Folsom Dam Modification Project

Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT

APPROACH CHANNEL
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DECEMBER 2012
State Clearinghouse SCH # 2012072039
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION

FOLSOM DAM JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT

APPROACH CHANNEL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
December 2012
Type of Statement: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (SEIS/EIR)
Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Lead State Agency: State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board
(CVFPB)
Abstract: This Final SEIS/EIR has been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, the non-Federal sponsor, for the proposed
construction of the approach channel of the Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway. The document
supplements the Final EIS/EIR and Record of Decision completed in 2007 for the Folsom Dam
Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project by providing new and additional information on the
design and means to construct the auxiliary spillway approach channel which was not completely
defined at the time of publication. The 2007 EIS/EIR stated that the design of the approach
channel would be determined in the Corps pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and,
as needed, supplemental NEPA/CEQA documentation would be prepared. The Final SEIS/EIR
evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of alternative plans for the
approach channel. Mitigation measures are identified to avoid, minimize, and compensate for
resource impacts. Most potential adverse effects would be either short term, or would be
avoided or reduced using best management practices. Public and agency comments that were
received during the DSEIS/EIR comment period are addressed in this FSEIS/EIR.
Public Review and Comment: The final public review period is scheduled for December 28,
2012, and the official closing date for receipt of comments on the final SEIS/EIR will be January
28, 2012. Comments received will be considered in the Record of Decision (ROD). For further
information, please contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the following address: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District; Attn: Mr. Todd Plain, Public Affairs Office;
1325 J Street; Sacramento, California 95814-2922, or by e-mail: spk-pao@usace.army.mil.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 PURPOSE OF THE SEIS/EIR
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(SEIS/EIR) has been prepared for the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel.
The SEIS/EIR is a supplement to the 2007 Final EIS/EIR for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood
Damage Reduction Project (FEIS/EIR), prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. This
project is also known as the Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom JFP). The Folsom JFP is a
cooperative effort between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), the State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB),
and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA).
This SEIS/EIR examines the impacts of proposed construction of the approach channel of
the Gated Auxiliary Spillway Alternative identified as the preferred alternative in the March
2007 FEIS/EIR; and as the Selected Alternative in the Record of Decision (ROD) approved on
May 3, 2007. The FEIS/EIR stated that the design of the spillway approach channel would be
determined in the Corps pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and if needed,
supplemental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) documentation would be prepared. The implementing regulations of the NEPA at 40
CFR 1502.9(c) provide that a lead Federal agency must prepare a supplemental EIS if (1) the
agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to the environmental
concerns, or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. The SEIS/EIR for the approach
channel complies with this implementing regulation of NEPA. A draft SEIS/EIR was prepared
for public review during the period of July 25 through September 10, 2012. The comments
resulting from this review have been addressed within the document.
The SEIS/EIR describes changes to the project and/or conditions in the project area that
have occurred since the 2007 FEIS/EIR. While it builds upon and incorporates work already
completed as part of the project development process, it does not reproduce in full the prior 2007
FEIS/EIR and ROD documentation. Instead, it incorporates information from those documents
by reference, where applicable. The 2007 FEIS/EIR and ROD can be reviewed at:
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=1808
ES.2 PROJECT AREA

The project area is located in the city of Folsom at Folsom Dam, approximately 20 miles
northeast of Sacramento (Figure ES-1) in Sacramento County. The new auxiliary spillway is
located on the left abutment of the main dam, immediately downstream of the left wing dam.
Current access to the site is via Folsom Lake Crossing to an overlook site at approximately 480
feet in elevation. The approach channel for the auxiliary spillway is expected to extend
ES-1
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control structure. Currently, this area consists
of a natural rock plug, which is currently acting as a natural dam between the reservoir and the
excavation areas for the gated control Structure and spillway chute.
In this document, the project area consists of the ongoing auxiliary spillway construction
area; the footprint of the approach channel; a spur dike and transload facility; the existing project
haul routes; the existing disposal areas at the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) and Dike
7; the proposed disposal areas at Dike 8 and in-reservoir, and the existing staging areas at the
Folsom Overlook and Folsom Prison sites. The project area is shown on the map in Figure ES-2.
ES.3 BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR ACTION

The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom facility do not have sufficient discharge
capacity for managing the predicted probable maximum flood (PMF) and lesser flood event
inflows above a 100-year event (an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year).
Structural modifications associated with the Folsom JFP are proposed to address increasing
discharge capability and/or increasing storage during extreme flood events above the 200-year
event level. The new auxiliary spillway is a major feature that will address the need to safely
pass part or the entire PMF event. A hydraulic analysis was completed for the new auxiliary
spillway and is included in the PACR (Corps 2007).
In 2007, the Corps completed the Post Authorization Change Report (PACR) for the
Folsom Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise Projects. This report recommended authorization
of two refined projects: (1) the Folsom JFP and (2) the Folsom Dam Raise. In 2007, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) also completed the FEIS/EIR for the Folsom JFP. This
FEIS/EIR addressed alternative measures for implementing both USBRs dam safety and
security obligations, as well as the Corps flood damage reduction structural modifications at the
Folsom facility. The Corps was a cooperating Federal agency in the preparation of this
FEIS/EIR.
The refined Folsom JFP, as described in the Corps PACR and USBRs FEIS/EIR was
later authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Construction of the
Folsom JFP was initiated by USBR in the fall of 2007, with USBR acting as the lead agency for
the first two phases of construction. The new auxiliary spillway will address the need to safely
pass part of or the entire PMF event. Increasing the discharge capability and increasing storage
will potentially achieve the goal of a greater than 200-year flood protection objective (USBR
2006).
The Folsom JFP auxiliary spillway is being constructed by both USBR and the Corps in
five phases, plus a commissioning and transfer phase. The five phases are (1) initial spillway
excavation, (2) spillway excavation, (3) gated control structure, (4) lower spillway, stilling basin,
and excavation and lining of the upstream approach to control structure, (5) site restoration.
Phases 1 and 2 were completed in 2011. Phase 3 is currently under construction by the Corps.
Phases 4 and 5 are currently under design. The expected completion of the project is October
2017. Figure ES-4 shows an aerial photograph of the project area.
ES-2
D,
IT"1...__j r.t iles

0
5
10 Wollows
Rei),.O Sparks I
vord~ r:i
Gle-nn
..._,.
Brownsville
Sacramento
'""'1fo<d
V a I
y Gtidl~
Trude:~
Lonu. Rtea
(\
, .. "q
livcOa.lc:
I.ct, .....
';;,';
..
'"!"-
da"on
NGw W.uho<t City
Do
Carson City
Alr
Altl) Sierra
Yulia
Beale AfB
Johnson UIJ)e
Fortslhill
Me>?~''"
Whe-atland
ak o
Zephyr Cove
Ol'tOiauon
'-'1'11demess South lake Tahoe

Uy....
UnColn
Aubum
~ockli/
Hiddtn
alloy lake
R""'J'!
(ill
LOtus
Roseville
Woodland
Citrus
Rio Undo .JHeig hts
Pollock Pin~
""'"'
Pia<erville
Kt Carson
Project Area
Angwin
Davis
St MG:Ion.1
R.,.,cho
MLtfiE"'.ol
Parkway
Napa
Vacaville
(ill
PlytrJoul h
@!)
Vountvlllt?
Sonoma
f(ybu rt
lone
Rilil RODd Flat
Jackson
Project Area
~It
R~ncho
Cataver~
lodi
Ml \
Viii.
Angel ~ Camp
line! e-n
0]
SotlOra
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Nevada
S.:.n Andreas
ES 1 -Project Vicinity Map
S..CtlO....n iO Dlolrkt
ES-3
Tuotumnll
Folsom Dam Modification Project,

Approach Channel SEIS/ EIR
December 2012
Au xiliary Spillway- - Chute & Stilling Basin

- - Con trol Structure
-
- Coffer Dam
cutoff Wall
__.__.._ Hau l Roads
ICIIJ Folsom Prison Staging Area

Overlook Expansion
I2:ZJ 1n Lake Disposal Area (Site 2)
I2:Z] Spur Dike
IIID Ex isting Overlook

-
Transload Facility
Sediment Placement
__j In Lake Disposal Area (Site 1)
.---~ Proposed
~ Dike?
f ! DikeB
MIAD
U$ Army Corp$
of Enginear&
Folsom Dam Modifi cation Project,

December 2012
ES - 2 Project Area Map
l>.x1.3mtnto OlslrkAI
ES-4
LEGEND
- - Control Stru cture
-
Cutoff Wall
Coffer Dam
Approach Channel
- - & Auxiliary Spillw ay
mn
Existing Overl ook
!22:3 Overlook Expansion

I22J Spur Dike
US Army Corps
ES 3- Construction Footprints of Alternatives 2 and 3
of Engineer$
SatA..,.IItO Olltritt
ES-5

December 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Figure ES-4. Aerial View of Project Area and Folsom Dam.
The 2007 FEIS/EIR stated that the design of the approach channel would be determined
in the Corps pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and, if needed, supplemental
NEPA/CEQA documentation would be prepared. This final SEIS/EIR provides this
supplemental documentation and evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
effects of alternative plans for the approach channel and identifies mitigation measures to avoid,
minimize, and compensate for impacts.
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES
Documentation of the plan formulation process associated with the overall Folsom Dam
Modification Project can be found in the Corps 2007 Post Authorization Change Report for the
American River Watershed Project, Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise.
Concurrently, USBR prepared the 2007 EIS/EIR, a programmatic document to which this
supplemental EIS/EIR is tiered (USBR 2007a). The 2007 EIS/EIR contains the overarching
analysis of this multi-phased project, followed by supplemental NEPA documents focusing on
the design refinements of each project phase. Specific approach channel design assessment was
intended for later NEPA and CEQA analyses that are conducted within this EIS/EIR.
Potential design alternatives were identified for assessment of engineering,
environmental, and cost considerations. The two alternatives chosen included a small cofferdam
and a cutoff wall. These structures could accommodate approach channel construction in
ES-6
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
partially dry conditions, and stabilize the shoreline in compliance with dam safety standards
throughout excavation of the existing shoreline. Assessment of construction safety and
scheduling to optimize total construction time was a primary factor in the evaluation of
alternatives. The cutoff wall or cofferdam would serve as a dam to restrain reservoir water from
the construction area until the control structure is functional and the approach channel can be
flooded.
ES.4.1 Alternative 1 No Action
Under Alternative 1, the Corps would not participate in the construction of the approach
channel to the auxiliary spillway. Since the approach channel is an essential feature to the
overall function of the spillway, dam safety and flood damage reduction improvements to the
Sacramento area would not be implemented, and enhanced public safety would not be realized as
detailed in the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a).
ES.4.2 Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall
Alternative 2 consists of excavation of the approach channel using a cutoff wall to serve
as a temporary dam during excavation The proposed action would also construct an adjacent
spur dike, which would channel flood flows to the auxiliary spillway. This alternative would
include:
Installation of a 1,000-foot-long concrete secant pile cutoff wall between the rock plug
and the control structure.
Placement of fill material along the east side of the rock plug to maintain the 80-footwide haul road connection to the spillway.
Excavation of an approximate 1,100-foot-long approach channel at the upstream side of

the auxiliary spillway and control structure.
Installation of the approach channel concrete slab and walls.
Construction of a spur dike in the reservoir adjacent to the approach channel.
Stockpiling and disposal of excavated material at one of five proposed potential disposal
sites (MIAD, Dike 7, Dike 8, spur dike, and in-reservoir).
Construction of a transload facility consisting of up to a 2,000-foot-long rock ramp into

the reservoir near Dike 7 for barge unloading of dredge material.
Staging of contractor materials and equipment at the spillway excavation site, Folsom
Overlook, Dike 7, Folsom Prison, and MIAD locations (Figure ES-2).
Temporary installation of a concrete-producing batch plant and/or rock crusher at the

spillway excavation site, Folsom Overlook, Folsom Prison, or MIAD locations.
ES-7
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
ES.4.3 Alternative 3 Cofferdam

Alternative 3 consists of construction of the approach channel using a cofferdam to serve
as a temporary dam during excavation. The proposed action also includes the construction of an
adjacent spur dike, which would channel flood flows to the auxiliary spillway. This alternative
would include:
Installation of a cofferdam in the reservoir upstream of the rock plug.
Excavation of an approximate 1,100-foot-long approach channel at the upstream side of

the auxiliary spillway and control structure.
Installation of the approach channel concrete slab and walls.
Construction of a spur dike in the reservoir adjacent to the approach channel.
Stockpiling and disposal of excavated material at one of five proposed potential disposal
sites (MIAD, Dike 7, Dike 8, spur dike, and in-reservoir).
Construction of a transload facility consisting of up to a 2,000-foot-long rock ramp into

the reservoir near Dike 7 for barge unloading of dredge material.
Staging of contractor materials and equipment at the spillway excavation site, Folsom
Overlook, Dike 7, Folsom Prison, and MIAD locations (Figure ES-2).
Temporary installation of a concrete-producing batch plant and/or rock crusher at the

spillway excavation site, Folsom Overlook, Dike 7, Folsom Prison, or MIAD locations.
ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

Significant resources that may be affected by the alternatives include air quality, climate
change, water quality, fisheries, aesthetics and visual resources, recreation, traffic and
circulation, noise, and cultural resources. Table ES-1 summarizes the potential effects of the
alternatives, the significance of those effects, and any potential mitigation measures that would
be implemented to reduce any effects to less than significance, if possible. The majority of the
resource areas have a similar range of effects with the implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3.
The major difference in effects between the alternatives includes: (1) Alternative 3 would have
less effects to water and air quality than Alternative 2; (2) Alternative 3 would have less effects
to fisheries than Alternative 2; and (3) Alternative 3 would have an additional temporary visual
effect during construction due to the presence of the cofferdam in the reservoir, while the cutoff
wall under Alternative 2 would not be visible to receptors.
Since the publication of the DEIS/EIR, changes have been made to the boundaries for
proposed material disposal at Dike 8. The southern section of Dike 8, totaling 3 acres, was
withdrawn from potential use by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. As a substitute for this
acreage, three acres within the lake high watermark was added to the north side of Dike 8 as a
proposed in-water and/or terrestrial disposal site. Affects associated with this change have been
assessed within this SEIS/EIR and are not considered to be substantial or significant effects to
ES-8
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
resources. The addition of three acres within the lake proper would not change disposal material
quantity, or affect cultural, threatened and endangered species or social resources. Water quality
could be affected in the immediate area if material placement is conducted in-the-wet, but effects
would be less-than-significant with a silt curtain, mitigations and compliance with state water
quality mandated conditions. Additional noise assessment has been conducted for Dike 8 within
the final document. The range of noise effects would increase with the use of Dike 8 as a
disposal area, but noise effects to residential areas would be reduced with the removal of the
southern three acres of Dike 8 from the project.
Additional change since the publication of the DEIS/EIR includes the classification of
some mitigation measures from required to an optional choice for the selected contractor. This
change was made to provide contractor flexibility in contract compliance. Silt curtains were
removed as a required method for achieving State water quality Section 401 compliance.
Blasting mitigations for protection of fish were changed from required to optional. Adaptive
management for production blasting for fish protection is no longer required. These mitigation
measures are relevant to impacts, but will likely not be required by the Corps. However, the
selected contractor will be encouraged to implement these measures where practicable.
Temporary adverse effects that cannot be avoided even when mitigation measures are
implemented will affect air quality, water quality, fisheries, and noise, but these adverse effects
are expected to be less-than-significant with mitigation. Initial air quality emission estimates
showed that the project would exceed the Federal Clean Air Act General Conformity Ruling de
minimis thresholds established for the non-attainment area at the project site for up to five years.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Sacramento Air Quality Management
District (SMAQMD) recommended that the Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision (ROD)
include a clear commitment to project refinements and include a list of control measures with
emission reduction data demonstrating compliance with conformity ruling thresholds. To comply
with the conformity ruling, unprecedented actions and mitigations were utilized for the project,
which reduced NOx emissions substantially. The use of electrical equipment and higher tiered
construction vehicles and marine vessels were included as project requirements. Additional
mitigation measures and mitigation fee payments were incorporated to reduce effects of a
temporary emissions increase to a less-than-significant level. These actions are supported under
Executive Order 13514 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance, October 5, 2009. As a result, estimated mitigated cumulative emissions met
conformity thresholds for most project years in both construction alternatives. NOx emissions
that could not be reduced to conformity threshold were incorporated into the State
Implementation Plan.
Construction activities are likely to cause temporary adverse water quality effects in the
immediate project area due to the increase in turbidity, but compliance with Federal and State
water quality thresholds is expected to retain effects at a less-than-significant level. A potential
permanent net loss of up to 9 acres of open water habitat could result from the project.
Mitigation for loss of open water habitat would be achieved by assisting the Bureau of
Reclamation in creation of 10 acres of riparian wetland at Mississippi Bar. In addition, the Corps
would assist the Reclamation in creation of an additional 2 to 5 acres of riparian wetlands at
Mississippi Bar to compensate for temporary losses of approximately 85 acres of waters of the
ES-9
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
U.S. If Dike 8 is utilized as a disposal area, the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal
wetlands at an approved mitigation bank to compensate for the loss of fish habitat function. Fish
within the immediate project area could incur sublethal or lethal effects due to turbidity, in-water
blasting and excavation activities, but Federal and State listed species are absent from the
vicinity and will not be affected. Mitigation will include blasting precautions, compliance with
turbidity thresholds and the restocking of Folsom Reservoir with rainbow trout as requested by
the California Department of Fish and Game. As a result of these measures, significant effects
are not expected for fish habitat or recreational fishing.
Noise will increase while project construction occurs. Noise during non-exempt hours
will require coordination and permitting from the City of Folsom and affected counties.
Mitigation actions including acoustic shielding, coordination of activities and equipment
placement, and a noise monitoring plan are expected to reduce noise effects to a less than
significant level.
The CEQA environmentally superior alternative and the NEPA environmentally preferred
alternative are Alternative 3 due to a lesser amount of in-water excavation, dredging and blasting
effects and corresponding reduced risk and effects to water quality and fisheries. Alternative 2
was also estimated to produce a lower NOx emissions quantity than Alternative 3 by five tons
over the five year span of the project. Due to considerable variability in estimates versus actual
production of NOx, this relatively small difference could also be reduced to less NOx emissions
than Alternative 3.
ES.7 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS

This document will be adopted as a joint SEIS/EIR and will fully comply with National
Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act requirements. The project
will comply with all Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. In addition, the nonFederal sponsor will comply with all State and local laws and permit requirements.
ES.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement activities associated with the approach channel excavation include
public meetings, Native Tribe and agency meetings, and distribution of the draft SEIS/EIR for
public review and comment.
On October 20, 2011, the Corps and Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB)
staff held a public meeting to present the status of the project and obtain public input. The
meeting was publicized in a Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP), in the
Sacramento Bee, and on the CVFPBs website. The NOI was published in the Federal Register
on September 1, 2011. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 3, 2011 and
mailed to interested parties and residents in proximity to the project area. The purpose of the
meeting was to continue the flow of information on the Folsom Dam Modification Project,
Approach Channel, while gathering additional information and community comments from
ES-10
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
citizens who live, work, and commute near the project area. The public was encouraged to
submit written comments. No comments were received during the meeting.
A list of potentially interested Native Americans was obtained from the California Native
American Heritage Commission in October 2011. Those individuals were contacted on multiple
occasions regarding the public scoping meeting for the project and the overall proposed project.
The Corps met with the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) in
December 2011 to discuss the project and the Tribes interests and concerns. In a letter dated
January 12, 2012, the UAIC concluded they did not have any archaeological concerns for the
project beyond recommendations for the use of native plants and resources in potential
mitigation banking activities. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (SSB) requested
information on the project and to meet with the Corps regarding the project. The Corps provided
project information and background, as requested, and met with representatives of the SSB on
March 16, 2012. The SSB indicated they are interested in activities occurring within the project
area and they requested a site visit. A site visit with SSB was conducted on July 19 2012.
Follow up phone calls and emails to the SSB did not indicate that the SSB had any further
questions or concerns about the project. No other responses from potentially interested Native
Americans have been received. Correspondence related to Section 106 consultation is included
in Appendix J.
Letters in response to the NOP were received from the California Department of Parks
and Recreation (State Parks), Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD), U.S.
Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). No comments were
received from the NOI. The comments are summarized in Section 7.3 and are attached to the
document in Appendix K in the main SEIS/EIR.
The draft SEIS/EIR was circulated for a 45-day review to Federal, State, and local
agencies; organizations; and individuals who have an interest in the project. Public workshops
were held on August 23, 2012 during the review period to provide additional opportunities for
comments on the draft SEIS/EIR. All comments received during the public review period have
been considered and incorporated into the final SEIS/EIR, as appropriate. Public comments and
responses appendix to the draft EIS are included under Section 7.4.
ES.9 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Significant issues identified as areas of controversy by agencies and the public related to
construction of the approach channel and related features are summarized below. These issues
were based on preliminary studies and comments from formal and informal agency meetings,
workshops, public meetings, telephone discourse, letters, and emails.
Preliminary air quality emission calculations indicated that all active construction
alternatives of the approach channel project would result in air emissions that could lead
to violations of applicable State ambient air quality standards and would not comply with
the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Concurrent downstream construction activity would
ES-11
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
contribute additional emissions that would cumulatively fail to meet the general
conformity rule of the CAA. The Corps would not adopt an option to lengthen approach
channel construction schedules to lower annual emissions to meet the CAA due to an
expedited schedule for purposes of public safety.
Preliminary studies identified potential issues with temporary turbidity, mobilization and
reintroduction of existing sediment contaminants into the water column, and
contaminants from blasting or constructions materials.
In 2007, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) expressed concern regarding the
potential for mercury methylation following sediment-disturbing activities and
bioaccumulation in the food chain. USFWS specified the use of specific references to be
used in assessment of freshwater sediment.
Construction is expected to increase noise levels, affecting local recreationists and

adjacent residents, even under circumstances of compliance with the City of Folsom
noise ordinances.
Underwater blasting would result in some fish kill despite use of BMPs, and methods to
attenuate pressure waves. Public comments to the 2007 EIS/EIR identified concerns over
temporary curtailment of recreational activities in the project area. However, Folsom
Point and the Folsom Point launch area will remain open to recreationists.
Recreational experience may be degraded in and adjacent to the project area. Noise,
visual esthetics, and access will be compromised during construction during years 2013
to 2017.
ES.10 PREFERRED PLAN

Based on the results of the technical, economic, and environmental analyses;
coordination with the non-Federal sponsor; and public input, Alternative 2 has been identified as
the preferred plan. Alternative 1 was not selected as the best interest of public safety as it did not
provide for increased flood releases and failed to protect Folsom Dam. Alternative 2 provided an
optimized and reduced schedule risk for project completion compared to Alternative 3, and as
such, provided the highest public safety option. Due to schedule advantages conferred with a
reduced risk construction approach, it was determined that the public interest and safety was
best served by expediently constructing an operable approach channel prior to a high flood
event. Alternative 2 is expected to provide continuous dam safety and public protection while
realizing total project objectives at an earlier date.
ES-12
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table ES-1. Comparative Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation, and Levels of Significance.
Alternative 1 No Action
Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall
Alternative 3 - Cofferdam
Geology and Minerals

Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Hydrology and Hydraulics

Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public Utilities and Services

No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Land Use and Socioeconomics

Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public safety risk associated with construction site

access and the operation of heavy construction
equipment. Public safety risk associated with
blasting.
Less-than-significant with mitigation.
A prepared Public Safety Management Plan and
Blasting Plan will include notifications to the
public, safety measures and BMPs. The public
will be excluded from construction and blasting
affected zones.
Public Health and Safety

Public safety risk associated with construction
site access and the operation of heavy
construction equipment. Public safety risk
associated with blasting.
affected zones.
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes

Effect
Significance
No effect.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
ES-13
Mitigation
Not applicable.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Air Quality
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Not applicable.
Mitigation
Not applicable.
NOx will exceed Federal Clean Air Act, GCR de

minimis threshold. Project exceeds SMAQMD air
quality basin thresholds. Higher emissions of 3
NOx tons per year produced than in Alt. 3.
Less-than-significant with mitigation and inclusion
into State Implementation Plan.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation. To meet
CAA, project will be included in SIP. Higher
tiered and electrical equipment will be used to
lower emissions. State mitigation fee payments for
excess NOx emissions.

minimis threshold. Project exceeds SMAQMD
air quality basin thresholds. Lower emissions of
3 NOx tons per year produced than in Alt. 2.
Less-than-significant with mitigation and
inclusion into State Implementation Plan.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation. To
meet CAA, project will be included in SIP.
Higher tiered and electrical equipment will be
used to lower emissions. State mitigation fee
payments for excess NOx emissions.
Climate Change
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
CO2e emissions would occur during project

construction.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigations and use
of higher tiered and electrical equipment.

construction.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation and use
Water Quality and Jurisdictional Waters

Higher risk of turbidity exceeding CVRWQCB
thresholds than in Alternative 3. Higher risk of
mercury bioaccumulation potential, and chemical,
gas and oil introduction into reservoir during
excavation and blasting than Alt. 3.
Permanent effects to 11.5 acres of waters of the
United States, temporary effects to 88.5 acres of
open water, and creation of 2.5 acres of new open
water habitat through approach channel excavation.
Less-than-significant with mitigation
Mitigations, BMPs, monitoring, and compliance
with CVRWQCB thresholds specified in the
Section 401 certification. To address loss of open
ES-14
Lower risk of turbidity exceeding CVRWQCB

thresholds than in Alternative 2. Risk of mercury
bioaccumulation potential, and chemical, gas and
oil introduction into reservoir.
open water, and creation of 2.5 acres of new
open water habitat through approach channel
excavation.
with CVRWQCB thresholds specified in 401
certification, To address loss of open water, 10
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
water, 10 acres of riparian wetlands at Mississippi

Bar would be created. Credits would be purchased
at a Corps mitigation bank if 2.5 acres of seasonal
wetland is utilized for disposal at Dike 8.
acres of riparian wetlands at Mississippi Bar

would be created. Credits would be purchased at
a Corps mitigation bank if 2.5 acres of seasonal
Fisheries
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Higher risk of sublethal and lethal effects on

individual fish from turbidity and blasting than in
Alternative 3. Risk for effects from chemical, oil
and gas habitat contamination. Potential of physical
crushing.
Mitigations, monitoring, BMPs, compliance with
state water quality certification. Fish would be
restocked in Folsom Reservoir for recreational
fishing.
Lower risk of sublethal and lethal effects on

individual fish from turbidity and blasting than
and gas habitat contamination. Potential of
physical crushing.
Mitigations, monitoring, BMPs, compliance with
state water certification. Rainbow trout would be
fishing.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Effect
No effect.
Permanent modification of shoreline from

approach channel and spur dike. Permanent
change in landscape at proposed disposal areas.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Less-than-significant.
Disposal areas would be recontoured to maintain
visual consistency and revegetated with native
grasses.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Not applicable.
Temporary closure of the lake from Dike 7 or 8 to

Folsom Overlook. Temporary closure of the
Folsom Lake Crossing bike trail during scheduled
blasts.

Temporary visual effect of cofferdam
surrounding the approach channel area within
Folsom Lake.
grasses.
Recreation
ES-15
Temporary closure of the lake from Dike 7 or 8

to Folsom Overlook. Temporary closure of the
Folsom Lake Crossing bike trail during
scheduled blasts.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Public outreach would ensure awareness of all

closures. The majority of the FLSRA would
remain unaffected.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Increased traffic on public road ways. Temporary

closure of Folsom Lake Crossing during blasting.
Public outreach would ensure awareness of road
closures. Schedule blasting activities during offpeak traffic hours.
Effect
No effect.
Construction activities during non-exempt (night)

hours could violate the local noise ordinance, if
construction equipment (batch plant, rock crushers)
are operated simultaneously at impactful areas
(Dike 7).
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

Avoid overlap of construction activities during
non-exempt time periods. Compliance with City of
Folsom permits. Maintain equipment in best
working condition. Use acoustic shielding.
Monitor noise during non-exempt periods and
reduce as noise as needed.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
If archeological deposits are found during
construction, work would be discontinued pursuant
to 36 CFR 800.13(b), Discoveries without Prior
remain unaffected.
Traffic and Circulation

Noise
Construction activities during non-exempt
(night) hours could violate the local noise
ordinance, if semi-permanent construction
equipment (batch plant, rock crushers) are
operated simultaneously at impactful areas (Dike
7).
non-exempt time periods. Compliance with City
of Folsom permits. Maintain equipment in best
reduce noise as needed.
Cultural Resources
ES-16
No effect.
Not applicable.
construction, work would be discontinued
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b), Discoveries
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Planning, to determine the significance and, if
necessary, complete appropriate discovery
procedures.
without Prior Planning, to determine the
significance and, if necessary, complete
appropriate discovery procedures.
Topography and Soils

Effect
No effect.
Permanent change in the shoreline topography.

Temporary disturbance to soils during
construction.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.
Potential permanent loss of 15.8 acres of habitat

and up to 30 trees with use of Dike 8 disposal site.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

Recommendations proposed by USFWS. Site
restoration, planting of trees, and mitigation bank
credits.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Potential permanent loss of up to 4 elderberry

shrubs at Dike 8; if present, disturbance to whitetailed kites.
Planting elderberry shrubs at an existing Corps
mitigation site in the American River Parkway.
Conduct surveys for kites and if necessary
implement CDFG recommendations.

Temporary change in topography due to the
cofferdam. Temporary disturbance to soils
during construction.
Not applicable.
Vegetation and Wildlife

and up to 30 trees with use of Dike 8 disposal
site.
credits.
Special Status Species
ES-17

SEIS/EIR
December 2012
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... ES-1
ES.1 PURPOSE OF THE SEIS/EIR ..................................................................... ES-1
ES.2 PROJECT AREA........................................................................................ ES-1
ES.3 BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................... ES-2
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................... ES-6
ES.4.1 Alternative 1 No Action ................................................................. ES-7
ES.4.2 Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall ............................................................... ES-7
ES.4.3 Alternative 3 Cofferdam ................................................................. ES-8
ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION .................................... ES-8
ES.7 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS ..... ES-10
ES.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................ ES-10
ES.9 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ................................................................... ES-11
ES.10 PREFERRED PLAN ............................................................................... ES-12
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 AUTHORIZATION ............................................................................................ 2
1.3 PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................... 6
1.5 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ...................................................................................... 6
1.6 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................................................. 7
1.7 REPORT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION ....................................................... 8
2.0 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 10
2.1 ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION AND SCREENING ...................................... 10
2.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .......................................... 11
2.2.1 Approach Channel Excavation Dry Excavation with Large
Cofferdam ............................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 Approach Channel Excavation Wet and Dry Excavation with
Cutoff Wall and Small Cofferdam........................................................... 12
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION ..................................................................... 12
2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - APPROACH CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION WITH
CUTOFF WALL ............................................................................................. 13
2.4.1 Cutoff Wall Construction......................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Approach Channel Excavation ................................................................ 13
i
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.4.3 Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction ........................................... 20

2.4.4 Transload Facility Construction ................................................................ 22
2.4.5 Batch Plant Operations ............................................................................ 23
2.4.6 Construction Details................................................................................. 25
COFFERDAM ................................................................................................ 30
2.5.1 Cofferdam............................................................................................... 30
2.5.2 Approach Channel Excavation .................................................................. 31
2.5.3 Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction ........................................... 32
2.5.4 Transload Facility Construction ................................................................ 32
2.5.5 Batch Plant Operations ............................................................................. 32
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 36
3.1 RESOURCES NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL .................................................. 36
3.1.1 Geology and Seismicity ........................................................................... 36
3.1.2 Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 38
3.1.3 Hydrology and Hydraulics ....................................................................... 39
3.1.4 Public Utilities and Services..................................................................... 41
3.1.5 Land Use and Socioeconomics ................................................................. 43
3.1.6 Public Health and Safety ......................................................................... 45
3.1.7 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes .............................................. 46
3.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................. 47
3.2.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 48
3.2.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................. 53
3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................ 56
3.4 WATER QUALITY .......................................................................................... 60
3.5 FISHERIES ...................................................................................................... 74
3.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................... 82
3.7 RECREATION ................................................................................................. 89
3.7.1 Regulatory Background ........................................................................... 89
ii
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

3.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ....................................................................... 95
3.9 NOISE ........................................................................................................... 102
3.9.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................ 102
3.9.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................... 103
3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 108
3.10.1 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. 108
3.10.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 109
3.11 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS ........................................................................ 113
3.12 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ................................................................... 115
3.13 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................ 118
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 123
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 123
4.2 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................... 124
4.2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 124
4.2.2 Basis of Significance ............................................................................. 126
4.2.3 Alternative 1 No Action ...................................................................... 129
4.2.4 Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall .................................................................... 129
4.2.5 Alternative 3 Cofferdam ..................................................................... 134
4.2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives .............................................................. 138
4.2.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 139
4.3 CLIMATE CHANGE ...................................................................................... 144
4.3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 144
4.3.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall .................................................................... 146
4.3.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 147
4.4 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................ 148
iii
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 149

4.4.3 Alternative 1 - No Action ...................................................................... 155
4.4.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall Alternative ................................................... 155
4.4.5 Alternative 3 - Cofferdam ...................................................................... 163
4.4.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 165
FISHERIES .................................................................................................... 170
4.5.1 Methodology ......................................................................................... 170
4.5.2 Basis of Significance .............................................................................. 171
4.5.4 Alternative 2 Cutoff wall .................................................................... 172
4.5.5 Alternative 3 - Cofferdam ....................................................................... 186
4.5.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................. 187
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................... 190
4.6.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 190
4.6.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 195
RECREATION ............................................................................................... 195
4.7.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 195
4.7.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff wall ..................................................................... 196
4.7.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 199
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ..................................................................... 200
4.8.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 200
4.8.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 209
NOISE ........................................................................................................... 209
4.9.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 209
iv
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

4.9.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 234
CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 235
4.10.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 235
4.10.2 Basis of Significance ........................................................................... 235
4.10.3 Alternative 1 - No Action ..................................................................... 236
4.10.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall .................................................................. 236
4.10.5 Alternative 3 Cofferdam.................................................................... 237
4.10.6 Mitigation .......................................................................................... 238
TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS ........................................................................ 238
4.11.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 238
4.11.3 Alternative 1 No Action .................................................................... 239
4.11.4 Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall .................................................................. 239
4.11.5 Alternative 3- Cofferdam ..................................................................... 240
4.11.6 Mitigation .......................................................................................... 240
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ................................................................... 240
4.12.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 240
4.12.6 Mitigation .......................................................................................... 243
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................ 245
4.13.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 245
4.13.6 Mitigation .......................................................................................... 247
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ......................................................... 249
RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY ......................................................................................... 249
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES ................................................................................................... 250
COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................. 250
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 256
v
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
5.0 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS ...................................... 259

5.1 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 259
5.2 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE ................................................................................... 259
5.3 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE
PROJECTS ................................................................................................... 260
5.3.1 Folsom Joint Federal Project Activities ................................................... 260
5.3.2 Other Local Projects.............................................................................. 261
5.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................................................................. 263
5.4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 263
5.4.2 Climate Change .................................................................................... 267
5.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................... 268
5.4.4 Fisheries .............................................................................................. 268
5.4.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ............................................................ 268
5.4.6 Recreation ............................................................................................ 269
5.4.7 Traffic and Circulation .......................................................................... 269
5.4.9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 271
5.4.10 Topography and Soils .......................................................................... 271
5.4.11 Vegetation and Wildlife ....................................................................... 271
5.4.12 Special Status Species ......................................................................... 272
5.5 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS ................................................................... 275
6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS .............. 276
6.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES ...................................... 276
6.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES ............... 280
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................... 282
7.1 AGENCY COORDINATION........................................................................... 282
7.2 PUBLIC INTEREST ....................................................................................... 282
7.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOI/NOP .................................................................... 283
7.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR ..................... 284
7.5 INTENDED USES OF THE SEIS/EIR .............................................................. 285
7.6 DOCUMENT RECIPIENTS ............................................................................ 285
7.6.1 Elected Officials and Representatives ..................................................... 285
7.6.2 Government Departments and Agencies .................................................. 286
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................... 288
9.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 290
vi
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
9.1 PRINTED SOURCES ...................................................................................... 290

9.2 PERSONAL CONTACTS ............................................................................... 302
10.0 INDEX................................................................................................................. 303
vii
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
FIGURES
Figure ES-1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure ES-2 Project Area Map
Figure ES-3 Construction Footprints of Alternatives 2 and 3
Figure ES-4 Aerial View of Project Area and Folsom Dam
Figure 1 Folsom JFP Phase Timeline
Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Cutoff Wall Cross Section
Figure 4 Comparison of Alternatives
Figure 5 Spur Dike
Figure 6 Geologic Setting
Figure 7 Total Mercury in Project Area Sediment Samples (2006, 2008, and 2011)
Figure 8 Relationship Between Hydraulic Mining in Sierra Nevada Watersheds and Mercury
Concentration in Aquatic Organisms
Figure 9 Conceptual Model for Mercury Bioaccumulation in Project Area
Figure 10 Aerial View of Project Area and Folsom Dam
Figure 11 Aerial View of Shoreline at Approach Channel and Folsom Overlook
Figure 12 View of Shoreline, Looking South from Proposed Approach Channel
Figure 13 Bathtub Ring Effect, Looking South from Proposed Approach Channel
Figure 14 View of Haul Road
Figure 15 View of MIAD Disposal Area from East Natoma Street
Figure 16 Southward View from MIAD of Green Valley Road and Residential Areas
Figure 17 Recreation Safety Boundary
Figure 18 Project Transportation Routes
Figure 19 Alternative 2 Noise Level Contours
Figure 20 Alternative 3 Noise Level Contours
PLATES
Plate 1 Project Area Map
Plate 2 Rendering of the Future Project
Plate 3 Watershed Map
Plate 4 Timeline of JFP Construction Activities
Plate 5 Haul Routes and Staging Areas
Plate 6 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Plate 7 Habitat Map
viii
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
TABLES
Table ES-1 Comparative Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation, and Levels of
Significance.
Table 1 Approach Channel Excavation Estimates Alternative Comparison
Table 2 Batch Plant Stockpile Requirements
Table 3 Alternative 2 Proposed Construction Activities by Year
Table 4 Proposed Disposal Sites and Capacity
Table 5 Alternative 3 Proposed Construction Activities by Year
Table 6 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table 7 Summary of Air Pollutants of Concern for the Project
Table 8 Summary of Relevant California GHG Regulations
Table 9 Water Quality Parameters (2001-2005)
Table 10 Approach Channel Sediment Quality Samples
Table 11 Regulatory Criteria for Roadways and Intersections
Table 12 Roadway Functional Classification Thresholds
Table 13 Roadway Segments
Table 14 City of Folsom Noise Ordinance
Table 15 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (dBA)Table 16
Existing Noise Levels
Table 17 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area
Table 18 General Conformity de Minimis Thresholds
Table 19 SMAQMD Ambient Concentration Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants
Table 20 Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA
Table 21 Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA
Table 22 Mitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA
Table 23 Mitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA
Table 24 Alternative 2 Construction NOx Mitigation Fee Calculation for CEQA
Table 25 Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA
Table 26 Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA
Table 27 Mitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA
Table 28 Mitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA
Table 29 Alternative 3 Construction NOx Mitigation Fee Calculation for CEQA
Table 30 Comparison of Mitigated Alternative 2 and 3 Total Emissions
Table 31 Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual GHG Emissions Summary
Table 32 Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual GHG Emissions Summary
Table 33 Summary of Potentially Significant Water Quality Effects
Table 34 Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Fish Tissue Mercury Criteria
Table 35 Summary of Beneficial Uses and Associated Basis of Significance
Table 36 Thresholds for Metal and Arsenic
Table 37 Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Sediments
Table 38 Alternative 2 Fill of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Table 39 Alternative 3 Fill of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Table 40 Summary and Comparison of Fisheries Effects and Significance
Table 41 Comparison of Aesthetics Effects and Significance
ix
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 42 Existing and Baseline LOS Results

Table 43 Alternative 2 Project Daily Trip Generations
Table 44 Distribution of Labor Force
Table 45 Alternative 3 Project Daily Trip Generations
Table 46 Alternative 2 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Levels
Table 47 Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet
Table 48 Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations
with Drill and Blast and Dredging In-the-Wet
Table 49 Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Construction
with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction
Table 51 Alternative 3 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Levels
Table 52 Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Fill Cells Activities
with Drill and Blast and Dredging In-the-Wet
Table 54 Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Construction
with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction
Table 56 Summary of Estimated Vegetation Effects at Dike 8 Disposal Area
Table 57 Trees Potentially Affected at the Dike 8 Disposal Area
Table 58 Dike 8 Disposal Area Elderberry Shrub Data
Table 59 Comparative Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation, and Levels of
Significance
Table 60 Combined JFP Cumulative Unmitigated Emission Summary for NEPA
Table 61 Combined JFP Cumulative Mitigated Emission Summary for NEPA
Table 62 Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects and Mitigation
APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality Technical Analysis
Appendix B SMAQMD Conformity Determination
Appendix C Water Quality Technical Analysis
Appendix D 404(b)(1) Analysis
Appendix E Corps Memorandum Peak Underwater Blast Pressure
Appendix F Preliminary Dredging Feasibility Memorandum
Appendix G Traffic Technical Analysis
Appendix H Noise Technical Analysis
Appendix I Cultural Resource Correspondence
Appendix J USFWS Coordination Act Report
Appendix K Special Status Species Coordination
Appendix L Public Involvement
x
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

1990
AB
ADA
ANFO
AQMD
APCD
APE
ATCM
Basin Plan
BMPs
Bio-x
BNoise2
CadnaA
C
CAA
CAAQS
Caltrans
CARB
CASQ
CCAA
CCAO
CCR
CDFG
CEQ
CEQA
cfs
CFR
CFS
CH4
CO
CO2
CO2e
CNEL
Corps
CSUS
CTR
CVP
CVFPB
CVRWQCB
Construction
CWA
cy
dB
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

assembly bill
Americans with Disabilities Act
ammonium nitrate fuel oil
air quality management district
air pollution control district
area of potential effects
airborne toxic control measure
CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and
San Joaquin River Basins
best management practices
biological measurement site x (x = site number)
Blast Noise model
Computer-Aided Noise Abatement model
degrees Celsius
Clean Air Act
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
California Stormwater Quality Association
California Clean Air Act
Central California Area Office
California Code of Regulations
California Department of Fish and Game
White House Council on Environmental Quality
California Environmental Quality Act
cubic feet per second
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
Community Noise Equivalent Level
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
California State University Sacramento
California Toxics Rule
Central Valley Project
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
State General Permit for Storm Water
Federal Clean Water Act
cubic yards
decibels
xi
dBA
DO
DPM
EA/EIR
EA/IS
EIS/EIR
EO
ERL
ERM
ESA
FEIS/EIR
FLSRA
Folsom Facility
FWCA
GHG
JFP
HAP
HFC
HFE
hp
HTRW
kV
kPa
L10
L50
L90
LACMTA
lbs/day
lbs/hr
g/m3
Leq
LT-x
M
mg/kg
ml/l
MCL
MIAD
MMRP
MR-x
msl
MY
ng/kg
N/A
N2O
NAAQS
NEPA
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
A-weighted decibels
dissolved oxygen
diesel particulate matter
Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
executive order
effect range-low
effect range-medium
Environmental Site Assessment
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area
Folsom Dam and its associated facilities
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
greenhouse gas
Joint Federal Project
hazardous air pollutant
hydrofluorocarbon
hydrofluorinated ether
horsepower
hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste
kilovolt
One thousand Pascals (newtons per square meter)
10 percent sound levels (short-term events)
50 percent sound levels (median levels)
90 percent sound levels (background noise)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
pounds per day
pounds per hour
micrograms per cubic meter
equivalent sound level
long term measurement site x (x = site number)
magnitude
milligram per kilogram
milliliters per liter
maximum containment level
Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting plan
modeled receptor x (x = site number)
mean sea level
model year
nanogram per kilogram
not applicable
nitrous oxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
xii
NF3
NMFS
NOA
NOI
NO2
NOx
NRC
NRCS
NRHP
NTU
O3
OAL
Pa
Pb
PEC
PFC
PG&E
PM
PM10
PM2.5
PMF
psi
RMP
RWQCB
ROD
ROG
SAFCA
SCS
SDWA
SEL
SF6
SHPO
SIP
SIR
SMAQMD
SMUD
SO2
SPCC
SQG
SSB
State Parks
ST-x
SVAB
SWAMP
SWPPP
SWRCB
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
nitrogen trifluride
National Marine Fisheries Service
naturally-occurring asbestos
notice of intent
nitrous oxides
nitrogen oxides
National Response Center
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
ozone
Office of Administrative Law
Pascal (newton per square meter)
lead
probable effect concentration
perfluorocarbon
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
particulate matter
particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
probable maximum flood
pounds per square inch
FLSRA General Plan and Resource Management Plan
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Record of Decision
reactive organic gases
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
sustainable communities strategies
Safe Water Drinking Act
sound exposure level
sulfur hexafluoride
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Implementation Plan
Supplemental Information Report
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District
sulfur dioxide
spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
Sediment Quality Guideline
Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
California Department of Parks and Recreation
short term measurement site x (x = site number)
Sacramento Valley Air Basin
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
xiii
SWTR
TAC
TEC
TDS
TOC
TSS
Tons/yr
UAIC
ULSD
USBR
USEPA
USFWS
VELB
WAPA
WRDA
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Surface water treatment rule

toxic air contaminants
threshold effect concentration
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
tons per year
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria
ultra-low sulfur diesel
United States Bureau of Reclamation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Western Area Power Administration
Water Resources Development Act
xiv
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Folsom Dam Modification Project, also referred to as the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood
Damage Reduction Project or the Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom JFP), is a cooperative
effort between the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), the State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board
(CVFPB), and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). The purpose of the
Folsom JFP is to implement dam safety and security features along with flood damage reduction
features at Folsom Dam and its associated facilities. An auxiliary spillway adjacent to Folsom
Dam was selected as the plan to meet USBRs dam safety risk reduction objective and the Corps
flood damage reduction objective as part of the objectives of the Folsom JFP. The proposed
alternatives, potential environmental effects, and proposed mitigation associated with the Folsom
Modification Project was assessed in the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR), issued in
March 2007 (USBR 2007a). The Corps was a cooperating agency for the preparation of the
2007 FEIS/EIR and adopted the finding of the 2007 FEIS/EIR in a joint record of decision
(ROD) that was issued in May 2007.
This EIS/EIR has been prepared as a supplement to the 2007 FEIS/EIR and is thus
referred to as a supplemental EIS (SEIS/EIR). The Corps and the CVFPB are the lead agencies
in preparing this SEIS/EIR for the purposes of compliance with NEPA and CEQA, respectively.
This document analyzes alternatives for excavation alternatives for the approach channel and
other auxiliary spillway features upstream of the gated control structure. The 2007 FEIS/EIR
conducted a programmatic or general analysis of proposed design features available at that time.
However, new designs and refinements went beyond the scope of the 2007 FEIS/EIR analysis,
necessitating additional analysis and documentation. The 2007 Final EIS/EIR stated that the
design of the spillway approach channel would be determined in the Corps pre-construction,
engineering, and design phase and if needed, supplemental NEPA/CEQA documentation would
be prepared.
The implementing regulations of the NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.9(c) provide that a lead
Federal agency must prepare a supplemental draft EIS if: (i) the agency makes substantial
changes in the proposed action that are relevant to the environmental concerns, or (ii) there are
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed action or its impacts. Thus, to incorporate new information and consider
alternatives for construction of the approach channel, the Corps determined that a supplemental
EIS was required.
Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies when a lead agency should prepare a
supplement to an EIR. The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to
an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR; and
Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
Thus, to incorporate new information and consider alternatives for construction of the
approach channel, the CVFPB determined that a supplemental EIR was required.
In 2007, the Corps completed the Post Authorization Change Report (PACR) for the
Folsom Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise Projects. The PACR summarizes the history of
flood management studies and actions in the American River basin (Corps 2007). The refined
Folsom JFP, as described in the PACR and USBRs FEIS/EIR was later authorized under the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007. Construction of the Folsom JFP was
initiated by USBR in fall 2007, with USBR acting as the lead agency during construction for the
first two phases of construction. USBR completed excavation of the spilling basin and spillway
in 2011. The Folsom JFP auxiliary spillway is being constructed by both the Corps and USBR in
five construction phases plus a commissioning and transfer phase. The expected completion of
the project is October 2017. A timeline of the five phases of the Folsom JFP are shown on
Figure 1 below. An aerial photo of the project area is shown as Figure 9 in Section 3.6.2,
Aesthetics and Visual Resources.
The Corps conducted preliminary analysis of the approach channel excavation in 2009.
This analysis considered alternatives to conduct excavation in the dry, for seasons in which
Folsom Reservoir had low water levels. The environmental effects of these alternatives were
evaluated in the August 2009 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Environmental
Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS), Early Approach Channel Excavation. While this analysis was
completed, no early excavation work has been completed to date due to high reservoir levels.
As construction of the Folsom JFP progresses, the Corps is now analyzing alternative
plans for the excavation of the approach channel during fluctuating lake levels. A detailed
project description describing these alternatives is included in Chapter 2 of this document. The
project area, including all proposed features of the alternatives, is shown on Plate 1. A rendering
of the future project as proposed is shown on Plate 2.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION
The Folsom Dam Modifications Project was authorized by Section 101(a)(6) of the
WRDA 1999 (1111 Stat. 274). Further authorization and guidance for the collaboration between
the Corps and the USBR under the Folsom JFP was provided by the Energy and Water
Development and Appropriations Act of 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), as follows:
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,
2
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
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.
Formal authorization for the Folsom JFP was included in Section 3029(b) of WRDA
2007, as follows:
(b) JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT AT FOLSOM DAM.
(1) IN GENERAL.The project for flood control, American and Sacramento
Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(6)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274) and modified by section 128 of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary spillway generally
in accordance with the Post Authorization Change Report, American River
Watershed Project (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise
Projects)
1.3 PROJECT AREA

The project area is located in the city of Folsom at Folsom Dam, approximately 20 miles
northeast of Sacramento. Folsom Dam and Reservoir are located downstream from the
confluence of the north and south forks of the American River, and extend into Sacramento,
Placer and El Dorado counties. Plate 3 illustrates the project area within the Sacramento River
Watershed, and Figure 2 shows the Folsom Dam and Reservoir area.
The new auxiliary spillway is located on the left abutment of the main dam, immediately
downstream of the left wing dam. Current access to the site is via Folsom Lake Crossing to an
overlook site at approximately 480 feet in elevation. The approach channel for the auxiliary
spillway is expected to extend approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control
structure. The invert of the approach channel will be at elevation 362.34 feet (NAVD 88 datum).
For the purposes of this document, the project area consists of the ongoing auxiliary
spillway construction area; the footprint of the approach channel, as described above; the
existing project haul routes; the existing project staging areas at the Folsom Overlook and
Folsom Prison sites; proposed new disposal sites at Dike 8 and in-reservoir; and the existing
project disposal areas at MIAD and Dike 7. The project area can be seen on the map in Plate 1.
JFP Construction Timeline
Phase 4
Construction
July 2013 - Oct. 2017
Phase 2
Construction
Phase 1
Construction
Jan. 2008 - Sep. 2008
Oct. 2008 - Dec. 2010
Phase 5
Construction
Spillway excavation, slilmg basin construction,
Phase 3
Construction
Wll& pip8IN Allocation
Oct. 2016 - Oct. 2017
Nov. 20 10 - Mar. 2015
Haul and
road chute
Control Structure Construction: excavation,

concrete wor1<, bulkheads, gates, tainter gates
Jan. 2008
Jan.2009
Jan.2010
Jan. 2011
Jan. 201 2
Jan. 2013
Jan. 201 4
Jan.2015
Jan.2016
Jan. 2017
2017
Site
restoration
Upstream Construction
July
2013
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Figure 1 - JFP Construction Timeline
Saetamot!IIO Oir.tr'ICC
Jan . 2014
Jan. 2015
Jan. 2016
Jan. 2017
Oct. 20 17

