Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

Central Valley Flood Protection Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency April 2008 
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. 
Finding of No Significant Impact 

For 

Dike 5 Site Access and Trail Detour and the Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin 

Cofferdam 

Folsom DS/FDR 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Sacramento, California 

April 2008

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Central California Area Office, California 

Approval by United States for 

The Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment/Initial Study 

For 

Dike 5 Site Access and Trail Detour and the Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin 

Cofferdam 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Lead Agency: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Central California Area Office 

Sacramento, California 

This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood 

Damage Reduction Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been 

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as 

amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The Central California Area 

Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has found that the Proposed Action 

will not significantly affect the quality of the environment; therefore, an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation proposes to perform the following activities 

addressed in the Supplemental EA/IS: 

1. Dike 5 Construction Site Access and Trail Detour; and 

2. JFP Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin Cofferdam (Cofferdam). 

Dike 5 Construction Site Access 

In the Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR, work at Dike 5 was scheduled to start in 

September 2009. Due to Safety Of Dams (SOD) schedule priorities, Reclamation has 

elected to initiate the Dike 5 work by September 2008. The proposed schedule is to 

complete the Dike 5 work Spring of 2009. In addition, the Folsom DS/FDR Final 

EIS/EIR (as described in Section 2.4.5 on page 2-26) stated that primary access to Dike 5 

would be via the Beal’s Point access road. Access to Dike 5 for staging and 

1 
reconstruction of the Dike 5 filters is now proposed to occur from Auburn-Folsom Road 

immediately west of Dike 5, thereby reducing conflicts with recreational traffic at Beal’s 

Point. 

Reclamation proposes to implement a traffic control measure at the Dike 5 Staging area 

entrance to allow construction site access to safely enter Reclamation property near Dike 

5. This traffic control measure would either be a flagmen or installation of a temporary 

intersection with a traffic light. Trucks entering the staging area would only approach 

from the south (northbound on Auburn-Folsom Road) and would turn right into the 

staging area. Traffic leaving the site would be controlled by a temporary traffic light or 

flagmen, to allow trucks to safely turn right or left onto Auburn-Folsom Road. Turn outs 

and merge lanes along the shoulders and median of Auburn-Folsom Road could be 

included in the installation to further minimize traffic congestion. Use of Auburn-Folsom 

Road and construction of turn outs and merge lanes will be coordinated with Placer 

County and would require Placer County approval. 

Trail Detour 

Although the Folsom JFP and SOD RODs provided commitments for installation of trail 

detours where possible to minimize recreation impacts, details for required detours were 

not available at the time the RODs were signed. Currently, recreational trails traverse the 

tops of Dikes 4, 5, and 6. The crests of the dikes would need to be closed during dike 

reconstruction. Reclamation proposes to construct a single trail detour to accommodate 

pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use. 

Cofferdam 

Construction of a new Stilling Basin at the toe of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway was 

disclosed in the Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR, however the construction details of the 

facility were not fully known at that time. One of the required details for the Stilling 

Basin construction would be a cofferdam that would allow construction of the Stilling 

Basin to occur “in the dry” during times when releases are being made from Folsom 

Dam. The construction and use of a cofferdam was not addressed in the previous 

EIS/EIR. 

FINDINGS

An Environmental Assessment (EA), which is hereby incorporated by reference, was 

distributed for public review in February and March of 2008, and the attached revisions 

to that EA have been prepared to disclose potential environmental impacts pursuant to 

CEQs implementing regulations for NEPA. The following discussion identifies why the 

effects of the Proposed Action are not considered significant.

 

1. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater - Reclamation’s Proposed Action 

will have no impacts to hydrology, water quality, and groundwater resources because 

Reclamation is not authorizing any additional action that will have any impacts on 

jurisdictional wetlands. Also Reclamation will develop and implement a Stormwater 

2 
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent any storm water impacts. While the 

proposed construction of the Cofferdam would temporarily confine the existing 

floodway channel along the construction site, hydrological modeling show that the 

temporary elevation changes have no substantial upstream or downstream effects. 

2. Air Quality – Because the peak annual emissions only represent a modest emissions 

increase, the proposed action, Dike 5 Construction Site Access and Trail Detour and 

construction of the Cofferdam, would not cause an adverse impact that exceeds the 

General Conformity thresholds when added to the other Folsom DS/FDR actions 

planned for 2008 and 2009. 

3. Aquatic Resources – No aquatic resources are expected to be impacted by 

Reclamation’s proposed action. The construction of the Dike 5 Construction Site 

Access, the Trail Detour, and the Cofferdam will not create any substantial adverse 

effects to aquatic habitat with the proper implementation of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) described in the SWPPP. 

Special Status Aquatic Resources – No special status aquatic resources occur within 

the Dike 5 Construction Site Access or the Trail Detour. 

The Cofferdam will not impact downstream special status aquatic resources, 

steelhead and critical habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. These aquatic resources 

are only found well downstream of the project site beyond Nimbus Dam on the 

Lower American River and hydrologic modeling of water flow and elevation has 

identified no substantial upstream or downstream hydrologic effects from the 

Cofferdam. 

4. Terrestrial Resources - The proposed Trail Detour is routed to avoid the removal of 

trees and other vegetation but may require some trimming of vegetation to obtain the 

proper width and height. The Trail Detour would be constructed along existing dirt 

trails as much as possible to reduce vegetation and wildlife impacts. Impacts to 

terrestrial resources are expected to be minimal. Construction of the Trail Detour is 

not expected to require removal, filling, or hydrological disruption of seasonal 

wetlands and swales because the proposed trail is routed to avoid such areas or spans 

will be constructed to cross over them. The Dike 5 Construction Site Access does not 

result in any changes to impacts from those already disclosed in the EIS/EIR because 

construction would occur within the same footprint. No terrestrial resources are 

expected to be impacted by the construction of the Cofferdam since the area will 

already be disturbed by construction of the new Folsom Bridge and the JFP Auxiliary 

Spillway. 

Special Status Terrestrial Resources – Section 7 consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act was completed for Folsom DS/FDR Project effect to the federally listed 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle and vernal pool crustaceans on April 5 2007 and 

amended on December 5, 2007 and January 31, 2008. As required by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion dated April 5, 2007, all elderberry 

3 
shrubs from Dike 4 down to the RWD have been removed within the Folsom 

DS/FDR Project area. 

No suitable habitat (i.e. vernal pools) occur within the affected environment of this 

EA/IS therefore the proposed action would have no effect on vernal pool fairy shrimp 

and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. 

The Trail Reroute does extend the footprint of the Folsom DS/FDR Project area, 

however this additional area has been surveyed 100 feet from the trail alignment for 

elderberry shrubs, the habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and no 

elderberry shrubs were observed. Therefore no suitable habitat (i.e. elderberry 

shrubs) occur within the affected environmental of this EA/IS and the proposed action 

will have no effect on valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

5. Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources - Construction of the new access road 

and turning lanes at Dike 5 would be unlikely to result in any soil erosion or loss of 

topsoil as the lanes and road would be paved.

