Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

Public Draft Errata 

This section illustrates revisions to Volume I of the Draft EIS/EIR, dated December 

2006. Volume II of the Draft EIS/EIR has not been revised. Changes in text are 

signified by strikeouts where text is removed [Example] and by italics where text is 

added [Example]. Only substantial changes in text are presented in this section; 

editorial changes have not been included. Volume I and II of the Draft EIS/EIR are 

available in electronic format in Appendix C. 

Executive Summary 

Global change – Replaced “flood protection” with “flood damage reduction” 

throughout the section. 

Page ES-6, Line 10 

Pursuit of this goal constitutes the non-federal sponsors’ primary interest for 

integrating Corps flood damage reduction projects with Reclamation dam safety 

activities is to increase flood protection for the downstream and surrounding 

communities on an expedited basis and realize cost sharing benefits of a coordinated 

effort. 

Page ES-8 

Additions. Additional features to the JFP may be proposed later as mutually 

determined by participating agencies in order to (1) achieve a minimum 

1/200 year flood protection, or (2) as incrementally justified through 

appropriate analysis and evaluation. Potential additional features may 

include a raise of up to 3.5 feet for all embankments, or modification or 

replacement of the existing service gates or emergency spillway gates. Any 

additions to the JFP, as justified, will be for flood damage reduction purposes 

only. 

Page ES-17, Table ES-2 

Vegetation and Wildlife, 2nd bullet: 

• Direct or indirect impacts to oak and pine woodlands, riparian woodland and 

chaparral habitats

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 C-1 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

Page ES-20, Line 1 

Dewatering of the stilling basin would result in the removal of non-native fish 

species. 

Page ES-20 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife: 

Construction of any of the project alternatives would have the potential to adversely 

affect special status species, native habitats and wetlands. plant species, protected 

oak woodlands, result in loses of native vegetation, result in a permanent loss of 

project area wetlands, and impact elderberry shrubs, which host to the endangered 

valley elderberry long-horn beetle. All vegetation impacts can be mitigated to nonsignificant levels. Construction activities could result in the alteration or loss of 

habitat for wildlife special status species. These impacts could be mitigated to nonsignificant level. Wetlands downstream of MIAD would be monitored throughout 

construction. 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Section 1.10.1.4 

Global change – changed the Coordination Act Report (CAR) to the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act Report (FWCAR). 

Chapter 2 Project Description 

Global change – Replaced “flood protection” with “flood damage reduction” 

throughout the section. 

Page 2-15, Table 2-10 

Under the new Auxiliary Spillway control structure for Alternative 3: 

6 submerged tainter gates, plus potential redundant water supply outlet connection

Page 2-15, Table 2-10 

Under the new Auxiliary Spillway control structure for Alternative 4: 

4 submerged tainter gates, plus possible redundant water supply outlet connection

Page 2-63, Figure 2-15 

Removed “Proposed Dike” text from Mooney Ridge. 

Page 2-95, Table 2-16 

Under Auxiliary Spillway, 2nd bullet: 

C-2 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

 

• Control Structure – 6 Submerged Tainter Gates plus redundant water supply 

outlet option

Page 2-97, Section 2.6.3, 3rd paragraph 

Construction of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway control structure would include the 

installation of a separate, M&I outlet that would create flexibility for Reclamation to 

meet water delivery needs. One use for the outlet would be to provide a backup 

system for the delivery of water in emergency situations. If a pipeline were to be 

built for the delivery of water to a specific entity, that action would be analyzed in a 

supplemental environmental document. 

Page 2-103 

Permanent and Temporary Material Storage Areas: 

Dike 7, D2, and MIAD are the only locations where permanent storage of excess 

material is highly likely. 

Page 2-104, 3rd paragraph 

Maximum releases utilizing project features would not be any larger than those 

allowed under the existing conditions. These larger, earlier flows would conserve 

flood storage space. In addition, the top of the flood control pool could be raised to 

increase the flood storage space. The top elevation of the flood space and the release 

diagram would be specified after the Corps and Reclamation are in agreement on the 

rate of increase in flows and dam safety freeboard. 