December 2012
D,
IT"1...__j r.t iles

0
5
10 Wollows
Rei),.O
vord~ r:i
Gle-nn
Sparl<s I
..._,.
Brownsville
Sacramento
'""'1fo<d
V a I
y Gtidl~
Trude:~
Lonu. Rtea
(\
, .. "q
livcOa.lc:
I.ct, .....
';"';,';
..
'"!"-
da"on
NGw W.uho<t City
Do
Carson City
Altl) Sierra
Yulia
Beale AfB
Johnson UIJ)e
Zephyr Cove
Whe-atland
Ol'tOiauon
'-'1'11demess Sout h lake Tahoe
ako
Uy....
R""'J'!
Hiddtn
alloy lake
Pollock Pin~
Woodla nd
Rio Undo
Citrus
.JHeights
Kt Carson
Project Area
Angwin
Davis
St MG:Ion.1
R_,ncho
Mufietol
Parkway
G!)
Napa
PlytrJ~Ih
@!)
Vountvlllt?
Sonoma
f(ybu rt
lone
Vacaville
Rilil RODd Flat
Jackson
r-Project Area
~It
~ Nevada
S.:.n Andreas
R~ncho
Cataver~
l odi
Angel ~ Camp
linde-n
Ml
Vi[
0]
Tuotumnll
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Figure 2 - Project Vicinity Map

Decmeber 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom facility do not have sufficient discharge
capacity for managing the predicted probable maximum flood (PMF) and lesser flood event
inflows above a 100-year event (an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year).
Structural modifications associated with the Folsom JFP are proposed to address increasing
discharge capability and/or increasing storage during extreme flood events above the 200-year
event level. The new auxiliary spillway is a major feature that will address the need to safely
pass part or the entire PMF event. A hydraulic analysis was completed for the new auxiliary
spillway and is included in the PACR (Corps 2007).
The approach channel and its related features, as evaluated in this SEIS/EIR, are
necessary functional features of the auxiliary spillway. Without the completion of these features,
the auxiliary spillway would not be completed and the Folsom facility would remain unable to
pass the PMF and provide a higher level of flood damage reduction. As a result, the 200-year
level of protection would not be accomplished, and the Sacramento area would remain at risk for
a more frequently occurring potential flood event.
1.5 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Significant issues identified by agencies and the public related to construction of the
approach channel and related features are summarized below. These issues are based upon
preliminary studies and comments from formal and informal agency meetings, workshops,
public meetings, telephone discourse, letters, and emails.
Preliminary air quality emissions calculations indicated that approach channel

construction would result in air emissions that could lead to violations of applicable state
ambient air quality standards and not comply with the Federal Clean Air Act.
Preliminary studies identified potential issues with temporary turbidity, mobilization of

existing sediment contaminants and reintroduction into the water column, and
contaminants from blasting or constructions materials.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2007 expressed concern regarding potential
for mercury methylation following sediment disturbing activities and bioaccumulation in
the food chain. USFWS requested the use of specific references to provide appropriate
assessment guidelines for freshwater sediment.
Construction is expected to increase noise levels, affecting local recreationists and

adjacent residents, even under circumstances of compliance with the City of Folsom
noise ordinances.
Underwater blasting would result in some fish mortality despite use of best management
practices (BMPs), and methods to attenuate pressure waves.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Public comments to the 2007 EIS/EIR identified concerns over temporary curtailment of
recreational activities in the project area; Folsom Point and the Folsom Point launch area,
however, will remain open to recreationists.
Degradation of recreational experience in and adjacent to the project area. Noise, visual
esthetics, and access will be compromised during construction during years 2013 to 2017.
1.6 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

There have been numerous planning and environmental documents completed related to
flood management studies and actions in the American River Basin. The documents most
pertinent to the approach channel study are listed below and are available upon request from the
Corps.
2007 Post Authorization Change Report, American River Watershed Project
The purpose of the 2007 PACR was to document and recommend changes to two
authorized projects: the Folsom Dam Modification Project and the Folsom Dam Raise Project.
The PACR resulted in new authorization in WRDA 2007 for the refined Folsom JFP, as
described in this report. The PACR is pertinent to this SEIS/EIR because it is the planning study
associated with this document, and contains the primary alternatives analysis for the overall JFP.
This SEIS/EIR analyzes design refinements associated with those original alternatives for the
auxiliary spillway.
2007 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction FEIS/EIR
The 2007 FEIS/EIR was prepared by USBR and contains the initial analysis of
environmental effects and potential mitigation associated with the overall Folsom JFP. This
SEIS/EIR is supplemental to the 2007 FEIS/EIR and addresses design refinements associated
with the alternatives originally analyzed in the 2007 FEIS/EIR.
2009 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EA/IS, Early Approach
Channel Excavation
The 2009 EA/IS was supplemental to the 2007 FEIS/EIR and analyzed preliminary
alternatives for possible early excavation of the approach channel in dry winter seasons when the
reservoir levels remain low. The environmental effects analyzed in this document assumed all
excavation would occur in the dry. Additionally, this EA/IS addressed construction of the spur
dike in the dry.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2010 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EA/EIR, Control Structure,
Chute, and Stilling Basin
The 2010 EA/EIR was supplemental to the 2007 FEIS/EIR and analyzed design
refinements for the auxiliary spillways chute, stilling basin, and construction of the control
structure. In addition, exploratory borings for the cofferdam were analyzed under this EA/EIR.
The construction associated with this study is ongoing in the project area, and implementation of
this project is considered part of the existing condition for the approach channel analysis in this
SEIS/EIR.
2012 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project EA/EIR, Prison
Staging Area and Stilling Basin Drain
The 2012 EA/EIR was supplemental to the 2007 FEIS/EIR and analyzed design
refinements to use Folsom State Prison land as a staging area and to construct a drain at the
stilling basin. The actions proposed to implement these design refinements include: (1) preparing
the Folsom State Prison land for staging and operation of a concrete batch plant by relocating the
prison fence, grading the land, and widening the sites driveway access; (2) installing a
temporary traffic signal on Folsom Lake Crossing Road; (3) widening an existing dirt access
road; and (4) constructing a drain at the stilling basin.
1.7 REPORT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION

This SEIS/EIR has been organized to present information regarding alternative plans and
potential effects. It is intended to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for evaluating and disclosing
potential effects on the environment and recommended mitigation measures related to the
proposed action, and alternatives, prior to making a decision on proceeding with construction.
Specifically this document evaluates alternatives for proposed construction of the approach
channel to the auxiliary spillway to support a NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and CEQA
Notice of Determination (NOD).
Although NEPA and CEQA generally have similar requirements, there are some
differences in regards to terminology, procedures, environmental document content, and
substantive mandates to protect the environment. In instances where NEPA and CEQA differ,
the more rigorous of the two laws was applied. In instances where CEQA has additional
requirements not specifically included in NEPA, the CEQA requirements have been added; for
example, growth inducing impacts.
The SEIS/EIR is organized into eight sections. Section 1 introduces the project, and
Section 2 describes the project alternatives. Sections 3 and 4 present the existing and future
environmental resources and conditions in the project area, and evaluate the potential effects of
the alternative plans on those resources. Section 5 describes the cumulative effects of the project
combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area.
Chapter 6 provides a summary of activities being conducted to comply with Federal and State
8
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
laws, regulations, and policies. Chapter 7 describes public involvement activities, while
Chapters 8 through 10 identify the preparers, references, and index, respectively.
The report also includes tables, figures, plates, and appendices. The figures are included
within the text while plates are located after the main report. The tables provide specific
information and summarize main points in the text. The plates show current conditions, and
provide a visual layout of the plans. The appendices provide detailed analyses, correspondence,
and other information used to evaluate and compare the alternative plans.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section addresses alternative formulation, alternatives that were not considered, and
the three final alternatives selected for assessment, including the preferred alternative. The three
alternatives assessed for the approach channel project include Alternative 1, which addresses a
no action alternative; Alternative 2 that includes the use of a cutoff wall during excavation, and
Alternative 3, which includes the use of a cofferdam during excavation.
The approach channel project is the final construction activity of Phase 4 of the Folsom
Dam Modification Project. The primary and permanent structures proposed in both Alternative 2
and 3, consist of the 1,100 foot long excavated approach channel and a spur dike (Plate 2). A
transload facility and concrete batch plant would be constructed as temporary structures to
facilitate the construction. Additional existing sites and facilities that would be utilized for the
length of the project include the Folsom Prison staging area, the existing Folsom Overlook, the
MIAD area, Dike 7, and Dike 8. These sites and facilities are connected by an internal project
haul road.
The two construction alternatives would engage similar designs and processes, but as
mentioned, the primary feature that differentiates Alternative 2 from Alternative 3 is the
construction of a concrete secant pile cutoff wall to provide seepage control during approach
channel excavation in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would utilize a cofferdam to provide dry
conditions for approach channel excavation. The juxtaposition of the two alternative structures
is found in Figure 4.
2.1 ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION AND SCREENING

Documentation of the plan formulation process associated with the overall Folsom Dam
Modification Project can be found in the Corps 2007 Post Authorization Change Report for the
American River Watershed Project, Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise.
Concurrent with the Post Authorization document, USBR prepared the 2007 EIS/EIR, a
programmatic document to which this supplemental EIS/EIR is tiered (USBR 2007a). The 2007
FEIS/EIR contains the overarching assessment of this multi-phased project, with each
supplemental NEPA/CEQA document focusing on the design refinements of project elements.
For this reason, alternatives to the entirety of the Folsom JFP are not considered in this
supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. Alternatives for the auxiliary spillway components, the
control structure, chute, and stilling basin are also not considered in the approach channel
assessment phase as they have been addressed in the 2010 EA/EIR (Corps 2010). The approach
channel project was identified under the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a), which acted as a
programmatic assessment for the JFP project. Specific approach channel design assessment was
intended for later NEPA and CEQA analyses that are conducted within this SEIS/EIR.
Objectives and constraints for the approach channel project were previously identified
under several comprehensive engineering, cost, and environmental analyses including
preliminary alternative feasibility studies (URS 2008a; URS 2008b; URS 2009; URS 2010).
These studies evaluated in detail the project design limitations, safety and risk considerations,
10
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
and optimized construction paths and schedules for the approach channel and related structures,
including a spur dike and transload facility. Manipulation of water levels in order to conduct
construction in the dry has been considered, but currently is not considered a viable option due to
prescribed water uses, pre-determined releases, and existing water rights.
Three potential design alternatives were delineated from the feasibility studies for
additional assessment due to engineering, environmental and cost considerations. The three
design alternatives included the optimal assessments of a small cofferdam, large cofferdam, and
wet construction design without a cofferdam. Assessment of construction safety, and scheduling
to optimize total construction time were deciding factors during additional evaluation of
alternatives. Opportunity for construction of a cutoff wall was further assessed for engineering
feasibility and time savings (URS 2011), and this structure was incorporated into Alternative 2.
Finally, a preferred alternative, Alternative 2, was identified based upon criteria including
engineering and economic feasibility, environmental effects and safety risk. Criteria that were
used to evaluate measures and alternatives are described in detail in Corps contracted
engineering feasibility studies for the Folsom Dam JFP (URS 2008; URS 2009; URS 2010; URS
2011). Completion of the approach channel project in the shortest time frame was considered a
priority due to the inability of the current Folsom Dam spillway to accommodate potential high
flood flows. Compliance with this overriding safety issue was achieved by selection of
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative that provided the greatest design efficiency and lower
risk for construction delay.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The following alternatives were considered but not carried forward based on failure to
meet engineering infeasibility and safety risk criteria discussed above. These alternatives
include a large cofferdam alternative and a combined cofferdam and cutoff wall alternative,
which are discussed below.
2.2.1 Approach Channel Excavation Dry Excavation with Large Cofferdam
The large cofferdam proposal consisted of the construction of a large cofferdam at the
upstream end of the approach channel to allow the approach channel to be excavated in-the-dry
conditions. The location of the cofferdam would have extended further into the lake than the
small cofferdam, thereby providing a larger construction area to excavate in-the-dry.
Construction of a larger structure would have involved greater quantities of construction
materials and time resulting in more costly expenditures. To construct this larger cofferdam, a
series of flat circular sheet pile cells with a 90-foot diameter and a maximum height of 80 feet
would be placed upon the top of a rubble mound. The round sheet formed cells would have been
filled with gravel. To provide sufficient bearing against downstream sheet pile, additional
stability measures were proposed to provide support.
11
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The large cofferdam alternative was removed from further consideration for two primary
reasons: insurmountable engineering issues, and safety risks to construction workers. The results
of geotechnical exploration indicated that the strength of the underlying foundation materials of
decomposed granite and sediment was insufficient to support the load, or weight, of the larger
cofferdam. Engineering remedies could not compensate for the load of these structures resulting
in a stability issue and a structure that may be prone to failure. As a result, this alternative posed
a safety issue for construction workers situated between the bulkhead gates and the cofferdam.
Cofferdam failure would constitute a risk to human life.
2.2.2 Approach Channel Excavation Wet and Dry Excavation with Cutoff Wall
and Small Cofferdam
This excavation concept consisted of both the installation of a cofferdam and a cutoff
wall. Addition of a cutoff wall to a cofferdam was evaluated as a method of reducing the
construction schedule by providing for earlier construction of the sidewalls. Channel excavation
in dry conditions would also have benefitted from this alternative.
Upon additional assessment, the combined cutoff wall and small cofferdam alternative
was removed from further consideration because the combination of these two structures was
infeasible in terms of physical juxtaposition. Sufficient space was not available to contain the
two structures as they physically overlapped. In addition to the physical incongruity,
construction space would have been insufficient to build the structures, comprising an
insurmountable engineering issue. Instead, Alternatives 2 and 3 were formulated to address
separately the construction of a smaller cofferdam, or the construction of a cutoff wall as both
alternatives provided a feasible and safe design for construction.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION

A no action alternative is required pursuant to NEPA, and a no project alternative is
required for CEQA (for consistency, in this SEIS/EIR it is referred to as the No Action
Alternative). The No Action Alternative constitutes the future without-project conditions that
would reasonably be expected in the absence of the proposed action and serves as the
environmental baseline per NEPA against which the effects and benefits of the action
alternatives are evaluated. The environmental baseline for CEQA is assumed to be the existing
conditions.
Under Alternative 1, the approach channel structure, designed to connect the auxiliary
spillway to the lake, would not be constructed. Since the approach channel is an essential
feature to the overall function of the auxiliary spillway, the Corps would not participate in the
completion of the overall Folsom JFP. A substantial amount of construction by USBR has
already occurred and would be of no value if no further action was taken to complete the
spillway. Consequently, dam safety and flood damage reduction improvements to the
Sacramento area would not be implemented and enhanced public safety would not be realized as
detailed in the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a).
12
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - APPROACH CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION WITH CUTOFF

WALL
Proposed construction elements for Alternative 2 are discussed below in detail, beginning
with construction of the cutoff wall (Figure 3). A schedule of the proposed construction
activities is also provided in Table 3.
2.4.1 Cutoff Wall Construction

Installation of the cutoff wall across the 1,200 foot width of the future approach channel
would occur as early as possible to maximize excavation activity in dry terrestrial conditions (inthe-dry). The cutoff wall would be formed by a reinforced concrete secant pile wall socketed
into the underlying highly weathered granitic in situ rock (Figure 3). The secant pile wall is a
wall constructed in a straight line which intersects supporting vertical columns or piles. Initially,
3-foot diameter holes for the primary piles on 4-foot centers would be drilled. The average pile
length is estimated to be 85 feet. After drilling is completed, the holes would be filled with
concrete and a reinforcing cage. The top section of the piles would be drilled with a steel casting
used to support the layers of cobbles and boulders. The bottom section of the pile that penetrates
the decomposed and highly weathered granite would not require casing. Casing would be
removed as concrete is placed in the hole.
Three-foot diameter holes for the secondary piles would then be drilled on 4-foot centers
between the primary piles. The secondary piles would be reinforced and constructed with
concrete and a reinforcing cage. The fill material includes very strong, unweathered quartz
boulders measuring up to 8 feet in size. The boulders would be enveloped in a matrix of loose
silty and rounded gravel cobbles.
2.4.2 Approach Channel Excavation

The approach channel for the auxiliary spillway is expected to extend approximately
1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control structure (Plate 1). The first step in the dry
excavation effort for the approach channel would consist of removal of rock plug material
between the constructed control structure and the cutoff wall. A combination of ripping and
blasting would be required to facilitate rock excavation. As sufficient material is removed, the
approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed over an eighteen month period.
During this timeframe the control structures bulkhead gates would be completed and
operational. Excavation of the rock plug would continue in-the-dry until the approach channel is
ready for flooding or the lake level overtops the rock plug. The remaining rock plug excavation
would be timed to follow the dropping lake level as possible; top-down excavation of the rock
plug would be performed following the lake level down to elevation 425.34 feet or less. As lake
levels rise, excavation of the rock plug would be performed in-the-wet. An estimated total of
400,000 cy is expected to be excavated in-the-wet under Alternative 2 (Table 1).
13
Control Structure
Approach Channel
Cross Section of Cutoff Wall
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Figure 3 -Cutoff Wall
S..CtlO....niO Dlolrkt
14

December 2012
- - Control Structure
cutoff Wan
- - Coffer Dam
Approach Channel
- - & Auxiliary Spillway
[0] Existing Overlook

~ Overlook Expansion
[ZJ Spur Dike
m.
US Army Corps
of l!.ngirioet'S
Figure 4- Construction Footprints

of Alternatives 2 and 3
15

Deem ber 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Blasting and dredging would be required for rock plug excavation. Dredging of
approximately 122,000 cy of soft material and silts on the lake bottom would be conducted first
to reduce turbidity during the blasting phase. Low lake levels would be utilized where possible
to maximize activity in lower lake levels or dry conditions. After fine materials are removed, the
underlying rock would be blasted. Blasted material would be dredged using a barge-mounted
clam shell or hydraulic excavator dredge, down to an elevation of 350 feet. The dredging would
be performed from barges and would require marine equipment to be mobilized and the transload
facility to be operational. The removal of remaining rock fragments from the dredging
operations would be conducted using airlift systems. An airlift system is utilized to vacuum rock
fragments from the lakebed up through a riser to bring fragments to the surface for discharge into
a barge.
Table 1. Approach Channel Excavation Estimates Alternative Comparison.
Activity
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Quantities of excavated material in-the-dry
600,000
800,000
(cubic yards)
Quantities of excavated and dredge material
400,000*
200,000**
in-the-wet (cubic yards)
Number of days of construction in-the-dry
465
390
Number of days of construction in-the-wet
456
290***
*An additional 400,000 cy of temporary fill material associated with the haul route embankment would be removed
under Alternative 2.
**An additional 150,000 cy of cofferdam fill material would be removed under Alternative 3.
***An additional 100 days of in-the-wet deconstruction work may be required for the cofferdam removal.
In-the-wet excavation would continue to widen the channel in phases, until a width that
would pass the PMF is reached. To achieve flood risk reduction benefits of the auxiliary
spillway earlier in the project life, a notch may be cut through the reduced rock plug to pass a
200-year flood event as necessary up to a depth of elevation 350 feet. If conditions are not
appropriate to install a notch in the reduced rock plug, the remaining excavation would continue
top-down to elevation 350. Once the lake level has risen sufficiently to inundate the approach
channel between the reduced rock plug and the control structure, the area would be flooded in a
controlled fashion to prevent damage to the approach slab and wall and to avoid uncontrollable
erosion of the remaining rock plug. The remaining rock plug would be excavated in-the-wet,
using underwater blasting and dredging techniques. Seepage and water overflow will be treated
and/or discharged back into the lake under appropriate permits.
Excavation of the approach channel upstream of the rock plug includes removal of rock
material within the envelope of the approach channel with shaping and scaling of the channel
surfaces; excavation of any rock trap recesses in the floor of the channel; placement of the
approach slab, and armoring of any side slopes susceptible to erosion. Excavation would occur
both in-the-dry and in-the-wet, but dry excavation would be executed whenever possible in
conjunction with the seasonal low water pool. The remainder of the approach channel
excavation under a flooded status would be conducted from barge mounted equipment and
16
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
remaining rock fragments would be removed from the channel with airlift systems. Wet dredged
material would be placed in lake or drained at site behind silt curtains to remove water content
before transport to terrestrial disposal sites.
Approach Channel Concrete Lining
The approach channel concrete slab and walls would stretch for approximately 100 feet
upstream of the control structure. The concrete slab would be approximately 5 feet thick, and
both the right and left sides would flare out five degrees to increase the width of the slab
upstream. A 30-foot wide by 10-foot deep rock trap would be located immediately upstream of
the approach slab so that rocks on the approach channel invert block debris from entering the
auxiliary spillway. Approach channel walls would be concreted from the control structure
extending approximately 100 feet upstream. All concrete work and placement in the approach
channel would be conducted in-the-dry conditions; no concrete work would be conducted in-thewet. A rendering of the completed project is shown on Plate 2.
Haul Road Embankment
The existing haul road, located on top of the rock plug, provides truck traffic access to the
disposal areas from the auxiliary spillway. Because excavation of the rock plug would cause loss
of the current haul route, approximately 165,000 cubic yards (cy) of fill material would be placed
east of the rock plug to create an embankment in order to maintain the haul road connection to
the auxiliary spillway. Approximately 40,000 cy of lakebed soft material would be dredged
preceding placement of fill material. The fill would consist of 6 inch minus crushed rock
(approximately 145,000 cy) with slope protection consisting of two layers of 1/4 ton rock
(approximately 20,000 cy). Processed fill rock with less than 5% fines would be hauled from
Dike 7. The haul road would extend to 80 feet wide in order to accommodate two-way truck
traffic. Once the cutoff wall and haul road are complete, in-the-dry excavation would begin.
Hydraulic Dredging
Hydraulic cutterhead dredging is proposed for dredge material that does not require
blasting prior to excavation or dredging. Hydraulic cutterhead dredging is necessary for site
preparation of the transload facility, spur dike, approach channel, and the haul road embankment.
A hydraulic dredge floats on the water and excavates and pumps the material through a
temporary pipeline to another location. The dredge acts like a floating vacuum cleaner that can
remove sediment very precisely.
A 24-inch or smaller pipeline cutterhead dredge is anticipated to be used to dredge sandy
or soft material. A 24-inch pipeline would have an estimated volumetric flow rate, or pumping
capacity, of 2,700 to 7,200 cy of dredged sediment slurry per hour, depending on the constraints
of the placement site being used (including distance) and the type of sediment being dredged.
Approximately every 500 feet, the 24-inch flexible pipeline sections would be anchored in the
bottom of Folsom Lake to secure it. Pipeline sections and anchors not in use would either be
secured on a floating barge, capped and lashed together to float in the project area, or would be
stored at the designated staging areas.
17
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Approximately 20,000 cy of soft material from the transload facility footprint,

approximately 122,000 from the approach channel, approximately 40,000 cy of material from the
haul road embankment, and up to 80,000 cy of the spur dike/expanded overlook footprint could
be placed in the proposed dredging deposition site shown in Plate 1. Material deposited in the
proposed Folsom Lake site below Dike 7 would be spread out to produce a level plane in the
depressed lake elevations. Hydraulic dredging would occur between 2013 and 2017.
In-the-Dry (Land-Based) Excavation and Blasting
Land-based rock excavation would consist of conventional drilling and blasting methods.
Drilling would be performed in lifts and patterns to facilitate thorough pulverization of the
granite material. In dry holes, ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) would be used and primed
with cast boosters. Water-resistant emulsified slurry would be required since water intrusion is
anticipated. Explosives would be stored off-site, and would be trucked to the site on a daily
basis. The explosives storage facility would be located in Jamestown, California, approximately
80 miles from the site or Suisun City, California approximately 70 miles from the site.
Blasting would typically consist of approximately 15,000 cubic yards rock shots. Blasted
rock would be excavated with shovels or loaders, placed in haul trucks, and hauled to one of the
on-site disposal areas, located no more than 1.5 to 2 miles from the excavation area. The
proposed disposal areas are discussed in Section 2.4.6.
The land-based blasting would be conducted up to one blast per day between 1:30 p.m.
and 2:30 PM., over 48 months (estimated February 2014 to October 2017) for up to six days per
week. Up to 200 land-based blasts are expected in Alternative 2. There would be additional
provisions for a potential second blast in the morning between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. A
safety fly rock zone of 2500 feet would be maintained for human safety. Blasting would require
an encroachment permit from the City of Folsom, and the contractor would coordinate with the
City of Folsom and provide adequate notification to the public, include signage, prior to blasting.
The contractors blasting plan would be approved by the Corps prior to blasting commencement.
In-the-Wet (Underwater) Blasting and Excavation
Underwater rock excavation would be accomplished by drill and blast methods (URS
2009). Barge platforms would be transported and assembled on-site to accommodate drilling
and excavation equipment. Down-the-hole hammer drills would bore 5-inch holes and the holes
would be charged with emulsified slurry explosives. Blasting techniques including decking,
delayed charges and stemming would be conducted to reduce underwater blast pressures. All
charges at least 20-charge diameters would be confined by rock burden and crushed stone
stemming to limit the blast over-pressures. Up to ten test blasts with reduced charges would be
conducted over a week period prior to production blasting. Underwater blast pressures would be
limited to 5.8 pounds per square inch at a distance of 2,500 feet from the blast point for human
safety and 19 psi for at the control structure to protect structural integrity. A physical floating
exclusion boundary would be maintained at 3,000 feet from the blast point for safety of
recreational swimmers and boaters. Prior to detonations, the drill and fleeting barge would move
18
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
300 to 500 feet from the blast area. Each blast would produce approximately 2,000 cy of rock.
The removal of material would be completed in two blasted consecutive layers, or lifts, when the
rock depth exceeds 30 to 40 feet. Approximately 400 blasts would be conducted underwater
over a projected period extending from 2015 to 2017. The contractors blasting plan would be
approved by the Corps, and public notices and meetings would be conducted by the contractor
prior to commencement of blasting.
Explosives would be stored off-site. The explosives storage facility would be located at
Jamestown, California, approximately 80 miles from the site or Suisun City, California
approximately 70 miles from the site. Explosives would be trucked to the site on a daily basis.
After verification all charges have been detonated, a long stick excavator or crane supported
clam shell would dredge the shot rock into material barges for tow to the temporary transload
facility.
The dredging equipment that could be utilized for this project includes barges,
excavators, and airlifts:
A barge-mounted large long reach excavator, with an effective excavating depth of 90 to

95 feet, would be used. Different size buckets can be changed out for the various soil and
rock materials to be encountered during construction. The excavator method is limited by
its effective digging depth. Accordingly, a 3 month (mid-November to end of February)
low lake level window would be required to effectively dredge to the final grades.
A 225-ton class barge-mounted crawler crane clam shell unit would supplement the
hydraulic excavator to dredge shot rock and common material to grade in periods where
the lake level is too high for the hydraulic excavator to dredge to final grade.
An airlift or sweep would be set up on the drill barge to perform foundation clean up for
approximately 90 days in Alternative 2.
The long reach excavator, conventional clam shell, and other overwater equipment would
be mounted on portable Flexifloat units, sized and assembled to maintain stability and manage
the excavation sets. The size of the Flexifloat barges would be approximately 180 to 200 feet
by 40 to 50 feet by 7 feet deep. The barges would be held in position by large winch controlled
spuds, or in water over 50 feet deep, by a four-point mooring system using bottom founded
anchors.
The cleanup of rock fragments would be removed from the channel by airlift systems.
Following the use of airlifts, in-the-wet inspection of the lakebed would take place to identify
areas where rock fragments remain and designate areas that have been cleared. The airlift and
inspection divers would work iteratively until all grid areas have been verified to be free of rock
fragments. Dredged material would be drained at site behind silt curtains, and would not be
transported with high water content to disposal sites.
19
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.4.3 Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction

A spur dike is an embankment designed to induce a free, even flow of water into an
opening; in this case the opening would be the approach channel (Figure 3). In 2007, USBR was
permitted to place approximately 600,000 cy of material into three acres of waters of the U.S., to
expand the Observation Point Overlook and develop a staging area for the auxiliary spillway. An
extension of the overlook would be constructed by the placement of up to 1,400,000 cy of
material to perform a spur dike function; this structure is referred to in the document as either the
spur dike or overlook extension.
The proposed elliptical-shaped spur dike, or overlook extension, would be located
directly to the northwest of the approach channel (Figure 5). The spur dike would have one
vertical (V) by 2 horizontal (H) slopes. The surface area of the top of the spur dike would be up
to approximately 9 acres; the overall foot print of the spur dike on the lake bottom would be up
to approximately 22 acres. The crown elevation would be approximately elevation 483.34 feet
(NAVD88 vertical datum).
Lakebed fines would be dredged from under the footprint of the spur dike (approximately
40,000 cy to 80,000cy), and this material would be placed into another in-water section of the
lake or drained behind the silt curtains (also referred to as turbidity curtains), and removed to a
terrestrial disposal site. The amount of excavated disposal material to be placed into the
combined spur dike and overlook extension would determine the footprint size of the spur dike.
The core of the spur dike would be constructed of a decomposed quartz diorite core, commonly
known as decomposed granite. This would be followed by a compacted random rock fill
followed by a stone riprap cap. A silt curtain would be used around the construction area as
needed to contain turbidity.
Material for the spur dike construction may originate from the excavation of the approach
channel excavation, or be transported from processed rock stockpiled at one of the proposed
disposal sites, or it may be exported from off-site. The construction equipment needed for dry
construction of the spur dike consists of normal scrapers, bulldozers, compactors, off-highway
trucks, 10 cy agitator trucks, and sheep-foot rollers for the body of the spur dike, and backhoes,
bulldozers, and smooth rollers for the bedding, riprap, and surfacing materials. Equipment
needed for wet construction includes barges, traditional or clamshell excavator, and hydraulic
suction dredging equipment. The work zone would be protected within a series of contractordesigned turbidity curtains. The construction would take place over 24 months from 2015 to
2017.
20
~N
OVERLOOK EXPANSION
IN LAKE DISPOSAL AREA (SITE 2)
m.
us Army Corps
of l!ngirioat'S
Figure 5 - Spur Dike
S..cno...nlo Oillrld
21
Folsom Dam Modific.ation Proj ect,

December 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.4.4 Transload Facility Construction

A transload facility would be needed for mobilization and demobilization of marine
equipment (e.g., sectional barges and heavy cranes), dredge spoil off-loading from barges to
trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges, equipment maintenance,
and marine crew deployment. The proposed transload facility would be comprised of a ramp,
crane and crane pad, and a fuel transfer station. The transload facility would be located adjacent
to Dike 7 as shown on Plate 1. The ramp structure would require progressive construction to
accommodate seasonal and variable lake levels between the elevations of 355 to 475 feet
(NAVD 88).
The ramp dimensions are approximately 50 feet wide and 1,500 feet long, with a
maximum slope of 10 percent. The width allows large haul trucks the ability to turnaround and
two-way passage along the ramp. At approximately 1,000 feet from the haul road the ramp
would intersect the existing lake bottom. From 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet, steel planks would lie on
the existing bottom to control mud and minimize siltation and turbidity within the lake.
The ramp would be constructed from approximately 30,000 to 230,000 cy of compacted
3 inch maximum graded fill with less than five percent fines obtained on-site or transported from
off-site. Approximately 20,000 cy of ton riprap would be placed on top of the main fill for
protection from wave action. Material used in the transload construction may be transported
from off-site or on-site material may be utilized. Dredging out an average of three feet of
material under the footprint of the ramp, up to 20,000 cy may be required depending on the soils
at the lake bottom. A silt curtain would be used during construction and removal of the transload
facility to contain turbidity.
Depending on lake levels, ramp material would be placed directly into the water. The
fines content of the ramp material would be reduced as much as possible to limit water turbidity
during placement of material
The ramp would incur progressive construction, with each stage of horizontal extension
depending upon the existing lake level, and depth needed to accommodate the reach to barges.
Construction would begin at the shoreline junction with the haul road with extension constructed
into the reservoir as needed in response to fluctuating lake levels. Completion of the ramp
construction is expected to require four months. To offload the dredge spoils from barges, a
crane would be at the furthermost extension of the ramp just above lake level. Timber mats
would form a work platform for the crane on top of a level crushed rock pad that would be
relocated to accommodate fluctuating lake levels.
A fuel transfer station would be located on the ramp to refuel marine vessels. The
transfer station would include a flexible hose from the ramp that would be supported
intermittently by a small float anchored offshore. The float would be used to service a utility
barge with a storage tank, and then recalled to the ramp to prevent severage by boat traffic. The
tank would hold one day's supply of fuel for the floating equipment at the project site. Fuel
would be delivered by trucks and pumped from the trucks through the fuel transfer facility to the
22
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
tank on the utility barge. Protections, BMPs and spill plans would be instituted specifically for
fuel actions to maintain water quality.
At this time, the transload facility is intended as a temporary structure that will be
removed after the completion of the approach channel project in 2017; USBR has currently not
expressed interest in adopting a temporary structure. Ramp material would be removed with
excavators and hauled for disposal. Preferably the ramp material will be removed during low
lake levels. USBR has not expressed interest in maintaining the ramp after the completion of the
project, which is not currently included within this project scope.
2.4.5 Batch Plant Operations

The construction of the cutoff wall and lining of the approach channel would require
large quantities of temperature controlled concrete. This concrete will be exported from off site
or would necessitate the use of a contractor-provided, on-site concrete batch plant with deliveries
and stocking of concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and cement. The batch plant would be
powered by electricity from overhead Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) lines. The
batch plant would be located either at MIAD, Folsom Overlook, downstream chute, or the
Folsom Prison site.
Approximately 13,000 cy of concrete would be needed for the approach channel and
approximately 11,200 cy of concrete would be needed for the cutoff wall. The batch plant would
produce concrete for the approach channels 18 month construction period. A plant capacity
between 100 to 150 yards per hour would be appropriate for these placement sizes.
The concrete batch plant area would consist of the aggregate storage system, aggregate
rescreen system (if needed), rewashing facility (if needed), the batching system, cement storage,
ice manufacturing, and the concrete mixing and loading system. The aggregate storage system is
designed to have sufficient storage on-hand of input materials to produce about 3,000 cy of
concrete per day. All aggregate used within batch plant operations will be obtained from
existing local commercial off-site sources and delivered to the site.
The aggregate storage system consists of three course aggregate piles and a fine blended
sand pile. The aggregate would be transported to the project in belly type trucks. The trucks
would dump the aggregate into a truck unloading hopper, after which it would be conveyed up to
an overhead shuttle conveyer, and dropped into respective storage piles. To accommodate the
requirement of 3,000 cy per day of batching capacity, the storage area will need to accommodate
the materials listed in Table 2 below.
23
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 2. Batch Plant Stockpile Requirements.

Aggregate Source
Stockpile Requirements
Sand
" Coarse Rock
1 " Coarse Rock
3" Coarse Rock
Cement
Fly Ash
350 Tons
300 Tons
250 Tons
150 Tons
175 Tons
75 Tons
The sand and the aggregate would be loaded out of the storage piles with a front end
loader, placed into bin hoppers, and conveyed to the batching day hoppers. The aggregates
would then be mixed and transported into transit agitator trucks or mixer trucks. Once ready for
placement, the concrete would be transported by truck or conveyer from the batch plant site
across the auxiliary spillway access road to the concrete conveyor or truck unloading hopper.
Two or three 10 cy agitator trucks would be needed depending on contractor production rates.
After delivery of the mix to the unloading hopper, the concrete would be conveyed by a crane for
targeted placement.
Generally, work associated with the batch plant operations would occur during the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., however, it is likely that some batching and placements would have to
occur in the very early morning or night-time hours. This is especially true for large volume
placements and placements that occur in the hot summer season. Early morning or night-time
placements would be subject to traffic and noise limitations of the City of Folsoms ordinances
and would have to be coordinated with the City by the contractor. If the batch plant is situated
at the Prison Staging area site, night batch plant operation would be coordinated with and
approved by Folsom Prison and the City of Folsom
Due to the large amounts of rock material being excavated, disposed, and processed as
concrete for the project, an on-site rock crushing facility would be necessary. A rock crusher is a
machine used to reduce stone to particle sizes that are convenient for their intended uses.
Reduction in material size is generally accomplished in several stages and for this project may be
used to produce three to six inch rock and smaller aggregate. The rock crusher would be
electrically powered and located at either the Folsom Overlook staging area or the MIAD staging
and disposal area. The rock crusher would be operated only during noise exempt hours or as
permitted by the City of Folsom.
24
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.4.6 Construction Details

Access and Staging
General construction access to the site would come from the southeast by way of Folsom
Lake Crossing Road. A turnoff at the south end of the Overlook area would allow connection to
the main haul road and other construction access roads (Plate 5). The contractor will also have
the option to construct and use a second site access off Green Valley Road. The area required for
access from Green Valley Road to the project site was included as part of the project in the
FEIS/EIR. Any required improvements associated with this access would be coordinated by the
contractor with USBR and the City of Folsom. Any necessary permits associated with this
access would also be secured by the contractor. Access roads to the site, as well as on site haul
roads, would be used to transport materials, supplies, equipment, and personnel for the approach
channel construction.
The contractor would require staging areas for the following main items and activities:
assembly of barges and other marine equipment; stockpiling of materials; contractors lay-down
area; transload facility; concrete batch plant, rock crushing plant; fuel storage; and marine
construction and excavation equipment. Staging and stock pile areas would be located at Dike 7,
MIAD, Folsom Overlook, and Folsom Prison property (Plate 1). Some staging activities would
also occur in the auxiliary spillway chute. The staging area at Dike 7 covers approximately 9
acres and is currently in use to stock pile crushed rock for construction of the control structure.
The MIAD staging area is also currently in use for rock crushing and for stockpiling of materials
for control structure construction. The Folsom Overlook is approximately 5 acres in size, and is
currently in use for equipment staging and stockpiling for the control structure construction.
The proposed Folsom Prison staging area consists of a previously disturbed area of
approximately 10 acres that lies between the existing prison facilities and Folsom Lake Crossing.
The majority of the substrate on these acres was deposited as fill from the Folsom Bridge project.
The Folsom Prison property is expected to be developed as a staging area prior to the approach
channel project for continued work on downstream features below the approach channel project.
The existing prison site access road will serve as the primary point of access to the staging area.
The haul road between the construction site and the MIAD disposal area is an existing
feature and is currently in use for control structure construction activities. Another existing haul
road extends from the Folsom Overlook to the chute construction site and down the length of the
auxiliary spillway to the stilling basin. This haul road is currently being used for the control
structure construction work.
Site Preparation
Prior to construction, the projects office facilities and a parking area would be set up at
Dike 7 staging area, the Folsom Overlook point, or the Folsom Prison property. Additional haul
road improvements by the rock plug may be implemented. Before construction begins, a safety
buffer will be installed in the lake at a distance of 3,000 feet from the blast point. Public access
will be restricted along the entire boundary to provide safety protection for the public and the
25
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
project. Lake bed dredging under the footprint of the transload facility may be conducted in
initial site preparation depending upon the existing lake level.
Prior to initiation of construction, the contractor would prepare a traffic management plan
with measures to minimize traffic congestion, delays, and ensure public safety. These measures
would include scheduling construction activities to avoid commute hours, posting warning signs
and speed limits, and using flaggers.
Construction Workers and Schedule
The number of private construction employees present on-site each day would vary with
scheduled construction activities; a maximum of 40 workers could be expected onsite any one
day for the approach channel project. Parking for the employees vehicles would occur in the
staging area at Dike 7, Folsom Prison site, the Overlook, and/or MIAD. The construction work
schedule would normally consist of 10 hour days over 6 days per week, with the exception of
dredging and underwater drilling, for which double shifts could occur. The 6 days per week
could be extended to 7 days per week with necessary permits obtained from the City of Folsom.
Twenty-four hour shift schedules may be requested under special circumstances; the double shift
schedule would be temporary and short-term.
Alternative 2 would have an expected project length from beginning through completion
of approximately 33 months. This includes pre-work planning, site preparations, and a five
month gap to accommodate construction of the approach channel slab and walls, drilling and
blasting operations, excavation of common and blasted rock, spur dike and transload facility
construction and bottom cleaning operations. Preparatory work would include an estimated 140
days for setting up office facilities, haul route improvements, and the construction of the
transload facility. Construction of the cutoff wall would require approximately 293 days. In-thedry excavation of the approach channel and casting of the concrete approach channel slab and
walls would be conducted over approximately 1,029 days. In-the wet-excavation of the
approach channel including clean up and inspection would extend over approximately 484 days.
Demobilization and site restoration would require approximately 16 days.
26
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 3. Alternative 2 Proposed Construction Activities by Year

Construction Activity
2013 2014
Site Prep / Haul Road Prep
Construct Transload Facility*
Haul Road Embankment*
Cutoff Wall Concrete Placement*
Common Excavation to Disposal*
Rock Crusher at MIAD or Overlook Staging Areas
Batch Plant at MIAD, Prison, or Overlook Staging Areas*
Import Material from Quarry
Dike 7 Staging Area*
Prison Staging Area*
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From Excavation Site and
MIAD*
On-Site Haul Road Usage for Construction of Transload
Facility*
Rock Excavation In-the-Dry*
Mobilization for Approach Walls*
Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction*
Set up and Operate Silt Curtain**
Dredge Common Material to Rock*
Drill and Blast / Dredge Rock In-the-Wet***
Spur Dike Riprap***
Transfer Excavated Material to Disposal Site***
Teardown, Clean Up, and Site Restoration***
Remove Transload Facility***
2015
2016
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*potential nighttime construction activity

**potential nighttime construction activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only), if needed;
***nighttime activity with exception of blasting
Borrow and Disposal Sites

Imported rock material may be used for construction of the temporary transload facility,
spur dike and concrete production. Emissions associated with importation of construction
material not originally calculated within equipment emissions totals would require recalculation
by the contractor to assure that they comply with approved emission totals.
Material for the remainder of construction activities would originate from on-site sources,
such as the spillway and approach channel excavation. Material to construct the spur dike core
would likely be short-hauled directly from the approach channel excavation. The riprap and
bedding for the spur dike would need to be processed to provide the required gradations for
structure stability. Processing this material would also ensure that it contains less than 5 % fines
in order to reduce introduction of silt into the reservoir.
27
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
There is approximately 1.4 million cy of disposal material associated with construction of

the approach channel project. Five potential on-site disposal sites proposed for use as a part of
the proposed project. Disposal sites being considered for excavated materials include: 1) the
spur dike; 2) an in-reservoir site around the transload facility; 3) the MIAD disposal site; 4) Dike
7; and Dike 8 (land based and in-reservoir). The spur dike in-reservoir, and Dike 8 would serve
as permanent disposal for excavated material. MIAD and Dike 7 would serve as temporary
disposal sites, where excavation material would be eventually removed and used for other
purposes. The proposed disposal sites are listed in Table 4 below, along with the maximum
disposal capacity feasible at each site. The proposed disposal site boundaries are displayed on
Plate 1.
Table 4. Proposed Disposal Sites and Capacity.
Proposed Disposal Site
Estimated Capacity (cy)
Spur Dike
up to 1.4 million cy
In-reservoir
up to 220,000 cy
MIAD disposal area
up to 1 million cy
Dike 7
up to 160,000 cy
Dike 8
up to 730,000 cy
(land-based and in-reservoir)
Acres
22
85
93
9
16
Site use feasibility is under assessment at this time for all proposed disposal sites;
therefore, all proposed disposal sites are to be addressed as options in this SEIS/EIR.
Environmental effects associated with the use of these sites differ, and the effects of project
construction would depend on sites and site combinations selected by the contractor for disposal.
Therefore, the effects analyzed in this document accommodate worst-case scenarios to cover all
disposal options. It is unlikely that all disposal sites assessed would be used, but it is probable
that multiple sites would be selected for use in partial capacity. Currently, all disposal sites are
situated on land under the jurisdiction of the USBR.
The MIAD temporary disposal area is the environmentally preferred disposal site, as it is
a previously-disturbed, terrestrial site with minimal overall impacts, and material disposed here
would be removed for future projects. However, the use of the MIAD disposal site requires
coordination with the scheduling of the USBR Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification
Project. Due to potential conflicts in site use, it is possible that this site would not be available
during multiple years of construction. Unavailability of MIAD for disposal would require
increased use of in-water or Dike 8 disposal sites.
There is potential for additional disposal sites to be proposed after the release of the
SEIS/EIR for the approach channel construction. Proposed disposal sites must be within a 1.5 to
2 mile radius of the approach channel construction area to remain in compliance with the air
quality assessment. If any proposed disposal site would have effects beyond the scope of those
analyzed in this SEIS/EIR, additional NEPA/CEQA analysis would be required and
supplemental NEPA/CEQA documents may be necessary. Written concurrence is required from
the Corps and USBR before any disposal site can be used.
28
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dredged and excavated material that is not used for spur dike construction would be
stockpiled at one of the proposed disposal sites. Excavated material not suitable for fill, such as
vegetation, debris, and old fill, would be disposed of at a local landfill. Asphalt, concrete, and
other material would be removed or recycled in an appropriate manner.
Restoration and Cleanup
Once construction of the approach channel is complete, all equipment and excess
materials would be transported offsite via the haul routes discussed above. The access roads and
staging areas not used as permanent features of the project would also be restored to pre-project
conditions. The work sites and staging areas would be cleaned of all rubbish, and all parts of the
work area would be left in a safe and neat condition suitable to the setting of the area. Any unvegetated areas disturbed during construction would be hydro-seeded with native grass species.
The USBR would conduct additional native vegetative plantings after project completion outside
the scope of the Corps project work. Construction debris would be hauled to an appropriate
facility. Equipment and materials would be removed from the site, and staging areas and any
temporary access roads would be restored to pre-project conditions. Demobilization would
occur in various locations as construction proceeds along various elements.
Operation and Maintenance
Long term operations of the approach channel would be performed by USBR under a
Flood Management Operations Study that is currently in production, and outside the scope of
this assessment. The Flood Management Operations Study for Folsom Dam will develop,
evaluate, and recommend changes to the flood control operations at Folsom Dam that will
further reduce flood risks to the Sacramento area. Operational changes may be necessary to fully
realize the flood risk reduction benefits of the following:
The additional operational capabilities created by the auxiliary spillway;
The increased downstream conveyance capabilities anticipated to be provided by the

American River Common Features Project (Common Features);
The increased flood storage capacity anticipated to be provided by completion of the

Folsom Dam Raise Project (Dam Raise); and
The use of improved forecasts from the National Weather Service.
Further, the Flood Management Operations Study will evaluate options for the inclusion
of creditable flood control transfer space in Folsom Reservoir in conjunction with Union Valley,
Hell Hole, and French Meadows Reservoirs (also referred to as Variable Space Storage). The
study will result in a Corps decision document and will be followed by a water control manual
implementing the recommendations of the Study. It should be recognized that the initial water
control manual will implement the recommendations of the study, but will not include the
capabilities to be provided by the Dam Raise and additional Common Features project
improvements until such time as these projects have been completed.
29
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

COFFERDAM
Under Alternative 3, a cofferdam would be utilized to maximize construction activities
in-the-dry. The primary difference between the two construction alternatives, Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3, is that Alternative 3 would not include a cutoff wall, but instead, construction of a
temporary cofferdam would afford excavation in the dry for a longer period of time (Table 1). A
cofferdam is a temporary dam formed by steel circular structures lined in a slight arc across the
width of the approach channel (Figure 4). The steel circular structures, or cells, filled with rock,
provide greater integral strength and load to hold back the force of upstream water.
Detailed construction activities are discussed below when they differ from Alternative 2;
otherwise, Alternative 2 is listed for detailed project description. The proposed construction
activities associated with Alternative 3 are shown as scheduled by year in Table 5.
2.5.1 Cofferdam
The location of the cofferdam upstream of the control structure and the rock plug, is
based on a trade-off between feasible cofferdam size and the amount of in-the-wet excavation.
Prior to cofferdam construction, lake sediments and other soils would be dredged to expose
decomposed granite. A silt curtain placed around the perimeter of the excavation and during
cofferdam installation would be required to control turbidity in the lake.
The cofferdam consists of a series of 84-foot diameter circular sheet pile cells constructed
using 85-foot-long flat sheet piles. Sheet piles for construction of the cofferdam would be driven by a
vibratory hammer. Vibratory hammers use oscillatory hammers that vibrate the pile, causing sediment to
liquefy allowing pile penetration. Pre-drilling for sheet piles may e necessary dependent upon foundation
conditions and hammer refusal. The total estimated volume of cofferdam fill materials would be
149,600 cy, almost all of which is cell fill. The construction of the cells requires sheet piles to be
installed using a template of two to three horizontally mounted ring wales to provide support for
the vertical flat sheets. The sheet piles are installed using a vibratory hammer, working
progressively around the ring. Once erected, the cells would be filled with well-graded clean
crushed rock. The same plan dimension is maintained throughout the cofferdam, allowing for
one sheet pile installation template to be utilized for construction of all of the circular cells. A
layer of riprap would be placed along the upstream toe of the cells for scour protection. The
cells are founded directly on the decomposed granite. A temporary haul road would be created
on top of the cofferdam with the placement of approximately one foot of crushed rock in order to
provide continuing access to the overlook. The cofferdam accommodates a high design lake
level of elevation 468.34 feet.
After the cofferdam is installed the downstream area would be dewatered. Timing would
be coordinated with the completion of the control structure. After excavation of the approach
channel is completed, the cofferdam would have a provision for controlled but rapid flooding of
the approach channel area to allow for quick equalization of hydraulic loads on both sides of the
30
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
cofferdam. Rapid flooding of the approach channel excavation would be achieved by two or
more flood gates installed in the connector cells. Each gate would consist of an approximately
100-foot long, 4-foot diameter pipe mounted with a slide gate on the upstream side of the
cofferdam. Infilling of the approach channel excavation area up to the high lake level at
elevation 468.34 feet would be expected to occur within about 6 hours. After approach channel
flooding is completed, the cofferdam would be removed. Any remaining materials would be
dredged using a barge-mounted clam shell or hydraulic excavator dredge until elevation 350 is
reached.
2.5.2 Approach Channel Excavation
As described in Alternative 2 (Section 2.4.4), the approach channel would extend
approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control structure (Plate 1). The primary
difference within Alternative 3 is that a reduced amount of excavation would occur within in-thewet conditions. Approximately 200,000 cy would be excavated in-the-wet under Alternative 3,
(Table 2). After construction of the cofferdam, the downstream area would be dewatered prior to
the in-the-dry excavation for the approach channel slab, walls, and rock trap.
As described in Alternative 2, ripping and blasting would be required to facilitate rock
excavation. The approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed once sufficient
excavation material is removed. The approach channel excavation and blasting could continue
during construction of the approach channel slab and walls provided they do not damage or
interfere with the construction of the slab and walls or damage the cofferdam. During this
timeframe the control structures bulkhead gates would be constructed. Once the control
structures bulkhead gates are installed and the approach channel is completed, the area
downstream of the cofferdam would be flooded in a controlled fashion to equalize the water with
lake levels. In-the-wet excavation begins with the removal of the cofferdam.
The remaining common material would be excavated in-the-wet, using underwater
blasting and dredging techniques as described in Alternative 2. The remainder of the approach
channel excavation under a flooded status would be conducted from barge mounted equipment.
Residual rock fragments would be removed from the channel with airlift systems.
The approach channel concrete lining, in-the-wet and in-the-dry excavation and blasting
methods for Alternative 3 would be the same as described under Alternative 2 with the exception
of the material amounts excavated under wet conditions versus dry conditions (Table 2).
Haul Road
The haul road embankment specified under Alternative 2 (Haul Road, Section 2.4.2) will
not be built adjacent to the rock plug under Alternative 3 (Figure 4). Because construction of the
cofferdam affords a longer term access to the overlook area, the current haul road accessing the
overlook area would be shifted to the top of the cofferdam. The cofferdam affords sufficient
31
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
level area to support a haul road that would be incorporated into the cofferdam construction by
placement of approximately one foot of crushed rock on top of the cofferdam.
In-the Dry (Land-Based) Excavation and Blasting
Land-based excavation methods would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
An increased amount of land based blasting would occur under Alternative 3 (Table 2) since a
decreased amount of blasting and excavation would occur under in-the-wet conditions. Landbased blasting would be expected for up to 200 days. Removing more material in-the-dry, would
reduce the total amount of blasting needed for the project due to the higher material density that
can be removed in the dry than in the wet.
In-the-Wet (Underwater) Excavation and Blasting
Underwater drill and blast methods are the same as discussed under Alternative 2, and
material removal by dredge equipment and barge is expected to follow a similar prescription.
The primary difference within Alternative 3 is the reduced amount of blasting and excavation
activity in the wet (Table 2) corresponding to installation of a cofferdam. Under Alternative 3,
approximately 200 underwater blasts could be expected from 2015 to 2017.
2.5.3 Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction

Under Alternative 3, a spur dike would be constructed as described in Alternative 2
(Section 2.4.3). See Figure 5 for an aerial perspective of the proposed spur dike.
2.5.4 Transload Facility Construction

Under Alternative 3, a transload facility would be constructed as described in Alternative
2 (Section 2.5.4). Under Alternative 3, the transload facility would likely be constructed within
an earlier time frame of the construction schedule to provide facilities for construction of the
cofferdam.
2.5.5 Batch Plant Operations

Under Alternative 3, a batch plant would be constructed and operated as described in
Alternative 2 with the exception that a reduced amount of concrete would be produced for
Alternative 3. Concrete produced by the batch plant would be used only for the construction of
the approach channel slab and walls. Approximately 13,000 cy of concrete would be produced
under Alternative 3.
32
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
2.5.6 Construction Details

Access and Staging
Access and staging areas under Alternative 3 would be the same as described in
Alternative 2.
Site Preparation
Site preparation of the project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as described in
Alternative 2.
Borrow and Disposal Site
Material for the cofferdam would be reused from onsite excavation of the approach
channel. Materials for the transload facility, spur dike and approach channel under Alternative 3
would be the same as described in Alternative 2. The disposal of materials would also be the
same as described in Alternative 2.
Construction Workers and Schedule
Under Alternative 3, the estimated number of workers, work hours, and work shifts
would be as described in Alternative 2. The construction durations and schedule is described
below.
Alternative 3 requires combined in-the-dry and in-the-wet excavation of the approach
channel with a cofferdam. The construction schedule of Alternative 3 would run approximately
37 months through completion. Work would include pre-work planning, cofferdam construction
and demolition, a 5-month gap to accommodate construction of the approach channel slab and
side walls, in-the-dry and in-the-wet drilling and blasting operations, in-the-dry and in-the-wet
excavation of blasted rock, spur dike construction, and bottom cleaning operations. Preparatory
work includes 140 days for setting up office facilities, haul route improvements/construction and
the construction of the transload facility. Construction of the cofferdam is expected to require
approximately 240 days, which includes in-the-dry excavation allowing for soft lake sediments
removal below cofferdam along existing shoreline, dredging of soft lake sediments below
cofferdam foot print, and the installation of the cofferdam. Dewatering of the approach channel
excavation would take place upon installation of all pumps, monitoring and instrumentation
equipment.. In-the-dry excavation and blasting of the approach channel and casting of the
concrete approach channel slab and walls would require approximately 600 days. The removal
of the cofferdam would engage approximately 115 days. In-the wet-excavation of the approach
channel including clean up and inspection would extend over approximately 290 days.
Demobilization and site restoration would be expected to take approximately 16 days.
33
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 5. Alternative 3 Proposed Construction Activities by Year.