The Trail Detour would be covered with native materials which would reduce the 

potential for soil erosion. Geology and soils impacts from the Trail Detour 

construction are expected to be minimal. 

The proper implementation of the SWPPP in the Dike 5 area would help to reduce 

erosion impacts from vehicles traveling within the staging area. In addition, vehicles 

and equipment would be maintained in designated areas to reduce the erosion 

potential. Construction of the Stilling Basin and Cofferdam would occur in an area 

that consists mainly of decomposed granite and would be unlikely to contribute to 

soil erosion with proper implementation of BMPs as outlined in the SWPPP.

6. Visual Resources – Construction of a traffic light and turning lanes on AuburnFolsom Road would affect views of the area from several homes across the street and 

may be visible from recreation users on the trails. The traffic light and/or flagmen and 

turning lanes, as well as construction vehicles, would be visible at certain times of the 

day. There may also be flashing lights to the north and south of the new traffic light to 

warn drivers of stopped traffic. These impacts would only be temporary. When 

construction is complete at all of the dikes, the traffic light and/or flagmen will be 

removed. The turn lanes will also be removed and the road will be restored to preconstruction conditions. 

Construction of the trail detour and the trimming of several trees are not expected to 

significantly alter the visual quality of the area. The main views would continue to be 

grasslands and stands of oak woodland. 

Construction of the Cofferdam is not expected to substantially degrade the existing 

visual character of the area as construction of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway would 

already alter views in the area. 

4 
7. Transportation and Circulation – The access road to Dike 5 could either be 

implemented with the control of a temporary traffic signal or a flagman. In addition, 

the EA/IS analyzed two potential locations for the temporary intersection on AuburnFolsom Road: a four-way intersection at existing Bell Drive or a three-way 

intersection slightly further south of Bell Drive. Construction-related impacts to 

transportation and circulation as a result of this added intersection, if signalized, are 

estimated to not be significant because the road would continue to operate at the same 

level of service (LOS A) as it does currently. 

8. Noise –No substantial adverse noise impacts are anticipated during construction of the 

Dike 5 Construction Site Access and Trail Detour. Any noise produced during the 

brief construction period September 2008 to March 2009 would be masked by the 

ambient noise levels and not apparent to residences across the road. 

Although construction and demolition of the Cofferdam would produce some noise, 

the location of the cofferdam adjacent to a proposed traffic bridge, next to Folsom 

Prison, and downstream of Folsom Dam mean that any noise produced would be 

remote from any sensitive receptors. With incorporation of the measures described in 

the EA/IS to reduce noise, no substantial noise impact is predicted. 

9. Cultural Resources -The project areas associated with the Dike 5 Trail Detour, the 

Cofferdam, and the construction site access has been subject to cultural resources 

survey and inventory. The cultural resources identified would either be avoided by 

the Dike 5 Trail Detour or a determination has been made that the resources are 

considered ineligible for listing. Reclamation is consulting with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and expects to obtain their concurrence with this 

determination in compliance with the 36 Part 800 regulations that implement section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the trail APE lies within 

the area of potential effect that Reclamation previously consulted with the SHPO and 

there are no historic properties within this area. 

The Cofferdam and the proposed construction site access areas of potential effect 

were previously surveyed as part of the Folsom Bridge Project (Corps 2004) and the 

Folsom Dam Safety of Dams/Joint Federal Project (SOD/JFP) (Bartoy, et al. 2007). 

Reclamation determined that the Folsom Dam SOD/JFP would result in no adverse 

effect to historic properties and the SHPO concurred with this determination on 

November 2, 2007. 

10. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning – Reclamation will coordinate with DPR to 

ensure the location of the Trail Detour would be consistent with the FLSRA General 

Plan and Resource Management Plan.

11. Recreation –The Trail Detour would not impact any other existing recreation 

facilities. Because this would allow a continuous stretch of trail to remain open to all 

users during construction, the Trail Detour is expected to help maintain recreation 

trail use throughout construction. There would be no recreation impacts from 

construction of the Cofferdam. 

5 
12. Public Services and Utilities – A temporary traffic light at Dike 5 will require 

electricity to operate. This is not expected to have any impacts to existing electricity 

users and would require a minimal amount of electricity to operate. The Trail Detour 

would not affect any existing public utilities. Construction of the Cofferdam would 

not affect any existing utilities or public services.

13. Public Health and Safety – The public will be prevented from accessing the 

construction sites, and the posting of signs, construction of fences, security personnel, 

and the use of flagmen would maintain public safety. 

14. Water Supply - No changes to reservoir operations would occur and the Proposed 

Action would not affect water supply.

15. Agricultural Resources - No lands are designated as agricultural within the project 

area; therefore no agricultural resources would be affected by the Proposed Action. 

16. Population and Housing - The Proposed Action would not result in any impacts that 

would create population or housing changes.

17. Hydropower - No changes to the releases made from Folsom Reservoir will occur as 

part of the Proposed Action and therefore there will be no impact to hydropower.

18. Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) - No ITAs exist within or near the project site and no 

impacts to ITAs would occur.

19. Environmental Justice - No disproportionately high or adverse environmental or 

human health impacts would occur to minority or low income populations as a result 

of the Proposed Action.

CONCLUSIONS 

Reclamation has fully evaluated the information and analysis contained in the Folsom 

Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment/Initial Study. On the basis of these considerations, Reclamation has 

determined that the EA adequately and accurately addresses the environmental issues and 

impacts of the Proposed Action and finds that the Proposed Action is not a major federal 

action that will significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an 

EIS is not required and will not be prepared for this project, based on the fact that there 

will be no long-term adverse impacts on the human environment resulting from the 

proposed actions described in the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. 

6 
References: 

Bartoy, K., K. Jones, J. Holson, and E. Reese 

2007 Cultural Resources Literature Search, Inventory, and National Register 

Evaluations for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR, 

El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, California. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

2004 Archaeological Survey: Appendix C of Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey 

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

Bridge Project, Folsom, California. 

7 

Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

Central Valley Flood Protection Board 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency April 2008 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the 

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report

Folsom, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

Prepared by: 

A

Pacific Legacy 

Contents 

Page 

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

Section 2 Responses to Comments...........................................................2-1

Tables 

Table 1 Comments Received on the Supplemental EA/IS...........................1-1

Attachments 

Attachment 1 – Comments Received 

Section 1 

Introduction 

On February 28, 2008, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Corps non-Federal 

sponsors, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board1 and the Sacramento Area Flood 

Control Agency released the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study 

(EA/IS) to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) Final 

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

review and comment. 

The Supplemental EA/IS, hereby incorporated by reference, described and analyzed the 

effects of construction actions and revisions to the project since the release of the Folsom 

DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR. Specifically, the Supplemental EA/IS addressed: 

• Dike 5 Construction Site Access and Trail Detour; and 

• JFP Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin Cofferdam. 

