CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE 

CONTRACT RENEWALS - AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

January 2005
American River Division -1- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Table of Contents

Items Page

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

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

Purpose and Need for the Action ...................................................................................1-1 

Basis to Renew Central Valley Project Water Service Contracts...................................1-2 

Basis to Renew American River Division Water Service Contracts ...............................1-3 

Sacramento County............................................................................................1-3 

 Sacramento County Water Agency ........................................................1-3 

 San Juan Water District..........................................................................1-4 

 Sacramento Municipal Utility District ......................................................1-5 

Placer County.....................................................................................................1-5 

 Roseville .................................................................................................1-5 

 Placer County Water Agency..................................................................1-5 

El Dorado County ...............................................................................................1-6 

 El Dorado Irrigation District.....................................................................1-6 

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.................................................................1.6 

 East Bay Municipal Utility District ...........................................................1-6 

Relationship of this Document to the 1999 CVPIA 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement................................................1-7 

Other Related Documents or Activities ..........................................................................1-7 

Study Period...................................................................................................................1-8 

Public Involvement Process ...........................................................................................1-8 

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Introduction ....................................................................................................................2-1 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Negotiations Process.............................................2-1 

Issues Considered as Part of Long-Term Contract Renewal.........................................2-1 

Needs Assessments...........................................................................................2-2 

Changes in Water Service Areas .......................................................................2-5 

Water Transfers..................................................................................................2-5 

Development of Alternatives ..........................................................................................2-5 

No Action Alternative..........................................................................................2-6 

 Tiered Water Pricing...............................................................................2-7 

 Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users..........................................2-12 

 Water Measurement .............................................................................2-12 

 Water Conservation..............................................................................2-12 

Alternative 1 .....................................................................................................2-12 

 Tiered Water Pricing.............................................................................2-13 

 Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users..........................................2-13 

 Water Measurement .............................................................................2-13 

 Water Conservation..............................................................................2-13 
Table of Contents

American River Division -2- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

Alternative 2 .....................................................................................................2-14 

 Tiered Water Pricing.............................................................................2-14 

 Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users..........................................2-14 

 Water Measurement .............................................................................2-15 

 Water Conservation..............................................................................2-15 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .......................................................................2-15 

Reduction in Contract Amounts........................................................................2-15 

Selection of Preferred Alternative ................................................................................2-15 

Summary of Impact Assessment .................................................................................2-15 

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

Introduction ....................................................................................................................3-1 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement............................................................3-1 

Localized Impacts of PEIS on Preferred Alternative...........................................3-2 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for 

 Central Valley Project Water Supply Contracts under 

 Public Law 101-514 (Section 206)......................................................................3-2 

 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for 

 East Bay Municipal Utility District Supplemental Water Supply Project .............3-4 

 Amendatory Central Valley Project Contract......................................................3-6 

 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for 

 Freeport Regional Water Project........................................................................3-6 

 Environmental Impact Report for Sacramento County General Plan.............................3-7 

 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2002 Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan.3-11 

 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for 

 American River Pump Station Project for Placer County Water Agency..........3-11 

 Environmental Impact Report for City of Folsom General Plan....................................3-12 

 Environmental Impact Report for Placer County General Plan....................................3-13 

 Environmental Impact Report for City of Roseville General Plan.................................3-15 

 Environmental Impact Report for El Dorado County General Plan ..............................3-17 

 Environmental Impact Report for Water Forum Proposal ............................................3-17 

 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for a Warren Act 

 Contract Between City of Roseville and Reclamation ......................................3-20 

 Environmental Impact Report for Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

 Sacramento County Water Agency Water Assignment....................................3-20 

 Application for Certification for Cosumnes Power Plant...............................................3-21 

CHAPTER 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................4-1 

Resources Considered...................................................................................................4-1 

Study Area for Long-term Contract Renewal in the American River Division ................4-2 

Study Period...................................................................................................................4-2 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .............................................4-2 

Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance 

 and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ................................................................4-2 
Table of Contents

American River Division -3- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

Surface Water Resources, Quality, and Facilities..........................................................4-2 

Affected Environment .........................................................................................4-3 

 Upper American River Watershed..........................................................4-3 

 Lower American River Watershed..........................................................4-3 

 Minimum Flow Requirements for the American River ............................4-4 

 Water Quality..........................................................................................4-5 

 Temperature Control Methods at Folsom Dam ......................................4-5 

 Flood Flow Requirements for the Lower American River .......................4-6 

 Central Valley Project Operational Requirements that Influence 

 American River Operations.........................................................4-6 

 Central Valley Project Water Service Contractors in the 

 American River Division..............................................................4-7 

 Water Supplies for Other Water Users in the 

 American River Division............................................................4-10 

 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Water Users of the 

 American River Division............................................................4-11 

 Response to Existing Reduction in Water Supply Reliability................4-12 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-12 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-12 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-13 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-13 

Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-14 

Groundwater Resources and Quality ...........................................................................4-14 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-14 

Groundwater Use in Portions of Sacramento, Placer, and 

 El Dorado Counties...................................................................4-14 

Groundwater Use in East Bay Municipal Utility District ........................4-15 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-15 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-16 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-16 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-16 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-16 

Land Use, Demographics, and Sociological Resources ..............................................4-17 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-17 

City of Folsom.......................................................................................4-17 

Sacramento County..............................................................................4-18 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ....................................................4-18 

City of Roseville....................................................................................4-19 

Placer County .......................................................................................4-19 

El Dorado County .................................................................................4-20 

East Bay Municipal Utility District .........................................................4-21 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-21 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-21 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-22 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-22 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-22 
Table of Contents

American River Division -4- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

Central Valley Project Water Supply Costs..................................................................4-22 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-23 

City of Folsom.......................................................................................4-23 

San Juan Water District........................................................................4-23 

Zone 40 ................................................................................................4-23 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ....................................................4-24 

City of Roseville....................................................................................4-24 

Placer County Water Agency................................................................4-24 

El Dorado Irrigation District...................................................................4-25 

East Bay Municipal Utility District .........................................................4-25 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-25 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-25 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-25 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-25 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-26 

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ......................................................................................4-26 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-26 

Upper American River Basin ................................................................4-27 

 Folsom Lake .........................................................................................4-27 

 Lake Natoma ........................................................................................4-28 

 Lower American River ..........................................................................4-28 

 Dry Creek Watershed ...........................................................................4-29 

 Sacramento River.................................................................................4-29 

 Species of Primary Management Interest.............................................4-30 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-36 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-36 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-36 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-36 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-36 

Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife..........................................................................................4-36 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-37 

Habitat Types........................................................................................4-37 

Habitats Associated with Central Valley Project Waterways in the 

 Project Area ..............................................................................4-42 

Habitats Associated with Central Valley Project Service Areas............4-45 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-48 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-48 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-49 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-49 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-49 
Table of Contents

American River Division -5- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

Recreation....................................................................................................................4-49 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-49 

Sacramento County..............................................................................4-49 

City of Folsom.......................................................................................4-49 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ....................................................4-49 

Placer County .......................................................................................4-50 

City of Roseville....................................................................................4-50 

El Dorado County .................................................................................4-50 

East Bay Municipal Utility District .........................................................4-50 

Folsom State Recreation Area..............................................................4-51 

Lower American River ..........................................................................4-52 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-54 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-54 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-54 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-55 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-55 

Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................4-55 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-55 

 Sacramento County..............................................................................4-56 

 Sacramento Municipal Utility District ....................................................4-57 

 City of Folsom.......................................................................................4-57 

 Placer County .......................................................................................4-58 

 City of Roseville....................................................................................4-59 

 El Dorado County .................................................................................4-59 

 East Bay Municipal Utility District .........................................................4-61 

 Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma............................................................4-61 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-61 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-62 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-62 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-62 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-62 

Indian Trust Assets ......................................................................................................4-62 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-63 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-64 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-64 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-64 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-64 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-64 

Air Quality.....................................................................................................................4-64 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-64 

Climate..................................................................................................4-64 

Air Quality .............................................................................................4-65 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-68 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-68 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-68 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-68 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-68 
Table of Contents

American River Division -6- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

Soils .............................................................................................................................4-69 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-69 

Sacramento County and Western Placer County.................................4-69 

Central Placer County and Western/Central El Dorado County ...........4-70 

East Bay Municipal Utility District Service Area....................................4-70 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-71 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-71 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-71 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-71 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-71 

Visual Resources .........................................................................................................4-71 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-71 

Zone 40 ................................................................................................4-71 

San Juan Water District........................................................................4-72 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ....................................................4-72 

City of Folsom.......................................................................................4-72 

Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma............................................................4-72 

Placer County Water Agency................................................................4-72 

City of Roseville....................................................................................4-72 

El Dorado Irrigation District...................................................................4-72 

Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma............................................................4-73 

American River .....................................................................................4-73 

East Bay Municipal Utility District .........................................................4-74 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-74 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-74 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-74 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-74 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-74 

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................4-75 

Affected Environment .......................................................................................4-75 

Environmental Consequences..........................................................................4-77 

No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-77 

Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-77 

Alternative 2..........................................................................................4-77 

 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................4-78 

Secondary Growth Impacts..........................................................................................4-78 
Table of Contents

American River Division -7- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Items Page

CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

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

Public Involvement .........................................................................................................5-1 

 Scoping Process ................................................................................................5-1 

Consultation with Other Agencies ..................................................................................5-2 

National Environmental Policy Act .....................................................................5-2 

California Environmental Quality Act..................................................................5-2 

Endangered Species Act....................................................................................5-2 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act......................................................................5-3 

National Historic Preservation Act......................................................................5-3 

Indian Trust Assets.............................................................................................5-3 

Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land .................................................................5-3 

Environmental Justice ........................................................................................5-4 

State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency.............................5-4 

Floodplain Management.....................................................................................5-4 

Wetlands Protection ...........................................................................................5-4 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ................................................................................5-4 

Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation..............................5-5 

Clean Air Act ......................................................................................................5-5 

Safe Drinking Water Act .....................................................................................5-5 

Clean Water Act .................................................................................................5-6 
Table of Contents

American River Division -8- January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A LIST OF PREPARERS 

ATTACHMENT B BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ATTACHMENT C ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND METRIC 

CONVERSIONS 

LIST OF TABLES

1-1 Related Activities ....................................................................................1-8 

2-1 Contractor's Water Needs Assessment for Existing Conditions (in acrefeet and based on normal hydrologic year unless noted, in acre-feet)...2-3 

2-2 Contractor's Water Needs Assessment Projected for 2025/2029 (Based 

on a normal hydrologic year unless noted, in acre-feet).........................2-4 

2-3 Central Valley Project Contracts in American River Division..................2-7 

2-4 Comparison of Contract Provisions Considered in Alternatives .............2-8 

2-5 Impact Assessment Results .................................................................2-16 

4-1 2029 Central Valley Project Water Delivery Assumptions 

 for American River Division ......................................................4-13 

4-2 Fish Species of Primary Management Interest in the Project Area ......4-31 

4-3 Boat Launch Facilities at Folsom Lake.................................................4-53 

4-4 Boat Launch Facilities at Lake Natoma ................................................4-53 

4-5 Distribution of Visitors to Folsom Lake State Recreation Area in 2000 4-54 

4-6 Indian Trust Assets in American River Division....................................4-63 

4-7 Ethnic Diversity in American River Division..........................................4-76 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1-1 American River Division Map..........................................following page 1-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
American River Division ES-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential impacts and benefits for the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to renew the long-term water service contracts to deliver water 

from the Central Valley Project (CVP) for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses to the American 

River Division CVP water service contractors. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

Reclamation is responsible for operational control of the CVP including securing payment for the cost of 

water facilities and operations and maintenance established in the water service contract with the Federal 

government. In addition, as a duly authorized representative, Reclamation administers all actions 

pertaining to the establishment of water service contracts on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. 

The purpose of this action is to renew the American River Division long-term water service contracts, 

consistent with Reclamation authority and all applicable state and federal laws, including the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) (H.R. 429, Public Law 102-575). The project alternatives will 

include the terms and conditions of the long-term contracts and tiered water pricing. 

Long-term contract renewal (LTCR) is needed to: 

• Continue beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a 

reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of irrigation and 

domestic uses; fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation; fish and wildlife 

enhancement; power generation; recreation; and other uses consistent with requirements 

imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the CVPIA; 

• Incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contract to ensure CVP 

continued compliance with current federal reclamation law and other applicable statues; 

and 

• Allow the continued reimbursement to the federal government for costs related to CVP 

construction and operation. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were identified for the renewal of long-term contracts between Reclamation and 

contractors in the American River Division. The alternatives present a range of water service agreement 

provisions that could be implemented for long-term contract renewals. The No Action Alternative 

consists of renewing existing water service contracts. Alternative 1 is based upon the April 2000 Proposal 

presented by the CVP water service contractors to Reclamation. Alternative 2 is based upon the 

November 1999 Proposal presented by Reclamation to the CVP water service contractors. 

The primary differences in the alternatives relate to methods addressing tiered water pricing, definition of 

M&I users, water measurement, and water conservation. 
Executive Summary

American River Division ES-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative assumes renewal of long-term CVP water service contracts in accordance with 

implementation of CVPIA. Contract assumptions in the No Action Alternative are defined by the current 

water service contract documents for American River Division contractors, including contracts under 

Public Law 101-514 for Sacramento County Water Agency and San Juan Water District, amendatory 

contracts for Placer County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District, and interim contracts 

for San Juan Water District and El Dorado Irrigation District, as shown in Table 2-3. 

The No Action Alternative assumes maximum delivery of contract amounts to be equal to full contract 

amounts for Sacramento County Water Agency (Zone 40 and City of Folsom), San Juan Water District, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Roseville, Placer County Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation 

District contract for El Dorado Hills and Lake Hills Estates, and East Bay Municipal Utility District. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is based upon the proposal presented by CVP water service contractors to Reclamation in 

April 2000. The April 2000 proposal did include several provisions that were different than the 

assumptions for No Action Alternative, including the Definition of Municipal Users. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is based upon the proposal presented by Reclamation to CVP water service contractors in 

November 1999. The November 1999 proposal did include several provisions that were different than the 

assumptions for No Action Alternative including differences related to tiered pricing and the definition of 

M&I users. 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

It is anticipated that the final contract language and the long-term contract renewal Preferred Alternative 

will represent a negotiated position between Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, it is anticipated that the 

impacts will be either equal to or less than those identified for Alternatives1 through 2 or the No Action 

Alternative. 
Executive Summary

American River Division ES-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed to determine the potential for adverse and 

beneficial impacts associated with their implementation as compared to continuation of the No Action 

Alternative conditions. 

None of the alternatives include construction of facilities or changes in water service areas. Population 

projections and land use projections would be the same for all alternatives. General plans for the areas 

within the American River water service contractors service areas include protections for biological 

resources, land use, cultural resources, air quality, soils, visual resources, and recreational opportunities. 

The long-term contract renewal process that occurs under the alternatives is not the sole factor driving 

growth and land use change. Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, independent of the 

long-term contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and indirect effects to land use that 

are beyond the range of Reclamation’s responsibilities. Virtually all of the long-term contract renewal 

actions are within the range of existing conditions. In most instances the responsibility to address affects 

to land uses will be with the local government as part of their California Environmental Quality Act 

compliance for actions of the municipalities. For example, Reclamation is not responsible for the 

development of housing tracts or industrial development in a community. Such actions are approved 

locally and at the state level. Further, if a farmer changes from one irrigated crop to another because of 

economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s decision. 

A major difference between the alternatives is due to tiered water pricing assumptions and the responses 

to the pricing method. The tiered water pricing assumptions are identical under No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1. The tiered water pricing assumptions under Alternative 2 would increase CVP water rates 

as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

If tiered pricing makes CVP water unaffordable to some of the existing users, those users may increase 

groundwater use to replace more expensive CVP water. This could cause localized overdraft conditions in 

all of the water service contractors service areas. The actual response to the increased water rates is not 

know at this time. Because CVP water is only part of the total water supplies for the American River 

Division contractors, it is difficult to predict how the increases in water costs would affect actual retail 

water rates. However, the higher cost of CVP water may result in loss of existing or future manufacturing 

or agricultural activities. 

The alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed to determine the potential for adverse and 

beneficial impacts associated with their implementation as compared to continuation of the No Action 

Alternative conditions, as summarized in Table ES-1. 
American River Division ES-4 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE ES-1 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 A

Surface Water Resources, Quality, and Facilities CVP operations would be similar to future conditions described in the 

American River Pump Station EIR/EIS Flows in American River and storage volumes in Folsom Lake are provided to support steelhead in accordance with recent biological opinions 

Same as No Action Alternative If CVP water 

CVP water, cosame as No AIf CVP water CVP water is water use ma

Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality The CVP water supplies would continue to be used and groundwater 

conjunctive use programs would be implemented 

Same as No Action Alternative Conditions un

would be idenNo Action AlteIf CVP water CVP water is groundwater u

Land Use, Demographics, and Sociological Resources 

Growth would continue in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Central Valley Project Water Supply Costs, Agricultural Economics, and Regional Economics 

CVP water supply costs for this alternative were based upon the Tiered Water Pricing concept in the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative Higher CVP w

adverse impaCVP water suless expensiv
American River Division ES-5 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE ES-1 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 A

Fishery and Wildlife Resources Growth would continue in American 

River Division service area, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans include protection measures for biological resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Recreation Recreational opportunities would 

continue as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation and CVP water service contractor plans 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Cultural Resources Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, 

Contra Costa, and Alameda counties are responsible for protection of cultural and historical resources under the current land use plans, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans have protection measures for cultural and historic resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Indian Trust Assets The American River Division does not 

include Indian Trust Assets that rely upon CVP water. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Air Quality Growth would continue in 

Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans include air quality improvement and protection measures. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A
American River Division ES-6 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE ES-1 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 A

Soils Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, 

Contra Costa, and Alameda counties have adopted land use plans and erosion control plans to protect soil resources in the general plans. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Visual Resources Visual resources would continue to 

change in the No Action Alternative as growth continues in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. The general plans include protection measures for visual resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A

Environmental Justice The economies of Sacramento, 

Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties are extremely vibrant and growing. It is assumed that the high employment and the high cost of living would continue into the future. 

Same as No Action Alternative If the higher c

in loss of exisimpact would educated, low would not be replacement j

Secondary Growth Impacts Growth would continue in 

Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No A
CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED
American River Division 1-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose and Need 

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to renew long-term water service contracts for 

delivering Central Valley Project (CVP) water to be used for irrigation and municipal and industrial 

(M&I) purposes in the American River Division. The CVP water service contractors include Sacramento 

County Water Agency which provides water to an area within Sacramento County designated as Zone 40 

and to the City of Folsom (Folsom) through a subcontract, San Juan Water District, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District for use at Rancho Seco, City of Roseville (Roseville), Placer County Water 

Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District for use in El Dorado Hills and Lake Hills Estates, and East Bay 

Municipal Utility District. These water service contractors currently have CVP water contracts that will 

expire at various dates prior to 2029. The long-term water service contracts proposed in this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would continue to deliver the same amount of CVP water as the 

existing contracts, for a period of 40 years as Municipal and Industrial (M&I) contracts. 

This EIS has been prepared pursuant to and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC § 4321-4370d) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

on implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). 

The American River Division also includes the El Dorado County Water Agency, in accordance with the 

provisions of Public Law 101-514. Currently, the El Dorado County Water Agency is preparing 

environmental documentation to evaluate potential impacts and benefits that may occur if a water service 

contract is implemented. Due to the incomplete nature of the environmental documentation, El Dorado 

County Water Agency is not included in the contract renewal alternatives considered in this EIS. 

However, the potential contract is included in the analysis of cumulative impacts in this EIS. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

Reclamation is responsible for operational control of the CVP including securing payment for the cost of 

water facilities and operations and maintenance established in the water service contract with 

Reclamation. In addition, as a duly authorized representative, Reclamation administers all actions 

pertaining to the establishment of water service contracts on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary). 

The purpose of this action is to renew the American River Division long-term water service contracts, 

consistent with Reclamation authority and all applicable state and federal laws, including the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) (H.R. 429, Public Law 102-575). 

Long-term contract renewal (LTCR) is needed to: 

• Continue beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a 

reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of irrigation and 

M&I uses; fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation; fish and wildlife 

enhancement; power generation; recreation; and other uses consistent with requirements 

imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the CVPIA; 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

• Incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contract to ensure CVP 

continued compliance with current federal reclamation law and other applicable statues; 

and 

• Allow the continued reimbursement to the federal government for costs related to CVP 

construction and operation. 

BASIS TO RENEW CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER 

SERVICE CONTRACTS

The River and Harbors Act of 1935 included the initial authorization for the CVP. The Central Valley 

Project Authorization Act of 1937 re-authorized the CVP and allowed the Secretary to enter into 

repayment contracts and other necessary contracts with "all agencies with which contracts are authorized 

under reclamation law." 

Public Law 88-44, the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, provided for repayment of construction charges 

and authorized sale of CVP water to municipalities and other public corporations and agencies, plant 

investment, and certain irrigation water deliveries to leased lands. This act required the Secretary to 

comply with laws of the State relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in 

irrigation or vested rights acquired there under. This act also provided that the Secretary include provision 

for contract renewal, upon request of the other party to any long-term contract for municipal, domestic, or 

industrial water supply. The contract renewal would be subject to renegotiation of: (1) the charges set 

forth in the contract in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time of renewal; and (2) any other 

matters with respect to which the right to renegotiate is reserved in the contract. The act also states that 

the Secretary shall, upon request, provide in any such long-term contract that the other party to the 

contract shall, during the term of the contract and of any renewal (subject to fulfillment of other 

obligations), have a first right to a stated share or quantity of the CVP water supply available for 

municipal, domestic, industrial, or irrigation use. 

Sections 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 authorized the Secretary to enter into contracts to 

furnish water for municipal water supply or miscellaneous purposes, provided that such contracts require 

repayment to the United States over a period not to exceed forty years. Section 9(e) of the Reclamation 

Project Act of 1939 allowed the Secretary to enter into either short- or long-term contracts to furnish 

water for irrigation purposes, with each such contract to be for a period not to exceed forty years. 

The Water Service Contracts Act of 1944 provided for delivery of specific quantities of irrigation and 

M&I water to contractors. 

The Reclamation Project Act of 1956 provided the right of renewal of long-term repayment or water 

service contracts for agricultural contractors for a term not to exceed 40 years. The Reclamation Project 

Act of June 21, 1963, Renewal of Water Supply Contracts, extended the right of renewal of long-term 

repayment or water service contracts for M&I contractors. 

On October 30, 1992, the President signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) that included Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to include fish 

and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with 

irrigation and domestic uses and by including fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to 

power generation. Section 3409 of the CVPIA required the Secretary to prepare a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) pursuant to NEPA to evaluate the direct and indirect impacts and 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

benefits of implementing CVPIA. That PEIS was prepared by Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service). Reclamation released a Draft PEIS on November 7, 1997. An extended comment 

period closed on April 17, 1998. Reclamation and the Service released the final CVPIA PEIS in October 

1999 and the joint Record of Decision in January 2001 

Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to renew existing CVP 

water service and repayment contracts following completion of the PEIS and other needed environmental 

documentation by stating that: 

 "...the Secretary shall, upon request, renew any existing long-term repayment or water service 

contract for the delivery of water for a period of 25 years and may renew such contracts for 

successive periods of up to 25 years each....(after) appropriate environmental review, including 

preparation of the environmental impact statement required in section 3409 (i.e., the PEIS)..." 

Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA clearly indicates that 25 years will be the upper limit for long-term 

irrigation repayment and water service contracts within the CVP. However, Section 3404(c) did not 

amend the provisions of Section (9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Act of June 21, 

1963 which authorized renewal of M&I water contract terms for up to 40 years. These 1939 and 1963 

authorizations remain in place as guidance for establishing the terms of M&I contracts. 

BASIS TO RENEW AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION WATER 

SERVICE CONTRACTS

The Central Valley Project Authorization Act of 1937 authorized construction of the initial CVP project 

features for navigation, flood-control, waste storage, construction of distribution systems, and 

hydropower generation. The River and Harbors Act of 1940 further authorized construction of CVP 

facilities and mandated that dams and reservoirs be used first for river regulation, improvement of 

navigation, and flood control; second for irrigation and domestic users; and third for power. This 

authorization was amended by the American River Division Authorization Act of 1949, Trinity River Act 

of 1955, San Luis Authorization Act of 1960, River and Harbors Act of 1962, Auburn-Folsom South Unit 

Authorization Act of 1967, and San Felipe Division Authorization Act of 1967. 

The CVP facilities include major reservoirs on the Trinity, Sacramento, American, Stanislaus, and San 

Joaquin rivers and conveyance facilities. Water service contractors in the American River Division are 

served by the American River and associated conveyance facilities. The contractors are briefly described 

below by county location. 

Sacramento County 

The CVP American River Division water service contractors in Sacramento County include Sacramento 

County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 

Sacramento County Water Agency. Sacramento County Water Agency was formed in 1952 to 

provide water, including groundwater, to areas within Sacramento County. The legislation that provided 

for the formation of the agency allowed for contracting with the federal government under Reclamation 

Law in the same manner as irrigation districts and with other federal and state governments for the 

purchase, sale, and acquisition of water and the construction and operation of facilities. 

Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 provided up to 50,000 acre-feet/year of water in the American River 

Division of the CVP for use by Sacramento County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, and El 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-4 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

Dorado County Water Agency. Sacramento County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, and 

Reclamation prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 

that evaluated the use of the water by San Juan Water District and Sacramento County Water Agency. 

Following completion of the EIS/EIR, Sacramento County Water Agency entered into a contract in April 

1999 with Reclamation for the delivery of 22,000 acre-feet of water to meet the needs of Sacramento 

County with 7,000 acre-feet for delivery to Folsom under a subcontract. 

Zone 40. Sacramento County Water Agency formed Zone 40 in 1985 for the purpose of 

constructing facilities for the production, conservation, transmittal, distribution and sale of surface water 

and groundwater for conjunctive use. In 1999, Sacramento County Water Agency expanded Zone 40 to 

include wholesale service areas of Elk Grove Water Service (previously Elk Grove Water Works) and 

community areas throughout Zone 40 that are projected for development under the County of Sacramento 

General Plan. 

The CVP water service contract under Public Law 101-514 provides for the delivery of up to 15,000 acrefeet for M&I purposes within Zone 40. New facilities are required for diversion, treatment, and 

conveyance of the CVP water. Therefore, at this time, most of Zone 40 is served by groundwater. 

Sacramento County Water Agency does have a wheeling agreement with the City of Sacramento to 

provide treatment and conveyance of water through the City of Sacramento existing treatment and 

distribution system. The Laguna/Vineyard area is currently receiving treated surface water pursuant to the 

Sacramento County Water Agency contract with the CVP. 

In addition to the Public Law 101-514 contract, this EIS also considers an assignment of 30,000 acre-feet 

of CVP water under the CVP water service contract with Sacramento Municipal Utility District to 

Sacramento County Water Agency for use within Zone 40. CVP water assigned to Sacramento County 

Water Agency will be delivered through the proposed Freeport Regional Water Project. 

Currently, Sacramento County Water Agency is participating with East Bay Municipal Utility District in 

the development of a diversion facility near Freeport on the Sacramento River downstream of the 

confluence with the American River. The project will include an intake facility and pumping plant, 

conveyance facilities between the river and a treatment plant, and a treatment plant located in central 

Sacramento County. The facilities will be operated to serve Zone 40. As described below, the conveyance 

will be extended further eastward to provide water to facilities owned by East Bay Municipal Utility 

District. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom entered into a subcontract with Sacramento County Water 

Agency to receive delivery of 7,000 acre-feet for M&I uses in accordance with Public Law 101-514. This 

water can only be used for service in a portion of Folsom located in the southeastern quadrant of the City 

(north of U.S. Highway 50). 

San Juan Water District. The San Juan Water District provides CVP water and water rights water to 

Citrus Heights Water District, Fair Oaks Water District, Orange Vale Water Company, the Ashland area 

of Folsom, and neighboring portions of Placer County. San Juan Water District also provides water under 

contract with Placer County Water Agency to portions of Placer County that cannot be easily served by 

Placer County Water Agency facilities. 

 

San Juan Water District entered a contract in 1960 with Reclamation to obtain CVP water from Folsom 

Lake for up to 11,200 acre-feet/year for irrigation and municipal/industrial uses. The contract also 

provides for delivery of up to 33,000 acre-feet/year of water rights held by San Juan Water District 

through Reclamation diversion facilities in Folsom Lake. The water rights are defined as the first 149 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

acre-feet/day delivered to San Juan Water District. The contract was renewed on an interim basis until the 

long-term contract renewals considered in this EIS are completed. 

In 1999, San Juan Water District also entered a contract with the Reclamation for the delivery of up to 

13,000 acre-feet for M&I uses in accordance with Section 206 of Public Law 101-514. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento Municipal Utility District entered into a contract 

with Reclamation in February 1970 for the delivery of up to 60,000 acre-feet/year of CVP water for M&I 

uses and for the delivery of up to 15,000 acre-feet of water rights water made available to Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District by the City of Sacramento, as a result of a previous assignment of water by 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District to the City of Sacramento. The CVP water under the contract was 

to be used Sacramento Municipal Utility District in its power generation operations, and actually was 

used for more than 15 years for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant operations. In the 1980s, the nuclear 

power plant operations ceased. Since that time, water has been used for continued operation of the site 

including temperature controls for the nuclear fuels stored at the site. Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District has recently received California Energy Commission approval for two gas-powered generators at 

the Rancho Seco site known as the Cosumnes Power Plant. The Cosumnes Power Plant will consist of a 

nominal 1000-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. The plant will be constructed in two 

phases, each consisting of 500 megawatts. The first phase of the Cosumnes Power Plant is under 

construction with on-line service scheduled for the fall of 2005. 

Both the CVP water and the water rights water flows are currently diverted from the American River at 

Nimbus Reservoir and delivered to the Ranch Seco site through the Folsom South Canal. The existing 

contract specifically requires Sacramento Municipal Utility District to be responsible for conveyance, 

handling, disposal, and/or distribution of water beyond the point of facilities operated by the United 

States. 

Placer County 

The CVP American River Division water service contractors in Placer County include Roseville and 

Placer County Water Agency. San Juan Water District also serves portions of Placer County, as described 

above. 

City of Roseville. Roseville entered a contract with Reclamation to obtain CVP water from Folsom 

Lake in 1967 for up to 32,000 acre-feet/year for irrigation and municipal/industrial uses. The Roseville 

service area includes the incorporated area. A portion of southeastern Roseville is served by San Juan 

Water District. Roseville has exercised an option with Placer County Water Agency for 10,000 acre-feet 

of water and has an option with Placer County Water Agency for an additional 20,000 acre-feet of water. 

Placer County Water Agency. Placer County Water Agency entered into a contract with Reclamation 

in 1970 for up to 117,000 acre-feet of CVP water for irrigation and municipal/industrial uses. The 

contract was amended in 2002 and reduced the amount of CVP water to 35,000 acre-feet prior to the 

construction of Auburn Dam. 

Placer County Water Agency also has the right to divert for consumptive uses up to 120,000 acrefeet/year of water rights on the Middle Fork American River. Placer County Water Agency contracts with 

San Juan Water District and Roseville to deliver up to 25,000 and 30,000 acre-feet, respectively, for 

service to areas within Placer County that would be difficult for Placer County Water Agency to serve 

with existing facilities. In addition, in order to protect the groundwater aquifer within Placer County, 

Placer County Water Agency contracts with Sacramento Suburban Water District to provide up to 29,000 

acre-feet in years when the March through November unimpaired flow into Folsom Reservoir is greater 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

than 1,600,000 acre-feet and the Placer County Water Agency's total supply is determined to be in 

"surplus conditions." In accordance with agreements with the Sacramento Water Forum, Placer County 

Water Agency has agreed to limit its water right diversions from the American River to 35,000 acre-feet, 

which is assumed in this analysis to be diverted upstream of Folsom Dam through a pump station on the 

American River. 

El Dorado County 

The only CVP American River Division water service contractor in El Dorado County is El Dorado 

Irrigation District. As described above, El Dorado County Water Agency is currently preparing separate 

environmental documents to evaluate contracting with Reclamation under Section 206 of Public Law 

101-514. That document will serve as the environmental document for the long-term contract for El 

Dorado County Water Agency. 

Foresthill Public Utility District also had a CVP water service contract for water delivered from Sugar 

Pine Reservoir. In 2003, the water rights and facilities that provided water to this area were transferred to 

the utility district and the contract was eliminated. 

El Dorado Irrigation District. El Dorado Irrigation District has entered into two contracts with 

Reclamation to obtain CVP water from Folsom Lake. One of the contracts is for Lake Hills Estates 

(located north of El Dorado Hills) and was initially signed in 1958 for up to 50 acre-feet/year for M&I 

purposes. The other contract is for El Dorado Hills and was initially signed in 1963 for up to 7,500 acrefeet/year for M&I purposes. Both contracts have been renewed on an interim basis until the long-term 

contract renewals considered in this EIS are completed. Water under both contracts is diverted from 

Folsom Lake and treated at the same El Dorado Irrigation District treatment plant. 

El Dorado Irrigation District also had a CVP water service contract for water delivered from Sly Park 

Reservoir. In 2004, the Sly Park water rights and facilities were transferred to El Dorado Irrigation 

District and the contract was eliminated. 

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties

Water is diverted from American River Division to serve users within the East Bay Municipal Utility 

District service area located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. East Bay Municipal Utility District is a large municipal and 

industrial water service provider that serves over 1.3 million customers in portions of Alameda and 

Contra Costa counties. The district also provides wastewater treatment services for Oakland, Piedmont 

Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, and portions of the City of Richmond. 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District primary source of water is the Mokelumne River and several 

minor local surface waters. At present, the current East Bay Municipal Utility District water supply is 

insufficient to meet customer demand in multiple-year droughts even with aggressive water conservation 

and recycling programs. To provide water to meet demands in drier years, East Bay Municipal Utility 

District is pursuing development of additional water supply projects, including utilization of a contract 

with Reclamation to obtain CVP water from the Folsom South Canal that was signed in 1970. The 

contract provided for delivery of up to 150,000 acre-feet/year for municipal/industrial uses. In 1972, the 

Environmental Defense with Sacramento County legally challenged the delivery of the CVP water from 

the Folsom South Canal as "unreasonable" use of American River water. In 1988, the SWRCB adopted 

findings that the CVP contract for East Bay Municipal Utility District is a reasonable use of American 

River water. In 1990, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Hodge affirmed the contractual rights 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-7 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

subject to a set of specific conditions known as "Hodge Decision." Due to these issues, East Bay 

Municipal Utility District has not been able to take delivery of this contract water except a small portion 

under an emergency provision during the 1977-78 drought. 

In 2001, the CVP contract was amended to provide for delivery of water from three possible diversion 

points with defined water amounts for each location. The preferred diversion point is located at Freeport 

on the Sacramento River (downstream of the confluence with the American River). At Freeport, East Bay 

Municipal Utility District will be able to divert up to 133,000 acre-feet of American River water each year 

with a not-to-exceed total of 165,000 acre-feet in three consecutive years. This diversion can only occur 

in drought years when East Bay Municipal Utility District's total system storage is forecasted to be less 

than 500,000 acre-feet. The other diversion locations include "Site 5" on the American River upstream of 

the Interstate 5 bridge and from the Folsom South Canal as under the initial contract. 

The Final EIS was published in April 2004. Reclamation plans to issue a Record of Decision following 

consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Freeport Regional Water Authority 

certified the Final EIR in April 2004. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE 1999 CVPIA 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

The PEIS provided a programmatic evaluation of the impacts of implementing the CVPIA. Four 

alternatives, 17 supplemental analyses, Preferred Alternative, and No-Action Alternative were evaluated 

in the PEIS. The impact analysis in the PEIS was completed at a subregional level but presented within 

the PEIS on a regional basis for the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Tulare Lake regions. 

The PEIS No-Action Alternative assumed that existing water service contracts would be renewed under 

the same terms as expiring contracts. The Final PEIS included a Preferred Alternative that addressed the 

regional impacts and benefits of the anticipated general method that Reclamation would use for 

implementation of the CVPIA, including long-term contract renewal, as described in Chapter 3 of this 

document. 

The PEIS evaluated the impacts and benefits of long-term contract renewals under CVPIA. Following 

completion of the PEIS, more specific information related to contract renewal proposals has been 

developed by Reclamation and the contractors. This EIS includes the CVPIA provisions as defined in the 

Preferred Alternative of the PEIS as the No Action Alternative and evaluates the impacts and benefits of 

differences between the contract assumptions in the No Action Alternative and two other alternatives, as 

described in Chapter 2. The PEIS and the Biological Opinion prepared for the operation and maintenance 

of the CVP and implementation of CVPIA considered and addressed impacts caused to date by CVP 

actions. Therefore this EIS does not need to address operations of the CVP. 

OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS OR ACTIVITIES 

There are several activities being implemented by Reclamation as part of the obligation to manage and 

operate the CVP. The following discussion identifies these activities and describes their relation to the 

renewal of the American River Division water service contracts. Related studies and projects that have 

been conducted recently or are currently being completed are summarized in Table 1-1. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-8 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

STUDY PERIOD

The analysis period for this EIS is the term of the proposed long-term contracts included in this EIS: 40 

years for M&I water service contracts. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

On October 15, 1998, Reclamation published a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to announce 

the preparation of environmental documents for long-term renewal of CVP water service contracts. 

Scoping meeting were held at eight locations throughout the CVP service area. 

Reclamation completed a scoping report in April 1999. Scoping served as a fact-finding process that 

helped identify public concerns and recommendations about the NEPA process, issues that would be 

addressed in this document, and the scope and level of detail for analyses. 

The proposed long-term contract renewals were considered in a public process. Throughout the contract 

renewal process, meetings were held with the contractors, other agencies, interest groups, and the public. 

Issues raised during the public involvement process were addressed in the negotiations process and were 

used in the preparation of this EIS. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

American River Division 1-9 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

TABLE 1-1 

 RELATED ACTIVITIES 

Project or Study and Lead Agency Summary 

Long-Term Contract Renewal of Existing 

CVP Water Service Contracts - 

Reclamation 

Reclamation is in negotiation with other CVP water contractors for 

renewal of long-term contracts, including contractors for the 

American River Division, Feather Water District, Shasta-Trinity 

Divisions, Sacramento Canals Unit, San Luis Unit, Contra Costa 

Unit, San Felipe Unit, Delta Mendota Canal Unit, the San Joaquin 

National Veterans Cemetery, the City of Lindsay, City of Fresno, 

Cross Valley , and Mercy Spring Water District. 

Implementation of CVPIA - Reclamation Reclamation and the Service are proceeding with implementation of 

other provisions of CVPIA, including stream restoration, refuge 

water supplies, and further analysis of yield replacement. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program - CALFED Established in May 1995, the consortium of federal and state 

agencies is charged with the development of a long-term solution to 

the Delta water concerns. CALFED completed an Environmental 

Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as 

part of this process. Renewal of Long-Term CVP Contracts is 

assumed within the CALFED EIR/EIS and Record of Decision. 

Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA) 

and Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) 

Update - Reclamation and California 

Department of Water Resources 

Provisions and requirements of the CVPIA, State Water Resources 

Control Board Order 1641, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and 

other agency mandates require that the existing operational roles 

and responsibilities of the SWP and CVP be reviewed and updated 

to provide appropriate long-term operating criteria and procedures 

for the two primary water storage and delivery projects affecting 

waterways of the Central Valley. 

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration 

Environmental Impact Statement/Report - 

Reclamation and Trinity County 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed a Final EIS/EIR and 

Record of Decision. Based upon subsequent litigation, Service is 

preparing responses to court's comments. Service and Reclamation 

also are implementing a portion of the recommendations for 

restoration activities along the Trinity River. 

Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan - 

Reclamation 

The Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) provides 

protective measures for fall-run chinook salmon and gathers 

scientific information on survival of salmon smolts through the Delta. 

The VAMP will be implemented through experimental flows on the 

San Joaquin River and export pumping rates with a temporary fish 

barrier on Old River during the 1-month period each year, from 

approximately April 15 to May 15. Additional attraction flows are 

targeted for October. The VAMP includes water acquisition for a 

pulse flow at Vernalis during the April and May period, and other 

flows identified to meet anadromous fish flow objectives. The San 

Joaquin River Group Authority, Reclamation, and the Service 

prepared a Final EIS/EIR for the water acquisition component of 

VAMP, in January 1999. 
CHAPTER 2 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
American River Division 2-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal 

CHAPTER 2 

Description of Alternatives 

INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the long-term water service contract negotiations process and descriptions of the 

alternatives considered in this EIS. 

LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE CONTRACT 

NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS 

Section 3404 (c) of the CVPIA states that “the Secretary shall, upon request, renew any existing 

long-term repayment or water service contract for the delivery of CVP water...” Consistent with the 1963 

Act, M&I contracts shall be renewed for successive periods up to 40 years each under terms and 

conditions that are mutually agreeable. The CVPIA also states that no renewals shall be authorized until 

appropriate environmental review, including the PEIS, has been completed. The PEIS provided a 

programmatic environmental analysis and identified the need for site-specific environmental documents 

for the long-term contract renewal process. This EIS is the site-specific environmental document for the 

Long-Term Contract Renewal of water service contracts in the American River Division. 

The CVPIA states that contracts which expire prior to the completion of the PEIS may be renewed for 

interim periods. The interim renewal contracts reflect existing Reclamation law, including modifications 

due to Reclamation Reform Act and applicable CVPIA requirements. The initial interim contract 

renewals were negotiated in 1994 with subsequent renewals for periods of two years or less to provide for 

continued water service until Long-Term Contract Renewal environmental documentation is completed. 

Many of the provisions negotiated as part of the interim contracts were assumed to be part of the contract 

renewal provisions in the description of the PEIS Preferred Alternative. 

In 1998, the long-term contract renewal process was initiated. Reclamation reviewed the interim contract 

provisions comments on the Draft PEIS, and comments on the environmental documents for the interim 

renewal contracts. Reclamation proposed to negotiate the general provisions of the long-term contract 

with representatives of all CVP water service contractors. Following the acceptance of the CVP-wide 

provisions, Reclamation proposed that division-specific provisions and, finally, contractor-specific 

provisions be negotiated. 

Reclamation published the initial proposed contract in November 1999. There were several negotiations 

sessions throughout the next six months. The CVP water service contractors published a counter-proposal 

in April 2000. The November 1999 proposal represents one "bookend" for negotiations and the April 

2000 proposal represents the other "bookend." The results of the negotiations are reflected in the 

subsequent proposals, as described later in this chapter. The final negotiated provisions are defined within 

these bookends. 

ISSUES CONSIDERED AS PART OF LONG-TERM 

CONTRACT RENEWALS

The long-term contract renewal process included a Needs Assessment to define existing and future water 

demands within the water service contractors service area, consideration of changes in the water service 

contractor service area boundaries, and consideration for future water transfers involving CVP water that 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

would potentially change the water service contract amounts. The results of the Needs Assessment and 

the consideration for changes in the water service contract definitions are described below. 

Needs Assessments 

The water rights granted to the CVP by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires the 

federal government to determine that CVP water is being used in a beneficial manner. To this end, an 

needs assessment methodology was developed, specifically as part of the long-term contract renewal 

process, to determine if the contractors have a need for their full contract amount by the Year 2029. This 

assessment was computed for each CVP water service contractor using a multiple-step approach. First, 

the existing water demand for each contractor was calculated based on historic water uses. Crop acreage, 

crop water needs, precipitation, and conveyance loss information provided by each contractor were 

reviewed for agricultural water use. Residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and 

environmental uses, including landscape irrigation, system losses, and landscape acreage information 

provided by each contractor were reviewed for M&I water use. Future changes in water demands based 

upon crop acreage, M&I expansion, and changes in efficiencies were reviewed. Third, existing and future 

water supplies were identified for each contractor, including groundwater, other surface water supplies, 

water assignments, and water transfers and sales. The calculation of CVP water needs assumed that other 

(non-federal) water supplies would be used first, and groundwater pumping would not exceed the safe 

yield of the aquifer. Reclamation did not include any incidental recharge due to application of irrigation 

water. In addition, the actual water needs were calculated at each division or unit level to allow for annual 

intra-regional transfers. 

Future water demands were identified for each contractor based upon assumptions for water conservation 

and best management practices. The demands were then compared to available non-CVP water supplies 

to determine the need for CVP water. If the negative amount (unmet demand) is within 10 percent of their 

total supply for contracts greater than 15,000 acre-feet/year, or within 25 percent for contracts less than or 

equal to 15,000 acre-feet/year, the full future need of the water supplies under the contract was deemed to 

be beneficially used. Because the CVP was initially established as a supplemental water supply for areas 

with inadequate supplies, the needs for most contractors were at least equal to the CVP water service 

contract and frequently exceeded the previous contract amount. Increased total contract amounts were not 

included in the needs assessment because the CVPIA states that Reclamation cannot increase contract 

supply quantities until all provisions of CVPIA are met. 

Water Needs Assessments were completed for the contractors within the American River Division. Table 

2-1 shows the quantities of available supplies and demands used in determining the needs of each 

contractor under existing conditions. Included in this table are the contractor’s total water supplies 

including any assignments, transfers, or exchanges into or out of the contractor’s service areas, the total 

water demands, and the amount of the surplus or unmet demand. Projected Water Needs Assessment 

values for the American River Division contractors are presented in Table 2-2. Water supply, demand, 

and delivery information in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are based on a normal hydrologic year unless noted. 