2013 2014
Mobilization for Cofferdam
Common Excavation Below Cofferdam*
Common Dredge Below Cofferdam*
Construction of Sheet Pile Cells*
Fill Cells*
Import Material from Quarry
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From Excavation Site and
MIAD*
Facility*
Dewater Behind Cofferdam*
Intake Approach Walls and Slab*
Import of Construction Material*
Spur Dike Riprap*
Transfer Excavation Material to Disposal Site*
Remove Cell Rubble Fill*
Remove Sheets*
Drill and Blast / Dredge Rock In-the-Wet*
Teardown, Clean Up, and Site Restoration*
Remove Transload Facility*
2015
2016 2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

**potential nighttime construction activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only), if needed

Removal of the cofferdam would begin during low lake levels and the aggregate would
be disposed at one of the proposed disposal area or at a landfill. The remainder of the restoration
and cleanup of the project area under Alternative 3 would be similar to that described in
Alternative 2. An exception would include the amount of an estimated 60 days, rather than 90
days, for foundation clean up by an airlift or sweep.
34
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Under Alternative 3, long term operations would follow the description provided in
Alternative 2.
35
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The information provided in this chapter supplements the documentation of the affected
environment contained in chapter 3.0 of the 2007 FEIS/EIR. It describes the existing conditions
of the environmental resources in the project area for which new information or analysis is
relevant to the proposed action being considered. In Chapter 4.0, these existing conditions are
compared to the three alternatives described in Chapter 2 in order to determine the effects of the
proposed project. Resources not evaluated in detail are described first, followed by the resources
that may be significantly affected by the alternatives.
3.1 RESOURCES NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL

Initial evaluation of the effects of the project indicated that there would likely be little to
no effect on several resources. Additionally, certain resources were fully addressed in the 2007
FEIS/EIR and the current project alternatives would not result in a change to the previous
analysis. These resources are discussed in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.8 to add to the overall
understanding of the area. Sections 3.2 through 3.10 describe the existing conditions for the
resources that may be significantly affected by implementation of the proposed alternatives.
3.1.1 Geology and Seismicity

Geology
Folsom Reservoir is situated within the westernmost extent of the Sierra Nevada
Foothills, between the Central Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley geomorphic provinces. The
Sierra Nevada geomorphic region is characterized by a north-northwest trending mountain belt
with extensive foothills on the western slope (Harden 1997). Geological mapping by Wagner,
Jennings, Bedrossian, and Bortugno (1981) indentifies two major rock divisions within the
project area: granodiorite intrusive rocks, and metamorphic rocks. A geological map of the
general project area is shown on Figure 6.
Granodiorite intrusive rocks are similar to granite. Folsom Dam and the western side of
Folsom Reservoir mainly consist of Mesozoic dioritic rocks. They are composed of a coarse
grained crystalline matrix with slightly more iron and magnesium-bearing minerals and less
quartz than granite.
Metamorphic rock units are part of the Jurassic-Age Amador Group, referred to as the
Copper Hills volcanic. Copper Hill volcanic (Jch) rocks occur in the project area near Folsom
Point and at MIAD disposal area. These rocks are described as metamorphosed basaltic breccia
and ash (mafic pyroclastic) rocks, pillow lava, and minor bodies of granitic composition (felsic
porphyrite). The origin of most of these rocks is at or near an oceanic island volcanic arc that
was later added (accreted) to the continent and deformed. These rocks are generally resistant to
erosion and form thin, clayey soil. Naturally occurring asbestos may be found in this formation.
The existing geology of the area would not affect the proposed project.
36
Quaternary Sediments
0
D
G
B
0
Aluv1um
Mine and dredge tailings
L.,.;,eand channel depositos
Modesto Folmauon
(allulllum)
River bonk Formation
(allovlum)
Modest<>-lll,.bank Fom\allon
!Arkosic ~lulllum)
Turlock Lake Folmallon
(sand. sll~and gra....O
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Tertiary Sedimentary Rocks
8
G
G
Laguna FOJmatlon
consolidated ~lulllal deposl~
Mehnen FOJmatlon
andes! de conglomerate. sand"one, and btecda
Mesozoic Metamorphic Rocks
meuW!dlmenr;vy rod<>
In melange
[2J
melaYOicank: rocks
In melange
lone Formatlon
quartzose sand Slone and Uolfnllic clay
Plutonic Rocks
Cretaceous Metasedimentary Rocks
Salt Spring Slate
[ZJ
Copper Hnl Volcanics
~ ~er Rldge'mlcanles
Figure 6. Geologic Setting.

37
Mesozoic: dlorlllc rod<>
Gabbtolc rocks
UltramaRc rod<>
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Seismicity and Fault Zones

The project area is within the Foothills Fault system, which is located in the metamorphic
belt. This system consists of northwest trending vertical faults and is divided into two zones, the
western Melones Fault zone and the western Bear Mountains Fault zone. The west trace of the
Bear Mountains Fault zone transects the upper reaches of the North Fork arm near Manhattan
Bar Road, and crosses the South Fork arm in the region of New York Creek.
The largest historic earthquake in the Sierra Nevada foothills was the 1975 Oroville event
of magnitude (M) 5.7, located approximately 60 miles to the north. However, distant faults
capable of major earthquakes (M>7) include the faults of the San Andreas system approximately
60 miles or more to the west and faults of the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system 40 miles to the
east of Folsom.
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can
generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is fault ground rupture,
also called surface faulting. No active faults have been mapped within the project area by the
California Geological Survey or U.S. Geological Survey (Jennings, 1994). The project area is
not located within the one of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, and therefore the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act does not apply to this project (California Geological
Survey, 2007). The risk of fault ground rupture is negligible in the project area.
Common secondary seismic hazards include ground, shaking, liquefaction, subsidence
and seiches. Design, construction, and maintenance must comply with the regulatory standards
of the Corps and USBR seismic dam safety regulations. The design and construction of the
approach channel, spur dike, and cofferdam would meet or exceed applicable design standards
for static and dynamic stability, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, and seepage
(URS, 2011). Therefore, the seismicity of the area would not affect the proposed project.
3.1.2 Mineral Resources

In compliance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, the California
Geological Survey has established the classification system to denote both the location and
significance of key extractive resources. A variety of mineral resources are present within the
general area. Resources such as chromite, minor nickel, talc, and asbestos are associated with the
ultramafic rocks and past mining has occurred within the region. Decomposed granite may also
be considered a resource within the area. The project area is already developed by Folsom Dam
and is not accessible for mineral extraction. Construction of project alternatives thus would not
reduce or eliminate availability of mineral resources. Therefore; there would not be a potential
loss of locally or regionally significant mineral resources
Naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) is the term applied to the natural geologic
occurrence of any type of asbestos. NOA is commonly associates with ultramafic rocks and
along faults. NOA was found in the Copper Hills Volcanic unit, a geologic unit mapped in the
Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle. The SMAQMD has designated the area at Copper
38
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Hills Volcanic unit as moderately likely to contain NOA (California Geological Survey 2006).
SMAQMD recommends that all earth-moving activities in areas located in the Copper Hills
Volcanic unit implement the requirements of Section 93105 of the California Code of
Regulations, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (SMAQMD 2006).
The MIAD disposal area and Dike 8 is located in the Copper Hills Volcanic unit (Figure
6). While disposal of material would occur at MIAD and Dike 8, there are no earth moving
activities in the natural soil at MIAD as a part of this project. Haul trucks would deliver
excavated material from the approach channel to MIAD and Dike 8 for disposal, therefore, there
is the potential for NOA to occur throughout the construction area due to soil and dust migration
associated with vehicle traffic. A tire washing station has been installed at the exits to remove
dirt and mud from tires to reduce track out of dirt to public roads. The tire washing station
would remain in place during the Phase 4 construction. Implementation of this measure would
ensure that NOA does not migrate beyond the reaches of the project area, and thus, there would
be no effects associated with NOA.
After construction is complete vegetative cover would be established at MIAD. Projectrelated analysis along the approach channel and the cofferdam alignment concluded that no
asbestos-containing soils are present in the excavation area (Corps 2009; URS 2011).
3.1.3 Hydrology and Hydraulics

Surface Water Hydrology
The American River Basin covers an area of approximately 2,100 square miles, and has
an average annual unregulated runoff of 2.7 million acre-feet; however, annual runoff has varied
in the past from 900,000 acre-feet to 5,000,000 acre-feet. The major tributaries in the American
River system include the North Fork American River, Middle Fork American River, and South
Fork American River. These tributaries drain the upper watershed carrying runoff from
precipitation and snowmelt into Folsom Reservoir. Plate 3 shows the hydrology of Folsom
Reservoir including tributaries and streams.
Folsom Dam and Reservoir is a multipurpose water project constructed by the Corps and
operated by USBR as part of the Central Valley Project (CVP). At an elevation of 466 feet above
mean sea level (msl), Folsom Reservoir is the principal reservoir on the American River
impounding runoff from a drainage area of approximately 1,875 square miles. Folsom Reservoir
has a normal full-pool storage capacity of approximately 975,000 acre-feet, with a seasonally
designated flood management storage space of 400,000 acre-feet. An interim agreement between
the SAFCA and USBR provides variable flood storage ranging from 400,000 to 670,000 acrefeet (Corps 2008).
Flood-producing runoff occurs primarily during the months of October through April and
is usually most extreme between November and March. From April to July, runoff is primarily
generated from snowmelt from the upper portions of the American River watershed. Runoff
39
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
from snowmelt usually does not result in flood producing flows; however, it is normally
adequate to fill Folsom Reservoirs available storage. Approximately 40 percent of the runoff
from the watershed results from snowmelt.
Lake Natoma is downstream of Folsom Dam and serves as an afterbay to Folsom
Reservoir. Formed and controlled by Nimbus Dam, the lake is operated to reregulate the daily
flow fluctuations created by the Folsom Power plant. Consequently, surface water elevations in
Lake Natoma may fluctuate between four and seven feet daily. Lake Natoma has a storage
capacity of approximately 9,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 500 acres. Nimbus Dam,
combined with Folsom Dam, regulates water releases to the Lower American River.
The Lower American River extends 23 miles from Nimbus Dam to the confluence with
the Sacramento River. The upper reaches of the Lower American River are unrestricted by
levees and are hydrologically controlled by natural bluffs and terraces. Downstream, the river is
levied along its north and south banks for approximately 13 miles from the Sacramento River to
the Mayhew drain on the south and to the Carmichael Bluffs on the north.
Implementation of the project would not change surface water hydrology. Water would
continue to flow through the Basin in the same manner. Although the auxiliary spillway adds an
additional outlet from the Reservoir, the rates of change in outflow would not exceed the
historical maximum rates of increase, which are, as per Corps guidance, the rates that would
have occurred naturally without the dam.
Groundwater Hydrology
California's Basin Plans establish standards for groundwater in addition to surface water.
The Basin Plans include provisions to prevent degradation and require clean up of groundwater
quality problems. These provisions address local problems such as underground storage tanks
and associated issues. Basin Plans also address groundwater degradation due to elevated nitrate
and salt concentrations caused by leaching from nearby urban developments, agricultural fields,
confined animal feeding operations, and municipal sources.
Folsom Reservoir is located at the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater
Basin, in the North American and South American sub-basins. The area surrounding Folsom
Reservoir primarily consists of bedrock formations of the Sierra Nevada foothill complex.
Ground water is found primarily in fractured geologic formations, and water could be present
within the fractured formations. Although groundwater is not a major resource in the vicinity of
the Folsom JFP site, small amounts of groundwater are typically found in granitic fissures and
cracks. Bedrock is close to, or in some areas, at the surface; therefore, high water tables exist in a
few locations. Due to the presence of the impermeable material near the surface, natural drainage
cannot regularly occur, thus low areas frequently become water-logged.
Fractured aquifer systems are typically low yielding; therefore, surface water sources are
primarily used for drinking water or irrigation water sources rather than wells. The 2007
EIS/EIR analyzed project impacts to groundwater and determined that no effects to groundwater
resources would result from the project.
40
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The construction of the project would not restrict movement of groundwater or change
near-surface groundwater levels adjacent to the approach channel. In addition, the project would
not directly change land use such that the rate of groundwater recharge would decrease.
Therefore, there would be no effects to groundwater hydrology with implementation of the
project. Effects associated with water quality are further discussed in Section 4.4.
Hydraulics
Currently, the Folsom Facility can safely release flood flows between 115,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) and 160,000 cfs for a duration which provides a level of protection associated
with a 100 year event from the downstream levees. Structural modifications associated with the
Folsom JFP are proposed to address increasing discharge capability and/or increasing storage
during extreme flood events above the 200-year event (an event that has a 0.5 percent chance of
occurring in any given year) up to the PMF. Combined, the modifications would be able to
safely release flood flows between 115,000 cfs and 160,000 cfs for a longer duration, achieving
the goal of providing up to 200-year flood protection. The new auxiliary spillway would address
the need to safely pass part or the entire PMF event.
As an integral part of the auxiliary spillway, the approach channel would provide an
outlet for water from the reservoir to flow into the auxiliary spillway chute and step section.
Upon completion of this last design component, the goal to increase the flood management
capabilities of Folsom Dam and reduce the operational uncertainty and overall risk associated
with the PMF would be met.
The effects on hydraulics associated with construction of the approach channel would
remain consistent with the analysis included in the 2007 FEIS/EIR. Effects associated with the
operation of the auxiliary spillway will be addressed in the Folsom Dam Flood Management
Operations Study and its associated environmental analysis.
3.1.4 Public Utilities and Services

This section discusses existing utilities and public services including water and
wastewater, solid waste, electrical and natural gas, telephone and cable lines, and fire and police
protection within the project area and surrounding areas.
Public Utilities
Electric utilities near the project area include Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District
(SMUD), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)
lines and facilities. SMUD owns and operates the Folsom-Elverta 230-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line that runs along the northern boundary of Folsom Prison and carries electricity
from the Upper American River Project facilities to the Lake to Folsom Transmission Line and
to the Lake to Orangeville Transmission Line. The Folsom-Elverta transmission line also
connects the SMUD grid, a component of the Sacramento County electrical system. The utility
41
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
corridor north of the prison is considered a building-restricted area and does not permit certain
uses incompatible with the safety, operation, maintenance, and construction of the transmission
line facility. PG&Es only transmission line within the project area is the Halsey JunctionNewark 115 kV line. Additionally, WAPA has a 15-kilovolt Folsom-Nimbus transmission line
and associated fiber optic link within the project area.
The concrete batch plant would be powered by electricity from overhead SMUD lines,
and this usage would be coordinated with SMUD prior to construction. No natural gas
infrastructure or facilities exist within the project area. No public utilities would be interrupted
during construction of the approach channel, spur dike, cutoff wall or cofferdam, and transload
facility.
Hydropower
The CVP hydropower system consists of eight power plants and two pumping-generating
plants. This system is fully integrated into the Northern California Power System and provides a
significant portion of the hydropower available for use in northern and central California. The
installed power capacity of the system is 2,044,350 kilowatts (kW). By comparison, the
combined capacity of the 368 operational hydropower plants in California is 12,866,000 kW.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is the areas major power supplier, with a generating
capacity from all sources of over 20 million kW.
The Folsom power plant has three generating units, with a total generating capacity of
196.72 megawatts (MW) and a release capacity of approximately 8,600 cubic feet per second
(cfs). By design, the facility is operated as a peaking facility. Peaking plants schedule the daily
water release volume during the peak electrical demand hours to maximize generation at the time
of greatest need. At other hours during the day, there may be no release (and no power
generation) from the plant.
The construction of the approach channel would have no effect on the ability of Folsom
Dam generate hydropower. The project would not change any water diversions that could affect
power generation.
Public Services
Construction activities would generate various types of waste materials such as litter, and
various types of construction waste including but not limited to concrete, and steel that would
require disposal in an approved landfill. Construction would not access or realign the existing
potable water supply, sanitary sewerage, or storm sewer systems. The existing haul route would
be used by construction vehicles to avoid overloading public roadways and causing delays to
public services. There would be no effects to public services as a result of project construction.
42
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Water Supply
Folsom Reservoir is operated as part of the Central Valley Project for flood control,
irrigation water supply, municipal and industrial water supply, hydropower generation, fish and
wildlife, navigation and water quality purposes. The dams and dikes impound approximately
977,000 acre-feet; the average monthly storage ranges from 838,100 acre-feet in June to 472,900
acre-feet in November (USBR 2005). The reservoir meets the majority of water demands for the
city of Roseville, the city of Folsom, the San Juan Water District, and Folsom Prison. The San
Juan Water District provides water to the city of Folsom, Orangevale Water Company, Fair Oaks
Water District, and Citrus Heights Water District. Placer County Water Agency and El Dorado
Irrigation District also receive water from Folsom Reservoir (USBR 2005).
Folsom Reservoir provides water through a diversion at Folsom Dam to the cities of
Folsom and Roseville, the San Juan Water District, and Folsom State Prison. An 84-inch
pipeline, which is part of the North Fork distribution system, passes through the right abutment
of the dam, providing water to the City of Roseville and San Juan Water District. A second 42inch pipeline, which is part of the Natoma distribution system or Natoma Pipeline, passes
through the left abutment. Water is conveyed from the Natoma Pipeline to the City of Folsom
and California Department of Corrections water treatment plants, and the Corps' Resident Office
fire protection system.
Project impacts influencing water supply were evaluated in the 2007 FEIS/EIR. The area
of analysis of the document included Folsom Reservoir and surrounding counties: El Dorado,
Sacramento, and Placer. The water supply portion of Folsom Reservoir for both Central Valley
Project contractors and local water purveyors was also included in the area of analysis. The 2007
FEIS/EIR determined the placement of fill material in the reservoir would not significantly
reduce storage at Folsom Reservoir. Water allocations and the timing of deliveries would not be
impacted by the excavation of the approach channel or construction of the cofferdam, spur dike,
or transload facility.
3.1.5 Land Use and Socioeconomics

Land Use
The land surrounding Folsom Dam and Reservoir is primarily Federally-owned and
designated for recreation and flood control use. The major land use in the project area is USBRs
Central California Area Office and the Folsom Dam industrial complex, along with a utility
corridor. Additionally, there are residential areas near East Natoma Street.
State Parks, under an agreement with USBR, manages Folsom Lake, Lake Natoma, and
adjacent lands designated as the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA). Most of the
project area is designated as part of the FLSRA, however, the lands directly surrounding the
project area are closed to the public. As part of the FLSRA, a portion of the American River
bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trail is located adjacent to the project area.
43
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Adjacent to the project area is a portion of the California State Prison, Sacramento. This
multi-mission institution consists of about 1,200 acres located on Prison Road. Californias
second oldest prison, Folsom State Prison, is located at 300 Prison Road on a 40-acre parcel
adjacent to and south of Folsom Dam. Both prisons collectively house nearly 8,000 inmates, the
Regional Corporation yard for Inmate Day Labor, and the main headquarters for the Prison
Industry Authority. The prison property includes access to the Sacramento-Folsom firing range,
office and storage facilities, and the Green Valley Conservation Camp.
The project area is within Sacramento County; however, it falls entirely within the city of
Folsom. Therefore, Sacramento County planning agencies do not have jurisdiction. The land
located west of the project area is within the city of Folsom and is zoned as an Open Space
Conservation District. This zoning district was established to maintain these properties as open
or undeveloped, or developed as permanent open uses such as parks or greenbelts. This zoning
district also includes Folsom State Prison. East of the prison, the land is zoned as an Agricultural
Reserve District. This area provides a buffer between Folsom Lake and developed areas to the
south. This zoning district is intended to provide for interim agricultural and livestock grazing
uses until community services are available for urban development (Reclamation 2006). The
designated land zones within and adjacent to project area would remain unchanged after
implementation of the proposed action.
No construction activities would require access to or construction within any of the
nearby residential areas. There is no farmland within the project area, therefore there would no
adverse effects on agricultural resources. The land use in and around the project area, including
the recreation and prison lands, would not change as a result of construction of the approach
channel project. Therefore, there would be no effect to land use as a result of the project.
Socioeconomics
The city of Folsom is within Sacramento County, approximately 25 miles east of
downtown Sacramento on Highway 50. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the population of
Folsom was 72,203 in 2010, which was a population growth of approximately 39% since the
2000 Census. The population of Folsom is approximately 74% white, 12% Asian, 6% African
American, 0.5% Native American, and 0.2% Pacific Islander, with the remaining percentages
classified as other or more than one race (Census 2010). People of Hispanic origin make up
approximately 11% of the citys population.
The labor force in the city of Folsom was 26,400 people in September 2011, with 25,000
employed people and 1,400 unemployed, and an unemployment rate of 5.4%. The citys
unemployment rate is well below the unemployment rate for Sacramento County of 11.9%
during the same time period (EDD 2011). The median family income in the city of Folsom from
the years 2005 through 2009 was $93,620, and the per capita income is $34,320 (Census 2010).
Employment opportunities near the project area include technology, food manufacturers, retail,
health care, and education (City of Folsom 2011).
44
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
No actions associated with the Folsom JFP, including the approach channel, would limit
either current or future opportunities for agriculture, business, employment, or housing. While
there are residents located adjacent to the project area, these populations do not comprise any
low income or minority peoples. No populations would be displaced as a result of project
construction, and no local industry would be disrupted by project activities. There would be no
disproportionately adverse effects to minorities or low-income populations. Therefore,
socioeconomics are not evaluated further in this EIS/EIR.
3.1.6 Public Health and Safety

Project impacts influencing potential public health and safety concerns were evaluated in
the 2007 FEIS/EIR. The area of analysis included the Folsom Reservoir, as well as, areas
identified as construction areas, staging areas, and borrows areas for the alternatives evaluated in
the 2007 FEIS/EIR. All construction areas would be fenced off to prevent access by the public.
The contractor would prepare and implement a Public Safety Management Plan to notify the
public of the location and duration of construction activities.
The area surrounding the Folsom Facility is operated as a State Recreation Area used by
visitors for hiking, biking, running, camping, picnicking, horseback riding, water-skiing,
swimming, and boating. As such, threats to public safety exist from construction hazards with in
construction, staging, and disposal areas and on roadways near recreational areas. Potential
effects include injury or death from contact with heavy machinery and construction vehicles and
falling and/or entrapment in excavation areas. Effects associated with recreationists in and
around the project area are analyzed in Section 4.7.
There would also be the potential for effects to the safety of construction workers
themselves. The contractor would also prepare and implement a Worker Health and Safety Plan
prior to the start of construction. The plan would identify all contaminates that could be
encountered during excavation activities; all appropriate worker, public health, and
environmental protections equipment and procedures; emergency response plan; most direct
route to a hospital; and the Site Safety Officer. The plan would require documentation that all
workers have reviewed and signed the plan.
Blasting activities would be conducted to break rock substrate in excavation of the
approach channel. Without proper controls, blasting could constitute a public safety risk.
However, the contractor would be required to prepare a blasting plan, to include BMPs and
safety measures to be implemented during all blasting activities. The contractor would be
limited to underwater blast pressures at 5.8 pounds per square inch at a distance of 2,500 feet
from the blast point for human safety (Appendix E), A floating exclusion boundary would be
established at 3,000 feet from the blast point for safety of recreational swimmers and boaters.
Boat patrols will also occur prior to and during blasting activity along the safety perimeter. In
addition, a 2,500 foot safety boundary is enforced due to the possibility of overhead fly rock
during terrestrial based blasting. It is also expected that during blasts, Folsom Lake Crossing
may be closed to the public, to reduce the possibility of public safety risks. Blasting plans from
45
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
the contractor would be approved by the Corps and the contractor would be required to conduct
public notice prior to blasting.
Sacramento County is less vulnerable to wildfires than surrounding counties with sparse
and/or hillside development. Fire hazard severity zones are measured qualitatively based on
vegetation, topography, weather, potential for crown fire (i.e., a fires tendency to burn upward
into trees and tall brush), and ember production and movement within the area of question. The
project area is not located within a state or local responsibility area rated as high or very high fire
hazard (Cal Fire 2008). Construction activities for the proposed project would include the use of
mechanized construction equipment and vehicles that contain flammable fuels. During
construction, equipment and vehicles may come in contact with vegetated areas and could
accidently spark and ignite vegetation. To minimize the potential for wildfires, staging areas,
haul roads, and other construction areas would be cleared of vegetation. In addition, the
contractor would be required to prepare a Fire Management Plan to outline the measures to be
taken to reduce the risk of wildfires caused by construction activities.
Potential hazards associated with seismology and earthquakes are evaluated in Section
3.1.1. Potential effects associated with the presence of NOA are discussed in Section 3.1.2,
Mineral Resources. Public services and utilities, including emergency services, are evaluated in
Section 3.1.3. Air quality, including the potential of emission-related health impacts, is analyzed
in Section 3.2. Potential effects associated with hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste is
analyzed in Section 3.1.9.
Construction activities would not occur outside the areas identified in the 2007 FEIS/EIR;
therefore, no effect to public safety in other areas is expected. The 2007 FEIS/EIR determined
that with selected mitigation measures, impacts associated with various aspects of the overall
Folsom JFP would be less-than-significant. Construction of the approach channel, spur dike,
transload facility, and cofferdam would not increase risk to public safety or change the previous
analysis.
3.1.7 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes

Hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes (HTRW) in and around the project area were
evaluated in the 2007 FEIS/EIR. The 2007 FEIS/EIR determined that with selected mitigation
measures, impacts associated with various aspects of the overall Folsom JFP would be less-thansignificant. No impacts were identified associated with the approach channel excavation, spur
dike, cofferdam, or transload facility.
In January 2012, the Corps prepared an updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) to identify and evaluate potential hazardous and toxic waste issues in and near the project
area. The purpose of the ESA was to review available documentation regarding past and current
land use activities to assess the possible presence of hazardous substances and waste. The ESA
consisted of a records investigation and site reconnaissance, encompassing both the project area
and the surrounding area. The study area of analysis included the proposed project area, plus a
50 foot construction zone, and the area within a 1/4-mile radius from the project site.
46
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Corps contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. to perform

comprehensive database searches of the study area. The records investigation identified 78
HTRW sites in the study area, many of which were duplicated in multiple databases. The actual
physical sites consisted of 16 aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, treatment,
generator, storage, or disposal facilities, as well as 23 mitigating sites or sites that had reported
spills in the past.
On January 31, 2012, the Corps conducted a site reconnaissance of the project area.
During the reconnaissance, the Corps looked for any evidence of environmental concerns in
connection with the property, such as spills, stressed vegetation, discolored soils, pipes or drains,
fuel tanks or barrels, and waste stockpiles. No hazardous materials, storage containers,
aboveground storage tanks, or underground storage tanks were encountered during the site visit.
Sites that were reported by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. would not affect the
proposed construction because they are under control, exhibit no signs of continuing release and
are generally more than mile away from the construction area. Based on the ESA and field
reconnaissance, there are no additional HTRW sites in the study area, and there is no apparent
HTRW contamination that would interfere with construction of the project. As a result, the
effects associated with HTRW sites remain consistent with the analysis conducted for the 2007
FEIS/EIR. The minimization measures discussed below would continue to be implemented as a
part of project construction
During construction there is a potential for a hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, or
paints to be accidentally spilled or released into the environment. Prior to construction, a
hazardous materials management plan would be prepared and implemented. The plan would
include measures to reduce the potential for spills of toxic chemicals and other hazardous
materials during construction. The plan would also describe a specific protocol for the proper
handling and disposal of these hazardous materials, as well as contingency procedures to follow
in the event of an accidental spill. As a result, construction of the project is not expected result in
any adverse effects due to HTRW.
3.2 AIR QUALITY

This chapter provides regulatory and environmental setting sections for air pollutants. Air
quality pollutants analyzed in this chapter include criteria pollutants, which are pollutants that
have established national standards, and toxic air contaminants (TACs) which do not have
established standards.
Two separate areas of analysis are discussed in this document and defined in section 3.2.2
Environmental Setting. The first is for criteria air pollutants and the second is for TACs. They
are defined separately because the Federal and local regulatory agencies have different
significance criteria for each area of analysis.
47
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The areas of analysis for criteria pollutant and TACs are based on the jurisdiction of the
local air quality management districts (AQMDs) or air pollution control districts (APCDs),
which are responsible for granting permits for construction and operation of new sources of air
pollution and establishing rules and regulations for limiting pollution emissions. The project is
located within the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districts (SMAQMDs)
jurisdiction, which manages air quality in Sacramento County. The area of analysis for criteria
pollutants and TACs is the SMAQMDs jurisdictional area.
3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

Air quality management and protection are regulated by federal, state, and local levels of
government. The primary statutes that establish ambient air quality standards and establish
regulatory authorities to enforce regulatory attainment are the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and
California Clean Air Act (CCAA). Applicable air quality regulations and responsible agencies
are described below.
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal 1970 CAA authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality
standards, and also set deadlines for their attainment. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (1990 CAAA) made major changes in deadlines for attaining National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and in the actions required of areas of the nation that exceeded these
standards. Under the CAA, state and local agencies in areas that exceed the NAAQS are required
to develop state implementation plans (SIP) to show how they will achieve the NAAQS for
nonattainment criteria pollutants by specific dates. SIPs are not single documents; rather, they
are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring,
modeling, permitting, etc.), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for enforcing the NAAQS
primarily through reviewing SIPs that are prepared by each state.
As required by the Federal CAA, the USEPA has established and continues to update the
NAAQS for specific criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS for these pollutants are listed under Federal Standards in
Table 6 and represent the upper-bound levels of pollutant concentrations deemed necessary by
the USEPA to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
General Conformity Rule and de minimis Levels
Pursuant to CAA Section 176(c) requirements, USEPA promulgated the General
Conformity Rule, which applies to most federal actions, including the Folsom JFP project. The
General Conformity Rule is used to determine if federal actions meet the requirements of the
CAA and the applicable SIP by ensuring that pollutant emissions related to the action do not:
48
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Cause or contribute to new violations of a NAAQS.
Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of a NAAQS.
Delay timely attainment of a NAAQS or interim emission reduction.
A conformity determination under the General Conformity Rule is required if the federal
agency determines: the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area; that one or
more specific exemptions do not apply to the action; the action is not included in the federal
agencys presumed to conform list; the emissions from the proposed action are not within the
approved emissions budget for an applicable facility; and the total direct and indirect emissions
of a pollutant (or its precursors), are at or above the de minimis levels established in the General
Conformity regulations.
An action will be determined to conform to the applicable SIP if the action meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 93.158(c). In addition, federal activities may not cause or contribute to
new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely
attainment or required interim emissions reductions toward attainment.
State
The CARB is responsible for the development, implementation, and enforcement of
Californias motor vehicle pollution control program, administration of the states air pollution
research program, adoption and updating, as necessary, of California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS), review of local APCD activities, and coordination of the development of
the SIP for achievement of the NAAQS.
The CCAA establishes an air quality management process that generally parallels the
Federal process. The CCAA, however, focuses on attainment of the CAAQS that, for certain
pollutants and averaging periods, are more stringent than the comparable NAAQS. The CAAQS
are included in Table 6 alongside the NAAQS.
The CCAA requires that AQMDs and APCDs prepare a clean air plan, or air quality
attainment plan if the district violates CAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, or O3, showing strategies for
and progress toward attaining the CAAQS for which it is in non-attainment. These plans are
required to be updated triennially. The regions SIPs are addressed in the Existing Conditions
section below.
49
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 6. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant
Concentration 3
1 Ho....-
0 .09 ppm (1SO IJ9fm')
8 Ho....-
0.070 ppm (137 ~glm')
24 Hour
so~'
Method '
Utraviolet
Photometry
Ozone (03 )
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Amual
No Separate State Standard
24 Hour
12 ~'
8 Ho....-
9.0 ppm (10mglm')
1 Ho....-
Amual
Arithmetic Mean
6 ppm (7 mgtm')
Lead 10
0.030 ppm (571J91m3)

0 .1 8 ppm (3391J91m')
1
0 .04 ppm (1051J91m
1 Ho....-
0 .25 ppm (6551J91m')
30 Day Average
1.5 pglm'
calendar Quarter
Fluorescence
Atomic Absorption
8 Ho....-
Su lfates
24 Hour
25 ~'
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Ho....-
0.03 ppm (421J9fm')
0.0 1 ppm (261J91m')
Method
Same as
Primary Standard
Uttraviotet
PholometJy
Same as
Primary Standard
35 pgtm'
Same as
Primary Standard
15.0 pglm'
mgim')
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Non-Dispersive
None
35 ppm (40 mgim')
53 ppb (100 ~gim')

(see footoote 8)
Same as
Primary Standard
100 ppb (188 ~')

(see f ootoote 8)
None
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
IJtraviolet
Aourescenoe;
0.5 ppm ( 1300 pglm')

(see footnote 9)
Speclro!)llotometry
75 ppb (196 ~')

(see footnote 9)
Method)'
1.5 pl)lm'
Same as
Primary Standard
(Pararosani"ine
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
A!Jsorption
0 .15 pglm'
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kiometer visibility of ten niles or more (0.07 - 30
miles or more for l ak.e Tahoe) due to
particles YAlen re!ative hunicity is less than
70 percent Method: Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through Filter Tape.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Secondary,.
150 pgtm'
Average11
24 Hour
Utraviolet
3 Ho....-
Rd ling :>Month
Vinyl
Chloride"
Gas Phase
ChemiiOO'Iinescence
1 HolX
9 ppm (10
Non-Dis;>ersive
ln:rated Photometry
(NDIR)
20 ppm (23 mgtm')
8 Ho....-
24 Hour
Sulfur
Dioxide
(S02)
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
Amual
Arithmetic Mean
Primary.s
0.075 ppm (147 pglm')
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
20 ~'
Arithmetic Mean
(Lake Tahoe)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO,)
Federal Standards 2
California Standards '
Averaging
Time
len Chromatography
No
Federal
Utraviolet
Auorescence
Standards
Gas
Chromatography
See footnotes on next paqe ...

Califorrua Air Resources Board (09/08/10)
f or mo nlormanon please call .-\RB.PIO a1 (916) 322-2990
50
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
I. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (I and 24 hour),
nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter- PMIO, PM2.5, and visibility re.ducing particles, are
values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air
quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 ofTitle. 17 of the
California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual
arithmetic mean) are not to be exce.eded more than once a year. The ozone standard i~ attaiue.d when the
fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the
standard. For PMIO, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar
year with a 24-hour average concentration above ! 50 11g/m3 is equal to or less than one. For Pl\12.5, the
24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the. daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are
equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for ftuther clarification and current federal policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses
are based upon a reference temperature of2 5C and a reference pressure of760 torr. Most measurements
of air quality are to be corre.cted to a reference temperature of25C and a reference pressure of760 torr;
ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of poUutaut per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the sati~fa ction of the ARB to give equivalent results at
or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with au adequate margin of safety to
protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The leve.L~ of air quality necessary to protect the. public welfare. from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of a poUutaut.
7. Reference method as described by the EPA. Au "equivalent method" of measurement may be u~ed but
must have a "consistent relationship to the. reference method" and must be approve.d by the. EPA.
8. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum !-hour average
at each monitor within an area must not excee.d 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that the
EPA standards are in ooits of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in tmits of parts per million
(ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted
from ppb to ppm. In this case., the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm
and 0.100 ppm, respectively.
9. On Jooe 2, 20 I 0, the U.S. EPA establishe.d a new !-hour S02 standard, effective August 23, 2010,
which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of !-hour daily m;ntimum
concentrations. EPA also propose.d a new automated Federal Reference Method (FRM) using ultraviolet
te.chuology, but will retain the older pararosaniline methods tmtil the new FRM have adequately
permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour S0 1 standard
of0.14 ppm and the annual primary S0 1 standard of 0.030 ppm, effective August 23, 2010.
The secondary S0 1 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard i~ oodergoing
a separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in uni t~ of parts per billion (ppb). California
standards are in tmits of parts per million (ppm). To dire.ctly compare the new primary national standard
to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb
is identical to 0.D7 5 ppm.
10. The ARB has ideutifie.d lead and vinyl chloride. as ~oxic air contaminants' \\~th no threshold level of
exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control
measures at le.vels below the ambient concentrations s-peci fied for these pollutants.
II. National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: fmal mle signed October 15, 2008.
California Air Resourc.es Board (09/08/lO)
f or more iufonnatiou please call ARB-PIO at (916) 322-2990
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2010
51
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The CCAA requires that the CAAQS be met as expeditiously as practicable, but does not
set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the act established increasingly stringent requirements
for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. The air quality attainment plan
requirements established by the CCAA are based on the severity of air pollution problems caused
by locally-generated emissions. Upwind APCDs are required to establish and implement
emission control programs commensurate with the extent of pollutant transport to downwind
districts.
Air pollution problems in Sacramento County are primarily the result of locallygenerated emissions. However, Sacramentos air pollution occasionally includes contributions
from the San Francisco Bay Area or the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, Sacramento County has
been identified as a source of ozone precursor emissions that occasionally contribute to air
quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Northern Sacramento Valley Air
Basin (SVAB). Consequently, the air quality planning for Sacramento County must not only
correct local air pollution problems, but must also reduce the areas effect on downwind air
basins.
Asbestos Control Measures

CARB has adopted two airborne toxic control measures for controlling naturally
occurring asbestos (NOA): the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Surfacing
Applications and the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations. CARB and local air districts have been delegated authority by the USEPA to enforce
the Federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations for asbestos.
Local
SMAQMD is responsible for implementing federal and state regulations at the local
level, permitting stationary sources of air pollution, and developing the local elements of the SIP.
Emissions from indirect sources, such as automobile traffic associated with development
projects, are addressed through the APCDs air quality plans, which are each air quality districts
contribution to the SIP.
In addition to permitting and rule compliance, air quality management at the local level is
also accomplished through AQMD/APCD imposition of mitigation measures on project
environmental impact reports and mitigated negative declarations developed by project
proponents under CEQA. Specific to project construction emissions, CEQA requires mitigation
of air quality impacts that exceed certain significance thresholds set by the local AQMD/APCD.
The SMAQMDs CEQA significance thresholds, which would be applicable to the project, are
described below.
52
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
3.2.2 Environmental Setting

The study area for the project is the SVAB, which includes Sacramento County, where
the project site is located. Criteria air pollutants relevant to the project were determined based on
the existing pollutant conditions in the SVAB. TACs relevant to the project were determined
based on SMAQMD guidance and the project site conditions.
Air Pollutants
Air pollutants relevant to the project and their health effects are discussed below and
summarized in Table 7. In addition, sensitive receptors are defined and receptors near the project
are identified.
Table 7. Summary of Air Pollutants of Concern for the Project.
Pollutant Class
Pollutant
Criteria Pollutants
CO, NO2, O3
(precursors: NOx,
ROG), PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2
TACs
DPM and NOA
Existing Condition
The SVAB has NAAQS and/or CAAQS non-attainment
designations for PM10, PM2.5, and O3. The SVAB is
also a maintenance area (formerly non-attainment) for
CO.
Consequently, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and ozone precursor
(ROG and NOx) emissions are the primary criteria
pollutants of concern associated with the project.
Local geology supports the formation of NOA, although no
NOA has been located within the project site.
The primary DPM sources associated with the project are
diesel-powered on-road haul trucks and off-road
construction equipment.
Criteria Pollutants
For criteria pollutants, NAAQS and CAAQS have been established to protect public
health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include CO, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. Ozone is a
secondary pollutant that is not emitted directly to the atmosphere. Instead, it forms by the
reaction of two ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in
the presence of sunlight and high temperatures. The sources of these pollutants, their effects on
human health and the nation's welfare, and their annual emission to the atmosphere vary
considerably and are detailed in Appendix A.
Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to
an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential
hazard to human health. The USEPA uses the term hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) in a similar
sense. Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean
Air Act Amendments, whereby Congress mandated that the USEPA regulate 188 air toxics.
TACs can be emitted from stationary and mobile sources.
53
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Ten TACs have been identified through ambient air quality data as posing the greatest
health risk in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer,
birth defects, damage to brain and nervous system and respiratory disorders. TACs do not have
ambient air quality standards because often no safe levels of TACs have been determined.
Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given
exposure.
The TACs of interest to this project are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and NOA. The
Folsom Dam area has been identified as within an area where the local geology supports the
formation of NOA, although no NOA has been located within the project site. Sources and health
effects of DPM and NOA are detailed in Appendix A.
Meteorology and Climate
The project is located at the southern end of the Sacramento Valley, which has a
Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot dry summers and mild rainy winters. The mountains
surrounding the Sacramento Valley create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the
valley when meteorological conditions are right and a temperature inversion exists. The climate
and air patterns of the Sacramento Valley, which would be applicable to the project site, are
further detailed in Appendix A.
Air Quality
Within Sacramento County, on-road motor vehicles are the major source of ROG, CO,
and NOx emissions. Other equipment and off-road vehicles contribute substantially to ROG, CO,
and NOx emissions. Fugitive dust, generated from construction, roadways, and farming
operations, is the major source of PM10 and, to a lesser degree, PM2.5. Residential fuel
combustion also substantially contributes to PM2.5 emissions. Estimates of existing criteria air
pollutants in Sacramento County are presented in Appendix A.
Based on 2008-2010 monitoring data of CO, O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 collected
at a monitoring station located approximately 11 miles from the project site, CO, NO2 and SO2 in
Sacramento County did not exceed the applicable CAAQS and NAAQS while O3, PM10 and
PM2.5 did exceed the CAAQS and/or NAAQS (Appendix A).
Sensitive Receptors
Some locations are considered more sensitive to adverse effects from air pollution than
others. These locations are termed sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is generally defined
as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are found,
and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to
appropriate standards (e.g., 24 hour, 8-hour, and 1-hour). Sensitive land uses and sensitive
receptors generally include residents, hospital staff and patients, and school teachers and parents.
54
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The closest sensitive receptors to the spillway construction area are the prison population
and employees located at Folsom State Prison. The closest residences at Folsom Prison are
slightly more than 1,000 feet from the prison staging area. Also, several residences are located
within 1,000 feet of the Dike 7 staging area, the MIAD disposal area, and the haul road that
connects these areas to the spillway construction area. These primarily include the residences
located north of East Natoma Street between Folsom Lake Crossing and Green Valley Road.
Attainment Status
The General Conformity de minimis levels are based on the non-attainment and
maintenance classification of the air basin. General conformity thresholds are for ozone
precursors. The request for reclassification of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from
serious to severe was granted by the USEPA on June 1, 2010, and as a result, the GRC de
minimis thresholds for ozone, VOC, and NOX were reduced from 50 tons per year to 25 tons per
year.
The Lower SVAB is designated as a severe non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS (for the
2008 8-hour O3 standard) and as nonattainment for PM2.5 NAAQS. In 2008, the 1-hour O3
NAAQS (established in 1997) was revoked and is no longer applicable. However, the USEPA is
in the process of reviewing the CARBs request, on behalf of SMAQMD, to formally designate
the area as in PM10 attainment. The county is a designated maintenance area for the CO
NAAQS. Sacramento County is in non-attainment for the O3, PM2.5, and PM10 CAAQSs, and
in attainment for all other criteria pollutants. (CARB 2012; USEPA 2012a; USEPA 2012b).
State Implementation Plans
Due to the nonattainment or maintenance area designations for the SVAB discussed
above, the SMAQMD is required to prepare SIPs for O3, PM10 and PM2.5 and a maintenance
plan for CO. The status of these SIPs for the SVAB is summarized below and detailed in
Appendix A.
O3: A final attainment designation for the 2008 O3 NAAQS of 0.075 ppm has not been
provided by the USEPA and an attainment plan has not been prepared.
PM10: The USEPA is in the process of reviewing a maintenance plan and evaluating a
CARB request to change the designation to attainment.
PM2.5: SMAQMD is preparing a PM2.5 attainment plan for submission in 2012.
CO: A maintenance plan was approved by the USEPA in 2005 and is still applicable.
55
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

This chapter provides regulatory and environmental setting sections for greenhouse gases
(GHGs).

Federal
The USEPA is responsible for GHG regulation at the Federal level. Key Federal GHG
guidance and regulations relevant to the project are summarized below.
In Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007),
the United States Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fits within the CAAs definition of a pollutant,
and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate GHGs.
On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13514; Federal
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, E.O. 13514 requires Federal
agencies to set a 2020 GHG emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy
efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support
sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentallyresponsible products and technologies.
On December 7, 2009, the Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases (endangerment finding), under Section 202(a) of the CAA went into effect.
The endangerment finding states that current and projected concentrations of the six key wellmixed GHGs in the atmosphere [carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other
fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs)])
threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Furthermore, it states
that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare (USEPA
2012a).
Under the endangerment finding, the USEPA is developing vehicle emission standards
under the CAA. The USEPA and the Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration have issued a joint proposal to establish a national program that includes
standards that will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for light-duty vehicles in
model years (MYs) 2012 through 2016. This proposal marks the first GHG standards proposed
by the USEPA under the CAA as a result of the endangerment and cause or contribute findings
(USEPA 2012b). These emission reductions were incorporated into the project analysis.
On February 18, 2010, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
released draft guidance regarding the consideration of GHGs in National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documents for Federal actions. The draft guidelines include a presumptive threshold
56
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from a proposed action to
trigger a quantitative analysis. CEQ has not established when GHG emissions are significant
for NEPA purposes; rather, it poses the question to the public (CEQ 2010).
State
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the development,
implementation, and enforcement of Californias motor vehicle pollution control program, GHG
statewide emission estimates and goals, and development and enforcement of GHG emission
reduction rules.
California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs as it is the second largest
contributor in the U.S. and the sixteenth largest in the world (CEC 2006). During 1990 to 2003,
Californias gross state product grew 83 percent while GHG emissions grew 12 percent. While
California has a high amount of GHG emissions, it has low emissions per capita. The major
source of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent of the States total GHG
emissions (CEC 2006). Electricity generation is the second largest generator, contributing 22
percent of the States GHG emissions. Emissions from fuel use in the commercial and residential
sectors in California decreased 9.7 percent over the 1990 to 2004 period (CEC 2006).
California has taken proactive steps, briefly described in Table 8, to address the issues
associated with GHG emissions and climate change. A summary of the major California GHG
regulations that will affect the projects GHG emissions are presented below.
California Environmental Quality Act GHG Amendments
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that State and local agencies identify the
significant environmental impacts of their actions, including potential significant air quality and
climate change impacts, and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, when feasible. The CEQA
amendments of December 30, 2009, specifically require lead agencies to address GHG emissions
in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by a project, and to consider
feasible means to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions (California Natural
Resources Agency 2012).
57
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 8. Summary of Relevant California GHG Regulations.

Bill, Year
Description
Assembly Bill
Directed California Energy Commission, in consultation with the CARB
(AB) 4420, 1988 and other agencies, to study and reporton how global warming trends
may affect Californias energy supply and demand, economy, environment,
agriculture, and water supplies.
AB 1493, 2002
Requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce
automobile and light-truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions
standards apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009
MY. Although litigation was filed challenging these regulations and EPA
initially denied Californias related request for a waiver, the waiver request
has now been granted.
Executive Order
The goal of E.O. S-3-05 is to reduce Californias GHG emissions to: (1)
(E.O.) S-3-05,
year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80% below the
2005
1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32,
Sets overall GHG emissions reduction goals and mandates that CARB
California Global create a plan that includes market mechanisms and implement rules to
Warming
achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.
Solutions Act of
Requires statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
2006
(The 1990 CO2e level is 427 million metric tonnes of CO2e (CARB
2012a)).
Directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide
emissions from stationary sources.
Specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 be used to
address GHG emissions from vehicles.
Requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing
1990 emissions levels.
Includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically
efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers
are not unfairly affected by the reductions.
E.O. S-01-07,
Requires the carbon intensity of Californias transportation fuels to be
2007
reduced by at least 10% by 2020.
Senate Bill 97
This bill directed the Natural Resources Agency, in coordination with the
Governors Office of Planning Research, to address the issues through
Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The revised Guidelines were
adopted December 30, 2009 to provide direction to lead agencies about
evaluating, quantifying, and mitigating a projects potential GHG
emissions.
Source: CARB 2012a, CARB 2012b, CARB 2012c, Office of the Governor 2007
58
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Relevant provisions of CEQA amendments include the following list (Office of Planning
and Research 2009). A lead agency subject to CEQA may consider the following when
assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared
to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency
determines applies to the project;
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of
GHGs.
When an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the agency may
consider adverse environmental effects in the context of region wide or statewide environmental
benefits. Lead agencies shall consider feasible means of mitigating GHGs that may include, but
not be limited to:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that
are required as part of the lead agencys decision;
(2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project
features, project design, or other measures;
(3) Offsite measures, including offsets;
(4) Measures that sequester GHGs;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long-range development
plan, or GHG reduction plan, mitigation may include the identification of specific
measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also
include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted
ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.
Local
SMAQMD is responsible for implementing federal and state regulations at the local
level. SMAQMD has not developed screening levels for GHG emissions from projects in
Sacramento County.
Though the context of GHGs is global, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 has defined the area of
analysis for GHG emissions to be statewide. To meet the AB 32 reduction goals in the SVAB,
SMAQMD has further narrowed the study area for GHGs to Sacramento County and
recommended that thresholds of significance for GHG emissions should be related to statewide
GHG reduction goals (SMAQMD 2011). To meet the AB 32 reduction goals in the SVAB, the
SMAQMD has further narrowed the study area for GHGs to Sacramento County. GHGs relevant
to the project were determined based on the projects potential to emit certain GHGs.
59
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal (IPCC, 2007).
Global average surface temperature has increased approximately 1.33 F over the last one
hundred years, with the most severe warming occurring in the most recent decades. In the
twelve years between 1995 and 2006, eleven years ranked among the warmest years in the
instrumental record of global average surface temperature (going back to 1850). Continued
warming is projected to increase global average temperature between 2 and 11 F over the next
one hundred years (IPCC, 2007). The causes of this warming have been identified as both
natural processes and as the result of human actions. Increases in GHG concentrations in the
Earths atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human induced climate change.
Some GHGs, such as CO2, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through
both natural processes and human activities. Other GHGs (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and
emitted solely through human activities. Sources of GHGs and their effects on the Earths
climate are detailed in Appendix A. Each GHG traps a different amount of heat. In order to
compare emissions of different GHGs, a weighting factor called a Global Warming Potential
(GWP) is used, in which a single metric ton (1,000 kilograms) of CO2 is taken as the standard.
Emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Therefore, the GWP of CO2 is 1;
the GWP of CH4 is 21; and the GWP of N2O is 310. These three GHGs would be applicable to
the project and potentially emitted during project construction activities.
GHG emission sources in Sacramento County and California are detailed in Appendix A.
The total 2005 Sacramento County GHG emissions were 13.9 million metric tonnes of CO2e.
Statewide GHG emissions in 2008 were approximately 477.74 million metric tonnes of CO2e.
Based on this estimate, statewide emissions would need to be reduced by approximately 50
million metric tonnes of CO2e by 2020 to meet the AB 32 goal of achieving 1990 CO2e levels
(427 million metric tonnes of CO2e) (CARB 2012a).
3.4 WATER QUALITY

Water quality analysis is divided into conventional pollutants and bioaccumulation
potential. For this analysis, conventional pollutants analyzed are:
pH;
Turbidity;
Total dissolved solids (TDS);
Dissolved oxygen (DO);
Nutrients, including total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen, and phosphorus;
Trace elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.
60
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Mercury is the specific focus of bioaccumulation potential analysis because of the

regionally common presence of mercury-contaminated sediments.
Groundwater quality is not analyzed in this report because of the lack of hydraulic
connectivity between the groundwater in the vicinity of the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam and
Folsom Reservoir. The Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Field Exploration Report Containing
Data through January 1, 2005 (FER) (Sherer 2006) indicates that the data collected throughout
the downstream foundation area indicated there is no connection between the reservoir and local
groundwater levels.
The area of analysis for this section is the aquatic body of Folsom Lake, particularly the
surface waters within the area of the lake along the proposed alignment of the approach channel
and spur dike for the auxiliary spillway (Plate 1).