The following section provides all comments submitted during the review period for the 

Supplemental EA/IS, as well as responses to each comment. Table 1 provides a list of all 

comments received and corresponds to the order the comments and responses appear in 

this document. Attachment 1 at the end of this document contains hard copies of all 

comments. 

Table 1 

Comments Received on the Supplemental EA/IS 

Comment Submitted By: 

Comment 

Number 

Earl Brabb 1 

David Sanders 2 

Deborah Murphy 3 

Chris Jennings 4 

Patricia Gibbs 5 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) 6 

Placer County 7 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 8 

Darrell Singleton 9 

City of Folsom 10 

William P. Betchart 11 

 

1

 Formerly known as the Reclamation Board of the State of California. 

1-1 April 2008
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

This page left intentionally blank. 

1-2 April 2008 
Section 2 

Responses to Comments 

This section provides responses to all comments submitted during the review period 

of the Supplemental EA/IS. 

Comment #1 

Commentor: Earl Brabb 

Comment: 

The following section in the Supplemental EA/IS is so ridiculous that I wonder if 

any qualified engineers or geologists have read it? The statement is: 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Reclamation’s Construction Contractor is currently in the process of clearing the 

Phase 1 area to prepare for construction. As described above under Hydrology, 

Water Quality, and Groundwater, a SWPPP has been implemented to control erosion 

and prevent storm water runoff. 

No seismic issues or unstable soils occur in the area of the Proposed Action. The 

potential for landslides is low because of relatively thin soils. Although the Bear 

Mountain fault occurs north of the project area, this fault has not been designated as 

active by the U.S. Geological Survey and the ground shaking potential for the region 

is generally low. 

There are indeed seismic issues at the site, and I suspect that agency geologists and 

engineers have designed for a maximum credible earthquake in accordance with state 

law. Water saturated soils may liquefy in a maximum credible earthquake, possibly 

causing failures in the designed structures. The issues not addressed are 1) whether 

the 1908 earthquake in Rocklin, less than 7 miles from Folsom Dam, with an 

Intensity of IV-V felt over an area of 10,000 km2 (Bulletin SSA v. 68, no. 1, pp. 

245-249) and hundreds or even thousands of smaller events since then could 

adversely affect the Folsom Dam structures to be constructed; and 2) Whether the 

Foothills Fault System, of which the Bear Mountain fault is a part, could extend 

under any of the proposed structures and cause fault offset and failure of the 

structures during an earthquake? The fault activity map by Jennings (CA Div Mines 

and Geology) indicates that the Foothills Fault system extends for 200 miles and is 

nearly 40 miles wide in places. No qualified persons with Quaternary skills have, to 

my knowledge, explored the Folsom Dam area to determine if additional strands of 

this fault system extend beneath Folsom Reservoir. The possibility remains, 

therefore, that the new structures and Folsom Dam itself may experience ground 

rupture some day. 

2-1 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

I agree, however, that the fault and damaging earthquake potential for the Folsom 

Dam area is low, and that the additional structures, if designed in accordance with 

State law, will probably never fail. I support the idea of enlarging the peripheral 

structures around the dam to provide additional flood protection. I just hope that Bu 

Rec and other agency’s engineers and geologists have taken sufficient account of a 

realistic earthquake and fault movement scenario. What, by the way, is the estimated 

maximum credible earthquake for the project? 

Response to Comment: 

Reclamation has completed extensive investigations into the seismic loading 

potential at the Folsom Facility. All potential seismic sources, including the Foothills 

Fault system, have been investigated, and Reclamation’s information has gone 

through external review by independent consultants. Reclamation uses probabilistic 

seismic loadings rather than Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE’s). Based on 

Reclamation’s latest information, a 50,000-year seismic event corresponds to a peak 

ground acceleration of 0.44g. All of the modifications to the Folsom Facility are 

being designed and constructed to withstand seismic loadings. In fact, the purpose of 

some of the actions proposed as part of the Folsom DS/FDR project (MIAD, 

spillway piers and gates at the Main Concrete Dam) is to address seismic concerns. 

The February 2008 Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study 

specifically addresses a Dike 5 Construction Site Access, Trail Detour, and 

Cofferdam for the Auxiliary Spillway. These three features are associated with the 

hydrologic and static upgrades of the overall Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage 

Reduction Project, and are not intended to address seismic concerns. The Trail 

Detour and Dike 5 Construction Site Access involve construction of an unpaved trail 

and a paved road surface and are not expected to pose a risk to the public during a 

seismic event. 

The Cofferdam for the Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin was designed for a 10,000 

year seismic event having a peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.28 g. A 

pseudo-static analysis was performed using 2/3 of the peak acceleration, which was 

rounded up to 0.2 g. This was not a controlling load because the earthquake loading 

was not applied at the same time hydrostatic loads were applied. In other words, the 

earthquake is applied with the Cofferdam in the dry. Reclamation did not design the 

Cofferdam to withstand two remotely probable conditions occurring at the same time 

(i.e. a flood and an earthquake), because it is unlikely that personnel would be 

working behind the Cofferdam during a flood. The purpose of the Cofferdam would 

be to protect the Construction Contractor's equipment and the unfinished 

construction from flowing water. After the project is complete, the wall portion of 

the Cofferdam, if left in place, would be used only to deflect flow from the new 

Auxiliary Spillway Stilling Basin. Failure of the wall after construction is complete 

would have little consequences as no structures are located downstream of the 

Cofferdam. 

2-2 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

 

Comment #2 

Commentor: David Sanders 

Comment: 

I have received your communication, MP-08-028. 

I am a homeowner in the Granite Bay area, located at 7620 Haley Drive, in Granite 

Bay. The assessment number for my property is 035-350-006-000. 

I have received your above referenced communication, which is labeled a “News 

Release”. I find it to be nearly totally incomprehensible. If your intent is to send me 

something which is completely impossible to understand about your plans for 

Folsom Dam, you have succeeded! Congratulations! I believe that you have done 

this in order to cover your behind, and to make it impossible for further intelligent 

questions to be raised, should further problems develop. I guess you may have 

accomplished this goal in the legal system. (Incidentally, I have an advanced degree 

in Business Administration, and have extensive experience dealing with legal 

business issues. But your efforts to confuse the issue and make it impossible to find 

out what is really going on rise to new heights!) 

I have a simple question, however, which is impossible to answer from the data you 

have provided me. I regularly (several times per week) ride my mountain bike 

between the Granite Bay launch ramps area and Beal’s Point. WHAT SORT OF 

DISRUPTION TO MY PROGRAM SHOULD I EXPECT, AND WHEN SHOULD 

IT START AND WHEN SHOULD IT BE COMPLETED? 

I would appreciate a simple answer to my simple question. 

Response to Comment: 

The February 2008 Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study addresses 

construction of a Trail Detour between Dikes 4, 5, and 6. This Trail Detour is being 

constructed to allow continuous travel between Beal’s Point and Granite Bay during 

work on Dikes 4, 5, and 6 and will accommodate pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle 

use (See Section 2.2.1.2 on Page 2-7 of Chapter 2 for a description). Figure 2-2 on 

Page 2-9 of Chapter 2 provides a map with the general location of the Trail Detour. 