The water needs assessment did not consider that Reclamation’s ability to deliver CVP water as has been 

constrained in recent years and may be constrained in the future due to many factors including hydrologic 

conditions as well as implementation of federal and state laws. The future water needs were calculated for 

the Year 2025. Although the term of the long-term renewal contracts extends beyond this date, this EIS 

uses these values to be representative of future conditions because all CVP supplies will be fully utilized 

prior to the end of the contract period. 
Chapter 2 Des

American River Division 2-3 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-1 

CONTRACTOR'S WATER NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS 

(IN ACRE-FEET AND BASED ON A NORMAL HYDROLOGIC YEAR UNLESS NOTED, IN ACRE-FEET) 

Sacramento 

County 

Water 

Agency 

San Juan 

Water District 

Sacramento 

Municipal 

Utility District 

City of 

Roseville 

Placer County 

Water Agency 

El Dorado 

Irrigation 

District 

Data for Year: 1996 1995 1995 1995 1999 1995 1993 

Total CVP Delivery 0 5083 2,959 19,800 0 23,959 

(including Sly 

Park) 

Other Surface 

Water Supply 

13,605 33,000 17,008 114,400 19,055 37

Groundwater (a) 13,583 

Transfers and 

Exchanges In 

1,146 10.014 

Transfers and 

Exchanges Out 

49 10,000 

Total Supply 28,285 48,097 19,967 19,800 104,400 43,014 37

Agricultural 

Demand 

 79,112 15,889 

M&I Demand 28,441 50,888 19,967 19,800 23,997 27,125 22

Total Demand (b) 28,441 50,888 19,967 19,800 103,109 43,014 22

Unmet Demand (c) 156 2,791 0 0 -1,291 0 -14

(a) The amount of groundwater recharge is subtracted from the groundwater withdrawn. Negative numbers occur recharge is greater than 

(b) Agricultural plus M&I demand (c) Total demand minus total supply Information based upon Reclamation Water Needs Assessment, 2004 
Chapter 2 Des

American River Division 2-4 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-2 

CONTRACTOR'S WATER NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROJECTED FOR 2025/2029 

(BASED ON A NORMAL HYDROLOGIC YEAR UNLESS NOTED, IN ACRE-FEET) 

Sacramento 

County Water 

Agency 

San Juan 

Water District 

Sacramento 

Municipal Utility 

District City of Roseville 

Placer County 

Water Agency El Dorado 

Irrigation District 

Total CVP Delivery 22,000 24,200 60,000 32,000 35,000 15,050 

(only 7,550 for El 

Dorado Hills) (d) 

Other Surface 

Water Supply 

27,000 33,000 18,024 220,400 59,134 

Groundwater (a) 34,792 minus 

14,893 

recharge 

5,700 recharge 6,500 

Transfers and 

Exchanges In 

30,000 25,000 13,000 1,800 

Transfers and 

Exchanges Out 

5,600 30,000 64,000 

Total Supply 93,299 76,500 48,024 51,500 191,400 75,984 

Agricultural 

Demand 

 81,687 24,466 

M&I Demand 93,554 76,632 33,942 

(46,186 in 2040) 

54,900 74,500 

(116,376 in 2040) 

49,257 

Total Demand (b) 93,554 76,632 33,942 

(46,186 in 2040) 

54,900 156,187 

(198,064 in 2040) 

73,723 

Unmet Demand (c) 255 132 918 

(-1,838 in 2040) 

3,400 -35,213 

(6,664 in 2040) 

-2,261 

a) The amount of groundwater recharge is subtracted from the groundwater minus. Negative numbers occur if recharge is greater than the 

(b) Agricultural plus M&I demand (c) Total demand minus total supply (d) Water under PL 101-514 for El Dorado County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District not included in this EIS Information based upon Reclamation Water Needs Assessment, 2004 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Changes in Water Service Areas 

This environmental analysis does not consider any changes in water service area boundaries for use of 

CVP water. Any change to water service area boundaries for use of CVP water requires Reclamation 

approval and separate technical and environmental analyses. 

Water Transfers 

The use of water transfers between willing sellers and willing buyers is expected by many experts to be 

used increasingly in the future. CVPIA Section 3405(a) authorizes transfers of CVP water, subject to the 

conditions set out in the statute. Reclamation policy on transfers provides guidance on the conditions 

under which transfer of CVP water will be evaluated and approved. Water transfers provide an 

opportunity to supplement or replace water supplies to support existing and future demands. 

Existing long-term water service contracts authorize transfers outside a contractor’s service area only with 

the consent of a Reclamation Contracting Officer. Several different types of transfers are possible. IntraCVP contract transfers have occurred regularly throughout the CVP and are frequently limited to 

scheduling changes between adjoining districts. These types of transfers occur between CVP contractors 

within the same division, typically occur within a single year, and are from irrigation use to irrigation use 

or M&I use to M&I use. Such transfers assist in the efficient management of CVP water by offsetting the 

impacts of shortages imposed under drought or regulatory conditions. Transfers from CVP contractors to 

others outside of the CVP place of use are also possible. These types of transfers require prior approval by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Transfers not involving CVP water supplies may require use of CVP facilities to convey and sometimes 

store non-project water purchased by the CVP contractor. Contractors are required to enter into separate 

Warren Act contracts with Reclamation and comply with all Federal and State law including approval of 

the transfer by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Reclamation policy requires environmental review under NEPA and ESA compliance for all water 

transfers and Warren Act contracts. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were identified for the renewal of long-term contracts between Reclamation and 

contractors in the American River Division. 

In November 1999, Reclamation published a proposed long-term water service contract. In April 2000, 

the CVP contractors presented an alternative long-term water service contract. Reclamation and the CVP 

contractors continued to negotiate the CVP-wide terms and conditions with these proposals serving as 

“bookends.” This EIS considers these proposals with the No Action Alternative as bookends to be 

considered for the environmental documentation to evaluate the impacts and benefits of the renewing 

long-term water service contracts. 

The alternatives present a range of water service agreement provisions that could be implemented for 

long-term contract renewals. The No Action Alternative consists of renewing existing water service 

contracts. Alternative 1 is based upon the April 2000 Proposal presented by the CVP water service 

contractors to Reclamation. Alternative 2 is based upon the November 1999 Proposal presented by 

Reclamation to the CVP water service contractors. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The primary differences in the alternatives relate to methods addressing tiered water pricing, definition of 

M&I users, water measurement, and water conservation, as summarized in Table 2-1. The following 

detailed descriptions focus on these issues. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative assumes renewal of long-term CVP water service contracts in accordance with 

implementation of CVPIA. The No Action Alternative is based upon the PEIS Preferred Alternative and 

results of environmental documents completed by Reclamation after the PEIS Record of Decision. The 

PEIS Preferred Alternative included conditions described in the PEIS No Action Alternative as modified 

by implementation of CVPIA. The PEIS No Action Alternative included assumptions for water service 

contract deliveries in Year 2025 based upon existing general plans and existing water supply facilities. To 

avoid being too speculative, the PEIS No Action Alternative acknowledged existing water service 

contracts but limited the amount of water delivered to areas based upon historical deliveries, completed 

local planning and environmental documentation, and existing conveyance facilities. Therefore, the PEIS 

No Action Alternative did not include deliveries of CVP water under PL 101-514 to Sacramento County 

Water Agency and San Juan Water District because the environmental documentation was not completed 

during development of the PEIS. The PEIS No Action Alternative also did not include deliveries of CVP 

water to Placer County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District due to the lack of 

conveyance facilities or completed environmental documentation. Finally, the PEIS No Action 

Alternative did not include full deliveries to Sacramento Municipal Utility District because of the lack of 

environmental documentation for use of the contract total. None of these assumptions were modified by 

the PEIS Alternatives, therefore, the PEIS Preferred Alternative also included these limitations to 

deliveries. However, the PEIS acknowledged that efforts were on-going to prepare the appropriate 

documentation, and that the actual contract deliveries and totals would be evaluated in the environmental 

documentation for long-term contract renewals, including this EIS. 

Since that time, Reclamation has completed environmental documentation and participated in 

implementation plans to provide delivery of full contract totals to these agencies, including preparation of 

"EIS/EIR for Central Valley Project Water supply Contracts under Public Law 101-514 (Section 206)" 

(Sacramento County Water Agency), "EIS/EIR for East Bay Municipal Utility District Supplemental 

Water Supply Project Amendatory Central Valley Project" (East Bay Municipal Utility District) "EIS/EIR 

for Freeport Regional Water Project" (East Bay Municipal Utility District and Sacramento County Water 

Agency), and "EIS/EIR for American River Pump Station Project for Placer County Water Agency." 

Therefore, the assumptions for CVP contract amounts and maximum deliveries have been modified for 

this EIS to reflect studies that have been completed following the development of the PEIS alternatives. 

These assumptions, summarized in Table 2-3, reflect the existing conditions, and in accordance with 

discussions in the PEIS, and the results of the Needs Assessment. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-7 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-3 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONTRACTS IN AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

CVP Contractor Contract Total Assumptions for No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 

Sacramento 

County Water 

Agency 

22,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514 contract (7,000 acre-feet subcontract with Folsom) 

30,000 acre-feet assigned from Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

San Juan Water 

District 

11,200 acre-feet under 1960 contract 

13,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514 contract 

Sacramento 

Municipal Utility 

District 

30,000 acre-feet 

30,000 acre-feet assigned to Sacramento County Water Agency 

Placer County 

Water Agency 

35,000 acre-feet 

Roseville 32,000 acre-feet 

El Dorado Irrigation 

District 

7,550 acre-feet 

East Bay Municipal 

Utility District 

Up to 133,000 acre-feet/year and 165,000 acre-feet over three consecutive dry years 

per the Amendatory Contract 

Assumptions related to contract provisions in the No Action Alternative are defined by the current water 

service contract documents for CVP water service contractors, as shown in Table 2-4. Specific 

discussions related to tiered water pricing, definition of municipal and industrial users, water 

measurement, and water conservation are described in more detail in the following subsections. 

Tiered Water Pricing. The No Action Alternative includes tiered water pricing based on use of a 

"80/10/10 Tiered Water Pricing from Contract Rate to Full Cost" including Ability-to-Pay limitations. 

Under this approach, the first 80 percent of the maximum contract total would be priced at the applicable 

Contract Rate. The next 10 percent of the contract total would be priced at a rate equal to the average of 

the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate. The final 10 percent of the contract total would be priced at Full 

Cost Rate. The terms "Contract Rate" and "Full Cost Rate" are defined by the CVP ratesetting policies 

and P.L 99-546 and Reclamation Reform Act, respectively. The Contract Rate for irrigation and M&I 

water includes the contractor's allocated share of CVP main project operation and maintenance costs; 

operation and maintenance deficit, if any; and capital cost. The contract rate for irrigation water does not 

include interest on capital. The contract rate for M&I water includes interest on capital computed at the 

CVP M&I interest rate. The Full Cost Rate for irrigation and M&I water includes interest at the 

Reclamation Reform Act interest rate. 

In addition to the CVP water rate, contractors are required to pay a Restoration Payment on all deliveries 

of CVP water. Reclamation law and policy provides full or partial relief to irrigation contractors on 

Restoration Payments and the capital rate component of the water rate. Ability-to-pay relief, relative to 

the irrigation water rate, is fully applicable only to the first 80 percent of the contract total. Ability-to-pay 

relief is not applicable to the third tier water rate. The second tier may reflect partial Ability-to-pay relief, 

as it is equal to the average of the first and third tiers. The relief could be up to 100 percent of the capital 

cost repayment and is based upon local farm budgets. The Ability-to-Pay law and policy do not apply to 

CVP operation and maintenance costs, municipal or industrial water rates, CVP distribution facilities, or 

non-CVP water costs. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-8 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-4 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Explanatory 

Recitals 

Assumes water rights held by 

CVP from the State Water 

Resources Control Board for 

use by water service 

contractors under CVP policies

Assumes CVP Water Right as 

being held in trust for project 

beneficiaries that may become 

the owners of the perpetual 

right 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assumes that CVP is a 

significant part of the urban 

and agricultural water supply of 

users 

Assumes that CVP is a 

significant, essential, and 

irreplaceable part of the urban 

and agricultural water supply of 

users 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assumes increased use of 

water rights, need to meet 

water quality standards and 

fish protection measures, and 

other measures constrained 

use of CVP 

Assumes that CVPIA impaired 

ability of CVP to deliver water 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assumes the identification of 

measures to replace/increase 

CVP yield pursuant to CVPIA 

§3408(j) 

Assumes implementation of 

yield increase projects per 

§3408(j) study 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assumes that loss of water 

supply reliability would have 

impact on socioeconomic 

conditions and change land 

use 

Assumes that loss of water 

supply reliability would have 

significant adverse 

socioeconomic and 

environmental impacts in CVP 

service area 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Definitions 

Charges Charges defined as payments 

required in addition to Rates 

Assumes rewording of 

definition of Charges to 

exclude both Rates and Tiered 

Pricing Increments 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Category 1 and 

Category 2 

Tiered Pricing as in PEIS Not included Tiered Pricing for Categories 1 

and 2 

Contract Total Contract Total described as 

Total Contract 

Same as No-Action Alternative Described as basis for 

Category 1 to calculate Tiered 

Pricing 

Landholder Landholder described in 

existing Reclamation Law 

Assumes rewording to 

specifically define Landholder 

with respect to ownership, 

leases, and operations 

Assumes rewording to 

specifically define Landholder 

with respect to ownership and 

leases 

M&I water Assumes rewording to provide 

water for irrigation of land in 

units less than or equal to five 

acres as M&I water unless 

Contracting Officer is satisfied 

use is irrigation 

M&I water described for 

irrigation of land in units less 

than or equal to two acres 

Same as No-Action Alternative 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-9 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-4 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Terms of 

contract—right to 

use contract 

Assumes that contracts may 

be renewed 

Assumes convertibility of 

contract to a 9(d) contract 

same as existing contracts 

States that contract shall be 

renewed 

Includes conditions that are 

related to negotiations of the 

terms and costs associated 

with conversion to a 9(d) 

contract 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Water to be made 

available and 

delivered to the 

contractor 

Assumes water availability in 

accordance with existing 

conditions 

Similar to No-Action Alternative Actual water availability in a 

year is unaffected by 

Categories 1 and 2 

Assumes compliance with 

Biological Opinions and other 

environmental documents for 

contracting 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP water 

users 

Assumes that CVP operations 

will be conducted in a manner 

to minimize shortages and 

studies to increase yield shall 

be completed with necessary 

authorizations 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Time for delivery 

of water 

Assumes methods for 

determining timing of deliveries 

as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes 

related to timing of submittal of 

schedule 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Point of diversion 

and responsibility 

for distribution of 

water 

Assumes methods for 

determining point of diversion 

as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes 

related to reporting 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Measurement of 

water within 

district 

Assumes measurement for 

each turnout or connection for 

facilities that are used to 

deliver CVP water as well as 

other water supplies 

Assumes measurement at 

delivery points 

Assumes similar actions in NoAction Alternative but applies 

to all water supplies 

Rates and method 

of payment for 

water 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is total 

water quantity; assumes 

advanced payment for rates for 

two months 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is total 

water quantity; assumes 

advanced payment for rates for 

two months 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is total 

water quantity; assumes 

advanced payment for rates for 

six months 

Non-interestbearing operation 

and maintenance 

deficits 

Assumes language from 

existing contracts 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Sales, transfers, 

or exchanges of 

water 

Assumes continuation of 

transfers with the rate for 

transferred water being the 

higher of the seller’s or 

purchaser’s CVP cost-ofservice rate 

Assumes continuation of 

transfers with the rate for 

transferred water being the 

purchaser’s CVP cost-ofservice rate plus incremental 

fees 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Application of 

payments and 

adjustments 

Assumes payments will be 

applied as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes 

associated with methods 

described for overpayment 

Same as No-Action Alternative 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-10 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-4 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Temporary 

reduction—return 

flows 

Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP water 

users 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Constraints on 

availability of 

project water 

Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP water 

users 

Assumes Contractors do not 

consent to future 

Congressional enactments 

which may impact water supply 

reliability 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Unavoidable 

groundwater 

percolation 

Assumes that some of applied 

CVP water will percolate to 

groundwater 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Rules and 

regulations 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with thenexisting rules 

Assumes minor changes with 

right to not concur with future 

enactments retained by 

Contractors 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Water and air 

pollution control 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with thenexisting rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Quality of water Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules without obligation to 

operate toward water quality 

goals 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Water acquired by 

the contractor 

other than from 

the United States 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Assumes changes associated 

with payment following 

repayment of funds 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Opinions and 

determinations 

PEIS recognizes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules 

Assumes minor changes with 

respect to references to the 

right to seek relief 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Coordination and 

cooperation 

Not included Assumes that coordination and 

cooperation between CVP 

operations and users should 

be implemented and CVP 

users should participate in 

CVP operational decisions as 

a partnership 

Not included 

Charges for 

delinquent 

payments 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Equal opportunity Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

General obligation Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Similar to No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Compliance with 

civil rights laws 

and regulations 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-11 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-4 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Privacy act 

compliance 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Contractor to pay 

certain 

miscellaneous 

costs 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Similar to No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Water 

conservation 

Assumes compliance with 

conservation programs 

established by Reclamation 

and the State of California 

Assumes conditions similar to 

No-Action Alternative with the 

ability to use State of California 

standards, which may or may 

not be identical to 

Reclamation’s requirements 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Existing or 

acquired water or 

water rights 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Operation and 

maintenance by 

non-federal entity 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules and no additional 

changes to operation 

responsibilities under this 

alternative 

Assumes minor changes to 

language that would allow 

subsequent modification of 

operational responsibilities 

Assumes minor changes to 

language that would allow 

subsequent modification of 

operational responsibilities 

Contingent on 

appropriation or 

allotment of funds 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Assumes minor changes to 

language 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Books, records, 

and reports 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Assumes changes for record 

keeping for both CVP 

operations and CVP users 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Assignment 

limited 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Assumes changes to facilitate 

assignments 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Severability Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Resolution of 

disputes 

Not included Assumes a Dispute Resolution 

Process 

Not included 

Officials not to 

benefit 

Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Changes in 

contractor’s 

service area 

Assumes no change in CVP 

water service areas absent 

Contracting Officer consent 

Assumes changes to limit 

rationale used for non-consent 

and sets time limit for assumed 

consent. 

Same as No-Action Alternative 

Notices Assumes that CVP will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 

Confirmation of 

contract 

Assumes Court confirmation of 

contract 

Same as No-Action Alternative Same as No-Action Alternative 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-12 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users. The definition of M&I users was established in 

portions of a 1982 Reclamation policy memorandum. In addition to more traditional urban and industrial 

uses, the 1982 memorandum identified agricultural water as water served to tracts that can support $5,000 

gross income for a commercial farm operation. The memorandum indicates that parcels greater than two 

acres can meet this criteria. However, Reclamation has generally applied a definition of five acres or less 

for M&I uses in the CVP for many years. This definition is used in the No Action Alternative. The CVP 

contractors can seek a modification from the Contraction Officer for a demonstrated need of agricultural 

use on parcels between two and five acres in size. 

Water Measurement. The No Action Alternative includes water measurement at every turnout or 

connection to measure CVP water deliveries. It is assumed that if other sources are commingled with the 

CVP water, including groundwater or other surface waters, that the measurement devices would report 

gross water deliveries. Additional calculations would be required to determine the exact quantity of CVP 

water. However, if groundwater or other surface waters are delivered by other means to the users, the No 

Action Alternative did not include additional measurement devices except as required by individual users' 

water conservation plans. 

Water Conservation. The water conservation assumptions in the No Action Alternative include water 

conservation actions for municipal and on-farm uses assumed in the DWR Bulletin 160-93; and 

conservation plans completed under the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act consistent with the criteria and 

requirements of the CVPIA. Such criteria address cost-effective Best Management Practices that are 

economical and appropriate, including measurement devices, pricing structures, demand management, 

public information; and financial incentives. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is based upon the proposal presented by CVP water service contractors to Reclamation in 

April 2000. There were several issues included in the April 2000 proposal that could not be included in 

Alternative 1 because they are not consistent with existing Federal or state requirements or would require 

a separate Federal action, as described below. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes Terms and Conditions to provide a highly 

reliable water supply and provisions improve the water supply capabilities of the 

CVP facilities and operations to meet this goal - These issues were not included in 

Alternative 1 because these issues would require additional Federal actions with 

separate environmental documentation and also limit the Secretary's obligation to 

achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands as required by the 

CVPIA. Currently Reclamation is completing the least cost plan to restore project 

yield in accordance with Section 3408(j) of CVPIA and under the CALFED 

program. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes language to require renewal of contracts after 

25 years upon request of the contractor - The study period for this EIS is 25 years 

for irrigation contracts and irrigation/M&I contracts and 40 years for M&I 

contracts. Renewal after 25 years for 25-year contracts would be a new Federal 

Action and would require new environmental documentation. 

• The April 2000 proposal did not include provisions for compliance with 

biological opinions - Biological consultations are required by the Consultation 

and Coordination requirements established by Executive Order for all 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-13 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Reclamation activities. These are binding on Reclamation and provisions are 

needed to address this requirement.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for water transfers - It is recognized 

that water transfers will continue and that the CVP long-term contracts will 

provide the mechanisms for the transfers. However, it would be difficult to 

identify all of the water transfer programs that could occur with CVP water in the 

next 25 years. Reclamation would continue with separate environmental 

documents for transfers, and will establish criteria for rapid technical and 

environmental review of proposed transfers. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes provisions for transfer of operations and 

maintenance requirements - It is recognized that transfers of operation and 

maintenance to the group of contractors will continue and that the CVP long-term 

contracts will provide the mechanisms for such transfers. However, it would be 

difficult to identify all of the operation and maintenance transfer programs that 

could occur with CVP water in the next 25 years. Reclamation would require 

separate environmental documents for such transfers. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes provisions for resolution of disputes - 

Assumptions for resolution of disputes were not included in Alternative 1 and at 

this time would not appear to affect environmental conditions.

• The April 2000 proposal includes provisions for expansion of the CVP service 

areas by the existing CVP water contractors - The study area for the long-term 

contract renewal process is defined by the existing service area boundaries. 

Expansion of the service area boundaries would be a new Federal Action and 

would require separate environmental documentation.

The April 2000 proposal was similar to the No Action Alternative assumptions except for four issues 

(Tiered Water Pricing, Definition of Municipal Users, Water Measurement, and Water Conservation). 

These issues are described below for Alternative 1 and summarized in Table 2-3. 

Alternative 1 includes the same water delivery and CVP system-wide operations assumptions as the No 

Action Alternative, as shown in Table 2-4. 

Tiered Water Pricing. Tiered water pricing in Alternative 1 is the same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users. The definition of Municipal and Industrial users in 

Alternative 1 is similar to the provisions under the No Action Alternative. However, Alternative 1 

assumes that users with greater than two acres could be considered as Irrigation water service contractors. 

Water Measurement. The definition of Water Measurement in Alternative 1 is similar to the 

provisions under the No Action Alternative. However, the measurement would occur at delivery locations 

to the agency not each turnout or connection. 

Water Conservation. The definition of Water Conservation in Alternative 1 is similar to the provisions 

under the No Action Alternative. However, Alternative 1 assumes that actions completed in accordance 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-14 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

with water conservation programs for the State of California would be accepted by Reclamation to meet 

water conservation requirements. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is based upon the proposal presented by Reclamation to CVP water service contractors in 

November 1999. There were several provisions included in the November 1999 proposal that could not be 

included in Alternative 2. These provisions would constitute a separate Federal action, as described 

below. 

• The November 1999 proposal includes provisions for the contractor to request 

approval from Reclamation of proposed water transfers - Water transfers were not 

included in Alternative 2 because such actions cannot now be definitely described 

and essentially constitute a separate Federal action and require separate 

environmental documentation.

• The November 1999 proposal includes provisions for transfer of operations and 

maintenance to third parties - Transfer of operations and maintenance 

responsibility was not included in Alternative 2 because these actions would be a 

separate Federal action and require separate environmental documentation.

The November 1999 proposal did include several provisions that were different than the assumptions for 

No Action Alternative and included in Alternative 2, as summarized below and in Table 2-3. The primary 

differences are related to tiered pricing and the definition of M&I users. 

Alternative 2 includes the same water delivery and CVP system-wide operations assumptions as the No 

Action Alternative, as shown in Table 2-4. 

Tiered Water Pricing. Tiered water pricing in Alternative 2 is based upon a definition of a "Category 

1" and "Category 2" water supplies. "Category 1" is defined as the quantity of CVP water that is 

reasonably likely to be available for delivery to a contractor and is calculated on an annual basis as the 

average quantity of delivered water during the most recent five year period. For the purpose of this 

Alternative, the "Category 1" water supply is defined as the "contract total." "Category 2" is defined as 

that additional quantity of CVP water in excess of Category 1 water that may be delivered to a contractor 

in some years. Under Alternative 2, the first 80 percent of Category 1 volume would be priced at the 

applicable Contract Rate for the CVP. The next 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at a 

rate equal to the average between the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate as defined by Reclamation law 

and policy. The final 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at the Full Cost Rate as 

defined by the CVPIA. All Category 2 water, when available, would be priced at Full Cost Rate. It should 

be noted that Category 1 and Category 2 volumes would change every year based upon the average 

deliveries for the "most recent five years," with limited exception, based upon the findings of the water 

needs assessment. Alternative 2 assumes the sum of Category 1 and Category 2 water is equal to the 

maximum quantity included in the contractor's existing water service contract. The terms "Contract Rate" 

and "Full Cost Rate" are discussed under Tiered Pricing for the No Action Alternative. The same Abilityto-Pay adjustments would be applicable to the Restoration Payments and tiered water rates as described in 

the No Action Alternative. 

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users. The definition of Municipal and Industrial users in 

Alternative 2 is the same as under the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

American River Division 2-15 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Water Measurement. The definition of Water Measurement in Alternative 2 is the same as under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Water Conservation. The definition of Water Conservation in Alternative 2 is the same as under the 

No Action Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED

An alternative including reduction of contract amounts was proposed during the scoping process, but 

rejected from detailed analysis. The reason for eliminating this alternative was twofold. Water needs 

analyses have been completed for all contracts and in almost all cases the needs exceed or equal the 

current total contract amount. Secondly, in order to implement good water management, the contractors 

need to be able to store or immediately use water available in wetter years when more water is available. 

By quantifying contract amounts in terms of the needs analyses and the CVP delivery capability, the 

contractors can make their own economic decisions. Allowing the contractors to retain the full water 

quantity gives the contractors assurance that the water would be available to them to justify making 

investments in storage facilities. In addition, reduction in contract quantities is not necessary to meet the 

objevtives of CVPIA. The CVPIA, in and of itself, achieves a balance between environmental goals and 

water supply objectives, in part through its dedication of significant amounts of CVP water, as well as 

actions to acquire water for environmental purposes. 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

It is anticipated that the final contract language and the long-term contract renewal Preferred Alternative 

will represent a negotiated position between the alternatives. Therefore, it is anticipated that the impacts 

will be either equal to or less than those identified for Alternatives 1, 2, or No Action Alternative. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed to determine the potential for adverse and 

beneficial impacts associated with their implementation as compared to continuation of the No Action 

Alternative conditions. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2-5 and presented in Chapter 

4 of this EIS. 
Chapter 2 Des

American River Division 2-16 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-5 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

Surface Water Resources, Quality, and Facilities CVP operations would be similar to future conditions described in the 

American River Pump Station EIR/EIS Flows in American River and storage volumes in Folsom Lake are provided to support steelhead in accordance with recent biological opinions 

Same as No Action Alternative If CVP water us

CVP water, consame as No AcBecause CVP whigher than undAlternative, CVdetermine that expensive and Then, surface wchange, howevproject the extebased upon the individual users costs. 

Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality The CVP water supplies would continue to be used and groundwater 

conjunctive use programs would be implemented 

Same as No Action Alternative Conditions und

would be identiNo Action Alterusers continue in the No Action If CVP water usCVP water is togroundwater usCVP surface wa

Land Use, Demographics, and Sociological Resources 

Growth would continue in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac
Chapter 2 Des

American River Division 2-17 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-5 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

Central Valley Project Water Supply Costs, Agricultural Economics, and Regional Economics 

CVP water supply costs for this alternative were based upon the Tiered Water Pricing concept in the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative Higher CVP wa

adverse impactCVP water supby less expens

Fishery and Wildlife Resources Growth would continue in American 

River Division service area, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans include protection measures for biological resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Recreation Recreational opportunities would 

continue as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation and CVP water service contractor plans 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Cultural Resources Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, 

Contra Costa, and Alameda counties are responsible for protection of cultural and historical resources under the current land use plans, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans have protection measures for cultural and historic resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Indian Trust Assets The American River Division does 

not include Indian Trust Assets that rely upon CVP water. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac
Chapter 2 Des

American River Division 2-18 Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 2-5 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

Air Quality Growth would continue in 

Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. The general plans include air quality improvement and protection measures. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Soils Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, 

Contra Costa, and Alameda counties have adopted land use plans and erosion control plans to protect soil resources in the general plans. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Visual Resources Visual resources would continue to 

change in the No Action Alternative as growth continues in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. The general plans include protection measures for visual resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac

Environmental Justice The economies of Sacramento, 

Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties are extremely vibrant and growing. It is assumed that the high employment and the high cost of living would continue into the future. 

Same as No Action Alternative If the higher cos

results in loss ojobs, the impacaffect the less eworkers who woeasily find repla

Secondary Growth Impacts Growth would continue in 

Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, as described in the county general plans and associated environmental documentation. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Ac
CHAPTER 3 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
American River Division 3-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

CHAPTER 3 

Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the results of the NEPA and CEQA documents recently 

completed or being prepared that address delivery and use of CVP water within the American River 

Division. These documents include the PEIS for the CVPIA and the associated Biological Opinion; 

EIS/EIR for Central Valley Project Water Supply Contracts under Public Law 101-514 (Section 206); 

EIR/EIS for East Bay Municipal Utility District Supplemental Water Supply Project; Environmental 

Impact Reports for the City of Folsom General Plan, City of Roseville General Plan, Sacramento County 

General Plan, Placer County General Plan, EIR for the El Dorado County General Plan; EIR for the 

Water Forum Proposal; EIR/Environmental Assessment for a Warren Act Contract between Roseville and 

Reclamation; and EIR/EIS for a pump station project between Placer County Water Agency and 

Reclamation. 

It should be recognized that under each of the descriptions presented in this chapter, references to "NoAction Alternative" and other alternatives are specific to the reference documents not to the alternatives 

described in the remaining chapters of this EIS. 

It also shoul be recognized that these summaries represent information presented in the referenced reports 

at the time of publication of each report. Some of the information, including locations of proposed 

facilities and numerical values have changed since that time. However, these summaries are primarily 

presented to indicate the range of alternatives considered and types of mitigation measures adopted to 

minimize impacts of proposed actions that can be related to use of CVP water in the American River 

Division. 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection, 

restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses and 

fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to power generation. Pursuant to CVPIA, 

Interior is developing policies and programs to improve environmental conditions that were affected by 

operations, management, and physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools to facilitate 

larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central Valley and the San 

Francisco Bay-Delta system. The PEIS addressed potential impacts and benefits implementing provisions 

of the CVPIA. The PEIS was prepared by Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 

The analysis in the PEIS was intended to disclose the probable region-wide effects of implementing the 

CVPIA and provide a basis for selecting a decision among the alternatives. The PEIS was developed to 

allow subsequent environmental documents to incorporate PEIS analysis by reference and limit the need 

to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts of CVPIA. In some cases, worst-case assumptions 

were used to maximize the utility of the analysis for tiering within the scope of the impacts analyzed in 

the PEIS. 

As the project-specific actions are considered, the lead agencies must determine if the specific impacts 

were adequately analyzed in the PEIS. If the actions under consideration were previously evaluated and 

the impacts of such actions would not be greater than those analyzed in the PEIS or would not require 

additional mitigation measures, the actions could be considered part of the overall program approved in 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

the PEIS Record of Decision (ROD). In such a case, an administrative decision could be made that no 

further environmental documentation would be necessary. If a tiered document is appropriate, the tiered 

document may be an EIS or an EA. The tiered documents can use the PEIS by reference to avoid 

duplication and focus more narrowly on the new alternatives or more detailed site-specific effects. 

Therefore, only changes from the alternatives considered in the PEIS would be addressed in detail in the 

tiered documents. 

Localized Impacts of PEIS on Preferred Alternative

The primary impact to CVP water service contractors, as described in the PEIS, is not due to contract 

provisions, but rather to the implementation of CVPIA. The re-allocation of CVP water to fish and 

wildlife purposes under CVPIA reduced average annual CVP water deliveries to water service contractors 

from 2,270,000 acre-feet/year under the PEIS No-Action Alternative to 1,933,000 acre-feet/year under all 

of the PEIS alternatives, including the PEIS Preferred Alternative. The impacts in the American River 

Division are summarized below. 

• Average Annual CVP Water Deliveries for Agricultural water service contractors located 

in the American River Division decreased 22 percent from pre-CVPIA Affected 

Environment conditions. 

• Average Annual CVP Water Deliveries for Municipal water service contractors located 

American River Division decreased four percent from pre-CVPIA Affected Environment 

conditions. 

There was no change in deliveries to water rights holders, Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, or 

Delta Mendota Exchange Contractors under CVPIA implementation. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

REPORT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SUPPLY 

CONTRACTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 101-514 (SECTION 206)

The 1998 "Central Valley Project Water Supply Contracts Under Public Law 101-514 (Section 206): 

Contract Between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento County Water Agency, 

Subcontract between Sacramento County Water Agency and Folsom, and Contract Between the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation and the San Juan Water District Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report" addressed the following proposed actions to implement portions of Public Law 101-514. 

• Reclamation entering into water service contracts with the Sacramento County Water 

Agency and the San Juan Water District 

• Sacramento County Water Agency and Folsom entering into a subcontract for the use of 

7,000 acre-feet of water within the City of Folsom. 

• The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) amending Reclamation's water 

rights permit to expand the place of use within Sacramento County, add points of 

diversion on the American and Sacramento rivers, and allow Reclamation installing and 

operating a temperature control device on the water supply intake at Folsom Dam 

Sacramento County Water Agency, in conjunction with Folsom, and San Juan Water District have 

negotiated with Reclamation to secure water supply contracts from the American River Division of the 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Central Valley Project. The contracts have been authorized and directed by the U.S. Congress as part of 

Public Law 101-514. Section 206(b)(1) of Public Law 101-514 directs the U.S. Secretary of Interior to 

enter into long-term M&I water supply contracts to meet immediate water needs of Sacramento County. 

The law directs the Secretary to enter into contracts for up to 22,000 acre-feet annually with Sacramento 

County Water Agency and 13,000 acre-feet annually with San Juan Water District. These contracts are 

intended as the first phase of a contracting program to meet the long-term water supply needs of 

Sacramento County. From its allocation, Sacramento County Water Agency intends to deliver up to 7,000 

acre-feet annually to Folsom. 

The EIS/EIR addressed the environmental effects of diverting and delivering contract water from Folsom 

Lake from the confluence of the American River and Sacramento River, and from the Sacramento River 

at Freeport. The EIS/EIR evaluated impacts to American River fisheries, endangered species, CVP water 

and power customers, and biological resources in the service areas. 

The purpose of the proposed actions(s) was to provide reliable M&I water supplies for the local agencies 

through CVP water supply contracts to Sacramento County Water Agency and San Juan Water District. 

Current users of water within Zone 40 depend on groundwater that is in an overdraft condition. In 

addition, water demand projections indicate that additional water will be required to supplement the 

current groundwater supply. The CVP water service contract will provide supplemental water supply to 

reduce groundwater depletion and facilitate a conjunctive use program. 

The City of Folsom water supplies also were not sufficient to serve up to 10,000 acre-feet/year to the new 

East Area. The additional supply under Public Law 101-514 was to be used specifically within the East 

Area. 

Availability of current San Juan Water District CVP contracts and water rights for surface waters from 

Folsom Lake can vary from 35,800 acre-feet to 44,200 acre-feet/year depending upon hydrology. The 

uncertainty about availability of water supplies means that unmet water needs can vary from zero in some 

years to more than 6,000 acre-feet in other years. The new CVP contract would improve water supply 

reliability in this area that does not have useable groundwater resources. 

The EIS/EIR stated that impacts on fisheries and aquatic habitat were determined to not occur or be less 

than significant, except for identified significant impacts on the Lower American River from altering 

habitat suitability and alterations to Nimbus hatchery operations. Specifically, there would be adverse 

impacts to steelhead from increased Lower American River water temperatures during the summer and 

early fall months. Mitigation for these two impacts consisted of the development and use of improved 

methods for managing the coldwater pool in Folsom Lake. 

For terrestrial habitats and wildlife and water supply and hydrology, environmental impacts were 

determined to be less than significant or to not occur. For recreation, aesthetics/visual resources, flood 

control, water quality, cultural resources, urban development, agricultural/prime and unique farmlands, air 

quality, and noise, no significant impacts were identified. Potential impacts (1) from a reduction in 

available CVP energy and (2) on the potential to increase average annual pumping requirements and costs 

were determined to be significant, with no recommended mitigation. These two impacts were determined 

to be significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 

Potentially significant cumulative impacts were determined to occur to: (1) CVP and State Water Project 

(SWP) water supply deliveries; (2) lower Sacramento River, upper Sacramento River, Shasta and Trinity 

reservoir, and Delta fisheries, and warmwater fisheries in Folsom Reservoir; (3) riparian resources in 

Folsom Reservoir, lower American and Sacramento rivers; (4) recreational resources and activities in 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-4 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Folsom Reservoir, lower American, and Sacramento rivers; (5) aesthetic quality in all CVP waterbodies; 

and (6) cultural resources in Folsom Reservoir. Basin-wide efforts such as CALFED, CVPIA 

implementation, specific watershed efforts, and actions resulting from the ESA consultations for the P.L. 

101-514 water supply contracts are expected to reduce these cumulative effects. 

Sacramento County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, Folsom, and Reclamation, participated in 

consultations with the Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries) on the proposed water service contracts in Sacramento County authorized under P.L. 

101-514 in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). These 

consultations resulted in a final Biological Opinion from NOAA Fisheries and a Biological Opinion from 

the Service which conclude that delivery of water under the proposed contracts is not likely to adversely 

affect or jeopardize the continued existence of the various threatened or endangered species within the 

areas and waterbodies that could be affected. The Service Biological Opinion included a list of measures 

to be implemented by Reclamation, the County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Water Agency, and 

Folsom. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Following completion of the 1970 contract between Reclamation and East Bay Municipal Utility District, 

Environmental Defense and Sacramento County legally challenged the delivery of the CVP water from 

the Folsom South Canal as "unreasonable" use of American River water in 1972. In 1988, the SWRCB 

adopted findings that the CVP contract for East Bay Municipal Utility District is a reasonable use of 

American River water. In 1990, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Hodge affirmed the contractual 

rights subject to a set of specific conditions known as "Hodge Decision." 

East Bay Municipal Utility District proposed the Supplemental Water Supply Project to identify the 

methods to allow delivery of the CVP water under the Hodge Decision. The CVP water would be used to 

reduce existing and future deficiencies during drought conditions and to provide an alternative water 

supply if an emergency outage occurs on the Mokelumne River supply facilities used by East Bay 

Municipal Utility District, as described in Chapter 4. 

The EIR/EIS evaluated the following range of alternatives. 

• Alternative 1: No Action Alternative without use of the CVP contract 

• Alternative 2: Diversion of water from the American River into the Folsom South Canal 

under the Hodge Decision and construction of a pipeline from the Folsom South Canal to 

the existing East Bay Municipal Utility District Mokelumne Aqueducts. This project also 

included a water treatment plant to treat the American River water prior to diversion into 

the Mokelumne Aqueducts because the American River water would require more 

stringent treatment than the Mokelumne River water used by East Bay Municipal Utility 

District. 

• Alternative 3: Diversion of water from the Lower American River near the confluence 

with the Sacramento River as a shared project with City of Sacramento and County of 

Sacramento. This alternative would include a joint pipeline to convey water to treatment 

plant(s) for the City and County, an East Bay Municipal Utility District-only pipeline to 

convey water to an East Bay Municipal Utility District treatment plant near the Folsom 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

South Canal, and a pipeline to convey water from the treatment plant to the Mokelumne 

Aqueducts. 

• Alternative 4: Diversion of water from the Lower American River near the confluence 

with the Sacramento River as an East Bay Municipal Utility District project only. This 

alternative would include a pipeline to convey water to an East Bay Municipal Utility 

District treatment plant near the Folsom South Canal, and a pipeline to convey water 

from the treatment plant to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. 

• Alternative 5: Diversion of water from the Sacramento River near the confluence with the 

American River as a shared project with City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento. 

This alternative would include a joint pipeline to convey water to treatment plant(s) for 

the City and County, an East Bay Municipal Utility District-only pipeline to convey 

water to an East Bay Municipal Utility District treatment plant near the Folsom South 

Canal, and a pipeline to convey water from the treatment plant to the Mokelumne 

Aqueducts. These conditions are similar to alternatives considered in the Water Forum 

Proposal EIR. 

• Alternative 6: Diversion of water from the Sacramento River near the confluence with the 

American River as an East Bay Municipal Utility District project only. This alternative 

would include a pipeline to convey water to an East Bay Municipal Utility District 

treatment plant near the Folsom South Canal, and a pipeline to convey water from the 

treatment plant to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. 

• Alternative 7: Diversion of water from the Sacramento River near the confluence with the 

American River as an East Bay Municipal Utility District project only. This alternative 

would include a pipeline to convey water to the Mokelumne Aqueducts and an East Bay 

Municipal Utility District treatment plant to treat water from the Mokelumne Aqueducts. 

• Alternative 8: Diversion of water from the Delta on Indian Slough near Bixler. This 

alternative would include an East Bay Municipal Utility District treatment plant near the 

Delta diversion, and a pipeline to convey water from the treatment plant to the 

Mokelumne Aqueducts. Due to the salinity of the Delta water as compared to American 

River or Sacramento River water, this treatment plant would probably include a 

desalination process and a brine discharge pipeline to Suisun Bay. 

The recommended federal action considered under the EIR/EIS amended the 1970 East Bay Municipal 

Utility District contract but did not provide for construction of facilities or diversion of CVP water. The 

CVP contract amendments added provisions for delivery from Lower American River or Sacramento 

River under certain conditions, as described above in "Alternative 4" or "Alternative 6". 

Additional environmental documentation will be required for NEPA and Endangered Species Act 

compliance. The CVP contract amendment considered in the EIR/EIS without construction of facilities 

was determined to not likely to adversely affect any listed species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 

of the Interior. Both NOAA Fisheries and the Service concurred in this determination. 

The environmental commitments of the recommended federal action stated that any new diversion facility 

would include a fish exclusionary system and would be designed to meet California Department of Fish 

and Game, NOAA Fisheries, and the Service criteria. Such a facility would incorporate applicable 

mitigation measures. The environmental commitments also include requirements if Alternative 4 is 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

implemented to assure specific diversion rates and flow schedules that maintain appropriate in-stream 

flow conditions for the Lower American River and compliance with the California Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act for any delivery facility constructed in the Lower American River. If Alternative 6 is 

implemented, the environmental commitments include a requirement to encourage regional water 

management partnerships. 

Amendatory Central Valley Project Contract

The findings of the EIR/EIS were used in the development of the amendatory CVP contract for East Bay 

Municipal Utility District. The contract provides for East Bay Municipal Utility District to take deliveries 

near Freeport on the Sacramento River (Alternative 6), in dry years only, or on the Lower American River 

(Alternative 4) if the Contracting Officer finds that East Bay Municipal Utility District has developed an 

acceptable water storage component to be incorporated into the project. The amendatory contract would 

be applicable until 2012. 

Under Alternative 6, East Bay Municipal Utility District would be allowed to take delivery of up to a total 

of 133,000 acre-feet of CVP water at Freeport on the Sacramento River for M&I purposes in dry years in 

which East Bay Municipal Utility District’s March 1 forecast of the October 1 Total East Bay Municipal 

Utility District System Storage (as revised monthly through May 1) is less than 500,000 acre-feet based 

on a 50 percent exceedance, or the exceedance used by East Bay Municipal Utility District to declare 

rationing within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, or as otherwise agreed to by East 

Bay Municipal Utility District and Reclamation. The delivered water cannot exceed a total of 165,000 

acre-feet in any three consecutive years that the Total East Bay Municipal Utility District System Storage 

remains below 500,000 acre-feet. 

Under Alternative 4, East Bay Municipal Utility District would be allowed to take delivery of up to a total 

of 150,000 acre-feet on the Lower American River for M&I purposes in any year type if East Bay 

Municipal Utility District implements a water storage strategy to meet project purposes within the 

necessary flow pattern limitations, comply with all relevant state and federal laws and regulations 

including but not limited to the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and complete appropriate 

environmental documentation. The diversion would be equal to or less than 155 cubic feet/second, and 

would comply with the Hodge Decision. 

The amendatory contract prohibits deliveries of water diverted from Nimbus Dam as currently provided 

by the existing 1970 contract. However, if permitting and necessary agreements for another point of 

diversion are not completed by July 31, 2002, or as otherwise mutually agreed, East Bay Municipal 

Utility District will have the right to deliveries of up to 150,000 acre-feet/year as provided for in the 1970 

contract. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT

Reclamation and Freeport Regional Water Authority, a joint power agency of East Bay Municipal Utility 

District and Sacramento County Water Agency, prepared an EIR/EIS to evaluate the construction and 

operation of a water supply project as considered in Alternative 6 of the EIR/EIS completed for the 

Amendatory Contract with East Bay Municipal Utility District. 

This EIR/EIS considered the following five alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative. 

• Alternative 1 was the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, East Bay Municipal 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-7 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Utility District would not divert water at Freeport on the Sacramento River or enlarge 

Pardee Reservoir, and would need to consider previously identified alternatives for 

delivery on the American River. Zone 40 would divert water through the City of 

Sacramento water diversion and treatment facilities on the American or Sacramento 

rivers. 

• Alternative 2 provides facilities at Freeport for diversion of water for East Bay Municipal 

Utility District and Extended Zone 40 of Sacramento County Water Agency. The 

facilities would include an intake and pumping plant at Freeport; pipeline, reservoir, and 

water treatment plant to serve Extended Zone 40 of Sacramento County Water Agency; 

facilities to convey water to the Folsom South Canal; and settling basins, pretreatment 

facilities, pipelines, and pump stations to convey water from the Folsom South Canal to 

the East Bay Municipal Utility District Mokelumne Aqueducts. 

• Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are similar to Alternative 2 with different conveyance routes. 

• Alternative 6 provides that Sacramento County Water Agency would use facilities similar 

to those in Alternative 2 to serve Zone 40 and East Bay Municipal Utility District would 

enlarge Pardee Reservoir that is currently used by East Bay Municipal Utility District to 

store water on the Mokelumne River. 

Actions under Alternatives 2 through 6 also included the assignment of 30,000 acre-feet/year of water 

under the Sacramento Municipal Utility District CVP water service contract to Sacramento County Water 

Agency. The impact assessment included results from the Sacramento Municipal Utility DistrictSacramento County Water Agency Water Assignment EIR (described below in this chapter). 

The Preferred Alternative was Alternative 5 which included a 185 million gallons/day capacity intake and 

pump station at Freeport on the Sacramento River, reservoir and water treatment plant to serve Zone 40, a 

terminal facility at the Folsom South Canal and canal pumping station, settling basins, aqueduct pumping 

plant and pretreatment facility, and four pipelines to convey water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 

water treatment plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. 

The environmental commitments were included to reduce construction impacts by minimizing the area of 

disruption, avoid/protect sensitive habitats near the construction locations, reestablish pre-construction 

conditions including revegetation to allow natural colonization of plant species, providing compensation 

actions for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters, implementing construction management plan to 

reduce air emissions, providing public notification and noise shielding/attenuation, minimizing nighttime 

construction, reducing visual intrusion using appropriate architecture and vegetative buffers, and 

preparing cultural resources plan. 

This environmental document also evaluated the assignment of CVP water service contract water from 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District to Sacramento County Water Agency. 

 

The Freeport Regional Water Authority certified the Final Environmental Impact Report in April 2004. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

GENERAL PLAN

The 1991 Sacramento County General Plan Update EIR evaluated a range of alternatives, which consisted 

of several geographic alternatives for new growth in the County, an alternative set of policies for the Plan, 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-8 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

a mitigated alternative, and the No Project Alternative. The EIR on the General Plan Update was not 

certified. A Subsequent EIR for the Sacramento County General Plan Update was completed in 1993. It 

evaluated the environmental impacts of implementation of two additional alternatives that were not 

studied previously. The two alternatives that were evaluated in the Subsequent EIR were the "December 

9" Alternative and the Environmentally Constrained Alternative. The December 9 Alternative evaluated a 

population of 1,072,131, and the Environmentally Constrained Alternative evaluated a population of 

826,998. The 1991 General Plan Update evaluated a population of 910,043. 