Dredging projects subject to regulation from a government agency consist of the
following four activities:
a. The physical removal of sediment material from the bottom of a water body;
b. The incidental discharge of sediment during the dredging, as a result of disturbing
and physically moving the sediments;
c. The placement of the dredged sediments on land; and
d. The return of any water from the dredged sediments back to surface water either
during removal or after placement.
Federal Water Quality Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law governing water pollution. It
established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the U.S.
and gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to implement
pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industries (USEPA 2002). In
certain states such as California, the USEPA has delegated authority for the CWA to state
agencies.
The CWA requires that a permit be obtained from the USEPA and the Corps when
discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United States occurs. Under
Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps regulates such discharges and issues individual and/or
general permits for these activities. Before the Corps can issue a permit under CWA Section
404, it must determine that the project is in compliance with the CWA Section 404(b) (1)
guidelines. The 404(b)(1) guidelines specifically require that no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practical alternative to the proposed discharge which
61
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not
have other significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR 230.10[a]). The USEPA,
however, has veto authority over permits issued by the Corps. When performing its own civil
works projects, the Corps does not issue itself these permits, rather, the Corps must determine
that the project is incompliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines issued by the
USEPA as stated in Corps regulations.
Section 401 of the CWA regulates the water quality for any activity which may result in
any in-water work or discharge into navigable waters. These actions must not violate federal or
state water quality standards. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CVRWQCB) administers Section 401 in the State of California, and either issues or denies
water quality certifications depending upon whether the proposed discharge or fill material
complies with applicable State and Federal laws. Water quality certifications for large or
complex actions such as this Project typically include project-specific requirements established
by the CVRWQCB to ensure attainment of water quality standards and compliance with
applicable policies and regulations.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that States establish priority rankings for water on
the lists and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to improve
water quality (USEPA 2002). A TMDL is a tool for implementing water quality standards and is
based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions.
The Lower American River, downstream of the Project setting, has been placed on the
States list of impaired water bodies (the 303(d) list of the CWA) for mercury and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and unknown toxicity. The upper American River, including
Lake Natoma downstream of the Project Setting, Folsom Lake within the project setting, and the
North and South Forks of the American River, upstream of the Project setting, have been placed
on the 303(d) list for mercury. Placement on the States 303(d) list means that TMDLs will
eventually be required for those pollutants in each affected water body. Mercury TMDLs for all
those water bodies will be addressed though a Statewide mercury TMDL plan, which is
anticipated to be completed in 2013.
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Regulated or jurisdictional waters include all wetlands adjacent to navigable waters in
addition to navigable waters, interstate waters, and their tributaries. Therefore, any discharge of
dredged or fill material into these jurisdictional waters would be subject to compliance with
Section 404 and 401 of the CWA. Project construction related to impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands would be subject to regulations stated within these permits. All waters of the United
States are also considered waters of the State and are subject to regulation under the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act.
Seasonal wetlands and freshwater marshes exist along the margins of the reservoir,
typically within or adjacent to streams, swales, or other drainages. In addition, groundwater
upwelling is creating a wetland near Dike 5 on the western side of the reservoir.
62
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Corps verified a wetland delineation submitted by USBR for the 2007 FEIS/EIR on
December 11, 2007. Approximately 314.46 acres of waters of the United States, including
Folsom Lake, the American River, and wetlands, were present within the survey area. The
survey did not delineate any wetlands within the project area that comprises a pproximately 10 acres
of Folsom Lake. Folsom Lake and all tributaries are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA,
since they are tributaries to navigable waters of the United States.
The Mormon Island Wetlands Natural Preserve is located south of Green Valley Road
between Natoma Street and Sophia Parkway. The 100-acre preserve is approximately 0.50 miles
upstream from the project site. The excavation of the approach channel and disposal of materials
at the MIAD disposal area would not impair wetland functions of the Mormon Island Wetlands
Natural Preserve.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates alteration of (and prohibits
unauthorized obstruction of) any navigable waters of the United States. Construction of any
bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S. is prohibited without
Congressional approval. Construction plans for a bridge or causeway must be submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of Transportation, while construction plans for a dam or dike must be
submitted to and approved by the Corps. Excavation or fill within navigable waters also requires
the approval of the Corps.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
All point sources that discharge into navigable waters of the United States must obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under provisions of Section
402 of the CWA. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
CVRWQCBs are responsible for the implementation of the NPDES permitting process at the
state and regional levels, respectively. Individual NPDES permits have previously been issued in
California to dewatering operations having a long duration, but not for shorter duration
dewatering activities such as the Folsom Dam JFP.
The NPDES permit process also provides a regulatory mechanism for the control of nonpoint source pollution created by runoff from construction and industrial activities, and general
and urban land use, including runoff from streets. Projects involving construction activities (e.g.,
clearing, grading, or excavation) involving land disturbance greater than one acre must file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the CVRWQCB to indicate their intent to comply with the State
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities, Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ Construction General Permit. This Project would be
required to file an NOI to and comply with the provisions of the CGP.
The Construction General Permit establishes conditions to minimize sediment and
pollutant loadings and requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The SWPPP is intended to help identify the
sources of sediment and other pollutants, and to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs)
63
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
for storm water and non-storm water source control and pollutant control. The Construction
General Permit also has detailed requirements regulating the use of active treatment systems
(ATS) used to control turbidity for construction and dewatering. ATS are used where traditional
erosion and sediment controls are not sufficient to prevent water quality standards from being
exceeded. If this Project were to implement ATS, an approved ATS would be required by the
Construction General Permit.
State Water Quality Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 established the SWRCB and nine
regional water quality control boards within the State of California. These groups are the primary
state agencies responsible for protecting California water quality to meet present and future
beneficial uses and regulating appropriative surface rights allocations. The preparation and
adoption of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, and statewide plans, is the responsibility
of the SWRCB.
California Water Code
State law requires that Basin Plans conform to the policies set forth in the California
Water Code beginning with Section 13000 and any State policy for water quality control. These
plans are required by the California Water Code (Section 13240) and supported by the Federal
CWA. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards which "consist of
the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such
waters based upon such uses." According to Section 13050 of the California Water Code, Basin
Plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of beneficial
uses to be protected and water quality objectives to protect those uses. Adherence to Basin Plan
water quality objectives protects continued beneficial uses of water bodies.
The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB, within the greater
Sacramento Valley watershed. Beneficial uses and water quality objectives for Folsom Lake are
established in the CVRWQCBs Water Quality Control Basin Plan for the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River Basins. Basin Plans are adopted and amended by regional water boards under a
structured process involving full public participation and State environmental review. Because
of the long time frame for amending Basin Plans, amendments affecting the Project are not
likely, except for the possibility that a Statewide Mercury TMDL may be established in 2013.
The Basin Plan includes numerical and narrative water quality objectives for physical and
chemical water quality constituents. Numerical objectives are set for temperature, DO, turbidity,
and pH; TDS, electrical conductivity, bacterial content and various specific ions; trace metals;
and synthetic organic compounds. Narrative objectives are set for parameters such as suspended
solids, biostimulatory substances (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus), oil and grease, color, taste,
odor, and aquatic toxicity Narrative objectives are often precursors to numeric objectives. The
primary method used by the CVRWQCB to ensure conformance with the Basin Plans water
quality objectives and implementation policies and procedures is to issue Waste Discharge
64
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Requirements (WDRs) for projects that may discharge wastes to land or water. WDRs specify
term and conditions that must be followed during the implementation and operation of a project.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is
responsible for protecting and enhancing public health and the environment by scientific
evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances. In the Project setting, OEHHAs recent
Public Health Goal (PHG) for hexavalent chromium in drinking water and risk assessment
guidelines for mercury in fish are used to establish thresholds for effects. The California
Department of Health (DPH) implements guidance established by OEHAA, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and other sources by establishing maximum concentration
limits (MCLs) for chemical constituents in drinking water. MCLs are enforceable as numeric
water quality objectives in California. The PHG for hexavalent chromium established by
OEHAA has not yet been adopted as an MCL by DPH. An MCL for hexavalent chromium may
be adopted by DPH during the duration of the Project, but the final value is not certain and the
implementation plan for that MCL has not been specified by DPH.
Local Water Quality Regulations
General Plans for El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties each have provisions
aimed at protecting local water resources for future and current use. The El Dorado County
General Plan establishes a county-wide water resources program to conserve, enhance, manage,
and protect water resources and their quality from degradation. These objectives consist of the
following: ensuring an adequate quantity and quality of water is available; protection of critical
watersheds, riparian zones, and aquifers; improvement and subsequent maintenance of the
quality of both surface water and groundwater; wetland area protection; utilization of natural
drainage patterns; and encouraging water conservation practices including re-use programs for
applicable areas such as agricultural fields (El Dorado County 2004).
The Placer County General Plans main goal pertaining to local water resources states
that the natural qualities of its streams, creeks and groundwater would be protected and
enhanced. To accomplish this goal, the County has enacted policies such as requiring various
setbacks and easements from sensitive habitat areas or creek corridors, requiring mitigation
measures for developments encroaching water bodies, implementing BMPs to protect streams
from runoff during construction activities or due to agricultural practices, and protecting
groundwater resources from contamination (Placer County 1994).
The Conservation Element of Sacramento Countys General Plan contains measures to
implement water conservation and to protect surface water supplies and surface water quality.
Specific goals include the following: use of surface water to ensure long-term supplies exist for
residents while providing recreational and environmental benefits; protecting surface water
quality for both public use and support of aquatic environment health; and promoting water
conversation and reuse measures.
65
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
In general, it is assumed that compliance with Federal and State water quality regulations
will ensure compliance with local policies and regulations.

Project activities such as drilling, dredging, blasting and hauling may disturb or mobilize
sediments, which has the potential to affect total suspended solids (TSS), pH, turbidity, and
dissolved oxygen (DO). Re-suspension of sediments may also affect the concentrations of metals
(arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) in the water column by releasing
metals that are present in lake sediments from both natural and human sources. Metals, TSS, pH,
turbidity, and DO are of concern because of the potential to cause acute (e.g., mortality) or
chronic (e.g., impaired reproduction) effects on benthic and aquatic life within the lake.
Water Quality Conditions
Folsom Reservoir has numerous beneficial use designations as defined by the
CVRWQCB. The beneficial uses include municipal, domestic, and industrial water supply;
irrigation; power; water contact and non-contact recreation; and warm and cold freshwater
habitat, warm freshwater spawning habitat; and wildlife habitat (SAFCA, 2003).
Water quality in Folsom Lake is generally acceptable for the beneficial uses currently
defined for these water bodies. However, taste and odor problems have occurred in municipal
water supplies diverted from the lake in the past. These problems were attributed to blue-green
algal blooms that occasionally occur in the reservoir as a result of elevated water temperatures.
The Folsom Reservoir is not listed on CVRWCB State List of Impaired Waters or listed as a
federally designated and state-designated Wild and Scenic River.
Snowmelt and precipitation from the relatively undeveloped upper American River
watershed leads to runoff. This runoff is generally of very high quality, rarely exceeding the
State of Californias water quality objectives (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al., 2003). Although
water quality within Folsom Lake is generally acceptable to meet the currently designated
beneficial uses, occasional taste and odor problems have occurred in municipal water supplies
diverted from Folsom Lake. Blue-green algal blooms that occasionally occur in the reservoir due
to elevated water temperatures were identified as the cause of those taste and odor problems.
Water quality data compiled in Table 9 below help to characterize existing conditions in
Folsom Lake. The pH, electrical conductivity, DO, and turbidity data were collected on June 28,
2005; a total of 47 samples were taken. The TOC data were collected on June 11, 2003; a total of
6 samples were taken. The nitrogen, phosphorus, and TDS data were collected over a 13-month
period from February 2001 to February 2002; 5 samples were taken for each of these parameters.
These data are considered representative of the general water quality conditions of Folsom Lake.
66
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 9. Water Quality Parameters (2001-2005).

Parameter
pH
Turbidity
DO
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
TDS
Minimum
6.6
1
4.95
Maximum
8.23
126.9
7.93
<0.050
<0.010
39
0.11
<0.050
44
Water Quality
Average
Objective
6.94 6.5 (min) - 8.5 (max)
8.4 10 NTU
6.88 > 7 mg/L (COLD)
>5 mg/L (WARM)
0.062 no adverse effects
0.0212
41.8 100 mg/L (AGR, MUN)
Sources: USBR (2005); Wallace, Roberts and Todd et al. (2003). Water quality objectives established by CVWQCB Basin Plan.
Chromium
The Pillikin Mine, an abandoned chromium mine, exists on the Peninsula just north of
Flagstaff Hill. The Pillikin Mine contained the largest known chromite deposit in the Sierra
Nevada. The mine began ore production during World War I and became inactive in April of
1955 (El Dorado County Public Library 2002). The mine is located above the elevation of the
reservoir and would not cause new water quality effects as a result of the implementation of any
of the Folsom JFP alternatives. According to USBR, there has been no detection of chromium in
the water tested (Sherer 2006c).
Mercury
As noted above, Folsom Lake is on the States list of impaired water bodies due to
mercury concentrations in fish that exceed risk assessment levels. As noted in Appendix C, the
concentrations of mercury in Folsom Lake fish are comparable to mercury concentrations in fish
from throughout the State. Mercury concentrations in Folsom Lake largemouth bass are lower
than other mining-impacted reservoirs, and within 1 standard deviation of all other reservoirs in
the Central Valley.
The sediments in Folsom Lake may contain mercury from historic mining releases and
from naturally occurring mercury within the watershed of the upper American River drainage.
Mercury inputs from atmospheric deposition are also a common source to lakes and reservoirs,
including Folsom Lake. Atmospheric deposition alone is sufficient to cause many lakes and
reservoirs throughout the nation to have mercury concentrations in fish that exceed risk
assessment thresholds for people and wildlife.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that occurs in several different chemical forms. The most
common form is inorganic mercury (Hg2+), which can form complexes in solution with anions
such as chloride and sulfide. Mercury produced from mining is inorganic mercury present as
mercury sulfide, the reddish ore also known as cinnabar. Cinnabar ore was crushed and roasted
during mining operations to produce elemental mercury (Hg0), the silvery liquid also known as
quicksilver. In the California Coast ranges during the time period of 1840 to 1972, millions of
pounds of cinnabar ore were mined to produce quicksilver. Much of that quicksilver produced in
67
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
California was transported to the Sierra Foothills, where it was used to extract of gold from
placer deposits mobilized by hydraulic mining. As a result of the historic mining use, many lakes
and streams in California have mercury contaminated sediments present.
Project activities may disturb, or mobilize, mercury and pollutants that may be present in
the lake sediments. Mercury contamination in the American River watershed results from the
historic use of mercury for gold mining. The first major gold deposits discovered in California
were located in the upper watershed of the American River. Folsom Lake, like any other surface
water is subject to atmospheric deposition of mercury due to its widespread distribution in the
atmosphere from natural sources (volcanoes) and human activities (coal combustion). Mercury is
of concern because of the unique biochemical transformations that affect mercury
bioaccumulation.
The chemical form of greatest concern is known as methylmercury, which is inorganic
mercury with a carbon attached by a covalent bond. Methylmercury has an extremely high
affinity for sulfur atoms present in amino acids, and therefore binds to proteins. Small aquatic
organisms (zooplankton and benthic invertebrates) that graze on algae that have assimilated
methylmercury into protein will tend to retain the protein, and therefore accumulate mercury
(bioaccumulation).
Bioaccumulation of mercury tends to increase at successively higher levels in the food
web; this process is also referred to as biomagnification. Biomagnification of methylmercury is
approximately 1 million fold from dissolved methylmercury in water to the flesh of a top level
aquatic predator; in other words, an average concentration of 1 mg/L of methylmercury in water
can lead to an average concentration of 1 mg/kg in the flesh of a large mouth bass.
Exposure to elemental mercury through inhalation is more of an industrial/occupational
concern, and not relevant to the project setting. Exposure to mercury through drinking water is
also not relevant to this environmental analysis. The very small difference between the CTR
criterion for mercury in potable water (0.050 ng/L) and non-potable water (0.051 ng/L) reflects
the relatively low risk of exposure to inorganic mercury through the drinking water pathway as
compared to consumption of organisms; conventional drinking water treatment to remove
sediment is also highly effective at removing inorganic mercury, because of its tendency to
adhere to particles.
Mercury in Folsom Lake Sediments
The Corps and USBR conducted several sediment assessments in 2006, 2008, and 2011
within the project area. Eighteen samples collected in 2006 by USBR were taken from both
terrestrial and aquatic sites in the vicinity of the spillway. All samples were collected using a
gravity core, except for one site, where a Ponar grab was used. Samples for total metals were
analyzed without any additional processing; samples for mercury analysis were sieved through a
63 micron mesh prior to analysis to remove coarse material.
Sediment samples were collected by the Corps in 2008 at eight aquatic sites within the
area of the Seismic Refraction Study boundary. Unusually low lake levels allowed sediment
68
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
samples to be collected from areas that are typically submerged. Stainless steel scoops were used
to collect the samples. According to the field sampling and analysis plan (FSAP) sediment
samples were not sieved.
Pre-dredge sediment samples were collected by the Corps in 2011 at three locations
within the dredging area. Two composite samples were collected from the proposed approach
channel location and one was collected from the proposed transload facility. The field sampling
FSAP indicates that sediment samples were not sieved. In addition to chemical characterization,
modified elutriate tests (MET) were run to characterize the chemical constituents and toxicity of
decant water returned to Folsom Lake after dredging and dewatering of sediments.
The 2006 to 2011 assessments show that mercury concentrations in sediments are well
below the average concentration of mercury in American River watershed sediments (0.27 ppm),
and most are below established thresholds based on State Sediment Quality Objective (SQO)
guidance. The observation that eighteen samples collected by USBR in 2006 are consistently
higher than those collected later by the Corps in 2008 and 2011 is probably due to the fact that
the USBR samples were sieved to remove coarse materialmercury tends to be present at higher
concentrations in fine sediments compared to coarse sediments.
The observation that Folsom Lake mercury concentrations in the project area are
comparable to watershed background levels may be explained by the fact that the project area is
located further from tributary inflow sites where sediments and mercury from the upper
watershed would tend to deposit. The upper American River watershed had a relatively low level
of mining activity compared to the Bear and Yuba River watersheds. Researchers have suggested
that this difference in historic mining activity may account for some of the difference in mercury
concentrations in organisms between these watersheds (Figure 8).
In addition to the aquatic sediment samples, soil samples were collected from the haul
road to assess total mercury (USBR, 2008). Those samples were collected using a hand auger;
they were homogenized using a 10-mesh sieve (~1600 micron size cutoff), which would not
exclude coarse sediment. All twenty samples collected had total mercury concentrations below
0.08 mg/kg, which is below the 1.06 mg/kg threshold of significance for mercury.
69
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
0.30
Total Mercury Concentrations (mg/kg)
0.25
American River Avg. Mercury Concentration

(WY 1984-2003)
0.20
Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) SQO

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Sources: USBR (2006); USACE (2008); USACE (2011)
Figure 7. Total Mercury in Project Area Sediment Samples (2006, 2008, and 2011).
Figure 8. Relationship Between Hydraulic Mining in Sierra Nevada Watersheds and

Mercury Concentration in Aquatic Organisms (Alpers et al., 2000).
70
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Mercury Bioaccumulation
The primary concern with mercury contamination is the accumulation of methylmercury
in organisms, particularly at the top of aquatic food webs. Mercury occurs in many forms, but
methylmercury is the form which poses the highest bioaccumulation risk, because it binds to
proteins. Elevated levels of methylmercury in the tissues of wildlife and humans can adversely
affect health and fitness. Methylmercury is produced from inorganic mercury in aquatic
ecosystems by naturally-occurring bacteria that thrive under low oxygen conditions. In
particular, sulfate-reducing bacteria are known to be significant sources of methylmercury.
Those bacteria must acquire inorganic mercury to methylate it, so the rate at which bacteria
methylate mercury depends in part on how readily the mercury can be acquired, or how
bioavailable the mercury source is.
The bioavailability of mercury is highly dependent on site-specific factors that can
change. For example, mercury from atmospheric deposition has relatively greater bioavailability
that is diminished during watershed transport as the mercury interacts with soils and organic
matter. An assessment question related to project activities is whether or not activities would
increase the bioavailability of mercury present in reservoir sediments.
It is difficult to forecast exactly how project activities could affect mercury
bioavailability, because mercury bioavailability is a relatively new area of research.
Resuspension of sediments can potentially increase mercury bioavailability by moving the
mercury from bedded sediments, where binding by sulfide and other complexes can reduce
bioavailability, up into the water column. If so, any increased methylation effects would be
confined to the area where increased amounts of bioavailable mercury are present as a result of
project activities. In other words, physical containment of the working area would be an
important mitigation measure, given the uncertainties.
The assessment of mercury bioaccumulation potential relies upon a qualitative analysis
using a conceptual model for mercury methylation and bioaccumulation in Folsom Lake; the
conceptual model is adapted from a generalized conceptual model developed by Alpers et al.
(2000) for mercury bioaccumulation in Sierra foothills reservoirs (Figure 9).
As shown in the conceptual model, methylation of bioavailable mercury is one factor that
affects the net accumulation of mercury in the food web. Other factors include the degree to
which methylmercury is transported out of methylating areas and acquired by algae and their
zooplankton grazers. To the extent that any increased methylation effects are contained to within
the working area of the project by turbidity control measures, only zooplankton within the
project area would be at risk of acquiring increased methylmercury concentrations.
Small fish and benthic invertebrates such as crayfish confined within the working area
would also experience more localized effects from grazing on algae and zooplankton. Small fish
and crayfish that persist in the working area after activities cease can transport accumulated
mercury to predators that feed on them, including larger fish and birds. The significance of
mercury accumulated in small fish and invertebrates from within the Project area on the mercury
diet of larger fish and birds from the lake and surrounding watershed would be proportional to
71
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
the fraction of the diet that larger predators obtain from the Project area. As shown by the inset in
Figure 9, the affected project area is small, under 70 acres, which represents approximately 0.6
percent of the entire lake surface.
Note: Site conceptual model based on general conceptual model as presented in Alpers et al. (2000)
Figure 9. Conceptual Model for Mercury Bioaccumulation in Project Area.
In addition to the risk factors and spatial scales identified above, the qualitative
assessment also considers time scales. Top level predators such as salmon and largemouth bass
live for years, whereas the construction windows of in-the-wet operations will last months.
Risk factors that lead to increased methylmercury production include:
Creation of low oxygen conditions that could increase mercury methylation rates by
naturally occurring bacteria;
Conversion of existing mercury in the lake sediments to forms that are more readily
methylated (i.e., reactive mercury, or bioavailable mercury).
Mobilization of mercury contaminated sediments into existing or created areas of low

oxygen and/or high microbial activity.
72
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
As noted above, mercury concentrations in project area sediments do not appear to be

particularly contaminated in comparison to watershed background levels. Therefore, the
assessment for potential mercury bioaccumulation effects from this Project focuses on two risk
factors: the creation of low dissolved oxygen and the conversion of existing mercury in lake
sediments to forms that are more readily methylated.
Metals
The sediments in Folsom Reservoir contain naturally occurring trace metals, including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Concentrations of some trace metals
may also be increased above natural concentrations by human activities, such as copper released
from automobile brake pads, lead released from automobile wheel weights, and zinc released
from galvanized steel. Metals in sediments can potentially be mobilized by disturbances,
affecting metal concentrations in the overlying water column. Water Quality Objectives for
metals are established in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) promulgated by USEPA, which is
incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan.
Sediment quality analysis indicates that trace element concentrations are comparable to
background concentrations, based on average crustal abundances. Sediment concentrations in
Table 10 are used to evaluate the potential for sediment resuspension related to Project activities
to cause dissolved metals concentrations that exceed numeric thresholds.
Table 10. Approach Channel Sediment Quality Samples.
August 2006
March 2008
Element
(USBR 2006)
(Corps 2008)
(Natural
Background)* Units
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Arsenic
mg/kg
4.1-12
7.44
1.67-5.74
2.84
(4.8 0.5)
Cadmium
<0.4<1.00mg/kg
<0.50
<1.00
(.09 .01)
<0.61
<1.00
Chromium
mg/kg
44-87
65.06 13.2-36.39
18.52
(92 17)
Copper
mg/kg
41-72
56.34
4.98-8.29
6.88
(28 4)
Lead
mg/kg
12-26
19.65
3.43-8.3
5.02
(17 0.5)
Mercury
<0.100mg/kg
0.12-0.2
0.16
<0.100
(0.05 + 0.04)
<0.100
Nickel
mg/kg
50-100
76.28
10.4-17
13.49
(47 11)
Zinc
mg/kg
60-99
80.06
15.3-30.3
23.20
(67 6)
18
8
Total Samples
October 2011
(Corps 2011)
Range
Mean
0.711-2.13
1.43
<0.400<0.400
<0.400
20.1-35
26.80
10.7-26.5
16.90
2.63-6.97
4.47
0.0150.0528
0.03
16.1-33.9
22.30
21.7-45.4
30.83
*Note: Natural background concentrations based on average 1 standard deviation of upper continental crustal
abundance, as reported by Rudnick (2003).
73
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Recreational Uses
Recreational uses of the reservoir can affect background water quality by creating litter
and bacteria sources, releasing hydrocarbons, oil and grease from boating and motor vehicles,
and increasing sediment transport due to erosion. Water quality effects from these activities are
managed by enforcement of ordinances and regulations that prohibit dumping, litter, biking and
hiking outside authorized areas, and adherence to marina and boat launch regulations.
3.5 FISHERIES
This section discusses fishery resources in the vicinity of the project area. Information
regarding regulated fish species can be found in Section 3.1.6, Special Status Species.

Federal
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act)
The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes a management system for national marine and
estuarine fishery resources. This legislation requires that all Federal agencies consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding all actions or proposed action permitted,
funded, or undertaken that my adversely affect essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat is
defined as waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity. The legislation states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning
grounds are considered essential fish habitat. The phrase adversely affect refers to the creation
of any impact that reduces the quality or quality of essential fish habitat.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA (16 USC 661 et seq.) provides that fish and wildlife resources shall receive
equal consideration with other features throughout the planning process of water resources
development projects. The FWCA requires Federal agencies to consult with Federal and State
fish and wildlife resource agencies before undertaking or approving water projects that control or
modify surface water. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that wildlife concerns receive
equal consideration during water resource development projects and are coordinated with the
features of these projects. The consultation is intended to promote the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources by preventing their loss or damage and to provide for the development and
improvement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water projects. Federal agencies
undertaking water projects are required to fully consider recommendations made by Federal and
State fish and wildlife resource agencies in project reports and to include measures to reduce
impacts on fish and wildlife in project plans.
74
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
State
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area General Plan and Resource Management Plan
The California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), in partnership with
USBR, completed the integrated FLSRA General Plan and Resource Management Plan (RMP)
and DEIR/DEIS (2007), which is the first comprehensive update to the FLSRA RMP since 1979.
The plan is the primary management document for the park unit, providing a defined purpose,
vision, long term-goals, and management guidelines guides the protection of natural and cultural
resources, provides for and manages recreational opportunities, and outlines the future
development of public facilities at FLSRA. The major overall goal for fisheries, as outlined in
the RMP, is to support the protection and restoration of native anadromous fisheries below
Nimbus Dam, including special status species such as Central Valley steelhead and Chinook
salmon. Additionally, the RMP outlines guidelines for supporting recreational fishing
opportunities in Folsom Lake, including CDFGs recreational fishery programs (State Parks and
USBR 2007a).

The construction of Folsom Reservoir, completed in 1955, inundated portions of both the
North and South Forks of the American River, creating a lake with approximately 85 miles of
shoreline and approximately 12,000 surface acres (State Parks 1979). The structure of Folsom
Dam, and also of the downstream Nimbus Dam, effectively discontinued the migratory access
for anadromous fisheries, and obstructed passage of other fish species. The deepest point of the
reservoir lies directly behind Folsom Dam at 266 feet, though the remainder of the reservoir is
relatively shallow with a mean depth that averages 66 feet. In general, lake levels are the least
variable during the spring and most variable during summer. Fluctuations of the reservoir level
due to seasonal flows and anthropogenic draw downs accounted for differences in lake
elevations of almost 120 feet between 1985 and 2008 (URS 2009). Reductions in water levels
elevations that begin in late spring can affect reproduction of a number of the reservoirs warm
water species such as bass, catfish, and sunfish. Shallow water spring and summer nests can be
exposed or desiccate as water levels recede affecting annual recruitment into reservoir
populations.
Folsom Reservoir is managed for native and introduced cold and warm water fish that
utilize the stratified temperature layers of the lake according to thermal habitat needs. Thermal
stratification begins in April and usually holds through November when winter rains and high
inflows mix the waters. Thermal stratification during summer results in an upper layer of warm
water, a transitional zone called a thermocline, and a lower layer of cold water (Wallace,
Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). The deepest section of the reservoir, directly in front of Folsom
Dam, is used by salmon and trout during warm summer and early fall months (Thomas pers.
comm.) to take advantage of less oxygenated, but colder temperatures in the hypolimnion
(deepest) layer. Native cold water fish, rainbow trout and Chinook salmon populations, are
maintained through a stocking program operated out of the Nimbus Fish Hatchery by CDFG.
75
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Other cold water and warm water species found within the reservoir maintain populations
independent of hatchery support.
Anadromous fish, including Chinook salmon and steelhead that travel up the Sacramento
and American Rivers, cannot pass over Nimbus Dam. The Nimbus Hatchery was constructed as
a mitigation action for the construction of Folsom Dam. Nimbus Hatchery, located
approximately one quarter mile downstream of Nimbus Dam and six and a quarter miles
downstream of Folsom Dam, produces the majority of hatchery fish stocked in Folsom
Reservoir. CDFG releases several sizes of rainbow trout in Folsom Lake including fingerlings,
catchable size, and trophy fish with a stocking quota of approximately 14,000 catchable fish per
year (J. Rowan pers. comm. 2012). A management stocking goal for 100,000 fingerling
Chinook salmon has not been realized since 2006, but the Inland Chinook Salmon Program
managed by CDFG has shown substantial recruitment in Folsom Reservoir from salmon
spawning in the upstream forks of the American River since 2009 (J. Rowan pers. comm. 2012).
The Lower American River below Nimbus Dam Hatchery is designated as Essential Fish
Habitat for Chinook salmon by the Pacific Fishery Management Council within the Pacific Coast
Salmon Plan (USACE 2001b). Government agency working groups set the goals for preferred
flow and temperature conditions in the Lower American River to create favorable conditions for
downstream populations of salmon and steelhead. The management of the cold water pool in
Folsom Lake is critical to the population of fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Lower
American River below Nimbus Dam. Seasonally high water temperatures limit the reproduction,
growth, and survival of anadromous salmonids in the Lower American River. Summer releases
of cold water from Folsom Lake occur to maintain juvenile steelhead rearing habitat in the lower
American River, and fall releases of cold water are made for adult Chinook salmon immigration,
spawning, and egg incubation. Salmonids within the reservoir do not qualify as federal listed
anadromous salmon and steelhead due to the inability to pass upstream past Nimbus Dam. As a
result, no effects to anadromous salmonid species or essential fish habitat would occur within the
project area.
With the exception of the hardhead minnow, there are 30 known species that occur within
Folsom Reservoir (J. Rowan pers. comm. 2012). Both native and nonnative introduced species
form an active recreational fishery, and of these species, bass, trout and salmon are considered
the most popular game fish species. Electrofishing surveys conducted in Folsom Reservoir by
CDFG in 2003, 2004 and 2009 indicated that spotted bass are present in higher numbers
compared to other bass or sunfish species and this is reflected within creel counts (K. Thomas
pers. comm. 2011). Wakasagi smelt are also known to occur in high numbers within the
reservoir. Dewatering operations were conducted in October 2004 associated with the Folsom
Dam Modifications project. A total of 1,250 fish were removed from the basin and included a
variety of species and sizes. Wakasagi smelt represent 95 percent of the fish accumulation that
also included rainbow trout, spotted bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, riffle sculpin and
unidentified bass and sculpin. Bass species represented 4 percent of the total and the remaining
three species constituted 1 percent. Dewatering operations conducted in 2000 within the stilling
basin recounted similar results.
76
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Listed below are the current fish species known to occur in Folsom Reservoir. Relative
ratings of abundance (common, uncommon, rare) were provided by Kevin Thomas, and Jay
Rowan, CDFG fisheries biologists. General California species data is attributed to Moyle
(2002).
Cold Water Game Fish
Chinook Salmon (Onchroynchus tshawytcha)
Folsom Reservoir is stocked for recreational fishing with fingerling and yearling Chinook
salmon. In the absence of dams, native Chinook salmon would migrate to upstream rivers and
tributaries to spawn and juveniles would return downstream to the ocean. Chinook salmon have
been documented traveling upstream from Folsom Reservoir to spawn in the upper American
River and tributaries. The amount of natural reproduction from upstream spawning was
considered low in 2003 (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003), but has since increased
sufficiently to maintain the reservoir population in lieu of regular stocking. Juvenile salmon feed
primarily on zooplankton in the reservoir, and are considered catchable when they reach 12 to 14
inches in size. Temperature preferences for juveniles range between 5 and 19 degrees Celsius
(C), while temperatures greater than 24 C can cause mortality.
Rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss)
The Nimbus Fish Hatchery stocks both juvenile and adult rainbow trout in Folsom
Reservoir, creating the bulk of the reservoirs recreational rainbow trout population. Natural
reproduction also occurs in tributaries upstream of Folsom Reservoir where trout spawn in gravel
with fast flowing water and migrate into other stream pools or the lake to rear. Rainbow trout in
lakes feed on zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, or small fish. Temperatures less than 20 C are
preferable for optimum growth and mortality can occur at temperatures greater than 27 C
(Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003).
Brown trout (Salmo Trutta)
Brown trout are a common nonnative species introduced to Folsom Reservoir. These
trout are not currently stocked and maintain a self supporting population by accessing tributaries
for spawning. Considered a cold water species, brown trout prefer water temperatures in the
range from 12 to 20 C. Brown trout habitat preferences are similar to rainbow trout, but their
diet is more piscivorous; a larger proportion of small fish is consumed as they increase in size.
Adults also consume crayfish, and dragon and damsel fly larvae. As fry or juveniles, brown
trout feed on zooplankton and macroinvertebrates.
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Though uncommon, landlocked steelhead may still be present in Folsom Reservoir as
identified by steelhead-like morphological characteristics (J. 2012 pers. comm.). Steelhead are
produced in the Nimbus Hatchery, and it is probable that some of these hatchery fish have been
77
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
introduced into Folsom Reservoir with upstream fish genetically related to the original Central
Valley stock.
Kokanne salmon (Oncorhynchus nerkus)
Kokanne salmon, the land locked version of the Pacific Ocean sockeye salmon, are not a
native species to Folsom Reservoir but have been introduced intermittently since 1964. Prior to
1971, over 5 million fingerlings were introduced. During the years from 1972 to 1982, lower
numbers of fingerlings were intermittently stocked in Folsom Reservoir. CDFG resumed plants
with 100,000 fish in 1994 and 158,856 in 1995. Fingerlings were again planted in 2006 and
2007, and intermittent stocking continued through 2011. Though intensive stocking has occurred
they are still considered an uncommon fish, and stocking was recently discontinued due to
sustained absence from creel counts. There is concern from CDFG that competition for plankton
from Wakasagi smelt accounts for low survival of these salmon (J. 2012 pers. com).
Warm Water Game Fish Species
Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides); Spotted Bass (M. punctatus);
Smallmouth Bass (M. Dolomieui)
Largemouth bass are an introduced species that is considered common in Folsom
Reservoir. Largemouth bass are a popular game fish, but they are not stocked in Folsom
Reservoir, because they reproduce sufficiently to provide for a recreational fishery. Largemouth
bass normally prefer shallow water, less than 20 feet deep, with submerged aquatic vegetation.
Young bass feed primarily on plankton, aquatic invertebrates, and fish fry, while adults feed on
fish, amphibians, and crayfish, as available. Optimal temperatures for growth are from 25 to 30
C; water temperatures at 15 C provides for spring spawning. Substantial reductions of
reservoir water levels that begin in late spring affect bass reproduction. Egg and juvenile
survival are affected negatively by water level fluctuations that occur during nesting season and
can leave nests stranded. Additionally, the lack of aquatic vegetation is not conducive to
largemouth bass breeding.
Spotted bass are commonly found in Folsom Lake and of the three bass species present,
are the species most often caught according to creel census (J. Rowan pers. comm. 2012). The
breeding success of this species in reservoirs is attributed to its ability to spawn in deeper water
and more open habitat than the largemouth bass. Smallmouth bass are adapted to cool water
streams, but are commonly found in Folsom Reservoir where it attempts to avoid largemouth
bass. Adult smallmouth bass are less piscivorous than largemouth bass and their diets consist of
more invertebrates.
Bluegill (Leopomis macrochirus)
Bluegill are an introduced nonnative species common to Folsom Reservoir. Bluegill are
considered a warm water fish and water from 27 to 32 C is considered optimum for their
growth. Spawning occurs in the spring and summer when water temperatures reach 18 to 21 C.
78
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
They are usually found in shallow water among aquatic vegetation and feed on aquatic
invertebrates and small fish.
Redear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus)
Redear sunfish are an introduced species from the southeastern United States that prefer
deep, still warm water at 24 to 32 C. They are considered common in Folsom Reservoir, and
prefer aquatic vegetation that provides a diet of benthic invertebrates, including snails. Similar
to bluegill, spawning occurs in summer over nests in shallow water.
Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
A nonnative species introduced to Folsom Reservoir, green sunfish are considered a
common species that can exist in a wide range of temperatures, but prefer water from 26 to 30
C. Optimal habitat for green sunfish is shallow lake water with aquatic vegetation. Green
sunfish adults consume invertebrates and small fish. Spawning occurs in spring or summer over
fine gravel.
White Catfish (Ictalurus catus); Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
White catfish are an east coast species introduced to Folsom Reservoir and are considered
an uncommon resident. Channel catfish are introduced from the Mississippi-Missouri River
system and are considered common in Folsom Reservoir. While white catfish live in slow
moving warm water where temperatures exceed 20 C during the summer, channel catfish prefer
the bottom of swiftly moving rivers. Spawning occurs in June and July over nests when water
temperatures reach 21 to 29 C. A variety of fish and invertebrates compose their diet.
White Crappie (Promoxis annularis); Black Crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus)
White and black crappie are introduced nonnative fishes and are considered to be
uncommon in Folsom Reservoir. These fish prefer slow moving, warmer water in a temperature
range of 27 to 29 C. Spawning occurs in shallow water nests from March through July.
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
Brown bullheads are introduced to Folsom Reservoir from the eastern United States and
Canada. This species tolerates a wide range of temperatures and is able to live in low dissolved
oxygen conditions. As a result, in California, they are widely distributed and found in habitats
from warm turbid sloughs to clear mountain lakes. Spawning occurs from May through July
near aquatic vegetation or large woody debris. Adult brown bullhead are piscivorous and also
feed upon insect larvae
Native Non-Game Fishes
Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus)
79
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
These large native minnows, a California Species of Concern, are found in mid-elevation
foothill streams of the Central Valley in preferred habitat of clear, deep pools and runs. When
inhabiting reservoirs, hardhead minnows are found in shallower or surface water to utilize
optimum water temperatures of 24 to 28 C. Hardheads would be more likely to be found in
preferred habitat of tributaries and streams above Folsom Reservoir, but they do not tolerate
predation well by sunfish and bass, and are unlikely to inhabit the tributary arms and the main
body of Folsom Reservoir due to the concentration of these predatory species. There is no
record of hardhead minnow occurring within the boundaries of Folsom Lake, though they have
been recorded much further upstream within the South Fork American River around the Coloma
area (K. Thomas, pers.comm. 2011). Spawning occurs in April and May over stream gravel
substrate. Juveniles rear along edge habitat in covered areas.
Sacramento Pikeminnow (Ptychochelilus grandis)
Sacramento pikeminnow grow up to a meter in length and occupy stream and river
habitats with deep pools and cover. They are usually not found in reservoirs, with the exception
of proximity to the entrance of large tributaries. Most likely occupied habitat in Folsom
Reservoir would be found at the confluence of the north and south forks of the American River
into the reservoir. Summer waters with temperatures of 18 to 28 C are preferred. Spring and
early summer spawning occurs over gravel substrate in shallow flowing streams.
Sacramento Sucker (Catostomus occidentalis)
The Sacramento sucker is a native species, widely distributed in central and northern
California, found most abundantly in larger streams and rivers (Moyle 2002). Sacramento
suckers spawn over gravel substrate in stream riffles or along shorelines in lakes. Preferred
temperatures are 20 to 25 C. Larval suckers concentrate in warm stream or lake margins over
bottoms with detritus or vegetation. Juvenile suckers are also found in low velocity water in
stream margins foraging on algae, diatoms, and some invertebrates.
California Roach (Lavinia symmetricus)
The California roach is a small native minnow found in the Central Valley and Sierra
Foothills. California roach are considered relatively rare residents of Folsom Reservoir, and are
more likely to be found in small tributary streams. Roaches prefer small, warm stream habitats
and tolerate a greater temperature range than other native fishes. Spawning occurs in spring and
early summer over gravel substrate.
Sacramento Perch (Arcoplites interruptus)
Once an abundant food source for native Americans in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Basins, this native fish has been extirpated from much of its former habitat. This perch,
however, is considered common in Folsom Reservoir, possibly due to its relatively wide feeding
niche similar to adult largemouth bass and green sunfish. Fry feed primarily on lake bottom
crustaceans, and progress to consumption of aquatic insect larvae as yearlings; adults are more
piscivorous. Sacramento perch are also able to accommodate a wide range of salinities and
80
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
alkalinities found in California pond habitats. Like bass, sunfish, and other species in the
Centrarchid family, perch reproduce by spawning in relatively shallow water nests.
Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper); Riffle Sculpin (Cottus gulosus)
Prickly and riffle sculpins are Sacramento River Basin natives commonly found in
flowing streams with rock cover substrate; they are considered uncommon to Folsom Reservoir.
Though riffle sculpins have been known to occur in the project area, both sculpins are more
likely to be found in flowing reaches of the American River below the Dam, and the river and
tributaries upstream of the Reservoir (Corps 2006b). Prickly and riffle sculpins feed on bottom
dwelling invertebrates, salmonid eggs and particularly insect larvae. Riffle sculpins prefer fast
moving streams and vegetative or rock cover. Water temperatures from 25 to 26 C are
preferred, and spawning occurs from February through April.
Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
A native species to California streams and estuaries, the threespine stickleback has a wide
osmotic tolerance and is considered an uncommon species in Folsom Reservoir. Within streams,
threespine stickleback use shallow, slow water along bank edges that provide variable substrates
and vegetative cover. Clear water is necessary for nest building and food foraging. Stickleback
require cool water for long term survival in the range of 23 to 24C. These fish usually form
loose schools or shoals, and individuals as well as groups, engage in specific feeding habits.
Freshwater populations feed mostly on organisms living on the bottom or amongst aquatic
vegetation. Most sticklebacks complete their life cycle in one year, though it is possible for them
to live 2 or 3 years. Breeding occurs in late spring to summer, where males sticklebacks
construct nests in freshwater.
Introduced Non-Game Fishes
Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma pretenense)
Threadfin shad are nonnative fish introduced to California as a forage fish. They inhabit
open areas of Folsom Reservoir and slow moving rivers. Warm temperatures of 22 to 24 C are
preferred in the summer. They forage on plant and animal plankton. Spawning occurs in from
April through August over submerged material.
Wakasagi Smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis)
Native to Japan, Wakasagi smelt were introduced to Folsom Dam in 1989 as forage fish
for trout, and have proliferated in large numbers to be a common species of the reservoir.
wakasagi smelt were the most numerous fish found in the Folsom Dam stilling basin when it was
drained in the year 2000 (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd et al. 2003). The smelt feed on plankton
and school in open water. Spawning occurs in April and May with a life cycle of one year.
Additional Introduced Fish
81
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Listed below are additional nonnative fish introduced into the Reservoir that are not
considered to be important game or forage fish:
Mosquito fish (Gambusia afinis) - common nonnative
Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - common nonnative
Goldfish (Carassius auratus) - common nonnative
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) uncommon nonnative
Bigscale Logperch (Percina macrolepida) uncommon nonative
3.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

The scenic attractiveness and aesthetic value of a site is rated based on the unique
combinations and contrasts of the vegetation, landforms, water features, and built environment.
The aesthetic experience is highly subjective, and is affected by the viewers proximity, the
viewing duration, and the viewers past experiences and expectations. There are three primary
distance zones that are used as part of the assessment of visibility. These distance zones include:
Foreground (0 to 0.5 miles): At a foreground distance, people can distinguish small

boughs of leaf clusters, tree trunks and large branches, individual shrubs, clumps of
wildflowers, medium-sized animals, and medium-to-large birds.
Middleground (0.5 to 4 miles): At a middleground distance, people can distinguish

individual tree forms, large boulders, flower fields, small openings in the forest or tree
line, and small rock outcrops. Form, texture, and color remain dominant, and pattern is
important.
Background (4 miles to horizon): At a background distance, people can distinguish

groves or stands of trees, large openings in the forest, and large rock outcrops. Texture
has disappeared and color has flattened, but large patterns of vegetation or rocks are still
distinguishable, and landform ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant visual
characteristics (U.S. Forest Service 1995).
This section describes the regulatory setting, existing views, viewing opportunities, and
potentially sensitive resources in the project area, with respect to both natural and manmade
features. The viewers (sensitive visual receptors) are identified under each feature of the
approach channel project below. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project area.
82
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

There are no Federal laws or regulations associated with aesthetics and visual resources.
The State of California regulatory guidance for visual resources in the project area is associated
with the FLSRA General Plan and Resource Management Plan (RMP). The aesthetic goal of the
RMP is the protection and enhancement of views and distinct landscape features that contribute
to the FLSRAs setting, character, and visual experience (State Parks and USBR 2007a).
The RMP includes a wide range of guideline in a number of different categories that
work towards preserving the visual quality of the FLSRA. The categories of guidelines include
scenic quality, facility design, lighting, and general guidelines. The following guidelines are
relevant to the overall Folsom JFP, including the approach channel:
Work with local jurisdictions in the land use planning and development process to protect
key views in the FLSRA from continued visual intrusion from surrounding development.
This will include appropriate general plan land use designations, zoning to regulate such
matters as building height and setbacks, ridgeline protection ordinances that help protect
visual resources of the FLSRA, and rigorous development review and enforcement.
Minimize existing elements that detract from the quality of views and scenic character of
the FLSRA, including visual intrusion from adjacent development, as well as facilities
within the FLSRA. Strategies could include planting to screen adjacent development,
such as at Lake Overlook, Blue Ravine area of Lake Natoma, North Granite Bay,
Browns Ravine, and the Folsom Point.
Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views

from and into the park. Site facilities should minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints
(e.g., Nimbus Flat, Lake Overlook, Negro Bar, Beals Point, Granite Bay, Browns Ravine, and
Folsom Point). Landscape design and planting should be used to visually buffer developed
areas, enhance visual quality, and integrate the surrounding native landscape (State Parks and
USBR 2007a).

The project area is situated in the FLSRA along the southeastern edge of Folsom Lake.
The FLSRA represents a significant visual and scenic resource within the region. Although the
manmade reservoir was created for flood control, water supply, and power generation, the
resulting lakefront offers visitors with dramatic panoramas of the lake and the surrounding
natural landscape. The winding lake shoreline and hilly topography provide significant variety
in both viewpoint orientation and available viewsheds, creating a wealth of aesthetic conditions
and opportunities. There are few areas within the FLSRA that do not provide a positive viewing
experience (State Parks and USBR 2007a).
However, while the overall FLSRA provides high quality aesthetic views, the project area
itself has been highly disturbed since 2008, due to the ongoing construction of the JFP. The
83
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
disposal areas at MIAD and Dike 7 have been in use for that function for approximately the same
period of time. Therefore, there are two key aspects of the visual character of the project area: 1)
the background, which consists of the dramatic, high quality views of Folsom Lake and the
surrounding foothills, and 2) the active construction area, which is highly disturbed and of an
extremely low visual quality.
There are no historic buildings or scenic highways in the area of analysis; however there
are cultural resources. These are described in Section 3.11, Cultural Resources.
Approach Channel and Spur Dike
Views of the approach channel project area can be seen primarily from Folsom Lake
Crossing and recreationists in the reservoir and at Folsom Point. The sensitive visual receptors
associated with the view of the approach channel and spur dike include drivers, commuters, and
bikers on Folsom Lake Crossing; recreationists viewing the project area from Folsom Point; and
boaters and recreationists on Folsom Lake itself.
To the west of the Folsom Overlook, the main spillway of Folsom Dam rises out of the
lake, flanked by earthen dams; a four story tower sits atop Folsom Dam in sharp relief against the
sky. Figure 10 shows the large engineering features in the area. The aesthetic value of such built
features is subject to different interpretations. The contrast of built features with their setting can
cause determinations of aesthetic contributions to be subjective. Large engineering projects such
as Folsom Dam can detract from the scenic character of the setting.
Figure 10. Aerial View of Project Area and Folsom Dam.

