Report, SCH No. 2001032062, Appendix H (August).

State of California. The California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G 

Environmental Checklist Available from:

http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/Appendix_G.html

State of California. Undated. California Law, California Water Code, Section 

13240. Accessed: 24 February 2005. Available from: 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=13001-

14000&file=13240-13247 

State of California, Department of Finance. 2004. Population Projections by 

Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and Its Counties 2000-2050. May 

2004. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-19 

State of California Department of Transportation. December 2002. Guide for 

Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. State of California Department of 

Transportation. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Rights and 

California Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. A Guide to Water Transfers. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality and 

California Environmental Protection Agency. February 2003. Revision of the Clean 

Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments: Water Body Fact 

Sheets Supporting the Section 303(d) Recommendations. Staff Report Volume III. 

State Water Resources Control Board. 2006. Storm Water Program. Accessed: 12 

May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/stormwtr/construction.html 

Stebbins, Robert C. 1951. Amphibians of Western North America. Berkeley and Los 

Angeles. University of California Press 

Stebbins, Robert C. 1972. California Amphibians and Reptiles. Berkeley, Los 

Angeles, and London. University of California Press. 

Storz, J. 1995. Local distribution and foraging behavior of the spotted bat, Euderma 

maculatum, in northwestern Colorado and adjacent Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 

55:78-83. 

Thompson, T., and A.A. West. 1880. History of Sacramento County, California. 

Thompson and West, Oakland, California. 

Transportation Research Board. 2001. Highway Capacity Manual 2000; U.S. 

Customary Version. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. American River Watershed Project Final 

Supplemental EIS/EIR Part I Main Report, and Part II Final Supplemental EIS/EIR, 

March 1996. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. American River Watershed, California, 

Folsom Modification Project Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, August 

2001. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. American River Watershed, California. 

Folsom Dam Modification Project, Final Limited Reevaluation Report, August 2001. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. American River Watershed, California, LongTerm Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR, (Vol. I-III). 

February 2002. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Recreation Visitor Spending Profiles and 

Economic Benefit to Corps of Engineers Projects. Recreation Management Support 

Program. December. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Letter to SAFCA regarding release capacity of 

dam and capacity of downstream levees. December 9, 2004. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Environmental Site Assessment Folsom Dam 

Modification, Sacramento County California Draft, May 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005a. Program Description and Schedule for the 

Update Flood Management Plan, American River Watershed, Forecast Based 

Operations Plan, November 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005b. American River Watershed, California, 

Folsom Dam Modification Project Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, 

October 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. American River Watershed Project, Folsom 

Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge Public Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Environmental Impact Report May 2006. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006b. American River Watershed Project, Folsom 

Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report. Internal draft report prepared for Corps and City of 

Folsom. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006c. Requirements For Submitting Requests To 

Construct On Lands Encumbered With Flowage Easement, U.S. Army Corps Of 

Engineers Fort Worth District. Accessed: 29 May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.swfwc.usace.army.mil/wrightpatman/final%20flow%20ease%20hand.htm

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sacramento District South Pacific Region and City 

of Folsom. 2006d. American River Watershed Project Post Authorization Decision 

Document(PADD) Folsom Dam Raise Folsom Bridge Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR 

Volume 1. May 2006. pp 4-82 and 4-85. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SAFCA, and Reclamation Board. 2002. American 

River Watershed, California Long-term Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation 

Report EIS/EIR. February 2002. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-21 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 2003. 

Dam Safety Risk Analysis Methodology, May 2003, Version 3.3.1. Accessed on: 04 

24 2006. Available at: http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/dam_safety/risk/riskmeth33.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.1994. The Central Valley Project Overview Bureau of 

Reclamation History Program, Denver Colorado Research on Historic Reclamation 

Projects 1994. Accessed: May 25, 2006. Available from: 

www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/cvpintro.html. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2001. The Central Valley Project. Accessed: 17 May 

2005. Available from: http://www.usbr.gov.mp/cvp/index.html 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Folsom Coliform Sampling 2003. Fecal coliform 

concentrations. Received via electronic mail on 27 February 2006 from Shawn E. 

Oliver, Natural Resource Specialist, Reclamation. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SAFCA, DWR, The 

State Reclamation Board. 2005. Project Alternative Solutions Study (PASS) Folsom 

Dam Flood Control and Hydrologic Risk Reduction Alternatives Final Report. 

October 2005. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005a. Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction Final 

EIS. April 2005. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005b. Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction. Record 

of Decision(ROD). 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005c. Folsom Dam - Safety of Dams – Corrective 

Action Study Scoping Report, Folsom Dam Central Valley Project, California, 

October 2005. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005d. Water quality profile data of samples collected 

from Folsom Reservoir on June 28, 2005. Received via electronic mail on February 

27, 2006 from Shawn E. Oliver, Natural Resource Specialist, Reclamation. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005e. Folsom Powerplant. Accessed on: 05 05 2006. 

Available at: http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/folsom/folsom.html

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005f. Folsom Facility Safety of Dams Requirements 

and Concepts, February 2005. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005g. Folsom Safety of Dams Real Estate Report with 

Value Estimate, December 5, 2005. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SAFCA, DWR, The 

State Reclamation Board (Reclamation et al.). 2006. Folsom Dam Raise & Auxiliary 

Spillway Project Alternatives Solution Study (PASS II) Technical Review Team 

Draft, February 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2006. Folsom Dam Fact Sheet. Accessed: 12 May 

2006. Available from: http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/dams/ca10148.htm. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2006b. MIAD Hydrogeology Draft Report. 

U.S Bureau of Reclamation. 2006c. Folsom Dam Security Enhancement Project, 

August 30, 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Undated. Dam Safety. Accessed on: 03 10 2006. 

Available at: http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/dam_safety/

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2006d. Petrographic Examination of Trench Soil 

Samples – Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam, Folsom Project, California, Memorandum 

from Doug Hurcomb, Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory Group to Denver 

Engineering Geology Group, February 6, 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2006e. Sacramento Municipal Utilitiy District. 230kV 

Folsom Dam Transmission Line Relocation Internal Draft Environmental 

Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact, October 2006. Prepared by HDR. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic Operations Branch. 2001. 

2000 American Indian Areas/Alaska Native Areas/Hawaiian Home Lands, 

Cartographic Boundary Files. Accessed: 24 February 2005. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004a. 2000 Census Data. Accessed: May 2006. Available 

from: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004b. 2000 Census Data Folsom Employment. Accessed: 10 

April 2006. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

geo_id=16000US0624638&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. 2002 Economic Census. Accessed: 10 April 2006. 

Available from: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/index.html 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 23 CFR Part 772. 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 131.2 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-23 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. Federal Highway Administration – 

Who We Are. Accessed: 4 May 2006. Available from: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/whoweare/whoweare.htm 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise 

Model User’s Guide, Final Report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1995. Landscape 

Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook. No.701. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006a. Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. Accessed: 24 February 2006. Available from: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/ 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006b. FPPA Rule, 7 CFR 658. 

Accessed: 6 March 2006. Available from: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/ 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Effects of Noise on Wildlife 

and Other Animals. Report Number NTID 300.1. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Washington, D.C. 20460. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971a. Noise from Construction 

Equipment and Operations Building, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an 

Adequate Margin of Safety. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. “General Conformity Guidance: 

Questions and Answers,” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC (July 13). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Major Environmental Laws, Clean 

Water Act. Accessed: April 2006. Available from: 

http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. Accessed: 5 April 2005. Available from: 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/docs/epa_q&a.pdf 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2004a. “User's Guide for 

the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD;” EPA-454/B-03-001 (September). 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Region 9, Water Programs, 

Underground Injection Control. Accessed: 24 February 2005. Available from: 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/uic.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. Solid Waste Laws and Regulations. 

Accessed: 4 April 2005. Available from: 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/solid/laws.html#1 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005c.Wastes, RCRA FAQs Database. 

Accessed on 24 February 2005. Available from: 

http://waste.custhelp.com/cgibin/waste.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=235&

p_created=1089130785&p_sid=ANzkKVyh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3Nv

cnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD03NzAmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li= 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. "Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources," Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (accessed March 29). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Conservation guidelines for the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle. U.S. Department of the Interior. Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento CA 95825 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged 

frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. California fairy shrimp (linderiella 

occidentalis). Species account available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/linderiella.htm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Federal endangered and threatened species 

that occur in or may be affected by projects in the counties and/or U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 

minute quads for Folsom, Clarksville, Rocklin, Pilot Hill. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Sacramento District office database. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/es/

spp_lists/auto_list_form.cfm. Accessed December 2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005c. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of 

California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Preliminary draft Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act Report: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage 

Reduction Project. Unpublished report prepared October, 2006. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 7-25 

University of California. 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central 

California. University of California Archaeological Survey Report. pp. 24-25. 