Page 2-114, first bullet 

• Section 176 XXX of the Clean Air Act, 

Page 2-115, Section 2.10.4 

The contractor responsible for dewatering the stilling basin would prepare a fish 

removal and recovery plan that would be reviewed by a qualified fish biologist. A 

fish removal and recovery plan would be developed in conjunction with CDFG and 

USFWS, would develop a fish recovery plan in advance of dewatering the stilling 

basin. During dewatering and construction, the Corps, in consultation with CDFG 

and USFWS, would ensure that a qualified biologist is on site to implement a fish 

rescue operation. Fish would be removed in accordance with the CDFG and USFWS

approved fish removal and recovery plan. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 C-3 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

Page 2-116, Section 2.10.6.1 

The SWPPP would include measures to minimize erosion and sediment transport to 

Battle Creek. It would include:

Page 2-118, Section 2.10.6.3 

Reclamation and the Corps, in consultation with USFWS and DFG, would mitigate 

permanent and temporary habitat impacts associated with the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions on or offsite with appropriate habitat mitigation. Permanent impacts 

associated with the Folsom DS/FDR actions would be compensated for based on the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (FWCAR). The mitigation approach for 

permanent impacts presented herein includes consideration of the FWCAR 

requirement for compensation needs for seasonal wetland, riparian, chaparral, 

oak/pine woodland and upland (oak woodland) habitats. 

Page 2-118, Section 2.10.6.4 

The plan would be prepared to meet the specifications and mitigation requirements 

pertaining to Corps jurisdictional areas specified in the Draft Final Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act Report (FWCAR) report prepared for the project. 

Page 2-119, 3rd bullet 

• Restore habitats that have been temporarily affected by Folsom DS/FDR 

actions from to construction to predisturbance conditions if appropriate; 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and 

Mitigation Measures 

Section 3.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

Page3.1-31, Section 3.1.4 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-12 14 would reduce 

the significant impact on water quality, wetlands, and water levels to a less than 

significant level. 

Section 3.4 Aquatic Resources 

Page 3.4-18 

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures AQINV-1a 

through AQINV-1c d would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

C-4 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

 

Page 3.4-20 

This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures 

AQINV-1e and AQINV-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 

Page 3.4-24, Section 3.4.4 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQINV-1a, AQINV-1b, and AQINV-1c, 

through AQINV-2, and FISH-1, would reduce impacts to aquatic resources to a less 

than significant level. 

Section 3.11 Cultural Resources 

Page 3.11-1, Section 3.11.1.2, 2nd paragraph 

Reclamation and the Corps have to take in account the effects of its undertaking on 

historic properties as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4 and 36 CFR Part 800.16 (l).

Page 3.11-2, 4th paragraph 

Project undertakings by Reclamation must follow directives and guidelines found in 

Reclamation Manuals LND P01, LND 02-01, and LND 07-01 and LND 10-1. LND 

P01 establishes policy and authority for cultural resource identification, evaluation 

and management of cultural resources. LND 02-01 provides directives and standards 

and clarifies the role of Reclamation regarding implementation of its cultural 

resources management responsibilities. LND 07-01 provides procedures for 

compliance with Federal statutes when inadvertent discoveries of human remains 

occurs on Reclamation lands. LND 10-01 07-01 provides procedures for inadvertent 

discoveries on Reclamation land for cultural items which are under the authority of 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

Page 3.11-6, 2nd paragraph 

From the 1870s until the 1890s, The Nisenan culture experienced a cultural and 

religious resurgence with the Ghost Dance revival of 1870. Originating with the 

Paiute, the basic tenets included the end of the world and/or return of the dead, 

return of the world to Native Americans, and the destruction of White People (Bean 

and Vane 1978:670). 

Page 3.11-8, 3rd paragraph 

The Construction of Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955 completed in 1956 and 

consists of a concrete dam flanked by earth wing dams and dikes with a total length 

of approximately nine miles. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 C-5 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

Page 3.11-10, 3rd bullet 

• The Augustine Pattern (1,500 BP - Contact) is widespread in central California, 

and represents a mixture of traits retained from the from the Berkeley Pattern as 

well as a number of introduced traits, including bow and arrow technology as 

reflected in Gunther Barbed and other small projectile points. 

Page 3.11-11, 2nd paragraph 

The Kings Beach Complex (AD 500-1800) was distinguished by flaked obsidian and 

silicate implements, small projectiles points, the bow and arrow, and occasional 

scrapers and bedrock mortars (Moratto 1984). 

Page 3.11-12, 4th paragraph 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register NRHP nomination 

for the Central Valley Project (CVP). This nomination concludes that the dikes are 

non-contributing elements to the CVP Multiple Property Nomination (MPN). This 

determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the NRHP National Register. 

Page 3.11-16, 5th – 7th paragraphs 

CA-SAC-412 is close to, but does not extend into, the present Folsom DS/FDR area. 

P-31-60 is an isolated find that was not relocated during Pacific Legacy’s survey. 

The find was reported in fill on a bike path on top of the dam. The cultural resources 

are listed in Table 3.11-8. 

Folsom Dam, including the Right Wing Dam, was found eligible for listing on the 

NRHP by the Corps in the report titled Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey 

and National Register NRHP Evaluation of Folsom Dam and Properties for the 

Folsom Bridge Project and, on June 26, 2006, SHPO concurred with the finding that 

the dam is eligible under Criterion A. 