84
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Figure 11 shows an aerial view of the approach channel area. The majority of the project
area consists of exposed soil, concrete, and rock. From Folsom Lake Crossing, the view of the
project area is primarily dominated by the existing spillway excavation and the staging of
equipment on the Folsom Overlook. Additionally, one can see dramatic views of the lake in the
middleground, surrounded by the oak-studded Sierra Foothills in the background.
For recreationists viewing the project area from the reservoir or Folsom Point, the
immediate foreground consists of a bare, unvegetated shoreline, with some banks covered with
riprap (Figure 12). Seasonal fluctuations in lake level lead to a bathtub ring effect at low
elevations (Figure 13). Since the project area is currently active for construction of the
spillways control structure, the equipment staging should be visible for most recreationists on
the lakebed or at Folsom Point. However, the rock plug shields the view of the ongoing
construction in the spillway chute from the reservoir.
Figure 11. Aerial View of Shoreline at Approach Channel and Folsom Overlook.
85
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Figure 12. View of Shoreline, Looking South from Proposed Approach Channel.
Figure 13. Bathtub Ring Effect, Looking South from Proposed Approach Channel.
86
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Haul Road and Dike 7

Views of the JFPs haul road are primarily from recreationists on the lake or at Folsom
Point, and by residences on the hills above Dike 7. The residents on the hills are also the
primary sensitive receptors that could be affected by views of the Dike 7 disposal area. Both of
these areas are highly disturbed and of a low visual quality.
The JFPs haul road is an existing feature in the project area that was analyzed in the
2007 FEIS/EIR, and was constructed by USBR in the first phase of the JFP. The haul road
consists of a dirt road that hugs the shoreline and runs from the Folsom Overlook to the MIAD
disposal area (Figure 14). The surrounding hills shield the haul route from the views of
motorists on Folsom Lake Crossing and East Natoma Street. Approximately 40 to 50 trucks per
day are currently traveling from the Overlook to the disposal areas on the haul road.
Dike 7 is tucked into the hillside approximately halfway between the Overlook and
MIAD. It is an active disposal area that has been associated with JFP construction since the
projects groundbreaking in 2008. Disposal activities at Dike 7 mostly consist of the disposal of
excavated and processed granite rock. As a result, views of Dike 7 from the lake, or from the
residents above, would dominated by a large pile of barren rock. However, the residents view of
the lake and foothills in the middleground and background would remain intact.
Figure 14. View of Haul Road.
87
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dike 8
Dike 8 is tucked between two hillsides along the haul route just west of Folsom Point.
The area has been previously undisturbed by the project and currently only consists of two
features that contrast from the natural environment: 1) the dike itself, which is an earthen berm
covered in annual grasses that runs between the two hillsides; and 2) the project haul route,
which crosses the area between Dike 8 and the Folsom Reservoir shoreline. Dike 8 is visible
from the Folsom Point Church on East Natoma Street, from the newly-constructed residences on
Nature Way, and from the Folsom Point access road and gates. However, the view from East
Natoma Street is limited by the presence of the church along the road.
MIAD Disposal Area
The primary sensitive receptors near the MIAD disposal area consist of residents in the
neighborhoods off of Green Valley Road and East Natoma Street, and drivers on Green Valley
Road and East Natoma Street. Views of the MIAD disposal site consist of the gently rolling hills
of the Sierra Nevada foothills dotted with occasional trees and shrubs. Large volumes of
mounded disturbed earth dominate the foreground at the disposal site, since it has been an active
disposal site for the JFP since 2008.
Current disposal operations and excavation at MIAD by USBR has contributed to a
disturbed character that is considered to be of lower aesthetic value (Figure 15). Views from the
MIAD disposal site include Folsom Reservoir to the north and west, the auxiliary dam to the
east, and Green Valley Road, East Natoma Street, and neighboring residential developments to
the south and southeast (Figure 16).
Figure 15. View of MIAD Disposal Area from East Natoma Street.
88
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Figure 16. Southward View from MIAD of Green Valley Road and Residential Areas.
3.7 RECREATION
This section discusses the regulatory and environmental setting for development,
management, and use of recreational facilities and resources at Folsom Lake and surrounding
public lands. This discussion is focused on the existing conditions for three recreation use areas;
Folsom Point, Beal's Point, and Granite Bay within the FLSRA. FLSRA is part of the California
State Parks system. The majority of land within the FLSRA is owned by USBR and managed by
State Parks. State Parks has acquired some property within the FLSRA. Primary sources of
available recreational resource information was acquired from the 2007 FEIS/EIR and the
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area General Plan and Resource Management (State Parks and
Reclamation 2007a).
3.7.1 Regulatory Background

Federal
Auburn-Folsom South Unit, Central Valley Project of 1965, Public Law 89-161,
79 Stat. 615.
Section 3 of Public Law 89-161 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to (1) construct,
operate, and maintain or provide for public outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement
facilities, (2) to acquire, or otherwise, to include within the unit area such adjacent lands or
89
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
interests in land as are necessary for present or future public recreation or fish and wildlife use,
(3) to allocate water and reservoir capacity to recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement and,
(4) to provide for public use and enjoyment of unit lands, facilities, and water areas in a manner
coordinated with other unit purposes.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Public Law 89-72, 79 as amended.
Public Law 89-72 allows qualified non-Federal government partners to manage
recreation at its water projects through a management agreement and to cost share in planning,
developing, operating, and maintaining the leased areas. Public Law 89-72 also allows USBR to
transfer recreation and other land management responsibilities to another Federal agency if such
lands are included or proposed for inclusion within a national recreation area, or are appropriate
for administration by another Federal agency as part of the national forest system, as a part of the
public lands classified for retention in Federal ownership, or in connection with an authorized
Federal program for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife.
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662.
This Act defines the basis for sharing the financial responsibilities in joint Federal/nonFederal development, enhancement, and management of recreation and fish and wildlife
resources at Federal water resource development projects.
State
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area General Plan and Resource Management Plan,
2007
State Parks, in partnership with USBR, completed the integrated RMP and DEIR/DEIS
(2007), which is the first comprehensive update to the FLSRA RMP since 1979. The plan is the
primary management document for the park unit, providing a defined purpose, vision, long termgoals, and management guidelines guides the protection of natural and cultural resources,
provides for and manages recreational opportunities, and outlines the future development of
public facilities at FLSRA.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Division 3
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) contains regulations formally adopted by state
agencies. Title 14, Division 3 contains general policies applicable to the overall Department of
Parks and Recreation, including all State Parks. These policies include regulations covering a
wide range of operations, including concessions, camping, hunting, winter sports, aquatics and
boating, architecture and engineering, historic resources, recreation trails, land and water
conservation, and off-road vehicles.
90
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

The FLSRA is an important local, regional, and state recreation resource. With an
average of 1.5 million visitors, the FLSRA is one of the most popular sites within California for
recreation in the State Parks system (State Parks and USBR 2007a). The popularity of FLSRA is
largely due to easy public access, being located next to a growing metropolitan area, and
opportunities for year-round use. Recreational uses include both water-based activities and landbased activities. Water-based activities account for approximately 85 percent of all visits to the
FLSRA State Parks and USBR 2007a). Activities included boating, personal water craft use,
water skiing, wake boarding, sailing, windsurfing, swimming, and fishing. The remaining 15
percent of visitors participate in a variety of land-based activities, such as hiking, biking,
picnicking, camping, and horseback riding. Approximately 75 percent of users visit the FSLRA
during the warmer spring and summer months. State Parks obtains revenue from use fees paid
by the public and rental fees associated with concession operations in the FLSRA. FLSRA spans
across three counties (El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento) as well as the city of Folsom.
Folsom Lake Reservoir
Folsom Reservoir was created in 1956 after the completion of Folsom Dam by the Corps.
The reservoir includes 11,500 acres of water surface area to an elevation of 466 feet and over 75
miles of shoreline (USBR 2007). The reservoirs upper arms are designated slow zones for quiet
cruising, fishing, and nature appreciation. The shoreline provides sandy swimming beaches,
both formal (with lifeguard services) and informal. Summer water temperatures average 72
Fahrenheit, enhancing both water-oriented and shoreline activities. The reservoir serves flood
control, water supply, and power generation purposes, and as a result reservoir levels typically
fluctuate from a maximum of 466 feet in late winter or early spring to 405 feet during late fall
(USBR 2007).
Historical Recreation Use
After the construction of Folsom Dam, State Parks entered into an agreement with USBR
to build and manage recreation facilities. The area was designated as the FLSRA and the first
facilities opened to the public in 1958. When the FLSRA first opened, the trails were used
primarily by equestrians and hikers. The popularity of running in the 1970s and mountain biking
in the 1980s greatly increased trail use. The first General Plan for the FLSRA was adopted in
1979.
Recreation activities in the FLSRA have changed significantly since it was open to the
public. The popularity of personal watercraft, wake boarding, sailing, and bass fishing
tournaments has transformed the boating environment on Folsom Reservoir. Land-based
recreational activities have also changed over the years. With urban development surrounding
the southern half of the FLSRA, paved trails now play an important part in the regions growing
transportation network as more people commute via bicycle.
91
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Current Recreation Use

Recreation facilities on the lake include a marina, boat launch areas, swimming beaches,
campgrounds, landscape picnic areas, food and equipment concessions, interpretive facilities,
scenic overlooks, restrooms, trail heads and equestrian staging areas. Popular aquatic activities
in the FLSRA include boating, personal water craft use, water skiing, sailing, wind surfing,
rowing, paddling, swimming, and fishing. Upland activities include hiking, biking, picnicking,
camping, and horseback riding. Recreation uses tend to occur in discrete recreation centers with,
in most cases, several miles of undeveloped shoreline separating each center.
Granite Bay and Beals Point are the primary visitor areas on the western shoreline of
Folsom Lake, with large day-use areas that include swim beaches, landscaped picnic area, boat
launch facilities, restrooms, snack food and beach equipment concessions, trailheads, and
associated parking. In addition, Granite Bay includes a modest multi-use activity center and
Beals Point includes a 69-site campground. The smaller and more remote Rattlesnake Bar
visitor area provides boat launch facilities and informal access to the shoreline for fishing,
swimming, and picnicking.
On the eastern shoreline, Browns Ravine and Folsom Point are the primary visitor areas.
Browns Ravine is home to the Folsom Lake Marina which provides 675 wet slips, 175 dry
storage spaces, boat launch facilities, marine provisions, a fueling station, a small picnic area,
and restrooms. Folsom Point includes a picnic area, boat launch facilities, and restrooms.
Secondary visitor areas on the eastern shore include Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls whitewater
rafting take-out areas, Old Salmon Falls/Monte Vista trailhead and equestrian staging area, and
the Peninsula Campground with 104 campsites.
The FLSRA system of trails and access point links all of the visitor areas on Folsom
Lake. Recreation support facilities and Folsom Lake include the Park Headquarters compound at
Folsom-Auburn Road and Folsom Dam Road which includes the Gold Fields District Office and
Folsom Sector office of State Parks, as well as the USBR Central California Area Office.
Day Use Facilities
Granite Bay, Beals Point, and Browns Ravine reach capacity by mid-day during the
peak season. On weekdays, peak use periods generally occur during early morning and early
evening hours with visitors running, cycling, walking dogs. The majority of the FLSRA visitors
tend to be located within a short walk or drive. Since water-related activities account for most
visits to FLSRA, the peak season begins as the weather warms. By Memorial Day weekend,
recreationist use of FLSRA is high. This high level use continues through Fourth of July and
gradually falls off until spiking during Labor Day weekend (State Parks and USBR 2007a).
Falling water, Folsom Lake elevation levels, and extremely hot weather are key reasons the
primary reasons for the drop in use.
92
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Granite Bay
Granite Bay is the most popular day use facility within the FLSRA. Annual attendance in
2011 was 499,630 visitors. Facilities include picnic areas, a guarded swim beach for summer use,
informal unguarded swim areas, equestrian staging area, hiking trails including an Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)-only trail, parking, a reservable group picnic area, fishing, and
boating. There are also a BBQ Pavilion, two baseball/soccer fields, restrooms, snack bar,
bicycle/pedestrian trails and well-maintained playgrounds. The boat launch area capacity varies
with water levels. Dependent upon water levels, a maximum of 14 boat launch ramps are
available. Concessions in the area include a snack bar and beach equipment rentals.
The North Granite area is popular for fishing, horseback riding, and hiking. This area
includes an informal beach area at Oak Point, an equestrian staging area, Dotons Point, and
Beek's Bight. An activity center just north of the Main Beach is available by reservation for
group use and includes a small picnic area.
Trail facilities at Granite Bay include the equestrian and pedestrian Pioneer Express Trail
running north to Auburn State Recreation Area, 8 miles of unpaved multi-use trails running
through the area, and an unpaved pedestrian and ADA only trail in the Beek's Bight area.
As with Beals Point, capacity is a major concern at Granite Bay, particularly during
peak season weekends when the day use parking area at Main Beach and the parking area and
launch ramps at the launch area fill by midday. There is only one entrance to Granite Bay at
Douglas Boulevard and significant backups occur along the roadway and onto Auburn-Folsom
Road when the parking areas fill.
In addition, there is no external access to the sprawling and relatively remote North
Granite area. Unrestricted vehicle access along the shoreline at low water is also a concern in the
North Granite area. Unrestricted vehicle access causes erosion, potentially impacts water
quality, damages vegetation, and threatens cultural resources below the high water line.
Maximum usable elevation of the boat launches areas range from about 400 to 470 feet.
When the reservoir surface level is at 466 feet, only one 12-lane ramp and the two-lane boat
launch ramp are usable. Elevations of the structures (other than the boat launch ramps), parking
lot, and roads at Granite Bay range from approximately 465 to 475 feet.
Beals Point
Beals Point includes day use facilities and a campground. Annual attendance in 2011
was 244,148 visitors. Facilities include a guarded swim beach for summer use, parking for
approximately 400 vehicles, one boat launch ramp, hiking trails, picnic areas, and campsites.
Concessions include a snack bar and beach equipment rentals. A large grassy area along the
reservoir includes picnic tables, barbeques, and restroom facilities.
93
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The paved multi-use Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail begins at Beals Point and connects
to Lake Natoma and the American River Parkway. The unpaved multi-use Granite Bay Trail
connects Beals Point to other facilities along Folsom Reservoir.
The aquatic facilities at Beals Point include an informal boat launch ramp, but the area
does not have separate parking for vehicles and boat trailers. The informal boat launch ramp is
an unpaved ramp that is available for use at specific reservoir elevations only. Ramp use is
available for personal watercraft and other very light boats.
During peak season weekends, the parking area generally fills by midday, causing traffic
to back up onto Auburn-Folsom Road and surrounding neighborhood streets. This also makes it
difficult for campers with reservations to enter the FLSRA.
The structures, parking lot, and roads at Beals Point range in elevation from 465 feet to
475 feet. When the reservoir surface level reaches 466 feet, water levels are just below the road,
parking lot, restrooms/dressing room building, and concessions building. At 466 feet, the beach
area would be inundated, although turf areas for picnicking, sunbathing, and other passive uses
are still usable.
Folsom Point
Folsom Point, located off East Natoma Street is the most popular day use area on the
Folsom Lake eastern shore. Attendance in 2011 from April through September was 85,917
visitors. Facilities include a picnic area with parking for 77 vehicles, and the largest formal boat
launch area on the east side of the lake with parking for 129 vehicles. The maximum usable boat
ramp elevation at Folsom Point is 468 feet. Aquatic and day use facilities quickly reach capacity
during peak season weekends as it is a popular site for staging special aquatic events. During the
summer, California State University Sacramento (CSUS) utilizes Folsom Point at Folsom
Reservoir for their youth wake board and water ski camp.
Browns Ravine
Annual attendance in 2011 was 255,170 visitors. The Folsom Lake Marina, located at
Browns Ravine, is the only marina facility in the FLSRA and is open year around. Waiting list
for a slip is several years long due to the increased urbanization in El Dorado County.
Concessions include a snack bar and beach equipment rentals.
Boat launch facilities accommodate various lake levels. The maximum usable elevation
for boat ramp facilities at Browns Ravine is 468 feet. The main ramp has four lanes and two
courtesy docks to assist boaters in the launching and retrieval of their boats. The alternative boat
ramp at Hobie Cove becomes operational in the fall when the lake elevation drops to elevation
435 feet. It also is a four lane paved ramp with two courtesy docks. Hobie Cove area is also
popular for swimming and sun bathing. Picnic tables, BBQs and restroom facilities are located
throughout the Browns Ravine area.
94
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Browns Ravine Trail is an unpaved multi-use trail extends four miles between
Folsom Point and Browns Ravine. The trail begins in the day use area at Folsom Point and ends
at the Browns Ravine/Old Salmon Falls trailhead at Browns Ravine.
Camping
There are three campgrounds in the FLSRA, providing a total of 176 campsites that
accommodate tent, trailer, RV, and group campers. Peninsula campground includes 104 family
campsites. Negro Bar campground is compromised of three reservation-only group campsites,
two of which are designed to accommodate 50 people, with the third site designed to
accommodate 25 people. Beals Point campground includes 49 family campsites and 20 RV
sites with electrical hookups, sanitary dump station, two restrooms, and showers. The RV sites
were constructed as mitigation for the loss of the family campsites at Negro Bar that were
removed for the construction of the Lake Natoma crossing. Campers have easy access to all of
the day use facilities provided at Beals Point, including trails, the beach, boat launch, picnic
area, and snack bar. Full capacity is often reached at all three campgrounds during the peak
season.
Recreational Trails
There are 94 miles of existing trails within the FLSRA. Currently there area 46 miles of
pedestrian/equestrian, 20 miles of multi-use trails, 16 miles of Class 1 paved trails, 9 miles of
mountain bike/pedestrian trails, and 3 miles of pedestrian-only trails, of which 2 miles are ADA
accessible. Trails connect Folsom Lake to Lake Natoma and the Auburn State Recreation Area.
There is not a continuous trail connection around Folsom Lake.
Special Recreational Events
Throughout the year, permitted special events are held at various locations in the FLSRA.
Events include bass fishing tournaments, yacht races, mountain bike races, triathlons, mountain
bike triathlons, adventure races, running races, and summer camps. Past race events have
included, but are not limited to: Future Pro Tour Amateur Bass Fishing Tournament at Granite
Bay, Big Blue Adventures Folsom Lake Sports Adventure Race at Granite Beach, Nissan Xterra
USA Championship Real Mountain Bike Triathlon at Granite Bay and surrounding trails,
Folsom Lake Yacht Club Series at Browns Ravine, American Bass Tournament at Browns
Ravine. During the summer CSUS utilizes Folsom Point at Folsom Reservoir for their youth
wake board and water ski camp.
3.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

This section discusses the regulatory setting, and describes the local and direct access
route to be used during construction, current capacities, traffic volumes, and levels of service for
various roadway segments in and near the project area are identified.
95
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Federal
Title 23 of the U.S. Code (USC)
Federal statutes specify the procedures that the U.S. Department of Transportation must
follow in setting policy regarding the placement of utility facilities within the rights-of-way of
roadways that received Federal funding. These roadways include expressways, most State
highways, and certain local roads. In addition, 23 USC 116 requires State highway agencies to
ensure proper maintenance of highway facilities, which implies adequate control over nonhighway facilities, such as utility facilities. Finally, 23 USC 123 specifies when Federal funds
can be used to pay for the costs of relocating utility facilities in connection with highway
construction projects.
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations require that each state develop its
own policy regarding the accommodation of utility facilities within the rights-of-way of such
roads. After FHWA has approved a states policy, the state can approve any proposed utility
installation without referral to FHWA, unless utility installation does not conform to the policy.
Federal regulations do not dictate specific levels of operation or minimum delays,
however, which are primarily established by local jurisdiction.
State
California Streets and Highways Code
The California Streets and Highways Code authorize the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), to control encroachment within the State highway right-of-way.
Encroachments allow temporary or permanent use of a highway right-of-way by a utility, a
public entity, or a private party.
Caltranss Right of Way and Asset Management Program is primarily responsible for
acquisition and management of property required for State transportation purposes.
Transportation purposes may include highways, mass transit guideways and related facilities,
material sites, and any other purpose that may be necessary for Caltrans operations. The
responsibilities of the Right of Way and Asset Management Program include managing Caltrans
real property for transportation purposes, reducing the costs of operations, disposing of property
no longer needed, and monitoring right-of-way activities on Federally assisted local facilities.
96
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

This section describes the environmental setting as it pertains to traffic and circulation.
The project area is located in the southwest region of Folsom Lake, off Folsom Lake Crossing
Road and East Natoma Road within Sacramento County. Access to the proposed work sites is
restricted to the southwest region of Folsom Reservoir. Direct access to the project area is
limited to Folsom Lake Crossing. This section describes highways and local roads in the vicinity
of the project area, roadway segments, and classification criteria. On-site haul routes are not
discussed since they are not considered part of the public roadway system.
Functional Classification
Sacramento Country and Placer County uses a roadway classification system for longrange planning and programming. Roadways are classified based on the linkages they provide
and their function, both of which reflect their importance to the land use pattern, traveler, and
general welfare. The functional classification system recognizes differences in roadway function
and standards between urban/suburban areas and rural areas. The following paragraphs define
the linkage and functions provided by each class.
Freeways: Operated and maintained by Caltrans, these facilities are designed as highvolume, high-speed facilities for intercity and regional traffic. Access to these facilities
is limited, and in some cases on- and off ramps are metered during peak-hour periods to
reduce congestion caused by merging cars and trucks.
Arterials: Major Arterials (four to six lanes) and Minor Arterials (four lanes)are the
principal network for through-traffic within a community and often between
communities.
Collectors: These two-lane facilities function as the main interior streets within
neighborhoods and business areas. Collectors serve to connect these areas with higher
classification roads (i.e., arterials, expressways, and freeways).
Local Streets: These facilities are two-lane streets that provide local access and service.
They include residential, commercial, industrial, and rural roads.
Level of Service
To evaluate a roadways operational characteristics, a simple grading system is used that

compares the traffic volume carried by a road with that roads design capacity. Roadways
adjacent to the project area fall with in Sacramento County, Placer Country, and the City of
Folsom jurisdiction. Roadways under Caltrans jurisdiction are also adjacent to the project area.
Each of these jurisdictions has adopted standards regarding the desires performance level of
traffic conditions on the circulation system within its jurisdiction. A measure called Level of
Service (LOS) is used to characterize traffic conditions. LOS is a measure of quality of
operational conditions within a traffic stream based on service measures such as speed and travel
time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience. Six LOS from A
97
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
(best) to F (worst), define each type of transportation facility. Each LOS represents a range of
operating conditions and the drivers perception of those conditions. These LOS thresholds,
reflect at the local jurisdiction level through the County and City General Plans, define the
minimum levels of acceptable traffic conditions.
Most analysis, design or planning efforts typically use service flow rates at LOS C or D
or higher to ensure acceptable operating service for facility users. LOS E generally is considered
unacceptable for planning purposes unless there are extenuating circumstances or attaining a
higher LOS is not feasible or extremely costly. For LOS F, it is difficult to predict flow due to
stop-and-start conditions. Levels of service are typically described in terms of traffic operating
conditions for intersections and would be similarly applicable to roadway conditions as shown
Table 11.
Table 11. Regulatory Criteria for Roadways and Intersections.
Level of Service
Description of traffic conditions
(LOS)
A
Conditions of free flow; speed is controlled by the drivers desires,
speed limits, or roadway conditions.
B
Conditions of stable flow; operating speeds beginning to be restricted;
little or no restrictions on maneuverability from other vehicles.
C
Conditions of stable flow; speeds and maneuverability more closely
restricted; occasional backups behind left-turning vehicles at
intersections.
D
Conditions approach unstable flow; tolerable speeds can be
maintained but temporary restrictions may cause extensive delays;
little freedom to maneuver; comfort and convenience low; at
intersection, some motorists, especially those making left turns, may
wait through more than one or more signal changes.
E
Conditions approach capacity; unstable flow with stoppages of
momentary duration; maneuverability severely limited
F
Forced flow conditions; stoppages for long periods; low operating
speeds.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2000
LOS thresholds are based on daily volumes, number of lanes, and facility type. These
definitions and metrics are general transportation industry standards found in the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines and nomenclature. Table
12 shows the relationship of LOS threshold for various roadway functional classifications.
The City of Folsom General Plan (1995) establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable
threshold for City roadways. The Sacramento County General Plan (2011) establishes LOS D as
the minimum acceptable threshold for rural roadways and LOS E for urban roadways. All of the
Sacramento County roadways in the transportation study area are urban roadways. The Placer
98
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
County General Plan (1994) establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable threshold for County
roadways.
Table 12. Roadway Functional Classification Thresholds.
LOS Capacity Threshold
Functional Class
Code (Total vehicles per day in both directions)
A
B
C
D
E
2-Lane Collector
2C
5,700
9,000
9,800
Minor 2-Lane Highway
MI2
900
2,000
6,800 14,100 17,400
Major 2-Lane Highway
MA2 1,200
2,900
7,900 16,000 20,500
4-Lane, Multilane Highway
MH4 10,700 17,600 25,300 32,800 36,500
2-Lane Arterial
2A
9,700 17,600 18,700
4-Lane Arterial, Undivided
4AU
17,500 27,400 28,900
4-Lane Arterial, Divided
4AD
19,200 35,400 37,400
6AD
27,100 53,200 56,000
8AD
37,200 71,100 74,700
1
2-Lane Arterial, moderate access control 2AMD 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000
4-Lane Arterial, moderate access control1 4AMD 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000
6-Lane Arterial, moderate access control1 6AMD 32,400 37,800 43,200 48,600 54,000
4-Lane Arterial, high access control1
4AHD 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000
6AHD 36,000 42,000 48,000 54,000 60,000
2
4-Lane Freeway
4F
22,200 40,200 57,600 71,400 80,200
4-Lane Freeway with Auxiliary Lanes2
4FA 28,200 51,000 72,800 89,800 100,700
6-Lane Freeway2
6F
33,300 60,300 86,400 107,100 120,300
6-Lane Freeway with Auxiliary Lanes2
6FA 42,300 76,500 109,200 134,700 151,050
Notes:
(1) Used to analyze roadways within County of Sacramento. LOS Capacity Thresholds from Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines,
County of Sacramento, July 2004
(2) Includes mixed flow lanes only. HOV lanes and volumes are excluded from the analysis because a review of existing HOV
counts and forecasts showed the HOV lanes to be operating under capacity.
Freeways
There are two prominent freeways with the study area.
Interstate 80 (I-80): I-80 is an east-west route but predominantly runs north-south

within the study area. The study area for I-80 extends from Eureka Road to Sierra
College Boulevard. I-80 consists of six lanes, divided by barriers, within the analysis
area with acceleration/deceleration lanes at the interchanges.
U.S. Highway 50: The study area for Highway 50 runs from Hazel Avenue to El Dorado
Hills Boulevard in a predominantly east-west direction. Highway 50 consists of four
lanes with two carpool lanes, divided by barriers, within the analysis area with
acceleration/deceleration lanes at the interchanges.
99
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Bridges
The following bridges play a prominent role and serve as key linkages to the community
within the project study area.
Folsom Historic Truss Bridge: After its reopening to the public in 2000, the historic
truss bridge is currently used as a recreational pedestrian and bicycle bridge. Its colorful
history reflect the Citys long dependence and appreciation of the bridges that has
provided service since the 1800s.
Rainbow Bridge (Greenback Lane): Directly below and south of Historic Truss Bridge
the Rainbow Bridge provides a more robust two-lane crossing that can handle cars and
heavy vehicles. Although supplanted by wider bridges to the north and south, this
attractive bridge with characteristic arches serve as key signature symbol for Folsom.
Lake Natoma Crossing Bridge: Completed in 1999, the Lake Natoma Crossing
connects Folsom-Auburn Road from the north to Folsom Boulevard to the south. This
has brought enormous relief to the community having endured long delays and
congestion of using Rainbow Bridge and the Folsom Dam Road when it was open to the
public.
Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge: Officially opened on March 29, 2009, the Folsom Lake
Crossing Bridge is a modern concrete segmental bridge proving two travel lanes in each
direction with Class 1 & 2 bicycle facilities. Situated below the Folsom Dam, this new
bridge was constructed under the auspices of the Folsom Dam Raise Project, which is a
component of the American River Watershed Long-Term Project.
The combined capacities of the aforementioned bridges has greatly enhanced and
contributed to the reduction in crossing delay for both commuter/community and tourist traffic
within the project study area.
Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads by Jurisdiction
Table 13 shows the roadway segments analyzed in each county. Project area roadways
range from two to six lanes and have speed limits from 35 to 55 miles per hour. The project area
roads provide access to the industrial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project.
100
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 13. Roadway Segments.

Sacramento County
Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom Lake
Crossing to Greenback Lane
Folsom Boulevard Greenback Lane to
Iron Point Rd
Greenback Lane/Riley St Natoma Street to
Folsom Boulevard/Folsom Auburn Road
Greenback Lane - Hazel Ave to Madison
Ave
East Natoma Street Cimmaron Cir to
Folsom Lake Crossing
East Natoma Street Folsom Lake Crossing
to Green Valley Rd
Green Valley Road East Natoma St to
Sophia Pwy
Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Rd to
East Bidwell St
East Bidwell Street Clarksville Rod to
Iron Point Rd
Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Pwy to
Green Valley Rd
U.S. 50 Hazel Ave to Folsom Blvd1
U.S. 50 - Folsom Blvd to East Bidwell St1
U.S. 50 East Bidwell St to County line1
Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge
I-80 Douglas Blvd to Greenback Ln1
I-80 south of Greenback Ln1
Placer County
Year 2011 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS C/D/E)
4AD
37,400
36,335
4AD
37,400
42,131
2A
18,700
52,2812
4AMD
36,000
26,861
4AU
28,900
18,502
4AU
28,900
30,205
4AU
28,900
35,667
6AD
56,000
24,744
6AD
56,000
43,803
4AD
37,400
21,734
4FA
4F
4F
4AHD
6F
6F
89,800
71,400
71,400
40,000
107,100
107,100
130,183
110,344
91,284
29,425
182,580
190,000
F
F
F
C
F
F
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS C/D/E)
Year 2011
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
4AD
35,400
44,806
4AD
37,400
44,918
6F
107,100
182,580
Douglas Boulevard Barton Rd to FolsomAuburn Rd

Folsom-Auburn Road Douglas Blvd to
Lake Crossing
I-80 north of Douglas Blvd1

Note: Year 2011 traffic volumes from the Folsom Control Study calculated from 2010 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) with an
annual 2% growth rate.
(1) Data obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch calculated from 2010 ATDs with an annual 2% growth rate.
(2) Data obtained from Folsom dam Raise Final Supplemental EIS/EIR calculated from 2007 ADTs with an annual 2% growth
rate.
101
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
3.9 NOISE
This section discusses the regulatory and environmental setting for noise conditions in
and around the project area. In addition, this section describes the existing sensitive receptors
and ambient noise conditions near the project area. The primary source of information for this
noise analysis was acquired from the 2009 Noise Analysis for the Early Approach Channel
Excavation EA/IS (URS and Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. 2009).

Federal and state governments provide guidelines for construction noise in regards to
worker protection and, for this project, traffic noise. The proposed project is located in the
vicinity of four convergent jurisdictions: the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, Placer County,
and El Dorado County. Construction noise from the project may impact noise sensitive receptors
in each of these four jurisdictions. These noise sensitive receptors consist of both human
receptors and wildlife receptors. There are no established criteria available for the wildlife
species known to occur in the project area. Many regulatory agencies recommend using 60 dBA
Leq hourly levels as the threshold for determining significant impacts for sensitive bird species at
the edge of suitable habitat.
The City of Folsoms noise standards will be applied to this project because it is the
closest jurisdiction with the most restrictive noise ordinance. The local noise standards for
Sacramento County, Placer County and El Dorado can be found in Appendix G. Compliance
with the City of Folsom standards will assure compliance with all other local noise standards.
The noise ordinance standards for the City of Folsom are listed in Table 15, and are based on the
L50 metric as the baseline criterion level.
Table 14. City of Folsom Noise Ordinance.*
Exterior Noise Standards
Maximum Time of
Exposure
30 Minutes/Hour
15 Minutes/Hour
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
Noise Levels Not To Be

Exceeded In
Residential Zone**
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 7
Noise
10 p.m.
a.m.
Metric (daytime) (nighttime)
L50
50 dBA
45 dBA
L25
55 dBA
50 dBA
L8.3
60 dBA
55 dBA
L1.7
65 dBA
60 dBA
Lmax
70 dBA
65 dBA
Interior Noise Standards

5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
45 dBA
50 dBA
55 dBA
35 dBA
40 dBA
45 dBA
*Construction Noise Exemption Times: 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Weekdays, 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Weekends
**5 dBA reduction for impact noise during non-exempt times SOURCE: City of Folsom, CA Municipal Code. Chapter 8.42
102
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Construction noise is exempt from these standards during the periods of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. If construction occurs outside of
these periods, measures would be required to comply with exterior and interior noise limits at
residential receptors. In the event that the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable
noise level standard, the applicable standard would be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise
level. For impulse noise (such as impact pile driving or blasting), the limits are reduced by 5
dBA in the noise ordinance.

Sound Qualities and Standard Units
Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is
typically associated with human activity, and interferes with or disrupts normal activities. To
provide a frame of reference, common sound levels are presented in Table 14. The standard unit
of sound measurement is the decibel (dB). Because of the broad range of audible frequencies,
methods have been developed to quantify these values into a single number. The most common
method used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all frequencies of a sound
according to a weighting system that is reflective of human hearing characteristics. Human
hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid-range
frequencies. This process is termed A-weighting, and the resulting level is termed the Aweighted decibel (dBA). A-weighting is widely used in local noise ordinances and state and
Federal guidelines.
Most ambient environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from nearby and distant
sources that creates an ebb and flow of sound, including some identifiable sources plus a
relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single
descriptor called the equivalent sound level (Leq) is used to describe sound that is constant or
changing in level. Leq is the energy-mean sound level during a measured time interval. It is the
equivalent constant sound level that would have to be produced by a given constant source to
equal the acoustic energy contained in the fluctuating sound level measured during the interval.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or percentile
noise descriptors L10, L50, and L90 may be used. These are the noise levels exceeded during 10
percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the measured time interval, respectively. Sound levels
associated with L10 typically describe transient or short-term events. L50 represents the median
sound level during the measurement interval, while L90 levels are typically used to describe
background noise conditions. The L50 metric is based on the concept that the 50th percentile, or
median level, of a noise measurement within a given timeframe, cannot be exceeded. This 50th
percentile means that half of the measured noise level values will fall below this number and half
of the levels will be above this number. Some standards will use the Leq metric with a duration
of one hour. The Leq value for a 1-hour measurement will be a higher level than the L50 value for
the same measurement because the Leq is driven by the top 50th percentile noise levels while the
L50 value is not.
103
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 15. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (dBA).
Human Judgment of
Scale of
Noise Loudness
A-Weighted
(Relative to a
Noise Source (at Given
Sound Level in
Noise
Reference Loudness
Distance)
Decibels
Environment
of 70 Decibels*)
Military Jet Take-off with
140
Carrier Flight
After-burner (50 ft)

Deck
Civil Defense Siren (100 ft)
130
Commercial Jet Take-off (200

120
Threshold of Pain
ft)
*32 times as loud
Pile Driver (50 ft)
110
Rock Music
*16 times as loud
Concert
Ambulance Siren (100 ft)
100
Very Loud
Newspaper Press (5 ft)
*8 times as loud
Power Lawn Mower (3 ft)
Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000
90
Boiler Room
*4 times as loud
ft)
Printing Press
Diesel Truck, 40 mph (50 ft)
Plant
Motorcycle (25 ft)
Garbage Disposal (3 ft)
80
High Urban
*2 times as loud
Ambient Sound
Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft)
70
Moderately Loud
Living Room Stereo (15 ft)
*70 decibels
Vacuum Cleaner (3 ft)
(Reference Loudness)
Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft)
60
Data Processing *1/2 as loud
Normal Conversation (5 ft)
Center
Department
Store
Light Traffic (100 ft)
50
Private Business *1/4 as loud
Office
Bird Calls (distant)
40
Lower Limit of
Quiet
Urban
*1/8 as loud
Ambient Sound
Soft Whisper (5 ft)
30
Quiet Bedroom
Very Quiet
20
Recording
Studio
10
Extremely Quiet
0
Threshold of Hearing
SOURCES: Harris, 1991; Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004; Beranek, 1988.
104
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Within the State of California, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used to
assess noise exposure. CNEL is the energy average, time-weighted noise level for a period of 24
hours. Noise levels during the evening period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) were weighted with a 5
dB penalty, while the noise occurring during the nighttime period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is
weighted with a 10 dB penalty. These weighting factors reflect a persons increased sensitivity
to noise during these time periods. For a continuously operating noise source producing a
constant noise level operating for periods of 24 hours or more, the CNEL value will be about 7
dB higher than the 24-hour Leq value.
Outdoor sound levels decrease logarithmically as the distance from the source increases.
This is due to wave divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation. Sound
radiating from a source in an undisturbed manner travels in spherical waves. As the sound
waves travel away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area decreasing
the sound pressure of the wave. Spherical spreading of the sound wave from a point source
reduces the noise level at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of the distance.
Atmospheric absorption also influences the sound levels received by an observer. The
greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence of the atmosphere and the resultant
fluctuations. Atmospheric absorption becomes important at distances greater than 1,000 feet.
Over long distances, lower frequencies become dominant as the higher frequencies are more
rapidly attenuated.
Sensitive Receptors and Ambient Noise
To characterize existing noise levels within the project limits, long- and short-term field
noise measurements were conducted at sensitive land use areas that could be affected by projectrelated noise levels. Complete details of the noise monitoring and measurement program are
included in the Folsom JFP Noise Technical Report (Appendix G) prepared for this project.
Ambient noise level measurements were taken in Folsom, California from March 24, 2009 to
March 26, 2009.
There are several areas within the project vicinity that are classified as noise-sensitive
receptors. The noise sensitive receptors can be seen on Plate 6:
Folsom State Prison, which is located approximately 2,700 feet south of proposed
approach channel excavation activities and 2,300 feet west of Dike 7. Folsom State
Prison is considered a residential area. Ambient noise level data at the Folsom State
Prison were not collected due to security concerns. Access was not granted by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As a result, modeling was
conducted in order to analyze the levels of noise reaching the exterior of Folsom State
Prison. This receptor is marked as MR-1a and MR-1b on Plate 6.
A residential neighborhood, located approximately 5,700 feet west of the proposed

approach channel excavation activities. This community is located west of the American
River and east of where Folsom-Auburn Road and Pierpoint Circle meet. This receptor is
marked as LT-6 on Plate 6.
105
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
A large neighborhood that stretches from the western intersection of Briggs Ranch Drive
and East Natoma Street to the intersection of Green Valley Road and East Natoma Street.
Residences in this neighborhood are located approximately 3,700 feet south of the
proposed approach channel excavation activities, 1,000 feet south of Dike 7, and
approximately 600 feet south of the MIAD disposal area. The residence in the
northwestern corner of this neighborhood at Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street is
Residences closest to the proposed approach channel excavation activities, located at the
western end of Mountain View Drive and the western end of Lorena Lane. These
residences are located approximately 3,300 feet southeast of proposed approach channel
excavation activities. Ambient noise level data was not collected at Lorena Lane,
therefore modeling was conducted in order to analyze the levels of noise at this location.
These receptors are marked as MR-10 and LT-3 on Plate 6.
Recreationists using Folsom Point, which is located approximately 4,800 feet southeast
of proposed approach channel excavation activities, within 500 feet of Dike 7 and the
MIAD disposal area, and approximately 200 feet from the proposed Dike 8 disposal area.
Additionally, the haul road runs just south of Folsom Point. Folsom Point is a popular
picnic area and boat launch facility. However, since it is a day use facility only, sensitive
receptors would primarily be present during noise exempt hours. Only daytime and
evening measurements could be completed at this site due to the park being closed at
night. Folsom Point is marked as ST-8 on Plate 6.
A residential community located approximately 8,000 feet southeast of proposed

approach channel excavation activities and across the street from the MIAD disposal
area. This community is located at the northeast corner of Green Valley Road and East
Natoma Street. This community is marked as LT-4 on Plate 6.
Two residences located directly southwest of the boundary of the proposed MIAD
staging area. These homes are located at the northeast corner of Briggs Ranch Drive and
East Natoma Street. The nearest residence is located approximately 300 feet southwest
of the MIAD staging and disposal area, and approximately 300 feet from the proposed
Dike 8 disposal area. Ambient noise level data was not collected at this location,
therefore modeling was conducted in order to analyze the levels of noise. These
residences are marked as MR-9 on Plate 6.
The Folsom Point Church of Christ, which is located directly south of the boundary of the
proposed Dike 8 disposal area. The church is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive. Ambient noise level data
was not collected at this location, therefore modeling was conducted in order to analyze
the levels of noise. This church is marked MR-11 on Plate 6.
The closest sensitive receptors that are within Placer County are located at the Beals
Point Campground, which is marked as ST-7 on Plate 6. The campground is
approximately 8,600 feet northwest of the proposed construction site. Only daytime
measurements were completed here due to campground restrictions.
106
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The only sensitive receptors in El Dorado County that could be affected by construction
noise are homes located along Agora Way, Shadowfax Lane, and Shadowfax Court. This
community is approximately 2,500 feet east of the MIAD disposal area and more than
10,500 feet from proposed approach channel excavation activities. This community is
Potential noise-sensitive wildlife receptors were identified by project biologists within a

five-mile radius of the project site. Eight potential sensitive sites were identified in this
area and are marked as BIO-1 through BIO-8 on Plate 6. All eight wildlife receptors are
located a mile or more away from the project area.
Five long-term measurements were conducted, at sites shown in Plate 6. Eight short-term
measurements were conducted during the day, evening, and night for most of the corresponding
long-term measurement sites. Each short-term measurement lasted a total of 10 minutes. Shortterm day, evening, and night ambient noise level measurements were also completed at all eight
noise-sensitive wildlife locations. The table for all short-term measurements can be found in
Appendix G.
Table 16 shows existing (ambient) noise levels at human sensitive receptors and wildlife
sensitive receptors within the project vicinity based on the results of the noise measurement
survey. The reported noise levels are in terms of L50. These measured L50 noise levels represent
the noise level exceeded more than 30 minutes per hour at these locations.
Table 16. Existing Noise Levels.
Site ID
Location
MR-1a North Side of Folsom Prison
MR-1b East Side of Folsom Prison
LT-2
Tacana Drive and E. Natoma St.
LT-3
Mountain View Dr.
LT-4
E. Natoma St. and Green Valley Rd.
LT-5
Shadowfax Court
LT-6
East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint Circle
ST-2
Tacana Dr. and E. Natoma St.
ST-3
Mountain View Dr.
ST-4
E. Natoma St. and Green Valley Rd.
ST-5
Shadowfax Ct.
ST-6
East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Robin Ln.
ST-7
Beals Point (Campground)
ST-8
Folsom Point (Park)
MR-9 Northeastern-most Residence at Intersection of
East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive
MR-10 Western-most Residence on Lorena Lane
MR-11 The Folsom Church of Christ
BIO-1 Main St.
107
L50 (dBA) Measurement Type

n/a
Modeled
n/a
Modeled
66
Long term
46
Long term
73
Long term
45
Long term
47
Long term
43
Short term
40
Short term
42
Short term
49
Short term
42
Short term
51
Short term
49
Short term
n/a
Modeled
n/a
n/a
51
Modeled
Modeled
Short term
Site ID
BIO-2
BIO-3
BIO-4
BIO-5
BIO-6
BIO-7
BIO-8
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Location
East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Robin Ln.
Erwin Ave. and Snipes Blvd.
S. Lexington Dr. and Oak Avenue Parkway
Willow Bend Rd. and Grey Fox Ct.
Haddington Dr. and E. Natoma St.
Sturbridge Dr. and Stonemill Dr.
Wellington Way and Grizzly Way
L50 (dBA) Measurement Type

41
Short term
57
Short term
N/A
Short term
66
Short term
46
Short term
73
Short term
45
Short term
3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources describe several different types of properties: prehistoric and
historic archeological sites; architectural properties such as buildings, bridges, and infrastructure;
and resources of importance to Native Americans (traditional cultural properties and sacred
sites). Artifacts include any objects manufactured or altered by humans.
Prehistoric archeological sites date to the time before recorded history, and in this area of
the U.S., sites are primarily associated with Native American use before the arrival of European
explorers and settlers. Archeological sites dating to the time when these initial Native AmericanEuropean contacts occurred are referred to as protohistoric. Historic archeological sites can be
associated with Native Americans, Europeans, or any other ethnic group. In the project area and
surrounding area, these sites include the remains of historic structures and buildings.
Structures and buildings are considered historic when they are more than 50 years old or
when they are exceptionally significant. Exceptional significance can be attributed if the
properties are integral parts of districts that meet the criteria for eligibility for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or if they meet special criteria considerations.

Federal
Prior to implementation of an undertaking with the potential to cause effects to historic
properties, the project must be in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800). Section 106 requires Federal agencies, or those they
fund or permit, to consider the effects of their actions on the properties that may be eligible for
listing or are listed in the NRHP. To determine whether an undertaking could affect NRHPeligible or listed properties, cultural resources (including archeological, historical, and traditional
cultural properties) must be inventoried and evaluated for listing in the NRHP. The term
historic property specifically refers to a cultural resource that has been found eligible for
listing in, or is listed in, the NRHP.
108
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
State
CEQA also requires that for public or private projects financed or approved by public
agencies, the effects of the projects on historical resources and unique archeological resources
must be assessed. Historical resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, objects, or
districts that have been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources. Properties listed in the NRHP are automatically eligible for listing in the
California Register.

A discussion of cultural resources along the American River is included in the American
River Watershed, California, Long-Term Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation
Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Volume II: Appendix
A, Attachment 1, Appendix 1E (Corps 2002). A more recent and geographically specific
discussion of cultural resources around Folsom Dam is included in the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR
2007a), as well as the Cultural Resources Literature Search, Inventory, and National Register
Evaluation for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR completed by
Pacific Legacy, Inc. in 2007. The history of Folsom as a city connects back to several broader
themes that have been prevalent in California history: mining, railroads, and early farming and
agriculture. The following summary is specific to the historic presence of the Native Americans,
the development of Folsom Dam, and the city of Folsom and helps to place it within the history
of the region and the State.
Ethnography and Prehistory
The Nisenan were a southern linguistic group of the Maidu people, sometimes referred to
as the Southern Maidu. The name Nisenan was a self-designation by the native groups
occupying the Yuba and American River drainages (Wilson and Towne 1978). Along with the
Maidu and Kinkow, the Nisenan form a subgroup of the California Penutian linguistic family.
The Nisenans range covered a significant portion of the Central Valley and reached into the
Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The climate of the area occupied by the Nisenan was of mild weather with wet winters
and warm, dry summers. The Nisenan often inhabited areas near rivers, some major areas of
significance included sites on the American, Sacramento, Bear, Feather, and Yuba Rivers
(Moratto 1984). The basic political unit was a village community or tribelet with one primary
village and a few satellite villages under one head authority. Villages within the valley were
aware of one another and these varying groups of Nisenan had shared political and cultural
connections. Generally, villages consisted of 15 to 20 people and as many as several hundred in
one group. House structures were conical, dome shaped, and covered with earth, tule mats, grass
thatch, and occasionally bark. These structures, along with the ceremonial lodges or chiefs
residences, which were large and circular or elliptical, would be situated on low knolls near
streams and above marshy floodplains.
109
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Nisenan mostly settled in permanent or winter settlements and followed a yearly
gathering cycle that led them away from the lowlands and into the hill country each summer.
During the annual gathering cycle, the Nisenan harvested acorns, nutmeg, pine nuts, buckeyes,
and sunflower seeds and often stored these for long periods. Other vegetation, such as greens,
tule and cattail roots, brodiaea bulbs, manzanita berries, black berries, and California grapes, was
harvested and eaten as it ripened. All valley groups, including the Nisenan, fished trout, perch,
chub, sucker, hardhead, eels, Sturgeon, and Chinook salmon. Fishing methods included hook,
net, harpoon, trap, weir, and poison (Moratto 1984). The Nisenan crafted tools from stone such
as obsidian and basalt to make flaked stone knives and projectile points. They also made ground
stone tools such as mortars, pestles, pipes, and charms from locally available rock. Using wood,
bone, and plant material, the Nisenan also made weapons, bows, arrow shafts, paddles, canoes,
rafts, fishing nets, and baskets (Wilson and Towne 1978).
Early contact occurred at the southern end of Nisenan territory as the Spanish, notably
Jos Canizares in 1776, explored Miwok land. Although there is no record of the Nisenan
removal to the Spanish missions, by the late 1820s, white settlement began to encroach on
Nisenan land as American and Hudsons Bay Company trappers began to trap beaver in the
Nisenan territory under peaceful occupation. In 1833, a disease, believed to be malaria, swept
through the Sacramento Valley and decimated the valley Nisenan. An estimated 75 percent of
the native population was killed; as a result, there were very few Nisenan left in the valley to
face the settlers and gold miners who came soon after the epidemic (Hoover 1990).
History
By January 1850, the discovery of gold in Coloma in 1848 had encouraged development
in the Sacramento area. Shortly after the initial discovery of gold, a group of Mormons
previously employed by Sutter to work his mill were mining for riches near Folsom. At the
juncture of the North and South Forks of the American River, the town of Mormon Island was
established around 1848 by Samuel Brannan and a group of about 100 men. By 1855 a small
town was flourishing, populated with 2,500 people and complete with two stage lines, a post
office, a school, four hotels, seven saloons, and more than a dozen other businesses. The
completion of the Sacramento Valley Railroad to Folsom in 1856 marked the firm establishment
of Folsom as a destination and began the slow decline of Mormon Island. By 1880 the mining
community had disappeared.
The early history of Folsom includes founders such as William Alexander Leidesdorff
and Joseph Libby Folsom. Both individuals helped establish the city of Folsom, downstream of
the current Folsom Dam. In 1856, Theodore Judah surveyed and laid out the city of Folsom
where the 2,048 lots sold in the first day and the city began to flourish.
Mining continued to draw people to Folsom. By 1878, Folsom had a sizeable Chinese
population, numbering more than 3,500. With the population continuing to rise, in 1870 Horatio
Livermore devised and implemented a project to dam the American River and provide power to
Folsom. Completed in 1893 with the use of convict labor from Folsom Prison, the original
Folsom Dam provided local power as well as electricity to Sacramento, located 22 miles
110
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
downstream. There are remnants the Old Folsom Dam just downstream of the current dam and
Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge.
Mining activities took the form of dredging operations in 1900 and the population of
Folsom slowly grew in the beginning decades of the new century. Eventually water resource
needs for the region increased above what the Old Folsom Dam could provide. Although the
town of Mormon Island disappeared decades earlier, there were a number of farmers occupying
and utilizing the land at and near the juncture of the North and South Forks of the American
River at the time of the construction of Folsom Dam (Folsom History Museum 2006).
Folsom Dam, reservoir, and the surrounding area have had an important role in the
history of water and growth in California. During the 1920s, drought, water rights, and lack of
sufficient storage facilities endangered the States agricultural future. As a result, the CVP was
designed and constructed. Before the construction of Folsom Dam, there was great concern in
the Sacramento region about potential flooding if both the Sacramento and American Rivers
should ever crest at the same time.
Construction began on Folsom Dam in 1948 under contracts supervised by the Corps. In
1956, the dam joined the overall CVP, and USBR took possession of the dam for operation and
maintenance on May 15, 1956. The addition of the dam to the CVP operations added significant
reservoir size to the dams on the Trinity, American, and Stanislaus Rivers. As a component of
the CVP, Folsom Dam has been a significant contributor to the water and agricultural history of
California. As an individual structure, Folsom Dam has had an important effect on flood control
in the Sacramento region (Bailey 2005).
Records and Literature Search
The Corps conducted a records and literature search at the North Central Information
Center at California State University, Sacramento in December 2011. A number of previous
studies have investigated the area of potential effects (APE) for the projects preferred
alternative. A survey of the area around MIAD was conducted by USBR in 1990, and Jones and
Stokes, Inc. surveyed areas along the present day Folsom Lake Crossing in 1991 and 1993.
Surveys conducted in 2004 by USBR and the Corps covered those areas previously surveyed and
expanded to include additional areas of the APE. A nearly all inclusive survey of the APE was
conducted by Pacific Legacy, Inc. in 2007 as part of the FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a).
The records and literature search identified two historic properties and two cultural
resources within the APE. CA-SAC-937H includes Folsom Dam, as well as its right and left
wing dams and has been found individually eligible for listing in the NRHP due to its role in
flood control, hydropower, and irrigation in the Sacramento region and it is eligible as a
contributing element to the larger CVP. CA-SAC-1103H includes Dikes 7 and 8 and was found
eligible for listing in the NRHP as integrated components of Folsom Dam and as important
structural elements in the formation of Folsom Lake. CA-SAC-943H is a prospecting pit with
associated spoils and drainage. Because no additional features or artifacts were found in
association with the site a construction date for CA-SAC-943H could not be determined and a
determination of eligibility to the NRHP has not been made. Previous construction for USBRs
111
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dam Safety, the Corps Flood Damage Reduction and the combined USBR and Corps Joint
Federal Project efforts near CA-SAC-943H have avoided the site. CA-SAC-943H will be
avoided for this project effort as well. CA-SAC-358H was recorded within Folsom Lake
Reservoir in 1977 and was described at a cement structure likely associated with two holding
pads. In the 1977 recordation for the site it was described as 95% destroyed due to erosion by
Folsom Lake and bulldozer disturbance associated with road construction.
A review of Folsom Dam construction photos from the 1950s shows that the area around
Folsom Dam, including around the dikes, shoreline, and recreation areas, was heavily disturbed
by earth moving activities. Blasting was used to remove rock in many places and large
equipment was used to build up the dikes and recreation areas. The entire APE has been heavily
disturbed by the original dam construction and the road construction, recreation use, and
construction of the Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction features at Folsom Dam. Because
of the historic earth moving activities, no previously undisturbed soil other than the area within
the reservoir, would be affected by this project.
Native American Consultation
project beyond recommendations for the use of native plans and resources in potential mitigation
banking activities. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (SSB) requested information on
the project and to meet with the Corps regarding the project. The Corps provided project
information and background, as requested, and met with representatives of the SSB on March 16,
2012. The SSB indicated they are interested in activities occurring within the project area and
they requested a site visit. A site visit with SSB was conducted on July 19 2012. Follow up
phone calls and emails to the SSB did not indicate that the SSB had any further questions or
concerns about the project. No other responses from potentially interested Native Americans
have been received. Correspondence related to Section 106 consultation is included in Appendix
J.
Field Surveys
The majority of the APE has undergone archaeological survey in the last five years.
Pacific Legacy, Inc. surveyed most of the APE in 2007 to support USBRs Dam Safety effort
and the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR. In 2004, the Corps and
USBR also surveyed portions of the APE to support the Corps Folsom Bridge Project and the
USBRs geologic testing around Folsom Dam. The only areas of the APE that have not
undergone intensive archaeological survey are the haul road between Dikes 7 and 8, portions of
the Dike 8 disposal site, and the in-reservoir features (spur dike, approach channel, transload
facility, and sediment placement). The haul road between Dikes 7 and 8 is an existing road that
has been extensively used in the last five years of construction at and around Folsom Dam. It
112
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
exists in an area previously disturbed during the creation of the reservoir and the dikes. The
portions of the Dike 8 disposal site that have not been previously surveyed will be intensively
surveyed for potential historic properties prior to ground disturbing activities.
The portions of the APE that include the spur dike, approach channel, transload facility,
and sediment placement are inundated by the Folsom Lake reservoir pool and cannot be
intensively surveyed for archaeological resources at this time. In the event that the lake level
lowers and the in-reservoir areas become accessible, those areas will be intensively surveyed for
potential historic properties. Although an intensive archaeological survey of the inundated
reservoir has not been completed, two sites were recorded in 1977 as located within the
reservoir, and are within, or in the vicinity of, the APE. CA-SAC-358H is a cement structure
likely associated with two holding pads that may be within the area designated within the
reservoir for sediment placement and the transload facility. Based on the 1977 recordation that
indicates the site was already 95% destroyed at that time, and in consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), CA-SAC-358H has been determined to be most likely
destroyed and without sufficient integrity to be considered as a historic property. The other site,
CA-SAC-358H is located well outside the APE and will not be affected. There are no other
known cultural resources near the APE within the unsurveyed reservoir.
3.11 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS

This section discusses the regulatory and environmental setting on topography and soils
in the project area.