URS. 2006. Cultural Resources Inventory of In-Reservoir Borrow Pit Locations, 

Folsom Dam and Appurtenant Structures Project, Placer and El Dorado Counties, 

California. Prepared for: Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Victorine, B. 2006. Personal Communication with B. Victorine regarding sighting of 

Canada geese at Folsom Reservoir. June, 2006. 

Waechter, S.A., and S.D. Mikesell. 1994. Research Design for Prehistoric, 

Ethnographic, and Historic Cultural Resources at Folsom Reservoir, California. 

Prepared for: Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, LLC; LSA Associates; Geotechnical Consultants, Inc; 

Psomas; Concept Marine Inc. 2003. Draft Resource Inventory for Folsom Lake State 

Recreation Area. Prepared for: CDPR and Reclamation. 

Water Forum. 1999. Water Forum Agreement. Accessed: 25 May 2006. Available 

from: http://www.waterforum.org/images/PDF/INTRO.PDF. pp. 1, 7. 

Watkins, L. 1977. Euderma maculatum. Mammalian Species 77:1-4. 

Welch, P. 2005. Archaeological Inventory for Emergency Repairs at Dike 5, Folsom 

Lake, Placer County, California. On file, Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Welch, P., A. Leigh, and G.J. West. 2004. Archaeological Inventory of Geologic 

Testing for the Folsom Dam Safety of Dams Project, El Dorado, Placer, and 

Sacramento Counties. On file, Reclamation, Sacramento. 

West, G.J. 1990. Archaeological Survey of Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam, Brown’s 

Ravine Haul Road, Folsom Lake, El Dorado County, California. On file, 

Reclamation, Sacramento. 

Western Area Power Administration. 2002. Draft Environmental Assessment for 

Right-of-Way Maintenance in the Sacramento Valley, California 

Wilson, N.L., and A. H. Towne. 1978. “Nisenan.” Handbook of North American 

Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. pp. 387-397. 

Woodsworth, G., G. Bell, and M. Fenton. 1981. Observations of the echolocation, 

feeding behavior, and habitat use of Euderma maculatum (Chiroptera: 

Vespertilionidae) in southcentral British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

59:1099-1102. 
Chapter 7 

References 

 

7-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Yastrow, P. 1990. Laku Landing Sound Level Analysis. Accessed: 7 April 2006, 

Available from: http://www.laku.com/sound-a.html. 

Yuba County. 1976. Noise Element. Yuba County General Plan, Yuba County, 

California. 

Yuba County. 1996. 1996 Yuba County General Plan. Yuba County, California. 

Yuba County. 2006. Yuba County Ordinance, 8.20 Noise Regulation. 

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988. 

California’s wildlife Volume I Amphibians and reptiles. Sacramento, CA: California 

Department of Fish and Game. 

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990a. 

California’s wildlife: Volume II. Birds. Sacramento, CA: California Department of 

Fish and Game. 

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990b. 

California’s wildlife: Volume III. Mammals. Sacramento, CA: California 

Department of Fish and Game. 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 8-1 

Chapter 8 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

Table 8-1 

List of Preparers

Larry Hobbs 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Project Manager 

Project Description 

Review 

15 years of project development experience 

Wei Guo 

CDM 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Quality 

16 years of experience as engineer in air quality 

modeling, planning, air pollution control technologies 

Shawn Oliver

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Document Preparation and Review 

11 years of natural resources experience 

Gwen Pelletier 

CDM 

Environmental Scientist 

Air Quality 

3 years of experience working on air quality projects 

Rosemary Stefani 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Environmental Specialist 

Document Preparation and Review 

24 years of natural resources experience 

Lisa Sherman 

CDM 

Senior Transportation Engineer 

Transportation 

10 years of experience in traffic and civil engineering 

John Wondolleck 

CDM 

Associate 

EIS Project Manager 

Technical Direction, Document Preparation, and 

Review 

30 years of experience resource development, toxic 

substance releases, with expertise in management 

of multidisciplinary environmental programs 

Amber Conboy 

CDM 

Transportation Engineer 

Transportation 

6 years of experience in traffic modeling and 

computer analyses 

Hank Boucher 

CDM 

Associate 

EIS/EIR Co-Task Leader 

Technical Review 

30 years of experience as environmental engineer 

and planner with expertise in solid waste 

management, impact assessment, planning, 

transportation, land use development 

Joe Solomon 

CDM 

Project Engineer 

Transportation 

9 years of experience with transportation projects 

and programs 

Patricia Reed 

CDM 

Environmental Scientist 

EIS/EIR Co-Task Leader 

Technical Review 

Project Description 

Agricultural Resources 

Other Required Disclosures 

8 years of experience in environmental planning and 

biological sciences 

Ben Choroser 

CDM 

Senior Project Engineer 

Transportation 

6 years of experience with transportation projects 

and programs 
Chapter 8 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

 

8-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Stacy Porter 

CDM 

Environmental Planner 

Introduction 

Public Utilities and Services 

1 year of experience in water resources planning 

Paula Orlando 

CDM 

Office Services Coordinator 

Administrative Record 

Document Preparation 

5 years of experience 

Courtney Peppler 

CDM 

Water Resources Engineer 

Water Supply 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

Other Required Disclosures 

Document Preparation 

5 years of experience in water resources planning 

and civil and environmental engineering 

Julie Hinchcliff 

CDM 

Administrative Assistant 

Document Preparation 

28 years of word processing experience 

Amelia Ravin 

CDM 

Planner 

Noise 

6 years of experience in environmental planning and 

policy 

Auturo Smith 

CDM 

GIS Specialist 

13 years of experience specializing in cartographic 

design and GIS

Suzanne Wilkins 

CDM 

Project Planner 

Land Use 

Population and Housing 

Indian Trust Assets 

Environmental Justice 

14 years of experience in environmental planning, 

permitting, and acquisition of grant funding 

Susan Hootkins 

Entrix 

Project Manager 

Technical Direction and Review 

30 years of experience with NEPA/CEQA 

compliance 

Kassandra Tzou 

CDM 

Environmental Engineer 

Public Health and Safety 

12 years of experience in environmental engineering 

and hazardous waste remediation services industry 

Gretchen Lebednik 

Entrix 

Biological Resources 

25 years of experience in vegetation ecology, habitat 

and wetlands delineation 

Gina Veronese 

CDM 

Environmental Planner/Resource Economist 

Economics 

Cumulative Effects 

Consultation and Coordination 

4 years of experience in planning and analysis of 

water resource projects and programs 

John Baas 

Entrix 

Recreation Resources 

Visual Resources 

15 years of experience in recreation assessment 

and environmental management 

Jack Kiefer 

CDM 

Principal Economist/Lead Practitioner 

Economics 

15 years of experience specializing in water 

resources and planning, econometrics, and 

integrated water demand and supply planning and 

management 

Tom Taylor 

Entrix 

Fisheries/Aquatic Resources 

28 years of experience as a fisheries biologist and 

endangered species consultation 

Hanna Gilbert 

CDM 

Water Resources Engineer 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

Document preparation 

4 years of experience in water resources and 

environmental planning 

Kevin Bartoy 

Pacific Legacy 

Cultural Resources 

13 years of experience in cultural resources 

management 
Chapter 8 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 8-3 

Marc Wallace 

CDM 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Noise 

17 years of experience specializing in ambient noise 

monitoring and noise impact assessments 

John Holson 

Pacific Legacy 

Cultural Resources 

30 years of experience in cultural resources 

management

John Pehrson 

CDM 

Air Quality 

20 years of experience and CDM’s lead technical 

engineer and dispersion modeler for air quality 

projects 

Alena Nielsen 

URS 

Cultural Resources 

15 years of experience in cultural resources 

management

Juan Tijero 

CDM 

Lead Graphic Designer 

11 years of graphic design experience 

John Clerici 

Circle Point 

Public Involvement 

16 years of experience in NEPA/CEQA and 

environmental project public involvement 

Annalena Bronson 

State Reclamation Board/DWR 

CEQA compliance 

25 years experience in CEQA

Rebecca Victorine 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

8 years experience in Biological Sciences 

Robert Charney 

State Reclamation Board/DWR 

16 years experience in Water Resources 

Engineering

David Neff 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

34 years experience in Structural Engineering

Jane Rinck 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

20 years experience in Biological Sciences 

Clark Stanage 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

42 years experience in Geotechnical Engineering 

Table 8-2 

List of Contributors

Tom Adams 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Gore 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Miki Fujitsubo 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Gary Egan 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Marchia Bond 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Michael Finnegan 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Delia LaSala 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Richard Johnson 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Rick Jones 