Construction of the Trail Detour is expected to commence in late spring 2008 and 

will be open prior to construction at Dike 5. Work on Dike 5 is currently scheduled 

for September 2008 and will last approximately 8 months. Work on the remaining 

dikes (Dikes 4 and 6) is scheduled to begin around September 2013. Table 2-1 on 

Page 2-14 of Chapter 2 provides the current construction schedule; however, due to 

the long-term nature of this project, this schedule is subject to change. 

2-3 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Comment #3 

Commentor: Deborah Murphy 

Comment: 

May I have a CD of this plan?? I am particularly interested in how the Equestrian 

Trail between the Dam Road (New) and Beal's Point will be (some already are) 

impacted. Would you please direct me to these sections within the document? This is 

critical to an equestrian event taking place on April 26, 2008 

I would also like to know when the pipe connection can be made on the dyke so that 

water can be restored to the Equestrian Staging area at Granite Bay. It is my 

understanding from Park personnel that the approval is pending with BOR to 

accomplish that. 

Response to Comment: 

The February 2008 Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study addresses 

construction of a Trail Detour between Dikes 4, 5, and 6. This Trail Detour is being 

constructed to allow continuous travel between Beal’s Point and Granite Bay during 

work on Dikes 4, 5, and 6 and will accommodate pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle 

use (See Section 2.2.1.2 on Page 2-7 of Chapter 2). Figure 2-2 on Page 2-9 of 

Chapter 2 provides a map with the general location of the Trail Detour. Construction 

of the Trail Detour is expected to commence in late spring 2008 and will be available 

for use prior to construction at Dike 5. Construction of the Trail Detour is unlikely to 

begin before April 26th; therefore your equestrian event should not be affected by the 

Trail Detour construction. Work on Dike 5 is currently scheduled for September 

2008 and will last approximately 8 months. Work on the remaining dikes (Dikes 4 

and 6) is scheduled to begin around September 2013. Table 2-1 on Page 2-14 of 

Chapter 2 provides the current construction schedule; however, due to the long-term 

nature of this project, this schedule is subject to change. 

The pipe connection on the dike at Granite Bay is not associated with the Folsom 

Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. For information on the pipe 

connection, please contact the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 

Comment #4 

Commentor: Chris Jennings 

Comment: 

Thanks for the opportunity to review the supp. EA/IS. My single comment, 

reiterating an earlier comment, relates to the potential for Naturally Occurring 

Asbestos (NOA) in the soils affected by the project - especially for the area 

encroaching upon the school site in Granite Bay. NOA is a big issue, however over2-4 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

inflated, for the DTSC (refer to the Vista Del Lago HS and Oakridge HS) and it's not 

addressed in this document nor in the EIR. 

Response to Comment: 

The February 2008 Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study addresses 

the Dike 5 Construction Site Access, Trail Detour, and Cofferdam for the Auxiliary 

Spillway. These activities would occur primarily in areas of decomposed granite and 

do not have the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos. One portion of the 

Trail Detour would be constructed within 1⁄4 mile of Cavitt Junior High School. 

According to Placer County Air Pollution Control District, naturally occurring 

asbestos is not likely to occur in this area. 

Construction of the Trail Detour would last only several weeks, and would require a 

minimal amount of ground disturbance. The Trail Detour would be approximately 5- 

to 6-feet wide and composed of native materials. Only one small excavator and a 

BobcatTM would be required, with a dump truck stationed off the trail to 

periodically remove materials. A minimal amount of cut and fill would occur, as the 

Trail Detour has been designed to use the existing terrain as much as possible to 

reduce the need for grade changes. Vegetation surrounding Cavitt Junior High 

School and the Trail Detour would likely minimize any dust or noise that could 

occur during construction. With the short construction duration and the minimal 

construction effort required, the Trail Detour is not expected to create a substantial 

amount of dust and is unlikely to affect Cavitt Junior High School. 

The December 2006 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report addresses 

potential impacts from naturally occurring asbestos in Section 3.6, Soils, Minerals, 

and Geological Resources. Figure 3.6-3 on Page 3.6-14 of Chapter 3 provides a map 

with the potential locations for naturally occurring asbestos. The mitigation measure 

(GR-1) to reduce the impact is listed on page 3.6-16. 

The Folsom DS/FDR Project currently under construction requires work east of Dike 

7. This area of Sacramento County is moderately likely to contain naturally 

occurring asbestos according to the asbestos report and map available from the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) (See 

website address below). Reclamation and their Construction Contractor have 

submitted the required asbestos dust mitigation plan to SMAQMD. This plan 

requires implementation of specific dust control measures to reduce potential 

impacts from naturally occurring asbestos. No work is currently taking place in El 

Dorado County at this time, but any future work within El Dorado County will also 

require a County approved asbestos dust mitigation plan. 

For more information on naturally occurring asbestos in Placer, El Dorado and 

Sacramento Counties, please see: 

2-5 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Placer County Air Pollution Control District Website - Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

Report and Maps: 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/sr/Documents/Placer_County

_SR190.pdf

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Website – Naturally 

Occurring Asbestos Report and Maps: 

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/sr/Documents/East_Sa

c_County_SR192.pdf

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Website - Asbestos Review 

Map: 

http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/emd/apcd/PDF/Map.pdf

Comment #5 

Commentor: Patricia Gibbs 

Comment: 

My comments re the Folsom Dam supplemental EA/IS: 

1. I applaud those individuals who had the fortitude to get this much needed project 

into the actual construction stage. 

2. Please recognize that these trails start in Sacramento so removing bits and pieces 

results in not just a local effect but also a regional effect. From these trails, at the 

dam site, one can ride/hike all the way to Nevada. The system here is phenomenal, 

so loss of the parts has huge consequences. 

3. The trail on Dikes 4,5,6 and the subsequent reroute are multi use. Equestrian use 

must be carefully planned in. The top of the levee's were wide, had good sight 

distance and made of natural soil. Since equestrians and mountain bikers will be on 

these trails, please construct the reroute trails with these similar design constraints; 

wide, good sight distance and be made of native/ natural soil. Bikers travel extremely 

fast on these dikes but fortunately they can be seen well in advance so both can slow 

down and/or evade each other. 

4. The tunnel built just north of here near the Park Headquarters was not built to 

accommodate horses even though this is a historical equestrian/hike trail (The 

Pioneer Express trail). The tunnel is low, has no sight distance and everything is 

asphalted. No dirt surface was put in place and now an after plan is required. When 

do you think BOR will complete this work? 

2-6 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

5. I request that the reroute trails remain open throughout construction but if 

necessary, please post signage at the sight regarding future planned closures. 

6. If some necessary closures are to occur could you put it in the local paper and post 

it on a website, CA State Parks or? Please post as early as possible. 

Thank‐you for your work and review of these comments. 

Response to Comment: 

1. Thank you for your comment.

2. Reclamation and the Partner Agencies understand the recreational importance 

of Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and the trail system and are working 

diligently with the Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain recreation 

throughout construction.