The General Plan indicates that urban communities will accommodate the great majority of the new 

development projected for the unincorporated area. Near-term urban development will be accommodated 

through build-out of planned communities because urban infrastructure and services presently exist. The 

General Plan also designates new urban growth areas because infill development cannot accommodate all 

the development projected to occur during the planning period. Rural communities will accommodate 

minimal growth because open space, natural resources, and agricultural values need to be conserved and 

protected. The County intends to accommodate rural residential demand within existing rural 

communities and limited expansion of adjoining lands. 

The General Plan includes the following policies that are relevant to this EIS. 

• The County shall give priority to residential development on vacant or underutilized sites 

within existing urban areas which have infrastructure capacity available. 

• The County shall maintain an Urban Service Boundary that defines the long-range plans 

(beyond twenty years) for urbanization and extension of public infrastructure and 

services, and defines important areas for protecting as open space and agriculture. 

• County departments shall coordinate implementation of electric service delivery, air 

quality, water supply, transportation, drainage/flood control, solid waste 

disposal/recycling, and hazardous waste management plans in conjunction with vested 

public and quasi-public agencies. 

• The County shall not expand the Urban Service Boundary unless certain circumstances 

are met, including (1) the proposal calling for such expansion can satisfy the 

requirements of a master water plan as contained in the Conservation Element, and (2) 

the area of expansion does not include the development of important natural resource 

areas, aquifer recharge lands, or prime agricultural lands. 

• Initiate intergovernmental agreements with state and federal wildlife management 

authorities in order to mitigate loss of prime farmland or land with intensive agricultural 

investment due to natural habitat conversion. 

• The County shall actively encourage water conservation by both agricultural and urban 

water users. 

• Long-range plans for accommodating population and economic growth shall not be based 

on the assumption of additional supplies from future storage facilities on the Sacramento, 

American, or Cosumnes River unless the projects are approved and funding secured. 

The General Plan includes the following objectives or goals that are relevant to this EIS. 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-9 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• Efficient build-out of existing Agricultural-Residential areas within the urban services 

boundary to meet rural residential demand without contaminating or overdrafting 

groundwater aquifers. 

• Limited agricultural-residential land use expansion outside the urban services boundary, 

which does not compromise objectives for protecting prime agricultural lands and open 

space, and avoids groundwater overdraft and contamination. 

• Conjunctive use of surface and ground water to provide long-term water supply for 

Sacramento residents while maintaining river flows and reservoir levels which protect 

environmental resources and provide substantial recreational benefits. 

• Adequate guaranteed long-term surface water supply to meet future needs within the 

unincorporated area. 

• Full utilization of Sacramento City's water rights to the American and Sacramento rivers 

to meet urban growth needs. 

• Adequate water flows to protect riparian, fisheries, and recreation values in the American 

River. 

• Groundwater overdraft eliminated by the year 2000 and a balanced groundwater table 

thereafter. 

• Healthy, well-managed marsh and riparian woodlands along Sacramento County's 

waterways. 

• Riparian and wetland environments managed with sensitivity to threatened species and 

maintained to the extent feasible in a manner that avoids conflicts with privately owned 

land and agricultural operations. 

• Fisheries in County waterways and water bodies preserved and protected. 

• Water flows monitored and maintained, when climatic conditions allow, to promote fish 

propagation and migration. 

• Promote the inventory, protection, and interpretation of the cultural heritage of 

Sacramento County, including historical and archaeological settings, sites, buildings, 

features, and/or areas of ethnic historical, religious or socio-economical importance. 

• Water facilities developed in an environmentally sound, economically efficient, and 

financially equitable manner. 

• Water treatment and distribution facilities located to minimize environmental impact and 

maximize distribution efficiency with respect to point of withdrawal and area to be 

served. 

The General Plan Subsequent EIR determined that the following potentially significant or significant 

adverse impacts would result: impacts of patterns of development, the viability of continuing agriculture 

in the County, loss of open space, effects on fire services, effects on groundwater overdraft, increase in 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-10 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

solid waste generation, loss of biological resources and wetlands, fragmentation of natural habitats in 

agricultural and grazing lands, increased risk of flooding, effects on groundwater quality, asbestos 

emissions, impacts on cultural resources, and increase in light and glare. As a mitigation measure for 

biological resources, the County initiated a Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Specifically with respect to water supplies, concerns were identified in the Subsequent EIR related to 

impacts on groundwater. To mitigate the potential for groundwater overdraft, the following mitigation 

were identified to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

• Population and economic activities shall be planned to grow at a rate which will not 

exceed the capacity of dependable water supplies, in conjunction with safe groundwater 

yield. 

• Utilize up-to-date information on long-term water demand in relationship to available 

water supply in developing conjunctive use plans and in considering General Plan 

amendments to expand the urban area. 

• Development entitlements shall not be approved in areas where no surface water is 

available or planned and where there is uncertainty over the adequacy of long-term 

sustained yield from groundwater wells. 

• New rural development shall be required to demonstrate adequate quantity and quality of 

groundwater prior to approval of residential lots in areas of the County where supply and 

quality are doubtful. 

• All individual wells found to be unsuitable for domestic use shall be sealed according to 

State standards and inspected by the Environmental Health Department, unless mitigation 

measures can be found to make water potable and not adversely affect underlying 

groundwater quality on neighboring parcels. 

• Areas selected for urban expansion shall be served from a surface water supply by a 

public water agency. 

• The County shall not approve development in Agricultural-residential areas that are 

subject to groundwater overdraft. 

The following mitigation measures were identified for other issues of concerns. 

• The County shall coordinate with the cities and involve other jurisdictions outside of the 

County in matters of air quality, transportation, water supply, and drainage/flood control. 

• The County shall work with the City of Sacramento in obtaining a supply of surface 

water to serve the unincorporated County. 

• Uses in the Industrial Intensive designation will be provided with urban services such as 

public water and sewer. Uses in the Industrial Extensive designation will not be provided 

with urban services such as public water and sewer. 

The EIR further indicated that no mitigation measures were available beyond the policies and programs in 

the General Plan that would reduce the following impacts to a less-than-significant level: cumulative loss 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-11 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

of open space and habitat, traffic, air quality, and cultural resources. These impacts were considered to be 

significant and unavoidable. The Environmentally Constrained Alternative was considered to be the 

environmentally superior alternative and selected alternative. 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2002 ZONE 40 

WATER SUPPLY MASTER PLAN

Zone 40 of Sacramento County Water Agency includes 86,000 acres of agricultural, residential, and 

industrial land in areas within and around Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova. The 2002 Water Supply 

Master Plan defined the available and needed water facilities to implement a conjuctive use program 

using groundwater and surface water from the Freeport Regional Water Project. The EIR served as a 

programmatic EIR to implement the master plan. The proposed facilities in the master plan include the 

Freeport Regional Water Project including the diversion of CVP water from the Sacramento River near 

Freeport, conveyance to and from a new water treatment plant, and increased water recycling. 

The EIR acknowledged that the proposed master plan would provide water for growth that was planned 

by Sacramento County and the cities of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, and that these agencies had 

adopted general plans with measures to mitigate primary and secondary impacts of growth. The EIR 

identified impacts associated with construction and implementation of the master plan. Mitigation 

measures for all but five impacts were included to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Three 

of the remaining impacts that could not be avoided are related to loss of habitat, farmland, and visual 

resources, due to the growth-inducing impacts of providing water in areas that had no other options for 

water supply. Because Sacramento County Water Agency does not have the authority to regulate land use 

decisions and implement mitigation measures for land use impacts associated with growth, the EIR refers 

to the mitigation efforts identified by Sacramento County and the cities of Elk Grove and Rancho 

Cordova in general plan EIRs. There were also two unavoidable impacts associated with short-term 

construction emissions and noise from construction equipment due to the uncertainty of the ability of 

contractors to meet emission and noise thresholds. Additional site-specific impacts to habitat and land use 

associated with construction are considered to be possibly unavoidable. This document is still in draft 

form and may be modified in the final EIR. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

REPORT FOR AMERICAN RIVER PUMP STATION PROJECT FOR 

PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY

Placer County Water Agency holds water rights on the Middle Fork American River, the Rubicon River 

and some tributaries for irrigation, domestic and commercial purposes, and for the generation of electrical 

energy. Water under these water rights are conserved and controlled by the multi-purpose Middle Fork 

Project (MFP). Placer County Water Agency also has a water supply contract with the Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company (PG&E) for deliveries from PG&E’s Drum-Spaulding Project on the upper Yuba River 

Basin, augmented by Bowman Lake and Lake Spaulding on the south Yuba River and Rollins Reservoir 

on the Bear River. Total annual supply from these two sources is 220,400 acre-feet. The Placer County 

Water Agency-PG&E Water Supply Contracts provides for a maximum annual supply of 100,400 acrefeet and the assumed annual yield from the MFP is 120,000 acre-feet. 

Placer County Water Agency entered into a CVP water service contract with the Federal government in 

1970 in anticipation of the construction of Auburn Dam. The original contract entitlement was for up to 

117,000 acre-feet/year of CVP water delivered at Auburn Dam or other mutually agreed location(s). 

Construction began in 1967 and was suspended in 1977 due to seismic concerns. Reclamation and Placer 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-12 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

County Water Agency completed an EIS/EIR and subsequently entered into an Amendatory Contract that 

stipulates a change in the authorized diversion point to Folsom Dam or other mutually agreed location(s), 

and limited the total contract amount to 35,000 acre feet for irrigation and/or M&I supplies until the 

completion of the contract period or upon the completion of the Auburn Dam, should it be built. 

The water supplies from the Placer County Water Agency-PG&E Water Supply Contracts have been fully 

exercised and depend wholly on the operations of PG&E. This water is delivered to the Agency's Zones 1 

and 3 (Gold Run/Dutch Flat/Alta, Placer East, Colfax, Meadow Vista, Weimar/Applegate/Clipper Gap, 

Auburn-Bowman, Horseshoe Bar/Penryn, Newcastle/Ophir, and the Sunset area) and Zone 5 (agricultural 

areas in western Placer County). 

The Placer County Water Agency planned use of MFP supplies include the diversion of 35,500 acre-feet 

at their American River Pump Station located upstream of Folsom Lake, and the sale of 25,000 acre-feet 

to San Juan Water District, 30,000 acre-feet to the City of Roseville, and 29,000 acre-feet to Sacramento 

Suburban Water District. 

Water conservation in Placer County Water Agency includes consideration of water meters, water 

conserving designs, landscape conservation measures, and use of recycled wastewater. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY OF FOLSOM 

GENERAL PLAN

The EIR for the City of Folsom General Plan was completed in 1988. It evaluated five alternatives: 

Alternative 1- Existing Conditions at the End of 1986 (No Project Alternative), Alternative 2 - Existing 

General Plan Alternative, Alternative 3 - Composite Applications Alternative, Alternative 4 - Citizens 

Advisory Committee Alternative, and Alternative 5- Preferred Alternative. These alternatives evaluate a 

projected population range from 56,165 to 100,120. 

The General Plan includes many goals or policies, including the following items that are specifically 

relevant to this EIS. 

• To expand Folsom's Sphere of Influence based on the ultimate boundaries of 

development that the City can reasonably control and service, and to discourage 

premature development in unincorporated areas surrounding the City. 

• A new Sphere of Influence boundary shall include only those lands to which road, water, 

sewer, and other facility/service connections can be extended within the next 25 to 30 

years and, therefore, to those areas which will ultimately be annexed to the City. 

• The City shall only annex those lands which can be developed in accordance with the 

City's General Plan, are fiscally sound additions to the City, can be adequately served by 

municipal (or acceptable alternative) facilities and services, and are part of a planned, 

orderly annexation program. 

• The City shall annually monitor the City's available municipal water supply to ensure 

adequate reserves exist to serve projected water demand. In the event projected demand 

exceeds supply, the City may take certain actions to prevent the anticipated shortfall. For 

any area south of U.S. Highway 50 which could be annexed to the City or the area known 

as the East Area Facilities Plan area consisting of approximately 3,900 acres, the City 

shall not approve a final subdivision map or final parcel map, or other entitlement which 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-13 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

would permit the commencement of construction until such time as the City has acquired 

an additional water supply which is adequate to supply such development. The additional 

water supply may include water conservation programs. Development may be staged and 

it is only necessary that there is sufficient supply to service the proposed development. 

• Wherever feasible, to preserve, acquire, rehabilitate, enhance, and maintain the identified 

resources for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The identified 

resources include, but are not limited to certain biological resources and scenic resources. 

• The surface and groundwater quality of Folsom shall not be degraded from City 

standards. 

• The City should maintain existing and develop new sources of water to ensure adequate, 

long-term and high quality water supplies. 

The General Plan EIR determined that in the General Plan, potentially significant or significant adverse 

impacts would result to traffic, the housing/employment balance, affordable housing, water supply, and 

mining resources (gravel). The other identified impacts were either considered not significant or are 

mitigable. The EIR indicated that the City has insufficient supply of water to meet the demand at buildout 

(including the area located south of U.S. Highway 50) in any of the alternatives, and has no effective 

water conservation policy or ordinance in force. The EIR also indicated that the City's unmetered water 

system for residential users does not encourage water conservation, and that impacts on water supply 

were considered significant for three of the five alternatives evaluated. The General Plan indicated that 

the City receives 22,000 acre-feet/year under a water right on the American River, and purchases a 

minimum of 700 acre-feet of water per year from San Juan Water District. 

Following completion of the General Plan EIR, the City increased the water right quantity by 5,000 acrefeet and received a CVP contract under PL 101-514 (as described above) for 7,000 acre-feet. This would 

provide adequate water supplies in average years unless. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PLACER COUNTY 

GENERAL PLAN

The 1994 Placer County General Plan EIR evaluates two scenarios to analyze the impacts of growth and 

development in the county: years 2010 and 2040. The future 2010 population is estimated at 310,000, and 

for 2040, it is estimated at 470,900. The General Plan includes the following goals that are relevant to this 

EIS. 

• To promote the wise, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive use of Placer County lands 

to meet the present and future needs of Placer County residents and businesses 

• To designate adequate commercial land for and promote development of commercial 

uses to meet the present and future needs of Placer County residents and visitors and 

maintain economic vitality 

• To designate adequate land for and promote development of industrial uses to meet the 

present and future needs of Placer County residents for jobs and maintain economic 

vitality 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-14 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• To designate adequately-sized, well-located areas for the development of public facilities 

to serve both community and regional needs 

• To designate land for and promote the development and expansion of public and private 

recreational facilities to serve the needs of residents and visitors 

• To designate adequate agricultural land and promote development of agricultural uses to 

support the continued viability of Placer County's agricultural economy 

• To establish and maintain interconnected greenbelts and open spaces for the protection of 

native vegetation and wildlife and for the community's enjoyment 

• To protect the visual and scenic resources of Placer County as important quality-of-life 

amenities for county residents and a principal asset in the promotion of recreation and 

tourism 

• To ensure the timely development of public facilities and the maintenance of specified 

service levels for these facilities 

• To ensure the availability of an adequate and safe water supply and the maintenance of 

high quality water in water bodies and aquifers used a sources of domestic supply 

• 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 

• To identify, protect, and enhance Placer County's important historical, archaeological, 

paleontological, and cultural sites and their contributing environment 

• To protect and enhance the natural qualities of Placer County's streams, creeks, and 

groundwater 

• To protect wetland communities and related riparian areas throughout Placer County as 

valuable resources 

• To protect, restore, and enhance habitats that support fish and wildlife species so as to 

maintain populations at viable levels 

• To preserve and protect the valuable vegetation resources of Placer County 

• To preserve and enhance open space lands to maintain the natural resources of the county 

• To provide for the long-term conservation and use of agriculturally-designated lands 

• To minimize existing and future conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses 

in agriculturally-designated areas 

• To protect and enhance the economic viability of Placer County's agricultural operations 

• To maximize the productivity of Placer County's agriculture uses by ensuring adequate 

supplies of water 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-15 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• To minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, damage to property, and economic and social 

dislocations resulting from flood hazards 

The General Plan EIR determined that potentially significant or significant adverse impacts would result 

to land use, traffic, cultural resources, loss of farmland, habitat uses, and habitat quality, air quality, and 

traffic noise. The EIR further indicated that no mitigation measures were available beyond the policies 

and programs in the General Plan that would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE 

GENERAL PLAN

The City of Roseville 2010 General Plan EIR was completed in 1992. The City of Roseville 2010 General 

Plan evaluated the following three development scenarios. 

• 2010 Market Scenario: This scenario is based on projected market demand in the year 

2010. It assumes that all residential land uses (including both infill and specific plan 

areas) would be fully built out and non-residential land uses would be partially built out. 

This scenario also assumes year 2010 market demand level of development (residential 

and non-residential) outside of the City. 

• 2010 Market/Specific Plan Buildout Scenario: This scenario also assumes that all 

residential land uses (within both infill and specific plan areas) would be fully built out in 

the year 2010 and it assumes that non-residential land uses within the four specific plan 

areas would be fully built out. Non-residential land uses outside of the four specific plans 

but within the City (e.g., north industrial area) and areas outside of the City assume year 

2010 market demand level of development. 

• General Plan Buildout Alternative: This scenario assumes full buildout of existing 

general plan land use designations. It also includes development of areas outside of the 

City according to market demand by the year 2010. 

The General Plan includes modifications to policies and implementation measures contained within the 

City's adopted and amended 1977 General Plan. It focuses on policy amendments rather than changes to 

land uses. No changes to land use allocations or granted entitlements are proposed in conjunction with the 

current General Plan. 

The General Plan includes the following goals. 

• Promote and enhance Roseville's unique character and identity 

• Distinguish Roseville from adjacent communities through the quality of development and 

design, and the level of public services and facilities provided 

• Protect and enhance Old Town/Downtown and the City's established neighborhoods 

• Promote new development which is an integrated and connected part of the City's land 

use pattern 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-16 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities, including those for all income 

groups 

• Create a balanced land use pattern with an appropriate mix of uses to accommodate 

resident employment, service, and social needs within the community 

• Promote a land use pattern that provides a high level of open space and recreational 

amenities and is sensitive to the natural environment 

• Create a land use mix and pattern which accommodates and promotes alternative 

transportation modes for ease of access and improved air quality 

• Proactively manage and plan for growth 

• Promote the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people and goods; shift from the 

automobile to other modes of transportation; and provide an adequate level of 

transportation service for all persons traveling in and through Roseville 

• Protect the health and welfare of the community by promoting development that is 

compatible with air quality standards 

• Preserve a comprehensive interconnecting system of open space, encompassing 

preservation and enhancement of natural habitat and significant resource areas, for the 

use, appreciation, and enjoyment of the community 

• Provide a variety of both passive and active recreational opportunities for all City 

residents 

• Provide adequate services for residents and enterprises, and have new development 

contribute its fair share toward the provision of these services and facilities 

• Protect the life, property, and the environment of community residents, enterprises, 

employees, and visitors 

• Protect the health and welfare of the community by promoting community development 

which is compatible with noise level criteria 

• Work to accommodate the housing needs of its current and future residents by providing 

a range of purchase and rental units which are affordable to all income groups 

• Strive to guarantee housing affordability over time through the adoption of policies and 

implementation measures 

• The City, its development community, and the business/manufacturing community 

should jointly work together to ensure the success of an affordable housing program 

The General Plan EIR determined that many of the programs to meet these goals would not result in 

significant environmental impacts. However, the EIR acknowledged that significant impacts could occur 

with respect to flood hazards, air quality, noise, housing affordability, traffic, biological resources, and 

hazardous materials. Furthermore, the EIR indicated that those impacts identified as significant were also 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-17 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

unavoidable and could not be fully mitigated. Mitigation measures related to biological resources 

(conversion of annual grass, oak woodland, riparian woodland, vernal pool, intermittent drainage/other 

seasonal wetland; or wildlife habitat fragmentation and loss) include mechanisms such as setbacks (buffer 

areas) to ensure adequate space between natural areas and urban development; wetland preservation, 

replacement, or offsite wetland replacement mitigation; or easements that would restrict land uses to those 

compatible with preserve purposes. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EL DORADO COUNTY 

GENERAL PLAN

El Dorado County adopted a General Plan in 1996, however the EIR was successfully challenged in 

litigation. Over the next eight years, the county considered several alternatives that were evaluated in a 

new EIR. A new general plan was adopted in July 2004. The modified general plan will be submitted to 

the court for review prior to implementation. Implementation is anticipated in 2005. 

The following four alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR: No Project Alternative, Roadway 

(Capacity) Constrained, Environmentally Constrained, and the 1996 General Plan. In July 2004, the El 

Dorado County Planning Commission adopted an "Annotated 1996 General Plan Alternative." The 

adopted General Plan includes the 1996 General Plan plus mitigation measures proposed in the EIR and 

several components of the Environmentally Constrained Alternative related to transportation and 

circulation, agricultural lands, and important biological corridor. An Environmental Assessment of Policy 

Modifications was completed in July 2004. 

The final environmental documentation identifies several significant impacts for the proposed alternative 

as compared to the No Project Alternative and proposes mitigation measures. The proposed mitigation 

measures include coordination between the County and cities to provide consistent land use policies, 

provisions to protect agricultural and rural land uses, preparation of a Scenic Corridor Ordinance, 

consider circulation plans to reduce traffic impacts, require sufficient water supplies from public water 

utilities for dry to wet years, support water conservation, establish annual inspection program for septic 

systems, prepare and implement parks and recreation master plan, establish naturally occurring asbestos 

land purchase notification program, minimize development in areas of high and very high wildland fire 

hazard, develop Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, and adopt a cultural resources 

preservation ordinance. 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WATER FORUM 

PROPOSAL

The Water Forum, a diverse group of water agencies, business groups, agricultural interests, 

environmentalists, citizen groups, and local governments has been coordinating since the fall of 1993 

evaluating future water needs and supplies in the Sacramento area, including parts of Sacramento, Placer 

and El Dorado counties. The Water Forum has formulated a Water Forum Proposal for the effective 

long-term management of the regional water resources. The Water Forum Proposal was formulated based 

on the two co-equal objectives: 1) provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic 

health and planned development through the year 2030; and 2) preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, 

and aesthetic values of the Lower American River. Water Forum stakeholders represent water-related 

interests in the cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Galt, and Citrus Heights; the County of Sacramento; 

Roseville, South Placer County and western El Dorado County. 

To achieve the Water Forum coequal objectives, a comprehensive package of linked actions 

was developed to include the following six elements. 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-18 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• Element I: Increased Surface Water Diversions- This element provides for increased 

surface water diversions to serve planned growth through the year 2030 with active 

conservation programs and sustainable use of the groundwater which are also part of the 

Water Forum Proposal. 

• Element II: Actions to Meet Customer Needs While Reducing Diversion Impacts on the 

Lower American River in Drier Years - This element is to ensure that sufficient water 

supplies will be available to customers in dry years as well as wet years, and that 

suppliers continue to meet their customers' needs to the year 2030 while minimizing 

diversion impacts on the Lower American River in the drier and driest years. It is 

envisioned that Lower American River diversions above the H Street Bridge in average 

and wetter years will increase from the current level of about 216,500 acre-feet/year 

annually to about 481,000 acre-feet/year. Actions to meet customer needs while reducing 

diversion impacts on the Lower American River in drier years include: conjunctive use of 

groundwater basins consistent with the sustainable yield objectives; utilizing other 

surface water resources; reoperation of reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the American 

River; increased conservation during drier and driest years; and reclamation. 

• Element III: Support for an Improved Pattern of Fishery Flow Releases from Folsom 

Reservoir - This element supports needed assurances for continued implementation of a 

pattern of water releases from Folsom Reservoir that more closely matches the needs of 

anadromous fish, in particular fall run chinook salmon, which need cool water in the fall 

and are not present in the American River in the summer. The Water Forum convened a 

Fish Biologists’ Working Session with the Service, California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG), SWRCB, Reclamation led to a general agreement regarding which fish 

species in the Lower American River should be given priority when there are constraints 

in water availability and developed an improved pattern by which available water can be 

released from Folsom Reservoir in a "fish friendly" manner consistent with the reservoir's 

flood control objectives. These objectives were included in the CVPIA Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Program flow objective for the Lower American River. 

• Element IV: Lower American River Habitat Management Element - This element, 

combined with an "Improved Pattern of Fishery Flow Releases from Folsom Reservoir" 

and "Actions to Meet Customers' Needs While Reducing Diversion Impacts on the Lower 

American River in the Drier Years," is included to mitigate the impacts of the increased 

diversions on the Lower American River. The Water Forum Habitat Management 

Element will be part of a coordinated multi-agency Lower American River ecosystem 

partnership to address flow, temperature, and physical habitat issues for the Lower 

American River: 

• Element V: Water Conservation - The Water Conservation Element of the Water Forum 

Proposal promotes more efficient use of limited water resources. Major components of 

the Water Conservation Element include: residential water meters; other water 

conservation programs similar to the Best Management Practices included under CVPIA 

contracting and the statewide Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water 

Conservation; public involvement; water conservation plans; and agricultural water 

conservation. 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-19 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• Element VI: Groundwater Management - This element provides a framework by which 

the groundwater resource in Sacramento County can be protected and used in a 

sustainable manner and a mechanism for coordination with those adjacent counties that 

share the groundwater basin. A key provision of the element includes recommendations 

on "sustainable yield," or the amount of water that can be safely pumped from the basin 

over a long period of time without damaging the aquifer. Recommendations for locally 

controlled groundwater management include monitoring groundwater withdrawal and 

“conjunctive use”, or the planned use of surface water in conjunction with groundwater. 

The Sacramento North Area Groundwater Management Authority was established in 

1998 through a joint powers authority using the existing authority of the City of 

Sacramento, Folsom, the City of Citrus Heights, and the County of Sacramento. The 

Authority will be charged with facilitating conjunctive use programs and maintaining 

long-term sustainable yield. Similar actions are proposed in the Water Forum Proposal 

for the South Area and the Galt Area. 

In order to ensure implementation of the Water Forum Proposal, a Water Forum Successor Effort is being 

created with membership consisting of those organizations signatory to the Water Forum Proposal. Its 

responsibilities will be to oversee, monitor, and report on implementation of the Water Forum Proposal. 

The Water Forum Successor Effort will not have any authority to govern or regulate. 

The EIR evaluated various implementation methods for these elements using different levels of 

diversions, conservation, changes in release patterns from Folsom Reservoir, and groundwater 

management. The major impacts are described below. 

The EIR identified significant and potentially significant impacts within the Lower American River and 

Folsom Reservoir, including effects to certain fisheries, recreational opportunities, and cultural resources. 

Effects to fisheries include flow-related impacts to chinook salmon in the Lower American River. These 

impacts are considered potentially significant and mitigation is suggested as a part of the Habitat 

Mitigation Element. Potentially significant effects to Sacramento splittail of the Lower American River 

could also occur. In Folsom Reservoir, a potentially significant effect to warmwater fisheries is expected 

because of the reduction of littoral habitat and spawning success caused by more frequent declines in lake 

levels. Mitigation measures to improve littoral habitat are identified in the EIR. Coldwater fisheries in the 

reservoir are not significantly affected. 

Effects to recreation opportunities include more frequent periods of inadequate recreation flows in the 

Lower American River during the summer which affects rafting and boating. In Folsom Reservoir, more 

frequent lake level declines result in significant impacts to boat ramp operations, use of marina wet slips, 

and opportunities for swimming at designated beaches. The EIR also identifies adverse effects on cultural 

resources of Folsom Reservoir due to varying water levels and increased cycles of inundation and 

exposure of cultural resources sites. Potential mitigation is identified for each of these impacts. 

The EIR also identifies that, under future (2030) conditions which include the Water Forum Proposal and 

other potential future system-wide actions, impacts outside the American River system would occur. 

These include impacts to water supply, water quality, and power supply. Reclamation may have to 

operate the CVP differently in the future when purveyors in the Water Forum exercise their water 

entitlements including water rights and CVP water service contracts. DWR may also need to modify 

operation of the SWP, and, together with Reclamation, may revise the Coordinated Operations Agreement 

The changed operation could affect their ability to meet their environmental and water supply obligations, 

including protection of the Sacramento River and Bay-Delta. For instance, deliveries to some CVP 

contractors, including some Water Forum purveyors, could be subject to greater and more frequent 

deficiencies being imposed. 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-20 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Potentially significant impacts to Sacramento River and Delta water quality were also identified 

due to reduced flows in the Sacramento River in some years with implementation of the Water Forum 

Proposal. Reduced flows could cause seasonal elevations in river water temperatures and increased 

pollutant concentrations due to reduced dilution capacity. Minor power supply impacts to Western Area 

Power Administration preference power customers would also occur as a result of implementation of the 

Water Forum Proposal. 

Implementation of the Water Forum Proposal would not directly alter land uses in the water service study 

area. It would, however, allow water purveyors in the Sacramento region to provide a safe and reliable 

water supply for the region’ s planned development through the year 2030. Land use decisions would 

continue to be made by city and county government decision-makers. The Water Forum Proposal would 

accommodate development, however, as it would remove water supply as an obstacle to growth in some 

communities. Therefore, the Water Forum Proposal is considered to be growth inducing in the water 

service study area, as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines. The Water Forum Proposal EIR does not 

assess the precise impacts of the regional growth that may be facilitated by the Water Forum Proposal 

because of the many variables involved. With respect to land use designations already approved in 

adopted general plans, environmental analysis has already been completed in the general plan EIRs. The 

Water Forum Proposal EIR does assess the potential for future land use effects resulting from the removal 

of water supply as an obstacle to growth. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT FOR A WARREN ACT CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF 

ROSEVILLE AND RECLAMATION

Warren Act contracts are used by local agencies to convey non-federal water through federally-owned 

facilities, including Folsom Lake. 

Roseville and Reclamation have negotiated a long-term Warren Act contract to allow for storage and 

conveyance of up to 30,000 acre-feet of American River water rights that are either delivered for or 

purchased from Placer County Water Agency. Environmental and technical reports are being prepared 

and reviewed for this contract. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL 

UTILITY DISTRICT - SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

WATER ASSIGNMENT

In 2004, Sacramento Municipal Utility District prepared a Final EIR for the water assignment of 30,000 

acre-feet with Sacramento County Water Agency. The provisions of the water assignment were set forth 

in a three-party “Agreement in Principle," signed by Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of 

Sacramento, and Sacramento County Water Agency on February 14, 1994. In the agreement, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District agreed to the permanent assignment to Sacramento County Water Agency of 

15,000 acre-feet/year of CVP contract water under the contract with Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District. Sacramento County Water Agency agreed to assist Sacramento Municipal Utility District in 

paying for up to 5,000 acre-feet/year of City water for use in Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

cogeneration power plants. The City agreed to treat and convey the assigned water to Sacramento County 

Water Agency Zone 40 service area and to provide a City water supply to Sacramento Municipal 

cogeneration power plants. A two-way agreement between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and 

Sacramento County Water Agency for an additional 15,000 acre-feet/year was negotiated as part of the 
Chapter 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

American River Division 3-21 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Water Forum Agreement. Under the existing conditions, Sacramento Municipal Utility District was not 

diverting the 30,000 acre-feet in recent years. Therefore, the EIR indicated that there would be some 

impacts associated with reductions in deliveries to Irrigation CVP water service contractors in many 

years, reductions in total annual CVP power generation in some months, reduction in end-of-water year 

storage in Shasta Lake and related changes in Sacramento River flow patterns in some years, related 

changes in cumulative conditions for chinook salmon in the Upper Sacramento River due to changes in 

flow patterns and Shasta Lake storage, and related changes in recreational opportunities in Shasta Lake. 

No mitigation measures were included in this EIR. 

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR COSUMNES POWER PLANT 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District proposed to develop a natural gas-fired generating facility at 

Rancho Seco. The proposed project will provide electricity to the district service area. The facility will 

consist of a nominal 1,000-megawatt combined-cycle generating facility, using natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines, steam turbines, and associated infrastructure. The plant will be constructed in two 

phases of 500-megawatts. Each phase will consist of two combustion turbines, one condensing steam 

turbine, and two heat recovery steam generators. The project also will include a switchyard, 

approximately 0.4-mile-long new 230-kV transmission line from the switchyard to the existing 

switchyard, approximately 26 miles of natural gas supply line, and a cooling water pipeline from the 

existing pipeline connected to the Folsom-South Canal, wastewater treatment plant and leach system, and 

stormwater detention facilities. 

The plant will be constructed using recent technology and emission reduction credits to avoid significant 

adverse air quality impacts. Specific drainage design criteria and use of stormwater detention basins will 

result in no significant impacts to water resources. 
CHAPTER 4 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
American River Division 4-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

CHAPTER 4 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter explains the organization of the remaining chapters in the EIS, defines the scope and extent 

of the environmental analysis, including a delineation of the overall study area, the framework for the 

impact analysis, an explanation of resources areas evaluated and not evaluated, and a list of studies and 

documents incorporated by reference in the effects analysis. 

This document organizes required information by environmental resources. Each resource subsection of 

this chapter describes the affected environment and environmental consequences associated with 

renewing long-term water service contracts under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 as compared to renewing the 

long-term water service contracts under the No Action Alternative. Each resource subsection also 

describes potential mitigation measures if necessary or available to avoid, reduce, or otherwise minimize 

potential adverse impacts to the environment. 

RESOURCES CONSIDERED

The resources and issues included in this chapter were identified through a review of NEPA guidance 

documents, and through the scoping process. The resources and issues described in this chapter are as 

follows. 

• Surface Water Resources and Facilities (including Water Quality) 

• Groundwater (including Water Quality) 

• Land Use, Demographics, and Sociological Resources 

• CVP Water Supply Costs, Agricultural Economics, and Regional Economics 

• Fishery and Wildlife Resources 

• Recreation 

• Cultural Resources 

• Indian Trust Assets 

• Air Quality 

• Soils 

• Visual Resources 

• Environmental Justice 

• Secondary Growth Impacts 

This EIS does not analyze resources for which it would be reasonable to assume that substantial or 

significant impacts could not occur. Specifically, potential effects to transportation, noise, hazards and 

hazardous material, public services, utilities, and service systems are not analyzed because they were not 

identified as significant issues during scoping and it would not be reasonable to assume that renewing the 

long-term water service contracts could result in substantial impact to these resources or services. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

STUDY AREA FOR LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL IN THE 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION

This EIS study area includes specific areas of analysis for each resource that may be directly, indirectly, 

or cumulatively affected by the alternatives under consideration. The Study Area for this EIS includes the 

water service areas of Sacramento County Water Agency (Zone 40 and Folsom), San Juan Water District, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Roseville, Placer County Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation 

District (Lake Hills Estates and El Dorado Hills service area), and East Bay Municipal Utility District. 

STUDY PERIOD

The analysis period for this EIS is the term of each long-term contract included in this EIS. The contract 

term for the M&I water service contracts is for 40 years, or Year 2044. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES

NEPA Section 102(C)(v) requires federal agencies to consider to the fullest extent possible irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. 

The proposed action will be the renewal of existing contracts and does not involve construction or use of 

nonrenewable resources. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA Section 102(C)(iv) requires all federal agencies to disclose the relationship between local shortterm uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. These 

water delivery contracts are temporary (of 40 years or less), yet result in long-term benefits to the 

sustainability and reliability of agricultural and industrial production and economic growth in rural and 

urban communities. Long-term productivity would be enhanced through the water supply that sustains 

economics, social benefits, and the long-term productivity of urban and rural populations by providing 

CVP water. 

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES, QUALITY, AND FACILITIES

The Affected Environment description of surface water is limited to major streams and water supply 

facilities that are directly affected by CVP water supplies in the American River Division. American 

River Division CVP water users rely upon water diverted from the American and Sacramento rivers and 

groundwater. Three of the users (Placer County Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, and East 

Bay Municipal Utility District) also rely upon water diverted from other watersheds. However, this 

analysis focuses on the diversion of the CVP water and streams within the CVP place of use that rely 

upon water from the American River. Therefore, this discussion is limited to the American and 

Sacramento river watersheds within or adjacent to Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado counties and local 

streams within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area. The information presented below is 

primarily based upon environmental documentation completed by Reclamation and local agencies. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Affected Environment

Operation of the CVP can affect flows of the American, Sacramento, and Stanislaus rivers, Delta, and 

deliveries of CVP and State Water Project (SWP) water to users located south of the Delta. The overall 

description of the affected environment of the Delta, other CVP water service contractors, and SWP water 

service contractors is presented in detail in the PEIS and only summarized below. 

Upper American River Watershed. The upper American River consists of four major sub-basins 

upstream of Folsom Lake: North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, and Rubicon River, a tributary of the 

Middle Fork. The reach of the American River downstream of Folsom Lake is described as the Lower 

American River. 

The North Fork watershed is almost 400 square miles and extends from above Blue Canyon to the 

confluence of Middle Fork upstream of Folsom Lake. Average annual runoff from the North Fork was 

about 600,000 acre-feet since 1946, as measured at the North Fork Dam. The Lake Valley Canal diverts a 

small portion of the flow from the North Fork into the Bear River basin. Other portions of the flow are 

diverted from the North Fork to serve local areas along Interstate 80. Placer County Water Agency also 

has water rights on the North Fork. 

The Middle Fork watershed includes more than 550 square miles and includes several significant 

tributaries. Average annual runoff from the Middle Fork is about 800,000 acre-feet, as measured 

downstream of Oxbow Powerplant. Flows occur in all months, including relatively moderate flows in 

summer months due to releases from numerous hydropower facilities in the Middle Fork watershed. 

Placer County Water Agency constructed three reservoirs on the upper and middle reaches of the Middle 

Fork: French Meadows Reservoir (L.L. Anderson Dam) and Interbay Dam as part of the Middle Fork 

Project. Placer County Water Agency also constructed Ralston Afterbay near the confluence of the 

Rubicon River and the Middle Fork as a re-regulating reservoir for the Middle Fork Project. The Oxbow 

Powerplant was constructed by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) on the Middle Fork 

downstream of the Rubicon River and upstream of the confluence with the North Fork. In the watershed, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District constructed numerous reservoirs and Placer County Water Agency 

constructed Lower Hell Hole Dam downstream of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District reservoirs. 

The South Fork watershed includes over 600 square miles and has an average annual runoff of about 

1,000,000 acre-feet, as measured downstream of Chili Bar Dam. Flows occur in all months, including 

relatively moderate flows in summer months due to releases from numerous reservoirs in the South Fork 

watershed. El Dorado Irrigation District operates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

Project No. 184, which utilizes natural flows of the South Fork and releases from storage in Caples Lake, 

Silver Lake, and Lake Aloha in the South Fork watershed, plus a small inter-basin transfer from Echo 

Lake in the Echo Creek subbasin of the Lake Tahoe upper watershed for hydroelectric power production 

and consumptive uses. Other, smaller reservoirs in the South Fork watershed include Slab Creek 

Reservoir and Chili Bar Reservoir on the South Fork, and Weber Reservoir on the North Fork of Weber 

Creek. 

El Dorado Irrigation District uses some water stored at the Sly Park Reservoir in the Cosumnes River 

basin to serve areas located in the American River watershed. 

Lower American River Watershed. The Lower American River consists of the river from Folsom 

Lake to the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers. The flow regime in the Lower American 

River is controlled by the flows into Folsom Lake and released at Folsom Dam. Average annual inflows 

into Folsom Lake are about 600,000 acre-feet from the North Fork, 800,000 acre-feet from the Middle 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-4 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Fork, and 1,000,000 from the South Fork. Average flows downstream of Folsom Dam at Fair Oaks are 

approximately 2,650,000 acre-feet. 

Folsom Dam is a multi-purpose water storage facility on the American River about 26 miles upstream of 

the confluence with the Sacramento River and is part of the American River Division of the CVP. The 

American River Division also includes a power plant , the re-regulating reservoir (Lake Natoma) formed 

by Nimbus Dam, and the Auburn-Folsom South Unit (Folsom South Canal). The American River 

Division used to include the Sugar Pine Unit and Sly Park Unit that have been transferred to Foresthill 

Public Utility District and El Dorado Irrigation District, respectively. 

Folsom Lake storage is relatively small (975,000 acre-feet) as compared to the range of annual flows and 

the water demands in the watershed. Under the current water rights settlements, there are approximately 

510,000 acre-feet of local water rights and 410,000 acre-feet of CVP Water Service Contract water that 

could be delivered to American River users. Because the reservoir volume is approximately equal to the 

amount of water delivered each year and most of the stream flow enters the reservoir prior to the summer 

months when the peak urban water demand occurs, it is an operational challenge to meet the multiple 

demands on Folsom Reservoir storage including instream fisheries needs in the Lower American River 

and water flow needs in the Delta. 

Reclamation holds both direct diversion and storage rights on the American River and uses these rights in 

combination to deliver water to local users under CVP water service contracts and to meet downstream 

regulatory requirements and water demands within and south of the Delta. Reclamation facilities are also 

used to deliver non-project water to senior water rights holders, including El Dorado Irrigation District, 

Placer County Water Agency, PG&E, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Folsom, San Juan Water 

District, State of California, City of Sacramento, Carmichael Water District, and Sacramento Suburban 

Water District. Many of these water rights holders take delivery from Folsom Lake. Most of the 

municipal/industrial flows do not return to the American River system because municipal wastewater 

effluent flows are discharged into another watershed or directly into the Sacramento River. Specific 

information about the CVP water service contracts is presented below. 

Minimum Flow Requirements for the American River. Water rights decisions, downstream water 

quality control requirements, flood control criteria, fisheries protection requirements (including minimum 

instream flows and ramping criteria), carryover storage targets, recreation, and power production directly 

or indirectly influence the flows in the Lower American River. Minimum instream flows upstream of 

Folsom Lake are primarily influenced by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses. 

Minimum flows in the Lower American River have been established to protect fisheries. The SWRCB 

Decision 893 (D-893) was issued in 1958 and requires minimum flows below Nimbus Dam (re-regulating 

reservoir below Folsom Lake) and at H Street on the American River. As part of the water rights permits 

for Auburn Dam, the SWRCB issued Decision 1400 (D-1400) to supercede D-893 if Auburn Dam had 

been constructed. D-1400 provided higher instream flows for the Lower American River than D-893. 

Although Auburn Dam was not constructed, Reclamation uses a "Modified D-1400" flow regime to set 

the historic baseline operations for Folsom Dam when water is available. During drier periods, 

Reclamation may use D-893 requirements to establish the historic baseline. The historic baseline flows 

establish what the minimum flows would have been prior to the implementation of CVPIA. Additional 

releases are then added to the baseline flows with water made available from the 800,000 acre-feet of 

water annually dedicated to fish and wildlife through Section 3406(b)(2) of the CVPIA. 

As part of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan (AFRP) program under CVPIA, objectives to decrease 

water temperatures and increase spawning, incubation, rearing, and emigration habitat for fall-run 

Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Lower American River were developed. These objectives also 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

assume that Folsom Lake target storage will provide a cold water pool and spawning/incubation flows in 

fall and winter. Following the initial AFRP study in 1995, several other studies were completed to 

evaluate fisheries conditions on the Lower American River and temperature control devices were 

designed for Folsom Dam and CVP diversions from Folsom Lake. One of those studies was completed as 

part of the Sacramento Area Water Forum Proposal. Another study was the 2001 Placer County Water 

Agency American River Pump Station Project. Recently, the Lower American River Task Force (a group 

of agencies and interests that are affected by conditions along the lower American River) completed a 

Baseline Report and subsequent evaluations to consider flow fluctuation issues. Results from these 

studies are being used in developing operating criteria to protect fisheries and continue to meet water 

demands, including ramping rates to avoid stranding as part of the CVP Operations Criteria and Plan 

(OCAP). 

Water Quality. The upper reaches of the Sacramento and American rivers have high quality water with 

low concentrations of constituents. As the water flows through the watershed, constituents enter the water 

as part of the sediment load or as dissolved chemicals. Temperatures also rise as the water enters the 

reaches near or on the valley floor. Constituents enter the water from both point sources, such as 

wastewater treatment plant effluent, and non-point sources, such as sediment from erosion. 

Water quality of the American River at Folsom Lake and downstream to the confluence with the 

Sacramento River remains relatively high. Water quality is within Regional Water Quality Control Board 

requirements during the majority of time even though the river receives urban runoff flows. Water quality 

of the Sacramento River at Sacramento has higher concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and 

phosphorous than the American River due to runoff from cultivated land. 

The July 2003 "Freeport Regional Water Project Draft EIR/EIS" indicates that concentrations of most 

constituents regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the American River downstream 

of Nimbus Dam and in the Sacramento River near the confluence with the American River are less than 

regulatory requirements. However, the lower American River is listed as an impaired water body for 

organochlorine pesticides, mercury, and toxicity. The Sacramento River near the American River is listed 

as an unimpaired water body for diazinon, mercury, and toxicity. 

Temperatures and dissolved oxygen in both the Sacramento and American rivers within the study area 

vary on a seasonal basis. The Long-Term CVP OCAP description discusses that temperatures in the 

Lower American River are regulated to the extent possible through integrated management of the 

coldwater pool in Folsom Lake. The extent, duration, and magnitude to which downstream temperatures 

can be managed depends upon the starting volume of cold water available in the spring, penstock shutter 

operations, reservoir water surface elevation, M&I intake temperature control device operations, and air 

temperatures. The goal for the Lower American River at Watt Avenue is to the extent possible to be less 

than 65 degrees Fahrenheit during the late spring and summer to protect steelhead incubation and below 

60 degrees in the fall months to protect fall-run chinook salmon spawning and incubation. However, it is 

not possible to fully meet both of these goals during years when the cold water pool volume is limited. If 

this happens, Reclamation consults with the fisheries agencies to develop a cold water pool management 

strategy that balances the needs of both steelhead and fall-run chinook salmon. Hatchery fish were 

historically transferred to other hatcheries during summer and early fall months in years before cold water 

was used during the summer to support steelhead rearing. Current studies are underway to determine the 

effect of Nimbus Dam operations on temperature in the Lower American River. 

Temperature Control Methods at Folsom Dam. The existing diversions at Folsom Dam include: 

the intake to the Folsom Dam Pumping Plant that serves Roseville, Folsom, Folsom State Prison, and San 

Juan Water District, and the El Dorado Irrigation District pumping plant intake. Downstream releases 

from Folsom Dam can be made through the Folsom Powerplant, the river outlet works, and spillway 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

gates. All releases and discharge structures are or can be used as part of the annual cold water pool 

management plan. The balancing of the demands on the cold water has required elevation of the summer 

temperature target at Watt Avenue based on the operations schedule and starting volume of cold water. 

Releases from the Folsom Dam river outlet works have also been used to access cold water beneath the 

Folsom Dam Powerplant penstock intake elevation at the onset of the fall-run chinook salmon spawning 

season in late October and November. 

Reclamation has installed a Temperature Control Device (TCD) on the Pumping Plant intake that allows 

elective temperature withdrawal capability. The TCD allows water to be withdrawn from reservoir 

elevations where temperatures exceed those that are needed to meet the downstream summer temperature 

targets. Similar selective withdrawal capability is being designed for the El Dorado Irrigation District 

diversion. 

