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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

California Department of Water Resources 

State of California Reclamation Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency March 2007 

Folsom Dam Safety and 

Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report 

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Volume III: Final EIS/EIR

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091 
Mission Statements 

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to 

our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to 

Indian Tribes and our commitment to island communities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect 

water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public. 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

California Department of Water Resources 

State of California Reclamation Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency March 2007 

Folsom Dam Safety and 

Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report 

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Prepared by: 

A

Entrix 

Pacific Legacy 

Circle Point

Volume III: Final EIS/EIR

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) Final Environmental 

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

Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer Counties, California 

State Clearinghouse # 2006022091

State of California 

Lead Agencies: 

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

CEQA Lead Agency: State of California Reclamation Board (Reclamation Board) 

NEPA Cooperating Agency: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

CEQA Responsible Agency: 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) 

ABSTRACT 

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

static, security, and flood damage reduction issues at Folsom Dam and it’s Appurtenant Structures 

(Folsom Facility). The Folsom DS/FDR project has been developed to coordinate Reclamation and 

Corps efforts at the Folsom Facility to address these issues. This Final EIS/EIR evaluates 

implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR through identification of a Preferred Alternative for 

modifications to the Folsom Facility necessary to increase overall public safety. The Final EIS/EIR 

addresses (1) dam safety and security issues that will be implemented by Reclamation, (2) flood 

damage reduction measures that will be implemented by the Corps, and (3) the Joint Federal 

Project Auxiliary Spillway that will be implemented by both agencies. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts resulting from the alternatives on the physical, natural, and socioeconomic 

environment of the region surrounding the Folsom Facility and comments on the Draft EIS/EIR are 

addressed. 

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

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

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

Appropriations Act of 2006.Reclamation intends to adopt this EIS/EIR to satisfy the requirements 

of NEPA for dam safety and security features described in this EIS/EIR. The Corps intends to 

adopt this EIS/EIR to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for the flood damage reduction features 

described in this EIS/EIR. 

Comments on this document should be submitted by April 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Oliver Annalena Bronson 

Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation Board/Department of Water Resources 

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

Folsom, CA 95630 Sacramento, CA 95821 

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

SOliver@mp.usbr.gov annalena@water.ca.gov
Questions or comments on the flood damage reduction related portions of the EIS/EIR can be 

directed to the Corps at the following address: 

Ms. Becky Victorine 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, California 95814-2922 

(916) 557-5162 

Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil. 
Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-1 

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage 

Reduction EIS/EIR Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) describes (1) the 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS/EIR); (2) revisions to 

Alternative 3 as a result of public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR; (3) changes to 

effects to the natural, physical, and social environments as a result of the project 

changes, and (4) responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIS/EIR. This 

Executive Summary highlights those changes and Draft EIS/EIR comment issues. 

On December 1, 2006, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Corps nonfederal sponsors, the State Reclamation Board (Reclamation Board)/Department of 

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

also referred to as the Partner Agencies, released the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR 

for public review and comment. The Draft EIS/EIR identified five alternatives to 

address dam safety, security, and flood damage reduction at Folsom Dam and 

appurtenant facilities (Folsom Facility). The Partner Agencies held public hearings to 

receive oral and written comments at the following locations: Sacramento, January 9, 

2007 and Folsom, January 10, 2007. Transcripts were obtained for all oral comments 

at the public hearings. The comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR closed on January 

26, 2007 after the Partner Agencies issued a four day extension. Federal, State, and 

local agencies, non-profit organizations, local businesses, and members of the public 

submitted verbal and written comments. 

This document (Volume III of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR) presents responses to 

all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR. Additionally, this document provides 

revisions to the project description based on comments received on the Draft 

EIS/EIR. Appendix C of this document contains the revised Folsom DS/FDR Draft 

EIS/EIR (Volume I and II) reflecting editorial changes. 

This document is an abbreviated Final EIS/EIR and its contents must be integrated 

with the Draft Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR Volume I 

and II (State Clearinghouse # 2006022091) to be considered a complete document 

reflecting the full proposal, its alternatives, and all significant environmental 

impacts. 

Reclamation and the Corps have identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. 

The Draft EIS/EIR originally described Alternative 3 and the Partner Agencies 

refined it based on public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR. 
Executive Summary 

 

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

Alternative 3 includes the Joint Federal Project (JFP) Auxiliary Spillway, seismic 

improvements to the Main Concrete Dam and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

(MIAD), static improvements to earthen structures, security upgrades, replacement 

of the Main Concrete Dam spillway gates, and a 3.5-foot (ft) raise to all Folsom 

Facility structures. Table ES-1 identifies the DS/FDR action, the responsible agency, 

and the issue addressed. Section 2.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR discusses the concerns for 

the Folsom Facility and measures considered to address those concerns. 

Table ES-1 

 Components of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) 

Action Responsible Agency Concern Addressed 

JFP Auxiliary Spillway 

construction 

Reclamation and Corps Dam Safety, Flood Damage 

Reduction, hydrologic control 

MIAD foundation stabilization 

and overlay 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Left and Right Wing Dams, 

Dikes 4, 5, 6 upgrades 

Reclamation Dam Safety, static upgrades 

Main Dam concrete block, pier, 

and gates reinforcement 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Facility Security Improvements Reclamation National Security 

Existing Spillway Gates 

Replacement 

Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

Facility Raise Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

Purpose of Study and EIS/EIR 

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

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

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

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

some years among numerous agencies and organizations, notably the Partner 

Agencies. 

This EIS/EIR presents the results of a joint agency study for the planning, design, 

and implementation of a safety of dams and flood damage risk reduction action at the 

Folsom Facility. The objective of the study was the identification and selection of an 

alternative that would significantly reduce the risk of flooding along the main stem 

of the American River in the Sacramento area while also meeting dam safety and 

public safety objectives. 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law [PL] 534) authorized the Corps to 

construct the Folsom Facility. The Corps constructed the Folsom Facility between 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Reclamation seek to integrate flood risk reduction measures with dam safety 

improvements under a single plan. 

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

and cumulated initially under the Corps’ Folsom Dam Modifications Project and 

Folsom Dam Raise Project. The objective of the Folsom Modifications Project was 

to reduce damages from flooding to the Sacramento area by increasing outlet 

efficiencies at Folsom Dam, in general by releasing water earlier prior to a flood 

event. However, cost concerns with enlarging the existing outlets caused the Corps 

to reevaluate modification options that would perform as a functional equivalent to 

the outlet modifications. The objective of the Corps’ Folsom Dam Raise Project was 

to increase flood storage capacity at Folsom Reservoir. 

At the same time the Corps was investigating flood damage reduction options, 

Reclamation was evaluating safety of dams issues related to all of the Folsom 

facilities. Reclamation initiated a Corrective Action Study (CAS) that evaluated 

public safety risks due to hydrologic, seismic, and static concerns. Beginning in 

2004, Reclamation and the Corps established an Oversight Management Group, 

consisting of senior management from both agencies, to facilitate project 

coordination. Coordination activities included a comprehensive value planning effort 

to identify a joint project that addresses the agencies’ respective flood damage 

reduction and dam safety objectives. Congress formalized this effort in the Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act by directing the 

two agencies to continue progress toward a joint project. Since that time both 

agencies worked intensively to develop reasonable alternatives for a JFP. 

The objective of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR is to assess the effects to the natural, 

physical, and social environments as a result of alternative engineering solutions that 

address hydrologic control and seismic and static issues for the Folsom Facility. The 

alternatives include an action (or series of actions) that would integrate the Corps’ 

authorized Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise projects with 

Reclamation’s safety of dams objectives. Among other benefits, a joint project would 

result in timely, cost effective completion of features at the Folsom Facility that 

expedite: (1) protection of public safety related to the structural integrity of the 

facilities and (2) improvement to flood control management for the communities 

along the lower American and Sacramento rivers. 

The proposed structural modifications to the Folsom Facility could ultimately lead to 

revisions of Folsom Dam operations that would provide for earlier releases of 

reservoir water in advance of a major storm (hydrologic event). The modifications 

being considered in this EIS/EIR would allow for the release of 115,000 cubic feet 
Executive Summary 

 

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

per second (cfs; the existing objective release) sooner than is now possible, with the 

potential for higher releases should the downstream levees be improved to 

accommodate the increased flows. These larger, earlier releases from Folsom 

Reservoir would create and conserve flood storage space based on projected 

reservoir inflows resulting from a major storm impacting the upper American River 

watershed. However, the proposed modifications would be operated using existing 

criteria until the completion of a revised Folsom Water Control manual and 

supporting supplemental environmental compliance documentation. The manual 

would be completed one year prior to completion of proposed structural 

modifications at Folsom Dam and Reservoir, at which time the full potential benefits 

of the proposed modifications would be realized. 

The EIS/EIR project alternatives include elements of the individual missions of 

Reclamation and the Corps. Due to specific Congressional authorizations limiting 

what actions each agency can implement, Reclamation would most likely implement 

separately those elements specific to its Safety of Dams mission and the Corps would 

implement those elements specific to improving Flood Damage Reduction. 

Study Authority 

The current study was implemented under several existing authorizations. Primary 

authority and guidance for Flood Damage Reduction is provided in the Folsom Dam 

Modifications Project Authority under Section 101(a)(6) of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of 1999 (PL 106-53) and the Folsom Dam Raise 

Authority under PL 108-137, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act for 2004. The Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise authorities 

share the objective of improving flood management on the American River, 

primarily through structural modifications to the existing Folsom Dam and 

Appurtenant Facilities. With the Folsom Dam Raise authority, Congress also 

authorized the Corps to construct an ecosystem restoration project component on the 

Lower American River and a permanent bridge, provided that certain funding 

conditions were met. 

In addition, Reclamation has been pursuing safety of dam modifications separately 

through its existing Safety of Dams Program. Investigations and analyses by 

Reclamation have identified needed dam safety modifications at Folsom Dam and 

Appurtenant Facilities. In response to these studies, Reclamation initiated the CAS to 

identify technically feasible and environmentally and socially preferable alternatives 

that would address the identified safety concerns. 

Recent modifications to both agencies’ existing authorities were made in the Energy 

and Water Appropriations Act of 2006, which directed the Secretary of the Army 

and the Secretary of the Interior to collaborate on authorized activities to maximize 

flood damage reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at Folsom Dam 
Executive Summary 

 

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

and Reservoir as one project; and authorized both agencies to expend funds for 

design of a joint project. 

Facility Description and Study Area 

The Folsom Facility is comprised of twelve separate structures (Figure ES-1). The 

main structure is the Main Concrete Dam that controls releases to the American 

River. The Main Concrete Dam is on the mainstem of the American River and is the 

only facility with operational gates and outlets used to retain and release water stored 

within the reservoir. Adjacent to the Main Concrete Dam and looking downstream 

are the Right Wing Dam (RWD) and Left Wing Dam (LWD). The two wing dams 

serve to contain water within Folsom Reservoir. The other large earthen structure is 

MIAD, which retains water at the location of a historic river channel. The Folsom 

Facility also includes eight earthen dikes. The earthen dikes span areas of terrain 

with lower elevations and are primarily used to contain water when the reservoir is at 

or near capacity. Folsom Dam also has hydroelectric power generating facilities. 