Federal
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers
regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (55 CFR 47990). In turn,
the SWRCBs jurisdiction is administered through nine regional water quality control boards.
To comply with Federal regulations, an operator must obtain a general permit through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program for all
construction activities with ground disturbance of 1 acre or more. The general permit requires
best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented to reduce sedimentation into surface
waters and to control erosion. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must also be
prepared. It must address the control of water pollution, including sediment, in runoff during
construction. Section 4.4, Water Quality, includes more information about the NPDES and
SWPPPs.
113
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
State
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is certified in the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards
Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is
responsible for coordinating all building standards. Published by the International Conference of
Building Officials, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is a widely adopted model building code
in the United States. The UBC requires extensive geotechnical analysis and engineering for
grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other structures, including criteria for seismic design.
In addition, the California Building Standards Code states that the soil classification and
design-bearing capacity shall be shown on the (building) plans, unless the foundation conforms
to specified requirements. The CBSC provides standards for various aspects of construction,
including excavation, grading, and earthwork construction; fills and embankments; expansive
soils; foundation investigations; and liquefaction potential and soil strength loss.

Topography
The project area is located within the American River watershed, which ranges in
elevation from 10 feet above mean sea level at the confluence with the Sacramento River to
10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Folsom Reservoir is located within the westernmost
extent of the Sierra Nevada Foothills, set within the valley created by the confluence of the north
and south forks of the American River. Folsom Reservoir extends upstream on the north fork to
just south of Auburn and about a mile east where Salmon Falls Road crosses the south fork. The
slopes surrounding Folsom Reservoir are generally steep to moderate with exception to the
flatter areas of the Peninsula Campground area, Goose Flat, and Granite Bay.
Currently the project area consists of the excavated auxiliary spillway chute and the
ongoing construction of the control structure. In addition, Folsom Overlook and the rock plug
combine to create manmade peninsula within Folsom Reservoir. The rock plug forms a natural
rock barrier between the chute and Folsom Reservoir. As a result, this existing topography
allows for the rock plug to function as a temporary natural dam. The haul routes and disposal
areas are existing features that have been used for previous phases of the project. The haul route
extends along the Folsom Reservoir shoreline and consists of a berm built into the natural slopes.
The Dike 7 and MIAD disposal areas are in naturally hilly areas that are previously disturbed
from ongoing JFP disposal activities.
114
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Soils
Review of the soil data provided through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Sacramento County, California
indicates that near-surface soils in the project area identified as Andregg coarse sandy loam;
Andregg coarse sandy loam, sandy loam; Andregg-Urban land complex; and Xerolls on top of
weathered bedrock. Andregg soil is moderately deep and well-drained with moderately rapid
permeability rate. Runoff is slow or medium and the hazard of water erosion is slight to
moderate. Andregg soils have a low shrink-swell potential of the surface layer. Urban land
consists of areas covered by impervious surfaces or structures, such as roads, driveways,
sidewalks, buildings, and parking lots. The soil material under the impervious surfaces is similar
to that of the Andregg soil, although it may have been truncated or otherwise altered. Xerolls are
well-drained soils on terrace escarpments and steep hill slopes near the Folsom Dam spillway.
Permeability is moderately rapid to moderately slow in the Xerolls. Runoff is rapid or very rapid
and the hazard of water erosion is severe.
Expansive soils comprised mainly of clays have the ability to swell when water is
absorbed or shrink when dry. The shrink-swell potential can result in differential movements
beneath foundations. Soils with high clay content tend to be the most affected by expansion.
Although soils within the project area contain various levels of clay in their compositions,
according to NRCS, the soils types have a low shrink-swell potential (2011).
3.12 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

Federal
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA (16 USC 661 et seq.) provides that fish and wildlife resources shall receive
equal consideration with other features throughout the planning process of water resources
development projects. The FWCA requires Federal agencies to consult with Federal and State
fish and wildlife resource agencies before undertaking or approving water projects that control or
modify surface water. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that wildlife concerns receive
equal consideration during water resource development projects and are coordinated with the
features of these projects. The consultation is intended to promote the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources by preventing their loss or damage and to provide for the development and
improvement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water projects. Federal agencies
undertaking water projects are required to fully consider recommendations made by Federal and
State fish and wildlife resource agencies in project reports and to include measures to reduce
impacts on fish and wildlife in project plans.
Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
115
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
This Executive Order requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, use relevant
programs and authorities to (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species, (ii) detect and
respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound manner, (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and
reliably, (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that
have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent
introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote
public education on invasive species and the means to address them.
Local
Sacramento County Ordinance, Chapter 19.12, Tree Preservation and Protection
This ordinance regulates the removal or disturbance to all species of oak trees native to
Sacramento County. These species include valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak
(Quercus wislizeni), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), oracle oak (Quercus x moreha), and black oak
(Quercus kelloggii). The ordinance applies to any native oak tree. Typically, only trees 6 inches
in diameter at breast height (dbh), or greater, are protected.

Vegetation
There are five different types of vegetation communities in the project area: (1) open
water/ reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone; (2) ruderal herbaceous; (3) oak savannah; (4)
transitional wetland; and (5) developed/disturbed areas (Plate 7). These communities and
associated wildlife are described below. In addition, the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve is
located outside of the project area, but within one-half mile of the MIAD disposal area. The
Preserve contains a series of wetlands and ponded areas, some of which remain wet for most of
the year.
Open Water/ Reservoir Shoreline Fluctuation Zone
Approximately 175 acres of open water habitat is located within the project area. Folsom
Reservoir experiences extreme seasonal water level fluctuations ranging from elevation 425 feet
to 466 feet, which corresponds with the minimum and maximum pool volumes for the reservoir.
Following the recession of lake waters, the shoreline zone is seasonally vegetated with a mix of
ruderal (disturbed, weedy) and grassland species, with large areas that remain mostly barren
shorelines with rip rap on the upper slopes. Willow shrubs (Salix sp.) are sporadic at the very
lowest elevations of the shore. Open water habitat in the project area is largely unvegetated.
These areas are frequently inundated and have saturated soil conditions. Animals that use
ruderal and barren areas are species associated with open habitats, such as grasslands and oak
savannas. Open water habitat provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other wetland species.
116
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Ruderal Herbaceous
Ruderal herbaceous community is a native community that occurs in and around the
project area. This community is dominated by annual grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus
diadrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), and forbs including horsetail (Equisetum hyemale). Ruderal
herbaceous community provides cover and foraging habitat for resident and migratory songbirds,
small mammals, and reptiles. The ruderal herbaceous community exists primarily along the haul
road and the perimeter of the project area, including within the previously undisturbed proposed
Dike 8 disposal area.
Oak Savannah
Oak savannah habitat occurs adjacent to the haul road, and within the proposed Dike 8
disposal area. The predominant oak species include valley oak, and live oak. Several wildlife
species depend on woodland trees and shrubs for their habitat requirements. Numerous nesting
locations and perching sites for birds exist within this area.
Transitional Wetland
Dike 8 disposal area, along the haul route, consists primarily of transitional wetland
habitat. This area is flooded when reservoir levels are high by a culvert beneath the haul route,
but remains dry when reservoir levels are low. When flooded, this area provides foraging habitat
for waterfowl and other wetland species.
Developed/Disturbed Areas
The greater project area is highly disturbed and largely devoid of vegetation, with the
exception of small areas of annual grasses and forbs. These areas are categorized as
developed/disturbed habitat areas. Various buildings, dams, water control facilities, and related
facilities have been constructed near the project area. The lands surrounding these structures are
often heavily disturbed during construction. The Folsom Overlook staging area and MIAD and
Dike 7 disposal sites are previously disturbed areas of State and Federal land. These areas have
been developed under previous actions of the Folsom JFP and are active construction zones.
This area provides little to no habitat for wildlife and has little to no vegetation or ground cover.
Wildlife
The project area has poor to non-existent wildlife habitat due to the presence of the dam
and continuous dam improvements. The lack of vegetation for cover, nesting, and forage is not
conducive for wildlife. The project area is of low habitat quality to migratory birds and lacks
suitable nesting areas. However, cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) have been observed
nesting under the water pipeline across the auxiliary spillway chute.
117
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The adjacent oak woodland habitat, Mormon Island Wetland Preserve, and transitional
wetland at Dike 8 provide habitat to many bird species. Surveys documented acorn wood pecker
(Melanerpes formicivorus), Annas hummingbird (Calypte anna), Bewicks wren (Thryomanes
bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla),
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), tree
swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), great-horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and wild turkey nests near the haul road and disposal areas (USBR 2010). Many
open water and wetland species are known to forage within a half mile of the project area
including the great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada goose (Branta
Canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The
Mormon Island Preserve also provides a perennial wetland for many species including pond
turtles.
3.13 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
The Federal Endangered Species Act requires that any action authorized by a Federal
agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species,
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined
to be critical. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that project actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat of these species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712)
This act implements treaties that the United States has signed with a number of countries
to protect birds that migrate across national borders. The act makes unlawful the taking,
possessing, pursing, capturing, transporting, or selling of any migratory bird, its nest or its eggs.
State
California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions
of the Federal Endangered Species Act and is administered by CDFG. CESA prohibits take of
listed species and state candidate species. State lead agencies are required to consult with CDFG
to ensure that any action it undertakes is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of habitat.
118
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

A listing of Federally-listed proposed, candidate, threatened, or endangered species
(listed species) and their associated critical habitat was reviewed for the Folsom and Clarksville
7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangles (USFWS 2011). Ten listed animal species were shown to have
the potential to occur within the project area. In addition, six listed plant species were shown to
have the potential to occur within the project area; however, further investigations indicated that
the highly disturbed habitat within the project area does not have the potential to support listed
plant species.
Records from the California Natural Diversity Database were reviewed for State
endangered or threatened species (CDFG 2011). Two state species of concern, tricolored
blackbird and Rickseckers beetle, were shown to occur within a quarter mile of the project area.
No suitable nesting habitat is present due to the absence of emergent marshland habitat within
the project area. The habitat within the project area could not support either species.
Additionally, biological field surveys identified coopers hawk, white tailed kite, and
yellow warbler within a half mile of the project area. Table 17 lists the special status animal
species, and provides their listing status, basic habitat requirements, and potential to occur in the
project area. A complete list from both the USFWS and California Natural Diversity Database
searches is presented in Appendix J.
Table 17. Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in Project Area.
Species
Status
Habitat
Potential for
Occurrence
Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio
FE
Inhabits vernal pools
vernal pool fairy shrimp

Branchinecta lynchi
FT
valley elderberry longhorn

beetle Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
FT
vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Lepidurus packardi
FE
Endemic to the grasslands of

the Central Valley, Central
Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in rainfilled pools. Inhabit small,
clear-water sandstonedepression pools and grassed
swales, earth slumps, or
basalt-flow depression pools.
Occurs only in the Central
Valley of California, in
association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana); primarily in
riparian woodland and scrub
habitat
Inhabits vernal pools in the
Central Valley.
119
Unlikely; no vernal
pools are within the
project area.
Unlikely; no vernal
project area.
Potential to occur.
Four elderberry
shrubs are located in
the proposed Dike 8
disposal area.
Unlikely; no vernal
project area.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Species
Status
Habitat
Potential for
Occurrence
Rickseckers water scavenger

beetle Hydrochara
rickseckeri
SSC
Inhabits weedy, shallow,

open water, associated fresh
water seeps, springs, farm
ponds, vernal pools, and
slow moving stream
habitats.
Unlikely; no vernal
project area.
Central Valley steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT
No; Folsom Dam

blocks passage to
suitable habitat.
Central Valley spring run

Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
FT
Central Valley winter run

Chinook salmon
FE
Requires cold, freshwater

streams with suitable gravel
for spawning; rears
seasonally in inundated
floodplains, rivers,
tributaries, and Delta.
for spawning; rears
for spawning; rears
California endemic, a
lowland species restricted to
the grasslands and lowest
foothill regions of Central
and Northern California,
which is where its breeding
habitat (long-lasting rain
pools) occurs. During dryseason, uses small mammal
burrows as refuge, travelling
up to 1.6 kilometers (km).
Lowlands and foothills in or
near permanent sources of
deep water with dense,
shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation. Requires 11-20
weeks of permanent water
for larval development and
must have access to
aestivation habitat.
No. Outside the

Spawning range for
the species.
Fish
No; Folsom Dam

blocks passage to
suitable habitat.
No; Folsom Dam

blocks passage to
suitable habitat.
Amphibians and Reptiles

California tiger salamander,
central population
Ambystoma californiense
California red-legged frog

Rana draytonii
FT
FT, SSC
120
Unlikely to occur;
Folsom Reservoir is
unsuitable for this
species
Species
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Status
Habitat
Potential for
Occurrence
FT
Prefers freshwater marsh and

low gradient streams. Has
adapted to drainage canals &
irrigation ditches. This is the
most aquatic of the garter
snakes in California..
Unlikely to occur;
no suitable habitat is
in project area.
tricolored blackbird Agelaius

tricolor
SSC
Unlikely to occur;
no suitable habitat is
in project area.
Coopers hawk Accipiter

cooperii
SSC
yellow warbler Dendroica

petechia
SSC
(Nesting colony) Highly

colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley
and vicinity: largely endemic
to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting
substrate, & foraging area
with insect prey within a few
kilometers of the colony.
Nests in dense stands of oak
and conifer woodlands, and
valley foothill riparian
habitat. Forges in savanna/
grassland edge habitat.
Nests in riparian woodland
or forest dominated by
cottonwoods and willows.
Occurs principally as a
migrant and summer resident
from late March through
early October; breeds from
April to late July.
Nests in woodlands and
isolated trees; forges in
grasslands, shrublands, and
agricultural fields
Giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas
Birds
white tailed kite Elanus

leucurus
(FE) Federal Endangered Species

(SE) State Endangered Species
(FP) State Fully Protected
FP
(FT) Federal Threatened Species

(ST) State Threatened Species
(SSC) California Species of Special Concern
121
Unlikely to occur;
no suitable nesting
or forging habitat is
located within
project area.
Unlikely; no suitable
nesting or forging
habitat is present
within project area.
Could be observed
during migration in
California.
Potential to occur.
Suitable nesting and
forging habitat is
present at the
proposed Dike 8
disposal area.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Special status species that were not identified as occurring or having habitat in the project
area are not discussed further in this document. The following Federal and State listed special
status species were identified as having the potential to occur at the proposed Dike 8 disposal
area:
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Federal Threatened)
White-tailed kite (State Fully Protected)

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (VELB) is

endemic to the riparian habitats in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys where it resides on
elderberry (Sambucus spp.) plants. The VELB's current distribution is patchy throughout the
remaining riparian forests of the Central Valley from Redding to Bakersfield (USFWS, 1984).
The VELB is a pith-boring species that depends on elderberry plants during its entire life cycle.
Throughout its range, the VELB is estimated to inhabit only about 10% of all suitable elderberry
shrubs. Although a recent review of the beetles status by the USFWS recommends the species
for delisting, such action has not yet been finalized.
Elderberry shrubs in the Central Valley are commonly associated with riparian habitat,
but also occur in oak woodlands and savannahs, as well as in disturbed areas. In surveys
conducted by Corps and USFWS biologists, it was established that there are four non-riparian
elderberry shrubs in the oak savannah habitat at the proposed Dike 8 disposal area. The results
of this survey are included in Appendix J. Additionally, three elderberry shrubs have begun to
grow along the left wing dam approximately 0.25 miles from the approach channel project area.
White-tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is a common to uncommon, year-long resident in
valley lowlands and is rarely found away from agricultural areas. The main prey of the whitetailed kite is voles and other small, diurnal mammals, but it occasionally preys on birds, insects,
reptiles, and amphibians. White-tailed kites forage in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows,
farmlands, and emergent wetlands. Nests are made of loosely piled sticks and twigs lined with
grass, straw, or rootlets and placed near the top of a dense oak, willow, or other tree stand. Nests
are usually found 20 to 100 feet above ground. Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite
occurs at the proposed Dike 8 disposal area.
122
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the potential effects of the alternative plans on the significant
environmental resources described in Chapter 3. The conditions described for each resource in
this chapter are compared with future conditions with each alternative plan in place.
Both beneficial and adverse effects are considered, including direct effects during
construction and indirect effects resulting from the alternatives. Each section, where appropriate,
contains a discussion of the methods used to analyze effects. In addition, the bases of
significance (criteria) for each resource are identified to evaluate the significance of any adverse
effects. Finally, measures are proposed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any significant adverse
effects for each resource.
Many of the resources evaluated in this chapter were initially analyzed in the 2007
FEIS/EIR, in terms of the projected overall effects of the JFP. The FEIS/EIR addressed all
appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects to environmental
resources for the defined project area. However, as each phase of construction is completed for
the JFP, the existing environmental conditions of the area have changed.
The bases of significance for each resource are based on CEQ NEPA implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) and CEQA Guidelines. The Corps has integrated NEPA
requirements into its regulations, policies, and guidance. The Corps Engineering Regulation
1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, April 2000, establishes the following institutional,
public, and technical significance criteria:
Significance based on institutional recognition means that the importance of the

effects is acknowledged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy statements of
public agencies and private groups. Institutional recognition is often in the form of
specific criteria.
Significance based on public recognition means that some segment of the general
public recognized the importance of the effect. Public recognition may take the form
of controversy, support, conflict, or opposition expressed formally or informally.
Significance based on technical recognition means that the importance of an effect is

based on the technical or scientific criteria related to critical resource characteristics.
For this SEIS/EIR, these three NEPA criteria apply to all resources and are not repeated
for each resource. The CEQA requirements are more specific to the resource and are listed in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA criteria relevant to the project area, as well as
other agency criteria and thresholds of significance that apply to each resource, are identified
under the appropriate resource.
123
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.2 AIR QUALITY

This section presents and compares potential adverse effects to air quality as compared to
the existing conditions discussed in Section 3.6. Potential temporary effects could result from
the construction of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Potentially adverse effects are
discussed with respect to emissions resulting from project construction. The methodology for
this analysis is described below.
4.2.1 Methodology
The methods for evaluating impacts are intended to satisfy the Federal and State air
quality requirements, including the Federal general conformity rule (GCR), and to disclose
effects for NEPA and CEQA. The analysis focuses on short-term construction emissions
because once constructed, the project would not result in operational (indirect) emissions.
Construction emissions for this project were analyzed in detail in a technical report attached as
Appendix A.
Several emission models were used to calculate construction emissions. These include the
CARB Emission Factor (EMFAC2007/ EMFAC2011) models (onroad vehicle emission factor
model) and the CARB OFFROAD2011 model. Daily and total project emissions were estimated
from appropriate emission factors from the models or USEPA AP-42 guidance, the type of
equipment being operated, the level of equipment activity, and the associated construction
schedules. The CARB Harbor Craft Model was utilized to calculate marine emissions. The
models estimated criteria pollutants from a variety of construction-related emission sources
including mobile sources (trucks, worker vehicles, etc.), construction equipment (marine
equipment), and/or fugitive dust sources. Details of modeling assumptions for each project
alternative and methodology are provided in Appendix A.
The following construction sources and activities were analyzed for emissions:
On-site construction off-road equipment emissions (all criteria pollutants) based on

OFFROAD2011 emission factors and estimated equipment schedules.
On-site construction marine equipment emissions (all criteria pollutants) utilizing CARB
Harbor Craft Model based on USEPA marine guidance emission factors (USEPA
2000), and estimated equipment schedules.
On-site pickup trucks, on-site haul trucks and off-site haul trucks emissions (all criteria
pollutants) based on EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 models and estimated vehicle miles
traveled.
Off-site worker vehicle emissions (all criteria pollutants) based on

EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 models and estimated vehicle miles traveled.
On-site pickup trucks, on-site haul trucks, off-site haul truck and off-site worker vehicles
entrained fugitive dust emissions for paved and unpaved road entrained dust (PM10 and
PM2.5) based on AP-42 methodology and estimated vehicle miles traveled.
124
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
On-site material storage piles handling and wind erosion (PM10 and PM2.5) based on
AP-42 methodology, volume and surface area of storage pile, wind speed and moisture
content.
On-site excavation (cut/fill) fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from the URBEMIS
model.
On-site blasting emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) based on methodology provided in the
Blue Rock Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (Sonoma County 2005), number
of blasts, and approximate size of area subject to blasting activity.
On-site rock crushing facility (PM10 and PM2.5) based on AP-42 methodology and the
annual production of the one rock crushing facility
On-site concrete batch plant (PM10 and PM2.5) based on AP-42 emission methodology
and the amount of concrete processed at the one batch plant
On-site (Dike 7) and off-site (Prison) staging areas used to store equipment and materials
(PM10 and PM2.5) based on AP-42 emission methodology, and volume and surface
areas of storage piles, including wind speed moisture content.
On-site disposal areas (PM10 and PM2.5) based on AP-42 methodology, volume and
surface area of disposal areas, wind speed, and moisture content.
Preliminary air quality emissions calculations indicated that approach channel

construction would result in air emissions that could lead to violations of applicable CAAQS and
not comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. Due to this concern, SMAQMD, CARB, and the
USEPA were contacted for assistance. SMAQMD further requested the Corps to:
Analyze and disclose the amount and duration of construction related emissions including
nitrogen oxides (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROG), and exhaust and fugitive dust
particulate matter (PM), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), toxic air contaminants (TAC)
and odors.
Determine if each construction-related pollutant would cause significant impacts by

comparing the emissions levels to local significance thresholds, State and Federal air
quality standards, and transportation and general conformity regulations.
Provide a thorough discussion of diesel exhaust emissions and naturally-occurring

asbestos (NOA) in the soil.
Identify sensitive receptors in proximity to the project.
Describe all feasible mitigation measures that would be implemented to avoid and/or
minimize significant impacts for each pollutant.
Include innovative and additional mitigation measures to reduce project air impacts.
Identify, analyze, and disclose any operation emissions, and if necessary, determine
significance and describe feasible mitigation that would be implemented for the project.
Include all analyses assumptions, calculations, and modeling runs in the document.
125
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Apply SMAQMD rules to all projects at the time of construction.
4.2.2 Basis of Significance

This section identifies the basis of significance (criteria) for impacts to air quality,
discusses how these criteria are determined for both NEPA and CEQA, and provides specific air
quality standards, thresholds, or other measurements for the various pollutants. The alternatives
under consideration would result in a significant impact related to air quality if they would:
Increase NOx emissions by more than 85 pounds per day
Increase NOx emissions by more than 25 tons per year
Fail to demonstrate conformity to the State Implementation Plan and the Federal
general conformity de minimis thresholds.
Increase ROG emissions by more than 25 tons per year,
Increase PM10, PM2.5, or CO impacts by more than 100 tons per year,
Disturb more than 15 acres per day of exposed soils or increase PM10
concentrations by more than five percent of the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (2.5 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours, or by more than 1
microgram per cubic meter averaged over a year.
Substantially increase health risks to residents from exposure to diesel particulate

matter and NOA,
Expose residents to excessive odors.
State Implementation Plan and General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds

Federal actions need to demonstrate conformity to any SIPs of the regional air basin.
Each action must be reviewed to determine whether it 1) qualifies for an exemption listed in the
General Conformity Rule (GCR), 2) results in emissions that are below GCR de minimis
emissions thresholds, or 3) would produce emissions above the GCR de minimis thresholds
applicable to the specific area. The General Conformity de minimis levels for this project are
shown below (Table 18). These thresholds were applied to the projects estimated emissions and
used to determine effect significance as detailed below.
126
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 18. General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds.

Pollutant
Federal Attainment Status
Threshold Values (tons/yr)1
Ozone precursor (NOx)

Ozone precursor (ROGs)
CO
SO2
PM2.5
PM10
Pb
Nonattainment: Severe
Maintenance
Attainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment: Moderate
No designation
25
25
100
N/A
100
100
N/A
Source: USEPA 2011

Notes: (1) Thresholds from 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
SMAQMD CEQA Thresholds

Relevant SMAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance are summarized below. As the
project would not include any Folsom Dam or auxiliary spillway operational activities that
generate emissions, only thresholds applicable to construction are presented.
The SMAQMD has established an emission significance threshold for NOx from
construction activities. If the project construction emissions exceed the daily CEQA NOx
threshold of 85 pounds per day (lbs/day) after on-site mitigation, the project applicant must pay
mitigation fees to offset any excess emissions. The SMAQMD currently assesses mitigation fees
of $17,080 per ton of NOx but these fees may change annually depending on updates to the
applicable guidance.
For construction projects disturbing more than a maximum daily area of 15 acres, PM10
CAAQS are applied as thresholds except for areas with existing or projected nonattainment
designations for the PM10 CAAQS. Due to the SVABs nonattainment designation, SMAQMD
has determined that a projects emissions in the SVAB would be significant and considered
substantial contributors if they equal or exceed 5 percent of the PM10 CAAQS. The substantial
contribution thresholds of the PM10 CAAQS are 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours
or more than 1 microgram per cubic meter averaged over a year project.
If a construction project implements all Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
(SMAQMD 2011) and a projects maximum daily disturbed area is less than 15 acres,
SMAQMD does not consider a project to have the potential to exceed or contribute to the
concentration-based threshold of significance for PM10 (Table 19). In this situation, PM10
impacts are considered less-than-significant with incorporation of mitigation.
SMAQMD has also designated the CAAQS as construction thresholds for PM2.5, CO,
and SO2. SMAQMD has not designated a construction threshold for ROG. The CAAQS
thresholds for PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 are shown in Table 19. Because PM2.5 is a subset of
PM10, SMAQMD assumes that construction projects that do not generate concentrations of
PM10 that exceed the concentration-based threshold of significance would also be considered
less-than-significant for PM2.5 impacts. For other criteria pollutants, NOx, SO2, and CO,,,
127
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
SMAQMD requires that the proximity of a project to sensitive receptors and the duration of
emissions be used to determine whether concentrations need to be estimated (SMAQMD 2011).
Because the projects emission sources in relation to sensitive receptors are greater than 500
feet, the assessment meets the ARB guidance distance and no further roadway-related air quality
evaluation of pollutant concentrations is recommended (SMAQMD 2011).
Table 19. SMAQMD Ambient Concentration Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants.
Criteria Pollutant
Project Type
Concentration(mg/m3)
PM10
24-hour
2.5
Annual arithmetic mean
1.0
PM2.5
Annual arithmetic mean
0.6
CO
8-hour
500
1-hour
1,150
SO2
24-hour
5.25
1-hour
32.75
Note: SMAQMD has designated the CAAQS as CEQA significance thresholds. CAAQS thresholds for PM10,
PM2.5, CO, and SO2 are shown above. For PM10, a substantial threshold is applicable because the SVAB is in
nonattainment. A substantial contribution is considered an emission that is equal to or greater than 5 percent of a
CAAQS. The substantial contribution thresholds are indicated above.
Source: SMAQMD 2009, SMAQMD 2011
Offensive Odors
Specific significance thresholds are not available for offensive odors; however, a project
would be considered to have significant adverse air quality impacts if it has the potential to
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, SMAQMD Rule
402 prohibits any person or source from emitting air contaminants that cause detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or the public (SMAQMD 2011).
SMAQMD recommends that significance determinations be made on a case-by-case basis and
considering parameters such as the Recommended Odor Screening Distances, or odor complaint
history.
Diesel Particulate Matter
The use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment for site grading and excavation, paving,
hauling, and other construction activities would release DPM emissions, which were identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The SMAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold of
significance for construction-related TAC emissions. Therefore, the SMAQMD recommends that
project applicants address this issue on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the
specific construction-related characteristics of each project and the projects proximity to off-site
receptors (SMAQMD 2011).
128
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Naturally Occurring Asbestos

At the request of SMAQMD, the California Geological Survey (formerly the California
Division of Mines and Geology) prepared a report called the Relative Likelihood for the
Presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California (California
Geological Survey 2006). To date, NOA has not been located within the project site. However,
the report map shows that this project is located in an area moderately likely to contain NOA.
Given this, earth disturbing activities may expose sensitive receptors to unsafe levels of NOA
leading to potentially significant effects (SMAQMD 2011). If NOA is discovered, the Corps
will implement CARBs Asbestos ATCM Mitigation Measures, which would reduce the impacts
from NOA to less-than-significant.
4.2.3 Alternative 1 No Action
Under the No Action alternative, the project construction would not take place.
Therefore, there would be no emissions associated with construction activities under the project.
Similarly, there would be no long term operational (indirect) emissions under this alternative.
4.2.4 Alternative 2 Cutoff Wall
Alternative 2 criteria pollutant construction equipment exhaust emissions include PM10,
PM2.5, NOx, ROG, CO, and SO2. Equipment exhaust emissions would be generated by off-road
equipment, off-site haul trucks and worker vehicles, on-site pickup trucks and haul trucks, and
by marine equipment. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 would be emitted as fugitive dust generated
by disturbances of unpaved and paved road dust, cut and fill activities, stockpile handling,
blasting of rock in-the-dry, rock crushing, wind erosion of stockpiles, and concrete batch plant
operations.
Details of the equipment types or construction activities required for each project activity,
as well as the resulting criteria pollutant emissions from these equipment types or construction
activities, are provided in Appendix A. The primary sources of each criteria pollutant from this
alternatives activities are:
PM10 and PM2.5: fugitive dust sources, especially unpaved roads and the concrete batch
plant;
NOx: marine and off-road equipment;
ROG and CO: off-road and marine equipment; and
SO2: off-site haul trucks.
Alternative 2 unmitigated annual criteria pollutant emissions are provided in Tables 20

and 21. These emissions would exceed the qualitative SMAQMD PM10 threshold and the
quantitative SMAQMD NOx threshold. This alternatives unmitigated emissions would also
exceed the general conformity thresholds for PM10 and NOX and would not exceed the
129
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
applicable general conformity thresholds for the other criteria pollutants. However, as shown in
Table 23, Alternative 2s implementation of the required SMAQMD basic construction emission
control practices, and fugitive dust and exhaust emission mitigation measures would reduce
estimated PM10 construction emissions to less than the general conformity threshold. As shown
in Table 23, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce NOx emissions below the
general conformity threshold of 25 tons/yr. Therefore, Alternative 2 construction-related
emissions would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Table 20. Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA.

Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
2,662
43,112
18,587
196,609
41,067
2014 Total
1,766
19,538
10,327
189,769
35,790
2015 Total
2,047
23,557
13,656
80,441
24,959
2016 Total
5,872
68,643
33,438
211,945
39,501
2017 Total
6,486
83,009
38,423
204,606
24,741
Total (lbs)
18,833
237,859
114,431
883,370
166,058
Daily Emissions
12
152
73
566
106
(lbs/day)
SMAQMD Thresholds
N/A
85
N/A
N/A
N/A
(lbs/day)
SO2
39
16
14
21
9
99
<1
N/A
As described in the methodology section above, EMFAC 2011 results were used for the CEQA effect analysis
(based on SMAQMD guidance). Total emissions (lbs) were divided by total number of days in the construction
period (1,560) to estimate the daily emissions (lbs/day)
Table 21. Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA.

Pollutant (tons/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
2
21
10
98
21
2014 Total
1
9
5
95
18
2015 Total
1
12
7
40
12
2016 Total
3
34
17
106
20
2017 Total
3
40
20
102
12
General
25
25
100
100
100
Conformity De
Minimis Levels
Based on USEPA guidance, EMFAC 2007 results were used for the NEPA effect analysis.
130
SO2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
N/A
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 22. Mitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA.

Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
1,118
14,690
7,350
57,365
9,087
2014 Total
821
9,005
6,569
34,399
4,605
2015 Total
898
9,962
8,868
13,617
2,441
2016 Total
2,318
28,850
22,180
38,612
5,301
2017 Total
2,648
30,439
24,785
56,448
7,542
Total (lbs)
7,803
92,946
69,752
200,441
28,977
Daily Emissions
5
60
45
128
19
(lbs/day)
SMAQMD
N/A
85
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thresholds
(lbs/day)
SO2
39
16
14
21
9
99
<1
N/A
Table 23. Mitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA.

Activity
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
General
Conformity De
Minimis Levels
ROG
NOx
1
<1
<1
1
1
25
7
4
5
14
15
25
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10
4
3
4
11
12
100
29
17
7
19
28
100
PM2.5
SO2
5
2
1
2
3
100
1
<1
<1
1
1
N/A
To comply with the qualitative SMAQMD CEQA significance threshold for PM10 and
minimize particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions, Alternative 2 would implement mitigation
measures discussed in Section 4.2.7 below, including SMAQMDs basic construction emission
control practices, construction area particulate matter mitigation measures, fugitive dust
mitigation measures, and exhaust emission mitigation measures. As shown in Tables 22 and 23,
Alternative 2 mitigated PM10 emissions would be substantially reduced from the unmitigated
emissions. As a result, this impact is less-than-significant with mitigation.
Implementation of the exhaust emission mitigation measures would reduce NOx
emissions from the project but maximum daily emissions could potentially exceed the
SMAQMD threshold. Therefore, NOx mitigation fees could apply to the project. However, it is
difficult to determine the worst-case daily NOx emissions due to potential changes in equipment
type, timing, and use. At the time of construction, project contractors will coordinate with
SMAQMD to determine the level of mitigation fees that must be paid. According to the
SMAQMDs CEQA guidance, payment of a mitigation fee to the SMAQMD, would reduce the
significance of the alternatives NOx emissions to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this
impact is less-than-significant with mitigation.
131
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The emissions calculations listed in Tables 20 through 24 were conducted assuming a

worst-case scenario for construction equipment emissions. Potential changes to reduce the
emission calculation figures include the following:
Deposition of excavated material at the spur dike (overlook expansion) rather than the
MIAD disposal site. Haul trips to MIAD would be reduced as a result of this change.
Reduction of material required for transload facility construction. Relocation of the

transload facility to a shallower reservoir location could potentially reduce the
amount of rock haul needed for construction, from 230,000 cy to 40,000 cy, which
would reduce haul truck emissions.
Prior to the start of construction, the contractor will coordinate the final projected
emissions with SMAQMD and adjust the required mitigation, as discussed in Section 4.2.7
below, based on all updated project conditions. Emission levels will not exceed the emission
figures listed in Tables 20 through 24 throughout the project, and thus would be less-thansignificant.
Table 24. Alternative 2 Construction NOx Mitigation Fee Calculation for CEQA.
Parameter
Alternative 2
Total Unmitigated NOx Emissions (lbs)
428,326
Total Mitigated NOx Emissions (lbs)
230,935
Average Daily Unmitigated NOx Emissions (lbs/day)
275
Average Daily Mitigated NOx Emissions (lbs/day)
148
Total Over Threshold (lbs/day)
63
1,560
Total days of Construction
Total Mitigated Tons over Threshold (tons)
49.17
Mitigation Fee per ton
$17,080
Administrative Fee
5%
$881,815
Total Fee
Notes: (1) Total days of construction for Alternative 2 over 5 years assuming 6 days of construction per week = 1560 Days.
(2) Current Threshold for NOx is 85 lbs/day.
(3) 5 % administrative fee applied to the product of the total mitigated tons over the threshold and the mitigation fee.
(4) As described above, EMFAC 2011 results were used for the CEQA effect analysis and mitigation fee calculation (based on
SMAQMD guidance).
Construction Emissions of TACs

The TACs of interest to this alternative are DPM and NOA. DPM would be emitted from
on-site off-road heavy duty construction equipment, on-site pickup trucks, on-site haul trucks,
and off-site haul trucks. DPM is considered a carcinogen and the project would expose nearby
receptors to these emissions during the construction period.
Sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Alternative 2 construction area, including the
disposal and staging areas or haul road, are residences between the western intersection of Briggs
132
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Ranch Drive and East Natoma Street to the intersection of Green Valley Road and East Natoma
Street, and the Folsom Church of Christ. Therefore, these sensitive receptors could be
potentially exposed to the DPM cancer risk from the project.
However, health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic substances are typically
measured over 70 years of exposure. Since the proposed project is a short-term construction
project lasting only five years, the potential human exposure to DPM from this alternative would
be short-term. In addition, all off-site receptors are located near the staging areas or haul roads,
where the only construction activities would involve the on-site pickup trucks and on-site haul
trucks. In the worst-case scenario, they will be exposed to daily DPM mass emissions (using
PM10 emissions as a substitute for DPM emissions) of 2 lbs per hour (lbs/hr) for Alternative 2.
Implementation of the required SMAQMD basic construction emission control practices,
the construction area particulate matter, fugitive dust, and exhaust emission mitigation measures
would substantially reduce DPM emissions to less than 1 lb/hr. Consequently, the projects
health risks associated with DPM would be less-than-significant.
Construction workers for Alternative 2 or local sensitive receptors would potentially be
exposed to NOA, if present in the project area, from fugitive dust sources such as excavation,
stockpiling, or blasting activities. A previous investigation of the project areas geology,
including soil testing efforts, indicated that the project area overlies granitic rock except for the
MIAD area, which overlies metamorphic rock (ultramafic rocks) (USBR 2009). The granitic
material would not be expected to contain any NOA materials. Although no NOA has been
discovered in the MIAD area (Corps 2010), ultramafic rock near this area could include NOA
and pose a risk to construction workers or sensitive receptors.
This alternative could expose offsite sensitive receptors to NOA through track-out-related
fugitive dust emissions or transport of any uncovered soils. However, measures identified in
Section 4.2.7 below would reduce the potential for ingress/egress of construction vehicles to
trackout soils and expose sensitive receptors to airborne NOA. These measures would also
comply with CARBs Asbestos ATCM and would include implementation of truck speed limits,
street sweeping, watering of soils, covering haul trucks or allowing free board space, and
creating paved surfaces as soon as possible. The alternatives implementation of mitigation
measures to reduce PM10 emissions and comply with CARBs Asbestos ATCM would reduce
the potential for workers or sensitive receptors to be exposed to airborne NOA. Therefore,
Alternative 2 construction emissions of NOA would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Construction-Related Odor Emissions
Alternative 2 construction activities could emit offensive odors through SO2 emissions.
As described above, SO2 emissions during the construction period would be less than 1 ton/yr.
The closest sensitive receptors to potential odor emissions are located within 1,000 feet from the
Alternative 2 construction area. However, because ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is now required in
California, the potential for diesel-related odor effects is minimal. Odor impacts resulting from
Alternative 2 construction activities would therefore be less-than-significant.
133
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.2.5 Alternative 3 Cofferdam

Alternative 3 criteria pollutant construction emissions include PM10, PM2.5, NOx, ROG,
CO, and SO2 emitted as equipment exhaust. Equipment exhaust emissions would be generated
by off-road equipment, off-site haul trucks and worker vehicles, on-site pickup trucks and haul
trucks, and by marine equipment. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 would be emitted as fugitive
dust generated by disturbances of unpaved and paved road dust, cut and fill activities, stockpile
handling, blasting of rock in-the-dry, rock crushing, wind erosion of stockpiles, and concrete
batch plant operations.
Details of the equipment types or construction activities required for each project activity,
and the resulting criteria pollutant emissions from these equipment/construction activities, are
provided in Appendix A. The primary sources of each criteria pollutant from this alternatives
activities are:
PM10 and PM2.5: fugitive dust sources, especially unpaved roads and the concrete batch
plant;
NOx: marine and off-road equipment;
ROG and CO: off-road and marine equipment; and
SO2: off-site haul trucks.
Alternative 3 unmitigated PM10 and PM2.5 annual emissions are shown in Tables 25 and
26. These emissions would exceed the qualitative SMAQMD PM10 threshold and the
quantitative SMAQMD NOx threshold. This alternatives unmitigated emissions would also
exceed the general conformity thresholds for PM10 and NOX and would not exceed the
applicable general conformity thresholds for the other criteria pollutants. However, as shown in
Table 28, Alternative 3 implementation of the required SMAQMD basic construction emission
control practices, and fugitive dust and exhaust emission mitigation measures would reduce
estimated PM10 construction emissions to less than the general conformity threshold. As shown
in Table 28, implementation of mitigation measures would also reduce NOx emissions below the
general conformity threshold of 25 tons/yr. Therefore, Alternative 3 construction-related
emissions would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
134
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 25. Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA.

Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
3,414
50,698
21,113
235,951
40,974
2014 Total
1,237
13,760
7,623
124,802
24,510
2015 Total
1,773
18,667
10,797
41,193
16,307
2016 Total
1,229
13,765
7,666
202,583
32,272
2017 Total
8,000
98,793
46,223
206,790
25,741
Total (lbs)
15,653
195,683
93,422
811,319
139,804
Daily Emissions
10
125
60
520
90
(lbs/day)
SMAQMD
N/A
85
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thresholds
(lbs/day)
SO2
46
16
20
12
108
202
<1
N/A
As described in the methodology section above, EMFAC 2011 results were used for the CEQA effect analysis
(based on SMAQMD guidance). Total emissions (lbs) were divided by total number of days in the construction
period (1,560) to estimate the daily emissions (lbs/day).
Table 26. Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA.

Pollutant (tons/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
2
24
11
118
21
2014 Total
1
7
4
62
12
2015 Total
1
9
5
21
8
2016 Total
1
6
4
101
16
2017 Total
4
48
24
104
13
General
25
25
100
100
100
Conformity De
Minimis Levels
SO2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
N/A
Based on USEPA guidance, EMFAC 2007 results were used for the NEPA effect analysis.
Table 27. Mitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for CEQA.

Pollutant (lbs/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
2,949
17,261
10,251
67,740
10,353
2014 Total
1,196
5,281
5,208
24,071
3,527
2015 Total
1,768
6,801
7,404
8,230
1,910
2016 Total
1,251
4,273
4,775
38,784
4,913
2017 Total
8,101
37,804
31,327
57,674
8,024
Total (lbs)
15,266
71,420
58,964
196,499
28,727
Daily Emissions
10
46
38
126
18
(lbs/day)
SMAQMD
N/A
85
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thresholds
(lbs/day)
135
SO2
46
16
20
12
108
202
<1
N/A
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 28. Mitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary for NEPA.