Reclamation is in the process of completing a National Register NRHP nomination 

for the CVP. This nomination concludes that Folsom Dam, including the central 

concrete structure and both adjacent wing dams, is considered a contributing element 

to the CVP MPN. This determination will be reviewed by the Keeper of the NRHP

National Register. 

Page 3.11-22, Table 3.11-12 

1st Management Recommendation: 

None, provided resource previously determined ineligible for NRHP 

C-6 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

 

Page 3.11-22, 1st paragraph 

The Folsom dam was found eligible for listing on the NRHP by the Corps in the 

report titled Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey and National Register 

Evaluation of Folsom Dam and Properties for the Folsom Bridge Project and, on 

June 26, 2006, SHPO concurred with the finding that the dam is eligible under 

Criterion A. If one and/or portions of Alternatives 1 through 5 are chosen, 

Reclamation and the Corps will follow the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA 

as implemented in 36 CFR Part 800. and Reclamation’s Policies and Directives 

found at LND P01, LND 02-01 and LND 10-01. Reclamation will follow the 

Policies and Directives found in LND P01 and LND 02-01, LND 07-01, and the 

Corps will follow guidelines found in the Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-

100. 

Page 3.11-22, 2nd paragraph 

If one and/or portions of Alternatives 2 through 5 are chosen, Reclamation and the 

Corps will follow the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA as implemented in 

36 CFR Part 800. and Reclamation’s Policies and Directives found at LND P01, 

LND 02-01 and LND 10-01. Reclamation will follow the Policies and Directives 

found in LND P01, LND 02-01, LND 07-01, and the Corps will follow guidelines 

found in the Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100. 

Page 3.11-22, 3rd paragraph 

If one and/or portions of Alternatives 2 through 5 are chosen, Reclamation and 

Corps will follow the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA as implemented in 

36 CFR Part 800. and Reclamation’s Policies and Directives found at LND P01, 

LND 02-01 and LND 10-01. Reclamation will follow the Policies and Directives 

found in LND P01, LND 02-01, LND 07-01, and the Corps will follow guidelines 

found in the Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100. 

Page 3.11-23, Section 3.11.2, 1st paragraph 

A historic property and/or a historical resource, a cultural resource must possess at 

least one of the criterion of eligibility and retain the quality of integrity. The concept 

of integrity is usually interpreted to mean “intactness” of physical characteristics, but 

in terms of the NRHP and the CRHR, integrity is a measure of the degree to which a 

property retains or is able to convey the essential characteristics defined under one of 

the four eligibility criteria. These characteristics may be expressed through integrity 

of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of a 

property. An archaeological property may retain sufficient integrity to qualify it for 

the NRHP or CRHR if the property retains the ability to yield information important 

to an understanding of history or prehistory. It must be demonstrated to have the 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 C-7 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

potential, or to have previously yielded, data that can be used to address important 

research questions. 

Page 3.11-23, 2nd paragraph 

None of the other identified cultural resources within the Folsom DS/FDR area have 

been formally evaluated as to their eligibility for listing on either the NRHP or the 

CRHR, with the exception of ELD-261 which was found to be not eligible for listing 

in the NRHP. 

Page 3.11-24, Section 3.11.2.1, 1st paragraph 

None of the other identified cultural resources within the Folsom DS/FDR area have 

been evaluated as to their eligibility for listing on either the NRHP or the CRHR, 

with the exception of ELD-261 which was found to be not eligible for listing in the 

NRHP.

Page 3.11-26, 1st paragraph 

However, none of the other identified cultural resources have been evaluated as to 

NRHP and CRHR eligibility, with the exception of ELD-261 which was found to be 

not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Page 3.11-29, 1st paragraph 

If human remains are discovered, procedures outlined in 35 CFR 800.13(b) 

‘Discoveries without prior planning’ and Reclamation’s Directive and Standards for 

the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains (LND 07-01) will be followed. 

Section 3.12 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

Global change – changed all instances of “flood protection” to “flood damage 

reduction”. 

Global change – changed all instances of Folsom Lake State Recreation Area to 

FLSRA. 

Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination 

Page 6-5, Section 6.3.5 

USFWS is participating in the Folsom DS/FDR pursuant to the ESA and FWCA. 

The project agencies are consulting with USFWS for preparation of a Biological 

Opinion and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Action Report. 

C-8 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Appendix C 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

 

To receive an electronic copy of the complete Folsom DS/FDR Revised Draft 

EIS/EIR, please e-mail Stacy Porter at portersm@cdm.com with your name 

and address. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 C-9