Folsom is a multi-purpose facility operated by law for flood control, municipal and 

industrial (M&I) water supply, agricultural water supply, power, fish and wildlife, 

recreation, navigation and water quality purposes. The facility is primarily operated 

to maximize flood control and water supply storage benefits. To provide flood 

control storage capacity (protecting the Sacramento region), the reservoir is operated 

so that the reservoir level is lowest starting in the fall of each year. The flood storage 

capacity is retained until April of each year when the reservoir is filled with snowmelt runoff from the Sierra Nevada. During the summer months when water 

elevations remain high, Folsom Reservoir serves a major regional recreational 

resource (Folsom Lake State Recreation Area [FLSRA]). 

The study area addressed in this EIS/EIR includes the entire Folsom Facility, 

including approximately 75 miles of shoreline surrounding the reservoir. Due to the 

requirement to bring in materials from outside suppliers, the study area includes 

adjacent roadways, the city of Folsom, and the community of Granite Bay. 

Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Purpose and Need/Project 

Objectives 

As a part of their responsibilities, Reclamation and the Corps have determined that 

the Folsom facilities require structural improvements to increase overall public 

safety by improving the facilities’ ability to reduce flood damages and addressing 

dam safety issues posed by hydrologic (flood), seismic (earthquake), and static 

(seepage) events. These events have a low probability of occurrence in a given year; 

however, due to the large population downstream of Folsom Dam, modifying the 

facilities is prudent and required to improve public safety. 
Executive Summary 

 

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

Figure ES-1 

The Folsom Facility 
Executive Summary 

 

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

Reclamation has identified the need for expedited action to reduce specific 

hydrologic, static, and seismic risks under its Safety of Dams Program. The 

identified risks are among the highest of all dams in Reclamation’s inventory and the 

Folsom facilities are among Reclamation’s highest priorities within its Safety of 

Dams Program. Reclamation’s primary interest for integrating dam safety activities 

with Corps’ flood damage reduction projects is to expedite corrective action and 

realize cost sharing benefits of a coordinated effort. 

The Corps in partnership with the Reclamation Board/DWR and SAFCA (nonfederal sponsors) have determined that Folsom Reservoir does not have sufficient 

release capacity to adequately manage severe flood flows nor do the downstream 

levees have sufficient capacity to exceed base flood event flows of 145,000 cfs. 

The non-federal sponsors have identified the need to reduce the risk of flooding in 

the Sacramento area. Due to the number and value of the exposed structures and the 

size of the population at risk, Sacramento has been identified as one of the most at 

risk communities in the nation. Consequently, there is a need to expeditiously reduce 

this risk through interim and permanent flood damage reduction measures. The goal 

of the non-federal sponsors is to safely pass the 200-year computed design event as a 

minimum objective anticipated in the congressionally authorized Folsom 

Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise projects. Pursuit of this goal constitutes the 

non-federal sponsors’ primary interest for integrating Corps flood damage reduction 

projects with Reclamation dam safety activities. Through this effort, non-federal 

sponsors will increase flood protection for the downstream and surrounding 

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

effort. 

Given these circumstances, there is a need to expedite dam safety corrective actions 

for the Folsom facilities to reduce potential failure due to seismic, static, and 

hydrologic conditions. There is also a need to incrementally increase minimum flood 

protection by improving reservoir pool release mechanisms and, if incrementally 

justified, increasing flood storage capacity. The purpose of the project will be to 

increase overall public safety, improve the reliability of local water supply and 

power generation, and maintain an important recreational resource. Project 

objectives are: 

• Expeditiously reduce hydrologic risk of overtopping-related failure of any 

impoundment structure during a probable maximum flood (PMF) event in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any impoundment structure 

during a potential seismic (earthquake) event in accordance with Reclamation’s 

Public Protection Guidelines; 
Executive Summary 

 

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

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any impoundment structure 

during a potential static (seepage) event in accordance with Reclamation’s Public 

Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously improve the security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; and 

• Expeditiously improve the flood management capacity of the facilities in a 

manner consistent with existing Corps authorities. 

Development and Screening of Project Alternatives 

Volume I, Chapter 2, of the Draft EIS/EIR, presents the process used to identify, 

formulate, and select the alternatives assessed in this EIS/EIR. Since issuance of the 

Draft EIS/EIR the project agencies have identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred 

Alternative and have initiated design activities for this alternative. Alternative 3 was 

the alternative discussed during public hearings and as such is the alternative that 

received the majority of comments on during the public comment period. 

Alternatives 3 is identified as the Preferred Alternative because Alternatives 1 and 2 

do not meet the objectives of the JFP, the 7-ft raise of Alternative 4 is no longer 

necessary to meet hydrologic control objectives, and the 17-ft raise of Alternative 5 

would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 

Description of the Folsom DS/FDR Preferred Alternative 

The Folsom DS/FDR Project incorporates four action elements to be implemented by 

Reclamation and the Corps, as follows: 

1. A new Auxiliary Spillway would be controlled by 6 submerged tainter 

gates (6STG). The Auxiliary Spillway, also referred to as the JFP, would 

be implemented jointly by Reclamation and the Corps to address 

hydrologic Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction concerns related to 

controlled release of water from Folsom Dam. Reclamation has also 

evaluated a Fuseplug Spillway alternative as a stand-alone dam safety 

alternative to be implemented only if the Corps is unable to receive 

timely construction funding or realize timely hydrologic risk reduction by 

construction of the 6STG spillway. Reclamation and the Corps will 

jointly identify the final environmental mitigation and commitments for 

the new Auxiliary Spillway project element, inclusive of the Fuseplug 

option, under a joint JFP ROD. 

2. Additional Dam Safety modifications will be undertaken by Reclamation 

to address seismic and static concerns related to the Main Concrete Dam 

and six of the eleven earthen structures. Seismic modifications would be 

made to MIAD by undertaking foundation jet grouting in conjunction 

with a downstream overlay and the reinforcement of Main Concrete Dam 
Executive Summary 

 

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

existing gates and piers. Static modifications would be undertaken to the 

RWD, LWD, Dikes 4, 5, and 6, and MIAD. Reclamation will 

independently identify the final environmental mitigations and 

commitments for this effort under a stand-alone ROD. 

3. Security improvements will be undertaken by Reclamation to key 

Folsom facilities to address national security concerns. Reclamation will 

independently identify the final environmental mitigations and 

commitments for this effort under the dam safety ROD. 

4. Flood Damage Reduction improvements in addition to the 6STG will be 

undertaken by the Corps including modification or replacement of 

existing emergency spillway gates and a 3.5-ft raise to all Folsom 

embankment facilities. The Corps will prepare a separate ROD for the 

3.5-ft raise, emergency gate modifications or replacement, and other 

flood damage reduction features. As described more in this section, 

detailed design for these flood damage reduction features at the Folsom 

Facility would occur during the Corps’ pre-construction, engineering and 

design phase. The issuance of a ROD by the Corps for such 

improvements at the Folsom Facility is not expected to occur in 

conjunction with the currently proposed DS/FDR actions, but rather 

would occur later as a separate action with supplemental environmental 

documentation if necessary. 

Changes to the Project Since the Release of the Draft 

EIS/EIR 

The following section introduces the changes to the project description since the 

release of the Draft EIS/EIR; changes are based on additional engineering analysis 

and responding to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. 

Sequencing and Length of the Folsom DS/FDR Actions 

The proposed sequencing of construction at each of the Folsom facilities has been 

modified since issuance of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Partner Agencies have extended 

the proposed completion dates for certain dam safety actions and have scheduled less 

overlap of construction work for the dikes and wing dams. The new Auxiliary 

Spillway would be constructed as part of three phases. Table ES-2 provides the 

proposed sequencing of the Folsom DS/FDR actions. It is important to note that the 

schedule proposed in Table ES-2 is tentative and subject to change based on 

engineering design considerations and availability of funding for each activity. 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-10 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Table ES-2 

 Folsom DS/FDR Project Phase Sequencing

Activity 

ID 

Folsom Facility Construction Period 

1 Auxiliary Spillway Excavation Phase 1 September 2007 to March 2009 

2 Right and Left Wing Dam Static Modifications October 2007 to November 2008 

3 MIAD Jet Grouting July 2008 to November 2009 

4 Auxiliary Spillway Excavation Phase 2 September 2010 to January 2014 

5 Dike 5 Static Modifications September 2009 to May 2010 

6 MIAD Seismic Overlay June 2015 to April 2017 

7 Dikes 4 and 6 Static Modifications September 2017 to April 2018 

8a Pier Tendon Installation at Main Dam January 2014 to March 2015 

8b Spillway Pier Wraps & Braces August 2016 to April 2018 

8c Spillway Gate Repairs January 2018 to August 2020 

9 Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel Excavation 

Phase 3 and Gate Structure Construction 

September 2011 to November 2014 

10 Raise of all Folsom Facilities May 2010 to September 2014 

Inundation Due to Raises 

The Draft EIS/EIR introduced the possibility of constructing a Folsom Facility raise 

of greater than 4 ft that could result in constructing new embankments to contain 

reservoir water resulting from an increased reservoir surface elevation beyond 

existing conditions. Since publishing the Draft EIS/EIR, Reclamation has 

determined that a Fuseplug Spillway alternative could pass the PMF without the 

need for embankment raises above the current crest elevation. As a result, 

Reclamation has determined that no property takes, flowage easements, or additional 

small scale impoundment features such as dikes or berms are planned as part of its 

role in the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, 

the Corps has concluded that with optimization of all elements of the Selected Plan, 

6STG, emergency spillway gate modification and 3.5-ft raise, an increase to 

maximum reservoir water surface elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not 

anticipated to provide flood damage reduction benefits. 

The future maximum reservoir water surface elevation under the Selected Plan 

would not exceed the existing take line for a 200-year design event and there would 

be a lower maximum water surface elevation than the without-project condition for 

all flood events inclusive of a PMF event. This would eliminate the flood risk to 

surrounding properties. Consequently, no property takes, flowage easements or 

additional small scale impoundment features such as dikes or berms beyond the 

existing take line are planned in the Final EIS/EIR. The 3.5-ft raise portion of the 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-11 

Selected Plan will undergo further design during the Corps’ pre-construction, 

engineering, and design phase and if needed, supplemental NEPA/CEQA 

documentation would be prepared. 

Folsom DS/FDR Optimized Project Area 

The project footprint evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR included areas required to 

construct raises of all structures up to 17 ft in height (Alternative 5).1 Based upon 

further engineering analysis and considering public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, 

the Partner Agencies have concluded that raises above 3.5-ft are not required and 

have t eliminated them as project alternatives. As a result, the project footprint has 

been reduced to the minimum area necessary to support the new Auxiliary Spillway; 

work on the Main Concrete Dam; the seismic and static modifications to Dikes 4, 5, 

6, LWD, RWD and MIAD; and any 3.5-ft raise. Reducing the project footprint 

would reduce impacts to those presented in the Draft EIS/EIR. The most significant 

reduction of impacts pertains to recreation, vegetation and wildlife, and other 

elements of vital concern to the surrounding communities. After project use, staging 

areas, haul roads, stockpiles, temporary access roads, detours, trails and paths or 

similar features will either be reclaimed/restored as close to practical to the preexisting condition and/or similar to the surrounding terrain and/or be graded to 

provide unimproved platforms as elected by Reclamation. 