3. The Trail Detour will allow continuous movement between Beal’s Point and 

Granite Bay during construction at Dikes 4, 5, and 6. It will be a multi-use 

trail designed to accommodate pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle use. 

4. The tunnel referred to in your comment is a feature of the New Folsom 

Bridge Project currently being completed by the Corps. For questions or 

concerns regarding the tunnel, please contact:

David Nugen 

Engineer 

City of Folsom 

Folsom Bridge 

Phone: (916)-355-7247 

David McDaniel 

Senior Project Manager 

USACE-SPK 

Folsom Bridge 

Phone: (916)-557-7442 

5. The Trail Detour will remain open during work on the dikes. Signs will be 

posted to alert recreation users to the detour and to any trails closed due to 

public safety concerns during construction. 

6. The public will be notified of any recreation impacts during construction. 

Location-specific signs will be posted to alert the public of the Trail Detour. 

Reclamation will issue a press release to provide information on the Trail 

Detour and the project website will be periodically updated with recreation 

information. Notices will be placed at Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

kiosks to inform visitors of the project and to provide the location of any trail 

detours.

2-7 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Comment #6 

Commentor: California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) 

Comment: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Folsom Dam Safety 

and Flood Damage Reduction Supplemental Assessment/IS. Our comments dated 

January 30, 2007 are still applicable, and are enclosed for your reference. 

Please provide our office with copies of any further actions regarding this 

development. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not 

hesitate to contact La Nae Van Valen of my staff at (916) 274-0637. 

Sincerely, 

Dawn Cheser, Acting Chief 

Office of Transportation Planning – South 

Note: Please see Attachment 1 at the end of this document for a copy of the 

attachment submitted with this comment. 

Response to Comment: 

Thank you for your comment regarding operational effects to bridges. The response 

provided below is also found in the March 2007 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood 

Damage Reduction Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report. 

The Partner Agencies view this concern to be a result of the levee improvements 

below Folsom Dam, as noted by the Commentor. Accordingly, it is being addressed 

under the Common Features authority, and not the subject of this Supplemental 

EA/IS. The agencies position relative to this concern follows, as does a description 

of the work that is ongoing and planned to further address it. 

The proposed project significantly reduces the frequency and magnitude of flood 

flows on the Lower American River (LAR). A project condition outflow of 160,000 

cubic feet per second (cfs) corresponds to substantially greater outflows under 

existing (pre-project) conditions. Pre-project condition flows ranging from the 1/110 

(210,000 cfs) to the 1/240 chance events (449,000 cfs) would all be reduced to 

160,000 cfs. This overall decrease in the size and frequency of large flood events 

under proposed project conditions represents a sizable reduction in the risk to 

downstream bridges. In this regard, the proposed project actually mitigates any 

impacts to LAR bridges that might result from improving the downstream leveed 

conveyance system to reliably convey the objective sustained release of 160,000 cfs. 

Therefore, neither the project proposed in the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR nor 

improvements to the downstream levees represent an "impact" to the LAR bridges. 

2-8 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

Because the LAR bridges are critical elements of multiple flood evacuation routes 

and risks to their structural integrity represent a threat to the leveed LAR conveyance 

system, the project agencies are concerned with the risk of pier/abutment scour. An 

analysis completed by Ayres Associates for the Corps in 1997 concluded that there is 

significant pier/abutment scour potential at all LAR bridges under existing 

conditions. It also concluded that an increase in flow from 115,000 cfs to 160,000 

cfs does not significantly alter computed scour depths. Therefore, the project 

agencies plan to assess what measures have been taken to protect the LAR bridges 

from pier scour under existing conditions, and whether such measures are adequate 

to protect against a sustained release of 160,000 cfs. The project agencies plan to 

work with the parties responsible for the LAR bridges to ensure that the bridges are 

adequately protected to this standard, but note that neither the proposed project nor 

downstream levee improvement efforts are responsible for deferred actions to 

adequately protect the bridges from the existing flow regime. 

A study to determine what measures are necessary to assure the long-term vertical 

and lateral stability of the LAR under the proposed flow regime, including the 

objective sustained release of 160,000 cfs, is currently being performed under the 

Common Features authority. This study will address the potential for significant bed 

degradation and profile lowering, which is the single overriding concern relative to 

the integrity of the LAR leveed flood conveyance system and the bridge structures 

within it. Proposed measures resulting from this study could range from grade 

control to increased monitoring. 

In any case, hydraulic modeling performed indicates that 160,000 cfs will pass under 

all publicly owned bridges on the LAR without inundating their low chords. 

Previous analyses performed for the Corps concluded that pier/abutment scour 

potential doesn't increase significantly when flows increase from 120,000 cfs to 

160,000 cfs. This response also applies to bridges on the Sacramento River. The 

requested reports will be made available - please contact Mr. Brett Whitin of the 

Corps at (916) 557-7530. The project agencies appreciate the Commentor’s offer to 

assist. Mr. Champion will be contacted by Corps staff. 

Comment #7 

Commentor: Placer County 

Comment: 

The proposed project is the construction of a new contractor access road from 

Auburn-Folsom Road to the staging area at Dike 5; development of a trail contour; 

and construction of a cofferdam. The project would include controlling traffic flow at 

temporary intersection through use of flagmen or by installation of a temporary 

traffic light. 

2-9 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Placer County Engineering and Surveying Department (ESD) has reviewed the 

above-cited document and offers the following comments: 

Hydrology and Water Quality:

1. Page 3-7 discusses the installation of a culvert as part of the Dike 5 

Construction Site Access. The culvert and drainage from Reclamation 

property may not exceed the capacity of the downstream drainage system. 

The current drainage in the area is conveyed across the street in culverts and 

then flows overland across private properties. Any increase to peak flows 

must be retained on the Reclamation side. The Auburn Folsom Widening 

Project has sized the culverts as large as possible with the downstream flow 

constrains, so detaining any increase in the flow is critical. 

Transportation:

1. When locating the connection of the construction access road to AuburnFolsom Road, a location to maximize available sight distance on both the 

northbound and southbound approaches on Auburn-Folsom Road should be 

considered. The County requests the proposed construction access road 

connection be located south of Bell Drive. 

2. The connection of the construction access road to Auburn-Folsom Road 

should be appropriately designed and constructed to accommodate all turning 

movements for the largest construction vehicle anticipated to use the new 

roadway. 

3. Submit to Placer County for review and approval a traffic control plan that 

conforms to California MUTCD and Caltrans standards. The plan should be 

submitted prior to the commencement of any construction activity that will 

use the construction access road. 

4. On Page 3-25 there is a discussion of the potential temporary traffic signal to 

be used at the proposed new intersection of Auburn-Folsom Road and the 

construction access road. The temporary signal would need to be coordinated 

with the adjacent existing signals on Auburn-Folsom Road to ensure that 

adequate progression of both construction and non-construction vehicles may 

be accommodated. Placer County DPW should be consulted throughout this 

process. If a temporary signal is installed, the County would require protected 

left turns at this intersection. If additional widening is needed to 

accommodate the protected lefts, those impacts should be analyzed. 