Historically, the cold water pool was accessed in the fall to support spawning of fall-run chinook salmon. 

Recently, operations were modified to maintain a temperature target in the summer to support rearing 

juvenile steelhead. These changes were made in accordance with the biological opinion issued by NOAA 

Fisheries for steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon. 

The intakes to the Folsom Dam Power Plant were constructed with nine water release shutters that allow 

withdrawals at different elevations to improve temperatures at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery and releases to 

Lake Natoma. The initial shutter configuration allowed the top two shutters to be independently opened 

and the remaining seven shutters operated as one unit (a "1-1-7" configuration). These shutters were 

recently modified to become a "3-2-4" configuration to improve downstream temperature control 

capability. Routine periodic and continuous reservoir temperature profiles are taken to understand 

temperature stratification in Folsom Lake. This information is used along with operational forecasts to 

implement the cold water pool management strategy during real-time operations. Shutters are raised as 

necessary to meet downstream temperature targets. Selective blending of water from different elevations 

is used in concert with the power production schedule to optimize the use of the cold water pool. The 

spillway gates have also been used in the spring to make flood control releases that would ordinarily been 

made from the river outlet works, thereby conserving cold water for future use. 

Flood Flow Requirements for the Lower American River. There have been at least nine large 

floods in the Sacramento area since the construction of Folsom Dam: 1955, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1970, 

1980, 1982, 1986, and 1997. During the 1986 storm, Folsom Dam releases rose to 130,000 cubic 

feet/second and significant levee damage occurred along the Lower American River. Following that 

event, the Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) considered the 

need for additional flood storage. However, reservation of additional storage would reduce the carry-over 

storage required by users in the system. In the late 1990s, Reclamation and SAFCA worked with the 

Corps of Engineers to adopt a variable flood control volume. The modified flood control criteria reserves 

400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet of flood control space that varies based on storage in Folsom Lake and in 

three upstream reservoirs (Lower Hell Hole, Union Valley, and French Meadows reservoirs). 

Following the 1997 floods, the Corps of Engineers completed a reevaluation of the hydrology and 

considered the need for future flood management improvements. The Corps of Engineers is also moving 

forward with efforts to improve flood protection and that include raising Folsom Dam, modifying river 

outlets to provide additional release capacity, and use of forecast based advanced releases. 

Central Valley Project Operational Requirements that Influence American River 

Operations. The CVP is operated as an integrated system with reservoirs on the American, Sacramento, 

Trinity, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin rivers. The combined flows from the CVP facilities and the SWP 

facilities on Oroville, as well as other tributary flows, are conveyed in the Sacramento River to provide 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-7 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Delta outflow or water for users located south of the Delta, as described in the June 2004 OCAP report. 

CVP operates Folsom Lake to meet regulatory and water supply needs both on the American River and 

downstream along the Sacramento River and in the Delta, as described in the 2004 OCAP report. 

Central Valley Project Water Service Contractors in the American River Division. CVP 

water service contractors in the American River Division include Sacramento County Water Agency, San 

Juan Water District, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Roseville, Placer County Water Agency, El 

Dorado Irrigation District contract for El Dorado Hills and Lake Hills Estates, and East Bay Municipal 

Utility District. As part of the long-term contract renewal process, Reclamation completed a Needs 

Assessment, as presented in Chapter 2. 

Sacramento County Water Agency. Sacramento County Water Agency was formed to 

make water available for beneficial use of the lands and inhabitants within Sacramento County and to 

produce, store, and convey groundwater. In order to carry out those objectives, Sacramento County Water 

Agency entered into a contract with Reclamation for delivery of 22,000 acre-feet for M&I uses in 

accordance with Public Law 101-514. This contract includes 15,000 acre-feet allocated for use within 

Zone 40 and 7,000 acre-feet is provided to the City of Folsom through a subcontract between Sacramento 

County Water Agency and the city. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District plans an assignment, subject to Reclamation approval, of 30,000 

acre-feet of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District CVP contract water to Sacramento County Water 

Agency. 

Sacramento County Water Agency also is working with other local water users to provide up to 30,000 

acre-feet of water under an agreement with McDonnell-Douglas Corporation and Aerojet-General 

Corporation. This water would be used under the Eastern Sacramento County Replacement Water Supply 

Project in the Rancho Cordova area to provide water to users that had historically used groundwater. The 

groundwater had been contaminated due to land uses in the area and replacement of the water supply has 

been considered the most appropriate response to provide a high quality water supply. 

Zone 40. Zone 40 consists of 86,000 acres of agricultural, residential, and industrial land in 

central Sacramento County and encompasses portions of the cities of Elk Grove and Rancho 

Cordova. Three water purveyors provide retail water service in this area, including Sacramento 

County Water Agency, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water Service, and 

California-American Water Company in the Rancho Cordova area. The CVP water will be 

provided on a wholesale basis by Sacramento County Water Agency to seven separate retail 

service areas in the communities of Laguna, Vineyard, and Elk Grove. This area has historically 

relied upon groundwater. A portion of the Laguna/Vineyard area also is provided treated surface 

water by the City of Sacramento. 

Sacramento County Water Agency has a wheeling agreement with the City of Sacramento to 

provide treatment and conveyance of water through the City of Sacramento’s existing treatment 

and distribution system. The proposed Freeport Regional Water Supply Project will include 

facilities to maximize the ability of Sacramento County Water Agency to provide CVP water in 

Zone 40. Groundwater will continue to be used to meet the water demand not met with surface 

water. Use of the CVP water will increase groundwater recharge in the service area. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom provides water within the city boundaries. The City of 

Folsom has 22,000 acre-feet of senior water rights from the American River diverted at Folsom 

Lake. The City of Folsom entered into a Warren Act contract with Reclamation in 1971 to allow 

conveyance of this water right through CVP facilities. The City of Folsom also serves water to an 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-8 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

area previously served by Southern California Water Company through the assignment of a 5,000 

acre-foot water right. The water right also is diverted from Folsom Lake. Sacramento County 

Water Agency entered into a subcontract with the City of Folsom for the delivery of up to 7,000 

acre-feet of CVP water for M&I uses. 

All water rights and CVP water delivered to City of Folsom is diverted from Folsom Lake in 

facilities owned and operated by Reclamation. The Ashland area uses water from the San Juan 

Pumping Plant. The main supply for City of Folsom is rights water delivered through the 48-inch 

Folsom Pipeline, originating just east of the spillway of Folsom Dam. This facility also supplies 

Folsom Prison. The San Juan Pumping Plant , owned by Reclamation and operated by San Juan 

Water District, is on the west side of the spillway and provides water to San Juan Water District, 

City of Folsom, and City of Roseville. Water is provided by gravity when the water level in 

Folsom Lake is high, generally from the first rains through April. San Juan Water District owns 

and operates the Sydney N. Peterson Water Treatment Plant, which treats water before transport 

to partner agencies. Sacramento Suburban Water District and City of Roseville share ownership 

of the Cooperative Transmission Pipeline. However, pumping is generally required from April 

through late fall months. A pipeline owned and operated by City of Folsom conveys water to the 

Folsom Water Treatment Plant. The City of Folsom provides treated water to all users within the 

city except portions of the Ashland Service Area which is served by San Juan Water District. The 

City of Folsom also provides up to 5 million gallons/day of raw water to the Aerojet Corporation. 

San Juan Water District. San Juan Water District manages water supplies for several 

communities in northern Sacramento County. The San Juan Water District sells treated water to the Fair 

Oaks Water District, the Orangevale Water Company, Citrus Heights Water District, the Ashland area of 

Folsom, and adjacent unincorporated areas. San Juan Water District also conveys water rights water held 

by Placer County Water Agency to portions of Placer County that cannot be easily served through Placer 

County Water Agency facilities. 

San Juan Water District holds up to 33,000 acre-feet of water rights on the American River and diverted 

from Folsom Lake. The first 149 acre-feet/day delivered to San Juan Water District are considered to be 

their water rights water. A Warren Act contract provides for conveyance of this water rights water. 

San Juan Water District also entered into a contract with Reclamation to obtain up to 11,200 acre-feet of 

CVP water from Folsom Lake for Irrigation/M&I uses. The contract also provides for delivery of the 

water rights water held by San Juan Water District and Placer County Water Agency under a Warren Act 

contract. The contract was renewed on an interim basis until the long-term contract renewals considered 

in this EIS are completed. 

San Juan Water District also entered a contract with Reclamation for the delivery of up to 13,000 acrefeet for M&I uses in accordance with Public Law 101-514. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento Municipal Utility District started 

operating the Rancho Seco nuclear power station in southeastern Sacramento County in 1975 and ceased 

in 1989. The initial water demand was estimated to be up to 75,000 acre-feet for cooling water, power 

plant operations, and landscape irrigation. Water demands of up to 30,000 acre-feet continued to be 

utilized for plant maintenance, make-up water for on-site lakes, and landscape irrigation. Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District is planning new power plants to be constructed on this site and in other 

locations within its boundaries. 

In conjunction with its acquiring of rights to water for its Upper American River hydropower project, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District assigned extensive consumptive water rights to the City of 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-9 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Sacramento for use by the common citizens of the two entities. The City of Sacramento subsequently 

agreed to let Sacramento Municipal Utility District use 15,000 acre-feet of water for the original Rancho 

Seco station or for other appropriate uses. Sacramento Municipal Utility District entered into a contract 

with Reclamation on November 20,1970 for the use and delivery of up to 60,000 acre-feet/year of CVP 

water for M&I uses, and for the delivery by Reclamation of the 15,000 acre-feet of water rights water 

made available to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Both the water right and CVP waters are 

diverted from the American River at Nimbus Dam and conveyed through the Folsom South Canal to the 

Rancho Seco site. The first 40 acre-feet/day or 15,000 acre-feet/year, not to exceed 20 cubic feet/second, 

is water rights water. The existing CVP water service contract specifically requires Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District to be responsible for conveyance, handling, disposal, and distribution of water beyond the 

location operated by the United States. The CVP contract expires on December 31, 2012. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District has taken action to assign, subject to Reclamation approval, 30,000 

acre-feet of the CVP water service contract water to Sacramento County Water Agency. Reclamation 

considered the potential impacts and benefits of the assignment as part of the "EIS/EIR for Freeport 

Regional Water Project" (East Bay Municipal Utility District and Sacramento County Water Agency), as 

described in Chapter 3. In September 2004, Sacramento Municipal Utility District published the Final 

EIR for assignment to Sacramento County Water Agency. 

City of Roseville. Roseville has no water rights. Roseville entered into a contract with 

Reclamation to obtain CVP water from Folsom Lake. The contract provides up to 32,000 acre-feet/year 

for irrigation and municipal/industrial uses. The Roseville service area includes the incorporated city, 

although other purveyors serve small areas within the city. Doctor's Ranch, a newly completed 

development project immediately northwest of the city, negotiated an 800 acre-feet supply from San Juan 

Water District. San Juan Water District serves the southeastern corner of the city (east of Sierra College 

Boulevard). Placer County Water Agency is projected to serve the northeastern area of the City which 

was recently approved as part of the Stoneridge Specific Plan Project. 

To provide adequate water supplies during peak flow demand periods and to meet future annual average 

water demands, Roseville purchases up to 10,000 acre-feet from Placer County Water Agency. In 

addition, Roseville is considering negotiating with Placer County Water Agency for an additional 20,000 

acre-feet of water. The City would need a Warren Act contract to convey at least a portion of this 

non-CVP water through CVP facilities. 

Placer County Water Agency. Placer County Water Agency holds water rights on the Middle 

Fork American River, the Rubicon River and some tributaries for irrigation, domestic and commercial 

purposes, and for the generation of electrical energy. Of the 120,000 acre-feet of water rights on the 

American River, 25,000 acre-feet is delivered by San Juan Water District, up to 30,000 acre-feet may be 

negotiated for delivery to Roseville, and up to 29,000 acre-feet would be sold to Sacramento Suburban 

Water District on a pre-determined schedule when the water is available. 

In 2004, Placer County Water Agency amended its CVP water service contract with Reclamation from 

117,000 acre-feet annually to 35,000 acre-feet annually. The CVP water is to be diverted after the 

Agency's water rights water is used. This water and the remaining water rights water to be diverted by 

Placer County Water Agency will be delivered upstream of Folsom Lake, as described in Chapter 3. 

Placer County Water Agency would deliver CVP water only to the areas within the CVP authorized place 

of use. The New American River Pumping Plant location is not currently an authorized point of diversion 

of CVP water under the water right used by Reclamation for CVP operations. At this time, the authorized 

location for the point of diversion for the CVP in this area is Folsom Lake. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-10 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

El Dorado Irrigation District. El Dorado Irrigation District provides CVP water and water 

rights water to residential areas referred to as Lake Hills Estates and El Dorado Hills. El Dorado Irrigation 

District entered into two contracts to obtain CVP water from Folsom Lake: Lakes Hills Estates for up to 

50 acre-feet/year and El Dorado Hills for up to 7,500 acre-feet for M&I purposes. The contracts were 

renewed on an interim basis until the long-term contract renewals considered in this EIS are completed. It 

is anticipated that under long-term contract renewals these contracts will be combined for a total of 7,550 

acre-feet. Water under both contracts and the water right on the American River is diverted together from 

Folsom Lake and treated at the same El Dorado Irrigation District treatment plant. 

El Dorado Irrigation District also serves water in other portions of El Dorado County using water rights 

on the North and Middle Fork Cosumnes River and South Fork American River. CVP water cannot be 

physically delivered to the communities served by groundwater and Cosumnes and South Fork American 

rivers water rights with existing facilities. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. East Bay Municipal Utility District is a large municipal 

and industrial water service provider that serves over 1.3 million customers in portions of Alameda and 

Contra Costa counties. The district also provides wastewater treatment services for Oakland, Piedmont 

Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, and portions of the City of Richmond. 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District primary source of water is the Mokelumne River and several 

minor local surface waters. At present, the current East Bay Municipal Utility District water supply is 

insufficient to meet customer demand in multiple-year droughts even with aggressive water conservation 

and recycling programs. To provide water to meet demands in drier years, East Bay Municipal Utility 

District is pursuing development of additional water supply projects, including utilization of a contract 

with Reclamation to obtain CVP water from the Folsom South Canal that was signed in 1970. The 

contract provided for delivery of up to 150,000 acre-feet/year for municipal/industrial uses. In 1972, the 

Environmental Defense along with Sacramento County legally challenged delivery of CVP water from 

Folsom South Canal as "unreasonable" use of American River water. In 1988, the SWRCB adopted 

findings that the CVP contract for East Bay Municipal Utility District is a reasonable use of American 

River water. In 1990, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Hodge affirmed the contractual rights 

subject to a set of specific conditions known as the "Hodge Decision." 

In 2001, the CVP contract was amended to provide for delivery of water from three possible diversion 

points with defined water amounts for each location. The preferred diversion point is located at Freeport 

on the Sacramento River (downstream of the confluence with the American River). At Freeport, East Bay 

Municipal Utility District will be able to divert up to 133,000 acre-feet of American River water each year 

with a total not to exceed 165,000 acre-feet in three consecutive years. This diversion can only occur in 

drought years when East Bay Municipal Utility District's total system storage is forecast to be less than 

500,000 acre-feet. The other diversion locations include "Site 5" on the American River upstream of the 

Interstate 5 bridge and from the Folsom South Canal as under the initial contract. 

The Final EIS was published in April 2004. Reclamation plans to issue a Record of Decision following 

consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Freeport Regional Water Authority and 

its member agencies, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and Sacramento County Water Agency 

approved and certified the Final EIR in April 2004. 

Water Supplies for Other Water Users in the American River Division. There are many water 

users on the American River that do not use CVP water. There are four major users that directly divert 

water from CVP facilities or American River: City of Sacramento, Carmichael Water District, Folsom 

Prison, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-11 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The City of Sacramento has one of the oldest water rights on the American River. This pre-1914 water 

right provides for delivery from both the American and Sacramento rivers. The total water right includes 

up to 326,800 acre-feet. The City diverts water from the American River between the Howe Avenue and J 

Street bridges, in the Sacramento River near the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers, and 

in the Sacramento River south of the American River confluence. The City and Reclamation have 

developed operating agreements to provide for Reclamation to release adequate amounts of water for the 

City to divert water from Folsom Lake for use by the City. 

Carmichael Water District also has a pre-1914 water right on the American River and diverts water from 

the American River near Fair Oaks. The Carmichael Water District provides water to portions of the 

unincorporated areas of northern Sacramento County.

Folsom State Prison has a water right for 4,000 acre-feet on the American River that is diverted from 

Folsom Lake. 

The State of California has a water right for up to 5,000 acre-feet on the American River diverted at 

Folsom Lake. The water is primarily used for irrigation and other needs at recreational facilities at and 

near Folsom Lake.

 El Dorado County Water Agency. El Dorado County Water Agency and Reclamation has 

announced the intention to negotiate a long-term CVP water service contract under P.L. 101-514. Under 

this proposed contract, up to 15,000 acre-feet of CVP water would be provided to El Dorado Irrigation 

District and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. The diversions would be located in Folsom Lake 

or on the American River upstream from Folsom Lake. 

P.L. 101-514 does not specify how much of the up to 15,000 acre-feet would be allocated to El Dorado 

Irrigation District and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. Ongoing environmental analyses will 

evaluate impacts and benefits of this proposed contract and the appropriate allocation of water between 

the two agencies. Because the environmental documentation is not complete and the contracts have not 

been adopted, this EIS does not address the potential contract for this 15,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514. 

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Water Users of the American River Division. 

Wastewater treatment and disposal practices also affect water quality and water supplies. Wastewater 

from several of the CVP water service contractors (Folsom, San Juan Water District, and Sacramento 

County Water Agency) and the City of Sacramento and other surrounding unincorporated areas is 

collected by the local agencies and conveyed and treated by facilities owned and operated by Sacramento 

Regional County Sanitation District. The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District wastewater 

treatment plant is located near Freeport. Most of the effluent is discharged to the Sacramento River. A 

portion of effluent is used for wetlands restoration and water recycling. The operations of the wastewater 

treatment plant will be coordinated with the Freeport Regional Water Project to minimize conflicts 

between beneficial uses in the Sacramento River near Freeport. 

Wastewater from Roseville and portions of Placer County served by Placer County Water Agency and 

San Juan Water District, including South Placer Municipal Utility District (Loomis and Rocklin area), 

Placer County Sewer Maintenance District No. 2 (Granite Bay area), Placer County/Sunset Area (north of 

Roseville), Lincoln, Penryn, and Newcastle is treated at one of two Roseville treatment plants with 

effluent discharged to Dry Creek or Pleasant Grove Creek. Approximately 6,000 acre-feet/year will be 

recycled for irrigation of golf courses, parks, and other landscaped areas. 

Other areas served by Placer County Water Agency, including Auburn, also provide wastewater 

treatment. The City of Auburn wastewater treatment plant effluent is discharged to Auburn Ravine and 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-12 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

eventually flows into the Sacramento River about 19 miles upstream of the confluence with the American 

River. Many communities have implemented water recycling programs. 

Wastewater services in El Dorado Hills is provided by El Dorado Irrigation District. This district 

participates in extensive water recycling and conservation programs. 

Wastewater treatment in the East Bay Municipal Utility District water service area is either provided by 

East Bay Municipal Utility District or Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. East Bay Municipal Utility 

District provides wastewater services for Oakland, Piedmont, Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, 

and portions of Richmond. The wastewater treatment plant is located near the eastern end of the Bay 

Bridge and the effluent is discharged into the central bay. East Bay Municipal Utility District has 

implemented an extensive recycling program that provides water for irrigation and for toilet flushing 

water in office buildings. In other portions of the East Bay Municipal Utility District water service area, 

wastewater services are provided by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San Ramon Sanitary 

District, West County Sanitary District, City of San Leandro, and Ora Loma Sanitary District. These 

agencies also have implemented wastewater recycling programs. 

Response to Existing Reduction in Water Supply Reliability. During dry years when CVP 

water supplies are significantly reduced, current users of CVP water rely upon water rights, conjunctive 

use with groundwater, conservation, and/or recycling to meet water demands, as described above. 

Overuse of groundwater during long droughts could cause a serious overdraft. In areas where 

groundwater generally is not available, such as Folsom or East Bay Municipal Utility District, severe 

water conservation requirements have been implemented, such as limitation of outdoor irrigation and 

increasing water rates for users of large volumes of water. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on surface water resources are compared to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative represents the future conditions with contract 

renewals with most CVPIA provisions, as described in Chapter 2. CVP operations in the No Action 

Alternative are similar to operations described in the June 2004 OCAP report plus future operations 

described in American River Pump Station EIR/EIS that was completed by Reclamation and Placer 

County Water Agency. 

Overall water supply reliability in the No Action Alternative would be slightly less than under the 

Affected Environment conditions because water rights users located along the Sacramento and American 

rivers are projected to divert more water to serve projected municipal growth. As more water rights water 

is diverted, the CVP water service contract water reliability is reduced. 

Most of the water diverted for municipal uses is returned to the river systems as wastewater effluent and 

dry weather runoff. The hydrologic model used by Reclamation (CALSIM II) assumes that 55 percent of 

the municipal water diversion is used for indoor water use and 100 percent of that use is returned as 

wastewater. The model also assumes that of the 45 percent used for outdoor water use, 28.5 percent 

returns as runoff. However, municipal uses require an "all-year" diversion pattern. 

For the American River Division, the No Action Alternative conditions assume that conveyance facilities 

will be constructed to allow for full delivery of CVP water service contract water to Zone 40, Placer 

County Water Agency, and East Bay Municipal Utility District. The No Action Alternative also assumes 

full delivery of CVP water service contract water under Public Law 101-514 to Folsom and San Juan 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-13 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Water District. Contract amounts for CVP water service contractors in the American River Division under 

the No Action Alternative were discussed in Chapter 2 and are summarized in Table 4-1. The contract 

amounts are equal to existing contract amounts. 

Alternative 1. CVP water service contract amounts and CVP operations under Alternative 1 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative to surface waters as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. CVP contract amounts and water supply reliability under Alternative 2 would be identical 

to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter CVP operations, water 

storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum volume of water to delivered to the 

American Division as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

CVP water service contract rates paid by the contractor would be higher in some years than under the No 

Action Alternative, as described in later portions of this chapter. If CVP water service contractors choose 

to reduce the amount of CVP water deliveries, there may be additional water for use by other CVP water 

service contractors in some years. It is difficult to determine if individual users or water service 

contractors will react in this manner, therefore, it is difficult to predict the actual water resources 

conditions under Alternative 2. The minimum amount of CVP water available for deliveries to water 

service contractors would be identical to the No Action Alternative condition. 

TABLE 4-1 

2029 CVP WATER DELIVERY ASSUMPTIONS FOR AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

CVP Contractor No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 

Sacramento County Water 

Agency - Zone 40 

15,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514 contract 

Sacramento County Water 

Agency - Folsom 

7,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514 contract 

San Juan Water District 11,200 acre-feet under 1960 contract 

13,000 acre-feet under PL 101-514 contract 

Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District 

15,000 acre-feet 

Placer County Water Agency 35,000 acre-feet 

Roseville 32,000 acre-feet 

El Dorado Irrigation District 7,550 acre-feet 

East Bay Municipal Utility District up to 133,000 acre-feet/year and 165,000 acre-feet over three 

consecutive dry years per the Amendatory Contract 

However, if CVP water service contractors selected to not utilize CVP water due to the water rates under 

Alternative 2, additional water would be available to meet other obligations of the CVP. Because it is 

difficult to project how CVP water service contractors would respond to water rates under Alternative 2, a 

conservative approach was assumed with respect to surface water resources. Under a conservative 

approach, it was assumed that the water service contractors continued to utilize CVP water as under the 

No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts to surface waters as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-14 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Cumulative Effects 

The long-term contract renewals in the American River Division would not result in cumulative adverse 

impacts to surface water resources, quality, or facilities when considered in combination with future 

projects. These issues were evaluated as part of the PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. 

For example, Reclamation completed the Draft Eastside/Westside Water Transfer/Exchange EA for 

approval of annual exchange/transfer(s) of up to 150,000 acre-feet of CVP water between CVP 

contractors through an internal exchange of SWP water by the Kern County Water Agency. This process 

would be in effect for five years, between March 2001 and February 2006. 

Another program was completed by the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors for the temporary water 

transfers for water years 2000 through 2005 with Department of the Interior and other agricultural users. 

These temporary water transfers, limited to 84,000 acre-feet/year, are needed to optimize the use of 

limited existing water resources for both agriculture and fish and wildlife resources. The Department of 

the Interior would use the water to provide wildlife refuges with Level 4 water supplies. 

These types of programs would modify water supply reliability of specific users involved in the projects, 

but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within the historical ranges. 

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Groundwater is used in portions of the American River Division. This section focuses on groundwater 

resources affected by CVP operations of the American River Division. 

Affected Environment

The information presented below is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for 

Reclamation, the Water Forum, and local agencies. 

Groundwater Use in Portions of Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. Alluvium 

deposits can be found throughout the Sacramento Valley basin in the form of alluvial fans, stream channel 

deposits, and flood plain deposits. These vast deposits are the source of most of the groundwater pumped 

in the Sacramento Valley, including the American River watershed. Depth to the base of usable 

freshwater ranges from 1,000 feet near the base of the foothills to 3,000 feet in the downtown Sacramento 

area. 

The useable water in the aquifers under the American River Division are divided into a shallow aquifer 

zone and an underlying deeper aquifer zone. The deeper aquifer is separated from the shallow aquifer by a 

discontinuous clay lens. Groundwater wells withdraw from both aquifers. 

Aquifer recharge of the basin has historically occurred from deep percolation, infiltration from stream 

beds, and subsurface inflow along basin boundaries. Most of the recharge in the American River 

watershed occurs along the foothills. Groundwater historically has seeped from the aquifer to the 

American and Cosumnes rivers in portions of the American River Division. However, there are portions 

of the watershed with overdraft conditions in which groundwater flows from the rivers to the adjacent 

groundwater. There are three areas of significant overdraft in the American River Division. In northern 

Sacramento County, groundwater use has increased significantly over the past 50 years as urban areas 

grew. Similar cones of depression have occurred in the vicinity of Zone 40 and in the Galt area. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-15 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Groundwater availability is severely limited due to the presence of bedrock and related geological 

conditions near and within Folsom; central Placer County east of Roseville; and throughout El Dorado 

County. 

Groundwater quality in the American River Division is relatively good. The lower aquifer has poorer 

water quality than the upper aquifer due to seepage of constituents from agricultural and urban activities. 

Elevated levels of iron and manganese occur in the area south of the City of Sacramento. High levels of 

iron and manganese do not pose a health hazard but may result in odor, taste, and color problems and 

staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry. Local treatment is provided for some groundwater. Arsenic and 

radon have also been measured in the groundwater in the study area, although not at levels exceeding the 

current drinking water standards. Degradation of groundwater quality in Sacramento County can occur as 

groundwater levels decline and potential in-migration of poorer quality groundwater from the deeper 

aquifer occurs. 

Areas with identified contamination are located in some portions of the study area. Four sites have been 

designated as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites: Aerojet Corporation, Mather Air 

Force Base, McClellan Air Force Base, and Sacramento Army Depot. Contamination has also been 

identified at and near the Kiefer Landfill in southeast Sacramento County, a historic Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company site near Old Sacramento, Southern Pacific Railroad yards in downtown Sacramento 

and in Roseville, and the Union Pacific Railroad yard in Sacramento south of U.S. Highway 50. A portion 

of the contamination from the Aerojet Corporation site has adversely affected water quality near Rancho 

Cordova and was recently discovered in wells north of the American River within the Carmichael Water 

District. Therefore, the wells serving the Rancho Cordova area will be abandoned and a portion of the

Sacramento County Water Agency surface water supply will be used to serve this area, along with 

remediated groundwater captured as part of the Sacramento County Water Agency proposed Replacement 

Water Supply Project. 

Groundwater in East Bay Municipal Utility District. Six primary Coastal Basin aquifers are 

located in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area: the San Ramon (under Alamo, Danville, 

and San Ramon), Richmond (between San Pablo Bay and Berkeley), Ygnacio and Clayton Valley 

(extends from under Walnut Creek to along Suisun Bay), Castro Valley (north of Hayward), and South 

East Bay Plain basins (from the Hayward fault to beneath San Francisco Bay). The basins have similar 

morphology and a Mediterranean climate. All are structural depressions formed by folding and faulting, 

all are filled with marine and alluvial sediments, and all are drained by streams that contain water at least 

part of the year. Seawater intrusion is common. 

Groundwater use in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area is limited by several factors, 

including the effects of saltwater intrusion and contamination in shallow aquifers on groundwater quality 

and the availability of higher quality imported surface water. Groundwater is currently not used by East 

Bay Municipal Utility District for municipal supplies. Freshwater wells in the East Bay Municipal Utility 

District service area are used for agricultural and industrial users. Alameda County Water District located 

south of East Bay Municipal Utility District is using brackish groundwater for municipal water supplies 

following treatment with membrane technology. East Bay Municipal Utility District is currently 

considering groundwater storage of water supplies from local runoff. This concept is being evaluated in 

separate technical and environmental analyses. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on surface water resources are compared to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-16 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative represents the future conditions with contract 

renewals with most CVPIA provisions. Surface water supply reliability in the future would be slightly 

less than under Affected Environment conditions because water rights users located along the Sacramento 

and American rivers are projected to divert more water in the future to serve projected municipal growth. 

As more water rights water is diverted, the water available for CVP water use is reduced. Therefore, 

groundwater use by many CVP water service contractors will be higher than under the existing 

conditions. 

Under the No Action Alternative, groundwater use would be reduced as compared to the existing 

conditions due to the implementation of conjunctive use programs in Sacramento County and completion 

of facilities for maximizing delivery of CVP water to Zone 40 and Placer County Water Agency. 

Groundwater would be used to a greater extent in these areas during drier years, however, the conjunctive 

use programs and planned groundwater recharge facilities are expected to result in a net reduction in 

groundwater overdraft. These facilities have been evaluated under separate environmental documentation 

for Sacramento County Water Agency and Placer County Water Agency. There would be no change in 

groundwater conditions in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area. 

Alternative 1. CVP contract amounts, water supply reliability, and uses by American River CVP 

contractors under Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, there would be no changes or environmental impacts of this alternative to groundwater under 

Alternative 1 as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. CVP contract amounts, water supply reliability, and uses by American River CVP 

contractors under Alternative 2 would be identical, to conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, there would be no changes or environmental impacts of this alternative to groundwater under 

Alternative 2 as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The long-term contract renewals in the American River Division would not result in cumulative adverse 

impacts to groundwater resources, quality, or facilities when considered in combination with future 

projects. These issues were evaluated as part of the PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability and reduce the need 

for groundwater withdrawals. These types of programs will modify water supply reliability but not 

change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within the historical ranges under any of the 

alternatives. 

A program designed to offset potential cumulative effects was recently tested. Reclamation cooperated in 

a pilot program with the Sacramento Groundwater Authority in 2002 to test the capability of their 

member agencies to make water available through in-lieu groundwater use as contemplated in their plans 

for limiting diversions in dry years consistent with the Water Forum proposal. Wholesale recipients of 

water from San Juan Water District (Fair Oaks Water District and Orangevale Water District) have the 

capability to pump groundwater. These wells were historically used at times when surface supplies were 

not sufficient to meet their needs and to supplement peak demands. The Fair Oaks and Orangevale water 

districts used these supplies beyond what they normally used in-lieu of taking the wholesale supplies from 

San Juan Water District. San Juan Water District, in-turn, reduced diversion of water from Folsom 

Reservoir thereby making it available to the Environmental Water Account (EWA) in Folsom Reservoir. 

Arrangements were then made to release the water from Folsom for the EWA in the fall to help support 

spawning flows for fall-run chinook salmon and replace exports from the Delta previously forgone to 

modify the Delta fisheries conditions. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-17 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND SOCIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The information presented below is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for 

Reclamation, Water Forum Proposal, and federal, state, and local agencies. Land use for a region is 

described for communities either served by CVP water or within the vicinity of communities served by 

CVP water, such as communities considered in the Water Forum Proposal. 

For each existing CVP water service contractor, information was compiled from the California 

Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 

Program (2000) and was compared to land use, population, and sociological resource (housing and 

employment) projections developed by local agencies within the CVP service area. 

Affected Environment

The information presented below concerning land use, demographics, and sociological resources is 

primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for local agencies, the Sacramento Area 

Water Forum, California Department of Conservation, U.S. Census Bureau, and Reclamation. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom encompasses 15,160 acres of land including portions of Folsom 

Lake. On the northwestern side of the American River, the City extends from the Placer County line to 

the intersection of Madison Avenue and Greenback Lane. On the southeastern side of the American 

River, the city extends south from the El Dorado County line to the U.S. Highway 50/Folsom Boulevard 

interchange at Museum Flat. 

Existing land uses in the city include: approximately 1,700 acres of residential; 180 acres of commercial; 

150 acres of industrial; 350 acres of schools; 220 acres of parks; 850 acres of open space; 850 acres at 

Folsom Prison; 10,850 acres of undeveloped areas and other uses. Areas adjacent to the city include 

undeveloped areas and industrial uses. 

The City of Folsom General Plan identifies the following planned land uses within the city limits and on 

adjacent areas that would be served by Folsom services: 6,132 acres of residential; 3,030 acres of open 

space; 1,531 acres of industrial; 1,410 acres of water uses; 1,329 acres of commercial; 848 acres for the 

prison; 580 acres of schools; and 300 acres of parks. Almost 3,600 acres of land south of Highway 50 

were added to the city's Sphere of Influence in 2001. 

The area to be served by CVP water service contract water is located on the southeastern section of the 

city (known as the Folsom East Area). This area consists of approximately 3,657 acres identified for 

urban, agriculture, and open space land uses. 

Between 1980 and 1990, the population of Folsom more than doubled, from 11,003 to 29,802. The city's 

Resolution 2784 sets a growth cap of 69,333 people, representing the 2010 buildout population estimated 

in the General Plan. As of January 1, 2002, the City estimated its population at 53,691 (excluding 

prisoners at Folsom Prison). According to the 2002 City of Folsom General Plan Housing Element, the 

total number of housing units in 2000 was 17,436, composed of 13,511 single-family units, 3,041 

multi-family units, and 884 mobile homes. 

The City of Folsom has an economy based on many sectors, including services that support the 

community, Folsom Prison, small and medium-sized businesses, several corporations involved in the 

development and manufacturing of electronic components, and several large retail/commercial centers. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-18 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Sacramento County. Sacramento County is responsible for land use in the unincorporated areas of 

two CVP water service contractors: San Juan Water District and Sacramento County Water Agency. 

Urban uses are distributed within the 636,083-acre area of Sacramento County surrounding and including 

the City of Sacramento. Agricultural and rural residential land uses are primarily located south and east of 

Elk Grove-Florin Road, south of Cosumnes River, near Folsom and Rio Linda, and in the northernmost 

portion of the county along the county line. 

In 2000, Sacramento County contained lands identified as Prime Farmland (116,116 acres) and Farmland 

of Statewide Importance (62,650 acres). Prime Farmland is defined by the California Department of 

Conservation as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain longterm agricultural production. Farmland of Statewide Importance is defined as land that is similar to Prime 

Farmland, except that it has greater slopes or lower moisture storage capacity. As of 2001, there were 

approximately 176,632 acres of land in Sacramento County enrolled in Williamson Act contracts. Prime 

Farmland in Sacramento County within the American River Division is concentrated in the North 

Natomas areas and along the Cosumnes River floodplain. 

In 2000, Sacramento County included approximately 636,083 acres: 396,464 acres of farmland (irrigated 

and non-irrigated); 157,157 acres of urban uses including residential, industrial, recreational, commercial 

and office, and urban reserve; 64,209 acres of other uses; and 18,253 acres of water. The Sacramento 

County General Plan planned land uses for unincorporated Sacramento County in 2010 include the 

following: 220,000 acres of agriculture; 151,000 acres of residential; 22,000 acres of industrial; 10,000 

acres of recreation; 23,000 acres of commercial and office; and 18,000 acres of urban reserve. 

The 30,298-acre San Juan Water District includes a portion of the unincorporated Sacramento County 

area and portions of the incorporated communities of Folsom and Citrus Heights. 

Citrus Heights was incorporated in 1997. Citrus Heights is located in northeast Sacramento County, just 

south of the Placer County boundary. The City of Citrus Heights is comprised of approximately 14 square 

miles. As of 2000, the city was approximately 95 percent built out. 

In 1998, the entire Sacramento County Water Agency service area consisted of approximately 83,375 

acres with about 17,000 acres of urban land and 66,375 acres of agriculture or open space. Urban uses 

would increase to about 47,320 acres and agriculture/open spaces would decrease to 36,055 acres. In 

2003, Sacramento County Water Agency prepared a Draft EIR for Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan. 

This document describes that the use of CVP water in Zone 40 would be consistent with the general plans 

of Sacramento County and the cities of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova (incorporated in 2000 and 2003, 

respectively). Both of these cities are currently using the Sacramento General Plan until separate plans 

can be developed. 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the 2001 population at 1,268,770 for Sacramento County. It is 

projected that Sacramento County will have a population of 1,459,952 in the year 2010 representing a 40 

percent increase over 1990. More than half of the increase in population is projected to result from 

residential development within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. The unincorporated areas 

of Sacramento County currently have 62 percent of the regional population. 

In 2000, Sacramento County civilian employment was estimated at 580,100. The estimated housing stock 

in 2001 was estimated at 480,497. The median home price in December 2000 was $175,000. Persons per 

household in 2000 were estimated at 2.64. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Although Sacramento Municipal Utility District's contract 

does not specify a particular area in which CVP water must be used, the water delivered under the 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-19 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

existing contract has historically been used at the 2,829-acre Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

property known as Rancho Seco, which is located in southeast Sacramento County east of the town of 

Clay. The property's land use is designated as Public/Quasi-Public overlain with a Resource Conservation 

Area designation. It is zoned AG-80 (permanent agriculture with a 80-acre minimum parcel size). Public 

parks and ancillary uses, including the lake at Rancho Seco, are considered a permitted use in agricultural 

zones. Lands surrounding the site are also designated and zoned for agricultural use, with lands to the 

north, south, and east zoned for 80-acre minimum parcel sizes under the Williamson Act and lands to the 

southwest zoned for agricultural and residential use (5-acre minimum parcel size). The Rancho Seco 

Nuclear Generating Station, operated between 1974 and 1989, and is currently undergoing 

decommissioning, which is expected to be mostly complete in 2008. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District is currently developing approximately 35 acres at the Rancho Seco 

site for a natural gas-fired power plant. It is anticipated that the existing conditions will be maintained on 

the site with only minor development of the industrial portions of the site for the new power plant. 

City of Roseville. Roseville's Planning Area includes approximately 20,045 acres of incorporated land 

plus an additional 4,378 acres that are outside of the city limits, but within the city's sphere of influence. 

The city has designated the following planned land uses on 17,650 acres of incorporated land: 8,281 acres 

of residential; 1,784 acres of commercial; 931 acres of office; 2,042 acres of industrial; and 4,612 acres of 

other uses (public/parks/open space). In addition, there are 1,028 acres of road and highway rights-of-way 

and easements, and 183 acres for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant. Roseville also has the 

largest active rail yard in the western states. 

The population of Roseville in 1992 was 50,308. The California Department of Finance estimates the 

January 1, 2002 city population at 85,800. 

As of the third quarter of 1990, Roseville had an employment base of approximately 22,030 jobs. The 

highest 1990 employment sector was commercial, followed by office employment, and industrial 

activities. 

In 1991, there were an estimated 18,901 dwelling units in Roseville. The average household size, based 

on the 1990 Census, was 2.54 persons per household. Vacancy rates for housing in Roseville varied 

between 5.39 percent and 7.54 percent between 1980 and 1991. 

Placer County. Placer County includes approximately 1,500 square miles, or 960,090 acres. A portion 

of southwestern Placer County is currently served by water from the American River by Placer County 

Water Agency. Additional unincorporated areas west of Roseville and Rocklin and near Sheridan could 

be served American River water by Placer County Water Agency. This area is primarily agricultural with 

lot sizes of at least 40 acres/parcel. 

As of 2000, approximately 19 percent of Placer County's total land area was devoted to agricultural use. 

Most of the County's agricultural activities are located within southwestern Placer County. As of 2001, 

there were 44,745 acres of land enrolled in Williamson Act contracts. 

Placer County's 1994 General Plan Update projected that by 2044, most of the county's new development 

will occur within the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and Auburn. It is estimated that, in 2000, 

Placer County included 41,448 acres of urban uses and 180,472 acres of agriculture or open space land 

uses. As of 2003, Placer County Water Agency’s service area included 132,779 acres. Placer County 

Water Agency in 1998 included 25,250 acres of urban uses and 107,429 acres of agricultural and open 

space uses. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-20 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The City of Rocklin was incorporated in 1893. The planning area for the City of Rocklin is 21 square 

miles, which includes the 12-square-mile area within the city limits. Approximately 47 percent of the 

acreage within the planning area is designated residential; eight percent is commercial; nine percent is 

industrial; 12 percent is recreation/conservation; four percent is public/quasi-public; and 20 percent is 

planning reserve. 

The City of Auburn included 4,830 acres in 1992. The city’s proposed sphere of influence in 1992 was 

17,700 acres. Existing land uses in 1992 include approximately 20 percent residential, four percent 

commercial, one percent industrial, five percent public/quasi-public, seven percent for streets, and 61 

percent vacant land. 

The City of Lincoln is currently updating the 1988 General Plan. The planning area comprises 

approximately 19,500 acres, including approximately 4,000 acres within the city limits. Approximately 

19 percent of the planning area is designated residential; 19 percent is designated industrial; two percent 

is designated commercial; six percent is designated parks and public facilities/schools; 24 percent is 

designated urban reserve; and 30 percent is designated agricultural. 

The Town of Loomis was incorporated in 1984. This community has a rural character with large 

residential lots, a downtown area, and open space. 

The California Department of Finance estimated the County population as of January 1, 2002 County 

population at 265,700. 

In 2000, Placer County labor force consisted of 124,800 people and the unemployment rate was 3.2 

percent. Employment opportunities in Placer County exist within all economic sectors. Employment 

sectors in the county which were expected to grow include retail trade, construction, and manufacturing. 

As of 2000, civilian employment was estimated at 120,800. 

The estimated housing stock in 1990 was 77,879, composed of single-family units (61,482), multi-family 

units (10,821), and mobile homes and trailers (5,576). In 2001, the housing stock was estimated at 

111,075. The median home price in December 2000 was $251,000. Persons per household in 2000 were 

estimated at 2.63. The average household size in Placer County between 1990 and 2000 was 2.7 persons. 

El Dorado County. Land use planning in El Dorado County has been guided by several planning 

documents, most recently the 2004 General Plan. This general plan was prepared in response to litigation 

following the adoption of a general plan in 1996. Several alternatives were evaluated in an Environmental 

Impact Report. The preferred alternative was a modified version of the 1996 General Plan Alternative. 

The land use pattern in western El Dorado County generally concentrates urban uses in the vicinity of the 

U.S. Highway 50 corridor in the portion of the County west of Camino. The portion of the El Dorado 

Irrigation District service area that uses CVP water service contract is located in Market Area No. 1 (El 

Dorado Hills). The City of Placerville is the only incorporated city in western El Dorado County. Many 

small towns exist throughout the rural areas of the county, providing a range of commercial services and 

residential densities. 

Market Area No. 1 in the 2004 General Plan includes 28,287 acres characterized by residential, 

commercial, a large business park, and several institutional developments. There are no prime agricultural 

lands in Market Area No. 1. Planning for the area was completed prior to adoption of the 1996 general 

plan. There are six specific plans that address the area served by CVP water service contract water. The 

Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan was approved in 1987 and the area is mostly built-out. Future 

development will be guided by the following specific plans. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-21 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

• Valley View Specific Plan: 2,837 acres with 2,840 dwelling units 

• El Dorado Hills Specific Plan: 3,646 acres with 4,481 dwelling units 

• Bass Lake Hills Specific Plan: 1,166 acres with 1,025 dwelling units 

• The Promontory Specific Plan: 1,000 acres with 1,097 dwelling units 

• The Carson Creek Specific Plan: 1,000 acres with 1,470 dwelling units 

Each plan has completed an Environmental Impact Report and has incorporated measures for protection 

of natural resources such as wetlands, heritage trees, native woodlands, and special status species. The 

Open Space element of these plans specify avoidance and mitigation measures such as buffers and 

setbacks, habitat enhancement, and habitat compensation in order to conserve and protect sensitive 

resources in the planning area. The 2004 General Plan slightly modified several portions of the Carson 

Creek and El Dorado Hills specific plans to slightly reduce development and slightly increase natural 

resource areas. 

The 2004 General Plan indicates that the 2002 county population was 163,585 with 129,396 located in the 

western unincorporated area of the county. The 2004 General Plan indicates that Market Area No. 1, El 

Dorado Hills, had 5,805 housing units in 1999 and supports 5,000 jobs. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. The 259,313-acre East Bay Municipal Utility District service 

area includes portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties could be served by CVP water service 

contract water. East Bay Municipal Utility District-owned lands within the service area have a number of 

uses. The service area in Alameda County includes the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, 

Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro, part of Hayward, and the unincorporated communities of San 

Lorenzo, Cherryland, Fairview, and Castro Valley. The service area in Contra Costa County includes the 

Orinda, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon communities. 

 

The population in Alameda County in 2000 was 1,454,300. The Contra Costa County population totaled 

948,816 persons in 2000. Much of these populations is served by other water suppliers than East Bay 

Municipal Utility District. 

In 2000, the civilian labor force in Alameda County was estimated to be 740,400, and the unemployment 

rate was three percent. The services industry is the County’s largest sector, followed by retail trade, 

government, and manufacturing. In 2000, the civilian labor force in Contra Costa County was estimated 

to be 505,100, and the unemployment rate was 2.7 percent. Sectors in the employment base are primarily 

in services because of an increasing local population and companies moving into the region. 

In 2001, the housing stock in Alameda County was estimated to be 543,680. In 2001, the median home 

price in Alameda County was $364,000. In 2001, total housing stock in Contra Costa County was 

estimated to be 357,028. In 2000, the median home price in Contra Costa County was $267,800. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on land uses, population, and sociological resources are compared to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, it is anticipated that growth would continue 

to occur as described in the county general plans, projections by the Department of Finance, and 

environmental impact reports prepared for Sacramento County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, 

Placer County Water Agency, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and Reclamation. The environmental 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-22 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

impact reports and the recent general plans, including the 2004 El Dorado County General Plan, assume 

water supply conditions that are included in the OCAP proposal and the No Action Alternative. 

It should be noted that use of CVP long-term water service contracts is not the sole factor driving growth 

and land use change. Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, independent of the long-term 

contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and indirect effects to land use that are beyond 

the range of Reclamation’s responsibilities. With little exception, virtually all of the long-term contract 

renewal actions are within the range of existing conditions. This includes the area of use, types of use, 

range of river flows, and reservoir fluctuations. 