Optimized Borrow 

The Draft EIS/EIR discussed the potential for developing borrow sites near each of 

the Folsom facilities to produce earthen materials for raising structures and 

additional shell material. The Partner Agencies have determined that the majority of 

borrow would be produced from the Auxiliary Spillway excavation site, which 

would reduce the need to develop in-reservoir borrow sites and impacting 

recreational opportunities. However, both agencies may determine the need to 

develop other borrow sites for supplemental use (as a contingency) and have retained 

these options in the final project description. 

Supplemental borrow site requirements would be limited to in-reservoir areas, 

between elevation 400.0 ft and 425.9 ft, north of Beal’s Point at an area below 

Mooney Ridge and the cove area below Dike 8. Also, outside the reservoir near 

MIAD at the D1/D2 area has been retained as both a contractor staging area and 

potential borrow site. Borrow would no longer occur in the immediate vicinity of the 

Granite Bay or Browns Ravine recreation areas. 

 

1

 While several of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS/EIR propose a dam/facility raise less 

than the 17 feet anticipated under Alternative 5, a single most-conservative impact footprint was 

used in the programmatic-level analysis of all alternatives that proposed any raise (i.e., Alternatives 

2 through 5). 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-12 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Optimization of borrow operations would substantially reduce the adverse effects by 

reducing potential in-reservoir traffic, air quality, recreation and noise impacts on 

roadways and to communities adjacent to the reservoir. Reclamation’s Central 

California Area Office would notify local agencies and the general public and accept 

input prior to initiating supplemental borrow activities at these sites. 

Staging Areas 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies have 

reduced the amount of acreage needed for staging purposes by eliminating, 

consolidating, or reducing acreage from that presented in the Draft EIS/EIR. In 

principle, contractor staging areas would emphasize use of areas with no current 

public access, away from residential areas, use of excess materials to create 

platforms above the normal operating reservoir water surface elevation of 466.0 ft 

and be placed so as to maintain existing or equivalent public recreation access and 

use capacity during the peak recreation season. This change, along with other impact 

reduction measures below would reduce vegetation and wildlife and recreational 

impacts. 

1) Staging area(s) for work on the RWD at Beal’s Point recreation site was 

removed through construction of a staging platform south of the recreation 

area. 

2) Staging for work at Dikes 4, 5, and 6 would be in the immediate vicinity of 

the dikes, or would use the platform established south of Beal’s Point. These 

locations would be in areas typically not accessible by the general public and 

away from residential areas. 

3) Staging for work at the Auxiliary Spillway site would be at multiple locations 

along the toe of the LWD, at the Observation Point, at a constructed platform 

at Dike 7, and at the D1/D2 location. 

4) Staging for work on MIAD would be at the D1/D2 location. 

To minimize potential impacts to recreation, staging areas at Beal’s Point and 

Folsom Point would be placed on constructed platforms or on adjacent unimproved 

areas a safe distance from primary recreational activities. Public safety would be 

maintained through the use of fencing or other similar measures. There would be 

nearly continuous public access to recreation areas and trails throughout the 

construction period through the use of traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. Exceptions could include temporary closure incidental to completing 

construction of the grade separation itself or other access measures or to meet 

unforeseen project circumstances. In such cases, temporary closures would be 

accomplished during off-peak days or the off-season to minimize impacts on 

recreation activities. Reclamation’s Central California Area Office would notify 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-13 

local agencies and the general public and accept input in advance of any possible 

extended closure(s) that may be necessary due to unforeseen project circumstances. 

Cofferdams 

The Partner Agencies have eliminated cofferdams proposed at Dikes 7 and 8. This 

would result in fewer adverse water quality and recreation impacts. 

Materials Storage, Processing and Batch Plants 

The Partner Agencies currently anticipate that commercial and processed materials 

(cement, concrete aggregates, sand and gravel, steel etc.) required for the project 

would be obtained from local commercial off-site suppliers. The revised Preferred 

Alternative includes the option of conducting processing (crushing and screening) of 

materials excavated from the new Auxiliary Spillway site, but limits such activity to 

areas away from residential areas and off limits to public access. The change to the 

use of commercially acquired materials would reduce air quality, noise, viewshed, 

and recreational impacts. 

Environmental Consequences 

The following sections summarize the environmental effects of the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 3). The environmental baseline used to establish the basis 

for determining effects of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives is derived from the 

NEPA definition of future conditions without project and the CEQA definition of 

existing conditions. The reader is referred to the individual resource chapters in the 

Draft EIS/EIR for discussions on how the baseline is being applied to each resource. 

Table ES-3 provides a summary of the impacts by resource area and the associated 

mitigation measures. 

Table ES-3 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary - Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Hydrology • Reduce water source to wetlands • Monitor water levels 

before/during/after construction 

Water Quality • Increased siltation 

• Increased turbidity 

• MAID water quality impacts 

• Metals and mercury impacts from 

dredging 

• Best management practices 

• Best management practices 

• Best management practices 

• Best management practices 

Groundwater • Localized groundwater level 

fluctuations 

• Monitor water levels 

before/during/after construction

Water Supply • Potential short-term disruption of 

Natomas pipeline 

• Reduction in storage of less than 

1% from placement of materials in 

reservoir 

• Establish temporary water source 

• None required 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-14 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Table ES-3 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary - Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Air Quality • Uncontrolled NOx emissions from 

construction vehicles exceeding de 

minimis thresholds 

• Particulate (PM10) emissions 

exceeding de minimis thresholds 

• Develop construction sequencing 

plan that includes best available 

emissions control practices. 

• Best management controls for 

roadway, processing facility, and 

batch plant particulate emissions 

Aquatic Resources • Less than significant impact to fish 

• Potential loss of vernal pool habitat 

and impacts to vernal pool 

invertebrates 

• Displacement of fish species from 

stilling basin 

• None required for fish 

• Mitigation and monitoring plan 

• Fish removal and recovery plan 

Terrestrial Vegetation and 

Wildlife 

• Potential impact to special status 

plant and animal species 

• Direct or indirect impacts to oak 

and pine woodlands, riparian 

woodland and chaparral habitats 

• Permanent loss of wetlands and 

temporary disturbance 

• Adverse impacts to the Valley 

Elderberry Long-Horn Beetle and 

its habitat 

• Potential impact to special-status 

amphibian, reptile, bird, and 

mammalian species and habitat 

• Impacts to migrating/wintering 

birds 

• Impacts to birds protected by 

MBTA 

• Impacts to wildlife from underwater 

blasting 

• Mitigation plans will be developed 

that could include (where 

appropriate and feasible): 

• Pre-construction surveys to identify 

species and avoid where possible 

• Environmental awareness training 

to construction personnel 

• Revegetation plans 

• Consultation with CDFG and 

USFWS to develop appropriate 

plans and mitigation measures 

• Placement of fencing to avoid plant 

or animal species 

• Habitat to special-status species 

would be removed during nonbreeding season to preclude return 

to project area during construction 

• Appropriate compensation for 

vegetation and wetlands based on 

FWCAR and MMRP 

• Buffer zones around wetlands 

• Implement recommendation of 

FWCAR and complete mitigation in 

the FWCAR for all affected habitats 

• Qualified Biologists on-site to 

identify any at-risk special-status 

species 

• Develop and implement bird 

monitoring plan 

• Avoid removal of vegetation during 

bird breeding season, whenever 

possible 

Soils • Loss of soil resource through 

excavation and borrow site 

development 

• Obtain appropriate permits, apply 

best management practices 

Minerals • Decomposed granite and other 

minerals would be excavated and 

used during construction 

• None Required 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-15 

Table ES-3 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary - Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Geological Resources • Commitment of geological 

resources for facility construction 

• Naturally occurring asbestos 

disturbance 

• None 

• Asbestos abatement plan 

incorporating best management 

practices 

Visual Resources • Temporary reduction in visual 

quality as a result of borrow 

development and construction 

activities 

• Siting of processing facilities in less 

obtrusive areas 

Agricultural Resources • No impact • None required 

Transportation and Circulation 

Element 

• Significant impact to roadways with 

current poor level of service 

• Complete a peak hour capacity 

analysis to identify potential 

roadway improvements or 

operations modifications 

• Prepare a transportation 

management plan that outlines 

contractor haul routes for 

coordination with the local entities 

Noise • Increase in area noise levels due 

to construction, processing, and 

transport 

• Significant increase in nighttime 

noise levels at three sensitive 

receptor locations 

• Construct portable noise barriers 

• Maintenance of exhaust mufflers 

• Scheduling truck traffic to day time 

hours 

• Blasting during daytime hours only 

• Monitoring of construction noise 

levels at sensitive locations 

Cultural Resources • Potential loss or disturbance of 

historic properties and/or historical 

resources 

• Consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office and 

implementation of mitigation plan 

and appropriate procedures will be 

followed if human remains are 

discovered 

Land Use, Planning, Zoning • No impact • None required 

Recreation • Potential damage to recreational 

facilities and trails 

• Closure of trails within and near 

construction sites 

• Potential loss of visitor days and 

recreation revenues 

• Construction related impacts to 

recreation facilities will be 

replaced in kind by the lead 

construction agency and 

disturbed recreation areas and 

facilities will be restored to preconstruction condition 

• Prepare signage and 

announcements related to 

construction schedules and 

closures 

• Establish detours with signs for 

roads/trails 

• Following borrow excavation, 

recontour beach areas for public 

use 

• Construction, borrow, and staging 

areas will be sited as far from 

recreation areas as is practical 

• Use flagmen to control traffic 

• No closure of any recreation facility 

during high use periods 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-16 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Table ES-3 

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Summary - Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

Resource Area Impact Potential Mitigation 

Public Services and Utilities • Potential for temporary disruptions 

• Damage to rest rooms and roads 

• Relocate Natomas Pipeline 

• Would create solid waste 

• Stage utility relocations and prior 

announcements 

• Repair or relocate 

• Establish temporary water source 

• Recycle when possible, select 

licensed landfills 

Hydropower • No impact • None required 

Population and Housing • No impact • None required 

Public Health and Safety • Work site, roadway, and recreation 

site safety control 

• Develop and implement Public 

Health and Safety Plan, Worker 

Health and Safety Plan, Fire 

Suppression Plan, Hazardous 

Materials Management Plan, 

Environmental Site Assessments 

Indian Trust Assets • No impact • None required 

Environmental Justice • No impact • None required 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

Construction of any of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would not change the 

hydrology of the American River or alter current operations of the reservoir. 

Construction of the project would result in improved hydrologic control of the 

American River watershed flood flows, providing flood damage reduction benefits to 

the Sacramento region. 

Road construction, excavation, and placement of fill within the water side of the 

Folsom facility would have the potential for significant water quality impacts. Water 

quality impacts would result from soil erosion both during and after the excavation 

of borrow material. This effect would be mitigated through best management 

practices, appropriate permits, implementation of a water quality monitoring plan, 

and consultation with Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(CVRWQCB). 