The use of flaggers is also discussed which may be used at the proposed new 

intersection of Auburn-Folsom Road and the construction access road. The 

use of flaggers would require that appropriate traffic control plans be 

2-10 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

approved and implemented. Submit to Place County for review and approval 

a traffic control plant that conforms to California MUTCD and Caltrans 

standards. The plan should be submitted prior to the commencement of any 

construction activity that will use the construction access road. 

Response to Comment: 

Hydrology and Water Quality

1. On Page 3-7, Section 3.3.2.2.of the EA/IS, Reclamation states: “A drainage 

ditch runs parallel to Auburn-Folsom Road where the turn in and turn out 

lanes and access road would be constructed. A culvert would be installed to 

maintain stormwater drainage.” To clarify, the culvert would be constructed 

in the existing drainage ditch which runs parallel to the Auburn-Folsom Road 

in order to maintain its flows. The existing culverts under the AuburnFolsom Road would not be affected by Reclamation’s action, and therefore 

the maximum amount of water which could be conveyed under the AuburnFolsom Road to non-Reclamation lands would not change. 

In addition, Page 3-7, Section 3.3.2.2. of the EA/IS, Reclamation states: 

“Construction of the Dike 5 access could result in some minor stormwater 

runoff impacts. The Construction Contractor would obtain an NPDES Permit 

and implement a SWPPP to prevent any water quality impacts associated 

with stormwater runoff.” 

The majority of stormwater runoff which may drain under the AuburnFolsom Road may come from the Dike 5 construction site and/or the Beal’s 

Point staging area. Section 3.1 of the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR 

analyzed the Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater impacts of the 

Dike 5 construction site and Beal’s Point staging area. 

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 

(Pages 10-11 of the May 2007 Folsom Dam Safety of Dams and Security 

Upgrades Record of Decision) were adopted as follows: 

Measure 1. Reclamation working with its Construction Contractor will obtain 

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to 

construction activities, commencing by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with 

the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) and 

preparing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 

Measure 2. Reclamation working with its Construction Contractor, and in 

coordination with CCAO, will incorporate measures in the SWPPP to control 

sediment and on-site spills. In addition to the environmentally friendly Best 

Management Practices (BMPs that avoid wildlife entrapment issues, such as 

flexible joint netting), and spill prevention recommended in the FWCAR, the 

2-11 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

SWPPP will contain a visual monitoring program as well as a chemical 

monitoring program for pollutants that are non-visible to be implemented if 

there is a failure of BMPs. 

Traffic and Transportation

2. Reclamation and their Construction Contractor will carefully consider the 

location of the construction access road to maximize sight distance on 

northbound and southbound lanes of Auburn-Folsom Road. Reclamation and 

the Construction Contractor will consider an access road connection south of 

Bell Drive. 

3. Reclamation and their Construction Contractor will design the access road to 

accommodate all turning movements for the largest construction vehicle 

anticipated to use the new access road. 

4. Reclamation and the Construction Contractor will submit the required plans 

prior to construction. 

5. Reclamation and the Construction Contractor will consult with Placer County 

prior to installation of a temporary traffic light or flagmen. All required plans 

will be submitted to the County prior to construction of the new access road. 

Comment #8 

Commentor: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Comment: 

I have reviewed the subject document, which we received on 28 February 2008. We 

understand that the proposed project involves construction of an auxiliary dam 

spillway, seismic improvements to the main concrete dam and the Mormon Island 

Auxiliary Dam, improvements to certain earthen structures, reinforcement of five 

spillway gates, replacement of three emergency spillway gates, raising all structures 

3.5 feet, and other related improvements at the Folsom Dam complex. A Final 

Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project was released in March 2007, 

and construction is now underway with project completion expected in 2018. 

The purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study is to 

analyze potential environmental impacts associated with recently developed project 

details that do not involve significant changes to the overall design for two elements 

of the overall project: construction of the stilling basin cofferdam for the auxiliary 

dam spillway and the Dike 5 construction site access and trail detour. 

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 

(Regional Water Board) is a responsible agency for the project. Our authority is 

2-12 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

limited to implementing and enforcing the California Water Code and applicable 

regulations to protect water quality. Therefore, our comments are limited to potential 

water quality impacts. 

The Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (SEA/IS) adequately 

addresses issues related to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting, CWA 

Section 401 water quality certification, and discharges of storm water associated 

with construction activities. 

However, there are two water quality issues that should be addressed in more detail: 

a. Discharged of concrete wash water; and 

b. Discharged of extracted groundwater from dewatering activities. 

These concerns are discussed below. 

The project will require many thousands of cubic yards of concrete. The SEA/IS 

does not discuss whether concrete will be supplied from a ready-mix vendor or onsite batch plant(s). Portland cement concrete contains numerous soluble compounds 

that pose a threat to water quality. Specifically, the wash water generated by routine 

cleaning of concrete mixer trucks and batch plant equipment is typically very 

alkaline and contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, hexavalent chromium, 

and other metals. 

The discharge of concrete wash water to surface waters is prohibited, and Best 

Management Practices used to minimize impacts to storm water quality may not be 

adequate to protect groundwater quality. Ideally, concrete wash water would be 

completely contained in an impervious structure and recycled to make new concrete, 

and residual concrete solids would be removed from the site periodically for 

recycling or disposal at an appropriately permitted facility. If concrete trucks and/or 

equipment will be washed out at the project site, waste discharge requirements 

(WDRs) or a waiver of WDRs may be required to regulate the discharge. 

The SEA/IS discusses the potential need for dewatering, and states: “[The Bureau of] 

Reclamation and the Construction Contractor would test the water and obtain 

appropriate dewatering permits from the CVRWQCB before discharging it to any 

surface waters.” The Discharger must submit a full description of the project and a 

discharge to land feasibility study prior to requesting coverage under an NPDES 

permit. If the discharge flow rate is not known, then a hydrologic study will be 

required. Once total flows have been projected and the Discharger is able to show 

that it is not feasible to contain the discharge on land, then they may request a 

NPDES permit. 

If the projected flows exceed 0.25 MGD, then the project will not qualify to be 

covered under the Low Threat General Order No. 5-00-175, and the Discharger 

would have to request coverage under an individual NPDES permit by submitting a 

2-13 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

complete Report of Waste Discharge including the full California Toxic Rule (CTR) 

sampling. Please be advised that obtaining coverage under an Individual NPDES 

permit can take six to twelve months or more, depending on the completeness of the 

application. 