In some instances the responsibility to address affects to land uses would be with the local government as 

part of their California Environmental Quality Act compliance for their actions. For example, 

Reclamation is not responsible for the development of housing tracts or industrial development in a 

community. Such actions are approved locally and at the state level (However, other federal agencies, 

such as Housing and Urban Development, may be involved.). Further, if a farmer changes from one 

irrigated crop to another because of economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s 

decision. On the other hand, Reclamation would need to consider the effects to land uses when 

Reclamation approves new lands being brought into an irrigation district and when Reclamation approves

a change in use. Any such approvals would require independent analysis and environmental 

documentation. 

Alternative 1. Land use and water supply facilities operations in the American River Division under 

Alternative 1 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no 

environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Land use and water supply facilities operations in the American River Division under 

Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no 

environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The long-term contract renewals in the American River Division would not result in cumulative adverse 

impacts to land use resources when considered in combination with future projects. These issues were 

evaluated as part of the PEIS and other environmental documents completed for the local agencies and 

Reclamation. That analysis indicated that future projects, including future water transfer projects, may 

improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of programs would modify water supply reliability but 

not change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within the historical ranges. Therefore, 

land use would not change under any of the alternatives. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SUPPLY COSTS

The cost and availability of CVP water can lead to changes in water supply costs, agricultural economics, 

and regional economics. CVP water service contracts for many of the American River Division 

contractors provide only part of the total water supplies. Therefore, it is difficult to specifically identify 

how CVP water reliability and water supply costs would cause changes in communities. CVP water is the 

sole source of water supply for that portion of Folsom served with CVP water service contract water and 

for the City of Roseville. 

The CVP water service contracts for Sacramento County Water Agency (including Zone 40 and Folsom), 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, El Dorado Irrigation District, and East Bay Municipal Utility 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-23 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

District are only for M&I water supplies. Existing contracts for Roseville and San Juan Water District are 

for agricultural and M&I water supplies. All renewed contracts will be for M&I purposes only. 

The CVPIA PEIS economic analysis included use of CVP water in the American River Division, 

specifically the Sacramento metropolitan area, which also included the cities of Folsom and Roseville. 

The M&I economic analysis and the regional economic analysis for East Bay Municipal Utility District 

was aggregated into the analysis of the overall San Francisco Bay Area which relies significantly on nonCVP water sources and costs. This EIS provides more specific details regarding the cost of CVP water to 

American River Division users. 

Affected Environment

The cost of CVP water includes the cost to repay the construction cost of CVP facilities based upon a 

percentage of use by the specific water service contractor, the operation and maintenance costs, and 

Restoration Fund. The repayment cost is periodically reviewed to determine if adequate funds are being 

collected to repay the project costs within a given time frame. Operation and maintenance costs are 

reviewed annually to reflect actual costs. The Restoration Fund payment was established by CVPIA. 

The repayment cost is recovered under several provisions of federal Reclamation Law. The Cost of 

Service cost is based upon the repayment cost without interest. This was the cost that most agricultural 

contractors pay for CVP water under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. Agricultural contractors that 

use CVP water to irrigate large parcels or met other criteria pay the repayment cost with interest. This is 

referred to as Full Cost. Municipal and industrial users pay the repayment cost with an interest rate that is 

lower than Full Cost interest rate. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom would use the CVP water obtained under subcontract with 

Sacramento County Water Agency for M&I users in the Folsom East area. The CVP cost of service rate 

for the Sacramento County Water Agency M&I water service contract was $19.02 per acre-foot in 2004. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures and the city may purchase water from other agencies that 

use American River water. These costs could increase the overall cost of water. 

San Juan Water District. San Juan Water District combines CVP water with water rights water 

diverted from Folsom Lake and served to the M&I users. The CVP water represents about 40 percent of 

the total water supplies in wetter years and about 30 percent in drier years. Water rights water includes 

water rights held by San Juan Water District and a portion of the water rights held by Placer County 

Water Agency that are delivered under a contract with San Juan Water District. Cost to convey, treat, and 

distribute both water supplies from Folsom Lake is identical. However, the water rights water is provided 

from Folsom Lake at no cost. The CVP cost of service rate for San Juan Water District M&I water service 

contract was $22.64 per acre-foot in 2004. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures, the district may rely upon water rights water, and the 

district may purchase water from other agencies that use American River water. Conservation measures 

and the purchase of water during dry periods could increase the overall cost of water. 

Zone 40. The Sacramento County Water Agency would provide a supplemental water supply to M&I 

water users. The CVP water could provide more than 30 percent of the total water supply in the future. 

Deliveries of CVP water to this area would require payment for the water service contract water, but 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-24 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

would decrease the cost of pumping groundwater. The CVP cost of service rate for the Sacramento 

County Water Agency M&I water service contract was $19.02/acre-foot in 2004. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures and rely upon groundwater or the Sacramento County Water 

Agency could purchase water from other agencies that use American River water. Conservation 

measures, use of groundwater, or the purchase of water during dry periods could increase the overall cost 

of water. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento Municipal Utility District currently combines 

CVP water with water rights water diverted from the Folsom South Canal for use on the Rancho Seco 

property. Cost to convey, treat, and distribute both water supplies from the Folsom South Canal is 

identical. However, unlike the CVP water which has a capital component, the cost of the water rights 

water is limited to the cost for the CVP to divert the water from the American River at Nimbus and 

convey the water through the Folsom South Canal (the operational costs of conveying the water). The 

CVP cost of service rate for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District M&I water service contract was 

$70.17 per acre-foot in 2004. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District would implement conservation measures and may purchase water from other agencies that 

use American River water. These costs could increase the overall cost of water. 

City of Roseville. Roseville uses CVP water to serve M&I users. The cost of water for Roseville 

depends upon the cost of the CVP water service contract water provided from Folsom Lake. The CVP 

cost of service rate for the Roseville M&I water service contract was $20.09 per acre-foot in 2004. 

Additional water supplies include recycled water and non-CVP water purchased from Placer County 

Water Agency. Roseville purchases up to 22,000 acre-feet from Placer County Water Agency. In 

addition, Roseville is considering negotiating with Placer County Water Agency for an additional 10,000 

acre-feet of water. The City would need a Warren Act contract to convey at least a portion of this 

non-CVP water through CVP facilities. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures and the city may purchase water from other agencies that 

use American River water, such as Placer County Water Agency. These costs could increase the overall 

cost of water. 

Placer County Water Agency. The Placer County Water Agency would combine the CVP water with 

water rights water diverted from the American River. Use of water from the American River will increase 

as growth in southwestern Placer County increases. The CVP water could represent 20 to 50 percent of 

the total water supply diverted by Placer County Water Agency from the American River, but 

approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total surface water supplies. Currently, there are no deliveries to 

Placer County Water Agency until delivery facilities are constructed in accordance with the analysis 

completed in previous environmental documentation. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures or rely upon groundwater, the agency may solely rely upon 

water rights water, and the agency may purchase water from other agencies that use American River 

water. Conservation measures, use of groundwater, and the purchase of water during dry periods could 

increase the overall cost of water. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-25 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

El Dorado Irrigation District. El Dorado Irrigation District combines CVP water with water rights 

water diverted from Folsom Lake and served to the M&I users. The CVP water represents about 20 

percent of the total water supplies in wetter years and about 30 percent in drier years. The CVP cost of 

service rate for El Dorado Irrigation District water service contract was $25.83 per acre-foot in 2004. 

During periods when CVP water supply deficiencies occur on the American River, users would 

implement individual conservation measures, the district may rely upon water rights water, and the 

district may purchase water from other agencies that use American River water. Conservation measures 

and the purchase of water during dry periods could increase the overall cost of water. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. East Bay Municipal Utility District would divert CVP water in 

dry years as a supplemental supply to the Mokelumne River water rights water. East Bay Municipal 

Utility District has been making annual payments to Reclamation pursuant to the terms of the CVP 

contract signed in 1970 until the execution of the Amendatory Contract signed in 2001. The Amendatory 

Contract provides that East Bay Municipal Utility District pay only for CVP water delivered to the 

district. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on CVP Water Costs and Regional Economics are compared to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, the tiered pricing program of the CVPIA 

PEIS Preferred Alternative was applied. The unit costs of CVP water service contract water were 

calculated using tiered pricing to the entire contract amount, as described in Chapter 2. 

Alternative 1. The costs under Alternative 1 would be identical to those under the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. The water costs under Alternative 2 would be higher than the water costs under the No 

Action Alternative. This analysis assumes that contractors blend the price of all CVP water under tiered 

rates. Water deliveries from the CVPIA PEIS preferred alternative were used. These deliveries were 

allocated on a yearly basis into pricing tiers and categories. Blended prices were calculated for each year, 

with quantities in each tier and category based on the previous five years of delivery. In any given year, 

the quantity and blended price of water depends on the 6-year sequence leading up to and including the 

current year. A total of nine water supply sequences were assessed. 

• Average-Average: Average water year following 5-years of average years 

• Wet-Average: Average water year following 5-years of wet years 

• Dry-Average: Average water year following 5-years of dry years 

• Average-Wet: Wet water year following 5-years of average years 

• Wet-Wet: Wet water year following 5-years of wet years 

• Dry-Wet: Wet water year following 5-years of dry years 

• Average-Dry: Dry water year following 5-years of average years 

• Wet-Dry: Dry water year following 5-years of wet years 

• Dry-Dry: Dry water year following 5-years of dry years 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-26 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

For most year types, the cost of water would be higher under Alternative 2 than under the No Action 

Alternative. Increased treatment costs for CVP water as compared to groundwater also would be 

considered by users of CVP water when selecting a water supply. Because CVP water costs are only part 

of the overall water supply cost, it is difficult to specifically identify the response by agricultural, 

municipal, and industrial users. It has been suggested by some stakeholders that if CVP water is too 

expensive, then users may rely upon other water supplies, such as groundwater or water transfers. Recent 

water transfers have cost less than $100/acre-foot to more than $300/acre-foot. 

Higher water costs would also affect fixed income or low-income residential and commercial users. Their 

reaction to the higher costs may be to reduce water use to a level that is less than appropriate under public 

health and safety codes. Middle-income users may determine that water costs are too high to maintain 

irrigated landscapes, and therefore, replace these features with hardscape. This could reduce employment 

in landscaping contractors which are a part of the service sector in the economy. 

It is unclear if there would be increased groundwater withdrawals in response to increased CVP water 

costs. If this occurs on a long-term basis, there would be no change in land use or regional economics, 

however, there would be a change in groundwater use. If CVP water were continued to be used, there 

would be an economic impact on CVP users as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division on water supply costs were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that 

future projects, including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability but 

would increase water costs. These types of programs would modify water supply reliability but not 

change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within the historical ranges. Projected costs 

for other water supplies, including water transfers, are similar to the calculated costs under Alternative 2, 

and therefore, water use would probably not change from that projected under existing plans. The costs 

under Alternative 1 are less than those projected for other water supplies, such as recycled water or 

desalination, and therefore would probably not either encourage or discourage use of the other supplies. 

FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT

Aquatic resources potentially affected by the project are associated with streams and lakes in the upper 

American River Basin (above Folsom Lake), Folsom Lake, Lake Natoma, the Lower American River, 

Cirby and Linda creeks, the Sacramento River, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). 

Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of fish resources and aquatic habitats that occur within these areas. 

This information was based upon studies completed by the local agencies, CDFG, Reclamation, the 

Service, NOAA Fisheries, and specific researchers referenced below. 

Upper American River Basin. Several storage reservoirs have been constructed in the upper basin 

upstream of Folsom Lake, providing a variety of lake environments interspersed with stream 

environments throughout the upper American River Basin. 

The North Fork American River above Folsom Lake contains both free-flowing stream habitat and 

reservoir habitat (Lake Clementine) that are suitable for warmwater fish production. Although coldwater 

species (e.g., trout) are present, low flows and high temperatures during the summer favor warmwater fish 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-27 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

production. Cooler water temperatures exist in the Middle Fork American River during the summer and 

fall, and provide more favorable conditions for coldwater species. Both warmwater and coldwater species 

are found in the Middle Fork American River. The South Fork American River provides aquatic habitats 

similar to those found in the North Fork American River. High water temperatures during the summer and 

fall may limit production of coldwater species. 

Native species that occur in the upper basin include hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), Sacramento sucker 

(Catostomus occidentalis), riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus) and Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus 

grandis). Several warmwater species have been introduced in the upper basin, including smallmouth bass 

(Micropterus dolomieu), bullhead (Ictalurus spp.), and several varieties of sunfish (Lepomis spp.). The 

upper basin's coldwater sport species include introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Brown trout and rainbow trout were stocked in the past, and a population of 

brown trout remains although they are no longer stocked. Rainbow trout are stocked into streams and 

reservoirs in the upper basin at a variety of sizes. These trout are stream spawners, and therefore, do not 

reproduce within the reservoirs. However, some spawning by these species may occur in the stream 

sections above the reservoirs. 

Folsom Lake. Folsom Lake is characterized by strong thermal stratification, which generally begins in 

April following the spring snowmelt runoff period and extends into November when inflow becomes 

influenced by winter rains. Thermal stratification establishes a warm surface water layer, a middle water 

layer (the thermocline) characterized by rapidly decreasing temperature with increasing depth, and a 

bottom, coldwater layer within the reservoir. In terms of aquatic habitat, the warm upper layer of Folsom 

Lake provides habitat for warmwater fishes, whereas the reservoir's lower layers form a "coldwater pool" 

that provides habitat for coldwater fish species throughout the summer and fall portions of the year. 

Hence, Folsom Lake supports a two-story fishery during the stratified portion of the year, with 

warmwater species using the upper, warmwater layer and coldwater species using the deeper, colder 

portion of the reservoir. During the winter rainy season and spring runoff period, high inflows contribute 

to a mixed reservoir condition with a more uniform temperature profile. 

Native species that occur in the reservoir include hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus) and 

Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis). However, introduced largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), bluegill 

(Lepomis machrochirus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.) constitute the primary 

warmwater sport fisheries of Folsom Lake. The reservoir's coldwater sport species include brown trout 

(Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Brown trout were stocked into the reservoir in the past, and 

a population of brown trout remains although they are no longer stocked. Rainbow trout are stocked into 

Folsom Lake by Department of Fish and Game at multiple sizes, including catchable size (2 fish/pound). 

Kokanee salmon are stocked as fingerlings. Chinook salmon reared at the Feather River Hatchery are 

stocked into Folsom Lake as part of Department of Fish and Game Inland Chinook Salmon Program. 

Trout and salmon are stream spawners, and therefore, do not reproduce within the reservoir. However, 

some spawning by one or more of these species may occur in the American River upstream of Folsom 

Lake. 

Folsom Lake is usually subject to substantial reductions in surface elevation from late spring and summer 

until inflows increase during the winter rainy season and during the spring runoff period. Fluctuations in 

water-surface elevation that occur during nesting periods can result in nest abandonment and adversely 

affect both spawning and juvenile survival of some resident warmwater fish species. Periods of concern 

vary among species depending on the spawning period. Largemouth and smallmouth bass spawn 

primarily in April and May, while peak spawning for sunfish and catfish generally occurs in late-May and 

June. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-28 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The coldwater pool in Folsom Lake is not only important to the reservoir's coldwater fish species, but also 

to fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead in the Lower American River. Seasonal releases from the 

reservoir's coldwater pool provide cooler water temperatures in the Lower American River that support 

annual in-river production of these salmonid species. Any reduction in the reservoir's coldwater pool 

reduces the volume of cold water that is available to be released in any given year into the Lower 

American River to benefit the river's chinook salmon and steelhead populations. The annual coldwater 

pool is not large enough to facilitate coldwater releases during the warmest months (July-September) and 

to provide maximum thermal benefits to Lower American River steelhead and coldwater releases during 

October and November that would maximally benefit fall-run chinook salmon immigration, spawning, 

and incubation. Consequently, optimal management of the reservoir's coldwater pool on an annual basis is 

an important consideration in providing the maximum thermal benefits to both fall-run chinook salmon 

and steelhead. 

Lake Natoma. Lake Natoma was constructed to serve as a regulating afterbay with the ability to provide 

stable flows in the Lower American River, even with fluctuating Folsom Lake power generation flow 

releases. Consequently, water surface elevations in Lake Natoma typically fluctuate up to three feet on a 

daily and weekly basis (California Data Exchange Center) published hourly elevation data, 1994 through 

2000). During most of the year, Lake Natoma receives controlled (non-flood) releases from Folsom Lake. 

Lake Natoma supports many of the same fish species found in Folsom Lake (i.e., rainbow trout, bass, 

sunfish, and catfish). Some recruitment of warmwater and coldwater fishes likely comes from Folsom 

Lake. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game stocks catchable-size rainbow trout into Lake 

Natoma annually. Lake Natoma's limited primary and secondary production and daily elevation 

fluctuations are believed to reduce the size and annual production of many of its fish populations, relative 

to Folsom Lake. 

Because of Lake Natoma's small size and the magnitude of Folsom Lake outflow, water flowing through 

Lake Natoma can be significantly warmed by three to seven degrees Fahrenheit. Water temperatures of 

releases into the Lower American River from Lake Natoma are dependent on a number of factors, 

including inflow rate, meteorological conditions, and degree of stratification within Lake Natoma. As the 

lake elevation fluctuates, Nimbus Dam releases are comprised of varying amounts of surface waters. If 

the lake is stratified, elevation fluctuations lead to varying release temperatures. 

Lower American River. The lower 23 miles of the American River (below Nimbus Dam), including 

backwaters and dredge ponds, supports at least 40 fish species, half of which are game fish. Common 

species include chinook salmon, steelhead, American shad (Alosa sapidissima), rainbow trout, striped 

bass (Morone saxatilis), bass, carp (Cyprinus carpio), Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker, and 

hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus). A number of species are of primary management interest due 

either to their declining population or their importance to recreational and/or commercial fisheries. 

Anadromous species that are important for recreational and commercial uses include fall-run chinook 

salmon, steelhead, striped bass, and American shad. 

Use of the American River by three special-status species – fall-run chinook, steelhead, and splittail is 

briefly described below. More detailed information on the use of the lower American River by specialstatus species and other species of management interest is included in the descriptions of individual 

species. 

The Lower American River provides spawning and rearing habitat for fall-run chinook salmon and 

steelhead only below Nimbus Dam. Chinook salmon spawn almost exclusively in the 10 miles of river 

immediately below Nimbus Dam, and mostly in the upper five miles. Habitat concerns for chinook 

salmon include sub-optimal flows and water temperatures (in some years), a limited area of suitable 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-29 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

spawning gravels, and various components of rearing habitat (in- and over-water object cover, 

run-riffle-pool composition). High water temperatures during the fall can delay the onset of spawning by 

chinook salmon, and river water temperatures can become unsuitably high for juvenile salmon rearing 

during the spring. 

 

Steelhead spawning takes place on smaller gravels and is more widely distributed in the Lower American 

River than chinook salmon spawning. The longer rearing period renders this species particularly sensitive 

to high water temperatures in the summer and early fall, but they may also be affected by other habitat 

features such as availability of cover and spawning gravels. In the summer and fall of some low carryover 

storage years, temperatures in the Lower American River may exceed the tolerance of juvenile steelhead. 

Splittail spawn over flooded vegetation, and spawning could occur in the lower reaches of the American 

River. Although spawning has not been verified in the Lower American River, potentially suitable habitat 

exists. There is a nearly linear relationship between flows and area of potential spawning habitat for 

splittail in the Lower American River. Increased flows increase the amount of flooded area available for 

splittail spawning. Temperature is of lesser concern for splittail as they prefer warmer temperatures than 

either steelhead or chinook salmon. 

Water temperature in the Lower American River depends on the rate and temperature of releases from 

Folsom Lake. The coldwater pool is managed to provide appropriate temperatures for anadromous 

salmonids. However, the small size of the coldwater pool, particularly in dry years, can impede 

attainment of suitable water temperatures during certain periods of the year. 

Dry Creek Watershed. The Dry Creek watershed encompasses Roseville's service area and 

surrounding lands. Cirby Creek and its tributary, Linda Creek, are tributaries of Dry Creek, which drains 

to the East Main Drainage Canal and enters the Sacramento River near the confluence with the Lower 

American River. 

The Dry Creek watershed is urbanized, which has resulted in degraded conditions for fish. Low flows and 

high stream temperatures are common, particularly in dry years, and act to limit the distribution of 

anadromous salmonids within the drainage. 

Fish communities in the Dry Creek watershed are dominated by exotics such as mosquitofish (Gambusia 

affinis), bullhead, sunfish, bass (Micropterus spp.) and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and 

temperature-tolerant native fish, such as Sacramento sucker, hitch, and Sacramento pikeminnow. Both 

chinook salmon and steelhead are known to spawn and rear in the Dry Creek drainage in Miners Ravine 

and Secret Ravine. Surveys in Cirby and Linda creeks have found juvenile or yearling chinook salmon 

and steelhead and may indicate that these species rear in these streams in an opportunistic fashion when 

flows and temperatures are suitable. Successful spawning of anadromous salmonids has not been 

documented in Cirby or Linda creeks. 

Sacramento River. The Sacramento River serves as an important migration corridor for anadromous 

fish moving between the ocean and/or Delta and upper river/tributary spawning and rearing habitats. The 

upper portion of the river provides a diversity of aquatic habitats, including fast-water riffles and shallow 

glides, slow-water deep glides and pools, and off-channel backwater habitats. The lower Sacramento 

River is predominantly channelized, leveed, and bordered by agricultural lands. Aquatic habitat in the 

lower Sacramento River is characterized primarily by slow-water glides and pools, is depositional in 

nature, and has reduced water clarity and habitat diversity, relative to the upper portion of the river. 

More than 30 species of fish are known to use the Sacramento River. Of these, a number of both native 

and introduced species are anadromous. Anadromous species include chinook salmon, steelhead, green 

and white sturgeon, striped bass, and American shad. The upper Sacramento River is of primary 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-30 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

importance to native anadromous species, and currently is used for spawning and early lifestage rearing, 

to some degree, by all four runs of chinook salmon (fall, late-fall, winter, and spring) and steelhead. 

Consequently, various lifestages of the four runs of chinook salmon and steelhead can be found in the 

upper Sacramento River throughout the year. Other Sacramento River fish are considered resident 

species, which complete their lifecycle entirely within freshwater, often in a localized area. Resident 

species include rainbow and brown trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass, channel catfish, sculpin, 

pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker, hardhead, and common carp. The majority of the fish species found in 

the upper Sacramento River also occur in the lower river, although some species only use the lower river 

as a migratory pathway to and from upstream spawning and rearing grounds. In contrast, the lower river 

supports some fish species that make little to no use of the upper river (upstream of River Mile 

163).These species include Sacramento splittail, delta smelt, and striped bass. 

The Sacramento River joins with several other rivers and numerous sloughs to form the Delta and 

ultimately empties into the San Francisco Bay. The Delta and San Francisco Bay make up the largest 

estuary on the west coast. Its importance to fisheries is illustrated by the more than 120 fish species that 

rely on its unique habitat characteristics for one or more of their lifestages. Fish species found in the Delta 

include anadromous species, as well as freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater species. Delta inflow 

and outflow are important for species residing primarily in the Delta (e.g., delta smelt and longfin smelt), 

as well as juveniles of anadromous species (e.g., chinook salmon) that rear in the Delta prior to ocean 

entry. Seasonal Delta inflows affect several key ecological processes, including: (1) the migration and 

transport of various lifestages of resident and anadromous fishes using the Delta (San Francisco Estuary 

Project 1992); (2) salinity levels at various locations within the Delta as measured by the location of X2 

(i.e., the position in kilometers eastward from the Golden Gate Bridge of the two parts per thousand of 

total dissolved solids near-bottom isohaline); and (3) the Delta’s primary (phytoplankton) and secondary 

(zooplankton) production. 

Species of Primary Management Interest. Species of primary management interest in the 

Sacramento and American Rivers consist of species that are listed or candidates for listing under the state 

or federal Endangered Species Acts, as summarized in Table 4-2. In addition to these special status 

species, several other species are of management interest because of their commercial or recreational 

importance. The following describes the life history, habitat requirements and distribution the fish species 

of primary management interest in the project area. 

Chinook Salmon. Four runs of chinook salmon (i.e., fall-run, late-fall-run, winter-run, and 

spring-run) occur in the Sacramento River system. Only fall-run chinook salmon occur in the lower 

American River. These runs are described below. 

Fall-run Chinook Salmon. The fall run of chinook salmon is currently the largest run of 

chinook salmon in the Sacramento River system, and the primary run of chinook salmon using the lower 

American River. Because fall-run chinook salmon represent the greatest percentage of all four runs, they 

continue to support commercial and recreational fisheries of significant economic importance. 

Adult fall-run chinook salmon migrate into the Sacramento River and its tributaries from July through 

December, with immigration peaking from mid-October through November (Reynolds et al., 1990). Fallrun chinook salmon spawn in numerous tributaries of the Sacramento River, including the lower 

American River, lower Yuba River, Feather River, as well as tributaries to the upper Sacramento River. 

The majority of mainstem Sacramento River spawning occurs between Keswick and Red Bluff Diversion 

dams. A greater extent of fall-run chinook salmon spawning (relative to the other three runs) occurs 

below Red Bluff Diversion Dam, with limited spawning potentially occurring as far downstream as 

Princeton (River Mile 163) (Burmester, pers. comm., 1996). Spawning generally occurs from October 

through December, with fry emergence typically beginning in late December and January. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-31 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 4-2 

FISH SPECIES OF PRIMARY MANAGEMENT INTEREST IN THE PROJECT AREA 

Species Status Project Area Occurrence 

Central Valley winter-run chinook salmon 

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – E 

State – E 

Sacramento River and Delta 

Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon 

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – T 

State – T 

Sacramento River and Delta 

Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon 

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha 

Federal – C 

State – CSC 

Fall run: American and Sacramento Rivers, 

Delta 

Late Fall-run: Sacramento River and Delta 

Central Valley steelhead 

Onchorhynchus mykiss 

Federal – T 

State – none 

American and Sacramento Rivers, Delta 

Delta smelt 

Hypomesus transpacificus 

Federal – T 

State – T 

Delta 

Green sturgeon 

Acipenser medirostris 

Federal – C 

State – CSC 

Sacramento River and Delta 

Splittail 

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 

Federal – T 

State – CSC 

American and Lower Sacramento Rivers, 

Delta 

Striped bassa 

Morone saxatilis 

Federal – none

State – none 

American and Lower Sacramento Rivers, 

Delta 

American shada

Alosa sapidissima

Federal – none

State – none 

American and Lower Sacramento Rivers, 

Delta 

E – Listed as endangered under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts 

T – Listed as threatened under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts 

C – Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts 

CSC – California Species of Special Concern 

a Species of management interest for recreational fishing 

Fall-run chinook salmon emigrate as post-emergent fry, juveniles, and as smolts after rearing in their natal 

streams for up to six months. Consequently, fall-run chinook salmon emigrants may be present in the 

lower American and Sacramento rivers from January through June (Reynolds et al., 1990; Herbold et al., 

1992), and remain in the Delta for variable lengths of time prior to ocean entry. 

Adult chinook salmon begin entering the lower American River annually in August and September, with 

immigration continuing through December in most years and January in some years. Once in the lower 

American River, the timing of adult chinook salmon spawning activity is strongly influenced by water 

temperature. When daily average water temperatures decrease to approximately 60 °F, female chinook 

salmon begin to construct nests (redds) into which their eggs (simultaneously fertilized by the male) are 

eventually released. Fertilized eggs are subsequently buried with streambed gravel. Approximately 98 

percent of all redds observed during these years were located between Watt Avenue (River Mile 9.5) and 

Nimbus Dam (River Mile 23). 

The intragravel residence period of incubating eggs and alevins (i.e., yolk-sac fry) is highly dependent 

upon water temperature. The intragravel egg and fry incubation lifestage for fall-run chinook salmon in 

the lower American River generally extends from about mid-October through March. Egg incubation 

survival rates are dependent on water temperature and intragravel water movement. In 1980, CDFG 

reported egg mortalities of 80 percent and 100 percent for chinook salmon at water temperatures of 61 

and 63 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. Egg incubation survival is highest at water temperatures at or 

below 56 degrees Fahrenheit. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-32 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Fall-run chinook salmon fry emergence generally occurs from late-December through mid-May in the 

lower American River (Snider and Titus, 1996). Fall-run chinook salmon emigrate from the lower 

American River during two distinct time periods. The primary period of emigration occurs from midFebruary through early March. Other fry rear in the lower American River where they feed and grow for 

up to six months, prior to emigrating as juveniles or smolts through June. 

Water temperatures between 45 and 58 degrees Fahrenheit have been reported to be optimal for rearing of 

chinook salmon fry and juveniles (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Rich, 1987). Raleigh et al., (1986) suggested 

a range of approximately 53.6 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit as suitable rearing temperatures, and 75 degrees 

Fahrenheit as an upper limit. Lower American River water temperatures at Watt Avenue generally range 

from about 46 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the period December through April, and from 60 to 69 

degrees Fahrenheit during the months of May and June. 

Winter-run Chinook Salmon. Winter-run chinook salmon only occur in the mainstem 

Sacramento River. Adult winter-run chinook salmon migrate upstream through the Delta and into the 

lower Sacramento River occurs from December through July, with peak immigration during the period 

January through April. Winter-run chinook salmon primarily spawn in the mainstem Sacramento River 

between Keswick Dam (River Mile 302) and Red Bluff Diversion Dam (River Mile 258). Winter-run 

chinook salmon spawn between late-April and mid-August, with peak spawning generally occurring in 

June. 

Winter-run chinook salmon fry rearing in the upper Sacramento River exhibit peak abundance during 

September, with fry and juvenile emigration past Red Bluff Diversion Dam occurring from August 

through March. Peak abundance of juveniles in the Delta generally occurs during February, March, or 

April (Steven, 1989). Juvenile winter-run chinook salmon may exhibit a sustained residence in the middle 

or lower Sacramento River or upper Delta prior to seaward migration. The location and extent of this 

middle-area rearing is unknown, although it has been suggested that the duration of fry presence in an 

area is directly related to the magnitude of river flows during the rearing period (Stevens, 1989). 

Additional information on the life history and habitat requirements of winter-run chinook salmon is 

contained in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion for this species. 

Critical habitat for the winter-run chinook salmon is defined to occur in the Sacramento River from 

Keswick Dam (River Mile 302) to Chipps Island (River Mile 0) in the Delta. Also included are waters 

west of the Carquinez Bridge, Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay north of the Oakland 

Bay Bridge. 

Spring-run Chinook Salmon. Spring-run chinook salmon enter the Sacramento River during 

the period late March through September (Reynolds et. al., 1990), with peak abundance in the Delta and 

lower Sacramento River from April through June. Adult spring-run chinook salmon hold in areas 

downstream of spawning grounds during the summer months until their eggs fully develop and become 

ready for spawning. This is the primary characteristic distinguishing the spring-run from the other runs of 

chinook salmon. Spring-run chinook salmon spawn primarily upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and 

in several upper Sacramento River tributaries (e.g., Mill and Deer creeks). Spawning has been reported to 

primarily occur during mid-August through early October (Reynolds et al., 1990). Although some portion 

of an annual year-class may emigrate as post-emergent fry (i.e., individuals less than 45 millimeters (mm) 

in length), most are believed to rear in the upper river and tributaries during the winter and spring, and 

emigrate as juveniles (i.e., individuals greater than 45 mm in length, but not having undergone 

smoltification) or smolts (silvery colored fingerlings having undergone the smoltification process in 

preparation for ocean entry). The timing of juvenile emigration from the spawning and rearing grounds 

varies among the tributaries of origin, and can occur during the period November through June. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-33 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Late Fall-run Chinook Salmon. Adult immigration of late fall-run chinook salmon in the 

Sacramento River generally begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. Primary spawning 

grounds for late fall-run chinook salmon are in tributaries to the upper Sacramento River (e.g., Battle, 

Cottonwood, Clear, and Mill creeks), although late fall-run chinook salmon are believed to return to the 

Feather and Yuba rivers as well. Spawning in the mainstem Sacramento River occurs primarily from 

Keswick Dam (River Mile 302) to Red Bluff Diversion Dam (River Mile 258), and generally occurs from 

December through April. Postemergent fry and juveniles emigrate from their spawning and rearing 

grounds in the upper Sacramento River and its tributaries during the period May through November. 

Juveniles emigrate through the Delta primarily during the period October through December. 

Steelhead. Adult steelhead migrate through the Sacramento River system beginning in August 

and continue through March. They return to spawning grounds in the upper Sacramento River and 

tributaries (the lower American River). Steelhead also are produced at the Coleman Fish Hatchery on 

Battle Creek, the Nimbus Hatchery on the American River, and the Feather River Hatchery on the Feather 

River (Reynolds et al., 1990). Spawning generally occurs from January through April (McEwan, pers. 

comm., 1997). Juvenile steelhead rear in their natal streams for one to two years prior to emigrating from 

the river. Emigration of one- to two-year-old fish primarily occurs from April through June (Reynolds et 

al., 1990; McEwan, pers. comm., 1997). 

The lower American River steelhead population is believed to be supported primarily by fish produced at 

Nimbus Hatchery. Adult steelhead immigration into the lower American River typically begins in 

November and continues into April. The steelhead spawning immigration generally peaks during January. 

Optimal immigration temperatures have been reported to range from 46 to 52 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Spawning usually begins during late-December and may extend through March, but can range from 

November through April. Optimal spawning temperatures have been reported to range from 39 to 52 

degrees Fahrenheit. The egg and fry incubation lifestage for steelhead in the lower American River 

typically extends from December through May. 

Fry emergence from the gravel generally begins in March and occurs through June, with peak emergence 

occurring during April (Snider and Titus, 1996). Optimal egg and fry incubation temperatures have been 

reported to range from 48 to 52 degrees Fahrenheit. Optimal temperatures for fry and juvenile rearing is 

reported to range from 45 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As with chinook salmon, it is believed that 

temperatures up to 65 degrees Fahrenheit are suitable for steelhead rearing, with each degree increase 

between 65 degrees Fahrenheit and the upper lethal limit of 75 degrees Fahrenheit (Bovee, 1978) being 

increasingly less suitable and thermally more stressful. The primary period of steelhead emigration from 

the lower American River is believed to occur from March through June (Castleberry et al., 1991). 

American Shad. American shad occur in the Sacramento River, its major tributaries (including 

the lower American River), and the Delta. A popular sport fishery for American shad exists annually in 

the Sacramento River and certain tributaries, including the lower American River. Adult American shad 

typically enter the lower American River from April through early July, with the spawning migration 

peaking from mid-May through June. 

Water temperature is an important factor influencing the timing of spawning. American shad are reported 

to spawn at water temperatures ranging from approximately 46 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit, although 

optimal spawning water temperatures are reported to range from about 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit 

(Leggett and Whitney, 1972; Painter et al., 1977; Bell, 1976; Rich, 1987). 

Based on their 1990 field investigation, Jones and Stokes Associates (1990) reported that water velocity 

was the most important physical variable determining shad spawning habitat preference in the lower Yuba 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-34 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

River, followed by depth and water temperature. In contrast to salmonids, distributions of spawning 

virgin shad are determined by river flow rather than homing behavior (Painter et al., 1979). Substrate and 

cover played no apparent role in habitat selection. Snider and Gerstung (1986) recommended flow levels 

of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic feet/second in the lower American River during May and June as sufficient 

attraction flows to sustain the river’s American shad fishery. When suitable spawning conditions are 

found, American shad school and broadcast their eggs throughout the water column. 

Based on laboratory experiments conducted on American shad incubation, Walburg and Nichols (1967) 

concluded that water temperatures suitable for normal egg development ranged from about 54 to 70 

degrees Fahrenheit. These investigators further reported that eggs hatched in three to five days at 68 to 74 

degrees Fahrenheit and in four to six days at water temperatures of 59 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Egg 

incubation and hatching, therefore, are coincident with the primary spawning period (i.e., May through 

June). A large percentage of the eggs spawned in the lower American River probably do not hatch until 

they have drifted downriver and entered the Sacramento River. Few juvenile American shad have been 

collected in the lower American River. Therefore, the presence of American shad in the lower American 

River is primarily restricted to adult immigration, spawning, and fry lifestages. 

Striped Bass. Striped bass occur in the Sacramento River, its major tributaries (including the 

lower American River), and the Delta. Substantial striped bass spawning and rearing occurs in the 

Sacramento River and Delta. Year-class strength of striped bass in the Delta has been correlated with 

survival and growth during the first 60 days after hatching. The abundance of young striped bass, in turn, 

was positively correlated with freshwater outflow from the Delta, and negatively correlated with the 

percentage of Delta inflow diverted from Delta channels during spring and early summer by the SWP and 

CVP. 

Adult striped bass are present in the lower American River throughout the year (DeHaven, 1977), with 

peak abundance occurring during the summer months (DeHaven, 1977, 1979). No studies have 

definitively determined whether striped bass spawn in the lower American River. However, the scarcity 

of sexually ripe adults among sport-caught fish indicates that minimal, if any, spawning occurs in the 

lower American River. Most striped bass spawning is believed to occur in the Sacramento River and 

Delta. The majority of Sacramento River spawning occurs in the lower Sacramento River, downstream of 

River Mile 140. 

The number of striped bass entering the lower American River during the summer is believed to vary with 

flow levels and food production. Snider and Gerstung (1986) suggested that flows of 1,500 cubic 

feet/second at the mouth during May and June would be sufficient to maintain the striped bass fishery in 

the lower American River. However, these investigators reported that, in any given year, the population 

level of striped bass in the Delta was probably the greatest factor determining the relative number of 

striped bass occurring in the lower American River. 

The lower American River apparently is a nursery area for young striped bass. Numerous schools of fiveto eight-inch-long fish have been reported in the river during the summer months. In addition, juveniles 

and young adults have been reported to be abundant in the lower American River during the fall 

(DeHaven, 1977). Optimal water temperatures for juvenile striped bass rearing has been reported to range 

from approximately 61 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Sacramento Splittail. Splittail are members of the minnow family, achieving lengths of up to 

approximately 16 inches. Adults can tolerate a wide range of salinities, but require freshwater for 

spawning. Adult migrate upstream to freshwater areas in the late fall to early winter prior to spawning 

activities. Spawning occurs from mid-winter through July in water temperatures between 48 to 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (Wang, 1986) at times of high winter or spring runoff. Splittail prefer to spawn over flooded 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-35 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

streambank vegetation or beds of aquatic plants, and the timing of their upstream movements and 

spawning corresponds to the historically high-flow period associated with snowmelt and runoff each 

spring. The precise timing and location of spawning varies among years, and the timing and magnitude of 

winter and spring runoff may play a substantial role in determining the temporal and spatial distribution 

of spawning in any given year. Water temperature and photoperiod also influence the timing of spawning. 

Historically, splittail could be found in the upper reaches of the Sacramento River. Today, Red Bluff 

Diversion Dam appears to be a complete barrier to upstream movement. The presence of splittail in the 

Sacramento River and its tributaries (including the lower American River) is believed to be largely 

restricted to their upstream and downstream movements associated with spawning. Juvenile splittail are 

not believed to use the Sacramento River or its tributaries for rearing to a great extent. Downstream 

emigration into the Delta is believed to peak during the period April through August. 

Low numbers of splittail have been collected in the lower American River. CDFG has conducted fish 

sampling surveys on the lower American River annually from 1991 through 1995 (Brown et al., 1992; 

Snider and McEwan, 1993; Snider and Titus, 1994; Snider and Titus, 1996). The fish sampling surveys 

were conducted from approximately January through June, when adult and larval splittail likely would be 

in the river. Splittail were collected in very low numbers, primarily at the lowest sampling station located 

downstream of U.S. Interstate Business 80 (River Mile 4) (Brown et al., 1992). All splittail captured in 

1991 were young-of-the-year. Only two splittail have been captured above River Mile 9. 

Delta Smelt. Delta smelt are a short-lived, slender-bodied fish endemic to the Delta. As a 

euryhaline species, delta smelt can tolerate wide-ranging salinities, but rarely occur in waters with 

salinities greater than 10-14 parts per thousand (ppt). Historically, they have been abundant in low 

(around two ppt) salinity habitats. 

Delta smelt occur in open surface waters and shoal areas. They are generally found in the lower reaches 

of the Sacramento River below Isleton, the San Joaquin River below Mossdale, through the Delta and into 

Suisun Bay (Moyle, 1976; Moyle et al., 1992). Critical habitat for delta smelt is defined as: 

Areas and all water and all submerged lands below ordinary high water and the entire water column 

bounded by and contained in Suisun Bay (including the contiguous Grizzly and Honker Bays); the 

length of Goodyear, Suisun, Cutoff, First Mallard (Spring Branch), and Montezuma Sloughs; and the 

existing contiguous waters contained within the Delta. 

When not spawning, adult delta smelt tend to concentrate just upstream from the entrapment zone (the 

saltwater-freshwater interface), the location of which varies daily, seasonally, and annually in response to 

tidal action and the volume of freshwater inflow to the Delta. 

Adults migrate from brackish water areas to freshwater areas to spawn during the winter. Migration can 

begin as early as October and continue through April, but movement peaks during the period December 

through April. The adults and young-of-the-year remain in the spawning areas until late summer, when 

they begin emigrating downstream. In the Sacramento River, delta smelt have been found as far upstream 

as the confluence with the American River. 

Green Sturgeon. Green sturgeon are an anadromous species, migrating from the ocean to 

freshwater to spawn. They inhabit the Sacramento River system, as well as in the Eel, Mad, Klamath, and 

Smith rivers in the northwest portion of California. Little information is available on the lifestage-specific 

environmental requirements of this species in the Sacramento River. In the Sacramento River, most 

spawning is believed to occur in the upper portion of the river. Egg fertilization occurs in the water 

column of relatively fast-flowing rivers (Emmett et al., 1991 in Moyle et al., 1992). In the Sacramento 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-36 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

River, green sturgeon presumably spawn at water temperatures ranging from 46 to 57 degrees Fahrenheit 

(Beak Consultants, 1993). Small numbers of juvenile green sturgeon have been captured and identified 

each year from 1993 through 1996 in the Sacramento River at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant (River 

Mile 206) (J. Brown, pers. comm., 1996). Lower American River (Gerstung, 1977), fish surveys 

conducted by the CDFG in recent years have not collected green sturgeon (Snider, pers. comm., 1997).

 San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Winter-run chinook salmon and Sacramento splittail migrate 

through San Pablo and Suisun Bays during spawning runs. Several creeks and streams in the East Bay 

Municipal Utility District service area historically supported populations of steelhead, chinook salmon, or 

other native fish species, but these populations are no longer extant because of urban development, creek 

channelization, and dam construction. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on aquatic resources are compared to conditions under the No Action 

Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative includes demographic, economic, political, and 

other factors, independent of the long-term contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and 

indirect effects to aquatic resources that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s responsibilities. With little 

exception, virtually all of the long-term contract renewal actions are within the range of conditions that 

support the biological opinions issued to Reclamation for operations of the CVP and conditions adopted 

by local agencies as part of environmental documentation for water supply facilities located within the 

American River Division. 

Alternative 1. Aquatic resources under Alternative 1 would be identical to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not alter CVP operations as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, biological resource conditions under Alternative 1 would be identical to those 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Aquatic resources under Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter CVP operations as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, biological resource conditions under Alternative 2 would be identical to those 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The long-term contract renewals in the American River Division would not result in cumulative impacts 

to aquatic resources in addition to those occurring under the Affected Environment and those addressed in 

previous biological assessments and environmental documents prepared by Reclamation and local 

agencies including for facilities to serve Placer County Water Agency, East Bay Municipal Utility 

District, and water service under Public Law 101-514. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE 

This subsection discusses wildlife habitat in the American River Division. This information was based 

upon studies completed by the local agencies, CDFG, Reclamation, the Service, NOAA Fisheries, and 

specific researchers referenced below. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-37 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Affected Environment 

The following describes the major habitats found in the project area and the wildlife species typically 

found in these habitats with particular reference to special-status species. The general description of 

habitats is followed by a description of existing habitats and wildlife in the service area of the American 

River Division contractors. 

Habitat Types. The types, amounts, and distribution of habitats in the service areas were derived from 

the California GAP Analysis Project completed by the CDFG in 1998. In the California GAP Analysis, 

habitats were typed based on the California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System (CWHR) (Mayer and 

Laudenslayer, 1988). This project focused on mapping habitats at a landscape scale and has a resolution 

of 274 acres for upland habitats and 98.8 ac for wetland habitat. The database identifies general habitat 

types throughout the service areas but does not distinguish small habitat patches, such as stringers of 

riparian habitat or small wetlands, that can have high wildlife value. Additional information is provided 

on the occurrence of important habitat types not distinguished in the California GAP Analysis. 

Conifer Forest. Within the project area, the GAP Analysis identified five CWHR habitat types 

dominated by conifers: Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Sierran mixed conifer, Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). 

For this EIS, these five CWHR habitat types are grouped as conifer forest habitat. Conifer forest habitats 

occur in eastern portions of the project area, in foothill and higher elevation areas of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. A small amount of conifer forest habitat also is present in the coast Range in the western 

portion of the project area. The species composition of the conifer forest habitat varies with elevation, soil 

composition, and rainfall. Conifer forest habitats occur at elevations as low as 2,500 feet in elevation. 

Ponderosa pine occurs at the lowest elevation where it can be interspersed with montane hardwood 

(described below). At higher elevations, ponderosa pine is replaced by Sierran mixed conifer and 

Douglas-fir. Sierran mixed conifer habitat consists of a mix of five conifer species and one hardwood 

species - white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine (Pinus lamertiana), 

incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii). 

The Sierran mixed conifer habitat type occurs from about 4,000 to 10,000 feet in elevation in the project 

area and grades with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitats. In the Sierra Nevada, the Douglas-fir 

habitat is largely a subset of the Sierran mixed conifer type, where Douglas-fir occurs as a pure stand. 

Jeffery pine typically occurs at high elevations (above Sierran mixed conifer), but because it is tolerant of 

serpentine soils it occurs as pure stands in some areas of serpentine soils. A small amount of redwood 

forest occurs in the Coast Range in the western portion of the project area. 

Conifer forest habitat of the Sierra Nevada Mountains has been estimated to support about 355 species of 

vertebrates (Verner and Boss 1980). Mixed conifer forest typically supports greater species diversity than 

single-species conifer stands because of the greater plant species diversity. The variety in plant species 

composition of mixed conifer forest provides a diversity of food and cover types. Nonetheless, many 

wildlife species will exploit all of the conifer forest types to varying degrees. 

Special-status species potentially inhabiting conifer forest habitat in the project area include California 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Pacific fisher (Martes 

pennanti), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

Montane Hardwood Forest. Montane hardwood forest occurs in eastern portions of the 

project area at lower elevations than conifer forest habitat, although it can be interspersed with ponderosa 

pine. This forest type is dominated by hardwood tree species including canyon live oak (Quercus 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-38 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

chrysolepis), California black oak, tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus 

menziesii), but often includes some conifers, such as gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) and ponderosa pine. 

Typical understory shrub species include manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), poison-oak (Toxicodendron 

diversilobum), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), currant (Ribes sp.), and ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.). 