Since the release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the revisions to the project description have 

resulted in the removal of the coffer dams at Dike 7 and Dike 8. The water quality 

impacts associated with the placement of material in the reservoir for construction of 

the coffer dams would be eliminated. 

Jet grouting at the downstream foundation of MIAD could affect water quality and 

could reduce the water source for a portion of the wetlands around MIAD. The 

Partner Agencies would monitor water levels before, during, and after construction. 

They would also perform tests to ensure the jet grout does not migrate into the 

surrounding wetlands. All temporary jet grout areas would be lined with material to 

prevent the migration of grout. 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-17 

In-reservoir dredging could affect water quality because of the presence of metals 

and mercury. Best management practices and mitigation measures would be 

implemented after consultation with CVRWQCB. 

Water Supply 

The chute alignment of the Auxiliary Spillway would cross a portion of the Natomas 

Pipeline. This raw water pipeline supplies water to the City of Folsom and California 

Department of Corrections water treatment plants, and the Corps' Resident Office 

fire protection system. Approximately 300 ft of the pipeline would need to be 

replaced with an above ground pipeline that could temporarily interrupt water 

supplies. The Partner Agencies would provide for an alternative intake and 

connection to the pipeline so that any disruption would be minimal. This action was 

accomplished successfully the winter of 2006-2007 as part of a valve replacement 

project. 

Excess material from the excavation of the spillway or unusable material from 

borrow sites may be placed in the reservoir. Placement of excess material within the 

reservoir would reduce water supplies by less than 1 percent. 

Air Quality 

The Partner Agencies are required to conform to federal U.S Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) air quality regulations, being enforced by the SMAQMD. All air 

quality emissions will be required to be controlled to levels that must be in compliance 

with limits established by SMAQMD in the project’s air quality permits. In addition to 

watering roadways, excavation, and deposition sites to minimize dust, the Partner 

Agencies will be required to use the most up-to-date pollution reduction equipment on 

all fossil fuel powered construction equipment. The specific air pollution control 

measures to be employed and adhered to will be described in detail in the project’s air 

quality permits. Refinements to the project, including an air quality assessment of a 

more practical project, have shown that the project can conform to the Clean Air Act 

requirements. These refinements include: 

• Identification of available air quality emission credits, 

• Redistribution of material hauling and disposal to minimize haulage miles 

• Scheduling and sequencing of excavation and hauling work so that there is not a 

significant overlap with other project activities that contribute to air quality 

emissions, 

• Use of electrical power for all stationary equipment (note: electrical power will 

be obtained from commercial sources and will not impact Western Area Power 

Authority or CVP users and customers), and 

• Use of the most recent pollution control equipment for all off-road equipment. 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-18 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Aquatic Resources 

Construction of the DS/FDR actions would have less than a significant impact on inreservoir aquatic resources. The majority of the fish species inhabiting the reservoir 

are introduced game or non native species. Special status species are not known to 

inhabit the immediate vicinity of the project sites. 

Construction near Dike 6 would have the potential to remove seasonal wetlands. 

Consultation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would occur to develop mitigation and monitoring 

plans. Loss of wetland would be considered significant and would require mitigation 

compensation. 

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

fish species from this man-made habitat. A removal and recovery plan would be 

developed in consultation with CDFG and USFWS. 

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. Consultation with CDFG 

and USFWS would occur to develop mitigation and monitoring plans. Folsom 

DS/FDR agencies would implement all recommendations in the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act Report (FWCAR). Measure to avoid impacts to wildlife and 

habitat would be implemented, and appropriate compensation would be provided 

when required. 

The changes to the project description after the release of the Draft EIS/EIR have led 

to a substantial reduction in the overall project footprint. It is anticipated that this 

would reduce impacts to terrestrial vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat in most 

areas around the Folsom Facility, compared to what was described in the Draft 

EIS/EIR. 

Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

Construction activities, particularly in the area of Auxiliary Spillway, the wing dams, 

MIAD, and dikes, would result in the loss of topsoil resources. This impact would be 

mitigated to non-significant levels through the implementation of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), and the development and implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Use of granitic material from within the 

reservoir for the raising the dikes and dams represents a long-term commitment of 

this resource. The schist based bedrock comprising the borrow material east of dike 7 

may contain low-levels of asbestos. The schist will be managed to reduce air borne 

release of the asbestos fibers. A Dust Mitigation Plan will be prepared that specifies 

the activities and BMPs to minimize airborne naturally-occurring asbestos. 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-19 

Visual Resources 

Establishment of the material processing facilities, excavation of borrow sites, and 

construction work on the Folsom dams and dikes would result in a significant but 

temporary visual impact to FLSRA visitors and to the home owners bordering the 

reservoir. The visual resource impairment would be an unavoidable adverse impact 

until construction work was completed at each structure. 

Agricultural Resources 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions would not impact local or regional agricultural 

resources. 

Transportation and Circulation 

The Draft EIS/EIR identified several locations where Level of Service (LOS) indices 

could be reduced as a result of transport of materials and supplies to the project sites. 

The Draft EIS/EIR noted the importance of a Traffic Management Plan to prevent 

significant impacts from occurring. Although refinements to the Preferred 

Alternative have changed some of the sequencing of hauling of materials, the 

refinements have not substantially changed the quantities of material transported to 

the project sites. The Partner Agencies remain committed to a Traffic Management 

Plan to ensure that significant disruption of traffic flow does not occur as a result of 

the hauling of materials. The Traffic Management Plan would include a peak hour 

analysis to aid in the determination of timing of construction traffic flow versus 

existing and future level of service information. 

Noise 

The refinements to the Preferred Alternative have eliminated a materials processing 

plant near Folsom Point and opposite to Mooney Ridge, reducing noise sources at 

those locations. Processing of materials would still occur south of Beal’s Point, at 

the Auxiliary Spillway excavation site (LWD and Observation Point) and at MIAD 

(D1/D2 locations). The processing of materials at Beal’s Point would have the 

potential for affecting recreational activities, including camping, near the processing 

site. At present, the Partner Agencies plan to conduct processing during the winter 

months when recreational use is at its lowest. Construction of seepage filters at Dike 

5 would be in the vicinity of the RV parking lot. Construction at this location would 

be only off-peak recreation season months and would not occur at night. 

The hauling of material from the Auxiliary Spillway site eastward to MIAD would 

still occur, although the Partner Agencies would seek to use stockpile and disposal 

sites at the LWD, Observation Point, and Dike 7 first to minimize truck noise. As 

part of the refinements to the Preferred Alternative, the Partner Agencies would 

reinforce their commitment to employ all possible noise-reduction measures to keep 

noise levels from excavation, hauling, placement, and processing materials to remain 

below local noise ordinance limits. 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-20 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are known to exist at many locations proposed for staging, borrow 

development, and facility construction. The potential loss or disturbance of these 

historic properties and/or historical resources could occur during construction 

activities. Cultural resource impacts would be mitigated for under a programmatic 

agreement in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 

Because the project footprint for the Preferred Alternative has been reduced since the 

release of the Draft EIS/EIR, partially to avoid Cultural Resources, it is anticipated 

that fewer cultural resources would be affected. 

Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

Construction of staging, borrow site, and Facility improvements would be conducted 

in compliance with local planning and zone rules, and solely on Federal property. 

New embankments, flowage easements, and/or property acquisition would no longer 

be necessary under the Preferred Alternative; therefore, there would be no significant 

land use, planning, or zoning impacts. 

Recreation 

The Draft EIS/EIR assessed impacts to recreation resources at FLSRA as a result of 

closure of recreational facilities due public safety and construction staging needs. In 

response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies have 

reduced the amount of acreage needed for staging purposes by eliminating, 

consolidating, or reducing acreage from that presented in the Draft EIS/EIR. In 

principle, contractor staging areas would emphasize use of areas with no current 

public access, away from residential areas, use of excess materials to create 

platforms above the normal operating reservoir water surface elevation of 466.0 ft 

and be placed so as to maintain existing or equivalent public recreation access and 

use capacity during the peak recreation season. 

To minimize potential impacts to recreation, staging areas at Beal’s Point and 

Folsom Point would be placed on constructed platforms or on adjacent unimproved 

areas a safe distance from primary recreational activities. Public safety would be 

maintained through the use of fencing or other similar measures. There would be 

nearly continuous public access to recreation areas and trails throughout the 

construction period through the use of traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. Closures could occur while the Partner Agencies are implementing 

these new measures that allow continued access or to address public safety and 

facility security objectives. In such cases, temporary closures would be 

accomplished during off-peak days or the off-season to minimize impacts on 

recreation activities. Reclamation’s Central California Area Office would notify 

local agencies and the general public and accept input in advance of any possible 

extended closure(s) that may be necessary due to unforeseen project circumstances. 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-21 

The Draft EIS/EIR also introduced the possibility of construction use at, or near, 

Granite Bay and Browns Ravine. Under the revised Preferred Alternative, use or 

work at Granite Bay and Browns Ravine has been eliminated. There would also be 

no impacts at Rattlesnake Bar, the Peninsula Campground, Doton’s Point, and Beeks 

Bight. 

The Partner Agencies remain committed to providing year round access to FLSRA 

is, although it is recognized that some inconvenience to the visiting public remains 

possible to address public safety and facility security objectives. The Partner 

Agencies also remain committed to replace any recreation structure, facility, or trail 

that is damaged or moved as part of construction work. Under current authorities, 

the Partner Agencies can replace in-kind existing facilities affected by the project, 

but cannot enhance or improve existing or new facilities. 

Public Services and Utilities 

Construction planning and sequencing would be performed so that existing utilities 

would not be affected by Folsom DS/FDR construction activities. Mitigation 

measures would reduce interruptions in service. All roads and other utilities damaged 

from the project would be repaired or replaced, in kind. 

Hydropower 

Construction of the Folsom DS/FDR actions would not affect hydropower operations 

at Folsom or Nimbus Dams. 

Population and Housing 

New embankments, flowage easements, and/or property acquisition would no longer 

be necessary under the Preferred Alternative; therefore, the displacement and 

relocation of residents would not occur. There would be no impacts to population 

and housing. 

Public Health and Safety 

The Folsom DS/FDR would include the development and implementation of health 

and safety plans that would provide safety considerations for construction personnel, 

the public, and visitors to the FLSRA. 

Indian Trust Assets 

There are no Indian Trust Assets within the project area that would be affected by 

Folsom DS/FDR construction activities. 

Environmental Justice 

There are no ethnic or low income groups defined by Environmental Justice 

guidance within the project area that would be disproportionately affected by Folsom 

DS/FDR activities. 
Executive Summary 

 

ES-22 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Socioeconomics 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies are no 

longer planning to close any recreation facility during the peak recreation season 

(May through September). Facility entry kiosks staffed by CDPR personnel would 

remain open and CDPR would continue to collect park fees. During the non-peak 

season when use of the facilities is low, visitors would still be able to use volunteer 

pay stations when they access open recreation sites. Because FLSRA would remain 

accessible throughout the year, frequent users would still purchase annual passes. 

Therefore, under the revised Preferred Alternative, there would not be a notable loss 

of revenues to CDPR. In the event of closures to recreation facilities due to 

uncontrollable circumstances, economic impact to the local economy and CDPR 

would occur. Regional economic impacts would be minimal because visitors would 

still be able to recreate at other local recreation areas and open FLSRA facilities; 

and, the benefits of construction worker spending would continue to offset any losses 

in recreational expenditures. CDPR would loose some revenues as a result of 

unexpected closures. 

Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations 

This EIS/EIR complies with NEPA and CEQA requirements. The implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative, as defined herein, would comply with all Federal, State, 

and local laws and permitting requirements. See Table 1-2 in Chapter 1 for 

additional information on laws, rules, regulations, and executive orders applicable to 

this project. 

Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The No Action/No Project Alternative would not involve any construction activity 

and would have the fewest environmental effects to the project area; however, it 

would not meet the project’s purpose and need. The No Action/No Project 

Alternative would also have the greatest potential for lower American River impacts 

resulting from the inability to control large storm events with the existing Folsom 

Facility. 

Alternative 1 would have fewer environmental impacts than the other action 

alternatives because it does not include Phase 3 construction on the Auxiliary 

Spillway. However, Alternative 1 would not fully address the project’s purpose and 

need because it does not adequately address the flood damage reduction goals of the 

Corps and non-federal sponsors for the Sacramento region. It could result in flood 

impacts on the lower American River. 

Alternative 2 with the inclusion of the Fuseplug Spillway with a gated tunnel 

partially addresses flood damage reduction objectives because it does not completely 

achieve the 200-year level of flood protection of the purpose and need. Also, 
Executive Summary 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 ES-23 

Alternative 2 would have greater environmental impacts than Alternatives 1 and 3 

because it requires substantially more earthen material. 

Alternative 3 fully addresses the purpose and need for dam safety and flood damage 

reduction objectives for the Sacramento Region. Alternative 3, however, would have 

greater environmental impacts than only Alternative 1 because it includes all 3 

phases of construction on the Auxiliary Spillway. 

Alternative 4 would meet the project’s purpose and need but would have greater 

environmental impacts than Alternatives 1 through 3 due to the increased amount of 

earthen material excavated, processed, and placed at the facilities. Alternative 5 

would have the greatest environmental impacts of all alternatives because it would 

require complete development of all potential in-reservoir borrow sites to provide the 

earthen material necessary to construct the 17-ft raise. 

Based on this summary, the Partner Agencies have identified Alternative 3 as the 

environmentally Preferred Alternative. This meets the CEQA requirement to 

identify the environmentally preferred alternative in the EIR. 
Contents 

Page 

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

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

 Purpose of Study and EIS/EIR.....................................................................ES-2 

 Study Authority............................................................................................ES-4 

 Facility Description and Study Area............................................................ES-5 

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

 Development and Screening of Project Alternatives...................................ES-8 

 Description of the Folsom DS/FDR Preferred Alternative..........................ES-8 

 Changes to the Project Since the Release of the Draft EIS/EIR..................ES-9 

 Environmental Consequences....................................................................ES-13 

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

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

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

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

 1.2 Joint Federal Project Coordination .................................................... 1-2 

 1.3 Relationship of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Proposed 

Project with the Corps’ Post Authorization Change 

Report............................................................................................. 1-4 

 1.4 Folsom DS/FDR Purpose and Need/Project 

Objectives........ ................................................................................ 1-6 

 1.4.1 Statement of Purpose and Need ............................................. 1-8 

 1.4.2 Project Objectives .................................................................. 1-8 

 1.5 Federal, State, and Local Requirements........... .............................. 1-9 

 1.6 Related Projects ............................................................................... 1-13 

 1.7 Overview of this Document........................................................ . 1-14 

2 Revised Project Description..................................................................... 2-1 

 2.1 Description of the Folsom DS/FDR Preferred Alternative................ 2-1 

 2.1.1 Auxiliary Spillway - JFP (Reclamation and the 

Corps) ................................................................................. 2-2 

 2.1.2 Dam Safety Improvements (Reclamation)............................. 2-3 

 2.1.3 Dam Security Improvements (Reclamation) ......................... 2-4 

 2.1.4 Flood Damage Reduction Actions (Corps)............................ 2-5 

 2.2 Changes to the Project Since the Release of the Draft 

EIS/EIR ................................................................................. 2-5 

 2.2.1 Sequencing and Length of the Folsom DS/FDR 

Actions ................................................................................. 2-5 

 2.2.2 Inundation Due to Raises....................................................... 2-5 

 2.2.3 Folsom DS/FDR Optimized Project Area.............................. 2-7 

 2.3 Overview of the Folsom DS/FDR Alternatives............................... 2-16 

 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway/No 

Dam Raise............................................................................ 2-16 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 i 
 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with 

Tunnel/Potential 4-ft Dam Raise ......................................... 2-16 

 2.3.3 Alternative 3 – JFP Auxiliary Spillway/3.5-Ft Raise .......... 2-16 

 2.3.4 Alternative 4 – JFP Auxiliary Spillway/Potential 7-ft 

Raise ............................................................................... 2-17 

 2.3.5 Alternative 5 – 17-ft Raise................................................... 2-17 

 2.4 Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction Project 

Description (Revised Alternative 3) ................................................ 2-18 

 2.4.1 Activity 1 – JFP Auxiliary Spillway Excavation 

Phase 1 ............................................................................... 2-18 

 2.4.2 Activity 2 – Dam Safety Static Upgrades to the 

Right Wing Dam and Left Wing Dam................................. 2-21 

 2.4.3 Activity 3 – Dam Safety Jet Grouting of MIAD 

Foundation ........................................................................... 2-22 

 2.4.4 Activity 4 – JFP Auxiliary Spillway Excavation 

Phase 2 ............................................................................... 2-24 

 2.4.5 Activity 5 – Dam Safety Dike 5 Static Repair..................... 2-26 

 2.4.6 Activity 6 – Dam Safety MIAD Overlay............................. 2-28 

 2.4.7 Activity 7 – Dam Safety Dikes 4 and 6 Static Repair.......... 2-29 

 2.4.8 Activity 8 – Dam Safety Main Concrete Dam 

Seismic Improvements and Repairs..................................... 2-30 

 2.4.9 Activity 9 – JFP Auxiliary Spillway Excavation 

Phase 3 ............................................................................... 2-32 

 2.4.10 Activity 10 – Flood Damage Reduction 3.5-ft Raise 

of Dam Structures ................................................................ 2-33 

 2.4.11 Ancillary Actions................................................................. 2-34 

 2.5 Commitments................................................................................. 2-35 

 2.5.1 Recreation Mitigation Limitations....................................... 2-35 

 2.5.2 Folsom DS/FDR Mitigation Commitments......................... 2-36 

 2.6 Unresolved Issues....... ................................................................... 2-36 

 

3 Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised 

Project Description) ................................................................................. 3-1 

 3.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater.................................... 3-1 

 3.2 Water Supply............ ..................................................................... 3-3 

 3.3 Air Quality............ ......................................................................... 3-3 

 3.4 Aquatic Resources. ............................................................................ 3-3 

 3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife......... ....................................... 3-4 

 3.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources....................................... 3-6 

 3.7 Visual Resources............................................................................... 3-6 

 3.8 Agricultural Resources...................................................................... 3-7 

 3.9 Transportation and Circulation... ...................................................... 3-7 

 3.10 Noise................ ............................................................................. 3-7 

 3.11 Cultural Resources............................................................................ 3-7 

 3.12 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning....................................................... 3-8 

 3.13 Recreation Resources.................................................................... 3-8 

ii Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
 3.14 Public Services and Utilities... .......................................................... 3-9 

 3.15 Hydropower Resources................................................................. 3-9 

 3.16 Population and Housing.................................................................... 3-9 

 3.17 Public Health and Safety................................................................. 3-10 

 3.18 Indian Trust Assets... ...................................................................... 3-10 

 3.19 Environmental Justice..................................................................... 3-10 

 3.20 Socioeconomics ............................................................................... 3-10 

3.21 Impacts and Corresponding Mitigation Measures Eliminated 

in the Final EIS/EIR......................................................................... 3-11 

4 Comments and Responses ........................................................................... 4-1 

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

 4.2 Project Background............................................................................ 4-2 

 4.3 Topical Responses ............................................................................. 4-3 

 4.3.1 Recreation Mitigation ............................................................ 4-3 

 4.3.2 Public Involvement. ............................................................. 4-12 

 4.3.3 Socioeconomics ................................................................... 4-20 

 4.3.4 Affected Property................................................................. 4-23 

 4.3.5 Property Values.................................................................... 4-24 

 4.3.6 Auburn Dam......................................................................... 4-25 

 4.3.7 Operations............................................................................ 4-25 

 4.3.8 Relationship of Safety of Dams, Dam Security, Joint 

Federal Project, and Flood Damage Reduction ................... 4-26 

 4.3.9 Transportation and Circulation ............................................ 4-26 

 4.3.10 Noise ............................................................................... 4-27 

 4.3.11 Air Quality ........................................................................... 4-27 

 4.3.12 Vegetation and Wildlife....................................................... 4-28 

 4.3.13 New Folsom Bridge ............................................................. 4-28 

 4.4 Written Comments........................................................................... 4-29 

 4.4.1 Elected Officials and Representatives Comments ............... 4-29 

 4.4.2 Federal Agency Comments.................................................. 4-29 

 4.4.3 State Agency Comments...................................................... 4-29 

 4.4.4 Local Agency & Organization Comments........................... 4-29 

 4.4.5 Public Comments................................................................. 4-30 

 4.4.6 Folsom Point Closure Forms. .............................................. 4-34 

 4.4.7 Telephone Calls. .................................................................. 4-37 

 4.5 Public Hearing Comments ............................................................... 4-37 

 4.5.1 Transcripts............................................................................ 4-37 

 4.5.2 Written Comments............................................................... 4-38 

 4.6 Responses to Comments .................................................................. 4-38 

 4.7 Petitions ............................................................................ 4-38 

 4.8 Comments on Corps PAC Report.................................................... 4-39 

5 Document Recipients ................................................................................. 5-1 

 5.1 Elected Officials and Representatives ............................................... 5-2 

 5.2 Government Departments and Agencies ........................................... 5-2 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 iii 
 5.2.1 U.S. Government ................................................................... 5-2 

 5.2.2 State of California.................................................................. 5-2 

 5.2.3 Regional, County, and City.................................................... 5-3 

 5.3 Private Organizations and Businesses ............................................... 5-3 

 5.4 Members of the Public....................................................................... 5-4 

6 References ................................................................................. 6-1 

List of Tables 

ES-1 Components of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3)................ES-2 

ES-2 Folsom DS/FDR Project Phase Sequencing .................................ES-10 

ES-3 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures SummaryFolsom DS/FDER EIS/EIR ...........................................................ES-13 

1-1 Components of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3).................. 1-3 

1-2 Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders................. 1-9 

2-1 Folsom DS/FDR Project Phase Sequencing ..................................... 2-6 

2-2 Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........ 2-37 

3-1 Project Footprint under the Draft EIS/EIR and the Final 

EIS/EIR ................................................................................. 3-2 

3-2 Comparison of Habitat Impacted Alternative 3 in Draft EIS 

with Revised Preferred Alternative ................................................... 3-5 