Independent Consultant

Drew Lessard 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Bob Childs 

Independent Consultant 

Robert Schroeder 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Stein Baur 

SAFCA 

Donald Treasure 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Peter Buck 

SAFCA

John Wilson 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Timothy Washburn 

SAFCA

John LaBoon 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Pete Gelphi 

SAFCA

Bill Fiedler

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
Chapter 8 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

 

8-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Roger Lee 

State Reclamation Board/DWR

Ernie Hall 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Douglas Weinrich 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bill Hawkins 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Stephanie Rickabaugh 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Patrick Welch 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Jim Michaels 

California Department of Parks and Recreation

Steven Sherer 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Michael Gross 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Jared Vauk 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Tom Heinzer 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Stanley Parrott 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Diane Williams 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Stuart Angerer 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Richard Welsh 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Eric Vance 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Joel Sturm 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Terri Reaves 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Bruce Muller 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Jonathan Harris 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Jonathan Harris 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Julie Bowen 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Nathan Snorteland 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 9-1 

Chapter 9 

Document Recipients 

This Chapter lists Federal, State, regional, and local public and private agencies and 

organizations that have either received a copy of this Draft EIS/EIR or a notification 

of document availability. In addition to the regulatory agencies, agencies with 

special expertise or interest in evaluating environmental issues related to the project 

are included. Private agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be affected 

by the project or who have expressed an interest in the project through the public 

involvement process are also included. 

The Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR is available on the web at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=1808 

Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR are available for public review at the following 

locations: 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver 

Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office Library, 2800 Cottage 

Way, W-1825, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 

• El Dorado County Library, 345 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667-5699 

• Folsom Public Library, 300 Persifer Street, Folsom, CA 95630 

• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, 

Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001 

• Roseville Public Library, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 

• Sacramento Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2589 
Chapter 9 

Document Recipients 

9-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

9.1 Elected Officials and Representatives 

Governor of California 

 Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger 

 United States Senate 

 Honorable Barbara Boxer 

 Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

House of Representatives 

 Honorable John Doolittle 

 Honorable Doris Matsui 

 Honorable Daniel Lungren 

California Senate 

 Honorable Dave Cox 

California Assembly 

 Honorable Roger Niello 

9.2 Government Departments and Agencies 

9.2.1 U.S. Government 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Highway Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Office of Environmental Project Review 

Western Area Power Administration 

9.2.2 State of California 

Senate Committee on Natural Resources 

Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife 

Air Resources Board 

California Water Commission 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 
Chapter 9 

Document Recipients 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 9-3 

Department of Conservation 

Department of Corrections 

Department of Fish and Game 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

Department of Recreation 

Department of Transportation 

Department of Water Resources 

Native American Heritage Preservation 

Office of Transportation Planning 

Reclamation Board 

State Clearinghouse 

State Lands Commission 

Water Resources Control Board 

9.2.3 Regional, County, and City 

City of Folsom 

El Dorado County 

Granite Bay Advisory Council 

Placer County 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

Sacramento County 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

9.3 Private Organizations and Businesses 

SARA – Save The American River Association 

El Dorado Irrigation District 

Friends of the River 

 LARTF – Lower American River Task Force 
Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-1 

Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

Term Definition 

abatement Reduction or decrease in amount, degree, 

intensity or worth. 

abutment The part of a dam that contacts the 

riverbank. 

access easement Grants the right of access. 

acquisition of in fee title Acquisition of ownership. Parcel would be 

acquired in its entirety, probably in fee at 

appraised value. 

acre-foot (AF) The volume of water that would cover 1 acre 

to a depth of 1 foot, or 325,851 gallons of 

water. On average, 1 acre-foot could supply 

one to two households with water for a year. 

A flow of 1 cubic foot per second for a day 

is approximately 2 acre-feet. 

adjudicate To decide or settle something in a legal 

setting. 

aesthetic A term that denotes those properties of an 

entity that appeal to the senses. 

air district A political body responsible for managing 

air quality on a regional or county basis. 

California is divided into 35 air districts. 

alkalinity Alkalinity is a measure of the capacity of 

water to neutralize acids and is also known 

as the buffering capacity. 

alluvial soils Soils deposited through the action of moving 

water. These soils lack horizons and are 

usually highly fertile. 

alternative A collection of actions or action categories 

assembled to provide a comprehensive 

solution to problems. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-2 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

ambient 1) The existing or background air, soil, 

water, or plant quality in a given 

community. 2) The allowable amount of 

materials, as a concentration of pollutants, in 

air, soil, water, or plants. 

Amphibolite schist bedrock Strongly foliated crystalline metamorphic 

bedrock containing amphibolite minerals 

that may include magnesium, iron, calcium, 

sodium, aluminum, and iron. 

anadromous fish Fish that spend a part of their life cycle in 

the sea and return to freshwater streams to 

spawn. 

annual grassland Annual grassland is a heterogeneous mix of 

non-native grasses, annual forbs and 

wildflowers. 

appurtenant structures Refers to ancillary features of a dam, such as 

outlets, spillways, bridges, drain systems, 

tunnels, towers, etc. 

aquifer Underground layer of porous rock, sand, etc. 

that contains water. 

archaeology The study of human cultures through the 

recovery, documentation and analysis of 

material remains and environmental data, 

including architecture, artifacts, human 

remains, and landscapes. 

armored A facing layer or protective cover of 

concrete structural features placed to prevent 

erosion or the sloughing off of an 

embankment. Also, a layer of large stones, 

broken rocks or boulders, or precast blocks 

placed in specific random fashion on a river 

to protect against flowing water. 

arterial A signalized street that primarily serves 

through-traffic and that secondarily provides 

access to abutting properties, with signal 

spacings of 2.0 miles or less. 

artifact Any object manufactured, used or modified 

by humans. Common examples include 

tools, utensils, art, food remains, and other 

products of human activity. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-3 

Term Definition 

asbestos A naturally occurring fibrous silicate 

mineral popular in manufacturing and 

industry due to its strength, chemical and 

thermal stability. USEPA has banned or 

severely restricted its use in manufacturing 

and construction because it has been found 

to be a health hazard. 

attainment area Areas that do meet the ambient air quality 

standards. 

auxiliary spillway A spillway, usually located in a saddle or 

depression in the reservoir rim which leads 

to a natural or excavated waterway, located 

away from the dam which permits the 

planned release of excess flood flow beyond 

the capacity of the service spillway. A 

control structure is seldom furnished. The 

crest is set at the maximum water surface 

elevation for a 100-year flood or some other 

specific frequency flood. The auxiliary 

spillway thus has only infrequent use. Any 

secondary spillway that is designed to be 

operated very infrequently and possibly in 

anticipation of some degree of structural 

damage or erosion to the spillway during 

operation. 

avian species Of, relating to, or derived from birds. 

background view The part of a scene or view that lies behind 

objects in the foreground. 

barge A vessel, either motorized or towed, used to 

carry products in navigable waterways. 

bathymetry The measurement of the depth of the 

waterbody floor from the water surface; the 

equivalent of topography, or an underwater 

elevation model. 

bedrock The solid rock that underlies all soil, sand, 

clay, gravel, and other loose materials on the 

earth's surface. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-4 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

beneficial use Uses of the waters of the state that may be 

protected against quality degradation include 

domestic, municipal, agricultural and 

industrial supply; recreation and navigation; 

and the preservation of fish and wildlife. 

benthic Pertaining to the bottom of a body of water. 

best management practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are 

effective, practical, structural or 

nonstructural methods which prevent or 

reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, 

pesticides and other pollutants from the land 

to surface or ground water, or which 

otherwise protect water quality from 

potential adverse effects of activities. 

biological assessment Information prepared by, or under the 

direction of, a Federal agency to determine 

whether a proposed action is likely to: (1) 

adversely affect listed species or designated 

critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued 

existence of species that are proposed for 

listing; or (3) adversely modify proposed 

critical habitat. Biological assessments must 

be prepared for "major construction 

activities." See 50 CFR §402.02. The 

outcome of this biological assessment 

determines whether formal consultation or a 

conference is necessary. [50 CFR §402.02, 

50 CFR §402.12] 

biological opinion A written statement setting forth the opinion 

of the USFWS or the NMFS as to whether 

or not a federal action is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

blasting Using explosives to loosen rock for 

excavation. 

borrow Material excavated from one area to be used 

as fill material in another area. 

brome An opportunistic and imported annual grass, 

usually considered inferior forage, which has 

replaced native grasses throughout the West. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-5 

Term Definition 

California Endangered Species Act 

(CESA) 

California legislation that prohibits the 

“take” of plant and animal species 

designated by the CDFG as either 

endangered or threatened. Take includes 

hunting, pursuing, catching, capturing, 

killing, or attempting such activity. CESA 

provides the CDFG with administrative 

responsibilities over the plant and wildlife 

species listed under the State act as 

threatened or endangered. CESA also 

provides CDFG with the authority to permit 

the take of State-listed species under certain 

circumstances. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) 

California legislation that requires State, 

regional, and local agencies to prepare 

environmental impact assessments for 

proposed projects that will have significant 

environmental effects and to circulate these 

documents to other agencies and the public 

for comment before making decisions. 