The oaks comprising montane hardwood forest habitat attract and support a diversity of bird and mammal 

species that exploit and depend on acorns. Typical species include scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica), 

acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), wild turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), black bear (Ursus americanus), and mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus). Reptiles are found in the litter on the forest floor and include western fence lizard 

(Sceloporus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and western rattlesnake (Rotalus 

viridis). 

Blue Oak Woodland and Coastal Oak Woodland. Blue Oak Woodland occurs in foothill 

regions of the project area at elevations of 250 to 3,000 feet (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Blue oak 

(Quercus douglasii) is the dominant overstory species of this habitat, although at the higher elevations of 

this habitat's distribution, gray pine becomes an important overstory species. Where gray pine or other 

conifers comprise 25 to 49 percent of the overstory with blue oak comprising at least 50 percent of the 

overstory canopy, the CWHR classifies this habitat as Blue Oak - Foothill Pine woodland. Both CWHR 

habitat types (Blue Oak - Foothill Pine woodland and Blue Oak Woodland) are considered collectively in 

this EIS as blue oak woodland. Typical shrub species in blue oak woodland are poison-oak, coffeeberry, 

redbud (Cercis occidentalis), ceanothus, and manzanita with ground cover consisting of annuals such as 

bromegrass (Bromus sp.), wild oats (Avena sp.), foxtail (Hordeum murinum), and filaree (Erodium sp.) 

(Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). 

Coastal oak woodland occurs in the Coast Ranges of the project area. Coast live oak is the dominant 

overstory species and can be the only overstory species in some locations. In mesic areas, California bay, 

madrone, tan oak, and canyon live oak contribute to the overstory. The understory typically consists of 

shade-tolerant shrubs such as California blackberry, creeping snowberry, and toyon. 

Blue oak and coastal oak woodlands provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, although no 

species appear to be completely dependent on this habitat type. Barrett (1980) reported that over 60 

species of mammals use oaks and Verner (1980) reported that 110 species of birds have been observed 

during the breeding season in California habitats with oaks. Acorns produced by blue oaks are an 

important food resource for a diversity of bird and mammal species. Typical species inhabiting oak 

woodlands in the project area include scrub jays, yellow-billed magpies (Pica nuttalli), gray squirrels, and 

California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Special-status species associated with oak woodland 

habitats include oak titmouse, Lawrence's goldfish, and Nuttall's woodpecker. 

Valley Oak Woodland. Valley oak woodland can occur throughout much of the Central Valley 

and into the Sierra Nevada foothills up to an elevation of about 2,000 feet. The overstory canopy of this 

habitat type is almost exclusively valley oak (Quercus lobata). California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), 

black walnut (Juglans californica), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), boxelder (Acer negundo) and 

blue oak occur sporadically. Shrubs such as poison-oak, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry 

can occur in the understory although typically, the understory is comprised of annuals such as wild oats, 

bromegrass, barley (Hordeum sp.), and ryegrass (Lolium sp.) (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Valley 

oak woodland merges with annual grasslands and often borders agricultural fields. This habitat also 

occurs adjacent to valley foothill riparian habitats As distance from the watercourse increases, tree density 

declines, thus transitioning from a forest-like structure, to savanna-like to grassland. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-39 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Like other habitats containing oaks, valley oak woodland is used by a variety of wildlife species that 

exploit the acorn food resource. Cavities formed in oaks are also an important habitat feature for 

cavity-nesting birds and mammals. Common species inhabiting valley oak woodland include California 

quail (Callipepla californica), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), acorn woodpecker, scrub jay, 

bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), gray squirrel, mule deer, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and 

white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Special-status species associated with oak woodland habitats include 

oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Lawrence's goldfish (Carduelis lawrenci), and Nuttall's 

woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii). 

Chaparral and Coastal Scrub. Chaparral habitats consist of structurally homogenous 

brushland dominated by shrubs. Shrub height and crown cover vary considerably with fire frequency, 

precipitation, aspect, and soil type. Chaparral habitats in the project area include two types of habitats 

distinguished by CWHR: Chemise-Redshank Chaparral and Mixed Chaparral. These two habitats are 

very similar and their differentiation is somewhat subjective. In general, Chemise-Redshank Chaparral 

consists of at least 60 percent coverage by chemise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and redshank 

(Adenostoma sparsifolium) combined. Mixed chaparral supports a greater diversity of plant species, 

including scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), ceanothus, manzanita, toyon, and yerba-santa (Eriodictyon 

californicum), in addition to chemise and redshank. The upper and lower elevational limits of chaparral 

habitat varies considerably with precipitation, aspect and soil type, but typically occurs below 5,000 feet. 

The project area also contains a small amount of coastal scrub habitat. This habitat is structurally similar 

to the chaparral habitats but consists of a different mix of plant species. Coyotebush is the predominant 

overstory shrub species. Other plant species contributing to the overstory include ceanothus, coffeeberry, 

salal, bush monkeyflower, poison-oak, blackberry, and woolly sunflower. 

No wildlife species are restricted to chaparral and coastal scrub habitats of the project area. Common 

species include western fence lizard, racer (Coluber constrictor), common garter snake (Thamnophis 

sirtalis), turkey vultures, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), mountain quail (Oreortyx 

pictus), ash-thoated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), opossum 

(Didelphis virginiana), coyote (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel, and black-tailed jackrabbit 

(Lepus californicus). No special-status species are dependent on this habitat type although several use 

chaparral habitats in addition to other habitats. 

Annual Grassland. Annual grassland is a common habitat type in the project area. Historically, 

grasslands in the Central Valley were dominated by native perennial grasses such as needlegrass. 

Currently, most grasslands in the area are dominated by introduced annual grasses of Mediterranean 

origin and a mixture of native and introduced forbs. Introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant 

species and include wild oats, soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus), red brome 

(Bromus rubens), barley, and foxtail. Annual native forbs also occur in annual grassland habitat and 

include filaree, California poppy (Eschscholtzia californica), owls clover (Gilia spp.), tarweed 

(Holocarpha virgata) and various lupines (Lupinus spp.). Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a 

noxious weed, has invaded many annual grassland habitats and degraded their quality for wildlife and as 

livestock pasture. Annual grassland habitat merges with valley oak and blue oak woodlands, occurring 

where soil moisture is insufficient to support tree growth or is suppressed due to grazing. 

Many species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians use annual grasslands. Raptors, such as 

ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, American kestrel (Falco 

sparverius) and northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) commonly forage in annual grasslands. Short-eared 

owls (Asio flammeus) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) forage and breed in this habitat. Horned 

larks (Eremophila alpestris), western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), and savannah sparrows 

(Passerculus sandwichensis) are other common bird species. Characteristic reptiles and amphibians 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-40 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

include western fence lizard, common garter snake, and western rattlesnake. Common mammals include 

black-tailed jackrabbits, California ground squirrels, California voles (Microtus californicus), badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), coyotes, and Botta's pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). A number of special-status 

species use annual grassland habitat, including white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus). 

Vernal Pools. Vernal pools are typically found in association with annual grassland habitat but 

constitute a unique habitat type. Vernal pools form in shallow depressions that are underlain by hardpan 

or volcanic rock. The hardpan or volcanic rock impedes drainage such that, in winter, the depressions fill 

with water and retain moist soil into late spring. The pools are then dry during the summer and fall until 

the rains commence the following winter. The soils and moist microhabitat of these pools provides a 

unique habitat within a general matrix of annual grassland habitat. Plant species of vernal pools differ 

from those of the surrounding annual grassland habitat and many animals associated with annual 

grassland habitat depend on vernal pools within the annual grassland landscape. 

Common plant species found in vernal pools include popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitata), navarretia 

(Navarretia leucocephala), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), goldfields (Lathenia chrysostoma), yellow carpet 

(Blennosperma nanum), coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi), tidy tips (Layia spp.), water buttercup 

(Ranunculus spp.), and hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides). 

The number and distribution of vernal pools in the Central Valley have been greatly reduced as a result of 

agricultural practices and conversion to urban land uses. Holland (1978) estimated that five to 30 percent 

of California's vernal pools are intact today; the Central Valley has about five percent of its vernal pools 

remaining. The reduction in vernal pool habitat has resulted in several plant and animal species being 

listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Freshwater Emergent Wetland. Freshwater emergent wetlands occur in areas that are 

seasonally or perennially inundated. They form a transitional habitat between open water and upland 

habitats, and occur in backwater areas of rivers, streams and lakes, and in the flood plains of rivers and 

streams. Wetlands are characterized by erect rooted, herbaceous vegetation that emerges above the water 

surface. Water depths are shallow, up to about one to two feet. Common plant species include cattails 

(Typha sp.), bulrushes (Scirpus sp.), and rushes (Juncus sp.). 

Urban and agricultural development, as well as hydrologic changes from flood control and water supply 

development, has substantially reduced the amount of wetland habitat in the Central Valley. In the 1940s, 

freshwater emergent wetlands occupied about 554,000 acres of the Central Valley (Frayer et al., 1989; 

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture, 1990). By 1990, only 86,704 acres remained. Regional reductions 

in freshwater emergent wetlands have been estimated at 88.7 percent in the Sacramento Basin, 96.2 

percent in the San Joaquin Basin, 99.2 percent in the Tulare Basin, 98.3 percent in the Delta, and 97.2 

percent in the San Francisco Bay area. 

Freshwater wetlands are among the most important habitats for wildlife. In winter, waterfowl rely on 

wetlands in the Central Valley as a stopover during their migration or as habitat throughout the winter. 

Raptors such as golden eagles, and northern harriers frequent wetlands while foraging. Birds such as 

marsh wrens (Cistothorus palustris), tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor), red-winged blackbirds 

(Agelaius phoeniceus), American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), great egrets (Ardea alba), great blue 

herons (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), and green herons 

(Butorides virescens) are common in wetland habitats in the project area and depend on this habitat. 

Numerous amphibians and mammals also depend on wetlands or frequent this habitat because of its high 

productivity and diversity. Because much of the wetland habitat in California has been lost, a number of 

species that require wetlands have been listed as threatened or endangered or are species of concern to the 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-41 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Service or Department of Fish and Game. Special-status species associated with wetlands in the project 

area include giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), tricolored blackbird, white-faced ibis (Plegadis 

chihi), and western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). 

Saline Emergent Wetland. Saline emergent wetlands encompass salt and brackish water 

marshes in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area. They occur along the margins of bays, 

lagoons, and estuaries. These wetlands form above intertidal sand and mud flats and below upland 

communities not subject to tidal action. Plant species composition and structure varies with the salinity, 

substrate, and wave action. Characteristic plant species of more saline marshes are cordgrass and 

pickleweed while bulrushes and cattails occur in lower salinity marshes. 

Only a small portion of the saline emergent wetlands that existed in the San Francisco Bay area in the 

mid-1800s remains. Many of the wetlands were dredged or filled in association with urban development. 

Runoff and discharges from urban and industrial development also has reduced and degraded wetlands. 

The suitability of the remaining wetlands for many species has been further limited, and in some cases 

precluded, by their small size, fragmentation, and lack of other habitat features. 

The remaining saline emergent wetlands of the San Francisco Bay area provide important habitat for a 

variety of birds and mammals. Several species of lizards and snakes use edges of the marshes, and a few 

amphibians can occur in brackish portions of these wetlands. Saline emergent wetlands provide important 

wintering and migratory stopover habitat for many birds. Common birds species include waterfowl, 

herons, egrets, rails, and shorebirds. Several endemic subspecies birds inhabit saline emergent wetlands of 

the San Francisco Bay area including California clapper rails, California black rails, salt marsh, 

yellowthroat, and Belding's savannah sparrow. Common mammals include shrews, bats, mice, and 

raccoons. Special-status species that use this habitat include California's clapper rail, California black rail, 

and salt marsh harvest mouse. 

Valley Foothill Riparian. Valley foothill riparian habitat develops in the flood plains of 

low-gradient rivers and streams. Riparian habitats form a transitional community between the aquatic, 

riverine environment and upland habitats. Dominant tree species of valley foothill riparian habitat are 

cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California sycamore, and valley oaks. Typical shrub species include 

willows (Salix sp.), elderberry (Sambucus sp.), and wild grape (Vitis californica). 

The composition of riparian plant communities is shaped by the timing, intensity, and duration of 

flooding. Willows predominate in areas subject to regular inundation, and quickly colonize newly 

deposited gravel bars or recently scoured areas. Cottonwoods occur farther from the river channel in areas 

subject to less frequent and intense flooding. Still, the persistence of cottonwoods is linked to the natural 

seasonal pattern of flows. Cottonwoods evolved to release seeds at the same time as high spring flows 

would deposit nutrient rich sediments where germination and seedling survival would be enhanced. Thus, 

the timing and intensity of flows is critical to the persistence of riparian vegetation. Flood control and 

water supply projects have resulted in hydrologic alterations that have changed the species composition, 

structure, and extent of riparian habitats. 

 

In addition, most rivers have been channelized and are confined by levees, which limits the area available 

to support riparian habitat. As a result of these changes, the extent of riparian habitat in the Central Valley 

has been substantially reduced. 

The structural and compositional diversity, abundant food resources, and availability of water in valley 

foothill riparian habitat make this habitat particularly valuable to wildlife. Wildlife species diversity is 

often higher in riparian habitats than in adjacent habitats. Many resident birds, amphibians, reptiles, and 

mammals breed in riparian habitats, while other species frequent this habitat in winter or during migration 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-42 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

(Sanders et al., 1985.) Special-status species associated with riparian habitats in the project area include 

the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocercus californicus dimorphus), Swainson's hawk (Buteo 

swainsoni), and western yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Agricultural Habitat. Agricultural field habitat in the project area consists of row crops, 

orchards, vineyards, and field crops. Crop types vary from year to year depending on market conditions 

on other factors. Agricultural fields have replaced native habitats consisting of grasslands, wetlands, and 

oak woodlands. Some wildlife species have adapted to using agricultural fields. Pheasants (Phasianus 

colchicus) and other game birds use tall crops for cover and grain crops for foraging. Waterfowl and 

sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) and other game birds also forage on waste grains after harvest. Small 

mammals such as black-tailed hare and several species of mice are often abundant in agricultural fields 

and attract foraging raptors such as red-tailed hawks, Swainson's hawks, northern harriers, and 

white-tailed kites. No special-status species are dependent on this habitat but some special-status species, 

such as Swainson's hawk and white-tailed kites frequent agricultural fields for foraging. 

Habitats Associated with Central Valley Project Waterways of the Project Area. The 

following section describes the terrestrial habitats and wildlife associated with the principal waterways 

potentially affected by the alternatives: Folsom Lake, lower American River, and lower Sacramento 

River. 

Folsom Lake. Habitats associated with Folsom Reservoir include oak woodland and annual 

grassland. The oak woodland habitat, located on the upland banks and slopes of the reservoir, is 

dominated by live oak, blue oak, and foothill pine with several species of understory shrubs and forbs 

including poison oak, manzanita, California wild rose, and lupine. Annual grasslands occur around the 

reservoir, primarily at the southern end and consist of wild oats, soft chess brome, ryegrass, mustard, and 

foxtail. 

The reservoir rim is surrounded by a barren band (the drawdown zone) as a result of historic fluctuations 

in water elevations. The majority of this zone is devoid of vegetation, although arroyo willows and 

narrow-leaved willows have established in some areas. The only contiguous riparian vegetation occurs 

along Sweetwater Creek at the southern end of the reservoir. Because the drawdown zone is virtually 

devoid of vegetation and the sparse willows that have established in some areas do not form a contiguous 

riparian community, the drawdown zone does not possess substantial habitat value. 

Oak woodlands and annual grasslands in the reservoir area support a variety of birds, including acorn 

woodpecker, Nuttall’s woodpecker, western wood pewee, scrub jay, Bewick’s wren, plain titmouse, 

hermit thrush, loggerhead shrike, black-headed grosbeak, dark-eyed junco, and Bullock’s oriole. A 

number of raptors also will use oak woodlands for nesting, foraging, and roosting. These include redtailed hawk, American kestrel, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, great horned 

owl, and long-eared owl. Mammal species likely to occur in the woodland habitat include mule deer, 

coyote, bobcat, gray fox, Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, black-tailed jackrabbit, California 

ground squirrel, and a variety of rodents. Amphibians and reptiles that may be found in oak woodlands 

include California newt, Pacific tree frog, western fence lizard, gopher snake, common kingsnake, and 

western rattlesnake. 

The annual grassland surrounding Folsom Reservoir represents habitat for a variety of rodents, which, in 

turn, serve as a prey base for carnivores such as hawks and owls, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, and some 

snakes. Although very few birds will nest in the grassland areas, a number of species will forage in this 

habitat, including white-crowned sparrow, lesser goldfinch, western meadowlark, and several raptor 

species. Migratory waterfowl are known to feed and rest in the grasslands associated with the north fork 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-43 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

of Folsom Reservoir. Several of the reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the oak woodlands also will 

occur in the adjacent non-native grasslands. 

Lower American River. The lower American River provides a diverse assemblage of 

vegetation communities, including freshwater emergent wetland, riparian forest and scrub, and in the 

upper, drier areas further away from the river, oak woodland and annual grassland. The current 

distribution and structure of riparian communities along the river has been determined by human-induced 

changes such as gravel extraction, dam construction and operations, and levee construction and 

maintenance, as well as by both historic and ongoing streamflow and sediment regimes and channel 

dynamics (Sands et al., 1985; Watson, 1985). As a result of these factors, several riparian vegetation 

zones exist along the banks of the lower American River. The composition and vegetative structure of 

these zones at any particular location along the river depends on the geomorphology and other physical 

characteristics of the riverbank. 

In general, willow and alders tend to occupy areas within the active channel of the river, which are 

repeatedly disturbed by river flows, thus prohibiting successional stages in advancement of plant 

communities leading to full development of the plant community. Plant species in this zone typically 

include various species of willow. Cottonwood-willow thickets and cottonwood forests occupy the 

narrow belts along the active river channel where repeated disturbance by occasional large flows keep the 

communities at earlier stages. Fremont cottonwood dominates these riparian forest zones but willow, 

poison oak, wild grape, blackberry, northern California black walnut, and white alder also are present. 

Cottonwood forest is typical of the steep, moist banks along much of the river corridor. Valley oak 

woodland occurs on upper terraces composed of fine sediment where soil moisture provides a long 

growing season. Valley oak is the dominant tree species in these areas, although some of the sites also 

have a cottonwood component as a result of infrequent flood inundation. Live oak woodland occurs in the 

more arid and gravelly terraces that are isolated from the fluvial dynamics and moisture of the river. 

Annual grassland commonly occurs in areas that have been disturbed by human activity and can be found 

on many of the sites within the river corridor. 

Backwater areas and off-river ponds that are recharged during high flows support emergent wetland 

vegetation. These habitat areas are located throughout the length of the river, but occur more regularly 

downstream of the Watt Avenue bridge. Plant species that dominate this habitat type include various 

species of willow, sedge, cattail, bulrush, rush, barnyard grass, slough grass, and lycopus. 

Previous studies have determined that the cottonwood-dominated riparian forest and areas associated with 

the backwater and off-river ponds are highest in wildlife diversity and species richness relative to other 

river corridor habitats (Sands et. al., 1985; Watson, 1985). More than 220 species of birds have been 

recorded along the lower American River and more than 60 species are known to nest in the riparian 

habitats. Common species that can be found along the river include great blue heron, mallard, red-tailed 

hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, California quail, killdeer, belted kingfisher, western scrub 

jay, ash-throated flycatcher, tree swallow, and American robin. Additionally, more than 30 species of 

mammals reside along the river, including striped skunk, Virginia opossum, brush rabbit, raccoon, 

western gray squirrel, California ground squirrel, meadow vole, muskrat, black-tailed deer, gray fox, and 

coyote. The most common reptiles and amphibians that depend on the riparian habitats along the river 

include western toad, Pacific tree frog, bullfrog, western pond turtle, western fence lizard, common garter 

snake, and gopher snake. 

Lower American River Channel Hydrology and Riparian Vegetation Relationships.

The type and distribution of riparian vegetation along a river is generally a function of the 

complex hydrologic and geomorphic conditions of the river (Watson, 1985). In particular, water 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-44 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

availability and magnitude (i.e., flow regimes), floodplain geology, and channel morphology are 

the driving forces behind the ability of various riparian plants to germinate, establish, and grow. 

Flood flows mobilize bank and riverbed sediments that result in the deposition of nutrient-rich 

sediments on the floodplain that, when timed with the release of seeds in the spring, provides 

suitable areas for seed germination. High water (flushing) flows, usually occurring in late winter 

and early spring, are necessary to clear the river channel of debris, control the encroachment of 

vegetation, and unclog sediments. Water availability during the summer and early fall months can 

determine growth rates and plant types. The structure and composition of the channel bed and 

banks affects the rate of channel migration, the elevation of the water surface during low flow 

periods, the lateral movement of groundwater into the banks, the transport and deposition of 

sediments, and how often certain areas are inundated by flood flows. These, in turn, affect overall 

plant diversity, growth, and generation. 

Cottonwood Growth Along the Lower American River. The germination, establishment, 

growth, and long-term survival of Fremont cottonwoods along the lower American River is 

dependent upon the dynamic flow regimes and fluvial geomorphic processes of the river. In 

particular, the capacity of the river to erode, transport, and deposit alluvial materials is central to 

the structure and maintenance of cottonwood ecosystems. Because cottonwood seed release and 

establishment has adapted over time to the flow regime and fluvial process of the lower American 

River, maintenance of this regime is vital to maintain a viable cottonwood riparian system. 

Successful regeneration of cottonwoods relies on the synchronous timing of seed dispersal to 

appropriate soil moisture levels to germinate and establish successfully (Stromberg, 1995). 

Cottonwoods disperse seeds over a two- to six-week period, typically in the early to mid-spring 

months. Dispersed seeds rapidly lose the ability to germinate, so seeds must encounter suitable 

germination sites soon after release. Germination takes place on freshly deposited alluvial soils in 

areas along the river bank low enough in elevation to provide adequate moisture but high enough 

to avoid subsequent flooding after establishment. Peak water flows of sufficient magnitude are 

necessary, just prior to seed dispersal, to provide these suitable germination sites. 

To survive, cottonwood seedlings require a continuous source of adequate moisture (Scott et al., 

1996). Consequently, river flows must decline at a rate that allows seedling roots to maintain 

continuous contact with saturated or sufficiently moist substrate. If river flows and the alluvial 

groundwater table drop too rapidly, seedling survival decreases appreciably (Scott et al., 1996). 

Studies have shown that first-year seedlings of Fremont cottonwood survive only where the 

groundwater depth is less than one meter, and tolerate daily declines of no more than a few 

centimeters per day (Stromberg and Patten et al., 1991). Summer flows are critical to the 

continued survival of newly established seedlings and provide necessary moisture when 

evapotranspiration is highest (Scott et al., 1996). Long-term survival of established cottonwoods 

is generally related to the depth to groundwater and to river flows. While cottonwoods can adapt 

to drought periods, overall growth and long-term maintenance of these trees depends on the 

ability of root systems to reach the alluvial groundwater table, the recharging of which depends 

on adequate river flows. 

Backwater Ponds of the Lower American River. Backwater ponds are areas adjacent to 

the mainstem of a river that may be connected to the river by surface water during high winter 

flood flows and by groundwater during other times of the year. Backwater pond areas along the 

American River Parkway are generally the result of naturally formed gravel deposits and maninduced dredging, although some are likely to be remnant oxbow lakes, such as Bushy Lake. 

These backwater ponds and lagoons are known to occur throughout the lower American River 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-45 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

system, but occur predominantly at Sacramento Bar, Arden Bar, Rossmoor Bar, and between 

Watt Avenue and Howe Avenue (Sands et al., 1985). 

Vegetation around these ponds is typical of the riparian associations in the area and is composed 

of mixed-age willow, alder, and cottonwood. Because the water is slower moving and the ponds 

are isolated from human disturbances, these areas tend to be of higher value to wildlife (Sands et 

al., 1985). Wildlife species that have been recorded in these areas include: pied-billed grebe, 

American bittern, green heron, common merganser, white-tailed kite, wood duck, yellow warbler, 

warbling vireo, dusky-footed woodrat, western gray squirrel, Pacific tree frog, and western toad. 

Lower Sacramento River. Much of the Sacramento River is confined by levees that reduce 

the natural diversity of riparian vegetation. Agricultural land (rice, dry grains, pastures, orchards, 

vineyards, and row and truck crops) is common along the lower reaches of the Sacramento River, but is 

less common in the upper portions. Riparian vegetation along the lower Sacramento River is largely 

confined to narrow bands between the river and the river side of the levee. The riparian communities 

consist of valley oak, cottonwood, wild grape, box elder, elderberry, and willow. The largest and most 

significant tract of riparian forest remaining on the Sacramento River is a stretch between Chico Landing 

and Red Bluff. Freshwater emergent wetlands occur in the slow moving backwaters and are primarily 

dominated by tules, cattails, rushes, and sedges. Although riparian vegetation occurs along the 

Sacramento River, these areas are confined to narrow bands between the river and the river side of the 

levee. 

The wildlife species inhabiting the riparian habitats along the lower Sacramento River are essentially the 

same as those found along the lower American River. These include, but are not limited to, wood duck, 

great blue heron, great egret, green heron, black phoebe, ash-throated flycatcher, sora, great horned owl, 

Swainson’s hawk, California ground squirrel, and coyote. Agricultural areas adjacent to the river also 

represent foraging habitat for many raptor species. 

Habitat within the Central Valley Project Service Areas. The following section describes habitat 

identified in each of the American River Division CVP water service contractor service areas. In addition, 

habitats in the vicinity of proposed new facilities associated with the Freeport diversion are presented. 

City of Folsom. The portion of Folsom that would receive CVP water is currently largely 

undeveloped. Annual grassland habitats comprise most of the existing habitat with a small amount of blue 

oak woodland and montane hardwood. Vernal pool complexes are common within the annual grassland 

matrix. Based on the GAP data, the Folsom East Area supports 3,355 acres of annual grasslands, 40 acres 

of blue oak woodlands, and approximately two acres of montane hardwoods. Wildlife using these habitats 

are those identified as typical for annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and montane hardwood. 

San Juan Water District. Most of the San Juan Water District service area has been 

developed. Limited blue oak woodland occurs in northern areas of the service area along with small 

amounts of agricultural field and annual grassland habitat. Based on the GAP data, the San Juan Water 

District supports 30 acres of annual grasslands, approximately 2,700 acres of blue oak woodlands, and 

940 acres of cropland. The fragmented character of these habitats and the surrounding urban land uses 

limit the value of these areas to wildlife. Wildlife species using these habitats consist of those generally 

associated with agricultural fields and oak woodlands with a tolerance for human activity. A few vernal 

pools have been identified in the service area (California Department of Fish and Game, 1998). The 

service area also borders the American River that supports valley foothill riparian habitat. 

Zone 40. The Zone 40 service area includes urban areas, annual grasslands, and agricultural 

fields. Based on GAP data, the Zone 40 supports 30,470 acres of annual grasslands, 10,665 acres of 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-46 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

cropland, 210 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands, and 25,030 acres of pasture. Agricultural fields 

consist of pasture, row crops, and orchards or vineyards. Freshwater emergent wetlands occur near the 

southwestern corner of the service area as the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The service area 

also contains oak woodlands and vernal pools; valley foothill riparian habitats occur along waterways. 

The vernal pool complexes support many of the plant and animal species endemic to vernal pools in the 

Central Valley. Special-status species reported in vernal pools in the Zone 40 service area include Bogg's 

Lake hedge hyssop, legenere, Sacramento orcutt grass, and slender orcutt grass. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Undeveloped portions of the Rancho Seco site are 

predominantly annual grassland habitat. The grassland habitat supports an extensive and relatively dense 

occurrence of vernal pools. About 20 acres of vernal pools have been identified on the site. In addition to 

vernal pools, the site supports about 10 acres of other wetland habitats such as vernal swales, emergent 

marsh, seeps, seasonal wetland, and ephemeral drainages. About 14 acres of valley foothill riparian 

habitat occurs in a thin band adjacent to Rancho Seco Lake. This riparian habitat is dominated by 

willows, generally lacking large canopy trees. Small, irrigated pasture areas are found in the southeastern 

portion of the site. These pastures are grazed in addition to much of the annual grassland habitat. 

The habitats on the Rancho Seco site support the wildlife species typically associated with these habitats. 

Surveys for special-status species were conducted in 1993. Vernal pools were found to support Bogg's 

Lake hedge hyssop, Greene's legenere, viscid orcutt grass, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California linderiella, 

and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. A number of other species with special-status were also reported using 

annual grassland habitat, specifically white-tailed kites, northern harriers, and tricolored blackbirds. 

Habitat within the service area of Sacramento Municipal Utility District is either identical to or similar to 

habitat described for other CVP water service contractors within Sacramento County. 

City of Roseville. Most of Roseville's service area has been developed for urban, residential, 

and industrial uses. Remaining wildlife habitat is generally located in the northeastern portion of the 

service area. Annual grassland is the predominant habitat with only small fragmented areas of oak 

woodland (blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland). The remaining patches of valley oak woodland 

are primarily associated with drainages in the northwestern portion of the service area. Blue oak 

woodland is present in the eastern portion of the service area. Based on the GAP data, the Roseville 

service area contains 3,020 acres of annual grasslands, 420 acres of blue oak woodland, 2,550 acres of 

cropland, and 345 acres of valley oak woodland. 

Roseville's service area contains several small streams: Kaseberg Creek, Dry Creek, Cirby Creek, Linda 

Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, and Antelope Creek. Valley foothill riparian habitat and valley oak 

woodland habitat occurs in association with these creeks and other small drainages. However, the extent 

of habitat is limited to areas immediately adjacent to the stream channels because the streams have been 

channelized for flood control purposes, and adjacent lands have typically been converted to agricultural or 

urban development. 

The annual grasslands within Roseville's service area contain numerous vernal pools. Over 1,500 vernal 

pools have been identified in the service area. The vernal pool complexes have been documented to 

support listed species and other special-status species associated with this habitat. The CNDDB reports 

the occurrence of the following species in vernal pool habitats in Roseville's service area: vernal pool 

fairy shrimp, California linderiella, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, legenere, hispid bird's beak, and Bogg's 

Lake hedge hyssop. Other special-status species have been reported in grassland or riparian habitats in the 

service area, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, white-tailed kite, and Swainson's hawk. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-47 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Placer County Water Agency. Placer County Water Agency's service area encompasses a 

wide diversity of habitats. Conifer forest and montane hardwood habitat predominate in the higher 

elevation areas in the eastern portion of the service area. Lower elevation areas in the western portion of 

the service area support annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and agricultural fields. Valley foothill 

riparian habitats exist along larger rivers and streams such as the North Fork American River. Based on 

the GAP data, the Placer County Water Agency service area contained 9,760 acres of annual grasslands, 

25,620 acres of blue oak woodland, 30,600 acres of cropland, 20,570 acres of conifer forest, 

approximately four acres of chaparral, and 20,875 acres of montane hardwood. 

The Placer County Water Agency service area borders Folsom Lake. The lake is generally surrounded by 

oak woodland and annual grassland habitats. The rim of the reservoir is surrounded by a relatively barren 

band as a result of fluctuations in the water surface elevation. Wildlife communities and special-status 

species found in the Placer County Water Agency service area are similar to those described above for 

specific habitats. 

El Dorado Irrigation District. The portion of the El Dorado Irrigation District service area 

served by CVP water from Folsom Lake consists of annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and chaparral. 

Vernal pool complexes occur within the grassland matrix. Valley foothill riparian is present along larger 

streams in the lower elevation areas of the service area such as along the South Fork of the American 

River where they enter Folsom Lake. Based on the GAP data, the portion of El Dorado Irrigation District 

served by Folsom Lake diversions includes 6,260 acres of annual grasslands, 4,120 acres of blue oak 

woodland, and 995 acres of chaparral.

The El Dorado Irrigation District service area receiving water from Folsom Lake contains areas of gabbro 

and serpentine soils. The gabbro soil intrusion is centered around Green Valley Road in El Dorado 

County extending from approximately the confluence of the South Fork American River with Folsom 

Lake south to just beyond U.S. Highway 50. Several species of plants have adapted to the unique 

characteristics of the gabbro and serpentine soils, such that the area now supports several endemic species 

found only in this area of El Dorado County. Eight plant species inhabiting the gabbro soil intrusion in El 

Dorado County have special state or federal status; six species are federally listed. These species are 

Stebbins' morning glory (Calysstegia stebinsii), Layne's butterweed (Senecia leyneae), El Dorado 

bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae), Pine Hill flannel bush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. 

decumbens), Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii), and El Dorado County mule ears (Wyethia 

reticulata). 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. The East Bay Municipal Utility District service area 

consists primarily of urban and suburban areas that support low-quality nonnative vegetation. Large tracts 

of land that historically supported native vegetation have been significantly altered by extensive urban 

and industrial development. The western portion of the service area consists of a major urban corridor 

along the bay shoreline from Richmond to San Lorenzo. Over half of the remaining natural land in the 

East Bay Municipal Utility District service area is either under district or East Bay Regional Parks District 

ownership and is being managed in large part for resource protection (pers. comm. with John Lampe, 

2003). 

In general, the service area is host to a variety of vegetation and habitat types because of the region’s 

diverse combination of climate, topography, and land types. Land types and forms range from saltwater 

marshes along the bay plain to moderately high uplands and intermountain valleys in the East Bay Hills. 

A narrow fringe of tidal wetlands, especially coastal and brackish marsh habitats, occurs along the area’s 

shoreline. The rolling foothills of the Central Coast Range characterize much of the eastern portion of the 

East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, including large areas of land under the ownership and 

protection of East Bay Municipal Utility District and the East Bay Regional Parks District. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-48 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Native vegetation and significant habitat areas occur in scattered, isolated locations throughout the East 

Bay Hills in areas that have experienced fewer disturbances. These areas still support coastal scrub, 

chaparral, oak woodland, annual grassland, montane hardwood-conifer, and coast redwood plant 

communities of moderate to high quality. The ridge and hillside landscape is mostly dry and covered with 

grasses, coastal scrub, or oak chaparral and evergreen forests with interspersed redwood forests on the 

crests of the foothills. There are some agricultural lands for grazing and crops, and older agricultural 

orchards. The high uplands and intermountain valleys of the East Bay Municipal Utility District service 

area have many small streams with associated riparian habitat. East Bay Municipal Utility District 

reservoirs, which support lacustrine habitat, are located along some of these streams. 

The areas of open, rolling grassland in the eastern portion of the service area also support numerous 

springs, seeps, and agricultural stock ponds. Scattered areas of freshwater marsh and wetlands occur 

along streams and in isolated low-lying areas throughout the service area. 

Some federally listed species within the service area include the California clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris obsoletus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), bay checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), pallid manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida), and Santa 

Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia). Most special-status species are found along the area’s shoreline 

in tidal marshes, and in the valleys, foothills, and low mountains of the less developed regions of the 

service area with dry coastal scrub, grassland, oak woodland, and riparian vegetation. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on wildlife resources are compared to conditions under the No Action 

Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, independent of the longterm contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and indirect effects to biological resources 

that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s responsibilities. With little exception, virtually all of the longterm contract renewal actions are within the range of existing conditions. This includes the area of use, 

types of use, range of river flows, and reservoir fluctuations. 

In some instances the responsibility to address affects to biological resources would be with the local 

government as part of their California Environmental Quality Act compliance for their actions. For 

example, Reclamation is not responsible for the development of housing tracts or industrial development 

in a community. Such actions are approved locally and at the state level (However, other federal agencies, 

such as Housing and Urban Development, may be involved.). Further, if a farmer changes from one 

irrigated crop to another because of economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s 

decision. On the other hand, Reclamation would need to consider the effects to biological resources when 

Reclamation approves new lands being brought into an irrigation district and when Reclamation approves

a change in use. Any such approvals would require independent analysis and environmental 

documentation. 

The Department of the Interior is developing strategies to address the impacts upon special status species 

in the CVP service areas. In addition, any federal action that may affect listed species must comply with 

Endangered Species Act. This requirement for compliance is also required for other Federal approvals 

and permits, including Corps of Engineers permits for dredging and filling of wetlands. Because this type 

of regulatory compliance is required for several federal actions and would be included in the overall local 

planning process, Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties have initiated or 

are considering initiating Habitat Conservation Plans. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-49 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Alternative 1. Biological resources in the American River Division under Alternative 1 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no impacts to 

biological resource conditions under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2. Biological resources in the American River Division under Alternative 2 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no impacts to 

biological resource conditions under Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

The long-term contract renewals in the American River Division would not result in cumulative impacts 

to biological resources in addition to those occurring under the Affected Environment and those addressed 

in environmental documents completed by Reclamation or local agencies. These issues were evaluated as 

part of previous environmental documentation. It is not foreseen that land use plans and resource 

conservation plans would change without additional environmental documentation. As Habitat 

Conservation Plans programs are prepared, additional environmental benefits to biological resources may 

occur. 

RECREATION

Recreation opportunities described in this EIS are primarily related to activities at CVP facilities or along 

streams influenced by CVP activities and opportunities within the service areas of the CVP water service 

contractors. 

Affected Environment

The following description of the affected recreation resources is focused upon areas served by CVP water. 

This information is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for local agencies, 

Reclamation, and the Water Forum Proposal. 

Sacramento County. Recreation areas in Sacramento County serve the entire American River 

Division. Some of the municipal parks are within San Juan Water District and Zone 40. Parklands include 

regional, county, and local parks, recreation areas, and trails. Some recreational areas are administered by 

the Sacramento County Parks and Recreation Department. Additional parks and recreation facilities are 

operated by local governmental entities, including park districts, county service areas, and the cities of 

Sacramento, Folsom, Citrus Heights, and Elk Grove. Recreational opportunities consist of developed park 

sites and informal recreational use of open space (natural areas set aside primarily for human use). Open 

space occurs along rivers (including the American and Sacramento rivers) and streams and also exists as 

agricultural lands. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom has 37 parks and nature areas, two clubhouses, a community 

center, and an aquatic center. During the peak visitor season, popular public facilities within the Willow 

Creek area of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA) are often filled to capacity. Excess visitors 

turn to the City's park and recreation system as an alternative source of outdoor recreation. All of the 

existing park facilities; especially the softball, basketball, and soccer facilities are being used at capacity. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento Municipal Utility District owns and operates the 

site located in southeastern Sacramento County that includes the 433-acre Rancho Seco Park and lake 

complex. The center of the park site supports the 164-acre Rancho Seco Lake, which was constructed to 

provide emergency cooling water storage for the decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power facility 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-50 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

and is used for recreation. Park facilities include group campgrounds and individual camp sites, 

recreational vehicle sites, group and family picnic areas, two boat launches, a store/snack bar, restrooms, 

and a swimming area. The lake is a popular fishing spot for catfish, blue gill, bass, crappie, and trout. 

Most lake facilities are located on the south and west shores of the lake. The peak number of persons at 

Rancho Seco Lake on a summer weekend is approximately 5,000. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District contracted with the State of California to operate a portion of the 

site as a public park for 50 years as part of the development agreement to construct and operate the power 

plant. The contract remains in effect until December 31, 2022. The lake may not be drawn down below an 

elevation of 237 feet without prior written consent of the state. Sacramento Municipal Utility District also 

entered into a contract with Sacramento County in 1971 that specified that Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District would construct water, sanitary, and recreation facilities and would operate the reservoir in 

accordance with Sacramento Municipal Utility District's state contract. Sacramento County agreed to 

manage these facilities for the full term of Sacramento Municipal Utility District's contract with the state. 

However, as a result of a budget shortfall in 1992, Sacramento County discontinued management of the 

park facilities in September 1992, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District assumed these 

responsibilities. 

Placer County. Recreation areas in western and central Placer County serve the entire American River 

Division, and include areas within the Placer County Water Agency service area. Numerous federal, state, 

and local jurisdictions and private entities provide recreation opportunities in Placer County. Park 

facilities and recreation opportunities in the County range from small neighborhood and community parks 

and programs to regional recreation areas, natural open space areas, public and private museums and 

historical sites, and specialized sports facilities. 

Local parks in the western portion of the County are provided primarily by Placer County, the Auburn 

Recreation District, and incorporated cities such as Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. Placer County owns 

30 parks, campgrounds, community halls, trails, equestrian areas, reserves, and beaches. Two parks are 

currently under construction, In addition, Placer County and the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation are working on a plan to expand the existing network of trails throughout the American River 

Canyon. 

City of Roseville. Parks, public golf courses, and open spaces in the City are managed and maintained 

by the City Parks and Recreation Department. The City also manages pedestrian and bicyclist pathways, 

and non-traditional, park/open space areas such as vernal pool preserves, oak woodlands, and 

watershed/riparian areas, typically used for passive recreation and for visual and aesthetic enjoyment. 

El Dorado County. There are 54 parks and recreational areas within western El Dorado County, 

including 51 existing facilities and three proposed parks. Extensive boating recreation occurs on the South 

Fork between Chili Bar and Folsom Reservoir. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. Recreational opportunities within and near the East Bay 

Municipal Utility District service area are primarily oriented to urban parks and lands owned and 

managed by the East Bay Regional Park District. The regional park district manages 92,000 acres of land 

in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, performing the function of providing major park facilities, which 

is normally undertaken by county government. The district maintains parks of differing types that are 

classified as Regional Parks, Regional Preserves, Regional Recreation Areas, Regional Shorelines, 

Regional Wilderness Areas, and Regional Open Space. The district’s many parks provide a variety of 

recreational opportunities, such as swimming, hiking, boating, fishing, jogging, bicycling, picnicking, 

camping, and horseback riding. The California Department of Parks and Recreation manages and operates 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-51 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Mt. Diablo State Park, located on the eastern boundary of the East Bay Municipal Utility District service 

area in Contra Costa County. 

Some of the water that is diverted from Pardee Reservoir and conveyed to the East Bay Municipal Utility 

District’s service area is stored in five local terminal reservoirs—Briones, Chabot, Lafayette, San Pablo, 

and Upper San Leandro. Lafayette and San Pablo Reservoirs are East Bay Municipal Utility District 

recreation areas that provide visitors with many opportunities for recreation. Lafayette Reservoir and 

Recreation Area is ideal for hiking, bicycling, jogging, fishing, boating, sailing, and picnicking. At San 

Pablo Reservoir and Recreation Area, trout and catfish are planted regularly and the reservoir yields 

large- and smallmouth bass, white sturgeon, bluegill, and crappie. The reservoir also provides 

opportunities for hiking, bicycling, noncontact water sports, horseback riding, and picnicking. Lake 

Chabot, managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, also provides recreation opportunities. The lake 

is stocked with trout and catfish, and is popular for fishing. Services also include canoe and boat rentals, 

picnicking, hiking, bicycling, jogging, and running trails. Public fishing and boating is not allowed at 

Briones Reservoir; the U.C. Berkeley women's crew team uses the lake.

Folsom State Recreation Area. The Folsom SRA (consisting of Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma) is 

heavily used due to its proximity to a rapidly growing metropolitan area; the hot, dry summer climate of 

the area; the high recreational interest of the surrounding population; the diminishing open space; and its 

convenience as a recreational resource. Folsom Lake measures approximately 11,500 surface acres in 

area, and has 75 miles of shoreline. It is the result of damming of the American River at Folsom in the 

1950s as part of the CVP. Lake Natoma is the afterbay of Folsom Dam and is located about one mile 

downstream of the dam. It measures approximately 500 surface acres in area. It is narrow and linear, 

measuring four miles in length. There are 176 campsites that accommodate tent, trailer, RV, and group 

campers; 11 day use areas; and over 90 miles of existing trails in the SRA. 

Visitation peaks in the summer and tapers off in the fall and winter; 75 percent of all visits to the SRA 

occur during the spring and summer months. Use in 2000 at the Folsom Lake SRA was more than 1.5 

million visitors. Water-enhanced (land-based) activities at the SRA account for approximately 15 percent 

of the total recreation demand and water-dependent activities account for nearly 85 percent. Waterdependent activities on Folsom Lake include boating, personal watercraft use (jet skis), windsurfing, 

water skiing, rafting, swimming, and fishing. On Lake Natoma, water-dependent activities include 

paddling (kayaking, rowing, canoeing, and outriggers), swimming, and fishing. Boating accounts for 

approximately 30 percent of the total recreation demand at the SRA, swimming and wading account for 

27 percent, fishing accounts for nearly 20 percent, and 23 percent consists of picnicking, camping, and 

miscellaneous water-dependent activities. 

Recreation use and quality of the SRA are closely related to Folsom Lakes' function as a flood control, 

irrigation, and water supply reservoir, particularly as it relates to water surface elevations of the lake. 

Folsom Lake water surface elevations directly affect the availability of boat ramps, beaches, berth sites, 

and other facilities that depend on water depth or surface area. These elevations can vary as much as 70 

feet in normal years. The highest surface elevations occur during the rainy season and spring run-off in 

late winter and early spring; the lowest elevations occur in late fall or early winter before it rains. The 

elevations drop continuously from the start of the recreation season (Memorial Day) through the end of 

the season (Labor Day). Lake levels in a normal year will generally fall from an elevation of 466 feet at 

the beginning of the season to a low of 405 feet in late fall, after the season has ended. 

If Folsom Lake's water surface elevation stays above about 405 feet mean sea level, berthing slips for 

year-round mooring is available. When reservoir elevations rise higher than about 450 feet mean sea 

level, lake inundation results in nearshore boat ramps and parking spaces becoming unavailable, affecting 

the carrying capacity of the reservoir. When reservoir water levels decline below 436 feet mean sea level, 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-52 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

submerged boat ramps become more exposed and can become unusable at about elevation 420 feet mean 

sea level. Summer is the most sensitive to changes in water surface elevations because of the lack of 

access to a recreational facility that can result. 

Table 4-3 lists the boat launch facilities at Folsom Lake and the minimum water surface elevations in 

which those facilities can be operated. Major facilities at Folsom Lake include six developed boat 

launching areas, one marina, and two formal beach areas. 

Lake Natoma is located at the downstream end of the Folsom Lake SRA. Nimbus Dam and Lake Natoma 

regulate releases to the American River while allowing varied water releases from Folsom Dam so that 

power production benefits can be optimized. The water surface elevation typically fluctuates four to seven 

feet daily. Recreation use on Lake Natoma is less affected than at Folsom Lake due to the minimal 

changes in water surface elevation. Table 4-4 lists the boat launch facilities at Lake Natoma and the 

minimum water surface elevations in which those facilities can be operated. 

Major facilities at Lake Natoma include three boat launching areas, formal beaches at Negro Bar and 

Nimbus Flat, and the California State University, Sacramento Aquatic Center just upstream of Nimbus 

Dam. The Aquatic Center provides instruction and equipment rentals for rowing, sail-boarding, canoeing, 

and small-boat sailing. Other Lake Natoma facilities include several picnic areas and an 8-mile segment 

of the American River paved trail that is used by equestrians, hikers, runners, mountain bikers, and in-line 

skaters. Bank fishing is common, and swimming and diving occur from the rock outcrops at the upper end 

of the lake. The predominant recreational activity is trail use (jogging, bicycling, hiking, and horseback 

riding). Summer water temperatures in Lake Natoma are generally much cooler than in Folsom Lake; 

therefore, Lake Natoma is less intensely used for swimming and wading. 