3-3 Mitigation Measures Eliminated Since the Draft EIS/EIR ............. 3-12 

4-1 Public Involvement for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood 

Damage Reduction Project .............................................................. 4-14 

4-2 Elected Officials and Representatives Comments ........................... 4-29 

4-3 State Agency Comments.................................................................. 4-29 

4-4 Local Agency and Organization Comments.................................... 4-30 

4-5 Public Comments............................................................................. 4-30 

4-6 Folsom Point Closure Forms ........................................................... 4-34 

4-7 Public Hearing Verbal Comments ................................................... 4-37 

4-8 Public Hearing Written Comments.................................................. 4-39 

4-9 Corps PAC Report Comments and Responses ................................ 4-40 

List of Figures 

ES-1 The Folsom Facility .........................................................................ES-6 

2-1 The Preferred Alternative Construction Zones.................................. 2-9 

2-2 Alternative 3, Draft EIS/EIR Construction Zones ........................... 2-10 

2-3 Preferred Alternative, Auxiliary Spillway to MIAD ....................... 2-13 

2-4 Preferred Alternative, Right Wing Dam to Dike 4 .......................... 2-14 

Appendices 

Appendix A –Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS/EIR 

iv Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Appendix B – Public Hearing Summary Report 

Appendix C – Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Errata 

Appendix D – Folsom DS/FDR Biological Assessment 

Appendix E – Folsom DS/FDR Revised Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act Report 

List of Acronyms 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

AQMD Air Quality Management District 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CAS Corrective Action Study 

CCAA California Clean Air Act 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 

Liability Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 

CSA Contractor Staging Area 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DS/FDR Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

EIS/EIR Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

ENSA Environmental Site Assessment 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FLSRA Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 v 
FWCAR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 

FY Fiscal Year 

HMTA Hazardous Material Transportation Act 

HTRW Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes 

IO Input Output 

IS Initial Study 

ITA Indian Trust Asset 

JFP Joint Federal Project 

LOS Level of Service 

LWD Left Wing Dam 

M&I Municipal and Industrial 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

MIAD Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam 

MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 

NAC Noise abatement criteria 

NCCPA Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOP Notice of Preparation 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OHWM Ordinary high water mark 

PAC Post Authorization Change 

Partner Agencies Reclamation, Corps, DWR, and SAFCA 

PL Public Law 

PMF Probable Maximum Flood 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Reclamation Board State Reclamation Board 

ROD Record of Decision 

RWD Right Wing Dam 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SARA Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 

SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

SSLE Safety, Security and Law Enforcement 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons 

vi Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 

Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

6STG Six submerged tainter gates 

List of Abbreviations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO carbon monoxide 

dBA decibels adjusted 

ft foot 

Ldn day-night average level 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

O3 ozone 

Pb lead 

PM2.5 fine particulate matter 

PM10 inhalable particulate matter 

ppm parts per million 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 vii 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1.1 Introduction 

On December 1, 2006, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Corps nonfederal sponsors, the State Reclamation Board (Reclamation Board)/California 

Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Sacramento Area Flood Control 

Agency (SAFCA), released the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

(Folsom DS/FDR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report (EIS/EIR) for public review and comment. The Draft EIS/EIR (State 

Clearinghouse # 2006022091) identified five alternatives to address dam safety, 

security, and flood damage reduction at Folsom Dam and Appurtenant Facilities 

(Folsom Facility). The Folsom DS/FDR agencies held public hearings to receive oral 

and written comments at the following locations: Sacramento, January 9th, 2007; and 

Folsom, January 10th, 2007. Transcripts were obtained for all oral comments at the 

public hearings. The comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR closed on January 26,

2007, after a four day extension was issued by Reclamation. Verbal and written 

comments were submitted from Federal, State, and local agencies, non-profit 

organizations, local businesses, and members of the public. 

The Partner Agencies (Reclamation, Corps, Reclamation Board/DWR, and SAFCA) 

reviewed the comments in relation to impacts to the biological, physical and 

socioeconomic environments and made changes to the actions addressed in the Draft 

EIS/EIR. The proposed changes, as discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final 

EIS/EIR, have substantially reduced the impacts, thereby addressing issues raised by 

the many reviewers. 

This document, in conjunction with the Draft EIS/EIR and other related materials, as 

described below, constitutes the Final EIS/EIR for the Proposed Project. More 

specifically, the Final EIS/EIR for the proposed Folsom DS/FDR actions (i.e., the 

Proposed Project) consists of the following: 

Volume I - Draft EIS/EIR December 2006: This volume of the Final EIS/EIR 

is effectively the Draft EIS/EIR released for public review on December 1, 2006. 

Minor editorial corrections and clarifications have been made to the Draft 

EIS/EIR as presented in this Final EIS/EIR (Volume III Appendix C), at the 

request of the Corps and the DWR; however, no material changes or additions 

were made to the Draft EIS/EIR that was published and distributed in December 

2006. The errata sheet for the Draft EIS/EIR is available in hard copy; the Draft 

EIS/EIR is only available in electronic format. 

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

Introduction 

Volume II - Draft EIS/EIR Appendices December 2006: This volume of the 

Final EIS/EIR includes the Public Scoping Report and all the technical data and 

reports that were included as part of the Draft EIS/EIR published in December 

2006. Similar to Volume I above, this volume is presented as part of the Final 

EIS/EIR in electronic format only. 

Volume III - Responses to Comments and Related Information: This volume 

of the Final EIS/EIR, presented herein, provides the responses to all comments 

received on the Draft EIS/EIR during the comment period from December 1, 

2006 to January 26, 2007, including comments received at the two public 

hearings. Additionally, this volume of the Final EIS/EIR presents revisions to the 

project description based on comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and 

discussion of potential impacts to the natural, physical, and/or socioeconomic 

environments associated with those revisions to the project description, based 

largely on information and related analysis presented previously in the Draft 

EIS/EIR. The revisions made to the project description and attendant 

environmental analysis presented herein are indicative of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) review processes, whereby the original project proposal can, and should, 

be revised in light of public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR 

circulated for the project. The information and analysis presented herein will, 

however, be made available for public review during the 30-day comment period 

associated with release of the Final EIS/EIR. Section 1.7 further describes the 

contents of Volume III. 

Reclamation and the Corps have identified Alternative 3, as addressed in the Draft 

EIS/EIR, and subsequently refined based on public and agency comments received 

on the Draft EIS/EIR (i.e., the revised project description referenced above), as the 

Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3, as addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR, includes the 

Joint Federal Project (JFP) Auxiliary Spillway, seismic improvements to the Main 

Concrete Dam and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), static improvements to 

earthen structures, security upgrades, replacement of the Main Concrete Dam 

spillway gates, and a 3.5-foot (ft) raise to all Folsom Facility structures. Table 1-1 

below provides the relationship of the components of the Preferred Alternative with 

the agency responsible for the action and issue that the action addresses. Section 2.2 

of the Draft EIS/EIR provides a discussion on the concerns for the Folsom Facility 

and measures considered to address those concerns. 

1.2 Joint Federal Project Coordination 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 included language 

supporting Reclamation’s and the Corps’ collaboration in determining a joint dam 

safety and flood damage reduction project. According to Section 128 of the Act: 

1-2 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table 1-1 

 Components of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) 

Action Responsible Agency Concern Addressed 

JFP Auxiliary Spillway 

construction Reclamation and Corps Dam Safety, Flood Damage Reduction, hydrologic control 

MIAD foundation stabilization 

and overlay 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Left and Right Wing Dams, 

Dikes 4, 5, 6 upgrades 

Reclamation Dam Safety, static upgrades 

Main Dam concrete block, pier, 

and gates reinforcement 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Facility Security Improvements Reclamation National Security 

Existing Spillway Gates 

Replacement Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

Facility Raise Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

 “American River Watershed, California (Folsom Dam and Permanent 

Bridge)- 

(a) COORDINATION OF FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND 

DAM SAFETY- The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the 

Interior are directed to collaborate on authorized activities to maximize 

flood damage reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at 

Folsom Dam and Reservoir, California. The Secretaries shall expedite 

technical reviews for flood damage reduction and dam safety 

improvements. In developing improvements under this section, the 

Secretaries shall consider reasonable modifications to existing 

authorized activities, including a potential Auxiliary Spillway. In 

conducting such activities, the Secretaries are authorized to expend 

funds for coordinated technical reviews and joint planning, and 

preliminary design activities.” 

The Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR meets the requirements of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act of 2006 by evaluating the JFP and other 

alternatives that meet Reclamation’s dam safety hydrologic objective and the Corps' 

flood damage reduction objective. In addition, this EIS/EIR evaluates a range of 

alternatives that address other stand-alone dam safety (seismic and static), dam 

security, and flood damage reduction actions at the Folsom Facility. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-3 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1.3 Relationship of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR 

Proposed Project with the Corps’ Post Authorization 

Change Report 

Authorized Corps of Engineers Flood Damage Reduction Projects 

By way of background, the Corps’ Folsom Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise 

projects share an objective of improving flood management on the lower American 

River, primarily through structural modifications to the existing Folsom Dam and 

Appurtenant Facilities. The Folsom Modifications Project, as authorized in Section 

101(a) (6) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1999, Public Law 

(PL) 106-53, consists of enlarging the eight existing outlets on the dam and 

enhancing the use of surcharge space in the reservoir through modifications to the 

emergency spillway and related operational changes. These modifications would 

allow for an objective release capacity of 115,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) earlier 

than under without project conditions in a flood event. The Folsom Dam Raise 

Project, as authorized in Section 128 of the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act of 2004 (PL 109-103), consists of raising the Main Concrete 

Dam and associated wing dams, dikes and other appurtenances by 7 feet, providing 

additional flood storage capacity in the reservoir. These two projects, in 

combination with other authorized elements downstream from the dam, such as the 

Common Features project, were expected to reduce the risk of flooding to 

Sacramento to an annual exceedence probability of 0.0057 (a 1 in 175 chance in any 

given year). 

Because of escalating costs and technical issues, the Folsom Modifications Project 

was delayed. There is now an emphasis on reconsidering the Folsom Modifications 

Project and the Folsom Dam Raise Project in a more integrated manner. Also, the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 directed the Corps and 

Reclamation to collaborate on flood damage reduction and dam safety at the Folsom 

Facility. The Corps has prepared a Post Authorization Change (PAC) Report in part 

to respond to Congress’ request.

Recommended Changes to Authorized Flood Damage Reduction Projects 

The PAC Report documents recommended changes to the Folsom Modifications and 

Folsom Dam Raise projects. It is anticipated that these changes would reduce flood 

risk to areas along the American River generally equivalent to the flood risk 

reduction intended to be provided by the originally authorized projects, but more 

efficiently and effectively addresses the flood damage reduction objectives of the 

authorized projects as well as Reclamation dam safety objectives. 