CEQA requires that the lead agency make 

findings for all significant impacts identified 

in the environmental impact report. The lead 

agency must propose mitigation to reduce 

environmental impacts to a less-thansignificant level unless the mitigation is 

infeasible or unavailable and there are 

overriding considerations that require the 

project to be approved. See Public Res. 

Code Sections 21001.1, 21002, 21080; 

Guidelines 15002(c). 

candidate species Plant and animal taxa considered for 

possible addition to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Species. These are taxa for 

which the Fish and Wildlife Service has on 

file sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threat(s) to support 

issuance of a proposal to list, but issuance of 

a proposed rule is currently precluded by 

higher priority listing actions. [61 FR 7596-

7613 (February 28, 1996)]
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-6 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

carbon monoxide (CO) A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, 

produced by incomplete burning of carbonbased fuels, including gasoline, oil, and 

wood. Carbon monoxide is also produced 

from incomplete combustion of many 

natural and synthetic products. 

census tract A small, relatively permanent statistical 

subdivision of a county established by the 

US Census and designed to be homogenous 

with respect to population characteristics, 

economic status, and living conditions. 

Tracts usually have between 2,500 and 8,000 

residents. 

Central Valley Project (CVP) A federally operated water management and 

conveyance system that provides water to 

agricultural, urban, and industrial users in 

California. The CVP was originally 

authorized by legislation in 1937. 

chaparral Habitat that consists of a dense cover of 

perennial, mostly evergreen shrubs, 

generally 1 to 3 meters in height. 

cofferdam A watertight enclosure, open at the top, that 

is pumped dry to expose the bottom of a 

body of water so that construction may be 

undertaken in the dry. 

cold water ecosystem Uses of water that support cold water 

ecosystems including, but not limited to, 

preservation or enhancement of aquatic 

habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, 

including invertebrates. 

coliform bacteria Organisms common to the intestinal tract of 

humans and animals; the organisms' 

presence in waste water is an indicator of 

pollution. Generally reported as colonies per 

100 milliliters of sample. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-7 

Term Definition 

conjunctive use The operation of a groundwater basin in 

combination with a surface water storage 

and conveyance system. Water is stored in 

the ground water basin for later use in place 

of or to supplement surface supplies. Water 

is stored by intentionally recharging the 

basin during years of above-average surface 

water supply. 

conservation measures Actions to benefit or promote the recovery 

of listed species that are included by the 

Federal agency as an integral part of the 

proposed action. These actions will be taken 

by the Federal agency or applicant, and 

serve to minimize or compensate for, project 

effects on the species under review. These 

may include actions taken prior to the 

initiation of consultation, or actions which 

the Federal agency or applicant have 

committed to complete in a biological 

assessment or similar document. 

contractor use area Designated area to be used by construction 

contractor(s) for materials stockpiling, 

staging, parking, portable toilets, etc. 

control delay The component of delay that results when a 

control signal causes a lane group to reduce 

speed or to stop; it is measured by 

comparison with the uncontrolled condition. 

conveyance A pipeline, canal, natural channel, or other 

similar facility that transports water from 

one location to another. 

crest The top surface of the dam. A roadway may 

be constructed across the crest to permit 

vehicular traffic or facilitate operation, 

maintenance, and examination of the dam. 

Also, the high point of the spillway control 

section. 

criteria pollutant Any pollutant for which USEPA has 

established a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), specifically carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, 

particulate matter, and sulfur oxides. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-8 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

critical habitat Designation for federally listed species. 

Consists of: (1) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species at 

the time it is listed in accordance with the 

provisions of Section 4 of the Federal ESA 

(16 USCA 1533), on which are found those 

physical or biological features (constituent 

elements) that are: (a) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (b) may 

require special management considerations 

or protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the provisions of Section 4 of ESA (16 

USCA 1533), upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. (16 USCA 

1532(5)(A).) Designated critical habitats are 

described in 50 CFR 17 and 50 CFR 226. 

cubic feet per second (cfs) Rate of water release representing a volume 

of 1 cubic foot passing a given point during 

1 second, equivalent to approximately 7.48 

gallons per second or 448.8 gallons per 

minute. In a stream channel, a release of 1 

cubic foot per second is equal to the release 

at a rectangular cross section, 1 foot wide 

and 1 foot deep, flowing at an average 

velocity of 1 foot per second. 

cultural resource A wide-ranging category that describes an 

extensive variety of resources, regardless of 

significance. These resources may include 

archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, 

features, records, manuscripts, historical 

sites, traditional cultural properties, 

historical resources, and historic properties. 

cumulative impact The incremental impact or effect of the 

action together with impacts of past, present, 

and reasonable foreseeable future actions 

(regardless of the source of these other 

actions). 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-9 

Term Definition 

dam Dams are usually constructed by making a 

large embankment that blocks an existing 

watercourse. This embankment is used to 

control the release of flood waters 

downstream of the Dam. Dams usually 

contain a small outlet pipe that limits the 

amount of water that can exit the dam. Any 

flows in excess of the capacity of the dam 

outlet are stored behind the dam. The 

Folsom Facility is operated and maintained 

by Reclamation as part of the CVP. 

day-night noise level The day-night noise level (Ldn) is the energy 

average sound level for a 24-hour day 

determined after the addition of a 10-dBA 

penalty to all noise events occurring at night 

between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn is 

used by local jurisdictions to rate community 

noise impacts from transportation noise 

sources. 

dBA A unit of measurement/sound level for Aweighted sounds. Environmental sounds are 

measured with the A-weighted scale of the 

sound level meter. The A scale simulates the 

frequency response of the human ear, by 

giving more weight to the middle frequency 

sounds, and less to the low and high 

frequency sounds. 

decibel (dB) A unit used to express the intensity of a 

sound wave. In sound, decibels generally 

measure a scale from 0 (the threshold of 

hearing) to 120-140 dB (the threshold of 

pain). 

de mimimis amount A legal term for an amount that is small 

enough to be ignored, too small to be taken 

seriously. 

detention dam A dam built to store streamflow or surface 

runoff, and to control the release of such 

stored water. 

detritus Dead or decaying organic matter. 

dewatering Removing water by pumping, drainage, or 

evaporation. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-10 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

dike An embankment that blocks an area on a 

reservoir or lake rim that is lower than the 

top of the dam. 

direct (economic) effect Change in final demand in an industry. 

dissolved oxygen Amount of free oxygen found in water; 

perhaps the most commonly employed 

measurement of water quality. Low DO 

levels adversely affect fish and other aquatic 

life. The ideal dissolved oxygen for fish life 

is between 7 and 9 mg/L; most fish cannot 

survive when the DO level falls below 3 

mg/L. 

diversion The action of taking water out of a river 

system or changing the flow of water in a 

system for use in another location. 

dredge To dig under water. A machine that digs 

under water. 

earthfill dam An embankment dam in which more than 50 

percent of the total volume is formed of 

compacted earth material generally smaller 

than 3-inch size. Seepage through the dam is 

controlled by the designed use of upstream 

blankets and/or internal cores constructed 

using compacted soil of very low 

permeability. 

easement The right to use land owned by another for 

some specific purpose. 

ecosystem A recognizable, relatively homogeneous unit 

that includes organisms, their environment, 

and all the interactions among them. 

electric conductivity The measure of a solution's ability to 

conduct electricity. Electric conductivity 

units are used to express salinity levels in 

soil and water. When salt is dissolved in 

water the conductivity increases, so the more 

salt, the higher the value. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-11 

Term Definition 

embankment An earth structure the top of which is higher 

than the adjoining surface. A shaped earth or 

rockfill dam. Fill material, usually earth or 

rock, placed with sloping sides and with a 

length greater than its height. An 

embankment is generally higher than a dike. 

emergency gate A standby or auxiliary gate used when the 

normal means of water control is not 

available. The first gate in a series of flow 

controls, remaining open while downstream 

gates or valves are operating. 

emergency spillway A spillway which provides for additional 

safety should emergencies not contemplated 

by normal design assumptions be 

encountered, i.e., inoperable outlet works, 

spillway gates, or spillway structure 

problems. The crest is usually set at 

maximum water surface. A spillway that is 

designed to provide additional protection 

against overtopping of a dam and is intended 

for use under extreme conditions such as 

misoperation or malfunction of the service 

spillway or other emergency conditions. 

emergent A plant rooted in shallow water that has 

most of its vegetative growth above water. 

endangered species (CESA) Any species listed as endangered under the 

California Endangered Species Act. 