Lake Natoma supports an average of half-million visitor-days per year; visitation is greatest during the 

spring and summer. Water-enhanced activities account for approximately 50 percent of all recreation 

activities, and water-dependent activities account for the remaining 50 percent. Trail use accounts for 33 

percent of the total recreation demand, rafting and boating account for 30 percent, swimming and wading 

account for 12 percent, picnicking and related activities account for 10 percent, fishing accounts for eight 

percent, and nature study/sightseeing accounts for seven percent of the total recreation demand. 

The distribution of visitors across major facilities at the SRA is shown in Table 4-5. In 2000, 

approximately 71 percent of all visitors to the SRA visited eight of the facilities, with Granite Bay being 

the most heavily used. 

Lower American River. The Lower American River (23 miles from Nimbus Dam to the confluence 

with the Sacramento River) includes the American River Parkway. The Parkway includes 14 parks along 

the publicly owned lands of the river. The County of Sacramento operates and maintains facilities within 

the Parkway downstream of Nimbus Dam, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation 

operates and maintains the facilities upstream of the dam. It is widely recognized as one of the nation's 

premier urban parkways. 

The most popular feature of the Parkway is the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail - more commonly known 

as the American River Bike Trail - that extends 32 miles east from Discovery Park in Sacramento to Beals 

Point in the Folsom Lake SRA. This trail offers to hikers, cyclists, and horseback riders opportunities for 

outdoor recreation, nature viewing, and relaxation. The American River is popular with fishing 

enthusiasts, canoeists, kayakers, and rafters, and the Parkway offers several picnic areas, and 

opportunities for nearby golf, guided natural and historic tours, archery, and game fields. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-53 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 4-3 

BOAT LAUNCH FACILITIES AT FOLSOM LAKE 

Facility Name No. of Launch Lanes Minimum Lake Level for Operations (ft.) 

Granite Bay 

 Stage 1 

 Stage 2 

 Stage 3 

 Stage 4 

 Five Percent 

 Low Water 

2 

10 

10 

14 

4 

2 

395 

426 

435 

425 

408 

360 

Folsom Point 4 406 

Brown's Ravine 

 Main Ramp 

 Hobie Cove 

4 

3 

395 

375 

Rattlesnake Bar 2 425 

Peninsula 

 Day Use 

 South Ramp 

1 

1 

434 

410 

Beal's Point 1 420 

Source: Wallace Roberts & Todd, 2003. 

TABLE 4-4 

BOAT LAUNCH FACILITIES AT LAKE NATOMA 

Facility Name No. of Lanes Minimum Lake Level (ft.) 

Negro Bar 2 200 

Nimbus Flat 

 Main Ramp 

 Alternate 

2 

1 

115 

120 

Willow Creek 1 35 

Source: Wallace Roberts & Todd, 2003. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-54 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 4-5 

DISTRIBUTION OF VISITORS TO FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA BY FACILITY IN 2000 

Facility Attendance Percent of Total Attendance 

Granite Bay 507,712 32.0 

Beals Point 219,986 14.0 

Folsom Point 112,120 7.1 

Brown's Ravine 66,856 4.3 

Peninsula Area 19,303 1.2 

Negro Bar 84,481 5.4 

Nimbus Flat 38,801 2.5 

Rattlesnake Bar 62,001 3.9 

Total Facility Attendance 1,111,260 70.7 

Total Park Attendance 1,571,074 

Source: Wallace Roberts & Todd, 2003. 

More than five million visitors use the Parkway each year; visitation is expected to increase to about 10 

million by 2020, assuming stable riverflows are available. Approximately 31 percent of all visits were 

associated with water-dependent activities (swimming, boating, and fishing), and 69 percent were 

associated with water-enhanced activities (jogging, nature study, hiking, picnicking). 

The Lower American River has been designated as a Wild and Scenic River pursuant to both the State 

and Federal Wild and Scenic River Acts. This designation prohibits federal construction, assistance and 

licensing, or water resource projects that would adversely affect the values for which the designated river 

segments are included in the national system. The Lower American River is a major site for recreational 

boating (rafting, kayaking, canoeing). The level of Lower American River boating activity, particularly 

commercial rafting, primarily depends on air temperature, riverflows, and season of year. Swimming and 

wading are other popular water-dependent activities affected by riverflows. There are 10 popular 

swimming areas along the river, although only Paradise Beach and Tiscornia Park have large sand beach 

areas. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on recreational opportunities are compared to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. The general plans for Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Alameda, and Contra 

Costa counties and all of the CVP water service contractors in the American River Division recognize the 

importance of recreational opportunities and continue to provide protections and support for the 

recreational sites. For the recreational sites that are served by CVP water, it is anticipated that without 

acquired water supplies, low water levels would occur in reservoirs and creeks more frequently than has 

occurred in past years due to the reduction in CVP water supply reliability. 

Alternative 1. Recreational opportunities in the American River Division under Alternative 1 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-55 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Alternative 2. Recreational opportunities in the American River Division under Alternative 2 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability and associated storage 

volumes in Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom lakes and flows in the American River. These types of programs 

would modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from 

within the historical ranges. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources could be affected by changes in reservoir or stream levels that would allow access to 

exposed artifacts or by disturbances due to development of CVP water service contractor service areas. 

Affected Environment

The following description of the affected cultural resources is focused upon areas served by CVP water. 

This information is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for local agencies, 

Reclamation, and the Water Forum Proposal. 

Human occupation of northern California may have begun shortly after 8,000 years Before Present (B.P.), 

termed the early Milling Stone Horizon, representing a subsistence pattern based largely on wild seeds 

and other plant foods. Hokan groups may have been the earliest permanent inhabitants of California. 

A dramatic intensification of land use began around 4,000-5,000 years ago, possibly linked to a more 

moderate climate and related to changes in the distribution of plant species or to the appearance in the 

Central Valley of an early, riverine-adapted Penutian population. This marks the approximate beginning 

of the Early period. Surviving Early-period sites are rare in the Central Valley; most studies of them have 

concentrated on burials and associated artifacts, especially charmstones and shell beads and ornaments. 

Skeletal analyses have suggested that Early-period populations suffered from starvation. 

A cultural transition seems to have occurred in the region about 2,500 years ago, marked by changes in 

burial practices (increased evidence of cremation and of flexed burials), tool types (increased use of 

mortars and bone tools), and ceremonial items (changing styles of shell beads and ornaments and 

charmstones). This is referred to as the Middle Period or Middle Horizon; the transition may reflect the 

eastward spread of Miwok people from the Bay Area. Evaluation of Middle-period burials indicates that 

they suffered less nutritional stress. 

The Late Period in the Central Valley began sometime around 1,500 years ago, reflected by changes in 

archaeological assemblages throughout the region. Late Period sites reflect dense populations with highly 

developed social organizations, trade networks, food storage and redistribution systems, ceremonial and 

funerary complexes, and a strong sense of territoriality. The settlement and subsistence patterns changed 

possibly from more ingestion of acorns as a staple food and the increase in fishing implements and 

riverine fauna, which may have been triggered by a warm/dry interval at 1,500 B.P. that would have 

altered vegetation and hydrologic patterns, and the entry into central California of the ancestral Wintun. 

The increased regional population (and resulting increased population pressure) may have forced the 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-56 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

intensified use of land and fish and shellfish resources. By the Proto-historic and Historic periods, fishing 

had become a primary subsistence activity for Central Valley tribes who by that time had come to occupy 

relatively stable and well-defined territories centered on the major rivers. 

Sacramento County. Sites within Sacramento County are of importance whether the sites are located 

within the CVP service area or along rivers because operations of the CVP could impact cultural 

resources. Between the Sacramento and Sutter county boundary and Freeport, there are 27 recorded sites 

(24 prehistoric and three historic) and at least 42 historic structures along this segment of the Sacramento 

River. Three of the prehistoric sites are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Natomas Main Drainage Canal meets the Sacramento River on its northern bank about 0.75 mile 

west of its confluence with the American River. This historic feature has not been evaluated. In addition, 

the town of Freeport, founded in the 1860s as an early tidewater railroad terminal has the potential to be 

determined an important historical resource. Other eligible or potentially eligible historic resources along 

the lower Sacramento River include a rural historic landscape district, Washington Water Company Water 

Tower, Sacramento Weir and Yolo Bypass, St. Josephs Church and Rectory, Leonidis Taylor Monument, 

and 37 houses built between 1855 and 1900. Of the 37 houses, only one (John White House) was not 

recommended for the National Register; the other 36 are listed as "appears eligible" or "may become 

eligible." 

A records search lists 36 recorded sites (22 prehistoric, 13 historic, one multi-component) on the 

American River between Folsom Dam and the Sacramento River. The prehistoric sites include village 

mounds and village middens, small camps, bedrock mortar stations, and flakestone scatters. Several 

ethnographic Maidu settlements were located along the river. Recorded historic sites on the American 

River consist of mine tailings, bridge abutments, features associated with the Folsom hydroelectric power 

system, stone foundations, and a cemetery. The American River is considered highly sensitive for 

archaeological resources. 

No systematic archaeological survey has been conducted for Sacramento County; instead there have been 

many smaller, project-specific studies, including surveys, test excavations, and site evaluations, as 

required pursuant to state and/or federal regulations (Reclamation, et al., 1998). These surveys found 

many prehistoric and historic resources throughout the County, some of which were intact at the time of 

the survey and some that were disturbed. 

The Valley Nisenan (a subdivision of the Southern Maidu) lived in settlements along the Sacramento 

River from downstream of the confluence with the American River, upstream to beyond Yuba 

City/Marysville, and eastward along the American River for about eight miles. The Nisenan villages may 

have had 500 to 1,000 occupants. Each village consisted of a number of pole-frame, dome-shaped houses 

10 to 15 feet in diameter, with shallow, excavated floors. Villages also contained granaries for storage of 

acorns and other winter supplies. 

The indigenous patterns of Nisenan society were changed with the arrival of Euro-Americans in 

California. By the 1830s, many non-Indians were coming to California. They brought diseases, and in 

1833, the Indian population was decimated by what is thought to be malaria. In addition, the Mexican 

government was granting large tracts of land to its citizens to a a small number of other nationals, who 

used the Indians as a labor force. When gold was discovered at Sutter's sawmill in Coloma on the south 

fork of the American River in 1848, circumstances worsened for the Nisenan. A year later, 100,000 

miners came to the Sierran Foothills, many of them through the Sacramento-Folsom area, disrupting 

Nisenan and other Indian life and often destroying villages and homes. The riverbeds were a major focus 

of mining activities; therefore, it is assumed that the Nisenan abandoned the Sacramento and Folsom area 

by the early 1850s to seek refuge in more remote locations, possibly in the foothills. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-57 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Between sites immediately upstream of Freeport and the confluence of the Cosumnes River, the 

Sacramento River is the ethnographic territory of the Plains Miwok. The Plains Miwok inhabited much of 

the Sacramento River delta and adjacent plains. Similar to the Nisenan, the Plains Miwok were overrun 

by overzealous missionaries and later by eager gold-seekers and the diseases they brought. By about 

1880, they were considered culturally extinct although they are by no means physically so. Primary 

information on traditional Plains Miwok culture, subsistence, and settlement patterns is limited and often 

conflicting. 

The first Anglo-American to travel into the region that is now Sacramento County was Jedediah Strong 

Smith, who opened up the northward Sacramento Trail to trade and immigration in 1828. New Helvetia, 

the first non-Indian settlement in the central valley, was established by Captain John A. Sutter in 1839. 

He established Sutter's Fort in the City of Sacramento as a trading post. Gold was discovered at Sutter's 

Mill on the American River in January 1848. By 1854, Sacramento had become so populous and 

important that the state capital was established in Sacramento. As the city grew, it became necessary to 

protect it from flooding of the American and Sacramento rivers by constructing levees and eventually 

raising the level of the town. Before 1869, the American River was re-channeled to relocate the 

confluence from the location of about E Street to a point about 0.5 mile north. 

Sacramento became the transportation center for California with the Sacramento Valley Railroad, the first 

railroad in the state, constructed between Sacramento and Folsom by 1856. The first transcontinental 

railroad was completed in 1869 when the Central Pacific Railroad, linking Sacramento with Promontory, 

Utah, met the Union Pacific Railroad. Southeastern Sacramento County was settled in the 1850s by hay 

and barley growers; by 1880, wheat became an important crop. The primary agricultural industry was 

stock raising. In addition, fruits and wine grapes were grown and timber mills were developed. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. An archaeological survey conducted in 1993 identified in 

three archaeological sites on the Rancho Seco site for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District: a 

prehistoric quarry site (RS-1), a late 19th century ditch and placer mining site (RS-2), and an early 20th 

century dairy (RS-3). Two resources were identified that are located on the project site: an area of placer 

mining remains (PR-1), and the possible location of a buried prehistoric site (PR-2). At Site RS-1, about 

30 prehistoric artifacts and numerous cultural items were noted on the surface, including flaked cobbles 

and pebbles. Site RS-2 appears to meet the criteria as defined by the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site RS-2 consists of a main ditch, 

dams and reservoirs, and two areas of associated placer mining activity likely dating to the late 1800s, and 

may meet the NRHP and CEQA criteria for significance. Site RS-3 contains the remains of the Skully 

Dairy, which operated in the 1950s, which does not appear to satisfy the significance criteria of either the 

NRHP or CEQA. Site PR-1 consists of hand-stacked waste rock piles from placer mining and appears to 

meet the criteria defined by CEQA and NRHP. Site PR-2 consists of three ground-stone artifacts. 

The Rancho Seco site was within lands held by the Plains Miwok at the time of historic contact. The 

Plains Miwok lived in large, semi-sedentary villages along the major river courses of the delta system. 

The Plains Miwok focused on plant collecting, with fishing and hunting being subsidiary activities. 

Unlike foothill groups that used bedrock mortars, the Plains Miwok continued to use bowl mortars, which 

were often made of wood. Ranching was the primary activity of the Rancho Seco site until Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District purchased the property. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom's East Area, in general, is considered highly sensitive for 

archaeological resources primarily because of its role in the early mining history of California. Most of 

this area falls within the historic Folsom gold mining district. Prehistoric and ethnographic sites are also 

likely. Test excavations carried out within the Folsom Boulevard right-of-way indicate that the site is 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-58 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Surveys within the right-of-way also noted 

three potentially significant historic structures. 

Portions of Folsom were once part of the traditional territory of the Nisenan (a subdivision of the 

Southern Maidu). The Walltown Nisenan inhabited the area in the vicinity of Folsom, Orangevale, 

Natoma, Latrobe, Clarksville, and Sloughhouse. An Indian camp was established within the Walltown 

Mining District, located about 12 miles south of Folsom. The Walltown Indian Village was occupied until 

the 1880s and was probably established in response to the Euroamerican gold activities. Walltown may 

have been a semi-permanent settlement because structures were placed on the same location each year 

when the group returned to the area. Dwellings at Walltown were 15 to 20 feet in diameter. A variety of 

stone projectile points, knives, scrapers, and choppers have bveen found in the territory of the Walltown 

Nisenan. In addition, grinding tools, bedrock mortars, portable mortars, and pestles were used to grind 

seeds and acorns. Nisenan culture in the Folsom area terminated about 1871. Some Indians turned to gold 

mining to supplement traditional subsistence strategies and continued to do so until the 1930s (Lindstrom, 

1993). 

Portions of Folsom are part of the historic land grant, Rancho Rio de los Americanos, which was granted 

to William A. Leidesdorff in 1844. When he died in 1848, Captain Joseph L. Folsom purchased the 

Leisdedorff estate from the heirs. The town of Folsom was originally settled in 1849 by black miners and 

was known as Negro Bar. Mining commenced in the area in the 1850s, resulting in a drastic increase in 

population in the area, but when gold was mined out in 1860 and agriculture and stock-raising began, 

population began to decline. In 1863, the Placerville and Sacramento Valley Railroad Company began 

laying track east from Folsom into the foothills. The line to Placerville was completed in 1888. Southern 

Pacific acquired the line around 1910, and it continued to carry freight and passengers until the 1930s 

(Lindstrom, 1993). 

Folsom has a Historic District that includes most of "Old Folsom", containing most of the remaining 

commercial and residential buildings dating back to the 1800s. These buildings are identified and 

protected. 

The Sacramento Valley Railroad (the Union Pacific Railroad tracks between Sacramento and Folsom) is a 

historical resource that has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

and is designed as a California State Historic Landmark, predominantly because of its role as the first 

commercial line completed west of the Mississippi River, the involvement of Theodore Judah in its 

design, and the influence over the economic development of California and growth of Folsom and 

Sacramento. 

Placer County. Cultural resources in western and central Placer County may be affected by operations 

of Placer County Water Agency. Placer County is known to have been occupied by two groups of Native 

Americans; west of the Sierra Nevada crest were the Nisenan, and east of the Sierran crest were the 

Washo Indians, whose territory centered on the Tahoe Basin and included the Truckee River Valley. 

Descendants of the Nisenan are known to live in Placer County. 

Both the Nisenan and the Washo were hunter-gatherers. The Washo lived a much more mobile life in 

smaller groups than the Nisenan. The migratory patterns of the two groups have left unique 

archaeological remains that include habitation sites, burial sites, and resource procurement and processing 

sites. 

The first documented presence of North Americans of European descent in Placer County was during the 

1840s. The earliest towns were Auburn (founded in 1849), Ophir (1852), and Rattlesnake (1853). The 

economic development of the county was originally based on mining of gold, then coal, granite, iron, 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-59 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

copper, quartz, and clay. Timber and agriculture became important industries; by 1869, 15 saw mills 

produced 17 million board feet of lumber in the county. 

Agricultural activity began because of the need for fruit, vegetables, and flour to feed the miners and 

immigrants during the gold rush. During the 1920s, Placer County was considered the largest 

fruit-producing area in the state. In the late 1950s, a disease called "pear decline" and the lower yield of 

foothill ranches compared to those in the valley contributed to the demise of Placer County's fruit 

industry. Dairy farming became locally important after the decline of the fruit industry, but by 1960 had 

also diminished significance. Other agricultural enterprises in the county include raising beef cattle, 

horses, rice, sheep, turkeys, and producing honey, wine, and brandy. 

The Central Pacific Railroad completed track from Sacramento to Auburn in 1865. Placer County's 

growth and development was greatly enhanced by the Central Pacific Railroad. Few early gold rush era 

buildings are left in Placer County because early miners and immigrants generally lived outside or in 

cloth tents; several buildings, structures, and features are left from the later mining era. In addition, 

structures associated with the early lumber mills, buildings and other features associated with the 

fruit-growing industry, Depression-era concrete bridges, and other historic resources such as school 

houses, residences, commercial buildings, community halls, churches, and cemeteries exist throughout the 

County. 

City of Roseville. Prior to exploration by Spanish explorers and American trappers, Roseville and the 

surrounding area was inhabited by the Valley Nisenan, also known as the Southern Maidu. The Nisenan 

made their home along tributaries and drainages of the American, Yuba, and Bear rivers and the lower 

reaches of the Feather River. Near Roseville, the Nisenan inhabited a major village named Pitchiku. 

Structures included brush shelters, sweat houses, acorn granaries, and dance houses. Two large permanent 

Nisenan sites located within the Maidu Regional Park in Roseville are listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places. These sites include petroglyphs, grinding rocks, a burial ground, and a midden area. 

Little Euro-American use of the Roseville area occurred prior to the discovery of gold in 1848. 

Exploration that did occur was conducted primarily by Spanish missionaries and American trappers. Soon 

after the discovery of gold, the region became heavily populated with prospectors, entrepreneurs, and 

others seeking easy fortunes. Roseville quickly became established as a railroad town and a local 

commerce center. Evidence of mining, including ditches, pits, small mounds, and low terraces, is still 

present along several of the creeks within the City. Within the City are 11 sites of historic and cultural 

importance. 

Historic sites include unmortared rock walls built by immigrants. Four historic isolated artifacts or 

features were recorded including two buildings on the Diamond K Ranch property identified as eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places. These buildings have been preserved and will not be affected 

by future development. Other historic sites identified in a 1986 survey consist of an old wooden stave 

pipeline and a barn was constructed in about 1910 using mortise and tenon construction, which is a highly 

unusual construction method used in California after 1850. The City has planned a public park around the 

barn. 

El Dorado County. El Dorado County contains approximately 850 sites (prehistoric and historic) 

officially recorded with the North Central Information Center at California State University, Sacramento. 

In addition to the recorded historic sites, there are also 14 properties listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (10 of these are located in the western portion of the county), nine eligible for listing on 

the National Register, 27 State Historic Landmarks, and 25 named gold mining districts. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-60 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

El Dorado County also keeps an inventory of county resources not included on state or federal lists. Over 

90 sites are on this list; a majority of the sites occurs in the western county. Resources in the county 

inventory include Wells Fargo Express offices, stage coach stops, the site of the first county courthouse, 

pioneer cemeteries, historic homes, jail houses, and wineries. 

The County was once inhabited by the ancestors of the Nisenan (Southern Maidu), Northern Sierra 

Miwok, and Washoe peoples. The Nisenan generally occupied the area between the South Fork of the 

American River and the Cosumnes River from the foothills to the crest of the Sierra Nevada. The 

Northern Sierra Miwok occupied territory south of the Cosumnes River. The Washoe occupied the area 

east of the crest of the Sierras into Nevada. 

Sites have been identified dating back as far as 6000 B.C. in the Tahoe Basin region, and as recent as 

circa 1800 A.D. on the west slope of the County. Two "early man" sites have been reported in the 

southeastern Sacramento area dating to around 12,000 years ago. 

A variety of site types have been identified within the County are expected to be found in various 

geographic areas including: village sites with artifacts, housepits, and the remains of dancehouses; 

cemeteries and cry sites; petroglyphs (rock art); quarries where materials for stone tools were collected 

and sometimes processed; temporary campsites; bedrock milling areas where acorns and other seeds were 

processed; scatters of artifacts and tool production waste materials; and ceremonial sites with little or no 

physical remnants. 

El Dorado County's first mass immigration began because of the discovery of gold at Coloma in 1848. 

Boom towns appeared overnight between 1848 and 1852. Placer mining was replaced by hydraulic 

mining, which survived throughout the 1880s. By 1900, much of the transitory population had departed, 

but many of the communities created by the 1849 Gold Rush lived on. In the 1920s and 1930s, a major 

attraction was auto touring to Lake Tahoe via "The Wishbone". This route originated in Sacramento and 

included U.S. Highway 50, State Route 89, and westbound Interstate 80, returning back to the 

Sacramento Valley. 

A systematic survey of all lands within the County has never been performed. Archaeological field work 

in the County has been conducted for private and public development projects and by the U.S. Forest 

Services for lands within its jurisdiction; therefore, only about 10 percent of the County has been 

surveyed. 

The lifeways and material culture of the three groups occupying the County were very similar in nature. 

Typically villages were located on ridges and higher ground near sources of water. However, other types 

of sites were located in various geographical settings, depending on the availability of resources (plants, 

wildlife, lithic material). Permanent houses were typically conical in shape and covered with brush or 

earth. Sweathouses and dancehouses are indicative of more recent occupation. All groups subsisted on a 

varied assortment of fish, game, and plants. Acorns were a staple throughout most of the territory; other 

materials were used for food, medicinal, and manufacturing purposes. Commonly hunted game included 

deer, bear, mountain lions, and rabbits. 

The Native American populations within the County remained relatively untouched during the early days 

of European exploration and settlement-the Native American population Statewide was estimated to be 

280,000 to 340,000 at the time of European contact. During the height of the Gold Rush (1845-1855), the 

Native American culture was almost completely decimated, reducing it to some 50,000 persons. The 

groups within the county were adversely affected because of their proximity to major Gold Rush activity. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-61 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

East Bay Municipal Utility District. Human occupation of Northern California and the Bay Area 

began at least 10,000 to 7,000 years ago. Early inhabitants of the Bay Area lived in nomadic huntergatherer societies, but by about 4,000 years ago, villages were located along the shorelines of bay shore 

marshlands, streams, and other water bodies. The rich and complex array of resources available along the 

shore enabled prehistoric village populations to increase greatly as the indigenous societies changed from 

the hunter-gather type to a more sedentary lifestyle. The Bay Area was inhabited by at least three 

indigenous groups: the Ohlone Costanoan (or “coastal dwellers”), the Bay Miwok, and the Northern 

Valley Yokut. The most important plant foods included acorns, hazelnuts, buckeye, California laurel, 

berries, seeds, and bulbs. Deer, elk, antelope, geese, ducks, steelhead, and salmon were also food sources 

(Basin Research Associates, 2000). 

Spanish exploration along the California coast began in the 16th century and some Spanish expeditions 

passed through the Bay Area in the mid-1700s. Most Spanish settlement in the East Bay consisted of land 

grants, such as Rancho San Leandro, Rancho San Lorenzo, Rancho San Ramon, and the Peralta land 

grant. In 1848, the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill brought thousands of new settlers to northern 

California and, coupled with the completion of the transcontinental railroad to California in 1869, the 

nonindigenous populations in the East Bay increased dramatically. By the mid-19th century, most of the 

Spanish land grants had been subdivided as a result of population growth and the United States taking 

over California. 

The portions of the East Bay in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area in Contra Costa and 

Alameda counties first developed as agricultural areas with urban areas located along the San Francisco 

Bay shoreline. The population of these areas grew significantly after the 1906 earthquake in San 

Francisco, and during World War II, when many industries moved to the East Bay. Large portions of 

Contra Costa County remained agricultural until 30 years ago, when the area began to become residential 

to support employment in other parts of the Bay Area. 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District service area contains numerous prehistoric resources, including 

lithic scatters, quarries, habitations, shell mounds, bedrock mortars, petroglyphs, and burials, and historic 

resources, as well as standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; and locations of 

important historic events or sites of traditional or cultural importance (Basin Research Associates, 2000). 

Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma. One hundred and eighty-five prehistoric sites or components have 

been recorded at Folsom Lake. Among these are 126 prehistoric sites or components, some with remnant 

patches of midden. Human burials are noted on a few of the 1940s-50s site records, but the present status 

of these burials is unknown. Fifty-nine historic-period sites have been recorded at Folsom Lake, mostly 

related to mining, transportation, and settlement. Many of the recorded sites shown signs of adverse 

effects from wave action, inundation, and/or recreation use at the reservoir. 

Lake Natoma, downstream from Folsom Dam, lies within the boundaries of the historic Folsom/American 

River Mining District, which is a dredge field 10 miles long and seven miles wide dating from the 1890s 

to the 1960s. It includes dredge tailings, and historic mining features like ground sluice systems, ditches, 

bedrock tunnels, shafts, adits, prospect pits, rock retaining walls, and refuse dumps. This was one of the 

largest dredging fields in California and produced an estimated $125 million in gold. At least three known 

prehistoric sites have been inundated by the lake. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on cultural and historical resources are compared to conditions under 

the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-62 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative use of CVP long-term contracts is not the 

sole factor driving growth and land use change. Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, 

independent of the long-term contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and indirect 

effects to cultural resources that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) responsibilities. With little exception, virtually all of the long-term 

contract renewal actions are within the range of existing conditions. This includes the area of use, types of 

use, range of river flows, and reservoir fluctuations. 

Long-term contract renewal actions under the No Action Alternative that are not within the range of 

existing conditions and would affect historic properties, a commitment would be made that Reclamation 

would comply with Section 106. In some instances the responsibility to address affects to cultural 

resources would be with the local government as part of their California Environmental Quality Act 

compliance for their actions. For example, Reclamation is not responsible for the development of housing 

tracts or industrial development in a community. 

Such actions are approved locally and at the state level (However, other federal agencies, such as Housing 

and Urban Development, may be involved.). Reclamation does not control local agencies land use 

decision. On the other hand, Reclamation would need to consider the effects to historic properties when 

Reclamation approves new lands being brought into a district and when Reclamation approves a change 

in use that could lead to an effect on a historic property. 

In compliance with 36 CFR 800.4(a) (4), Reclamation has sent letters to Indian tribes requesting their 

input regarding the identification of any properties to which they might attach religious and cultural 

significance to within the area of potential effect. To date we have not received any comments or formal 

responses from the tribes. 

Alternative 1. Cultural resources in American River under Alternative 1 would be identical to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not alter CVP operations as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared 

to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Cultural resources in American River under Alternative 2 would be identical to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter CVP operations as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared 

to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of 

programs would modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or 

deliveries from within the historical ranges. 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS

The United States has a trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by, or granted to, 

federally recognized tribes and individual Indians, by treaties, statutes, and executive orders. These rights 

are sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and regulations. The trust responsibility 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-63 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

requires that all federal agencies, including Reclamation, take all actions reasonably necessary to protect 

Indian trust assets. 

Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in property held in trust by the federal government for federally 

recognized Indian tribes or individual Indians. “Assets” are anything owned that has monetary value. 

“Legal interest" means there is a property interest for which there is a legal remedy, such as compensation 

or injunction, if there is improper interference. Indian trust assets do not include things in which a tribe or 

individual Indians have no legal interest. 

Indian Trust Assets can be real property, physical assets or intangible property rights, such as a lease, or a 

right to use something. Indian Trust Assets cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated without United 

States' approval. While most Indian trust assets are located on-reservation, they can also be located offreservation. Examples of things that can be Indian Trust Assets are land, minerals, hunting and fishing 

rights, water rights, and instream flows. Off-reservation cultural resources located on non-trust land, are 

usually not Indian trust assets. 

This section describes the Native American resources within or near the American River Division or 

service areas of the American River Division CVP water service contractors. 

Affected Environment

There are three Native American resources and sites within or near the American River Division, 

including tribal trust assets recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as shown in Table 4-6. 

TABLE 4-6 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS IN AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

Indian Trust Asset Nearest CVP Water 

Service Contractor 

Comments 

Auburn Rancheria Placer County Water 

Agency 

Miwok Tribe near Auburn, Placer County

Shingle Springs Rancheria Within El Dorado Irrigation 

District

Miwok Tribe - 160 acres near El Dorado, El Dorado 

County

Wilton Rancheria Near Rancho Seco 

Generating Station and 

Zone 40 

Tribal affiliation unknown 

near Wilton, Sacramento County 

Rancheria was terminated in 1964 and transferred 

into fee title (Reclamation, et al., 1998)

These are Trust Assets recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and are not necessarily shown in local land use 

plans 

Source: Welch, Patrick, pers. comm., 2001.
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-64 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on Indian Trust Assets are compared to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Indian Trust Assets in the American River Division would be the same as 

described under existing conditions. The assets are not directly located within or adjacent to CVP 

facilities. 

Alternative 1. Conditions at Indian Trust Assets in the American River Division would be identical 

under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Conditions at Indian Trust Assets in the American River Division would be identical 

under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, including future 

water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of programs would 

modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within 

the historical ranges or cause additional construction activities or access near the Indian Trust Assets. 

AIR QUALITY

Most of the air pollutants in Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado counties may be associated with either 

urban or agricultural land uses. Pollutants commonly associated with agricultural land uses include 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), and ozone precursors. No clear relationship exists between agricultural acres and the occurrence or 

resulting concentrations of ozone (O3) and PM10 in the atmosphere. Several variables other than land uses 

can affect air quality conditions, and these variables may change over time. 

Affected Environment

The following description of the affected air resources is focused upon air quality in areas served by CVP 

water and is based upon information prepared by Reclamation and the local agencies or the referenced air 

quality regulatory agencies. 

Climate. The climate in northern and central Sacramento County, including Folsom, Zone 40, San Juan 

Water District, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco site, and agricultural areas located 

south of Zone 40; and Roseville in western Placer County is characterized by cool, wet winters and hot, 

dry summers. The seasons are so distinctly different that the period from May to October may be termed 

the dry season and November to April the wet season. Precipitation varies throughout the area, ranging 

from 16 to 20 inches on the valley floor to about 70 inches in the foothills near Folsom Lake. Annual 

precipitation occurs almost entirely between November to March. Winds in the area tend to be fairly 

strong and predominate from the west through the Carquinez Strait from the Pacific Ocean. During the 

winter, the sea breezes diminish and winds from the north occur more frequently; however, winds from 

the south still predominate. Between late spring and early fall, a layer of warm air often overlays a layer 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-65 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

of cool air from the Delta and the San Francisco Bay, resulting in an inversion. Air pollution problems 

tend to develop when calms combine with inversions. 

The areas served with CVP water by Placer County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District are in 

a transition zone between the climate of the Central Valley and that of the higher Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. Most winds on the western slopes are from the west and southwest. Summer winds allow for 

good local mixing, but often bring air pollutants from the Central Valley and Bay Area. During the 

winter, winds are from the south or southeast. In addition to the wind patterns that affect the rate and 

orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, temperature inversions control the vertical depth through 

which pollutants are mixed. 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District service area is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry 

summers. Winter rains account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. During rainy periods, 

ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing are usually 

high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low. However, frequent dry periods do occur during the winter, 

where mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up. The complex terrain, especially at 

higher elevations, distorts the normal wind flow patterns. The greatest distortion occurs when low-level 

inversions are present and the air beneath the inversion flows independently of air above the inversion, a 

condition that is common during the summer months. 

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley begins developing at or near ground level along 

the coast in the late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and 

increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the Delta breeze depends largely on the height 

and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of sea breeze 

will be inhibited and stagnant air quality conditions are likely to result. 

During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and 

over the lower portions of the San Francisco peninsula. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where 

air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait or the Golden Gate. 

Air Quality. Air quality is regulated in accordance with federal and state mandates. These regulations are 

enforced by local and regional authorities. The federal Clean Air Act was passed in 1967, and provided 

the first national program to control pollution from automobiles and stationary sources. the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency subsequently established national ambient air quality standards in 1971 

for the following air pollutants: O3, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10. 

California ambient air quality standards were established by the California Air Resources Board starting 

in 1969, pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. The California ambient air quality standards are generally 

more stringent and include more pollutants than the national ambient air quality standards. 

Sacramento County and western Placer County (west of Colfax) are located in the Sacramento Valley Air 

Basin. The eastern portion of Placer County Water Agency (east of Colfax) and the portion of El Dorado 

Irrigation District served by CVP water service contracts are located in the Mountain Counties Air Basin. 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District service area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. 

Eleven air quality monitoring stations existed in the Sacramento County portion of the Sacramento Valley 

Air Basin as of 2000-2001. Within the Mountain Counties Air Basin in 2000-2001, there were two 

monitoring stations in El Dorado County and one monitoring station in Placer County. Within the East 

Bay Municipal Utility District service area, there are two monitoring stations in Alameda County and 

three monitoring stations in Contra Costa County. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-66 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Portion of the Study Area in Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Sacramento County 

(including Folsom, San Juan Water District, Zone 40, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco 

site, and agricultural areas located south of Zone 40) and western Placer County (including Roseville and 

most of Placer County Water Agency) are located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. 

Sacramento County is within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District. The District’s overall mission is to achieve clean air goals by leading the region in protecting 

public health and the environment. 

Suspended particulates are generally a regional problem, except when intense emission sources (such as 

construction activities) affect a small area (Reclamation et al., 1998). In the Sacramento area, pollutants 

of greatest concern include ozone precursors (reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx, CO, PM10, and 

other visibility-reducing material. The largest single source of pollutants in the Sacramento area is 

automobile exhaust; O3 and CO pollution are largely attributable to automobile use. Other sources, such 

as agricultural and construction/demolition activities, also contribute to high levels in suspended 

particulates. Prior to 1991, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments was responsible for preparing 

state implementation plans required by the federal Clean Air Act for the Sacramento Air Quality 

Maintenance Area. Since 1991, local air districts are responsible for preparing state implementation plans 

with Sacramento Area Council of Governments taking a support role in document preparation. 

The Placer County Air Pollution Control District, headquartered in Auburn, is responsible for managing 

the County’s air quality in a manner to protect and promote public health by controlling and seeking 

reductions of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the economic and environmental impacts. 

The District performs several functions: 

• Monitors air quality 

• Controls air pollution from stationary sources 

• Enforces the Statewide Portable Equipment Program 

• Responds to citizen complaints regarding air pollution 

• Works with County fire districts and agencies 

• Administers the County Burn Program 

• Assists applicants for land use projects 

• Reviews land use development proposals 

• Prepares long-range attainments plans for state and federal clean air acts 

• Provides information regarding funding opportunities and grants for projects intended to improve 

air quality in the County 

The primary sources of PM10 in Placer County are entrained road dust and construction and demolition 

activities. No CO monitoring stations are located in Placer County; the entire county has been designated 

as unclassified for CO. The primary source of CO emissions in Placer County is motor vehicle emissions. 

Ozone is monitored at stations located in Rocklin, Auburn, and in Colfax. Ozone problems are the 

cumulative result of regional development patterns, rather than the result of a few significant sources. 

Motor vehicles are the primary source of Placer County NOx and ROG emissions (NOx and ROG are 

precursors to O3 formation). 

Portion of the Study Area in Mountain Counties Air Basin. Areas served by CVP water 

in El Dorado Irrigation District and areas of Placer County Water Agency located in Colfax or east of 

Colfax are in the Mountain Counties Air Basin. Within El Dorado County, primary responsibility for air 

pollution monitoring and control from stationary sources lies with the El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-67 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

As part of the 1988 California Clean Air Act, air districts that are in violation of state ambient air quality 

standards are required to prepare plans to bring their jurisdictions into compliance with air quality 

standards. The California Air Resources Board reviews and approves the plans and coordinates the 

statewide air pollution effort. The El Dorado County Air Quality Management District performs several 

functions: 

• Prepares plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards 

• Adopts and enforces rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution 

• Issues permits for stationary sources of air pollution 

• Inspects stationary sources of air pollution 

• Responds to citizen complaints 

• Monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions 

• Implements programs and regulations required by the federal and California Clean Air Acts 

Air quality in El Dorado County is affected by both stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary 

source emissions are composed of point source and area source emissions. Point sources of emissions are 

limited in the County. They include emissions produced from mining operations, lumber processing, and 

industrial boilers. Area sources include refuse burning; wildfires; service station operations; pesticide use; 

farm equipment operations; construction equipment operations; utility equipment; range improvement; 

forest management; residential wood combustion; residential space and water heating; fuel production 

and transfer; formulation and application of paints, solvents, and other coatings; organic waste disposal; 

dry cleaning operations; soil decontamination; wastewater processing; and graphic arts processes. Limited 

data are available on the amount of area source emissions currently being produced in El Dorado County. 

Mobile sources include automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles. Vehicle pollutants are produced by 

vehicles traveling within the County, but are also carried into the County by prevailing wind patterns 

from the Sacramento County urbanized area and the San Francisco Bay Area. Vehicular traffic along U.S. 

Highway 50 between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe is also a significant contributor of contaminants. 

Portion of the Study Area in Bay Area Air Basin. Areas served by East Bay Municipal 

Utility District are included in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, which is managed by the Bay Area 

Air Quality Management District. In 2000, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prepared a 

clean air plan designed to bring its jurisdiction into compliance with nonattainment area pollutants. This 

plan was adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors in December 

2000 and submitted to the California Air Resources Board. 

The area has been designated as a nonattainment area for O3 and PM10. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and 

an oxidant that, when at unhealthy levels, increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause 

substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. It is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed 

by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Its precursors, which include ROG and NOx, react in the 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form O3. Because photochemical reaction rates depend on the 

intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, O3 is primarily a summer air pollution problem. 

Health concerns associated with suspended particulate matter focus on those particles small enough to 

reach the lungs when inhaled (PM10 or smaller). Particulates can damage human health and retard plant 

growth. Particulates also reduce visibility, stain buildings, and corrode materials. PM10 emissions are 

generated by a wide variety of sources, including agricultural activities, industrial emissions, dust 

suspended by vehicle traffic (including construction traffic), and secondary aerosols formed by reactions 

in the atmosphere. The area has been designated as an attainment area for NO2, SO2, and CO. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-68 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The largest sources of air pollution in the area are related to automobile traffic and entrained road dust. 

Other air pollution sources include petroleum refineries, manufacturers, power plants, construction, 

demolition, and urban activities such as painting. The counties are coordinating with the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission to prepare a Transportation Improvement Plan to be in conformance with the 

State Implementation Plan for nonattainment areas. The counties also consider air quality issues when 

considering land use changes. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on air quality are compared to conditions under the No Action 

Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the use of CVP long-term contracts is not the 

sole factor driving growth and land use change. Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, 

independent of the long-term contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and indirect 

effects to air quality that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s responsibilities. With little exception, 

virtually all of the long-term contract renewal actions are within the range of existing conditions. This 

includes the area of use, types of use, range of river flows, and reservoir fluctuations. There would be no 

increase in deliveries, and no conversion of existing natural habitat into farmland or other uses. 

In some instances the responsibility to address affects to air quality would be with the local government 

as part of their California Environmental Quality Act compliance for their actions. For example, 

Reclamation is not responsible for the development of housing tracts or industrial development in a 

community. Such actions are approved locally and at the state level (However, other federal agencies, 

such as Housing and Urban Development, may be involved). Further, if a farmer changes from one 

irrigated crop to another because of economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s 

decision. On the other hand, Reclamation would need to consider the effects to air quality when 

Reclamation approves new lands being brought into an irrigation district and when Reclamation approves

a change in use. 

Alternative 1. Air quality in the American River Division under Alternative 1 would be identical to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative because there is no change in land use. Therefore, there are no 

environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Air quality in the American River Division under Alternative 2 would be identical to 

conditions under the No Action Alternative because there is no change in land use. Therefore, there are no 

environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects. 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of 

programs would modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or 

deliveries from within the historical ranges. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-69 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

SOILS

Soils could be affected by changes in reservoir or stream levels that would allow increase erosion or by 

disturbances due to development of CVP water service contractor service areas. 

Affected Environment

The following description of the affected soil resources is focused upon areas served by CVP water. This 

information is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for local agencies, 

Reclamation, and the Water Forum Proposal. 

Sacramento County and Western Placer County. The area in Sacramento County served by CVP 

water service contracts and areas in the adjacent Sacramento metropolitan areas and the southwestern 

areas of Placer County are located in the Central Valley Province. This province is composed of tertiary 

sediments and volcanics, and is a northwest-trending asymmetric trough 400 miles long and averaging 50 

miles wide. It is bound on the west by the pre-Tertiary and Tertiary semi-consolidated to consolidated 

marine sedimentary rocks of the Coast Range. The faulted and folded sediments of the Coast Range 

extend eastward beneath most of the Central Valley. The east side of the valley is underlain by 

pre-Tertiary igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada. 

Pre-Tertiary marine sediments account for about 25,000 feet of the total amount of sediments deposited in 

the sea before the rise of the Coast Range. Marine deposits continued to fill the Sacramento Valley until 

the Miocene Epoch and portions of the San Joaquin Valley until the late Pliocene, when the last seas 

receded from the valley. Then continental alluvial deposits from the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada 

began to collect in the newly formed valley. In total, the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys are filled 

with about 10 and six vertical miles of sediment, respectively. 

The valley floor is divided into several geomorphic land types including dissected uplands, low alluvial 

fans and plains, river flood plains and channels, and overflow lands and lake bottoms. The dissected 

uplands consist of consolidated and unconsolidated continental deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary that 

have been slightly folded and faulted. 

The alluvial fans and plains consist of unconsolidated continental deposits that extend from the edges of 

the valleys toward the valley floor. The alluvial plains cover most of the valley floor and make up some of 

the intensely developed agricultural lands in the Central Valley. Alluvial fans along the Sierra Nevada 

consist of high percentages of clean, well sorted gravel and sand. 

River flood plains and channels lie along the major rivers and to a lesser extent the smaller streams that 

drain into the valley from the surrounding Coast Range and Sierra Nevada. Some flood plains are 

well-defined where rivers are incised into their alluvial fans. These deposits tend to be coarse and sandy 

in the channels and finer and silty in the flood plains. Many of these deposits have been used for gravel 

mining activities. 

Calcic brown and noncalcic brown alluvial soils are found in the Sacramento Valley on deep alluvial fans 

and flood plains occurring in intermediate rainfall (10 to 20 inches annually). These two soils tend to be 

brown to light brown with a loam texture that forms soft clods. Calcic brown soil is calcareous; noncalcic 

soil is usually neutral or slightly acid. These soils are highly valued for irrigated crops. 

Terrace soils characterized by a red-iron hardpan layer are found along the east side of the Sacramento 

Valley. These soils consist of reddish surface soil with a dense silica-iron cemented hardpan, which is 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-70 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

generally one foot thick. Some of these hardpan soils have considerable amounts of lime. Dry farming 

practices support hay, grains, and pastures, although following ripping, these soils are well suited for 

orchards and vineyards. These soils are subject to expansive traits which could lead to special building 

design criteria. These soils are subject to localized landslides and erosion, especially along road cuts or 

stream banks. 

Sacramento County contains no known fault zones or Alquist-Priolo special studies zones. However, the 

area is subject to influence from fault zones in the surrounding counties. Western Placer County also has 

low seismic potential. 

Central Placer County and Western El Dorado County. The area in Central Placer County (east 

of Rocklin) and areas within western El Dorado County that are served by CVP water service contract 

water are located in the Sierra Nevada Province. This province is generally composed of Mesozoic 

Sierran granitic batholith and associated older metamorphic rocks. In some areas of the northern Sierra 

Nevada, Tertiary sediments and volcanics overlie the igneous core. The Sierra Nevada resembles a tilted 

plateau that is depressed on the west side with the eastern side elevated. The Sierra Nevada batholith rises 

from beneath the sediments of the Central Valley at three to five degrees to its highest point in eastern 

peaks before it abruptly drops off along a fault escarpment. This fault marks the eastern end of the Sierra 

Nevada and the western limit of the Basin and Range Province. 

The terrace soils from the Central Valley Province area extend into this area. Upland soils continue ont 

the hilly to mountainous topography and are formed in place through the decomposition and 

disintegration of the underlying parent material. The more widespread upland soil groups include shallow 

depth, moderate depth, and deep depth to bedrock. Soils on the east side of the Sacramento Valley have 

mostly developed on igneous rocks. In the study area, the upland soils are primarily shallow. The soil has 

a loam-to-clay-loam texture with low organic matter, and some areas have calcareous subsoils. These 

soils usually have a shallow depth to weathered bedrock, less than two feet. These soils are found in areas 

of low to moderate rainfall that support grasslands used primarily for grazing. Tilled areas are subject to 

considerable erosion. 

It is recognized that several soil types, including gabro soils, are located in portions of El Dorado County 

and support specific plant species. However, none of those soils are located with the communities of Lake 

Hills Estates or El Dorado Hills. 

Potential for seismic activity is low, however the area can be influenced by seismic events in the eastern 

Sierra Nevada. The soils are subject to erosion and landslides near road cuts and stream banks. Gravel 

mining occurs in some streams that are characterized by rocky cobbles. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District Service Area. The portions of Alameda and Contra Costa 

counties within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area are located at the northern end of the 

Diablo Range of central California within the central Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The area is 

characterized by northwest-trending mountains and intermontane valleys with rounded ridges, steep and 

moderately steep sides, and narrow canyons. Intensely folded and faulted Franciscan sedimentary, minor 

volcanic, and metamorphic rocks predominate (U.S. Forest Service, 1998). 