Another option (which is preferred) is to discharge the extracted groundwater to 

land. It can be used for construction dust control, soil moisture conditioning, nonpotable process water, landscape irrigation, and/or disposal by percolation and 

evaporation. The Regional Water Board adopted a conditional waiver of WDRs that 

may be applicable to such discharged (Order No. R5-2003-0008). A copy of the 

general waiver can be downloaded from out website at 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/index.

shtml#Waivers

Although the general waiver expired in January 2008, we expect that the Regional 

Water Board will consider a similar waiver in the near future. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and trust that the SEA/IS will be 

revised to address our comments. If you have any questions about permits or waivers 

for discharges to land, please call me at (916) 464-4740. Questions about the Low 

Threat NPDES Permit should be directed to Michael Negrete, who can be reached at 

(916) 464-4662. 

Response to Comment: 

1. Reclamation believes the Construction Contractor will use a ready mix 

concrete vendor to supply the concrete for the Cofferdam, because this is 

likely the most cost effective method. The Cofferdam work is a relatively 

small portion of the overall Phase II Contract. Due to the type of structure 

being constructed, the daily concrete use will be small enough to allow the 

Construction Contractor to be supplied by an off-site vendor. Placement of 

the wall will require the Construction Contractor to place only certain 

sections of the wall at one time and allow time for the concrete to cure before 

adjacent concrete placements are made. 

It is expected that the next phase of the Joint Federal Project (Auxiliary 

Spillway) will require an on-site batch plant. Reclamation and the 

Construction Contractor will comply with applicable regulations and will 

implement appropriate Best Management Practices to protect surface and 

groundwater from concrete wash water. If concrete trucks and/or equipment 

are washed out at the project site, the appropriate waste discharge 

requirements (WRDs), or a waiver of WRDs will be obtained, as required. 

2. Reclamation believes that dewatering may be necessary during construction 

of Cofferdam and Stilling Basin. If the discharges do not contain significant 

quantities of pollutants and they are either four months or less in duration or 

2-14 April 2008 
Responses to Comments 

the average dry weather discharge does not exceed 0.25mgd, this type of 

discharge may be covered under the Low Threat General Order No. 5-00-

175. In this case, a Notice of Intent and fee would need to be submitted to the 

CVRWQCB prior to any discharges. 

If the discharge exceeds the Low Threat General Order requirements, then a 

full description of the project and a discharge to land feasibility study may be 

required prior to requesting coverage under an NPDES permit. If the 

discharge flow rate is not known, a hydrologic study may also be required. 

Once total flow rates have been projected, and if it is not feasible for 

Reclamation and the Construction Contractor to contain the discharge on 

land, coverage under an individual NPDES permit would be requested. This 

would require submitting a complete Report of Waste Discharge including 

the full California Toxic Rule sampling. Reclamation is aware that coverage 

under an individual NPDES permit could take from 6 to 12 months or more 

to obtain. 

Reclamation recognizes that preferred option would be to discharge the 

extracted groundwater to land for use as dust control, soil moisture 

conditioning, non-potable process water, landscape irrigation, and/or disposal 

by percolation and evaporation. A conditional waiver of WDR’s may be 

applicable to such discharges, and Reclamation and their Construction 

Contractor will consult with the CVRWQCB if this option is determined to 

be feasible. 

Comment #9 

Commentor: Darrell Singleton 

Comment: 

I could not connect to 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_I'D=1808 as given by 

the local paper. 

I wanted to comment about the heavy equipment moving earth around the work site. 

I was informed at a public meeting that these vehicles would emit cleaner exhaust. 

However, I have seen a couple of these vehicles emitting heavy visible emissions. 

Response to Comment: 

Reclamation and the Construction Contractor are required to comply with specific 

local, State, and Federal air quality regulations. For information on the applicable air 

quality regulations, please see Section 3.3.1.2 Regulatory Setting in Chapter 3 of the 

December 2006 Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR (Page 3.3-1). 

2-15 April 2008 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Comment #10 

Commentor: City of Folsom 

Comment: 

As we discussed earlier, the City has reviewed the Supplemental EA/IS for the 

Folsom Dam JFP and does not have any comments at this time. 

However, the City does reserve the right to provide comments on this matter prior to 

close of the public hearing on the project and before the issuance of a notice of 

determination. The City requests that you provide the City with notice of all such 

public hearings and meetings. 

Thanks. 

Response to Comment: 

Thank you for your comment. 

Comment #11 

Commentor: William P. Betchart 

Comment: 

Please send me a CD copy of the Supplemental EA/IS. Thanks. 

Response to Comment: 

A CD of the document was sent to Mr. Betchart. 

2-16 April 2008 
Attachment 1 

Comments Received 
Comment #1 
Porter, Stacy

From: Earl E. Brabb [ebrabb@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:58 AM

To: FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: jmccracken@mp.usbr.gov; Jennifer.L.Mijares@usace.army.mil; donalds@water.ca.gov; 

buers@saccounty.net

Subject: Folsom Dam DS/FDR EIS/EIR

Page 1 of 2

3/3/2008

Earl E. Brabb 

4377 Newland Heights Drive 

Rocklin, CA 95765 

February 28, 2008 

 

 

Ms. Elizabeth Vasquez 

Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folson CA 95630 

Dear Ms. Vasquez: 

 

The following section in the Supplemental EA/IS is so ridiculous that I wonder if any qualified 

engineers or geologists have read it? The statement is: 

 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Reclamation’s Construction Contractor is currently in the process of clearing the 

Phase 1 area to prepare for construction. As described above under Hydrology, 

Water Quality, and Groundwater, a SWPPP has been implemented to control erosion 

and prevent storm water runoff. 

No seismic issues or unstable soils occur in the area of the Proposed Action. The 

potential for landslides is low because of relatively thin soils. Although the Bear 

Mountain fault occurs north of the project area, this fault has not been designated as 

active by the U.S. Geological Survey and the ground shaking potential for the region 
is generally low. 

 

There are indeed seismic issues at the site, and I suspect that agency geologists and engineers have 

designed for a maximum credible earthquake in accordance with state law. Water saturated soils may 

liquefy in a maximum credible earthquake, possibly causing failures in the designed structures. The 

issues not addressed are 1) whether the 1908 earthquake in Rocklin, less than 7 miles from Folsom 

Dam, with an Intensity of IV-V felt over an area of 10,000 km2 (Bulletin SSA v. 68, no. 1, pp. 245-249) 

and hundreds or even thousands of smaller events since then could adversely affect the Folsom Dam 

structures to be constructed; and 2) Whether the Foothills Fault System, of which the Bear Mountain 

fault is a part, could extend under any of the proposed structures and cause fault offset and failure of the 

structures during an earthquake? The fault activity map by Jennings (CA Div Mines and Geology) 

indicates that the Foothills Fault system extends for 200 miles and is nearly 40 miles wide in places. No 

qualified persons with Quaternary skills have, to my knowledge, explored the Folsom Dam area to 

determine if additional strands of this fault system extend beneath Folsom Reservoir. The possibility 

remains, therefore, that the new structures and Folsom Dam itself may experience ground rupture 

some day. 

 

I agree, however, that the fault and damaging earthquake potential for the Folsom Dam area is low, and 

that the additional structures, if designed in accordance with State law, will probably never fail. I 

support the idea of enlarging the peripheral structures around the dam to provide additional flood 

protection. I just hope that Bu Rec and other agency’s engineers and geologists have taken sufficient 

account of a realistic earthquake and fault movement scenario. What, by the way, is the estimated 

maximum credible earthquake for the project? 