Chapter 4 of the PAC Report details the process for identifying, evaluating, and 

selecting a plan to jointly address the Corps’ authorized flood damage reduction 

1-4 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

projects and Reclamation’s dam safety issues. The PAC Report describes the Corps’ 

Selected Plan (recommended changes to the two authorized projects) as well as the 

Refined Authorized Project, which includes the Selected Plan and two other features: 

ecosystem restoration and the Folsom Bridge, which would proceed for 

implementation as originally authorized with no recommended changes. Potential 

environmental impacts of these two other features are disclosed in the 2002 

American River Watershed Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation 

Report EIS/EIR and 2005 American River Watershed Folsom Dam Modification 

Project Final Environmental Assessment (EA)/Initial Study (IS), respectively. The 

Revised Authorized Plan also includes the deletion of the surcharge component of 

the Folsom Dam Modifications Project, as it is no longer necessary for flood damage 

reduction with the Folsom Dam Raise Project, and deletion of the L.L. Anderson 

Dam component of the Folsom Dam Raise Project, as these modifications are being 

accomplished independently by the Placer County Water Agency. 

Features of the Corps’ Selected Plan include the following: 

• Auxiliary Spillway with Six Submerged Tainter Gates – A new Auxiliary 

Spillway would be located southwest of Folsom Dam. This feature is the JFP, 

addressing flood damage reduction and dam safety objectives, and thus would be 

designed and constructed jointly by the Corps and Reclamation, as described in 

Section 2.4 of this Final EIS/EIR. 

• Spillway Gate Replacement - Replacement of the three existing 42-ft by 53-ft 

emergency spillway gates at Folsom Dam with 42-ft wide by 59-ft high tainter 

gates. This would allow 2 feet of freeboard for the emergency spillway tainter 

gates (in a closed position) when the reservoir is operated to maintain controlled 

releases up to 160,000 cfs (emergency objective release). This feature would 

address flood damage reduction objectives, and thus would be designed and 

constructed by the Corps. 

• Folsom Dam Raise – This feature would include raising the two wing dams, 

MIAD, and Dikes 1 to 8 by up to 3.5 feet, and replacing three emergency 

spillway gates at Folsom Dam. These features would address flood damage 

reduction objectives, and thus would be designed and constructed by Corps. The 

raise will not, however, be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

JFP. The 3.5-ft raise project will be included in a separate ROD for flood 

damage reduction features. The 3.5-ft raise portion of the selected plan will 

undergo further design during the Corps’ pre-construction, engineering, and 

design phase and if needed, supplemental NEPA/CEQA documentation would be 

prepared. In addition the raise construction would begin after construction of the 

JFP has commenced; this could be prior to 2014. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-5 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

• Flood Space Operations – The authorization for the Folsom Dam Modifications 

Project directs the Corps to change the variable flood storage space at Folsom 

Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-feet to 670,000 acre-feet 

to a 400,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood 

space operation once the Folsom Dam Modifications Project has been 

implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclamation, will develop a new 

flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of 

the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. The new flood control manual feature is currently 

being scoped as a parallel process. Therefore, in this EIS/EIR, operations are 

analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements. The 

parallel flood control manual development and study will include variable flood 

storage space, including analysis of forecast based operations, new flood release 

schedules and a plan component for repayment of potential water supply losses 

resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This parallel study 

will be a collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental 

analysis, public, agency and stakeholder coordination, and appropriate 

NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

The Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR analyzes alternatives that include features that address 

Corps’ flood damage reduction objectives, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the PAC 

Report, as well as Reclamation dam safety objectives, as described in Chapter 1 of 

the Draft EIS/EIR. The alternatives include features that would address the Corps’ 

flood damage reduction objectives and Reclamation’s dam safety objectives jointly, 

which would be designed and constructed jointly (the six submerged tainter gates 

[6STG] Auxiliary Spillway), as well as features that would exclusively address dam 

safety, security or flood damage reduction concerns, and this would be constructed 

by the respective agencies. Since the EIS/EIR alternatives include features 

addressing objectives not addressed in the Corps’ PAC Report, the Folsom DS/FDR 

EIS/EIR perspective differs from that of the PAC Report. However, the features of 

the Corps’ Selected Plan are included in Alternative 3 of this EIS/EIR. 

The Corps intends to adopt the DS/FDR EIS/EIR prior to the completion of the JFP 

ROD in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1506.3 (c). Additionally, the raise portion of 

the selected plan will undergo further design during the Corps’ pre-construction, 

engineering, and design phase and if needed, supplemental NEPA/CEQA 

documentation would be prepared. 

1.4 Folsom DS/FDR Purpose and Need/Project Objectives 

The Folsom Facility consists of 4 dams (Main Concrete Dam, MIAD, Right Wing 

Dam, and Left Wing Dam) and 8 dikes (Dikes 1 to 8), which impound flows on the 

American River forming Folsom Reservoir, which is a critical component of the 

Central Valley Project (CVP). The Folsom Facility was constructed between 1948 

and 1956 by the Corps as a multi-purpose facility operated for flood control, 

1-6 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, agricultural water supply, power, fish 

and wildlife, recreation, and water quality benefits. Upon completion of construction 

of the dams and dikes, ownership of the Folsom Facility was transferred to 

Reclamation for operation and maintenance as a financially and operationally 

integrated feature of the CVP. The Folsom Powerplant construction, which began in 

1952 and was completed in 1956, was supervised by Reclamation. 

Both Reclamation and the Corps share in the responsibility of ensuring that the 

Folsom Facility is maintained and operated under their respective agency's dam 

safety regulations and guidelines, as defined by Congress. Reclamation is 

responsible for dam safety, operations, and maintenance at Folsom Dam. 

Reclamation operates and maintains the Folsom Facility to supply M&I water users, 

hydroelectric power, and recreational opportunities and is responsible for the dam 

safety program. The Corps is responsible for flood damage reduction capital 

improvements and establishing flood operation requirements at Folsom Reservoir. 

The Corps provides regulations governing the flood damage reduction operations of 

the dam by setting release criteria and flood storage requirements during critical 

seasons. 

As a part of their responsibilities, Reclamation and the Corps have determined that 

the Folsom Facility requires structural improvements to increase overall public 

safety above existing conditions by improving the facilities’ ability to reduce flood 

damages and address dam safety issues posed by hydrologic (flood), seismic 

(earthquake), and static (seepage) events and security issues at the Folsom Facility. 

These events have a low probability of occurrence in a given year; however, due to 

the large population downstream of Folsom Dam, modifying the facilities is prudent 

and required to improve public safety above current baseline conditions. 

Reclamation has identified the need for expedited action to reduce hydrologic, static, 

and seismic risks under its Safety of Dams Program and security issues under its 

Security Program. The identified risks are among the highest of all dams in 

Reclamation’s inventory and the Folsom Facility is among Reclamation’s highest 

priorities within its Safety of Dams Program. Additionally, there is a need to 

upgrade security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility under Reclamation’s Safety, 

Security and Law Enforcement (SSLE) Program. Reclamation’s primary interest for 

participating in the Folsom DS/FDR is to realize an expedited improvement in 

overall public protection and cost sharing benefits of a combined project. 

The Corps, in partnership with the non-federal sponsors, has determined that Folsom 

Reservoir does not have sufficient release capacity to adequately manage severe 

flood flows nor do the downstream levees have sustained capacity to exceed base 

flood event flows of 145,000 cfs (Corps 2004). 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-7 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The non-federal sponsors have identified the need to reduce the risk of flooding in 

the Sacramento area. Due to the number and value of the exposed structures and the 

size of the population at risk, Sacramento has been identified as one of the most at 

risk communities in the nation. Consequently, there is a need to expeditiously reduce 

this risk through interim and permanent flood damage reduction measures. The goal 

of non-federal sponsors is to safely pass the 200-year computed design event as a 

minimum objective as anticipated in the Congressionally authorized Folsom Dam 

Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise projects. Pursuit of this goal constitutes nonfederal sponsors’ primary interest for participating in the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Both Reclamation and the Corps have conducted engineering studies to identify 

potential corrective measures for the Folsom Facility to alleviate seismic, static, and 

hydrologic dam safety issues, and flood management concerns. These two federal 

agencies have combined their efforts resulting in (1) a JFP for addressing 

Reclamation’s dam safety hydrologic risk and the Corps’ flood damage reduction 

objectives and (2) other stand-alone flood damage reduction and dam safety actions 

to be completed by the respective agencies in a coordinated manner. Among the 

latter are separate, but related, downstream levee projects that are underway to 

increase flood damage reduction along the lower American River. 

1.4.1 Statement of Purpose and Need 

There is a need to expeditiously implement engineering measures for the Folsom 

Facility in order to reduce potential failure due to seismic, static, and hydrologic 

conditions. There is also a need to incrementally increase minimum flood damage 

reduction via flood storage capacity and/or reservoir pool release mechanisms. 

Furthermore, there is a need to implement security improvements at the Folsom 

Facility consistent with its designation as a National Critical Infrastructure Facility. 

The purpose of the Folsom DS/FDR is to increase overall public safety, ensure the 

reliability of local power and water supply, and maintain an important recreational 

resource by: (1) expediting corrective action to address risks identified with the 

structural integrity of Folsom Dam and appurtenant structures in accordance with 

Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; (2) incrementally improving the flood 

management capacity of the Folsom Facility to meet or exceed the 200-year 

recurrence level; and (3) upgrading security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility. 

1.4.2 Project Objectives 

In addition to the underlying purpose of the project above, specific project objectives 

were developed to meet CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines. 

The CEQA-related project objectives are: 

• Expeditiously reduce hydrologic (flooding) risk of overtopping-related failure of 

any retention structure during a probable maximum flood (PMF) event in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; 

1-8 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any retention structure 

during a potential seismic (earthquake) event in accordance with Reclamation’s 

Public Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously reduce the risk of structural failure of any retention structure 

during a potential static (seepage) event in accordance with Reclamation’s Public 

Protection Guidelines; 

• Expeditiously improve the security infrastructure at the Folsom Facility in 

accordance with Reclamation’s Public Protection Guidelines; and 

• Expeditiously improve the flood management capacity of the facilities in a 

manner functionally equivalent to the Corps’ authorized projects. 

1.5 Federal, State, and Local Requirements 

The Folsom DS/FDR actions must fulfill or comply with the Federal, State, regional, 

and local environmental requirements described in Table 1-2. 