Soil characteristics vary widely, in large part because of the wide range of topography, parent material, 

vegetation, and disturbances associated with past construction. Soils vary from rocky and sandy textures 

to clayey textures and are mostly well-drained lithic xerorthents, haploxeralfs, and argixerolls. Soil 

temperature regimes are predominantly thermic; however, north-facing slopes at higher elevations have 

primarily mesic temperatures. In many areas, soils have been compacted as a result of past construction 

(U.S. Forest Service, 1998). 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-71 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

In most of the service area, the Franciscan bedrock is overlain by unconsolidated clays, silts, sands, and 

gravels, referred to as the Alameda and San Antonio Formations, or Bay Muds. These deposits range in 

thickness from more than 300 feet to more than 1,100 feet and sediments are fairly continuous beneath 

San Francisco Bay. These muds are often overlain and interlayered with alluvial deposits of fine-grained 

and clayey sands that are 10 to 50 feet thick on the east side of the bay (Helley and Graymer, 1997a, 

1997b). 

The presence of the Hayward/Calaveras fault, Franklin fault, and Concord fault over these formations 

causes the area to be highly susceptible to seismic activity. In areas where clean, loose, saturated, or 

sandy soils or sediments within 50 feet of the ground surface are present, the sediments are subject to 

earthquake-induced liquefaction, which may cause differential ground settlement and lateral spreading. 

Erosion and soil loss is caused by wind and by water and land use. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on soils are compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Conditions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the existing 

Conditions. 

Alternative 1. Disturbance to soils in the American River Division under Alternative 1 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Disturbance to soils in the American River Division under Alternative 2 would be 

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of 

this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of 

programs would modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or 

deliveries from within the historical ranges. 

VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual resources could be affected by changes in reservoir or stream levels or by construction at the CVP 

facilities. 

Affected Environment

The following description of the affected visual resources is focused upon areas served by CVP water. 

This information is primarily based upon environmental documentation completed for local agencies, 

Reclamation, and the Water Forum Proposal. 

Zone 40. The area consists predominantly of agricultural lands, with rivers, creeks, lakes, and urbanized 

areas. Urbanization has occurred primarily in the northern portion of Zone 40. The rural expanse 

surrounding the urbanized area consists of a landscape involving little visual diversity but a distinctly 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-72 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

agricultural character typical of the region. Views of the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Sacramento River, 

and the Cosumnes River that pass through the area provide visual interest. Human-made features include 

roadways, railroad lines, high voltage transmission line corridors, and the Folsom South Canal. 

San Juan Water District. This area is predominantly urban and rural residential areas with rivers, 

creeks, and parks. The Sierra Nevada foothills, Folsom Dam and Lake, and the American River provide 

visual interest to this area. 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The Rancho Seco site is flat to rolling undeveloped 

rangeland with an industrial complex at the power plant site. The 164-acre Rancho Seco Lake is located 

adjacent to the industrial site. The agricultural areas and lake facilities provide visual interest in this area 

surrounded by agricultural vistas. 

City of Folsom. The City of Folsom is an urbanized area, exhibiting the typical landscape of a suburban 

area. Segregated commercial, industrial, and office areas, rows of homes, and numerous roadways 

comprise Folsom. The southeast portion of Folsom consists of rural open space with gently rolling hills 

covered with open grasslands and lightly wooded savannas of oak (James A. Roberts and Associates, 

1988). Currently, residential development is occurring in the southeast area, and is proposed to continue 

to occur in this area. This development would transform the landscape to a suburban, developed setting. 

Several main thoroughfares in Folsom are designated as scenic in the General Plan: Folsom Boulevard 

from U.S. Highway 50 to Sutter Street, Greenback Lane from the City limits to Riley Street, 

Folsom-Auburn Road from the City limits to Greenback Lane, and East Natoma Street from Oak Avenue 

Parkway to the El Dorado County line. The General Plan considers these scenic corridors to be visual and 

noise screens between heavy traffic routes and developed areas of the City. 

Placer County Water Agency. Placer County has a diverse physical and natural environment and as 

such, it exhibits variety in its visual resources. Landscapes in the County include the urban areas of 

Roseville, Auburn, Rocklin, Lincoln, and other small unincorporated communities; timber production and 

mineral extraction areas; agricultural preserves (lands under Williamson Act contract); areas for 

preservation of natural resources; recreation areas such as the Granite Chief Wilderness, the Folsom Lake 

State Recreation Area, and the Auburn State Recreation Area; U.S. Forest Service lands, Bureau of Land 

Management lands, and private ski areas along I-80 and State Highway 89. Placer County rivers, streams, 

lakes, and reservoirs add a significant element to the County's visual resource inventory. 

City of Roseville. Roseville lies in transitional topography between the Sacramento Valley and the 

Sierra Nevada foothills. Terrain ranges from gently sloping hills to wooded ravines and open space areas. 

Roseville is characterized by a mix of older and newer development. Typical views include existing urban 

development, natural and altered open spaces, and open space corridors. Areas in the City that provide 

visual opportunities include the many creeks, City parks and recreation areas, community-wide parks, 

open space areas adjacent to ravines, golf courses, and resource preserves. Among the most prominent 

views from major roadway corridors include views of Miner's Ravine from Eureka Road at I-80, views 

from Old Auburn Road near the Sacramento County border, and views of Dry Creek from roadways in 

the downtown area. Urban areas that offer visual interest and are unique to Roseville include Old Town 

and Downtown. 

El Dorado Irrigation District. The overall character of El Dorado County changes with elevation from 

west to east. Consequently, several different environments exist, each having distinct vegetative 

communities and landforms, and different types of development patterns and historical features. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-73 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

The main highways through the County provide access to the foothills and over the Sierra Nevada. U. S. 

Highway 50 bisects the County from east to west, and State Routes 49 and 89 provide north-south access. 

Scenic resources such as rolling grasslands with heritage oaks and oak woodlands, apple orchards and 

vineyards, evergreen forests and snow-capped mountains, river corridors, and lakes, as well as a wide 

variety of historic structures, all contribute to the visual character found in the County. 

Much of the County is characterized by undeveloped lands. As a result, these natural communities are 

visible to travelers and local residents. Native vegetation within these natural communities contribute 

some of the most distinct visual resources within the County, providing foreground, middleground, and 

background views. Agricultural activities within the County also provide visual opportunities. Ranches, 

orchards, Christmas tree farms, wineries, and vineyards are scattered throughout the West Slope. Historic 

trails and historic resources are common throughout the County. 

Scenic corridors are highways, local roadways, and rivers which require protection due to their 

contribution to the character and economic strength of the County. Three highways in El Dorado County 

have been designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as scenic highways: U.S. 

Highway 50 from the eastern limits of the Government Center interchange in Placerville to South Lake 

Tahoe; all of State Route 89 within El Dorado County; and those portions of State Route 88, which pass 

through El Dorado County on its southern border. All of State Route 49 in El Dorado County is on the 

"Eligible State Highway" list but is not yet officially designated as a "State Scenic Highway." 

The urban environment is as varied as the natural environment. The U.S. Highway 50 corridor is 

characterized by newer high density housing developments, retail centers of varying size, heavy 

commercial uses, rural housing, and seasonal cabins. Outlying areas are characterized by rural 

communities with commercial cores with architectural styles ranging from Old West to Victorian to 

contemporary to efficiency. Multifamily developments and mobile home parks occur throughout many 

areas of the County. 

Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma. Folsom Lake, a man-made reservoir consisting of nearly 75 miles 

of shoreline, is a significant visual entity that contrasts sharply with the foothill landscape, creating a 

vivid landscape. Reservoir levels are drawn down as summer progresses creating a ring of bare soil along 

the water's edge. This ring is a dominant negative visual feature, affecting the visual quality of the area, 

and is accentuated in dry years. Folsom Lake is generally considered to provide a pleasing visual setting. 

Views of Folsom Lake have become increasingly limited due to restricted access and residential 

development abutting public lands and recreation areas. 

Lake Natoma, the regulating reservoir for releases from Folsom Dam, is a long, narrow lake. Land 

surrounding the lake is mostly undeveloped and consists primarily of wooded and undeveloped canyon 

areas, sheer bluffs, and dredge tailings (cobble piles remaining from the gold mining era). 

American River. The American River provides a variety of visual experiences, including steep bluffs, 

terraces, islands, backwater areas, and riparian vegetation. Its natural environment contrasts significantly 

with the urban development of the surrounding Sacramento area. The Lower American River first unit 

(from Nimbus Dam to the Gristmill Dam Recreation area located approximately two miles upstream of 

the Watt Avenue Bridge) is viewed most by passing motorists at bridge crossings. It receives the most 

water-oriented recreation visitor-days of the three visual units and is the most sensitive visual unit. The 

second unit (from the Gristmill Dam Recreation Area to just below the Howe Avenue Bridge) has less 

visual variety than the upper section of the river, but it still maintains a fairly interesting landscape. The 

area is commonly viewed by passing motorists over the Howe and Watt Avenue bridges and represents a 

well-known viewing area for local travelers. The water intake tower for the Fairbairn Water Treatment 

Plant, located within the second unit, is an intrusion into the American River Parkway natural setting. It 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-74 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

has an industrial structural appearance, contrasts with the parkway, and is visible from distances 0.5 to 

1-mile away. Within the third unit (from California State University, Sacramento to the confluence with 

the Sacramento River) there are some riffles and ponds, but artificial bank protection has degraded the 

attractiveness of the area. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. The East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, which 

ranges in topography from sea level to the East Bay Hills and reaches elevations of 1,500 feet and higher, 

has a diverse physical and natural environment and a wide range of visual resources. Typical views and 

landscapes include existing urban development, natural and altered open-space areas, open-space 

corridors, major ridgelines, and scenic waterways. The terrain ranges from the bay plain to the gently 

sloping hills and wooded ravines. The service area has smaller, localized scenic resources such as isolated 

hilltops, rock outcroppings, mature stands of trees, lakes, reservoirs, and other natural features. A mix of 

older and newer developments characterizes the urban areas. Areas in the urban areas that provide visual 

opportunities include the many ridgelines, knolls, canyons, hillsides, and watershed areas surrounding the 

communities. City parks and recreation areas, community-wide parks, open-space areas adjacent to 

ravines, golf courses, and resource preserves also provide visual opportunities for these urban areas. 

The most prevalent views in the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area in western portions of 

Contra Costa County and Alameda County are of San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco skyline, Mount 

Tamalpais, and the Oakland and Berkeley hills. In central Contra Costa County, the views to the east are 

dominated by Mount Diablo and the foothills near Orinda and Moraga. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on visual are compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. The general plans for counties within the American River Division recognize 

the importance of protecting visual resources associated with agricultural land and surface water 

resources, especially along scenic highways, by maintaining low densities in rural areas and avoiding 

development in areas of visual prominence. 

Alternative 1. Disturbance to visual resources within the service area due to local activities and at CVP 

facilities would be identical under Alternative 1 as compared to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, 

there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Disturbance to visual resources within the service area due to local activities and at CVP 

facilities would be identical under Alternative 2 as compared to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, 

there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of future programs with long-term contract renewals in the American River 

Division were considered as part of the CVPIA PEIS. That analysis indicated that future projects, 

including future water transfer projects, may improve CVP water supply reliability. These types of 

programs would modify water supply reliability but not change long-term CVP contract amounts or 

deliveries from within the historical ranges. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-75 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The environmental justice discussion focuses on Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and 

Alameda counties in this EIS. 

Affected Environment

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations," requires all federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental 

justice concerns within the context of agency operations. The Census of Population and Housing and the 

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit compiles numbers of both minority and 

property residents. Minority populations included in the census are identified as Black; American Indian, 

Eskimo, or Aleut; Asian or Pacific Islander; Hispanic; or Other, as summarized in Table 4-7. It is not 

possible to identify the specific ethnicity of individual areas served by CVP water. 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates poverty levels by county. In 1999 in Alameda County, it is estimated 

that 11.0 percent of the population was in poverty. In Contra Costa County, an estimated 7.6 percent of 

the population was in poverty. In El Dorado County, an estimated 7.1 percent of the population was in 

poverty. In Placer County, an estimated 5.8 percent of the population was in poverty. In Sacramento 

County, an estimated 14.1 percent of the population was in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003a, 2003b, 

2003c, 2003d, and 2003e). 

In 2000, in Sacramento County, the civilian labor force was 605,800 eligible adults of which 580,100 

individuals were employed, equaling an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. Average per capita income in 

1999 was $27,485, with the average wages per job equal to $34,938 (California Department of Finance, 

2002e). 

In Placer County in 2000, there was a civilian labor force of 124,800 eligible adults of which 120,800 

individuals were employed, equaling an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent. Average per capita income in 

1999 was $34,972, with the average wages per job equal to $31,608 (California Department of Finance, 

2002d). 

In 2000, El Dorado County had a civilian labor force of 82,500 eligible adults of which 79,300 

individuals were employed. This was equivalent to an unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. Average per 

capita income in 1999 was $28,487, with the average wages per job equal to $27,305 (California 

Department of Finance, 2002c). 

In 2000, Alameda County had a civilian labor force of 740,400. Civilian employment was 718,500 and 

unemployment was 21,900, equaling an unemployment rate of three percent. Per capita income in 1999 

was $34,131, with the average wages per job equal to $40,563 (California Department of Finance 2002a). 

In 2000, Contra Costa County had a civilian labor force of 505,100. Civilian employment was 491,400 

and unemployment was 13,700, equaling an unemployment rate of 2.7 percent. Per capita income in 1999 

was $37,994, with the average wages per job equal to $40,306 (California Department of Finance 2002b). 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-76 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 4-7 

ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

Sacramento County

Year White Hispanic

Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander Black

American 

Indian Total

1990 727,447 122,959 93,594 95,034 9,976 1,049,010 

2000 772,453 161,797 142,862 122,635 12,780 1,212,527 

2010 826,680 218,551 218,143 157,184 15,728 1,436,286 

2020 864,828 284,772 287,365 196,190 18,610 1,651,765 

2030 892,152 367,793 368,164 234,847 21,254 1,884,210 

Placer County

Year White Hispanic

Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander Black

American 

Indian Total

1990 154,578 14,100 3,705 988 1,608 174,979 

2000 212,634 20,896 6,540 1,604 1,972 243,646 

2010 279,802 30,343 10,597 2,230 2,676 325,648 

2020 329,820 41,126 14,023 2,892 3,384 391,245 

2030 376,172 54,773 18,081 3,546 4,072 456,644 

El Dorado County

Year White Hispanic

Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander Black

American 

Indian Total

1990 114,737 8,933 2,331 581 1,204 127,396 

2000 143,492 13,543 3,827 748 1,587 163,197 

2010 185,939 20,427 5,844 932 2,013 215,155 

2020 216,407 28,676 7,521 1,106 2,409 256,119 

2030 242,982 38,913 9,457 1,241 2,752 295,345 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-77 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

TABLE 4-7 

ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION 

Contra Costa County

Year White Hispanic Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander

Black American 

Indian

Total

1990 

562,840 92,310 74,784 73,224 4,450 807,608 

2000 

595,579 128,844 115,549 87,000 4,974 931,946 

2010 

610,578 165,154 146,993 97,846 5,286 1,025,857 

2020 

613,699 205,627 170,772 109,182 5,445 1,104,725 

2030 

609,372 256,969 199,286 118,458 5,416 1,189,501 

Alameda County

Year White Hispanic Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander

Black American 

Indian

Total

1990 

682,947 183,577 187,527 223,994 6,780 1,284,825 

2000 

648,127 267,915 295,366 251,959 6,788 1,470,155 

2010 

611,935 343,463 417,633 274,310 7,144 1,654,485 

2020 

554,490 415,804 516,352 299,151 7,342 1,793,139 

2030 

485,412 502,217 627,276 316,369 7,273 1,938,547 

Source: California Department of Finance, 1998. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on Environmental Justice are compared to conditions under the No 

Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative. Changes to minority or low-income populations are projected to occur as 

indicated in Table 4-7. 

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would not alter total water supplies in the American River Division. 

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2. Impacts to Environmental Justice issues in American River Division counties under 

Alternative 2 could be identical or greater to conditions under the No Action Alternative do to the 

increased cost of CVP water. It is not possible to specifically predict the responses of users to higher 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

American River Division 4-78 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

water prices. Water users may continue operations or reduce activities, including industrial operations, 

that use CVP water. However, additional groundwater would be withdrawn as compared to conditions 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several factors could influence future growth rates. Economic recessions in the high technology industries 

or the cost of living could limit economic growth which could reduce the number of individuals that could 

afford housing in the Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado counties as well as in the East Bay Municipal 

Utility District service area. Land use restrictions due to resource protections and limitations of public 

works facilities including water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities also could change future 

growth patterns. 

SECONDARY GROWTH IMPACTS 

A project would not cause a secondary growth impact unless the growth would not occur without the 

project. For the purpose of this EIS, secondary growth effects would need to be evaluated for the 

alternatives as compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

The No Action Alternative assumes the renewal of long-term CVP water service contracts in the 

American River Division. The No Action Alternative provides less reliability than historical CVP water 

operations due to implementation of environmental protections and CVPIA. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 do not increase the amount of water provided by the CVP or modify the allocation 

between agricultural and M&I water supplies. Therefore, the alternatives would not increase CVP water 

supplies or improve the reliability of CVP water supplies to the American River Division as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 
CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
American River Division 5-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

CHAPTER 5 

Consultation and Coordination 

INTRODUCTION

Prior to preparation of this EIS, input was solicited and incorporated from a broad range of cooperating 

and consulting agencies and the public. This chapter summarizes the public involvement program and key 

issues raised by the public and interest groups. This chapter also addresses the manner in which Federal 

statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders potentially applicable to implementation of the 

CVPIA have been addressed. The conclusions of compliance are based on the Environmental 

Consequences presented in Chapter 4. The compliance summaries apply only to the alternatives discussed 

in this EIS and not the development of concurrent CVPIA implementation programs. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Reclamation started the preparation of this EIS with Scoping Meetings. Public input continued during 

long-term contract negotiations to define the contract language. Discussions also were held with the 

American River Division long-term water service contractors during the preparation of this document. 

Comments received during this period are summarized below. 

Scoping Process

Scoping served as a fact-finding process to identify public concerns and recommendations about the longterm contract renewal issues that would be addressed in this EIS and the scope and level of detail for 

analyses. Scoping activities began in October 1998 after a Notice of Intent to prepare environmental 

documentation for long-term contract renewals was filed in the Federal Register. The scoping period 

formally ended in January 1999. The Scoping Report was released in summer of 1999. 

At public scoping meetings, Reclamation provided information about long-term contract renewal process 

and solicited public comments, questions, and concerns. At these meetings, participants had numerous 

comments and questions about how important issues would be considered both in the PEIS and the longterm contract renewal process. The majority of the comments received during the Scoping process 

addressed the Needs Assessment methodology to be used as part of the long-term contract renewal 

process. Contract renewal negotiation issues also were addressed. The least number of comments 

addressed environmental review issues. 
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

American River Division 5-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the policies and regulations for the following issues. Brief 

discussions of these issues and how compliance was addressed in this EIS is discussed in the remaining 

sections of this chapter. Work is continuing on each of these requirements. As individual projects are 

implemented, compliance requirements will be considered. 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• California Environmental Quality Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Indian Trust Assets 

• Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land 

• Environmental Justice 

• State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency 

• Floodplain Management 

• Wetlands Protection 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

• Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation 

• Clean Air Act 

• Safe Drinking Water Act 

• Clean Water Act 

National Environmental Policy Act

This EIS was prepared pursuant to regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.). NEPA provides a commitment that Federal agencies will consider the 

environmental effects of their actions. This EIS provides information regarding the No Action Alternative 

and alternatives, environmental impacts of the alternatives, potential mitigation measures, and adverse 

environmental impacts that cannot be avoided. 

California Environmental Quality Act

Implementation, funding and permitting actions carried out by State and local agencies must comply with 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA requirements are similar to NEPA 

requirements. This EIS could be used as a basis for preparation of a CEQA document. 

Endangered Species Act

Reclamation has prepared a biological assessment to determine if the preferred alternative will affect 

listed, threatened, and endangered species. The biological assessment addresses all species affected by the 

CVP operation for the American River Division Contractors. Reclamation is consulting with both the 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The terms and 

conditions, reasonable and prudent measures and all environmental commitments identified in the Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinions are hereby incorporated by reference. 
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

American River Division 5-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires that Reclamation consult with fish and wildlife 

agencies (federal and state) on all water development projects that could affect biological resources. The 

implementation of the CVPIA, of which this action is a part, has been jointly analyzed by Reclamation 

and the Service and is being jointly implemented. This continuous consultation and consideration of the 

views of the Service in addition to their review of this document and consideration of their comments 

satisfies any applicable requirements of the FWCA. The FWCA requires that Reclamation consult with 

fish and wildlife agencies (federal and state) on all water development projects that could affect biological 

resources. The implementation of the CVPIA, of which this action is a part, has been jointly analyzed by 

Reclamation and the Service and is being jointly implemented. This continuous consultation and 

consideration of the views of the Service in addition to their review of this document and consideration of 

their comments satisfies any applicable requirements of the FWCA. 

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies evaluate the 

effects of Federal undertakings on historical, archeological, and cultural resources and afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunities to comment on the proposed undertaking. The 

first step in the process is to identify cultural resources included on (or eligible for inclusion on) the 

National Register of Historic Places that are located in or near the project area. The second step is to 

identify the possible effects of the alternatives. The lead agency must examine whether feasible 

alternatives exist that would avoid such effects. If an effect cannot reasonably be avoided, measures must 

be taken to minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. 

During preparation of this EIS, information from the State Clearinghouse was collected. The counties 

within the American River Division have initiated separate consultations with respect to their land use 

planning activities. It was determined by the State Historic Preservation Office that compliance with 

Section 106 should be coordinated on a project-specific basis. 

Indian Trust Assets

The United States Government's trust responsibility for Indian resources requires Reclamation and other 

agencies to take measures to protect and maintain trust resources. These responsibilities include taking 

reasonable actions to preserve and restore tribal resources. Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in 

property and rights held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or individuals. Indian reservations, 

rancherias, and allotments are common Indian Trust Assets. 

In compliance with 36 CFR 800.4(a) (4), Reclamation has sent letters to Indian tribes requesting their 

input regarding the identification of any properties to which they might attach religious and cultural 

significance to within the area of potential effect. To date we have not received any comments or formal 

responses from the tribes. 

During preparation of EIS, it was determined based upon information provided by Reclamation, that no 

Indian Trust Assets within the American River Division would be impacted by the alternatives. 

Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land

Executive Order 13007 provides that in managing Federal lands, each Federal agency with statutory or 

administrative responsibility for management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable and as 

permitted by law, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

American River Division 5-4 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

practioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. No sacred sites were 

identified during the scoping or planning process, and therefore were not included in the impact 

assessment of this EIS. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part of its 

mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including social or economic effects, of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. This EIS has evaluated the 

environmental, social, and economic impacts on minority and low-income populations in the impact 

assessment of alternatives. 

State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency

Agencies must consider the consistency of a proposed action with approved state and local plans and 

laws. This EIS was prepared with extensive information from local planning agencies. 

Floodplain Management

If a Federal agency program will affect a floodplain, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid 

adverse effects in the flood plain or to minimize potential harm. Executive Order 11988 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any actions they might take in a floodplain and to ensure that 

planning, programs, and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain 

management. The alternatives would not affect floodplain management as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Wetlands Protection

Executive Order 11990 authorizes Federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when 

undertaking Federal activities and programs. Any agency considering a proposal that might affect 

wetlands must evaluate factors affecting wetland quality and survival. These factors should include the 

proposal’s effects on the public health, safety, and welfare due to modifications in water supply and water 

quality; maintenance of natural ecosystems and conservation of flora and fauna; and other recreational, 

scientific, and cultural uses. The alternatives would not affect wetlands as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designates qualifying free-flowing river segments as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. The Act establishes requirements applicable to water resource projects affecting wild, scenic, 

or recreational rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as rivers designated on 

the National Rivers Inventory. Under the Act, a Federal agency may not assist the construction of a water 

resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing, scenic, and natural 

values of a wild or scenic river. If the project would affect the free-flowing characteristics of a designated 

river or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational and fish and wildlife values present in the area, 

such activities should be undertaken in a manner that would minimize adverse impacts and should be 

developed in consultation with the National Park Service. None of the EIS alternatives would affect flows 

in wild and scenic portions of rivers. 
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

American River Division 5-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation

Two policies require federal agencies to include assessments of the potential effects of a proposed project 

on prime and unique farmland. These policies are the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 and the 

Memoranda on Farmland Preservation, dated August 30, 1976, and August 11, 1980, respectively, from 

the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Under requirements set forth in these policies, federal 

agencies must determine these effects before taking any action that could result in converting designated 

prime or unique farmland for nonagricultural purposes. If implementing a project would adversely affect 

farmland preservation, the agencies must consider alternatives to lessen those effects. Federal agencies 

also must ensure that their programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state, local, and private 

programs to protect farmland. The SCS is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that these laws and 

polices are followed. No specific consultation was conducted during preparation of this EIS. The 

alternatives would not affect agricultural or urban lands as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Clean Air Act

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted to protect and enhance the nation’s air quality in order to 

promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the nation’s population. The CAA 

requires an evaluation of any federal action to determine its potential impact on air quality in the project 

region. Coordination is required with the appropriate local air quality management district as well as with 

the EPA. This coordination would determine whether the project conforms to the Federal Implementation 

Plan and the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Section 176 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Section 7506(c)) prohibits federal agencies from engaging in or 

supporting in any way an action or activity that does not conform to an applicable SIP. Actions and 

activities must conform to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 

violations of the national ambient air quality standards and in attaining those standards expeditiously. 

EPA promulgated conformity regulations (codified in 40 CFR Section 93.150 et seq.). 

The alternatives assume that current practices to control dust and soil erosion on lands that are seasonally 

fallowed would continue and the land use agencies would continue to work with the air quality districts. 

Therefore, it assumed that no air quality impacts would occur due to the alternatives as compared to the 

No Action Alternative. 

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (PL 99-339) became law in 1974 and was reauthorized in 1986 

and again in August 1996. Through the SDWA, Congress gave the EPA the authority to set standards for 

contaminants in drinking water supplies. Amendments to the SDWA provide more flexibility, more state 

responsibility, and more problem prevention approaches. The law changes the standard-setting procedure 

for drinking water and establishes a State Revolving Loan Fund to help public water systems improve 

their facilities and to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations and to support state drinking 

water program activities. 

Under the SDWA provisions, the California Department of Health Services has the primary enforcement 

responsibility. The California Health and Safety Code establishes this authority and stipulates drinking 

water quality and monitoring standards. To maintain primacy, a state’s drinking water regulations cannot 

be less stringent than the federal standards. The analysis of the EIS alternatives as compared to the 

SDWA requirements indicated that there were no changes in compliance as compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

American River Division 5-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) gave the EPA the authority to develop a program to make all waters of the 

United States “fishable and swimmable.” This program has included identifying existing and proposed 

beneficial uses and methods to protect and/or restore those beneficial uses. The CWA contains many 

provisions, including provisions that regulate the discharge of pollutants into the water bodies. The 

discharges may be direct flows from point sources, such as an effluent from a wastewater treatment plant, 

or a non-point source, such as eroded soil particles from a construction site. The analysis of the EIS 

alternatives as compared to the CWA requirements indicated that there were no changes in compliance as 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 
ATTACHMENT A 

LIST OF PREPARERS
American River Division A-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

ATTACHMENT A 

List of Preparers 

Preparers Degree(s)/Years of 

Experience

Experience and 

Expertise

Role in Preparation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

David B. Robinson M.S., Zoology 

B.S., Biology 

26 years 

Biology and Project 

Management 

 Project Manager and 

Environmental Specialist 

CH2M HILL

Gwendolyn M. Buchholz M.S., Civil-Environmental 

Engineering 

B.S., Physics 

28 years 

Environmental 

Engineer/Planner 

 Project Manager 

Allan Highstreet M.S., Agricultural 

Economics 

B.S., Agricultural Business 

Management 

22 Years 

Agricultural Land Use and 

Resources Economist 

Agricultural Economics 

and Land Use, Municipal 

Water Costs 

Nancy Lee Ph.D., Economics, 

Planning, and Natural 

Resources 

M.S., Agricultural 

Economics 

B.A., Environmental and 

Business Economics 

8 years 

Agricultural Land Use and 

Resources Economist 

Agricultural Economics 

and Land Use, Municipal 

Water Costs 

Fatuma Yusuf Ph.D, candidate, 

Economics 

M.S., Agricultural 

Economics 

B.S., Agricultural 

Economics 

6 years 

Agricultural and Resources 

Economist 

Regional Economics, 

IMPLAN, Municipal Water 

Costs 

Sandra Taylor M.S./1993/Zoology and 

Physiology 

B.A./1989/Biology 

Biologist Biological Resources 

Meri Miles M.S./1993/Fisheries 

B.S./1988/Biology 

Biologist Biological Resources 

Wendy Haydon M.S./Recreation 

B.A./Environmental 

Studies 

Planner Natural, Physical, and 

Human Resources 

Water Resource Economics

Steve Hatchett Ph.D., Agricultural 

Economics 

M. Admin., Environmental 

Administration 

B.S., Forestry 

20 Years 

Agricultural and Resources 

Economist 

Agricultural Economics 
ATTACHMENT B 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
American River Division B-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

ATTACHMENT B 

Bibliography 

General References 

East Bay Municipal Utility District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Report for the Water Supply Master Plan, 1992 

East Bay Municipal Utility District and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Final Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement, 2000 

El Dorado County, 2010 General Plan, Reconnaissance Report, 1989 

El Dorado County, General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report, 2004 

El Dorado County, General Plan Update, Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 1995 

El Dorado County Water Agency, Water Resources Development and Management Plan, 2003 

City of Folsom, Water Master Plan, 1998 

Placer County, Placer County General Plan Update, 1994 

Placer County Water Agency and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, American River Pump Station Project, 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 2002 

City of Roseville, General Plan Update, Water System Study, 1993 

City of Sacramento, Estimate of Annual Water Demand Within the Sacramento County-wide Area, 1995 

City of Sacramento and Sacramento County, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Forum 

Proposal, 2000 

Sacramento County, Sacramento County General Plan Update, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, 

Volume 1, June 1993 

Sacramento County Water Agency, 2002 Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan, Draft Environmental 

Impact Report, 2003 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Cosumnes Power Plant Application for Certification, 2001 and 

2002 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento County Water Agency Water Assignment, Final 

Environmental Impact Report, 2004 

San Juan Water District, Water Master Plan 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, American River Watershed, California, Folsom Dam Modification 

Report, Final Limited Reevaluation Report, 2001 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, American River Long-Term Watershed Study, Final Supplemental Plan 

Formulation Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 2002 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, American River Water Resources Investigation, Planning Report, August 

1997 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, American River Water Resources Investigation, Environmental Impact 

Statement, 1997 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Sacramento County, Central Valley Project Water Supply Contracts 

Under Public Law 101-514, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 1998 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central Valley Project Improvement Ac, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2000 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service, Implementation of the Sugar Pine Dam and 

Reservoir Conveyance Act, Environmental Assessment, 2003 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Freeport Regional Water Authority, Freeport Regional Water Project, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2004 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Environmental Water Accounty, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 2004 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Long-Term Central Valley Project Operations Criteria and Plan and 

Biological Assessment, CVP-OCAP, 2004 

Air Quality 

California Air Resources Board, 2002, State and Local Air Monitoring Network Plan, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/namslams/namslams.htm 

Biological Resources 

California Department of Fish and Game, Geographic Assistance to Planning [GAP] data, 1998 

California Department of Fish and Game Lower American River Operations and Fisheries Plan, 1993. 

Bell, M.C, Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation 

Program, Portland, Oregon. 307 pp., 1986 

Brown, L.R., P.B. Moyle, and C.D. Vanicek, American River Studies: Intensive Fish Surveys, March - 

June 1991. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis, and 

Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, 1992. 

Bovee, K.D, Instream Flow Information Paper 12, FWS/OBS-78/07. Probability-of-use criteria for the 

family Salmonidae. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978 

California Department of Fish and Game, California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and 

costs, 1969-1970. Inland Fisheries Branch. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 71-8, 1971 

California Department of Fish and Game, California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and 

costs, 1978-1979. Inland Fisheries Branch. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 80-1, 1980 

California Department of Fish and Game, Stream evaluation Report No. 86-1. Instream flow requirements 

of the fish and wildlife resources of the lower American River, 1986 

California Department of Fish and Game, Steelhead Restoration Plan for the American River, 1991 

California Department of Fish and Game, Requirements of American Shad in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin River System, Exhibit 23. State Water Resources Control Board 1987 Water Quality/Water 

Rights Proceeding on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, 1987. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-3 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

California Department of Water Resources, Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 

on Delta Smelt and Sacramento Splittail. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. 

Castleberry, D.T., J.J. Cech, Jr., M.K. Saiki, and B.A. Martin, Growth, Condition and Physiological 

Performance of Juvenile Salmonids from the Lower American River. February through June 1991. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Containment Research Center, 1991 

Cech, J.J., Jr., S.J. Mitchell, D.T. Castleberry, and M. McEnroe. Distribution of California Stream Fishes: 

Influence of Environmental Temperature and Bypoxia. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 1990 

DeHaven, R.W, Annual Progress Report No. 2. An Angling Study of Striped Bass Ecology in the 

American and Feather Rivers, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1977. 

DeHaven, R.W., An angling study of striped bass ecology in the American and Feather rivers, California. 

Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished Progress Report No. 2, 1978. 

DeHaven, R.W, An Angling Study of Striped Bass Ecology in the American River, California. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1979. 

Ganssle, D, Fishes and Decapods of San Pablo and Suisun Bay. Pages 64-94 in D.W. Kelley, editor, 

Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Part 1. California Department of Fish and 

Game Bulletin 133, 1966. 

Gerstung, E.R, A Report to the California State Water Resources Control Board on the Fish and Wildlife 

Resources of the American River to be Affected by the Auburn Dam and Reservoir and the Folsom South 

Canal and Measures Proposed to Maintain These Resources. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Region 2, 1971. 

Jones and Stokes Associates, 1990 Field Investigations of Yuba River American Shad. Prepared by W.T. 

Mitchell and P.L. Dunn. Sacramento, California. Prepared for Yuba County Water Agency, 1990 

Leggett, W.C. and R.R. Whitney, Water Temperature and the Migration of American Shad. National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Bulletin 70:659-670, 1972 

Moyle, P.B, Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1976 

Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller, Life History and Status of Delta Smelt in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 121:67-77. 

1992. 

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake, Fish Species of Concern in 

California. Second Edition. Report Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Biological Opinion for Winter-run Chinook Salmon. 1993. 

Painter, R.E., L.H. Wixom, and S.W. Taylor, An Evaluation of Fish Populations and Fisheries in the PostOroville Project Feather River: A Report Submitted to the Department of Water Resources. California 

Department of Fish and Game, 1977 

Painter, R., L. Wixom, and M. Meinz, American Shad Management Plan for the Sacramento River 

Drainage. Final Report. CDFG. Sacramento. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act Project. AFS-17, Job 5, 

1979 

Raleigh, R.F., W.J. Miller, and P.C. Nelson, Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability 

curves: chinook salmon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82 (10.1222). 64 pp, 1986. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-4 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn, Habitat Requirements of Anadromous Salmonids. In: Influence of Forest 

and Rangeland Management on Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Western United States and Canada. W.R. 

Meehan, editor. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report. Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, 1989 

Reynolds, F.L., R.L. Reavis, and J. Schuler, Central Valley Salmon Steelhead Restoration and 

Enhancement Plan. California Department of Fish and Game, 1990. 

Rich, Alice A, Report on Studies Conducted by Sacramento County to Determine the Temperature Which 

Optimize Growth and Survival in Juvenile Chinook Salmon, 1987. 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Effects of Interim Reoperation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir on 

the Availability of Potential Splittail Spawning Habitat in the Lower American River, 1999 

San Francisco Estuary Project, State of the Estuary: A Report on Conditions and Problems in the San 

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, 1992 

Snider, W.M. and E. Gerstung, Instream Flow Requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the 

Lower American River, Sacramento County, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Stream 

Evaluation Report No. 86-1, 1986. 

Snider, W.M. and D. McEwan, Final Report, Fish Community Survey, Lower American River, FebruaryJuly 1992. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division., 1993 

Snider, W.M. and R. Titus, Fish Community Survey, Lower American River, January-July 1994. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, 1994 

Snider, W. and R. Titus, Fish Community Survey, Lower American River, January-June 1995. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, 1996. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Appendices to Shasta outflow temperature control planning 

report/environmental statement. Part I - Fisheries, 1991 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 550. Biology and 

management of the American Shad and status of the fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States, 1987 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements 

of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.82), 

1988. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, American River Watershed Investigation, detailed report on fish 

and wildlife resources. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Ecological Services, Sacramento Field 

Office, 1991 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical/Agency Draft Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native 

Fishes Recovery Plan, 1994 

Walburg, C.H., and P.R. Nichols, Biology and Management of the American Shad and Status of the 

Fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States, 1960. USFWS Special Sci. Rep. - Fisheries No. 550, 1967 

Wang, J.C.S, Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to 

the Early Life Histories. Interagency Ecological Study Program or the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. 

Tech. Report #9, 1986 

Lampe, John. Director of Water and Natural Resources. East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2003. 

Personal communication on July 24, 2003. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-5 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Morse, Mark. Environmental Coordinator. City of Roseville Community Development Department. 2003. 

Personal communication on July 24, 2003. 

Cultural Resources 

Basin Research Associates, Cultural resources assessment, East Bay Municipal Utility District Bayside 

Groundwater Project EIR, San Leandro and San Lorenzo, Alameda County, California, 2000 

Available: <http://www.ebmud.com/pubs/eirs/baysidegrwatr/chapter3.14.PDF>. 

City of Alameda, Introducing Alameda: a brief history of Alameda, 2001 

Available: <http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/community/history01.html>. 

City of San Leandro, San Leandro city history, 1999. 

Available: <http://www.ci.san-leandro.ca.us/slcityhistory.html>. 

City of San Ramon, History of San Ramon. 

Available: <http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/general/service/history.htm>. 

Marciel, D., A history of San Lorenzo. 

Available: <http://www.slvha.com/docs/hstryslz.html>. 

Environmental Justice 

California Department of Finance. County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic detail Estimated July 

1, 1990-1996 and Projections for 1997 through 2040, 1998 

California Department of Finance. California county profiles, 2001 

Available: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm>. 

Groundwater 

Alameda County, Conservation element of the Alameda County General Plan, 1994 

Available: <http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/doc_home?elib_id=932>. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Groundwater Committee, 

East Bay Plain groundwater basin beneficial use evaluation report, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 

1999 

Available: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb2/Download.htm>. 

Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Contra Costa County General Plan 1995–

2010, 1996 

Available: <http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/doc_home?elib_id=1792>. 

Planert, M., and Williams, J. S,,. Ground water atlas of the United States—Segment 1 California Nevada. 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-B, 2000 

Available: <http://ca.water.usgs.gov/gwatlas/summary/>. 

Land Use 

Alameda County Planning Department, General plan for the Central Metropolitan, Eden, and Washington 

Planning Units—a part of the County of Alameda General Plan, 1981 

Alameda County Planning Department, Alameda County Profile, 1986 

Association of Bay Area Governments. 1995–2000. Projections 2000 introduction. 

Available: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/pub/p2000/intro.html>. 

Accessed: November 9, 2001. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-6 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Association of Bay Area Governments, Association of Bay Area Governments Projections 2000, 2001 

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Williamson Act Program. 

Status Reports. The California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Status Report 2002. 

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program. 2002a. California Farmland Conversion Report 1998-2000. 

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program. 

2003. Enrollment Statistics. Total Enrollment: 1991-2001 by County. 

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. 2003. Table E-1: City/County Population 

Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2002 and 2003. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-1table.xls. 

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. 2001. Interim County Populations 

Projections, Estimated July 1, 2000 and Projections for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. June. 

California Department of Finance, Reports and research papers: City/county population estimates with 

annual percent change, January 1, 2000 and 2001. 

Available: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/e-1table.htm>. 

California Department of Finance, California county profiles. 

Available: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm>. Last revised: March 20, 

2001. Accessed: October 12, 2001. 

City of Auburn, Modified Final EIR. City of Auburn General Plan/Rezone Environmental Impact Report, 

1994 

Contra Costa Community Development Department, General Plan, 1995–2010, 1996 

East Bay Municipal Utility District, Urban Water Management Plan 2000, 2001 

City of Folsom, Land Use Data received via email from Steve Banks and Chris Longley/City of Folsom, 

Planning Services, 2003. 

City of Folsom, Population Projections, 2003. 

http://www.folsom.ca.us/indez.asp?page=39. 

City of Folsom, General Plan, 1993 

City of Lincoln, Lincoln General Plan, 1988 

City of Rocklin, City of Rocklin General Plan, 1991. 

City of Roseville, General Plan 2010; Land Use Element, 2002. 

City of Sacramento, The Sacramento City General Plan, 2002 

El Dorado County Water Agency, Water Resources Development and Management Plan, 2003 

Maurer, Peter. El Dorado County, Personal communication with Wendy Haydon/CH2M HILL on May 

22, 2003. 

Placer County, Placer County General Plan, General Plan Background Report, 1994 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2001, Projections. 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/sac.pdf. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-7 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2001, SACOG Projections. 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/plac.pdf. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2001. SACOG Projections. 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/eldo.pdf. 

Town of Loomis, General information regarding Loomis. 

http://www.loomis.ca.gov/. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Habitat Monitoring Program, 2003 

U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 summary file 1 [machine-readable data file] 02AUG01, Page 71. 

Produced by the California Census Data Center. Sacramento, CA. 

Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, and Utilities. Land Use. Folsom Lake 

State Recreation Area, 2003 

Recreation 

City of Folsom, List of Folsom Parks and Nature Areas, 2003 

http://www.folsom.ca.us/upload/files/park%20locations.pdf 

Placer County, Parks and Grounds Division, List of County-Owned Park Facilities, 2003 

 http://www.placer.ca.gov/facility/parkgrnd.htm 

City of Roseville, List of Roseville Parks and Recreation Areas, 2003 

http://www.roseville.ca.us/index.asp?page=293 

Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, Recreation, Scenic and Cultural Resources. Recreation Resources. 

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, 2003 

Sociological Resources 

Alameda County Planning Department, Alameda County profile, 1996. 

Available: <http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/cda/planning/profile96.pdf>. 

California Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent Change, 

January 1, 2002 and 2003. May. 

California Department of Finance, Alameda County Profile. 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm 

California Department of Finance, Contra Costa County Profile. 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm 

California Department of Finance, El Dorado County Profile. 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm 

California Department of Finance, Placer County Profile. 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm 

California Department of Finance, Sacramento County Profile. 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm 

California Department of Finance, County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail Estimated July 

1, 1990-1996 and Projections for 1997 through 2040. December. 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-8 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

California Department of Finance, California demographics—summary file 1: Census 2000. 

Demographic Research Unit. 

Available: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/2000Cover1.htm>. 

California Department of Finance, California county profiles, 2001 

Available: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm>. 

City of Citrus Heights, City of Citrus Heights General Plan. November. 

Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County government information. 

Available: <http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/about.html>. 

City of Elk Grove, Elk Grove Demographic Data Report. May. 

City of Elk Grove, The City of Elk Grove General Plan. Public Hearing Draft 1-20-03. 

City of Elk Grove, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Elk Grove General Plan. Volume 1: Draft 

Environmental Impact Report. SCH # 2002062082. August. 

City of Folsom, City of Folsom General Plan Housing Element Background Report. Adopted June 25. 

City of Galt, General Plan 1989-2005. Adopted May 15, 1990; includes amendments through March 

1991. 

Placer County, Placer County Housing Element 2000-2007. Draft. April. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, A Bold First Step for Mobility in the Sacramento Region. 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2025. 2002 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Projections Sacramento County, 2001. 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/sac.pdf 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Projections Placer County, 2001 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/plac.pdf 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Projections El Dorado County, 2001 

http://www.sacog.org/demographics/proj2001/pdf/cities/eldo.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau, Alameda County Quick Facts, 2003 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06001.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, Contra Costa County Quick Facts, 2003 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06013.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, El Dorado County Quick Facts, 2003 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06017.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, Placer County Quick Facts, 2003 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06061.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, Sacramento County Quick Facts, 2003 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06067.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, California Housing Unit Estimates by County: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002. Table 

HU-EST2002-05-06-County Housing Unit Estimates, 2003 
Attachment B Bibliography

American River Division B-9 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

U.S. Census Bureau, Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 

(SF 1) 100-Percent Data, 2000 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=040. 

Soils 

Helley, E. J., and R. W. Graymer, Quaternary geology of Contra Costa County, and surrounding parts of 

Alameda, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, California: A digital database. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-0098, 1997 

Available: <http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of97-98/>. 

Helley, E. J., and R. W. Graymer, Quaternary geology of Alameda County, and parts of Contra Costa, 

Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties, California: A digital 

database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-0097, 1997 

Available: <http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of97-97/>. 

U.S. Forest Service, Ecological subregions of California: section and subsection descriptions. May. 

Internet number: R-5-EM-TP-0005-NET. Prepared in cooperation with Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and Bureau of Land Management, 1998. 

Available: <http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions/toc.htm>. 
ATTACHMENT C 

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND METRIC CONVERSIONS
American River Division C-1 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

ATTACHMENT C 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Metric Conversions 

AFRP Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Project 

BP Before Present 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Coordinated Operations Agreement 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWHR California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EWA Environmental Water Account 

Folsom City of Folsom 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

ITA Indian Trust Asset 

LAFCO Local Area Formation Commission 

LTCR Long-Term Contract Renewal 

M&I Municipal and Industrial 

MSHCP Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NRHP National Register Historic Places 

OCAP Operations Criteria and Plan 

O3 Ozone 

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PM Particulate Matter 

PL Public Law 

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
Attachment C Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Metric Conversions

American River Division C-2 January 2005 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal

ROD Record of Decision 

ROG Reactive Organic Gases 

Roseville City of Roseville 

SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

Secretary Secretary of the Interior 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SWP State Water Project 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

TCD Temperature Control Device 

VAMP Vernalis Adaptive Management Program 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

CONVERSION TABLES

U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC

Multiply By To Obtain 

inches (in) 25.4 millimeters 

inches (in) 2.54 centimeters 

feet (ft) 0.3048 meters 

miles (mi) 1.609 kilometers 

square feet (ft2

) 0.0929 square kilometers 

acres (ac) 0.4047 hectares 

square miles (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometers 

gallons (gal) 3.785 liters 

cubic feet (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meters 

acre-feet (af) 1,233.0 cubic meters 

pounds (lb) 0.4536 kilograms 

tons (ton) 0.9072 metric tons 

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit can be converted to degrees Celsius as follows: 

degrees Celsius = 5/9 (degrees Fahrenheit - 32) 

OTHER USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiply By To Obtain 

acre-feet 43,560 cubic-feet 

acre-feet 325,851 gallons 

cubic feet per second 1.9835 acre-feet per day 

cubic feet per second 724.0 acre-feet per year