Endangered species are native California 

species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, 

fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that has 

been determined by the CDFG to be in 

serious danger of becoming extinct 

throughout all, or a significant portion, of its 

range due to one or more causes, including 

loss of habitat, change in habitat, 

exploitation, predation, competition, or 

disease. See California Fish and Game Code 

Section 2062. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-12 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

endangered species (ESA) Any species listed as endangered under the 

Federal ESA. Endangered species are any 

species (including subspecies or a qualifying 

distinct population segment) that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. See 16 USCA 1532(6). 

endemic Endemic in biology and ecology means 

exclusively native to a place or biota. A 

species that is endemic is unique to that 

place or region, found naturally nowhere 

else. 

environmental impact report (EIR) A detailed written report, required by the 

CEQA, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects that 

cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, and cumulative impacts. 

environmental impact statement 

(EIS) 

A detailed written statement, required by 

Section 102(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects that cannot 

be avoided, alternative courses of action, 

short-term uses of the environment versus 

the maintenance of long-term productivity, 

and any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources. 

environmental justice Refers to the concept that people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes deserve fair treatment 

with respect to the development, adoption, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. 

ephemeral stream An ephemeral stream has flowing water only 

during, and for a short duration after, 

precipitation events in a typical year. 

Ephemeral stream beds are located above the 

water table year-round. Groundwater is not a 

source of water for the stream. 

epilimnion Warm, upper waters of a thermally-stratified 

water body that is directly affected by 

seasonal air temperature and wind. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-13 

Term Definition 

equivalent noise level The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the 

constant sound level that in a given period 

has the same sound energy level as the 

actual time-varying sound pressure level. 

Leq provides a methodology for combining 

noise from individual events and steady state 

sources into a measure of cumulative noise 

exposure. It is used by local jurisdictions 

and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to evaluate noise impacts. 

erosion A gradual wearing away of soil or rock by 

running water, waves, or wind. Surface 

displacement of soil caused by weathering, 

dissolution, abrasion, or other transporting. 

essential fish habitat Waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity. 

estuarine Pertaining to an estuary; a water passage 

where ocean water mixes with river water. 

exceedence noise level Exceedance levels are values from the 

cumulative amplitude distribution of all the 

noise levels observed during a measurement 

period. They are designated Ln, where n 

represents a value from 0 to 100 percent. 

For example, L50 is the median noise level, 

or the noise level in dBA exceeded 50 

percent of the time during the measurement 

period. 

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) An emission control method that involves 

recirculating exhaust gases from an engine 

back into the intake and combustion 

chambers. This lowers combustion 

temperatures and reduces NOx. 

exotic species A species that did not originally occur in the 

areas in which it is now found, but that 

arrived as a direct or indirect result of human 

activity. 

fallow farmland Cultivated land that is not seeded for one or 

more growing seasons. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-14 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

fault creep Gradual movement along a fault that occurs 

in the absence of an earthquake. 

fault zone In geology, faults are discontinuities (cracks) 

in the Earth's crust that are the result of 

differential motion within the crust. Faults 

are the source of many earthquakes that are 

caused by slippage vertically or laterally 

along the fault. 

Federal Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) 

Federal legislation that requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the USFWS 

and NOAA Fisheries, to ensure that their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat of these 

species. The ESA recognizes the value to the 

nation of species in danger of, or threatened 

with, extinction. The act requires Federal 

agencies to conserve these species and their 

habitats and ranges to the extent practicable. 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 USCA 1533) 

provides a listing process for species 

considered “endangered” (in danger of 

becoming extinct) or “threatened” 

(threatened to become endangered). The 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through 

NOAA Fisheries, is involved for projects 

that may affect marine or anadromous fish 

species listed under the ESA. All other 

species listed in the ESA are under USFWS 

jurisdiction. Section 7 of the ESA (16 USCA 

1536(a)(2)) requires that all Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the Secretaries 

of the Interior and Commerce (acting 

through USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, 

respectively), ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of species 

listed as endangered or threatened and 

protected or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical habitat of 

these species. Section 9 of the ESA (16 

USCA 1538) prohibits take of a listed 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-15 

Term Definition 

species. Section 9 (16 USCA 1538) 

compliance is applicable if the proposed 

action would result in the take of any listed 

threatened (if not subject to special rule) or 

endangered fish or wildlife species and such 

take is not authorized in a biological opinion 

issued by USFWS or NOAA Fisheries. 

Section 10 of the ESA (16 USCA 1539) 

authorizes the conditions for the USFWS or 

NOAA Fisheries to issue a permit for 

incidental take of a listed species when there 

is no other Federal agency involved. See 16 

USC 153 1 et seq. federally covered species. 

fill Manmade deposits of natural soils or rock 

products and waste materials designed and 

installed in such a manner as to provide 

drainage, yet prevent the movement of soil 

particles due to flowing water. 

filter One or more layers of granular material 

which is incorporated in an embankment 

dam and is graded (either naturally or by 

selection) to allow seepage through or within 

the layers while preventing the migration of 

material from adjacent zones. 

fine particulate matter Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5). 

flip bucket An energy dissipator located at the 

downstream end of a spillway and shaped so 

that water flowing at a high velocity is 

deflected upwards in a trajectory away from 

the foundation of the spillway. 

flood easement See Occasional flowage easement below. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-16 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

flood protection berm Also referred to as a new embankment, and 

in earlier administrative drafts of this 

document as an auxiliary dike, or a minidike. A flood protection berm is a small 

embankment built in low elevation areas as a 

flood protection measure . Flood protection 

berms are structures to reduce or eliminate 

the flooding of non-federal property. These 

flood protection featuresstructures would be 

a simple berm constructed of earthen 

material excavated at the specific site or 

imported from within the boundaries of the 

hauled in-reservoir, from the closest area 

with stockpiled material. These flood 

protection features could also be constructed 

as, a parapet wall of unknown height, or 

another type of suitable structure. 

flood protection berm easement Grants the right to build, maintain, repair, 

operate, and replace a flood protection berm. 

Folsom Facility The physical features that surround Folsom 

Reservoir, including LWD, RWD, Main 

Concrete Dam, Dikes 1 through 8, and 

MIAD. 

Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom 

FJP) 

A cooperative effort by Reclamation and the 

Corps, along with SAFCA, California DWR, 

and the Reclamation Board, to address 

hydrologic, static, and seismic issues with 

Folsom Dam and Appurtenant Structures. 

forage fish Small fish which breed prolifically and serve 

as food for predatory fish. 

forb A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody 

material in it. 

foreground view The part of an image or view that appears to 

be closest to the viewer. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-17 

Term Definition 

freeboard Generally defined as the difference in 

elevation from the top edge of a flood 

control facility (channel, dam, basin) to the 

design WSE. Freeboard provides a factor of 

safety and protects against unknown factors 

such as wave action. Freeboard varies based 

on the type of project and velocities of 

flows, but is generally between 1-3 feet. 

freshwater marsh Freshwater marsh communities within the 

Project area are wetland communities fed by 

seeps or springs and are permanently to 

semi-permanently flooded. 

friable asbestos A form of asbestos found to be the most 

dangerous because of its ability to become 

airborne. Friable asbestos can be crushed or 

reduced to powder form with hand pressure. 

fry Small adult fish, especially when in large 

groups. 

fugitive dust Particles lifted into the ambient air caused 

by man-made and natural activities such as 

the movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, 

blasting, and wind. This excludes particulate 

matter emitted directly from the exhaust of 

motor vehicles and other internal 

combustion engines, from portable brazing, 

soldering, or welding equipment, and from 

piledrivers. 

fuseplug A form of auxiliary spillway consisting of a 

low embankment designed to be overtopped 

and washed away during an exceptionally 

large flood. 

gigawatt hour (GWh) One gigawatt hour (GWh) equals one 

million kilowatt hours. A kilowatt hour 

(KWh) is equivalent to the energy consumed 

by a 100-watt light bulb burning for 10 

hours. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-18 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

gravity dam A dam constructed of concrete and/or 

masonry that relies on its weight and internal 

strength for stability. Gravity dams are 

generally used where the foundation is rock 

and earthfill in proper quality and quantity is 

not available. 

habitat enhancement To improve degraded habitat. Management 

actions that enhance habitat do not result in 

increasing the extent of habitat area. 

habitat protection, protect habitat To maintain the existing extent and quality 

of habitat. 

habitat restoration, restore habitat To create habitat. Management actions that 

restore habitat. 

hazardous waste Any solid, liquid, or gaseous substance 

which, because of its source or measurable 

characteristics, is classified under state or 

federal law as hazardous and is subject to 

special handling, shipping, storage, and 

disposal requirements. 

historic property Any prehistoric or historic district, site, 

building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places. This includes 

artifacts, records, and remains that are 

related to and located within such properties. 