Table 1-2 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section of Draft 

EIS/EIR with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

Federal Statute

National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

Section 1.10.1.1 EIS, Record of Decision Ongoing 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NHPA) 

Sections 

1.10.1.6, 3.11.1.2 

Section 106 Consultation Ongoing 

Clean Air Act (Section 176) Sections 

1.10.1.8, 3.3.1.2, 

3.6.1.2 

Conformity provisions, mitigation 

measures 

Ongoing 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

(Section 9) 

Sections 

1.10.1.7, 3.2.1.2, 

3.5.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR(1) In Compliance 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 

1.10.1.10, 

3.1.1.2, 3.5.1.2, 

3.6.1.2 

Section 401 and 404 

requirements, National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit 

Ongoing 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) 

Sections 

1.10.1.2, 3.4.1.2, 

3.5.1.2 

Section 7 Consultation, Biological 

Assessment 

Ongoing 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (FWCA) 

Sections 

1.10.1.4, 3.4.1.2 

Coordination Action Report Ongoing 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918 (MBTA) 

Sections 

1.10.1.11, 3.5.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Executive Order 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands 

Section 3.5.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-9 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table 1-2 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section of Draft 

EIS/EIR with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

Executive Order 12898, 

Environmental Justice 

Sections 

1.10.1.9, 

3.19.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act 

Sections 

1.10.1.5, 

3.8.1.2.1 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Indian Trust Assets (ITA) Section 3.18 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation & Management 

Act 

Sections 

1.10.1.3, 3.4.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) noise 

abatement criteria (NAC) (23 

CFR Part 772) 

Section 3.10.1.3 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) 

Section 3.1.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 

Sections 

1.10.1.12, 

3.16.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act 

Section 1.10.1.13 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (CVPIA) 

Section 3.2.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Federal Power Act & Electric 

Consumers Protection Act 

Section 3.15.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Federal Guidelines for Dam 

Safety 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Sections 

3.14.1.2, 3.17.1.2 

Permitting Ongoing 

Hazardous Material 

Transportation Act (HMTA) 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

Comprehensive 

Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA, 43 United 

States Code 9601) 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

Superfund Amendment 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) 

Title 3 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

40 CFR 260-279 Federal 

Regulations on hazardous 

waste management 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

40 CFR, Section 301 et seq. 

Emergency Planning and 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

1-10 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table 1-2 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section of Draft 

EIS/EIR with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

Community Right to Know Act 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

(15 United States Code 2601) 

Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

State Statute 

California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) 

Section 1.10.2.1 EIR Ongoing 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act 

Sections 

1.10.2.4, 3.1.1.2, 

3.6.1.2 

NPDES, Waste Discharge 

Requirements 

Ongoing 

California ESA Sections 

1.10.2.2, 3.4.1.2, 

3.5.1.2 

California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) consultation 

Ongoing 

Natural Community 

Conservation Planning Act 

(NCCPA) 

Section 1.10.2.3 CDFG consultation Ongoing 

Government Code Section 

65040.12(e) Environmental 

Justice 

Sections 

1.10.2.6, 3.19.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

California Land Conservation 

Act (Williamson Act) 

Section 3.8.1.2.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

California Clean Air Act 

(CCAA) 

Section 3.3.1.2 Ambient air quality standards, 

mitigation measures 

Ongoing 

Native Plant Protection Act of 

1977; CA Fish and Game 

Code Section 1900 et seq. 

Section 3.5.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

California Species 

Preservation Act of 1970; CA 

Fish and Game Code Section 

900-903 

Section 3.5.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

CA Fish and Game Code 

Section 3511 and 5050 

Section 3.5.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

CA Fish and Game Code 

1930-1933 

Section 3.5.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR Ongoing 

CA Fish and Game Code 

1600 

Section 3.6.1.2 Federal Government is not 

required to submit a 1600 permit; 

however, similar to a Federal CWA 

404 permit. 

Ongoing 

Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures (17 CCR Sections 

93105 and 93106) 

Sections 

1.10.2.5, 3.6.1.2 

Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake 

Fault Zoning Act 

Section 3.6.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act Section 3.6.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-11 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table 1-2 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section of Draft 

EIS/EIR with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

Surface Mining and 

Reclamation Act (SMARA) 

Section 3.6.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Title 14, Chapter 3 – Solid 

waste handling and disposal. 

(CA Code of Regulations) 

Section 3.14.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Hazardous Waste Control Law Section 3.17.1.2 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Title 17, Public Health (CA 

Code of Regulations) 

Section 3.17.12 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Title 19, Public Safety (CA 

Code of Regulations) 

Section 3.17.12 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Title 22, Division 4.5 – 

Environmental Health 

Standards for the 

Management of Hazardous 

Waste (CA Code of 

Regulations) 

Section 3.17.12 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Title 26, Toxics (CA Code of 

Regulations) 

Section 3.17.12 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

CA Department of Motor 

Vehicles, Hazardous Waste 

and Materials Transportation 

Requirements (Vehicle Code 

Section 31303) 

Section 3.17.12 Analyzed in EIS/EIR In Compliance 

Local Statute 

Sacramento County General 

Plan 

Sections 1.10.3, 

3.1.1.2, 3.6.1.2, 

3.9.1.2, 3.12.1.2 

Zoning requirements, Level of 

Service (LOS) Standards, Noise 

Standards, water regulations, 

geologic hazards 

In Compliance 

El Dorado County General 

Plan 

Sections 1.10.3 

3.1.1.2, , 3.6.1.2, 

3.9.1.2, 3.12.1.2 

Zoning requirements, LOS 

Standards, Noise Standards, water 

regulations, geologic hazards 

In Compliance 

Placer County General Plan Sections 1.10.3, 

3.1.1.2, 3.6.1.2, 

3.9.1.2, 3.12.1.2 

Zoning requirements, LOS 

Standards, Noise Standards, water 

regulations, geologic hazards 

In Compliance 

City of Folsom General Plan Sections 1.10.3, 

3.9.1.2 

LOS Standards, Noise Standards, 

water regulations 

In Compliance 

City of Folsom Zoning 

Ordinance 

Section 3.12.1.2 Zoning requirements In Compliance 

Granite Bay Community Plan Sections 

3.10.1.3, 3.9.1.2 

Noise Standards, LOS Standards In Compliance 

City of Roseville General Plan Sections 

3.10.1.3, 3.9.1.2 

Noise Standards, LOS Standards In Compliance 

City of Wheatland General 

Plan 

Sections 

3.10.1.3, 3.9.1.2 

Noise Standards, LOS Standards In Compliance 

1-12 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table 1-2 

Related Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

Statute Section of Draft 

EIS/EIR with 

Description 

Relevant Permits/Processes Status of 

Compliance 

City of Rocklin General Plan Sections 

3.10.1.3, 3.9.1.2 

Noise Standards, LOS Standards In Compliance 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District 

(SMAQMD) 

Section 3.3.1.2 Mitigation measures Ongoing 

Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) 

Section 3.3.1.2 Mitigation measures Ongoing 

El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD) 

Section 3.3.1.2 Mitigation measures Ongoing 

Feather River AQMD Section 3.3.1.2 Mitigation measures Ongoing 

(1) regulation addressed through EIS/EIR process 

Note: Ongoing – Some requirements of the regulation remain to be met by subsequent installation actions before 

implementation of some of the actions associated with this project. Once the statutory requirement for each action has 

been met, compliance will be labeled “in compliance”. 

1.6 Related Projects 

There are several related projects that are not part of the Folsom DS/FDR actions and 

are not evaluated as part of the alternatives in the EIS/EIR. These projects will be 

completed by their responsible agency using separate environmental documentation. 

These projects include: 

• Widening of the spillway at L.L. Anderson Dam (French Meadows Reservoir) – 

will be carried out by Placer County Water Agency as a separate project. 

Included in the EIS/EIR as a cumulative project. 

• Ecosystem Restoration – will be carried out by the Corps and the non-Federal 

sponsors as part of the originally authorized Folsom Dam Raise Project. 

• Temperature Control Shutters - As described in the Corps PAC Report, the Corps 

originally authorized Folsom Dam Raise Project included improvements to the 

temperature control shutters as part of the ecosystem restoration component of 

the project. The Selected Plan (Refined Authorized Project) described in the 

PAC Report does not recommend any changes to this element of the authorized 

project, which is analyzed in the 2002 Long Term Feasibility Study/EIS/EIR. 

This feature would be completed independently of the Folsom DS/FDR by the 

Corps. Supplemental environmental analysis, coordination, and documentation 

would be completed if needed for this feature in the pre-construction, 

engineering and design phase of the project. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-13 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

• New Folsom Bridge – will be carried out by the Corps and the non-Federal 

sponsors as part of the originally authorized raise project. Included in the 

EIS/EIR as a cumulative project. 

• New Water Control Manual for Folsom Dam and Reservoir - The Corps, with 

coordination by Reclamation, will develop a new flood control manual for 

Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP Auxiliary 

Spillway. This parallel study will be a collaborative process with the appropriate 

level of environmental analysis, public, agency and stakeholder coordination, and 

appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. Included in the EIS/EIR as a 

cumulative project. 

1.7 Overview of this Document 

This document (Volume III of the Final EIS/EIR) contains a description of the 

Preferred Alternative (Proposed Project), as revised in light of comments received on 

the Draft EIS/EIR; a discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the 

currently Proposed Project, including acknowledgement of those impacts that are 

reduced by virtue of the project revisions compared to the impacts originally 

identified in the Draft EIS/EIR; all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR during 

the public comment period; and the responses to those comments. More specifically, 

the elements of this volume of the Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR are as follows: 

• Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the Final EIS/EIR, including an 

explanation of the overall organization of the Final EIS/EIR. This chapter also 

provides a discussion of Joint Federal Project coordination, the relationship of 

the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR with the Corps' PAC Report, the Folsom DS/FDR 

purpose and need/project objectives, the Federal, State, and local regulations and 

environmental requirements applicable to the Folsom DS/FDR and where such 

regulations and requirements are addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR, and 

identification of related projects. 

• Chapter 2 provides an updated project description including changes to the 

Preferred Alternative - Proposed Action/Project (Alternative 3) since the release 

of the Draft EIS/EIR. It also contains a listing of all proposed mitigation 

measures identified to reduce impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action/Project. 

• Chapter 3 provides a discussion of the impacts associated with the currently 

Proposed Project, as revised, including a delineation of where and how certain 

impacts now differ from those originally identified in the Draft EIS/EIR, based 

on the subsequent revisions to the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 3 only 

addresses those natural, physical, and socioeconomic resource areas with impact 

assessment changes based on the revisions to the Preferred Alternative (i.e., 

Alternative 3). 

1-14 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

• Chapter 4 presents responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR during 

the public comment period. Many of the individual comments received were 

similar in nature and/or pertained to common or recurring issues. Chapter 4 

provides “Topical Responses” that are designed and intended to address 

comments that were frequent in nature, involved a common theme, or both. 

Chapter 4 also includes a listing of the entities providing comments. While 

Chapter 4 provides Topical Responses that address, by topic, issues of concern 

most representative of the entirety of comments received during the public 

comment period, Appendix A of this document contains the individual comments 

along with a response for each comment. All comments received by the project 

agencies via e-mail, fax, comment form, or letter, and those submitted or dictated 

during the public hearings are included in Appendix A. The final section presents 

comments and responses on the Corps’ PAC Report. 

• Chapter 5 provides a list of recipients of the Final EIS/EIR, including elected 

officials and representatives, government departments and agencies, private 

organizations and businesses, and the general public. 

• Chapter 6 provides a list of references. 

• Appendix A contains a copy of all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and 

responses to those comments. 

• Appendix B contains the Public Hearing Summary Report. 

• Appendix C contains Volumes I and II of the Draft EIS/EIR, including minor 

editorial edits for the purpose of reflecting corrections and clarifications 

requested by certain regulatory agencies, but not materially changing any of the 

information and analysis of the original document. For the purpose of this Final 

EIS/EIR, the Draft EIS/EIR errata sheet is presented with the editorial changes 

shown in "track-change" (i.e., additions to the original text are shown in 

underscore, italic format [Example] and deletions are shown in strikethrough 

format [Example]. The errata sheet is available in hard copy; the Draft EIS/EIR 

is only available electronically. 

• Appendix D contains the Folsom DS/FDR Biological Assessment. 

• Appendix E contains the Folsom DS/FDR Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act Report by USFWS. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 1-15