Pollutant (tons/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
2013 Total
1
9
5
34
5
2014 Total
<1
4
3
12
2
2015 Total
1
5
4
4
1
2016 Total
<1
4
3
20
3
2017 Total
2
20
16
29
4
General
25
25
100
100
100
Conformity De
Minimis Levels
SO2
1
<1
1
<1
2
N/A
To comply with the qualitative SMAQMD CEQA significance threshold for PM10 and
minimize particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions, Alternative 3 would implement SMAQMDs
basic construction emission control practices, construction area particulate matter mitigation
measures, fugitive dust mitigation measures, and exhaust emission mitigation measures. As
shown, in Tables 27 and 28, Alternative 3 mitigated PM10 emissions would be substantially
reduced from the unmitigated emissions.
Implementation of exhaust emission mitigation measures discussed in Section 4.2.7
below would reduce NOx emissions from the project but maximum daily emissions could
potentially exceed the SMAQMD threshold. Therefore, NOx mitigation fees could apply to the
project. However, it is difficult to determine the worst-case daily NOx emissions due to potential
changes in equipment type, timing, and use. Project contractors and the Corps will need to
maintain accurate equipment use records to determine the level of mitigation fees that must be
paid to SMAQMD to mitigate the project. According to the SMAQMDs CEQA guidance,
payment of a mitigation fee to the SMAQMD would reduce the significance of the alternatives
NOx emissions to a less-than-significant level. The estimated emissions of ROG, CO, and SO2
would not exceed significance criteria. Therefore, this impact is less-than-significant with
mitigation.
As discussed for Alternative 2, the emissions calculations listed in Tables 25 through 29
were conducted assuming a worst-case scenario for construction equipment emissions. Potential
changes to reduce the emission calculation figures include the following:
Disposal of excavated material at the spur dike (overlook expansion) rather than the
MIAD disposal site. Haul trips to MIAD would be reduced as a result of this change.
Reduction of material required for transload facility construction. Realignment of the

transload facility could potentially reduce the amount of rock haul needed for
construction, from 230,000 cy to 40,000 cy, which would reduce haul truck
emissions.
136
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Prior to the start of construction, the contractor will coordinate the final projected
emissions with SMAQMD and adjust the required mitigation, as discussed in Section 4.2.7
below, based on all updated project conditions. Emission levels will not exceed the emission
figures listed in Tables 25 through 29 throughout the project.
Table 29. Alternative 3 Construction NOx Mitigation Fee Calculation for CEQA.
Parameter
Alternative 3
Total Unmitigated NOx Emissions (lbs)
319,580
Total Mitigated NOx Emissions (lbs)
172,496
Average Daily Unmitigated NOx Emissions (lbs/day)
205
Average Daily Mitigated NOx Emissions (lbs/day)
111
Total Over Threshold (lbs/day)
26
Total days of Construction
1,560
Total Mitigated Tons over Threshold (tons)
19.95
Mitigation Fee per ton
$17,080
Administrative Fee
5%
Total Fee
$357,783
Notes:
(1) Total days of construction for Alternative 3 over 5 years assuming 6 days of construction per week = 1560 Days.
(2) Current Threshold for NOx is 85 lbs/day.
(3) 5 % administrative fee applied to the product of the total mitigated tons over the threshold and the mitigation fee. This is an
estimated fee based on current data; fee estimates will be based later on actual NOx production.
(4) As described in the methodology section above, EMFAC 2011 results were used for the CEQA effect analysis and mitigation
fee calculation (based on SMAQMD guidance).
Construction Emissions of TACs

The TACs of interest to this alternative are DPM and NOA. DPM would be emissions,
sensitive receptors, and health risks as discussed under Alternative 2. In the worst-case scenario,
people living in residences identified as sensitive receptors will be exposed to daily DPM mass
emissions (using PM10 emissions as a substitute for DPM emissions) of 3 lbs/hr for Alternative
3.
The proposed projects mitigation measures include the use of MY 2010 haul trucks,
which would substantially reduce DPM emissions to less than 1 lbs/hr. Consequently, the
projects health risks associated with DPM would be less-than-significant.
Construction workers for Alternative 3 or local sensitive receptors would potentially be
exposed to NOA, as discussed under Alternative 2. The alternatives implementation of
mitigation measures to reduce PM10 emissions and comply with CARBs Asbestos ATCM
would reduce the potential for workers or sensitive receptors to be exposed to airborne NOA.
This alternative could expose offsite sensitive receptors to NOA through track-out-related
fugitive dust emissions or transport of any uncovered soils. However, mitigation measures
identified in Section 4.2.7 below would reduce the potential for ingress/egress of construction
vehicles to trackout soils and expose sensitive receptors to airborne NOA. These measures
would also comply with CARBs Asbestos ATCM and would include implementation of truck
137
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
speed limits, street sweeping, watering of soils, covering haul trucks or allowing free board
space, and creating paved surfaces as soon as possible. Therefore, Alternative 3 construction
emissions of NOA would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Construction-Related Odor Emissions
Alternative 3 construction activities could emit offensive odors through SO2 emissions.
As described above, SO2 emissions during the construction period would be less than 1 ton/year.
The closest sensitive receptors to potential odor emissions are located within 1,000 feet from the
Alternative 3 construction areas. However, because ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is now required
in California, the potential for diesel-related odor effects are minimal. Odor impacts resulting
from Alternative 3 construction activities would be less-than-significant.
4.2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives

The Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 air quality pollutant effects would be similar except
that Alternative 3 would generate less overall emissions with two pollutant exceptions.
Table 30 compares the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 mitigated total emissions for the air
quality pollutants analyzed above. For PM2.5 and SO2 (EMFAC 2007 conditions), the
Alternative 2 emissions would be less than Alternative 3 emissions. Under the EMFAC 2011
conditions, the Alternative 2 ROG and SO2 emissions would be less than Alternative 3
emissions. Otherwise, Alternative 3 emissions would range from approximately 2 to 25 percent
(%) less than the Alternative 2 emissions. For NOx, this emissions difference of approximately
29 tons would produce a savings of approximately $ 495,320 in SMAQMD NOx mitigation fees
if Alternative 3 was implemented instead of Alternative 2.
Table 30. Comparison of Mitigated Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Total Emissions.
Pollutant (tons)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
2007 EMFAC Results
Alt. 2
10
115
94
102
15
<1
Alt. 3
8
92
73
100
16
<1
2
24
21
2
Difference (Alt. 2 - Alt.
(1)
(<1)
3)
Percent Emissions
16%
20%
22%
2%
-5%
-97%
Reduction
2011 EMFAC Results
Alt. 2
10
115
95
102
16
<1
Alt. 3
14
86
71
100
16
<1
(5)
29
24
3
Difference (Alt. 2 - Alt.
<1
<1
3)
Percent Emissions
-50%
25%
25%
2%
4%
-52%
Reduction
138
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.2.7 Mitigation Measures

As described above, some emissions from the project would exceed applicable CEQA
and NEPA significance criteria. Therefore, the Corps would implement the following mitigation
measures to reduce the potential air quality effects of the project. Emission reductions associated
with these mitigation measures are discussed in further detail in Appendix A and are summarized
in Tables 22, 23, 27, and 28.
SMAQMDs Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices
The SMAQMD requires construction projects to implement basic construction emission
control practices to control fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions (SMAQMD 2011). The
Corps would comply with the following control measures for the project:
Water all exposed surfaces twice daily. Exposed surfaces include but are not limited to:
soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads.
Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil,
sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would travel along freeways
or major roadways should be covered.
Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt from
adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
Complete all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, or parking lots to be paved as soon as

possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
time of idling to 5 minutes [required by California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections
2449(d)(3) and 2485]. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the
site entrances.
Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to the

manufacturers specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
Interim Tier 4 and/or Final Tier 4 off-road equipment would be used beginning in year
2015.
In addition to using Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road equipment, contractors would report their
equipment specifications to the SMAQMD and the Corps to ensure the mitigation is
implemented.
139
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Construction Area Particulate Matter Mitigation Measures

If the projects construction contractor determines that the construction activities would
actively disturb more than 15 acres per day, then the contractor would be required to conduct
PM10 and PM2.5 dust modeling. If that modeling shows violations of SMAQMDs PM10 or
PM2.5 CAAQS thresholds, then the contractor would be required to implement sufficient
mitigation (SMAQMD 2011) to avoid exceeding SMAQMD significance thresholds.
Fugitive Dust Emission Mitigation Measures
Fugitive dust mitigation would require the use of adequate measures during each
construction activity and would include frequent water applications or application of soil
additives, control of vehicle access, and vehicle speed restrictions. The Corps would implement
the dust mitigation measures listed below.
A geologist would monitor the project area for the presence of NOA during all
construction activities. All grading/excavation projects at Folsom Dam are required by
SMAQMD to produce an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and fee payment to be submitted to the
District 90 days prior to commencement of grading and/or other soil impacting activities. The
Corps would comply with the CARBs Section 93105, 2002-07-09 Asbestos ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB 2008). The Corps
would additionally ensure implementation of the fugitive dust mitigation measures below, which
are similar to those required under an Asbestos Dust Control Plan.
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, or
Water at least every two hours of active construction activities or sufficiently often to
keep the area adequately wetted.
Remove any visible track-out from a paved public road at any location where vehicles
exit the work site: this removal effort shall be accomplished using wet sweeping of a
HEPA filter-equipped vacuum device daily.
Install one or more of the following track-out prevention measures:

o A gravel pad designed using good engineering practices to clean the tires of
exiting vehicles.
o A tire shaker
o A wheel wash system
o Pavement extending for not less than 50 feet from the intersection with the paved
public road, or
o Any other measure(s) as effective as the measures listed above.
Pre-wet the ground to the depth of anticipated cuts, and
Suspend any excavation operations when wind speeds are high enough to result in dust
emissions across the property line, despite the application of dust mitigation measures.
140
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
To mitigate stockpile handling and stockpile wind erosion fugitive dust emissions, active
storage pile would be kept adequately wetted using wet suppression controls.
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from storage piles that would remain inactive for
more than seven days, the Corps would ensure implementation of one or more of the
following measures:
o Wet suppression controls
o Establishment and maintenance of surface crusting sufficient to satisfy the surface
crusting test identified in the Asbestos ATCM
o Apply chemical dust suppressants or chemical stabilizers,
o Cover with tarp(s) or vegetative cover, and/or
o Install wind barriers across open areas.
o Install wind barrier of 50 percent porosity around three sides of storage piles,
and/or
o Any other measure(s) as effective as the measures listed above.
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from in-dry blasting operations, water would be
applied every 4 hours within 100 feet of the demolition area.
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from the rock crushing facility, wet suppression
controls would be implemented.
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from the concrete batch plant operations, one or more
of the following measures would be implemented:
o Apply water sprays,
o Set up enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds, movable and telescoping chutes,
and/or
o Install a central dust collection system.
o To mitigate staging area or haul road emissions, the Corps would upon
completion of the project, accomplish post-construction stabilization of disturbed
surfaces by using one or more of the following measures:
o Establishing a vegetative cover,
o Placing at least 12 inches of non-asbestos-containing material,
o Paving, and/or
o Implementing any other measure deemed sufficient to prevent wind speeds of 10
miles per hour or greater from causing visible dust emissions.
141
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Exhaust Emission Mitigation Measures

Cleaner Off-Road Equipment
The project will incorporate some of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Green Construction Policy (LACMTA 2011) requirements
for the on-site construction off-road equipment. The Corps will use Tier 3 off-road equipment for
the first two years of construction (2013-2014), and use interim Tier 4 off-road equipment
beginning in 2015.
The project will ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel powered equipment used
on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any
equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired
immediately. Non-compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the
Corps and SMAQMD monthly. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at
least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout
the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day
period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity
and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.
Marine Engine Standards
The USEPA adopted Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for newly-built marine engines in 2008.
The Tier 3 standards reflect the application of technologies to reduce engine PM and NOx
emission rates. Tier 4 standards reflect application of high-efficiency catalytic after-treatment
technology enabled by the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). These Tier 4 standards
would be phased in over time for marine engines beginning in 2014 (USEPA 2008).
The Corps will use Tier 2 and 3 marine engines standards to reduce marine exhaust
emissions. Due to uncertainty as to the availability of Tier 4 marine engines within the required
project timeline, this mitigation measure does not require the use of Tier 4 marine engines.
However, should they become available during the appropriate construction periods, use of these
engines would further lower project emissions.
Haul Truck Controls
MY 2010 or newer haul trucks will be used for the duration of the project. Use of these
trucks will provide the best available emission controls for NOx and PM emissions.
Use of Electrical Equipment
Construction equipment powered by electricity, rather than diesel fuel, eliminates criteria
pollutant emissions from diesel combustion. Electrification would result in a small amount of
indirect CO2 emissions due to the operation of the electric grid. Various types of construction
equipment may feasibly be run on electricity. The Corps will electrify the concrete batch plant
and the rock crushing facility.
142
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
NOx Mitigation Fee

The Contractor would provide payment of the appropriate SMAQMD-required NOx
mitigation fee to offset the projects NOx emissions when they exceed SMAQMDs threshold of
85 lbs/day. Estimated calculations for these mitigation fees are included under each alternatives
effects analysis in Tables 24 and 29. The NOx Mitigation Fee applies to all emissions from the
project: on-road (on-and off site), off-road, portable, marine and stationary equipment and
vehicles.
SIP Inclusion
The Folsom JFP is expected to exceed the General Conformity de minimis threshold for
NOx over the life of the project when mitigated. Therefore, the Corps must demonstrate
conformity by (1) showing the project will meet all ozone SIP control requirements; and (2)
meeting one of following options:
Demonstrate that the total direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified and
accounted for in the applicable SIP.
Demonstrate that the total direct and indirect emissions would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP.
Obtain a written commitment from the State to revise the SIP to include the emissions
from the action.
Fully offset the total direct and indirect emissions by reducing emissions of the same
pollutant or precursor in the same non-attainment or maintenance area.
The option applicable to this project is to obtain a written commitment from the State
Governor or the Governor's designee for SIP actions, as described in 40 CFR
93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), to revise the SIP to achieve the needed emission reductions prior to the time
emissions from the Federal action would occur, such that total direct and indirect emissions from
the action do not exceed the 2011 SIP emissions budgets.
An analysis of the projects estimated emissions was conducted by SMAQMD, in
coordination with CARB and USEPA. This analysis indicated that the projects emissions could
be included in the 2011 SIP emissions budget. SMAQMD prepared a conformity analysis which
is included with this SEIS/EIR as Appendix B. In order to comply with SMAQMDs analysis,
the Corps has committed to use the following mitigation measures to reduce the total project
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions:
Off-road construction equipment complying with the LACMTA Green Construction

Policy. Use Tier 3 off-road equipment for first two years of construction (2013-2014 )
and Tier 4 off-road equipment beginning 2015.
Marine engines complying with USEPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 engine standards. Use Tier 2
marine engines for the first two years of construction (2013-2014) and Tier 3 marine
engines beginning 2015.
143
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Use of model year 2010 or newer haul trucks beginning in 2013.
Electrification of concrete batch plant and rock crushing plant.
Fugitive dust controls which include watering controls on blasting operations, unpaved
roads, excavation, wet suppression on stockpiles, and speed control.
Ensure that air pollution specifications are incorporated into all construction contracts.
Those specifications will require that contractors limit annual emission to levels that do
not exceed the annual estimates shown in Table 23 (for Alternative 2) or Table 28 (for
Alternative 3).
4.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

This section identifies the basis of significance for impacts to climate change, discusses
how these criteria are determined for both NEPA and CEQA, provides specific emissions
standards, thresholds, or other measurements for the various pollutants and, as necessary,
applicable mitigation measures.
4.3.1 Methodology
The methods for evaluating impacts are intended to satisfy Federal and State
requirements, including NEPA and CEQA. Construction emissions for this project were
analyzed in detail in a technical report that is attached to the SEIS/EIR as Appendix A. As
discussed in the air quality assessment (Section 4.2.1), emissions were estimated based on the
type of equipment being used, the level of equipment activity, and the associated construction
schedules.
In general, the construction emissions were estimated using several emission models and
spreadsheet calculations, depending on the source type and data availability. The primary
models that were used for this GHG analysis included the CARB Emission Factor models
(EMFAC2007 and EMFAC2011), and the OFFROAD2011 model for off-road equipment. The
three most common GHG pollutants estimated for this project are CO2, CH4, and N2O.
Emissions for these individual GHG pollutants were estimated, and then converted to CO2e using
the GWP discussed in Section 3.3.2. A summary of the scenarios in which each model was used
is included in Appendix A.
In addition, the following four criteria were considered and incorporated into the GHG
analysis:
144
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Is the design of the proposed project is inherently energy efficient?
Are all applicable BMPs that would reduce GHG emissions incorporated into the design
of the proposed project?
Would the proposed project implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation strategy
designed to alleviate climate change?
Would implementing the proposed program improve processes or efficiency, resulting in

a net reduction of GHG emissions?

SMAQMD has not established thresholds for GHG emissions; instead, each project is
evaluated on a case-by-case basis using the most up-to-date methods of calculation and analysis.
The impacts of the proposed project alternatives related to climate change should be evaluating
using the criteria listed below. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed
project could result in significant impacts if it would do either of the following:
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The following significance criteria will be used to determine the significance of GHG
emissions from this project:
If the relative amounts of GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed
project are substantial compared to emissions major facilities are required to report
(25,000 CO2e per year).
If the proposed project has the potential to contribute to a lower carbon future.
No existing threshold levels for GHGs have been developed at the Federal level for
NEPA projects. USEPA has established a reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 that
applies to most entities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year.
Under Alternative 1, the project construction would not take place. Therefore, there
would be no GHG emissions associated with construction activities under the project. Similarly,
there would be no long term operational (indirect) GHG emissions under this alternative.
145
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.3.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall

GHG emissions associated with Alternative 2 would be entirely associated with
construction. GHG emissions would be emitted from the project due to fuel combustion from
onsite construction vehicles, as well as indirect emissions from the electricity used to operate the
rock crusher and concrete batch plant. In addition to the construction vehicles, there would also
be GHG emissions from the workforce vehicles. Workers would commute from their homes to
the construction site and park in one of the staging areas.
Table 31 shows the results of the emissions modeling that was conducted based on the
estimates for all construction activities discussed above. All GHG emissions were converted into
CO2e. The results of the modeling determined that Alternative 2 would not violate the 25,000
metric tons per year reporting level for any year of construction. Additionally, there would be
no long-term operational emissions associated with this alternative.
Table 31. Unmitigated Alternative 2 Annual Emissions Summary.
Year
CO2e (metric tons/year)
2013 Total
5,507
2014 Total
4,006
2015 Total
4,261
2016 Total
6,350
2017 Total
5,118
Federal GHG Reporting Level
25,000
While the emissions associated with this alternative would not violate the GHG reporting
threshold, these emissions would still be contributing to the overall cumulative GHG emissions,
as discussed in the cumulative analysis discussion below (Section 5.4.2). As a result, the Corps
would implement mitigation measures, as discussed below, to increase this alternatives energy
efficiency and minimize the GHG emissions from this alternative. Consequently, this
alternatives GHG emissions, with mitigation, would be reduced from the emission levels shown
in Table 31. Therefore, Alternative 2s construction-related GHG emissions would be less-thansignificant with mitigation.
However, by providing decreased risk of catastrophic flooding with associated loss of
infrastructure, this project is expected to prevent extra carbon production which would be
associated with demolition, repair, and reconstruction of flood-induced infrastructure losses.
146
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

GHG emissions associated with Alternative 3 would be entirely associated with
construction. GHG emissions would be emitted from the project due to fuel combustion from
onsite construction vehicles, as well as indirect emissions from the electricity used to operate the
rock crusher and concrete batch plant. In addition to the construction vehicles, there would also
be GHG emissions from the workforce vehicles. Workers would commute from their homes to
the construction site and park in one of the staging areas.
Table 32 shows the results of the emissions modeling that was conducted based on the
estimates for all construction activities discussed above. All GHG emissions were converted into
CO2e. The results of the modeling determined that Alternative 3 would not violate the 25,000
metric tons per year reporting level for any year of construction. Additionally, there would be
no long-term operational emissions associated with this alternative.
Table 32. Unmitigated Alternative 3 Annual Emissions Summary.

Activity
2013 Total
3,078
2014 Total
2,760
2015 Total
2,905
2016 Total
2,755
2017 Total
6,082
Federal GHG Reporting Level
25,000
While the emissions associated with this alternative would not violate the GHG reporting
threshold, these emissions would still be contributing to the overall cumulative GHG emissions,
as discussed in the cumulative analysis discussion below (Section 5.4.2). As a result, the Corps
would implement the mitigation measures in Section 4.3.6 to increase this alternatives energy
efficiency and minimize the GHG emissions from this alternative. Consequently, this
alternatives GHG emissions, with mitigation, would be reduced from the emission levels shown
in Table 32. Therefore, Alternative 3s construction-related GHG emissions would be less-thansignificant with mitigation.
4.3.6 Mitigation Measures

Implementations of the mitigation discussed in the air quality analysis (Section 4.2.7),
including the use of the LACMTA Green Construction Policy requirements for the on-site
construction off-road equipment would further reduce the GHG emissions associated with this
project (LACMTA 2011). In addition, SMAQMD recommends the following mitigation
measures for reducing GHG emissions from construction projects. The use of electric equipment
is already listed above and will reduce direct GHG emissions from fuel-based equipment.
147
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Corps will implement the following mitigation measures:
Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment:

Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (5 minute limit is required by the state airborne
toxics control measure [Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of
Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the
entrances to the site.
The following mitigation measures are relevant to impacts, but will likely not be required
by the Corps. However the selected contractor will be encouraged to implement these
measures where practical:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to

manufacturers specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment.
Use the proper equipment size for the job.
Use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric drive trains).
Perform on-site material hauling with trucks equipped with on-road engines (if
determined to be less emissive than the off-road engines).
Use a CARB approved low carbon fuel for construction equipment. (NOx emissions from
the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated.)
Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or secure bicycle
parking for construction worker commutes.
Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at least

75% by weight).
Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20%
based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot,
sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized should be certified through a
sustainable forestry program.
Produce concrete on-site if determined to be less emissive than transporting ready mix.
Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries and equipment transport.
Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.
4.4 WATER QUALITY

In this section, the potential project effects on relevant water quality issues identified in
Section 3.4, including mercury bioaccumulation potential, are evaluated.
148
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.4.1 Methodology
In this section, the assessment methods for project effects on surface water and water
quality conditions in the vicinity are evaluated. The types of water quality contaminants were
determined based on the potential to be present in association with disturbed soils and sediments.
Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed through both qualitative
and quantitative evaluations. Information presented in the existing conditions as well as
construction practices and materials, location, and duration of construction were evaluated
during the assessment process to develop a qualitative assessment of the potential for project
activities to impair water quality for conventional pollutants (pH, turbidity, DO, nutrients,
bacteria, and oil and grease). Quantitative analysis was performed on the potential for project
activities to cause water quality to exceed thresholds for trace elements (arsenic and the metals
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. These constituents were chosen based on the
beneficial uses of Folsom Lake, (see Section 3.4.1) and the types of disturbances likely to be
caused by project activities (see Section 3.4.2). The assessment of mercury bioaccumulation
potential relies upon a qualitative analysis using the conceptual model for mercury methylation
and bioaccumulation in Folsom Lake discussed earlier.
The qualitative assessment for conventional pollutants evaluated the following questions:
What is the likelihood that project activities would exceed thresholds of significance?
Are there mitigating measures that would reduce the potential effects to below
thresholds of significance?
The quantity of water quality contaminants present in sediments was determined from
previous assessments performed within the project area (Reclamation 2006; USACE 2008;
USACE 2011). It was assumed that those assessments are representative of sediment that would
be disturbed from project activities. The qualitative assessment also assumed that the principal
mechanism for pollutant mobilization would be sediment disturbance and resuspension.
Water Quality Parameters
The quantitative assessment for metals and arsenic used a dissolved-solid partition model
to evaluate the circumstances under which numeric thresholds would be exceeded. Numeric
thresholds for metals and arsenic are based on dissolved concentrations. Dissolved metal
concentrations tend to vary with the concentration of suspended sediments, the concentration of
metals present on suspended sediments, and the tendency of metals to adsorb to sediments
(quantified by a term called the partition coefficient). Details of the partition coefficient
analysis are presented in Appendix C.
149
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 33. Summary of Potentially Significant Water Quality Effects.

Threshold
Rationale for Evaluating Potential Effects
Fecal Coliform Bacteria:
100/ml (median)
No more than 10 percent of samples 200/1000ml
pH: 6.5 (min) 8.5 (max)
Hexavalent Chromium: no detectable increase
DO: 5 mg/L
Oil and Grease: no visible sheen or adverse
effects
TDS: 100 mg/L (90th percentile)
Effects not likely since potential bacteria sources

are not associated with the project.
Release of concrete wash water without
treatment or approved BMPs
Active treatment applied to concrete wash water,
cured concrete grindings
Dewatering discharges with high chemical /
biochemical oxygen demand, low DO
Use of heavy equipment
Chemicals used in Active Treatment Systems (if
implemented as part of an approved SWPPP)
Dewatering discharges with high turbidity;
dredging, dredge material handling and
dewatering operations that cause high turbidity
Turbidity: 10 ntu
Nutrients: no nuisance or adverse effects
Metals in Water: See Table 36
Mercury and Methylmercury: See Table 34
Mercury Standards
The water-quality objective for mercury established by in the CTR criterion is 50 ng/L,
for protection of human health via drinking water and fish consumption. The methylmercury
TMDL for the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta includes a methylmercury implementation
goal of 0.06 ng/L in water. Although it is not clear that the same goal would be applicable to
Folsom Lake, the establishment of a methylmercury goal supports no net increase in the long
term average methylmercury concentration of Folsom Lake as a threshold for significance. For
fish tissue, EPA and the SWRCB recommend a target of an average of no more than 0.3 mg/kg
of methylmercury for protection of human health. The Delta Mercury TMDL also establishes
numeric targets of 0.08 mg/kg in trophic level 3 fish such as carp and salmon, and 0.03 mg/kg
for trophic level 2 and level 3 fish less than 50 mm in length. These targets are intended to
protect pisciverous wildlife. Numeric targets for smaller fish are expressed in this analysis as no
net increase in sentinel species. Sentinel species are defined by the CALFED Mercury Program
as organisms with high site fidelity whose tissue mercury concentrations are good indicators of
local bioaccumulation risk. Examples of sentinel species that may be appropriate to Folsom Lake
include minnows, inland silverside, and crayfish. Numeric thresholds for mercury and
methylmercury are presented in Table 34 below.
150
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 34. Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Fish Tissue Mercury Criteria.
Parameter
Criteria
Basis
Threshold
Water Quality
Total Mercury1
CTR
50 ng/L
(Drinking Water)
Methylmercury
Delta
Do not increase
(Freshwater)
TMDL
Freshwater Sediments
Total Mercury2
SWRCB SQO mg/kg
1.06
Guidance
Fish Tissue
Methylmercury3
USEPA,
mg/kg
0.3
SWRCB
Sentinel species
Methylmercury
CALFED
Do not increase
Notes:
(1) Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. USEPA. EPA-823-R-01-001.
(2) Revision to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of the Water Quality Limited Segments, Volume 1. SWRCB, November
2006.
(3) Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. USEPA. EPA-823-R-01-001.
In summary, the analysis factors for mercury bioaccumulation effects are:
Mercury concentrations in lake sediments are low.
Low dissolved oxygen is a risk factor for mercury methylation.
Increased mercury bioavailability is a risk factor for mercury methylation.
The processes that affect mercury bioavailability are site-specific, and not well
understood.
Containment of any increased methylation effect using physical barriers would also
localize uptake by zooplankton and small fish.
The significance of effects on larger fish and birds would be in proportion to their
dietary intake of affected smaller fish.
Because there are uncertainties, it is difficult to quantify potential methylmercury-related

effects of the Project. To address this uncertainty, monitoring is recommended. Monitoring
would focus on sentinel organisms, such as small fish and invertebrates. The purpose of
monitoring would be to the extent to which mitigation measures maintain the assessment criteria
below thresholds of significance and, if thresholds are exceeded, trigger additional mitigation
measures.
Evaluation of the no net increase for methylmercury in water would compare
methylmercury concentrations in water outside the working zone of the Project before, during
and after construction. Evaluation of sentinel species would compare methylmercury
concentrations in the tissues of sentinel organisms (e.g., crayfish, minnows, inland silversides) in
Folsom Lake before, during and after construction.
151
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

This section identifies the basis of significance for effects on water quality, discusses how
these criteria are determined for both NEPA and CEQA and provides specific water quality
standards, thresholds, or objectives for the various pollutants. The alternatives under
consideration would result in a significant impact related to water quality if they would:
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or an area in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site, resulting in flooding on or off
the site, or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including Section
401 of the CWA; create or contribute runoff water that would provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Substantially degrade surface water quality such that it would violate criteria or
objectives identified in the CVRWQCB basin plan or otherwise substantially degrade
water quality to the detriment of beneficial uses.
Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally-protected wetlands of other waters of the

U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the CWA through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption or other means.
Water Quality Assessment Methods
Water quality standards adopted by the CVRWQCB are the primary basis for thresholds
of significance in this analysis. Water quality standards consist of beneficial uses and numeric
and narrative water quality objectives intended to protect those beneficial uses. The beneficial
uses that apply to the project are summarized in Table 35 along with the water quality parameters
used to assess the potential for impacts in this analysis.
Bacteria are used as an indicator of risk of pathogen exposure through water contact for
water contact recreation (REC-1). The CVRWQCB also considers sport fishing as an activity
that directly exposes people to the aquatic environment (through consuming fish), and so
mercury bioaccumulation relates to REC-1 as well. Thresholds for mercury bioaccumulation are
discussed below.
Numeric and narrative thresholds applicable to Warm Water (WARM) and Cold Water
(COLD) habitat beneficial uses are protective of Wildlife habitat (WILD). Parameters of pH, DO
and turbidity have numeric thresholds established by Water Quality Objectives in the Basin Plan.
The narrative threshold of no sheen or adverse effects for oil and grease is interpreted,
practically, as a threshold of non-detect for oil and grease using readily available methods (i.e.,
<5 mg/L).
152
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 35. Summary of Beneficial Uses and Associated Basis of Significance.

Beneficial Use
Water Quality Parameters And Thresholds
Water contact recreation
(REC-1)
Freshwater fish habitat

(WARM and COLD)
Wildlife habitat
(WILD)1
Municipal Water Supply1
(MUN)
Fecal coliform bacteria:

100/ml (median)
No more than 10 percent of samples 200/1000 ml
Mercury Bioaccumulation (See explanation in text)
pH: 6.5 (min) 8.5 (max)
DO: 5 mg/L
Turbidity: 10 ntu
oil and grease: no visible sheen or adverse effects
nutrients: no nuisance or adverse effects
metals: (See explanation in text)
Mercury Bioaccumulation: (See explanation in text)
TDS: 100 mg/L (90th percentile)
Hexavalent chromium: no detectable increase
nutrients: no nuisance or adverse effects
(1) Thresholds for MUN, other than TDS, are less stringent than thresholds for WARM and COLD. Thresholds for WARM and
COLD, other than mercury bioaccumulation, are also protective of WILD.
Nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorous) thresholds are evaluated according to the Basin Plan
narrative objective for biostimulatory substances. Release of excess nutrients has the potential to
cause algal blooms, and this would comprise the measureable threshold for effects. In terms of
monitoring metrics, the project would avoid nuisance algal blooms if water column
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous during construction are comparable to pre-project
concentrations summarized in Table 9.
Numeric thresholds for metals (including the metalloid, arsenic) are summarized in Table
36 below. The numeric thresholds in Table 36 are based on chronic water quality criteria
established in the California Toxics Rule (CTR), which is incorporated into the Basin Plan by
reference.
Table 36. Thresholds for Metals and Arsenic.
Metal
Copper1
Lead1
Nickel1
Zinc1
1
2
Threshold (g/L)
150
0.92
66
11
No detectable increase2
3.2
0.66
19
43
Arsenic
Cadmium1
Chromium1 (Total)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Threshold calculated according to hardness-based formulas in the CTR, assuming a hardness of 309 mg/L.
No detectable increase for hexavalent chromium is based on the OEHHA PHG of 0.02 g/L.
153
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
As noted in the Regulatory Setting, OEHHA has established a PHG of 0.02 g/L for
hexavalent chromium. Although this PHG has not yet been established as an MCL with force of
law, it does set the public expectation that extremely low concentrations of hexavalent chromium
are desirable in municipal water supplies. For the purposes of this assessment, the threshold for a
significant effect is a detectable increase in hexavalent chromium.
Sediment Quality Guidelines
Sediment quality guidelines are under development by the SWRCB. In November 2006,
the SWRCB published Revision of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of the Water
Quality Limited Segments, Volume 1. The purpose of this staff report was to present the
SWRCB section 303(d) listing methodology.
The SWRCB values for freshwater sediments were based on the sediment quality
guidelines (SQG) developed by MacDonald, et al. (2000), in the document entitled,
Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater
Ecosystems. This document was an effort to develop standardized limits using various
published SQGs. For each contaminant of concern, two SQGs were developed from the
published SQGsa threshold effect concentration (TEC) and a probable effect concentration
(PEC). TECs would indicate a reliable basis for predicting the absence of sediment toxicity.
Similarly, PECs provide a reliable basis for predicting sediment toxicity. Sediment quality
guidelines for freshwater sediments are presented in Table 37.
Table 37. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Sediments.
Substance
Probable Effect Concentrations (PEC), mg/kg
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
33.0
4.98
111
149
128
1.06
48.6
459
Source: MacDonald et al. (2000)
In general, trace element concentrations in sediments as presented in Table 9 are below

PECs shown in Table 37. The one exception is nickel, which has an average nickel concentration
in the 2006 data set (76.28 ppm) that exceeds the PEC (48.6 ppm). The elevated concentration of
nickel in Folsom Lake sediments is likely due to the natural occurrence of serpentine minerals,
which are abundant in California watersheds.
154
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.4.3 Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 assumes no action would be taken by any agency. If the approach channel
is not completed to improve dam safety and flood damage reduction, public safety would be at
risk in a flood event. High water associated with a flood event could increase erosion and
turbidity levels in the reservoir, or could overwhelm local stormwater and sewage systems.
4.4.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall Alternative

The project purpose is to address increasing discharge capability during extreme flood
events above the 200-year event level. The new auxiliary spillway is a major feature that will
address the need to safely pass part or the entire PMF event. Long-term changes to the rate and
amount of surface runoff in the form of hydromodification could potentially affect local
drainages. Hydromodification is a change in the hydrograph (change in flow rate, timing of peak
flows, flow duration, and flow volume). Long term operations of the auxiliary spillway are
currently being studied under the Folsom Dam Flood Management Operations Study that
underway by the Corps, USBR, CVFPB, and SAFCA. Operation and maintenance of the
auxiliary spillway is outside of the scope of this assessment. The Flood Management Operations
Study for Folsom Dam will develop, evaluate, and recommend changes to the flood control
operations at Folsom Dam and to update the facilitys Water Control Manual.
Alternative 2 would neither increase the occurrence of impervious surfaces such as
parking lots or buildings nor change the existing land uses such that hydromodification would
occur. Existing drainage infrastructure (function and capacity) would not be altered from the
approach channel construction. Overall the drainage patterns would not be substantially altered;
therefore, this affect to local drainage would be less-than-significant. Implementation of the
SWPPP would ensure that there is no exceedance of the capacity of stormwater drainage
infrastructure, and therefore, effects to this infrastructure would be less-than-significant, with
mitigation.
Project activities such as drilling, blasting, excavating and hauling, dredging, and fill
placement may disturb or mobilize sediments, which have the potential to affect total suspended
solids (TSS), pH, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Re-suspension of sediments may also
affect the concentrations of metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc)
in the water column by releasing metals that are present in lake sediments from both natural and
human sources. The Technical Analysis discussing water quality and bioaccumulation can be
found in Appendix C. Project activities from construction in the dry and construction in the wet
could impact water quality and are discussed in greater detail below. In addition, effects
associated with the placement of fill in waters of the U.S. are discussed in greater detail below.
Construction in the Dry
Installation of the cutoff wall, operations of the concrete batch plant, concrete placement
of the approach channel slabs and walls, and use of the identified staging areas could have shortterm impacts on water quality from ground-disturbing activities. Once the cutoff wall is
155
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
installed, excavation for the approach channel slab and walls would require a combination of
ripping and blasting to facilitate the rock excavation. Approximately 600,000 cy of granitic
material would be removed in the dry. The construction of the approach channel slab and walls
would require large quantities of temperature controlled concrete.
Construction of the cutoff wall and placement of concrete for the approach channel slab
and walls would disturb approximately 3 acres of land (Plate 5). Exposed soil could potentially
erode as a result of significant runoff events, causing increased turbidity in local waterways. In
addition, debris and inadvertent spills of fuels, oils, or concrete mix materials from construction
equipment, work areas, staging areas, or the concrete batch plant could be a source of
contamination into adjacent waterways.
Run-off could result from excavation activities with potentially higher concentrations of
TSS. Should run-off reach the reservoir, there is a potential to create turbidity and introduce
associated contaminates to the receiving waters. Additionally, since there would be some
seepage from the reservoir into the excavation area, dewatering would be necessary. This water
would be pumped for treatment with other project construction water under an approved SWPPP
and ATR plan.
Adjacent waterways that could potentially be affected include Folsom Reservoir, the
outflow channel below Folsom Dam, Lake Natoma, and the Lower American River. In order to
protect water resources and maintain existing water quality conditions and beneficial uses of
these waterways, the CVRWQCB has recommended obtaining and complying with three water
quality permits for this project. Each permit is relevant to different aspects involved in
construction and the potential pollutants associated with each activity. The following NPDES
permits would be acquired:
Construction Storm Water Permit: NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002)
Industrial Storm Water Permit: NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities (Order No. 9703-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000001)
Limited Threat Discharge Permit: NPDES Permit for Limited Threat Discharges of
Treated/Untreated Groundwater from Cleanup Sites, Wastewater from Superchlorination
Projects, and other Limited Threat Wastewaters to Surface Water (Order No. R5-20080082; NPDES No. CAG995002)
The contractor would be required to obtain an NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit
from the CVRWQCB, because the project would disturb more than one acre of land. Across the
entire construction site, debris, soil, or oil and fuel spills could temporarily adversely affect the
water quality of Folsom Lake and the Lower American River (including Lake Natoma)
downstream. The construction storm water permit pertains to the prevention of increased
turbidity of adjacent waterways as resulting from site erosion and sedimentation, as well as
debris, soil, fuel, and oil spill prevention. The contractor would be required to design and
156
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
implement a SWPPP prior to initiating construction activities, and to implement standard BMPs
(see Mitigation below). There is also a potential for fugitive dust and construction runoff to
enter waterways due to soil excavation, equipment use, cutoff wall construction, and movement
of trucks in the project area and along the haul routes. However, frequent watering of haul
routes, proper coverage and control of material stock piles (e.g. dirt, aggregate, etc.), and the
installation of K-rails to prevent any construction related materials or vehicles from entering the
waterways, would help to prevent such pollution impacts. All these measures would be required
of the contractor.
The NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permit requires that a SWPPP is designed and
implemented, and is specific to the concrete batch plant operation. Pertaining to the concrete
batch plant site, debris, oil and fuel, or concrete mix material spills could temporarily adversely
affect the water quality of Folsom Lake and the Lower American River (including Lake Natoma)
downstream. The industrial storm water permit addresses potential pollution inputs due to storm
water runoff that are associated with all activities at the concrete batch plant. The contractor
would be required to cover and control all material stock piles in order to prevent suspension of
dust or concrete mix material due to wind. The contractor would also be required to coordinate
the handling of all waste waters generated from concrete production with the CVRWQCB.
In accordance with the NPDES Limited Threat Discharge Permit, groundwater must be
tested for priority pollutants prior to dewatering activity in order to determine if any treatment
would be required before discharging into Folsom Reservoir. Once cleared for dewatering,
periodic, routine, and standardized sampling of the groundwater must be conducted before
discharge into Folsom Reservoir occurs. This routine sampling ensures that the groundwater
either meets or exceeds the water quality standards listed for beneficial uses of Folsom Reservoir
and the Lower American River. Groundwater would be pumped into a holding tank where it is
to be tested to meet water quality standards before being surface-discharged into Folsom
Reservoir. All mandatory groundwater samples analyzed, both prior to commencement of
dewatering activity and during ongoing dewatering operations, must be conducted by a State
Certified Lab and meet the Reporting Minimum Levels.
By obtaining NPDES permits and the implementation of BMPs, water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements associated with earth moving activities in the dry would be met,
therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction in the Wet
Installation of the haul road embankment, transload facility, and spur dike could have
short-term impacts on water quality from dredging, construction, and disposal activities. In
addition, wet excavation of the approach channel and hydraulic dredging could have short term
impacts on water quality. In the wet construction has a high potential to affect water quality and
the bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic environment.
157
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dredging
Dredging material under the footprint of the haul road embankment (approximately
40,000 cy), transload facility ramp (approximately 20,000 cy) and spur dike (up to 80,000 cy)
may be required depending on the soils at the lake bottom. These construction processes have the
potential to cause turbidity in Folsom Lake, thus affecting water quality and increasing the
potential for the bioaccumulation of mercury. Mechanical clamshell or suction cutterhead
dredging would be used to remove small fines at the footprint of these three structures could be
necessary prior to the placement of fill material. In addition, fines would be dredge from the
footprint of the approach channel prior to blasting and excavation. Approximately 120,000 cy of
material would be clamshell or hydraulically dredged from the lake bottom.
Sediment testing results did not exceed the Waste Discharge Requirement General Order
maintenance criteria (Appendix C). Therefore, impacts to groundwater via infiltration and
surface water due to stormwater discharge from the placement site are not expected. Dredging
operations would result in less-than-significant effects to water quality standards with mitigation
and compliance with the CVRWQCB certification thresholds. An analysis with sediment plume
modeling to determine water quality conditions during dredging activities was prepared by Ben
C. Gerwick, Inc. (Appendix E). The analysis indicated that the approach channel excavation
sediment containment is possible by confining the zones where dredging and in-lake disposal of
dredged materials would take place. A full range of BMPs are identified in the mitigation
measures below.
Dredging may initially result in the complete removal of benthic organisms from the
excavation site. Dredging could reduce local bed elevation by as much as three feet. Any
change in benthic habitat as a result of dredging would only be short-term since construction of
the transload facility, haul road embankment, and spur dike would require the placement rock fill
material in the dredge areas. Habitat changes could cause changes in benthic organism
composition within localized areas. It is unlikely that an overall change in the reservoirs benthic
organisms would be detectable. The change in bathymetry resulting from dredging would be a
less-than-significant, long-term impact.
Construction of Project Features
Construction and removal of the transload facility, haul road embankment, and the
construction of the spur dike would require materials to be placed directly into the water. Clean
fill would be imported for the construction of the transload facility and the haul road
embankment. Additional processed, clean rock material that is currently stockpiled at Dike 7
would also be used for the haul road embankment. Decomposed granite for the spur dike would
be excavated from the approach channel. Fill material for the spur dike would be processed and
analyzed prior to installation to ensure that no pollutants, such as mercury, would be reintroduced into the reservoir.
Fine content of the fill material would be reduced as much as possible to limit water
turbidity during placement of material. Construction of the transload facility, haul road
158
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
embankment, and spur dike would result in less-than-significant effects to water quality with
mitigation.
Construction of the transload facility, haul road embankment and the spur dike would
raise local bed elevation by as much as 60 ft. This change in topography would change the
relative abundance of habitat types available at various reservoir levels. Habitat changes could
cause changes in species composition within localized areas. The transload facility and haul road
embankment would be removed upon project completion and the area would be restored to preproject conditions. Benthic organisms from adjacent habitat would recolonize the area. The
change in bathymetry resulting from the transload facility and haul road embankment would be a
less-than-significant, long-term impact. Any change in benthic habitat as a result of the spur
dike would only be relevant for part of the year since the water level within the reservoir varies
so widely. It is unlikely that an overall change in the reservoirs benthic organisms would be
detectable.
Approximately 400,000 cy of material from the approach channel would be removed
during in-the-wet conditions. Removal of coarse material from the approach channel would be
accomplished by drill and blast methods. To limit the blast over-pressures, all charges would be
confined by rock burden and crushed stone stemming. The in-the-wet excavation activities
(dredging and blasting) have the potential to create substantial turbidity, thus affecting water
temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations. These activities also have the potential to
mobilize existing contaminants such as mercury with potential for the bioaccumulation of
mercury in the aquatic environment.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to water quality. Silt
curtains and a monitoring plan would be necessary to avoid impacting water quality and assist in
mitigating bioaccumulation effects. In addition, adaptive management would be implemented
during the construction period. Samples for water quality, sediment concentration, and toxicity
tests would be collected to assess the effects of construction dredging and blasting to water
quality and the aquatic environment. Excavation in-the-wet impacts on water quality would
result in less-than-significant effects with mitigation.
Disposal
Under Alternatives 2, dredged and excavated material that is not used for spur dike
construction would be disposed at one of the proposed disposal sites, including potentially the inreservoir disposal site (Plate1).
Two types of material would be generated from dredging activities that may require
different dredging and placement methods, the fine materials, sand, and smaller in grain size to
be dredged from the lake bottom and the coarse material from the approach channel excavation.
If suction dredging is used, then the only placement alternative is in open waters of Folsom Lake.
Mechanical dredging material could either be barged to the proposed in-water placement site or
transported via barge and trucked to upland placement sites.
159
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dredged material placed in open waters at the proposed in-reservoir disposal site and/or
at the spur dike have the potential to create substantial turbidity, thus affecting water temperature
and dissolved oxygen concentrations. These activities also have the potential to mobilize
existing contaminants such as mercury with potential for the bioaccumulation of mercury in the
aquatic environment. A thorough monitoring plan would be implemented to avoid significant
effects upon water quality. and to assist in mitigating bioaccumulation effects. These mitigation
measures would reduce effects on water quality to a less-than-significant level.
Benthic organisms would be smothered by the discharge of dredged material at the inreservoir disposal site; however, benthic organisms from adjacent habitat would recolonize in the
disposal site. Because of the small area disturbed by the disposal of dredge material, and the
rapid recovery and recolonization by benthic organisms, the disturbance to bottom habitat is
considered adverse, but less-than-significant, long-term impact.
If mechanical dredging methods are used and the materials are barged to the proposed
in-water placement site, impacts would be the same as stated above. The same mitigation
measures would be implemented to reduce impacts on water quality to less-than-significant. If
the material is transported via barge and trucked to upland placement sites the contractor would
be required to design and implement a SWPPP prior to initiating construction activities, and to
implement standard BMPs. Implementation of these measures would reduce water quality effects
due to mechanical dredging to less-than-significant.
Excavated material not suitable for fill, such as vegetation, debris, and old fill, would be
disposed of at a local landfill. Asphalt, concrete, and other material from the old roadway
segments would be removed, incorporated into roadway fill, or recycled. Land-based disposal
sites have a low potential to affect water quality and no potential to affect the bioaccumulation of
mercury onto the aquatic environment. Mitigation measures would reduce water quality effect to
a less-than-significant level.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Aerial photography was used to identify 175.0 acres of waters of the United States within
the project area including wetlands. A conservative approach was taken and all vegetated areas
adjacent to the lake shoreline were mapped as transitional wetlands. Impacts of Alternative 2 on
jurisdictional waters was determined by using a GIS database representing existing conditions
and overlaying proposed project features, including both permanent and temporary impact zones
and construction work areas, onto GIS layers of the jurisdictional waters.
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur at the spur dike and the proposed
Dike 8 disposal area. Up to 1.4 million cy of granitic material would be placed over up to 22
acres for the construction of the spur dike. Although the spur dike would result in the placement
of fill material into 22 acres of open waters of the U.S, the spur dike would not cause the
permanent loss of functions and/or values of the water. The net loss of functions and services of
aquatic resources due to the spur dike is 9 acres of surface waters that would be converted to
upland. Disposal of materials at Dike 8 could impact 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands.
160
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Temporary impacts would occur at the transload facility, the haul road embankment, and
open water disposal areas in Folsom Lake. Up to approximately 250,000 cy of rock material
would be placed for the construction of the transload facility over 2.5 acres, and approximately
400,000 cy of rock material would be placed over 1 acre for the construction of the haul road
embankment. These areas would be restored to preconstruction conditions following the
completion of construction in the area. Up to 220,000 cy of dredge material would be placed
over 85 acres in Folsom Lake by methods discussed above. Dredging activities would relocate
sediment from the footprints of each feature and place it in a designated disposal area near Dike
7. Although dredge activities would involve fill placement into waters of the U.S. the function
and capacity of Folsom Lake would remain the same, therefore, dredge activities are considered
a temporary impact. The acreages of permanently and temporarily adversely impacted areas
resulting from the implementation of Alternative 2 are listed in Table 38.
Table 38. Alternative 2 Fill of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Project
Folsom Lake
Dike 8
Impact Type
Component
(Acres)
(Acres)
Transload Facility
Haul Road
Embankment
Disposal
Spur Dike
Total Acreage
Filled
Total Mitigation
Required1
New Jurisdictional
Acres Created2
Net Permanent
Change
Total
(Acres)
Temporary
2.5
2.5
Temporary
1.0
1.0
Temporary
Permanent
Permanent
85.0
9.0
85.0
2.5
9.0
Temporary
88.5
88.5
Permanent
9.0
2.5
11.5
9.0
2.5
11.5
2.5
-2.5
-2.5
9.0
Notes:
(1) Minimum mitigation acreage required to ensure no net loss of waters of the United States. Greater mitigation acreage may be
required based on further analysis required under section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
(2) New Corps jurisdictional areas from the creation of the Approach Channel
The Folsom Reservoir is a man-made facility that is well regulated. While many fish
species currently inhabit the reservoir, a majority of them are either stocked in the reservoir
and/or are non-native species. In total, Alternative 2 would result in permanent adverse impacts
to 11.5 acres of waters of the United States (including wetland and non-wetland waters),
temporary impacts to 88.5 acres of open water, and would create 2.5 acres of new open water
habitat through the excavation of the approach channel. This would result in a permanent net
loss of 9 acres of waters of the United States, which would be a significant impact unless
mitigation is implemented.
Further analysis of the relative practicability of alternatives that avoid and minimize
impacts to waters of the United States, including wetland areas is included in the Corps'
161
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
404(b)(1) analysis (40 C.F.R. Part 230) to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (Appendix D). The 404(b)(1) analyzed impacts to aquatic species and
habitat from the placement of fill and dredge materials in the Reservoir. Alternative 3 has a
higher risk of failure in a flood event. Failure of either the cutoff wall or cofferdam would have
significant environmental effects, both in the human and downstream aquatic environment. In
addition, Alternative 2 has less temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. than Alternative 3.
The evaluation of impacts and the development of appropriate mitigation measures were
also used to demonstrate compliance with 33 C.F.R. Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources (Mitigation Rule). It is assumed that all mitigation would be
initiated within two years after impacts occur. In the event that mitigation is not initiated within
this two-year period, the mitigation ratios would increase by 0.5:1 if initiated within two to five
years, and by 1:1 if mitigation is initiated more than five years after the permanent or temporary
impacts occur.
Impacts to 29.37 acres of waters of the U.S. at the spur dike location were previously
evaluated and fill placement was permitted to expand the original Folsom Overlook under a 404
permit issued to USBR in 2007. A condition of the permit is to create 10 acres of riparian
wetland at Mississippi Bar to offset impacts associated with the overlook construction. As a
result, compensatory mitigation has already been required to offset any loss of function at the
Folsom Overlook. The additional fill material for the construction of the spur dike would not
result in additional acreage impacts or losses in functions that have not already been accounted
for under the USBR 404 permit. USBRs mitigation is sufficient to adequately compensate for
the impacts associated with construction of the spur dike. However, the Corps would assist
USBR with their mitigation requirements to ensure that the 10 acres of riparian wetlands would
be initiated by 2013.
The discharge of dredge materials would temporarily impact approximately 85 acres of
waters of the U.S. The haul road embankment and transload facility are temporary project
elements and would be removed after three to four years. Through the incorporation of
mitigation measures which would require the restoration of temporary impact zones, impacts
would be minimal. However, the Corps would also assist Reclamation to create an additional 2
to 5 acres of riparian wetlands at Mississippi Bar to compensate for temporal losses from these
elements.
It has been determined that the ordinary high water mark of the Folsom Reservoir is at
466 elevation, which is the upper limit of the fluctuation zone for the Folsom Reservoir.
However, Appendix D shows a graph showing the Folsom Dam Reservoir Water Surface
Elevations between 1955 and 2005. This document shows the percentage of time that the
Folsom Reservoir water levels are over a certain elevation. According to the table, the water
level within the reservoir only reaches the 466 elevation approximately 1.1% of the time. In
addition, almost 50% of the time, the reservoir is above the 429 elevation, and 100% of the time
is above the 347 elevation.
The proposed fill material at Dike 8 would generally be placed between the reservoir
elevation of 420-feet and 460-feet. Based on Appendix D, the fill material would be under water
and suitable for fish habitat between approximately 1% and 68% of the time, with the majority of
162
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
the fill material being suitable fish habitat less than 50% of the time. In addition, the proposed
fill material, which would consist of primarily gravel and cobble material, and would have only
minor impacts to aquatic wildlife habitat.
Therefore, a mitigation ratio of less than 1:1 for compensatory mitigation is appropriate
to mitigate for losses to fish habitat function of the Folsom Reservoir. However, because the
areas to be filled would provide suitable fish habitat for an average of 50% of the time,
compensation for the loss of functions of the Folsom Reservoir related to fish habitat is required.
If Dike 8 is used as a disposal area then the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal
wetlands at an approved bank to compensate for the loss of fish habitat function. In the event
that mitigation is not initiated within a two-year period, the mitigation ratios would increase by
0.5:1 if initiated within two to five years, and by 1:1 if mitigation is initiated more than five years
after the impacts occur.
Although this mitigation is off-site and out-of-kind mitigation, it would compensate for
losses at Folsom Reservoir, and would provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat at an alternate
location. The off-site mitigation would provide fish and wildlife habitat within an area that is not
heavily regulated for flood control and water supply, which would provide more benefits to fish
and wildlife species than additional mitigation within the Folsom Reservoir. The proposed offsite mitigation would be sufficient to compensate for the losses of function at the Folsom
Reservoir due to the proposed project.
4.4.5 Alternative 3 - Cofferdam

The analysis of potential effects associated with the capacity of stormwater drainage
systems under Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2. The effects to water quality and
impacts to jurisdiction waters under Alternative 3 for construction of the spur dike and transload
facility, as well as the excavation of the approach channel and the placement of dredged
materials and discharges into Folsom Reservoir would be the same as described in Alternative 2.
Effects on water quality and jurisdiction waters unique to Alternative 3 pertain to the
construction of the cofferdam.
Cofferdam construction has the potential to affect water quality and the bioaccumulation
of mercury within Folsom Lakes aquatic environment. Implementation of the mitigation
measures described below would also protect the aquatic environment, and reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level. Specifically, a silt curtain placed around the perimeter of the
excavation would be required to control turbidity and the potential for the mobilization of
mercury within the lake.
In addition, an adaptive management plan would be implemented during construction.
Samples for water quality, sediment quality, and toxicity tests would be collected and compared
to water quality standards to assess the effects of construction activities. If water quality
parameters for mercury exceed 0.05 mg/L (and as specified in the 401 Certification), additional
response actions would be implemented.
163
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
After the cofferdam is installed, the downstream area that has impounded water would be
dewatered to create the in-the-dry excavation area. The dewatering system would be used to
conduct an initial mass dewatering between the cofferdam and the rock plug/excavation area and
subsequently address seepage from the lake to the excavation area. This water would be fed into
the SWPPP project system to avoid effects on water quality and potential mercury
bioaccumulation. Implementation of BMPs would reduce effects to water quality to a less-thansignificant level and the adaptive management plan would assist in evaluating and controlling the
concentration of mercury that may be present in the sediment from affecting the lake water
quality.
The removal of the cofferdam would commence by flooding the finished construction
area until water levels on both sides of the reservoir were level. This could potentially lead to
turbidity should the water entering the construction site stir up bottom sediment. Following this
process, it would be necessary to excavate the fill from the cofferdam while also pulling out the
sheet piles. This would involve the mobilization of equipment on the water surface opening up
the potential for a fuel spill. Also, removing the sheet piles could potentially cause turbidity
within the reservoir. This has the potential to affect water quality and the potential for the
bioaccumulation of mercury within the lake. BMPs listed in the mitigation discussion below
would reduce effects to water quality to less-than-significant level. The effects associated with
the construction and removal of the cofferdam on water would be less-than-significant with
mitigation.
As described in Alternative 2, permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur at
the spur dike, Dike 8 disposal area. Temporary impacts would result from the installation and
removal of the cofferdam and transload facility, and dredging activities. The acreages of
permanently and temporarily adversely impacts resulting from the implementation of Alternative
3 are listed in Table 39.
164
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 39. Alternative 3 Fill of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.