As a general guideline, a cultural resource 

should be at least 50 years old to be 

considered as a historic property. 

historical resource Per CEQA guidelines, a resource listed or 

eligible for listing on the California Register 

of Historical Resources. It must be 

significant based on one or more of four 

criteria to be considered a historical resource 

on a local, state, or national level. 

hydraulic jump The sudden and usually turbulent passage of 

water in an open channel from low stage, 

below critical depth, to high stage, above 

critical depth. During this passage, the 

velocity changes from supercritical to 

subcritical. There is considerable loss of 

energy during the jump. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-19 

Term Definition 

hydropower Energy or power produced by moving water. 

hypolimnion Cold, deep waters of a thermally stratified 

water body. It is typically the coldest layer 

in the summer and warmest in the winter. It 

is isolated from wind mixing and typically 

too dark for much plant photosynthesis to 

occur. 

igneous rock Igneous rocks are formed from magma 

(melted rock) that has cooled and solidified, 

either within the Earth's crust or on the 

Earth's surface. 

impervious Surface that prevents or significantly 

reduces the entry of water into the 

underlying soil, resulting in runoff from the 

surface in greater quantities and/or at an 

increased rate when compared to natural 

conditions prior to development. 

impoundment Body of water created by a dam. 

incursion The act of a species entering some territory 

or domain that is not their native habitat. 

indian trust assets (ITAs) Legal interests in property held in trust by 

the United States government for Indian 

tribes or individuals, or property protected 

under United States law for Indian tribes and 

individuals. Federal agencies are required to 

take responsibility for protection and 

maintenance of ITAs. There are no ITAs 

present in the project area; therefore, they 

were not evaluated. 

indirect (economic) effect Changes in industry sectors within the 

region that supply goods and services to 

industries directly affected by the changes in 

final demand. 

induced (economic) effect Changes in economic activity resulting from 

household spending of the income earned 

from changes in final demand. 

inhalable particulate matter Particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10). 

input-output (I-O) analysis Describes commodity flow from producers 

to intermediate and final consumers. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-20 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

instream flows Year-round flows in rivers and streams. 

intermittent stream A stream that flows part of the time because 

of a connection with groundwater or because 

of season snow melt and, therefore, is dry 

most of the year. 

invasive species Non-native species of plants or animals that 

out-compete native species in a specific 

habitat. 

inversion layer A layer of warm air in the atmosphere that 

prevents the rise of cooling air and traps 

pollutants beneath it. 

invertebrate An animal that lacks a backbone or spinal 

column. 

jet grouting A method of compacting soil using a hose or 

other device by injecting a grout slurry at 

high pressures into the liquefiable soils. 

jurisdiction The territory or geographic area within 

which power can be exercised, or the power 

or authority of a court to hear and try a case. 

kilowatt (kW) The basic unit of electric demand, equal to 

1,000 watts. Average household demand is 

10 to 20 kilowatts. 

landslide An abrupt movement of soil and bedrock 

downhill in response to gravity. Landslides 

can be triggered by an earthquake or other 

natural causes. 

leach field Porous soiled area, through which septic 

tank leach lines run, emptying out the treated 

liquid waste, forced from the tank, which 

then percolates down through the soil. 

levee An elevated berm that is used to protect 

adjacent low lying ground from floodwaters. 

The levee is usually lined with a structural 

material such as concrete or rip-rap to ensure 

that it does not fail from erosion. This lining 

usually extends many feet below ground to 

ensure that scour caused by high water 

velocities cannot undermine the levee. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-21 

Term Definition 

level of service (LOS) A qualitative measure describing operational 

conditions within a traffic stream, based on 

service measures such as speed and travel 

time, freedom to maneuver, traffic 

interruptions, comfort, and convenience. 

lift line Horizontal construction joint created when 

new concrete is placed on previously placed 

concrete. 

liquefaction Process where water-saturated sediment 

(sandy material) temporarily looses strength, 

usually because of an earthquake, and 

behaves like a fluid. Soil or sand changes 

from solid ground and behaves like a liquid, 

which can cause the ground above the 

liquefied sediment to break into small 

blocks. 

listed species (CESA) Species or subspecies declared as threatened 

or endangered by the CDFG in 14 CCR 

Section 670.5. 

listed species (ESA) Species, including subspecies, of fish, 

wildlife, or plants federally listed at 50 CFR 

17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12 as either 

endangered or threatened, or listed at 14 

CCR Section 670.2 and 14 CCR Section 

670.5 as threatened or endangered. 

littoral zone Area on or near the shore of a body of water. 

low-income population That portion of the population that falls 

within the low-income bracket as defined 

based on federal poverty thresholds. The 

low-income index is determined annually by 

the US Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) The highest level of a contaminant that is 

allowed in drinking water. MCL's are set as 

close to the Maximum Contaminant Level 

Goal as feasible using the best available 

treatment technology. 

mesic site Characterized by having a medium moisture 

supply e.g., a type of habitat or soil. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-22 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

metamorphic rock A rock changed from its original form 

and/or composition by heat, pressure, or 

chemically active fluids, or some 

combination of them. 

middleground view The part of an image or view that lies 

between the foreground and background. 

minority population Any individual or racial/ethnic group that is 

not categorized as White, not Hispanic or 

Latino. 

mitigation To moderate, reduce, or alleviate the impacts 

of a proposed activity; including: (a) 

avoiding the impact by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing 

impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude 

of the action and its implementation; (c) 

rectifying the impact by repairing, 

rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the 

impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the 

action; and (e) compensating for the impact 

by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments. 

monolith A concrete section or block of the dam. 

most probable number (MPN) Most Probable Number of coliform-group 

organisms per unit volume of sample water. 

Expressed as the number of organisms per 

100 mL of sample water. 

multiplier A ratio of total economic effects to direct 

economic effects that captures the size of 

indirect and induced effects to the region’s 

economy. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

Federal legislation establishing the national 

policy that environmental impacts will be 

evaluated as an integral part of any major 

federal action. Requires the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement (EIS) for 

all major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-23 

Term Definition 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

A permitting program under section 402 of 

the Clean Water Act required for all point 

sources discharging pollutants into waters of 

the United States. The purpose of the 

NPDES program is to protect human health 

and the environment. 

native vegetation Stands of blocks of naturally occurring plant 

communities. These include a range of 

vegetation associations such as woodlands, 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, mangroves etc. 

Scattered native trees and shrubs in cleared 

paddocks or urban areas are more usually 

considered separately as scattered or isolated 

plants. 

navigable waters Waters of the United States including: 

(a) All waters that are currently used, were 

used in the past, or may be susceptible to use 

in interstate or foreign commerence, 

including all waters that are subject to the 

ebb and flow of the tide. 

(b) Interstate waters, including interstate 

wetlands. 

(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, 

rivers, streams (including intermittent 

streams), mudflats, sandflats and wetlands, 

the use, degradation, or destruction of which 

would affect or could affect interstate or 

foreign commerce, including waters used or 

which could be used for industries in 

interstate commerce. 

(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise 

defined as navigable waters. 

(e) Tributaries of waters identified in (a) 

through (d). 

(f) Wetlands adjacent to waters identified in 

(a) through (d). 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-24 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) NTU is an indication of the clarity of water, 

or the amount of suspended particles in 

water. Low NTU values indicate high 

quality water. NTU is obtained by 

measuring the amount of scattering of light 

in water. 

new embankment See flood protection berm above. 

nitrogen dioxide A pollutant that causes smog and acid rain, 

as well as eye, throat, and lung irritation. 

Nitrogen dioxide is mainly produced by 

burning fossil fuels (e.g., emissions from 

burning gasoline in a car). 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) The chemical transformation caused by 

sunlight. The reaction of nitrogen oxides 

with hydrocarbons in the presence of 

sunlight to form ozone is an example of a 

photochemical reaction. 

non-attainment area Areas that do not meet the ambient air 

quality standards. 

non-criteria pollutant Any recognized and otherwise regulated air 

pollutants that are not listed as criteria 

pollutants. 

non-native species Also called introduced species or exotic 

species; refers to plants and animals that 

originate elsewhere and are brought into a 

new area, where they may dominate the 

local species or in some way negatively 

impact the native species environment. 

nonpoint source A contributing factor to water pollution that 

cannot be traced to a specific spot. Manmade or man-induced alteration of the 

chemical, physical, biological, or 

radiological integrity of water, originating 

from any source other than a point source. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-25 

Term Definition 

North American Vertical Datum 

(NAVD) 

The vertical control datum established in 

1991 by the minimum-constraint adjustment 

of the Canadian-Mexican-U.S. leveling 

observations. It held fixed the height of the 

primary tidal bench mark, referenced to the 

new International Great Lakes Datum of 

1985 local mean sea level height value, at 

Father Point/Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. 

objective release Releases resulting in a flow that may be 

sustained without risk of levee failure. 

obligate species A species limited to a restricted 

environment, such as a wetland. 

occasional flowage easement Flood easement; grants the right to 

occasionally flood, as determined necessary 

and appropriate during extreme storm 

events. Property owner retains fee 

ownership;, however, such an easement may 

restrict the construction of new structures 

and/or uses for human habitation withinon 

the easement areapremises. 