 

Sincerely yours, 

 

 Earl E. Brabb 

 

Cc: jmccracken@mp.usbr.gov, Jennifer.L.Mijares@usacearmy.mil, donalds@water.ca.gov, 

buers@saccounty.net 

 

Page 2 of 2

3/3/2008
Comment #2 
Porter, Stacy

From: DSANDERS [dsanders@surewest.net]

Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:17 PM

To: FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Supplemental EA/IS Tiering From the Folsom Dam DS/FDR EIS/EIR Released for Public Review 

and Comment

Page 1 of 1

3/3/2008

Dear Elizabeth Vasquez, or other appropriate representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation:

I have received your communication, MP-08-028.

I am a homeowner in the Granite Bay area, located at 7620 Haley Drive, in Granite Bay. The assessment number 

for my property is 035-350-006-000.

I have received your above referenced communication, which is labeled a “News Release”. I find it to be nearly 

totally incomprehensible. If your intent is to send me something which is completely impossible to understand 

about your plans for Folsom Dam, you have succeeded! Congratulations! I believe that you have done this in 

order to cover your behind, and to make it impossible for further intelligent questions to be raised, should further 

problems develop. I guess you may have accomplished this goal in the legal system. (Incidentally, I have an 

advanced degree in Business Administration, and have extensive experience dealing with legal business issues. 

But your efforts to confuse the issue and make it impossible to find out what is really going on rise to new 

heights!)

I have a simple question, however, which is impossible to answer from the data you have provided me. I regularly 

(several times per week) ride my mountain bike between the Granite Bay launch ramps area and Beals Point. 

WHAT SORT OF DISRUPTION TO MY PROGRAM SHOULD I EXPECT, AND WHEN SHOULD IT START AND 

WHEN SHOULD IT BE COMPLETED?

I would appreciate a simple answer to my simple question.

Thank you.

David E. Sanders

7620 Haley Drive

Granite Bay, CA 95746

dsanders@surewest.net
Comment #3 
May I have a CD of this plan?? I am particularly interested in how the 

Equestrian Trail between the Dam Road ( New) and Beal's Point will be ( 

some already are)impacted. Would you please direct me to these sections 

within the document ? This is critical to an equestrian event taking 

place on April 26, 2008 

I would also like to know when the pipe connection can be made on the 

dyke so that water can be restored to the Equestrian Stagting area at 

Granite Bay. It is my understanding from Park personnel that the 

approval is pending with BOR to accomplish that. 

Thank you. 

Deborah Murphy 

7655 Northeast Circle 

Citrus Heigts CA 95610
Comment #4 
Porter, Stacy

From: Chris Jennings [trg94@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:48 PM

To: FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Supp EA/IS Folsm Dam

Page 1 of 1

3/25/2008

Thanks for the opportunity to review the supp. EA/IS. My single comment, reiterating an earlier comment, relates 

to the potential for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) in the soils affected by the project - especially for the area 

encroaching upon the school site in Granite Bay. NOA is a big issue, however over-inflated, for the DTSC (refer 

to the Vista Del Lago HS and Oakridge HS) and it's not addressed in this document nor in the EIR. 

 

Chris Jennings 
Comment #5 
Porter, Stacy

From: PG [fizzz@vfr.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:03 PM

To: folsomjfp@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Supplementa EA/IS

Page 1 of 2

3/27/2008

Ms. Elizabeth Vasquez,

My comments re the Folsom Dam supplemental EA/IS:

 

1. I applaud those individuals who had the fortitude to get this much needed project

into the actual construction stage.  

2. Please recognize that these trails start in Sacramento so removing bits and pieces

results in not just a local effect but also a regional effect. From these trails, at the

dam site, one can ride/hike all the way to Nevada.  The system here is phenomenal,

so loss of the parts has huge consequences. 

3. The trail on Dikes 4,5,6  and the subsequent reroute are multi use.  Equestrian use

must be carefully planned in.   The top of the levee's were wide, had good sight

distance and made of natural soil.   Since equestrians and mountain bikers will be

on these trails, please construct the reroute trails with these similar design

constraints; wide,  good sight distance and be made of native/ natural  soil.  Bikers

travel extremely fast on these dikes but fortunately they can be seen well in

advance so both can slow down and/or evade each other. 

4. The  tunnel built just north of here near the Park Headquarters was not built to

accommodate horses even though this is a historical equestrian/hike trail (The

Pioneer Express trail).  The  tunnel is low, has  no sight distance and everything is

asphalted.  No dirt surface was put in place and now an after plan is required.  

When do you think BOR will complete this work?

5. I request that the reroute trails remain open throughout construction but if

necessary, please post signage at the sight regarding future planned closures. 

6. If some necessary closures are to occur could you put it in the local paper and post

it on a website, CA State Parks or?  Please post as early as possible.

Thank‐you for your work and review of these comments.

Patricia Gibbs

5425 Lake Forest Dr.

Loomis, CA. 95650

PS Please let me know you received this as my email system is not always reliable

 

 

 
Comment #6 







Comment #7 



Comment #8 



Comment #9 
Porter, Stacy

From: Darrell Singleton [darrellsingleton@hotmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 1:21 AM

To: folsomjfp@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: comment

Page 1 of 1

3/31/2008

I could not connect to http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_I'D=1808 as given by the 

local paper. 

I wanted to comment about the heavy equipment moving earth around the work site. I was informed at a public 

meeting that these vehicles would emit cleaner exhaust. However, I have seen a couple of these vehicles 

emitting heavy visible emissions. 

Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. Enter for your chance to win.
Comment #10 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Janet Sierzputowski [JSIERZPUTOWSKI@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:16 AM

To: Elizabeth Vasquez; FolsomJFP

Subject: Fwd: City Comments to Supplemental EA/IS for the Folsom DamJFP

Forwarded from Joe Luchi, City of Folsom, 3/28/08.

>>> "Joe Luchi" <jluchi@folsom.ca.us> 3/28/2008 10:09 AM >>>

Hi Janet:

As we discussed earlier, the City has reviewed the Supplemental EA/IS for the Folsom Dam 

JFP and does not have any comments at this time. 

However, the City does reserve the right to provide comments on this matter prior to close

of the public hearing on the project and before the issuance of a notice of determination.

The City requests that you provide the City with notice of all such public hearings and 

meetings.

Thanks.

Joe Luchi

City of Folsom

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Economic Development

351-3589 (v)

355-7206 (f)
Comment #11 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Will B. Betchart [Betchart@earthlink.net]

Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:52 AM

To: FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Supplemental EA/IS

Ms. Vasquez --

Please send me a CD copy of the Supplemental EA/IS. Thanks.

Will B. Betchart, P.E.

Consulting Water Resources Engineer

17050 Montebello Road

Cupertino, CA 95014

(408) 741-5762