OHWM Ordinary high water mark of the reservoir. 

one-hundred year (100-year) flood A flooding event that has a one percent 

chance of occurring in any given year. The 

term "100-year" is a measure of the size of 

the flood, not how often it occurs. Several 

100-year floods can occur within the same 

year or within a few short years. The 100-

year event for any given area is based on a 

statistical frequency analysis of local rainfall 

data. The analysis determines the amount of 

rainfall that would only have a one percent 

chance of occurring in a given year. 

Hydrologic analysis is then applied to the 

watershed, based on the 100-year rainfall 

magnitude. The result provides the expected 

release of the watershed during a 100-year 

event. 

opportunistic species Species that take advantage of the situation. 

An opportunistic feeder is one that will eat 

whenever food is available. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-26 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

overland flow Flow of water across the land surface in a 

down-gradient direction. 

overtop Flow of water over the top of a dam or 

embankment. 

ozone Ozone gas is a molecule that consists of 

three oxygen molecules. It is naturally 

occurring in the earth's atmosphere at all 

levels and is responsible for filtering out 

much of the sun's ultraviolet radiation. 

palliative Describes a material that may be used to 

reduce or mitigate adverse effects. For 

instance, a binding palliative material may 

be applied to an exposed surface for dust and 

erosion control. 

panorama A panorama is a wide, all-encompassing 

view; hence also a panoramic format. 

parapet wall A solid wall built along the top of a dam 

(upstream and/or downstream edge) used for 

ornamentation, for safety of vehicles and 

pedestrians, or to prevent overtopping 

caused by wave runup. 

peak particle velocity (PPV) Pertaining to vibration measurements, peak 

particle velocity is the maximum rate of 

ground movement measured by any of the 3 

mutually perpendicular components of 

ground motion. Units are expressed in 

inches per second. PPV is often used in 

determining potential damage to buildings 

from stress associated with blasting and 

other construction activities. 

peaking facility A powerplant that is scheduled to operate 

during peak energy demand. 

penstock A sluice or gate for restricting flow of water; 

a conduit or pipe for conducting water. 

perennial plant A plant that grows for more than one season; 

it over-winters in a dormant condition and 

resumes growth the following season. 

petrographic The description and classification of rocks 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-27 

Term Definition 

pH A relative scale, from 0 to 14, of how acidic 

or basic (alkaline) a material is, where a pH 

of 7 is neutral, smaller readings are 

increasingly acid. 

photochemical reaction The chemical transformation caused by 

sunlight. The reaction of nitrogen oxides 

with hydrocarbons in the presence of 

sunlight to form ozone is an example of a 

photochemical reaction. 

piezometer An instrument which measures pressure 

head or hydraulic pressures in a conduit or 

hydraulic pressures within the fill of an earth 

dam or the abutment; at the foundation 

because of seepage or soil compression; or 

on a flow surface of a spillway, gate, or 

valve. 

Pineapple Express The Pineapple Express is a Pacific Ocean 

subtropical jet stream that brings warm 

moist air from Hawaii (where pineapples are 

grown) to the U.S. West Coast states of 

California, Oregon, and Washington, as well 

as the Canadian province of British 

Columbia. 

piping Erosion of embankment or foundation 

material (soil) due to leakage. 

piscivorous fish Fish that eat other fish. 

plankton A diverse group of minute animals 

(zooplankton) and plants (phytoplankton) 

that freely drift in the water. 

point source Any discernible, confined, or discrete 

conveyance from which pollutants are or 

may be discharged, including, but not 

limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, 

conduit, well, container, rolling stock, 

concentrated animal feeding operation, or 

vessel or other floating craft. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-28 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

probable maximum flood (PMF) The largest flood that may reasonably be 

expected to occur at a given point on a 

stream from the most severe combination of 

critical meteorologic and hydrologic 

conditions that are reasonably possible on a 

particular watershed. 

promulgated Documents that are formally made public. 

radial gate A pivoted crest gate, the face of which is 

usually a circular arc, with the center of 

curvature at the pivot about which the gate 

swings. A gate with a curved upstream plate 

and radial arms hinged to piers or other 

supporting structure. 

radiological waste Radioactive waste is produced from 

activities that use radioactive materials such 

as mining, nuclear power generation, and 

various processes in industry, defense, 

medicine, and scientific research. 

Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid or 

solid form, and the waste can remain 

radioactive for a few hours or several 

months or even hundreds of thousands of 

years. There are varying degrees of 

radioactivity. 

re-entrained road dust Particulate emissions that are kicked-up 

from movement of vehicles on paved 

roadway surfaces. 

regional capture rate Percentage of spending that accrues to the 

region’s economy as direct sales or final 

demand. 

release rate (ramping criteria) The rate of change in instantaneous output. 

The ramp rate is established to prevent 

undesirable effects due to rapid changes in 

loading or discharge. 

relocation The impacted property owner is paid fair 

market value for their property, is provided 

assistance to locate comparable housing and 

is entitled to relocation benefits and services 

in accordance with Public Law 91-646. 

retaining wall A wall separating two levels. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-29 

Term Definition 

return period The average length of time separating flood 

events of a similar magnitude: a 100-year 

flood will occur on average once in every 

100 years. 

riffle A section of stream that has shallow, fastflowing water followed by deep, slowflowing water. 

riparian The strip of land adjacent to a natural 

watercourse such as a river or stream. Often 

supports vegetation that provides important 

wildlife habitat values when a complex 

forest structure is present and important fish 

habitat values when vegetation grows large 

enough to overhang the bank. 

riprap A layer of large uncoursed stones, broken 

rock, or precast blocks placed in random 

fashion on the upstream slope of an 

embankment dam, on a reservoir shore, or 

on the sides of a channel as protection 

against wave and ice action. 

ruderal fields Growing along roadsides or in disturbed or 

abandoned farmland. 

Safety of Dams Program Reclamation’s program to identify potential 

issues with existing dams and develop 

corrective actions to protect public safety, 

property, and the environment. 

Reclamation’s main objective under the 

Dam Safety Program is to ensure the Folsom 

Facility can safely pass the Probable 

Maximum Flood (PMF). 

savanna An ecological community that is dominated 

by scattered trees and large areas of grasses 

and other forbs. 

sedimentary rock Rocks formed from material, including 

debris of organic origin, deposited as 

sediment by water, wind, or ice and then 

compressed and cemented together by 

pressure. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-30 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

seepage Percolation of water through the soil from 

unlined canals, ditches, laterals, 

watercourses, or water storage facilities. 

seismic Of or related to movement in the earth's 

crust caused by natural relief of rock 

stresses. 

sensitive species Listed species, species that are candidates 

for listing, and other species that have been 

designated as species of special concern by 

Federal or State agencies or scientific 

organizations (see “special-status species”). 

shear key Prevent sliding of a dam along its foundation 

by excavating a large tunnel or hole through 

a concrete section into the dam foundation 

then backfilling with concrete. 

shell Shell material includes impervious soil and 

miscellaneous shell soil placed on the 

outside of a dam or dike to create a shell. 

siltation/sedimentation Deposition of waterborne sediments due to a 

decrease in velocity and corresponding 

reduction in the size and amount of sediment 

which can be carried. 

slough A swamp, marsh, or muddy backwater. 

slurry Watery mixture of insoluble matter which is 

pumped beneath a dam to form an 

impervious barrier. Cement grout. 

spawn Laying of eggs, especially by fish. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-31 

Term Definition 

special status species Species in any of the following categories: 

plants listed, proposed for listing, or 

candidates for possible future for listing 

under the federal Endangered Species Act, 

plants listed or proposed for listing under the 

California Endangered Species Act, plants 

listed as rare or endangered under the 

California Native Plant Protection Act, 

plants that meet the definitions of rare or 

endangered under the State CEQA 

Guidelines, plants considered by the CNPS 

to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in 

California” (Lists 1B and 2), plants 

considered by CNPS as plants about which 

more information is needed to determine 

their status, and plants of limited distribution 

(Lists 3 and 4), which may be included as 

special-status species on the basis of local 

significance. 

species Species of fish, wildlife, or plants, any 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and 

any distinct population segment of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds 

when mature. 

species of concern Species that could be affected by actions and 

are not listed as threatened or endangered 

under the Federal ESA; proposed for listing 

under ESA; candidates under ESA; listed as 

threatened or endangered under the CESA; 

candidates under CESA; plants listed as rare 

under the California Native Plant Protection 

Act; California fully protected species or 

specified birds under various sections of the 

California Fish and Game Codes; California 

species of special concern; or California 

Native Plant Society List lA, lB, 2, or 3 

species. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-32 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

spillway The channel or passageway around or over a 

dam through which excess water is released 

or "spilled" past the dam without going 

through the turbines. A spillway is a safety 

valve for a dam and, as such, must be 

capable of discharging major floods without 

damaging the dam, while maintaining the 

reservoir level below some predetermined 

maximum level. 

spillway gate A gate on the crest of a spillway to control 

the discharge or reservoir water level. 

staging area See contractor use area. 

static Issues that occur during normal daily 

operations, include potential seepage and 

piping of the wing dams and dikes. 

stilling basin Concrete portion downstream from conduit, 

tunnel, or control structure. A pool, usually 

lined with reinforced concrete, located 

below a spillway, gate, or valve into which 

the discharge dissipates energy to avoid 

downstream channel degradation. A basin 

constructed to dissipate the energy of rapidly 

flowing water (e.g., from a spillway or 

outlet) and to protect the riverbed from 

erosion. 

storage capacity The total amount of reservoir capacity 

normally available for release from a 

reservoir below the maximum storage level. 

It is total or reservoir capacity minus 

inactive storage capacity. More specifically, 

it is the volume of water between the outlet 

works and the spillway crest. 

subsidence Sinking of the land surface due to 

compaction of soil caused by loading, 

removal of underground fluids, or other 

mechanisms. 

subsidence inversion An inversion at elevations of 1,000 to 2,000 

feet enhanced by vertical mixing in the air 

layer below the inversion. A condition that 

produces an increase in temperature with 

height. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-33 

Term Definition 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) Sulfur dioxide is a gas produced by burning 

coal, most notably in power plants. Some 

industrial processes, such as production of 

paper and smelting of metals, produce sulfur 

dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is closely related to 

sulfuric acid, a strong acid. Sulfur dioxide 

plays an important role in the production of 

acid rain. 

surcharge pool/space The reservoir capacity provided for use in 

passing the inflow design flood through the 

reservoir. It is the reservoir capacity between 

the maximum water surface elevation and 

the highest of the following elevations: top 

of exclusive flood control capacity, top of 

joint use capacity, or top of active 

conservation capacity. Temporary storage. 

surface inversion A temperature inversion based at the earth's 

surface (from 1 to 500 feet); that is, an 

increase of temperature with height 

beginning at the ground level. This condition 

is due primarily to greater radiative loss of 

heat at and near the surface than at levels 

above. 

suspended particulate matter (SPM) Particles suspended in the air of less than 10 

micrometer in size which can accumulate in 

the lungs and bronchi bringing about 

breathing problems for those affected. SPM 

is caused by human activities (cars and 

industry) but also by natural phenomena. 

swale A low place in a tract of land. A wide, 

shallow ditch, usually grassed or paved. A 

wide open drain with a low center line. 

tainter gate A term used by the Corps of Engineers to 

describe radial gates (see radial gate). 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-34 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

take Under the ESA, “To harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct” in regard to federally listed, 

endangered species of wildlife (16 USCA 

1532[19]). “Harm” is further defined as an 

act “which actually kills or take threatened 

species injures”. Harm may include 

“significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or injures 

wildlife by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, or shelter” (50 CFR 17.3). Under 

the California Fish and Game Code, take is 

defined as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, 

or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, 

capture, or kill” (California Fish and Game 

Code Section 86). 

tendon anchor Holes drill through all sections of a main 

concrete dam to the foundation then replaced 

with steel bar anchored in cement at the 

foundation to prevent sliding during seismic 

activity. 

terrestrial species Types of species of animals and plants that 

live on or grow from the land. 

threatened species (ESA) Any species listed as threatened under the 

CESA. Threatened species are native 

California species or subspecies of a bird, 

mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant 

that have been determined by the CDFG, 

although not presently threatened with 

extinction, to be likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable future 

in the absence of special protection and 

management efforts. See California Fish and 

Game Code Section 2067. 

toe The junction of the face of a dam with the 

ground surface. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-35 

Term Definition 

toe drain Open-jointed tile or perforated pipe located 

at the toe of the dam used in conjunction 

with horizontal drainage blankets to collect 

seepage from the embankment and 

foundation and conveys the seepage to a 

location downstream from the dam. 

total dissolved solids (TDS) A water quality parameter defining the 

concentration of dissolved organic and 

inorganic chemicals in water, usually 

expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

total maximum daily load (TMDL) The maximum amount of a pollutant that 

can be discharged into a water body from all 

sources (point and non-point) and still 

maintain water quality standards. Under 

Clean Water Act Section 303(d), TMDLs 

must be developed for all water bodies that 

do not meet water quality standards after 

application of technology-based controls. 

total organic carbon (TOC) A measure of the concentration of organic 

carbon in water, determined by oxidation of 

the organic matter into carbon dioxide. 

toxic air contaminant (TAC) As defined by California Health and Safety 

Code, Section 39655 (a): an air pollutant 

which may cause or contribute to an increase 

in mortality or in serious illness, or which 

may pose a present or potential hazard to 

human health. Substances which have been 

identified by the USEPA as hazardous air 

pollutants (e.g. benzene, asbestos) shall be 

identified by the Board as toxic air 

contaminants. 

toxic waste A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, 

swallowed, or absorbed through the skin. 

tributary River or stream flowing into a larger river or 

stream. 

turbidity A cloudy appearance that results when 

excessive silt or other substances are in the 

water. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

 

10-36 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 

Term Definition 

underground storage tank (UST) A tank located at least partially underground 

and designed to hold gasoline or other 

petroleum products or chemicals. 

understory The layer formed by the leaves and branches 

of the smaller trees under the forest canopy. 

unincorporated land A region of land is unincorporated if it is not 

a part of any municipality. To "incorporate" 

in this context means to form a municipal 

corporation, i.e., a city or similar. 

Unincorporated, in turn, implies no city and 

hence no city, town, village, or other 

municipal government. 

urban blight A condition of property or the uses of 

property in parts of a city, town, or 

neighborhood that are detrimental to the 

physical, social, and/or economic well-being 

of a community. It can include abandoned 

buildings or those severely neglected by 

their owners, vacant lots full of rubble and 

garbage, or dangerous and/or illegal uses 

such as crack houses. 

value added Economic measurement of wages and 

salaries, proprietor’s income, dividends and 

interest, and indirect business taxes. 

value of output Total value of an industry’s production. 

vault toilet The vault toilet is a brick or otherwise semimodern enclosure (for your privacy) 

surrounding a hole in the ground, which has 

a seat and standoff going into what amounts 

to a cesspool. Not a septic tank, but directly 

into a cesspool. 

vernal pool Seasonally ponded landscape depressions in 

which water accumulates because of 

limitations to subsurface drainage and that 

support a distinct association of plants and 

animals. 

vista A view or the visual percept of a region. 
Chapter 10 

Glossary 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR – December 2006 10-37 

Term Definition 

volatile organic compound (VOC) Reactive gases released during combustion 

or evaporation of fuel and regulated by 

USEPA. VOCs react with NOx in the 

presence of sunlight and form ozone. 

warm water ecosystem Uses of water that support warm water 

ecosystems including, but not limited to, 

preservation or enhancement of aquatic 

habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, 

including invertebrates. 

watershed An area that drains to a particular channel or 

river, usually bounded peripherally by a 

natural divide of some kind such as a hill, 

ridge, or mountain. 

water table The surface of underground, gravitycontrolled water, or the level of ground 

water. 

weir An overflow structure built across an open 

channel to raise the upstream water level 

and/or to measure the flow of water. 

wetlands Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas such as wet meadows, river 

overflows, mudflats, and natural ponds. An 

area characterized by periodic inundation or 

saturation, hydric soils, and vegetation 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 

Any number of tidal and nontidal areas 

characterized by saturated or nearly 

saturated soils most of the year that form an 

interface between terrestrial and aquatic 

environments; including freshwater marshes 

around ponds and channels, and brackish 

and salt marshes. A jurisdictional wetland is 

subject to regulation under the Clean Water 

Act. A nonjurisdictional is subject to 

consideration under the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. 

wing dam A dam that only partially blocks a river and 

extends from only one riverbank. 

zoning Land use regulations are enacted to manage 

use of land and are used to control the 

character of an area.