Project
Folsom Lake
Dike 8
Impact Type
Component
(Acres)
(Acres)
Transload
Temporary
2.5
Facility
Cofferdam
Temporary
2
Disposal
Temporary
85.0
Permanent
2.5
Spur Dike
Permanent
9.0
Total Acreage
Temporary
88.5
Filled
Permanent
9.0
2.5
Total Mitigation
9.0
2.5
1
Required
New
Jurisdictional
-2.5
Acres Created2
Net Permanent
Change
Total
(Acres)
2.5
2.0
85.0
2.5
9.0
89.5
11.5
11.5
-2.5
9.0
Notes: 1 Minimum mitigation acreage required to ensure no net loss of waters of the United States. Greater mitigation acreage
may be required based on further analysis required under section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
2 New Corps jurisdictional areas from the creation of the Approach Channel.
In total, Alternative 3 would result in permanent adverse impacts to 11.5 acres of waters
of the United States (including wetland and non-wetland waters), temporary impacts to 89.5
acres of open water, and would create 2.5 acres of new open water habitat through the excavation
of the approach channel. This would result in a permanent net loss of 9 acres of waters of the
United States, which would be a significant impact unless mitigation is implemented. Further
analysis of the relative practicability of alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to waters of
the United States, including wetland areas, is included in the Corps' 404(b)(1) alternative
analysis (40 C.F.R. Part 230) to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (Appendix D).
Permanent impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through
incorporation of mitigation measures described under Alternative 2. Temporary impacts would
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of mitigation measures
which would require the restoration or temporary impact zones.
4.4.6 Mitigation
Implementation of the below mitigation measures by the contractor would reduce the
significant impacts on water quality, and jurisdictional waters to a less-than-significant level.
Compliance and evaluation as a part of the provisions stated for the various permits discussed
below would serve to minimize and mitigate potential hydrologic impacts due to construction
activities.
165
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
An NPDES permit would be obtained prior to construction activities, commencing by

filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the CVRWQCB and preparing a SWPPP. As
required under the General Permit, the SWPPP would identify implementation measures
necessary to mitigate potential construction-related water quality concerns. These
measures would include BMPs and other standard pollution prevention actions such as
erosion and sediment control measures, proper control of non-stormwater discharges, and
hazardous spill prevention and response. The SWPPP would also include requirements
for BMP inspections, monitoring, and maintenance. The NOI indicates the intent to
comply with the General Permit which outlines conditions to minimize sediment and
pollutant loading. The following items are examples of BMPs that could be implemented
during construction:
o Erosion control BMPs such as use of mulches or hydro seeding to prevent
detachment of soil following guidance presented in the California BMP
Handbooks Construction (CASQA 2003). A detailed site map would be
included in the SWPPP outlining specific areas where soil disturbance may occur,
and drainage patterns associated with excavation and grading activities. In
addition, the SWPPP would provide plans and details for the BMPs to be
implemented prior, during and after construction to prevent erosion of exposed
soils and to treat sediments before they are transported offsite.
o Sediment control BMPs such as silt fencing or detention basins that trap soil
particles.
o Construction staging areas designed so that stormwater runoff during construction
would be collected and treated in a BMP such as a detention basin.
o Management of hazardous material and wastes to prevent spills.
o Vehicle and equipment fueling BMPs so these activities occur only in designated
staging areas with appropriate spill controls.
o Maintenance checks of equipment and vehicles to prevent spills or leaks of liquids
of any kind.
Measures to control on-site spills would be included in the SWPPP. In addition to the
spill prevention and control BMPs presented above, the SWPPP would contain a visual
monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for pollutants that are nonvisible to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. Proper storage and handling of
materials and equipment servicing would only occur in designated areas. If a spill occurs,
appropriate steps would be taken to inform local regulatory agencies as well as
implementation of a spill response program as outlined in the SWPPP. The following
BMPs would be implemented as part of the SWPPP and spill response program:
o All barge and boat maintenance activities would be conducted outside the
reservoir, with appropriate hazardous material containment measures in place.
o All hydraulic dredge hoses and lines would be regularly inspected for cracks and
leaks and appropriately maintained to prevent contamination.
166
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
o Drilling activities should not use ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) as it would
dissolve in water and release ammonia and nitrates.
o Contractors would submit plans for containment measures for drilling fluids
caused by hose breaks and other sources, shut down and clean up of spills.
o All terrestrial based construction equipment would be refueled and oiled at least
one hundred feet from the reservoir high water mark with appropriate hazardous
material containment measures in place.
o All barges and boats would be clean before they are launched.
o Refueling would be conducted outside the reservoir when practical, with
appropriate hazardous material containment measures in place.
If on-shore refueling is not feasible, over-water refueling activities would include the
following fuel and oil spill avoidance and minimization measures:
o A dedicated refueling area would be created. The refueling area would be located
to minimize exposure to wind and waves, and would be equipped at all times with
spill containment equipment, such as environmentally inert oil sorbent spill
booms, absorbent pads, and appropriate waste disposal vessels to contain at least
100 gallons of fuel or oil.
o At least two appropriate fire extinguishers would be easily accessible and
prominently displayed on site.
o Appropriate communication devices would be available at all times in case of
emergencies.
o Fuel would be stored in a double walled tank or other appropriate secondary
containment structures.
o Fueling would take place only under calm wind and wave conditions such that
spilled fuel would be visible and recoverable.
o If refueling activities would take place after sundown, adequate light would be
used so that any spill would be easily visible.
o If more than 55 gallons of fuels are stored onsite, the contractor would file a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the county.
o The refueling station would store less than 1.320 gallons of fuel above ground at
any time. If storage of 11,320 gallons or more of fuels is required, the contractor
would file a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan with the
Regional Board.
o During refueling operations, fuel bibs, fuel collars, fuel vent collection vessels,
and/other appropriate spill minimization equipment would be used to prevent
overflow fuel from reaching the water.
o In the event of a spill into the water, environmentally inert sorbent booms and
absorbent material would be deployed by trained personnel to contain and clean
up the spill. The spill would not be treated by the use of any agent which would
disperse, emulsify or coagulate the spilled material.
167
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
o The discharge of any quantity of oil that violates state water quality standards,
causes a film or sheen on the water surface, or leaves sludge or emulsion beneath
surface would be reported immediately 24 hours a day to the U.S. Coast Guards
National Response Center (NRC) at 1-800-424-8802 or 1-202-426-2675 and the
USACE and the USBR.
The Corps would obtain a Section 401 permit from the CVRWQCB and comply with all
requirements of the permit to ensure compliance with Section 401 of the CWA.
If water quality parameters for mercury exceed 0.05 mg/L (and as specified in the 401
Certification), additional response actions would be implemented to reduce parameters to
threshold.
Guidance would be obtained from the CVRWQCB for testing earthen materials before
constructing or adjacent to the reservoir to ensure any potentially associated pollutants,
particularly concrete or concrete runoff, would not be introduced into the reservoir that
would violate water quality standards.. Fill material would be placed in the reservoir
during periods of lower water elevation, when possible. BMPs, as discussed in the 401
permit and 404(b)(1) analysis (Appendix D), would be adhered to in order to minimize
water quality impacts during the placement of fill in the reservoir.
The Corps would obtain a dewatering permit from CVRWQCB and would implement
applicable water quality monitoring by a qualified water quality specialist during
dewatering activities. Mitigation measures to minimize water quality impacts due to
construction within and along the reservoir shoreline would be developed in consultation
with CVRWQCB staff. These measures may include placement of a silt curtain
surrounding the construction zone or construction of cofferdams. If appropriate, routine
water samples would be collected at the start and completion of each dredging and/or
blasting period. Water quality monitoring by a qualified water quality specialist would be
performed outside the silt curtain to verify that they are effective at keeping turbidity,
sediment, and associated pollutants from dispersing into the Lake. Water quality
monitoring would involve grab sampling by boat during operations, and could also
include deployment of continuous monitoring devices that log turbidity, conductivity, and
pH. Those details would be worked out with the CVRWQCB through development of the
SWPPP and monitoring plan.
A water quality monitoring plan would be developed for review by the CVRWQCB prior
to any in reservoir construction work. The plan would address sampling requirements
during dredging, blasting, excavation, and placement of fill within the reservoir. If
turbidity readings exceed action level values established by the CVRWQCB, corrective
actions would be implemented in accordance with the plan.
The Corps would assist USBR with their mitigation requirements to ensure the 10 acres
of riparian wetlands would be initiated by 2013. The Corps would also assist USBR to
create up to an additional 5 acres on riparian wetlands at Mississippi Bar to compensate
for temporal losses.
To mitigate for the 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands associated with fill placement at
Dike 8, the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal wetlands at a Corps approved
mitigation bank.
168
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
In the event that mitigation is not initiated within this two-year period, the mitigation
ratios would increase by 0.5:1 if initiated within two to five years, and by 1:1 if
mitigation is initiated more than five years after the permanent or temporary impacts
occur
Following development of sentinel species and trigger levels, baseline levels in sentinel
species would be monitored so that changes in response to construction activities can be
detected. It is important to note that the fish tissue samples in Folsom Lake indicate that
these species are already impacted by mercury, so it would be expected that many
sentinel species would exceed desirable levels of mercury for a healthy ecosystem under
baseline conditions.
The following mitigation measures are relevant to impacts, but will likely not be required
by the Corps. However the selected contractor will be encouraged to implement these
measures where practical:
During the process of dredging material to construct the approach channel for the
auxiliary spillway, sediment containing mercury would be controlled using a variety of
methods, including, but not limited to, silt curtains, silt fences, as well as other BMPs and
construction methods approved by the CVRWQCB.
Details on the proper use of silt curtains to protect water quality are available in guidance
developed by the Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (Corps 2005). The
following BMPs from this guidance should be considered during the use of silt curtains to
ensure compliance with turbidity guidelines as established by the CVRWQCB:
o Silt curtains should be selected, designed, and installed to meet permit and water
quality certification requirements where applicable.
o Silt curtains should be designed to pass water either under or through their walls.
Curtains are designed to confine suspended sediment and to allow it to settle or be
filtered, not to impede the movement of water.
o In applications where the curtain will be extended to the bottom of the waterway
in moving water conditions, a heavy woven permeable filter fabric should be
designed into the curtain to relieve pressure on the curtain wall.
o In all but the slowest current flows, curtains will billow out in the downstream
direction, allowing water to pass beneath the curtain, thereby reducing the
effective skirt depth.
o Extra length (up to 10 to 20 percent) and depth (slack) of curtains should be
included in designs to allow for exchanges of water within the curtain.
o Special designs may be required for applications of curtains at depths greater than
10 to15 feet or with currents exceeding 1 knots. At greater depths, loads or
pressures on curtains and mooring systems become excessive and could result in
failure of standard construction materials.
169
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
o Minimize the number of joints in the curtain; a minimum continuous span of 15 m

(50 feet) between joints is a good rule of thumb.
o Curtains of a bright color (yellow or international orange) are recommended to
enhance visibility for boaters.
o Anchor lines should be attached to the flotation device, not to the bottom of the
curtain.
o Care should be taken during removal of silt curtains to avoid or minimize
resuspension of settled solids.
o Removal of settled solids trapped by the silt curtain is optional and should only be
considered if the resulting bottom contour elevation is significantly altered.
o Designs should conform to relevant contract specifications and manufacturer
recommendations and guidelines for installation and safety measures.
In addition to the above BMPs regarding silt curtains, the following could be
implemented by the contractor, as needed, to further reduce turbidity:
o When dredging contaminated sediment, installing silt curtains within continuous
or intermittent sheetpile walls to provide anchoring points has proven to be more
effective than using silt curtains alone.
o Aquatic habitat can be protected with deflection curtains provided they are
properly designed and deployed, taking into consideration site-specific conditions.
o Regular inspections should be performed to verify the integrity and proper
installation of the silt curtains.
In addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, an Adaptive Management Plan is

recommended as a mitigation control measure to assist with the management of
construction control BMPs and monitor the effects onto the aquatic environment. It is
difficult to predict the precise effects construction activities would have on turbidity,
sedimentation and on the increase on total mercury and methylation of mercury.
Therefore, monitoring and adaptive management of construction controls are critical
components of protecting against significant effects to bioaccumulation. The Adaptive
Management Plan would consist of monitoring the environment outside of the
construction zones as specified in the 401 Water Quality Permit, and would specify
triggers for adaptive management actions to avoid exceeding significance thresholds for
turbidity and mercury.
4.5 FISHERIES
4.5.1 Methodology
Potential impacts of the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel were
qualitatively evaluated based on the construction practices, the location and duration of the
activities, and the potential for adverse impacts on aquatic habitats adjacent to the project area
170
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
and/or the fish community that could be occupying these habitats. This qualitative evaluation
occurred for the following reasons: 1) lack of data on specific aquatic organism response to
created conditions; 2) unknown variables of seasonal fluctuations; and 3) unknown sediment
parameters of excavation and blasting. The variation in response by individual fish species, and
fish of differing developmental stages, cannot be assessed quantitatively at this time against
potential variables inherent in potential and unknown construction scenarios under varying
seasonal conditions. Biological assessment is conducted on a qualitative order, based upon
current resource status, available literature, and magnitude of duration and intensity of affects.

The alternatives under consideration would result in significant effects to fisheries if they
would:
Substantially change the diversity or numbers of any; aquatic community or species or

interfere with the survival, growth, or reproduction, of affected populations;
Introduce nonnative and invasive aquatic species;
Cause substantial deterioration or adverse alteration of existing fish habitat. Substantial

is qualified as long term effects that can be verified by repeated measurement or includes
habitat designated as, Critical Habitat by NFMS;
Substantially reduce or curtail game fish populations for recreational fishing, reducing the
availability or quality of existing angler opportunities in Folsom Lake; or
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations, or by the CDFG, NMFS, or USFWS.
Criteria listed above are discussed below within alternatives, and are not considered to be
significantly affected with the adoption of recommended project design and mitigation measures
during construction activities. A comparison of effects and significance is summarized in Table
40.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Corps would not participate in construction of the
proposed alternatives; therefore, existing conditions would be maintained. There would be no
potential for release of contaminants or increased sedimentation or turbidity from the approach
channel construction or introduction of invasive or nonnative species.
171
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.5.4 Alternative 2 Cutoff wall

The project area would be temporarily closed to recreational fishing activity for safety
reasons from years 2013 through 2017. The project area would exclude less than 3 percent of the
Folsom Lake surface area from sport fishing for up to five years; this acreage is not expected to
significantly affect angler opportunities in Folsom Lake. Folsom Point boat launch would
remain accessible to all recreational and boating activity. Further assessment of project effects to
recreation opportunities in the FLSRA is included in Section 4.7 below.
Project construction activities that could affect fish populations include dredging of fine
sediments prior to the placement of the haul road embankment, transload facility, and the spur
dike, in-water disposal of construction material through hydraulic or mechanical placement, and
dredging and blasting of the approach channel. Underwater construction activities would be
conducted at low reservoir levels whenever possible to avoid silt contribution or resuspension of
sediments. The highest magnitude of effects on aquatic species would occur under Alternative 2
due to increased construction and excavation conducted in-the-wet (wet soils or underwater).
The project could potentially affect aquatic life in the following ways:
Increased turbidity within the water column;
Bioaccumulation of mercury;
Blasting and acoustic (vibration and sound energy) actions
Introduction of contaminants, fuel and oil spills;
Physical crushing;
Water temperature increase and;
Introduction of nonnative quagga or zebra mussels from marine vessels and

nonnative and invasive vegetation.
Folsom and Nimbus Dam effectively impede all fish migration. Special status salmonids
traveling up the American River cannot enter Folsom Reservoir due to these barriers. Hardhead
(Mylopharodon conocephalus) is a California Species of concern found in cold water habitat in
foothill streams. Hardhead could be found in the tributaries above Folsom Reservoir but the
habitat within the project area is not suitable for the species. It is expected that no candidate,
sensitive, or special status species are found within the project area (J. Rowan, pers. com) and
would not be affected by the project. Aquatic construction equipment and boats would be
decontaminated of invasive species prior to placement in Folsom Lake per approval by CDFG
and invasives establishment is expected to be a less-than-significant effect.
Turbidity Effects
Turbidity is created by any activity that disturbs bottom sediments or introduces outside
particulate matter with the result that the sediments are suspended in the water column.
Turbidity is a component of water quality and is addressed in detail in Section 4.4 above.
172
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Construction of the transload facility, spur dike, excavation and dredging activity, and inwater material disposal could create turbidity that would adversely affect fish health, mortality,
and reproduction. Under Alternative 2, construction activities of underwater dredging,
excavation, in-water disposal, fill placement, and blasting have the potential to cause up to 500
days of construction related turbidity affects on aquatic organism. Dredging of sediment layers
prior to fill placement and blasting would initially increase turbidity, but would reduce the
overall effect of sediment in the water column. If turbidity is insufficiently contained, significant
effects could result to aquatic organisms and game fish.
Ecological Effects
Excessive turbidity in aquatic systems can lead to indirect effects that could impact
aquatic species. Increased turbidity alters aquatic light regimes that directly affect primary
productivity, species distribution, behavior, foraging, reproduction and survival of aquatic biota
(Wilber and Clarke 2001). Aquatic system productivity may also be reduced. As an indirect
effect, the suppression of aquatic productivity is not as apparent as observable direct effects on
larger organisms. It is possible for sustained turbidity to adversely shade primary phytoplankton,
zooplankton and invertebrates which serve as food for smaller fish, and larval fish upon which
game fish forage (Lloyd 1987).
Sufficient turbidity can result in direct lethal or sublethal effects on fish (Newcombe and
Jensen 1996). An increase of resuspended dissolved or particulate organic carbon from
the sediment may decrease dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Reduction in DO
availability for aquatic species causes reduced oxygen uptake by the organism. At
sufficient concentrations, turbidity will clog fish and amphibian gills and cause physical
abrasion to the level of sub-lethal or lethal effect. Settling of suspended sediment can
coat fish and amphibian eggs, reducing or eliminating DO uptake required for
development or survival. The eggs and larvae of non-salmonids are particularly
sensitive. Hatching was delayed for striped bass and white perch eggs exposed to
sediment concentrations of 800 and 100 mg/L (Wilbur and Clarke 2001). Prolonged
exposure and increases in turbidity levels can interfere with the survival and growth of
populations. A condition of prolonged exposure and turbidity increase within or directly
adjacent would be expected with dredging, excavation, disposal and material placement,
and may cause localized fish mortality. However, recommended silt curtains would be
expected to keep turbidity contained and cause less effect to the total number of fish
within the project area. Conduct continuous monitoring on sublethal and lethal blast
effects on fish. Conduct adaptive management to reduce effects of blasting on fish if
significance thresholds for sublethal and lethal effects established by CDFG, USFWS and
the Corps are exceeded.
The fish species expected to be impacted in greatest numbers at the project site is
wagasaki smelt due to prior populations found here. With active disturbance occurring
during construction, substantial numbers of fish are not expected to remain in direct
proximity with construction activities, and fish will be excluded where possible from the
interior of silt curtains. Prolonged exposure and adverse turbidity is not expected outside
of the immediate construction area if water quality CVRWQCB thresholds per the
Section 401 Certification are maintained, and required BMPs and mitigations are
173
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
conducted. Assuming strict contractor compliance with water quality mandates,

mitigation, and BMPs, less-than-significant effects are expected for fish habitat and
mortality related to turbidity.
Fish Behavior
Avoidance is the most common result of increases in turbidity and sedimentation. Fish
generally will not occupy areas unsuitable for survival unless they have no other option.
Reduction of the water visibility from suspended silts in the water can reduce fish, amphibian
and aquatic reptile foraging and predator avoidance. Some fish species experience reduction in
immune system health and behavioral changes including avoidance and displacement (Lloyd
1987; Birtwell 1999). Turbidity effects vary considerably between fish species; many fish
species avoid turbid water for foraging while some species are able to increase the effectiveness
of foraging up to a certain sediment concentration (Wilbur and Clarke 2001). Substantial
increases in turbidity would negatively affect foraging for most species in Folsom Reservoir.
Centrarchids such as smallmouth and largemouth bass, and most larval fish are more impacted
by small increases in turbidity than salmonid species (Berry et al 2003).
Under most dredging scenarios, fish and other motile aquatic organisms encounter
localized suspended sediment plumes for exposures of minutes to hours, unless avoidance or
attraction to the plume occurs. Intermittent localized plumes could be expected for the approach
channel project, but it is difficult to assess fish behavior prior to such exposure. Construction
actions would cause localized degradation of fish habitat within the project site due to
disturbance and turbidity increases and fish may avoid this area or incur physical degradation or
mortality. High turbidity resulting from construction-related activities would likely preclude
some species from occupying habitat utilized for successful completion of one or more life
stages but this would be limited to less than 50 acres at the project site and not affect Folsom
Reservoir outside the project footprint.
There are no known preferred foraging habitat or breeding sites that would be affected by
increased and localized water turbidity in the project area. The affected area is not known to be
integral to life stages of game fish within Folsom Reservoir. Adverse effects upon Reservoir
habitat outside the construction footprint are not expected due to containment of silts. Turbidity
increases are expected only from summer of year 2013 to the fall of 2017. Benthic community
replacement is expected to occur rapidly. Turbidity effects on fish habitat would have potential
to be significant, however, with the implementation of mitigation measures, BMPs and
compliance with CVRWQCB thresholds, the project effect is expected to be less-thansignificant.
Silt Dosage
Exact levels of turbidity which cause effect are also difficult to determine due to the large
number of environmental factors involved in measurement efforts (Berry 2003) and the
behaviors and physical sensitivities of specific fish species. Effects of suspended sediment upon
fish are not only a function of concentration, but are also related to the duration of turbid
conditions (Clarke 2001; Wilbur and Clarke 2001). Silt concentration alone is poorly correlated
174
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
with salmonid fish responses to suspended sediments; dosage (amount over time) is more
strongly associated with fish response (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). In a conservative
range of measured effects, sublethal behavioral effects to juvenile and adult salmonids was
caused by a concentration of 100 mg/L over a period of less than one day; under a longer
duration with similar concentration, mortality resulted in ten days (Wilbur and Clarke 2001).
Sustained low sediment levels over a long duration may produce effects for some species, while
others are more affected by high concentrations over a short time period.
Projects generating persistent, high suspended-sediment concentrations represent the
most problematic situation as it is difficult to assess the effects of exposures at low
concentrations over longer time periods, particularly with aquatic construction scenarios that are
undefined at this time. A salient resolution includes preventative measures and turbidity controls
to reduce effects to a level where they are not detrimental to the aquatic environment. It is
expected that persistent turbidity directly at or adjacent to in-water material placement, disposal,
placement, dredging and excavation will be high and will exceed levels for fish health and
habitat protection over the duration in-water construction in an area up to approximately 50
acres. However, CVRWQCB water quality thresholds within Section 401 certifications are
established to maintain aquatic organism projection. Adherence to CVRWQCB thresholds and
implementation of mitigation measures and State water quality thresholds would be expected to
maintain sufficiently low dosages of silt within the reservoir proper and not adversely affect
aquatic organisms. As a result, the issue of sustained silt concentration at low dosages in Folsom
Reservoir is expected to be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Silt Curtains
Engineering controls, avoidance mitigation and BMPs conducted for the project are
effective at avoiding turbidity effects on aquatic species. Resuspension or introduction of silt
into the water column could be contained to the project area with the recommended deployment
of silt curtains. Silt curtains, also called turbidity curtains, have been used to effectively manage
project turbidity (USEPA 2004; USEPA 2005). With appropriate use of silt curtains, turbidity
levels outside silt curtains are not expected to cause adverse effects to native and game fish
populations and habitat outside the project area. Fish entrapped within silt curtains may
experience sublethal or lethal effects. Compared to use in rivers and ocean channels, a higher
degree of efficiency is expected with the silt curtains in the relatively low water currents of
Folsom Reservoir.
Silt curtains are vertical flexible structures of a synthetic material that extend downward
from the water surface to a specified depth, usually one to two feet above the lakebed, to
effectively contain suspended silts and allow them to settle out of the water in a controlled area
(Corps 2005). The silt curtain does not indefinitely contain turbid water but controls dispersion
usually by diverting flow to an elevated space under the curtain to minimize turbidity in the
water column outside the silt curtain. It is recommended that all construction activities that risk
resuspension or introduction of sediments would be enclosed in silt curtains including
excavation, blasting, dredging, and in-water disposal and fill placement, for the Approach
channel, transload facility and spur dike. Silt curtains could also be employed in the construction
and removal of the transload facility and during hydraulic silt material disposal directly to the
175
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
lake bottom. It is expected that with State water quality threshold compliance, impacts to water
quality and fish or other aquatic habitats due to increased sedimentation and turbidity would be
less-than-significant.
Specific design features are recommended to address site specific needs of Folsom
Reservoir according to the Corps (2005) guidelines, and to comply with water quality mandates.
Adjustments would be conducted to maintain effectiveness during water level fluctuations,
construction equipment changes, and for aquatic protection needs. Silt release at the curtain
bottom would cause a plume or localized turbidity that could affect fish adjacent to the curtains.
Reduced DO and visibility could affect individual fish attracted to the plume or adjacent to the
lower sections of the silt curtain. Rainbow trout can be alternately attracted or exhibit avoidance
behavior around turbid plumes depending upon the availability of associated food sources (Berry
2003). It is expected that salmon would move freely from the area to avoid localized turbidity
(Lloyd 1987). Incidental fish that remain adjacent to the bottom plume area would be at risk for
sublethal effects, but this is not expected to be a substantial number of organisms. There are no
known preferred foraging habitat or breeding sites in the affected area. It is expected that effects
associated with incidental silt release at the bottom of the silt curtain would produce less-thansignificant effects on fish populations and sport fishing. In Folsom Reservoir.
Open space at the silt curtain bottom, which allows water and sediment flow, and
gateways at the top of the silt curtain would provide opportunity for incidental fish passage into
interior construction zones where they could incur mortality. It is recommended that silt curtains
be securely adjusted to prevent fish passage and entrainment. If lake levels remain high during
in-the-wet excavation, water flow over the partially excavated rock plug could entrap fish. Also,
frequent lowering and shifting of the silt curtains to provide passage for vessels and equipment
could allow silt dispersion into the water column and passage of fish with subsequent
entrainment. Passage by small numbers of fish under the curtain or around the structure during
installation or adjustments would be expected to occur, predominantly by wakasagi smelt. Fish
that move into direct contact with excavation activity would be at risk of turbidity impacts that
could cause injury or mortality. Salmonids are known to seek deeper, colder water located at the
front of Folsom Dam adjacent to the project area in summer months. There is risk for salmon
entrainment with increasing number and size of silt curtains utilized, but salmon are also likely to
avoid the areas due to turbidity and noise (Lloyd 1987). It is unlikely that an overall change in
the reservoirs fish population or sport fishing would result. Effects resulting from entrapment of
fish within the silt curtain would be less-than-significant.
Shallow water breeding areas for fish are not found within the project vicinity. With
adherence to State water turbidity thresholds, siltation of breeding habitat in other areas of the
reservoir is not expected. Silt material escaping the silt curtain is expected to drop out of the
water column before transport occurs within the lake proper or to downstream waters below
Folsom Dam. As a result of turbidity containment and the low underwater currents, no silt
within the Reservoir proper is expected to affect native fish concentrations at the upstream
junction of the north and south forks of the American River. No special status species are
expected to be affected since hardhead, the only special status species found within Folsom
Reservoir, would not utilize the project area for breeding or foraging. Fish within the project
area could be expected to incur higher levels turbidity-caused effects, but seasonal movement,
176
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
species, and numbers of fish are unknown and quantitative prediction cannot be made at this
time. With the implementation of water quality mitigation measures discussed in Section 4.4.6,
impacts from turbidity would be expected to be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Water Quality Thresholds
Construction activities would be permitted under state and federal water quality
regulations, and compliance with mandates for water quality would be conducted to avoid effects
on aquatic organisms (see Water Resources and Quality Section 4.5). Due to the large
environmental and project variability, most regulatory agencies have not established thresholds
for fish protection, but instead have instituted turbidity thresholds to address aquatic protection.
Project turbidity compliance would be achieved by constant monitoring of turbidity levels within
the project area to standards prescribed by the SWRCB. The SWRCB values for freshwater
sediments were based on the SQG developed by MacDonald, et al (2000), in the document
entitled, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for
Freshwater Ecosystems. This document was an effort to develop standardized limits using
various published SQGs. These standards have attempted to prescribe thresholds with a
magnitude lower than concentrations and durations that would begin to effect fish health.
Prior water certification standards provided by the CVRWQCB for construction of the
Folsom Overlook, prescribed a surface water concentration not to exceed 0.1 ml/l in surface
waters measured 300 feet downstream of the project site; this concentration is well below
documented effects upon fish. Fish begin to show stress at approximately 10 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTUs) over duration of days (Wilbur and Clarke 2001). SWRCB water quality
thresholds are set below this amount with the exception of in-water working periods, which
could allow a turbidity increase of approximately 15 NTUs over background turbidity. Effective
use of silt curtains would be a critical action to prevent turbidity increases that could affect
summer habitat of salmon in front of Folsom Dam. Salmon utilize the colder, deeper water area
directly in front of Folsom Dam for summer habitat. During summer, cold water does not
circulate to the surface and aquatic organisms can deplete available oxygen in lower lake levels.
Leakage from silt curtains or flow of silt into this oxygen deprived stratified layer could lead to
further oxygen reduction for the Reservoir salmon, compromising habitat and fish health.
Disposal of excavation material at the overlook site presents the greatest risk to affecting salmon
summer habitat. Additional turbidity monitoring from June through October is recommended for
summer and fall habitat, particularly at depths from 35 feet to lake bottom, to ensure that
turbidity levels do not exceed CVRWQCB thresholds. If monitoring indicates that thresholds are
exceeded, contributing construction activities should be discontinued until sediment controls are
achieved and the turbidity level is resolved to threshold. Adaptive change in construction
activities and methods to comply with state certification thresholds would ensure that significant
effects to aquatic organisms do not occur.
As mentioned, CVRWQCB compliance turbidity monitoring would commence
throughout the projects water-based construction. If turbidity thresholds are reached,
construction activity would be adjusted to produce conditions that meet state and federal water
quality mandates. Though adverse alteration of fisheries habitat is expected within the project
footprint during in-the-wet construction, suspended sediments resulting from project activities
177
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
are a temporary condition, and are not expected to cause long term effects after the project.
Turbidity effects as mitigated would not substantially change the diversity or numbers of any
aquatic community or species, or interfere with the survival, growth, or reproduction, of affected
populations in Folsom Reservoir. Use of mitigations, BMPs, and turbidity monitoring, as
discussed in Section 4.4.6, is expected to reduce the turbidity effects upon aquatic populations in
Folsom Reservoir to less-than-significant.
Sediment Transport and Temperature
Transport of fill material across the reservoir on barges creates risk for potential sediment
releases into the reservoir. Material on barge transports would not be contained by silt curtains
and could be discharged directly into open water that would cause localized turbidity. To reduce
the risk of this source of turbidity, dredge loading and unloading areas would be contained by
onshore and aquatic sedimentation barriers and any fill spilled during these activities would be
contained to the loading and unloading areas. All fill material would be contained on barges
such that it would not slide or fall off and enter the water column during transport or storage.
Fill material on barges would be covered in the event of adverse weather so that no material is
washed or blown off by precipitation or wind. With containment measures in place and
implementation of required BMPs, sediment releases are not expected to produce a significant
effect.
Water temperature increase due to turbid water is possible inside and outside the silt
curtains, which depending upon affected fish tolerances and season, would result in a temporary
beneficial, neutral or negative effect in the immediate area. Sufficient temperature rise is not
expected to cause effects to the reservoir due to the relatively small volume of water affected.
Impacts to aquatic species associated with water temperature increase would be less-thansignificant.
Bioaccumulation
Bioaccumulation in game fish can create indirect effects on fisheries and human health.
Prediction of mercury accumulation cannot be quantified due to project variables and unknown
quantities of exposure associated with consumption by project area organisms. Sediment
containing mercury would be exposed and suspended for a potentially increased production of
methylmercury during excavation of the approach channel. Potential for methylmercury
bioaccumulation would be increased with increases in excavation and dredging activity. Silt
material placed back into the lake body for disposal presents a greater risk for bioaccumulation
because sediment movement would increase availability of mercury and potential for
methylmercury accumulation. Dredging and construction of the spur dike and transload facility
could also increase mercury exposure and potential for methylmercury uptake. Turbidity
reduction is the most effective method of reducing the risk of bioaccumulation. As discussed in
Section 4.4, the risk of bioaccumulation can be assessed by monitoring sentinel species for
increased elevations of mercury (Section 4.4). Increases found in methylmercury of sentinel
species would be reported to USFWS and regulatory agencies.
178
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Use of terrestrial disposal sites, rather than aquatic sites, for excavated and dredged
material would reduce risk for methylmercury to be incorporated into fish of game size, and
would not cause significant increases of methylmercury in the Folsom Reservoir fish population.
With appropriate turbidity control and mitigation measures, it is reasonable to expect that
bioaccumulation of methylmercury will not be significant for the following reasons:
Prior and recent sediment testing of approach channel sediments showed mercury
concentrations below State thresholds (Corps 2011).
Period of sediment suspension is temporary and projected to last approximately 500 days.
Sentinel species and small fish species have limited life spans, reducing risk of fish
uptake and the biomagnification factor. The major forage fish in the area, wakasagi
smelt, have a one year life span.
Resuspended sediments would be contained to a localized area. Uptake by zooplankton

and algae would be concentrated within silt curtain enclosures.
Higher trophic fish are expected to avoid construction areas for feeding.
Turbidity and mercury water content would be monitored to comply with CVRWQCB
certification thresholds..
Therefore, the potential of bioaccumulation of methylmercury to increase in aquatic

organisms and sport fish is expected to be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Acoustic and Blasting Effects
Acoustic
Under Alternative 2, underwater noise could be expected to occur for up to 500 days.
Underwater sound from blasting has potential to adversely affect fish inhabiting Folsom Lake.
General noise characteristics relative to the project are addressed in Section 4.9. With the
exception of blasting, acoustic noise would result primarily from marine engines, dredge
equipment scraping sediments, airlift use, and rock placement. NMFS and USFWS have set
interim criteria for injury to fish from blasting. The current thresholds for injury are 206 dB
peak, 187 dB cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) for fish greater than 2 grams and 183 dB
cumulative SEL for fish less than 2 grams. The current threshold for disturbance is 150 dB rms.
Small recreational boats with large outboard motors can reach up to 175 dB peak; these vessels
can be found in Folsom Reservoir and would be excluded from the project area. Marine barges,
used for material transport and drilling, are expected to remain below 175 dB peak.
Extremely loud sound levels can have negative effects on fish that include permanent or
temporary deafness, tissue damage and mortality. Gas oscillations induced by high sound
pressure levels can burst small capillaries or cause damage to gas containing organs (Caltrans
2009). Fish response to sound can be varied, ranging from classic fright response to packing,
polarizing, increasing swimming speed, diving or avoidance (Olsen 1969). Varying noise effects
upon different species are difficult to predict. Fish can either ignore repetitive construction
179
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
noise, or avoid noises sources, resulting in temporary displacement. Adverse effects are usually
manifested by a reduction in the ability to evade predation (stunning or reduced swimming
ability), a change in behavior that leads to increased exposure to predation, or an inability to
detect predators or prey effectively (temporary or permanent deafness) (Olsen 1969).
Construction equipment in Alternative 2 is expected to generate up to 120 dB on an
intermittent basis. Construction activities that require the placement of riprap in the water for the
spur dike, transload facility and cofferdam would generate noise only underwater in the
immediate vicinity of where the activities are taking place. Drilling generates noise from both
the drill bit striking the rock near the collar of the holes, as well as from mechanical equipment
and compressors used on the drills. Drilling from platforms would not occur in less than 35 feet
of water, and thus is not expected to generate measurable noise in air. It is likely that some fish
would be disturbed during drilling, but underwater sound levels are not expected to result in
injury or death to fish. The project is not expected to generate acoustic energy that would exceed
NMFS thresholds for injury, but noise, particularly dredging and excavation acoustics, may
cause intermittent disturbance to fish and cause them to avoid the project area over the life of the
project
Fish species within Folsom reservoir are considered to be sound generalists and would be
affected to a lesser degree by general construction noise than sound specialists. Optional silt
curtains and optional bubble curtain options would serve to dampen amplitudes of acoustic wave
energy generated by construction equipment. The Folsom Reservoir fish population is not
expected to be significantly affected by temporary displacement from the project site as it does
not contain a concentrated food source, species of concern or nesting habitat. Construction
activity, with the exception of blasting, is not expected to exceed NMFS SEL standards or
adversely affect fish populations within Folsom Reservoir. Therefore, effects on aquatic
organisms due to an increase in acoustic noise would be less-than-significant.
High Explosives
High explosives would be utilized to fragment rock, which can cause damage or mortality
to aquatic organisms. Blasting operations for the approach channel excavation are expected to
occur over a period of approximately 400 days in Alternative 2. High explosives, normally used
in excavation operations, cause the most severe sound effects that result from a high amplitude
shock wave caused by the initial impulse and the negative pressure wave reflected by the water
surface (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994; Houghton and Munday 1987). Extremely loud sound
levels can have considerable negative effects on fish including temporary or permanent deafness,
tissue damage, and acute mortality. The detonation of explosives in or near water produces post
detonation compressive shock waves characterized by a rapid rise to a high peak pressure
followed by a rapid drop to below ambient hydrostatic pressure. The latter pressure deficit
causes most impacts on fish (D.G. Wright and G.E.Hopky 1998). Studies (Wright 1982) show
that an overpressure in excess of 100 kPa will result in these effects. The degree of damage is
related to the type of explosive, size and pattern of the charge(s), method of detonation , distance
from the point of detonation, water depth, and species, size and life stage of fish. Tissue damage
arises when the wave oscillates and passes through tissues of different densities. A wave passed
through tissues at different speeds can result in shearing, and in extreme cases the tissues can be
180
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
torn apart. Underwater blasting without protective mechanisms could cause substantial mortality
to fish in the project area.
Explosion related damage causes most effect on gas containing organs such as lungs and
stomach, which undergo rapid expansion and contractions from rapid oscillations in wave forms
(Wiley 1981). Aquatic species containing swim bladders are particularly susceptible to
explosive blasts that can rupture with sufficient negative pressures as summarized by Keevin
(1998). With the exception of sculpins, fish species in Folsom Reservoir contain swim bladders.
Fish with specific types of swim bladders most susceptible to affects of blasting include bass,
crappie and blue gill. Rainbow trout, salmon, white suckers and bullheads are less affected due
to morphology of their swim bladders. Aquatic arthropods and crusteaceans are not as
vulnerable due to the lack swim bladders and presence of protective shells. Mammals are
considered most affected by blast pressures due to larger air containing organs and tympanic
membranes with sensitive pressures in the inner ear. Blast injuries include middle ear ossicular
fractures and inner and middle ear hemorrhage; disruption and hemorrhage to liver, intestines,
larynx, stomach, and cerebral expansion.
Information as summarized by Keevin (1998) also suggests that fish weight influences
vulnerability to explosions; smaller animals sustain greater tissue trauma than larger bodies when
exposed to the same pressure. It is expected that Folsom Reservoir fish of smaller size such as
wakasagi would incur more mortality than mature trout or salmon. However, smolts or juvenile
fish of smaller body mass would also be at greater risk as they are sensitive to small pressure
increases (Govoni and West 2008). Severity and number of impacted tissues also declines with
decreasing pressure. OKeefe and Young (1984) characterized physical trauma to fish on a
numerical scale to cover the range of gross visible effects from exposure to large high amplitude
shockwaves:
1. No damage (fish survives)
2. Light hemorrhaging (fish survives)
3. Light hemorrhaging and some kidney damage (impaired escape response and possible
increased vulnerability to predation)
4. Swim bladder bursts and gross kidney damage (fish killed)
5. Incomplete body wall break and gross internal damage (fish killed)
6. Complete rupture of body cavity and organ destruction (fish killed)
Predictive mathematical mortality models have been developed to estimate fish mortality
(Keevin 1987), but most models are based upon explosive charges set in open water, and do not
apply well to the approach channel project. Explosives to be used for the approach channel
excavation would not be conducted in open water, but would be stemmed into existing rock
substrate. In stemming, the explosive is placed into a drilled hole into the rock substrate and
covered with angular gravel or crushed stone. This technique decreases the amount of gas
energy that is lost out of the drill hole and reduces impacts to the aquatic environment.
181
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
According to Keevin and Hempen (1989), a user friendly computer program was developed by
coastline Environmental Service Ltd. (1986 ) that uses an impulse strength model (IBlast) and
the energy flux density model (Eblast) to predict effects for both midwater charges and charges
that are drilled and buried in rock substrate. Although problems are noted with these models
(Hempen and Keevin 1995; Keevin 1995) they can provide an approximation of the potential
fish kill radius of a given explosive charge. The pressure level below which most fish remain
unaffected by blast pressures is instantaneous pressure change (i.e. overpressure in the
swimbladder of a fish) of approximately 14.5 psi corresponding to the 100 kPa figure defined in
Canadian codes as the safe limit for marine species (Wright and Hopky 1998). Blast pressure
decreases as energy disperses from the source blast. Blast pressures limits have been established
for the project to provide for human safety; 5.8 psi at 2,500 feet from the blast point, and 19 psi
at the bulkhead gates to protect recently constructed structures. With a maximum initial blast of
100 psi, it could be expected that a psi pressure of 14.5 would not be achieved until a distance of
approximately 800 to 1000 feet away from the blast point is attained (Appendix E). As a result,
most fish within the blast area extending from the blast point to about 800 to 1000 feet, would
suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Most fish outside this distance would not incur lethal or
sublethal effects. Peak (or initial blasts), are not expected to exceed 100 psi in order to protect
human safety; smaller initial blasts to protect structures could also be expected that would result
in lesser underwater pressures producing a lesser amount of fish mortality. The contractor will
determine initial blasts to maintain human safety and structure protection thresholds. In a worst
case scenario, a 1,000 foot radius drawn from the blast point constitutes an affected blast zone
greater than 14.5 psi, where sublethal or lethal effects can be expected for most fish.
Considerable variation of blast effect would occur due to blasting techniques utilized and
existing environmental conditions. Effects to fish would vary with contractor choices regarding
blasting techniques, mitigations and frequency of blasts. The contractors blasting plan will be
reviewed by the Corps and regulatory agencies, with final approval provided by the Corps.
Sublethal or lethal effects are expected for fish, particularly those entrapped within silt curtains
during blasting. Though recommended for overall fish protection, contractors will determine
whether silt curtains used during blasting activity as a method to achieve State water threshold
standards. While this option by provides contractor flexibility, it may reduce other protections
that could be afforded for fish by silt curtain use. Lethal results are expected for fish entrained
within a standing silt curtain surrounding the blast point, but use of silt curtains around the blast
point would also serve to exclude most fish from the most impacted zone. Effective use of a silt
curtain during blasting could reduce pressure wave intensity by inhibiting or dampening
amplitude shock waves beyond the curtained area. The degree to which amplitudes can be
lessened by silt curtains, has not been quantified. While it would be less impacting to conduct
blasting when salmonids move to upstream locations, the project schedule is not expected to
accommodate seasonal fish movements.
Movement of species, fish quantity and seasonality of fish within the area is not
sufficiently known to provide quantitative estimates of potential fish mortality by species or
number. This information is currently incomplete and not available. Preblast sampling surveys
are reported to provide limited value in determining fish kill (Keevin and Hempen 1997) due to
variability of fish presence within the affected area. Seasonal use of the project area by varying
fish species is expected as water levels drop or rise and food sources and water temperatures
182
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
change. Environmental variables will cause variation in the species composition and numbers
within the project area that will be affected by blasting. However, the affected blast area is
relatively low in habitat quality as it lacks habitat elements for optimum fish reproduction and
development due to the lack of vegetation and cover. Quantification of salmonid juvenile and
larval fish use within the project area has not been conducted, but lower quality habitat is not
expected to attract high concentrations of fish within these life stages.
Blasting is not expected to affect fish in front of Folsom Dam adjacent to the project area,
but salmonids could be expected to pass through the blast zone more frequently during months of
high water temperature in order to reach the colder deeper waters directly in front of Folsom
Dam. As a result, salmonids could experience a higher degree of sublethal and lethal effects
during this period, and it is important that consistent fish kill monitoring be conducted during
this time. From the results of prior fish removal actions in the project area, it could be expected
that wakasagi would constitute the highest number of fish affected by project blasting.
Keevin and Hempen (1997) discussed blasting techniques to reduce fish mortality,
including stemming, blast delay and decking. Non-explosive acoustic deterrents to fish, could
be conducted as mitigation, but acoustic deterrents have varying success depending upon method
and fish species; in some cases, fish are attracted to the site (Corps 1995, Keevin and Hempen
1997). Acoustic and bubble curtain deterrents have been effectively utilized to deflect salmon
and other species from blasting zones, but these will not be utilized in the project as a result of
engineering decision. Explosive detonations to scare fish have shown varied results and often
result in sublethal injury or mortality. As a result, most state agencies with blasting regulations
prohibit explosive detonations as a scaring technique (Keevin and Hempen 1997).
Minimization measures to reduce blasting effects to aquatic species have been recommended and
some of these have been incorporated into the project, including decking, stemming, and time
delay of blast charges. Maximum water pressures achieved by the blast shots will be monitored
with a transducer recording system (Corps 2004). Pre-production test shots will be conducted to
ensure blast pressure thresholds of 5.8 psi at 2,500 feet and 19 psi at the bulkhead gates can be
achieved for production blasts. Blast plan review and monitoring of fish kill numbers, species
and size would be conducted with the coordination of CDFG. Surface collection of floating fish
would be executed to gain an index to blast-caused mortality and to prevent scavenging by birds
in the construction area. Recognition should be made, however, that floating fish recovered after
the blast would provide only a representation of mortality, because not all fish species float to the
surface after incurring sublethal and lethal effects. In addition, counts of floating fish can
provide an underestimate of mortality when physical collection fails in retrieving all carcasses.
Carcasses can be evade detection during collection efforts and can be difficult to access under
different conditions. Sublethal effects are not visually evident, do not normally float to the
surface, and usually remain undetected resulting in a miscount of actual mortality numbers.
Thresholds for fish mortality were not provided by regulatory agencies, but reinvestment into the
sport fishery has been requested by CDFG (J. Thomas 2011). At the request of CDFG, stocking
would be conducted by the Corps for 6,000 triploid rainbow trout to mitigate temporary effects
of angler displacement from the project and potential reduction of numbers of sport fish.
183
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The affecting blast radius of approximately 1,000 feet and the restricted fishing zone of 3,000
feet, constitutes less than 3 percent of the reservoir surface. Due to the relatively small size of
the blast affected area, and low fisheries habitat value within the blast zone, it is not expected
that sufficient numbers of fish will be effected by mitigated blasting to result in a substantial
change of diversity or numbers of aquatic species in Folsom Reservoir. Alteration of habitat and
the reduction of angler opportunities in Folsom Reservoir due to blasting will be temporary and
is not considered significant. No significant decrease in species diversity, habitat or recreational
fishing opportunity is expected within Folsom Reservoir as a result of blasting. With
implementation of BMPS and mitigation measures, the effect on fisheries due to blasting is
expected to be less-than-significant.
Bubble Curtains
A contractor option exists to utilize bubble curtains to reduce effects of blasting upon
aquatic species. The demonstrated effectiveness of stemming and bubble curtains suggests that
only minor fish damage or mortality would be expected (Keevin 1987). Bubble curtains are
considered a costly but considerably effective measure as they can reduce up to 98 percent of the
blast effect (T. Keevin pers. comm.). Because blasting operations would be conducted for up to
280 days, the extended period of blasting justifies the use of a bubble curtain for protection of the
aquatic system and recreational fishery resource. Air bubbles serve to increase compressibility
by several orders of magnitude, effectively reducing the velocity and increasing the attenuation
of acoustic waves. Blast energy intercepted by bubble curtains causes the bubbles to oscillate,
dissipating afterwards at a slower rate back into the aquatic environment primarily as heat.
Bubble curtains are created by injecting compressed air into horizontal pipes containing small
holes to release a continuous vertical rise of bubbles from the lakebed to the surface. Pipe
manifolds placed in an enclosed array around the explosive charges, provide an effective bubble
blanket that dampens the effects of the charges. The most effective bubble curtains are created
with numerous small holes that provide a dense release of bubbles (T. Keevin pers. comm.).
Chemical, Fuel and Oil Contamination
Alternative 2 has a higher risk for chemical contamination of aquatic life , due to the
increased period of in-thewet or underwater excavation, blasting and dredging.. Marine
equipment and in-water construction activity present risks of oil and fuel spills. Contaminants
could include occasional or remote small spills of oil and fuel from over-water fueling and
operation of boats and gas-powered equipment on-water. More remote risks of leakage from
drill hoses during drilling operations and contamination from materials present in blasting
explosives are possible. Substantial impacts to water quality and aquatic life could be sustained
with a large contaminant spill. Lack of appropriate containment material for a large oil or fuel
spill could result in unacceptable damage and mortality on fish. An uncontained contaminant
spill could cause direct mortality to fish, particularly in larval stages. Contamination of shallow
water breeding areas could affect years of reproduction of bass and other nesting species and
reduce numbers of game fish in Folsom Reservoir. With the improbable occurrence of an
uncontained large spill, indirect effects could occur that would decrease phytoplankton numbers
with a subsequent reduction both in fish and forage biomass.
184
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Silt curtains around aquatic construction activities could serve as secondary containment
devices; however, marine vessels and fueling activities would be most at risk for contributing oil
and fuel spills and would not be contained by silt curtains. Increased use of marine equipment
associated with the option to dispose excavation and dredging material into the lake will increase
the risk of chemical, fuel and oil contamination. Up to twenty marine vessels may be utilized
during the construction project, and weekly or daily fuel and gas line inspections would be
required for all vessels as well as hydraulics for cranes and other dredging equipment. Since
fueling of marine vessels presents the most risk for small fuel and oil spills, fueling operations
must be conducted over absorbent surfaces or within contained booms with spill materials on
hand. Compliance point monitoring for contaminant of concern for Folsom Reservoir, identified
under the CVRWQCB Basin Plan (CVRWQCB 1998) would be required as a condition of the
401 water Quality Certification. If elevated contaminant levels or low oxygen levels are found
at these points during project activities, mechanical controls such as using a closed bucket,
environmentally safer dredge, replacing drill hoses, or using environmentally safer fueling
methods may be necessary to reduce effects to aquatic life. Close adherence to outlined BMPs
(Section 4.5.6) and required spill containment equipment is expected to reduce risk of
contaminant introduction into Folsom Reservoir. Efficient containment measures and materials
would be required for all construction activities. Adherence to Section 401 Water Quality
Certification requirements and BMPs would reduce risk of contamination to an acceptable risk
and less-than-significant effects with mitigation are expected to fish populations, habitat or
recreational fishing opportunities.
Physical crushing
Incidental physical crushing of fish could result from entrapment of fish and placement of
fill material, dredging, dredging, air lift operation, and underwater blasting. Alternative 2
presents the highest risk of damage or mortality to fish because it involves the greatest amount of
underwater excavation. Most fish could be excluded from crushing actions due to the presence
of an optional silt curtain, however, placement of rock into the lake for the spur dike and
transload facility could crush small numbers of fish that enter silt curtains and become entrained
or entrapped. Operation of the air lift to remove dredge and blast debris could vacuum up fish
within or without a silt curtain enclosure.
In addition, hydraulic dredging could crush fish. Hydraulic dredging would also cause
lethal effects to fish and other aquatic organisms by entrainment into the suction dredging pipes.
Protective actions are recommended for hydraulic equipment to prevent fish intake into hydraulic
dredging pipes, but the cutter head attachment precludes deterrence into the hydraulic pipe.
Numbers and species of entrained fish can be monitored by inserting a screen or 3/8 inch
diameter punch-holed steel plate over an outlet tube (Corps 2012). Larval fish, in particular are
susceptible to entrainment by hydraulic dredging and these fish would be expected to incur
higher mortality than subadult or adult fish.
In the event that substantial numbers of fish are trapped between the control structure and
the rock plug due to high lake levels, fish rescue would be conducted to avoid injury or
mortality. Fish entrainment by construction vessel propwash would be minimized by limiting
boat speeds. Sufficient amounts of fish mortality due to physical crushing are not expected to
185
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
affect fish populations and angler opportunities. Effects upon Folsom Lake fish populations and
angler opportunity from crushing are expected to be less-than-significant with mitigation.

Alternative 3 would incur the same effects as listed under Alternative 2 but with a
reduced amount of risk for adverse effects. The smaller amount of underwater or in-the-wet
construction afforded by the construction of a cofferdam, and the risk of potential adverse effects
upon aquatic organisms would be decreased in Alternative 3. Cofferdam construction would
reduce the length of underwater construction in the approach channel by 300 feet and require less
substrate removal (64,300 cy) conducted by blasting and dredging in-the-wet. These
construction actions would be conducted in a shortened time period of 45 days in-the-wet versus
up to180 days for Alternative 3.
Similar turbidity effects due to blasting and dredging under Alternative 2 would be
produced for Alternative 3, but with a reduced magnitude relative to a shorter in-the-wet
construction period. Likewise, reduced effects or risk of effects would be expected in for
bioaccumulation, and acoustic based injury and displacement. A reduced risk of incidental fish
loss due to combined construction activities would be expected under Alternative 3. Also, under
this alternative, risk is reduced for gas and oil contamination of water during excavation and
dredging activity. Effects upon the Folsom Lake fish populations and sport fishing opportunity
is expected to be less-than-significant.
Cofferdam construction
Several construction actions unique to Alternative 2 could contribute additional effects on
aquatic species. Turbidity would result from coffer dam construction within the lakebed. As in
Alternative 2, use of a turbidity curtain and continual monitoring to meet state and federal
mandates would control silt that would otherwise affect fish and other aquatic organisms.
Incidental crushing of fish could result during construction of the cofferdam due to underwater
installation of metal sheeting, rock fill, and removal of the cofferdam after project completion.
Fish rescue could be necessary to remove fish trapped within cells or behind the cells as the
approach channel is drained. Based upon previous dewatering experiences, wakasagi smelt and
small bass could be expected to be the primary fish trapped in the project area.
Water contained within the cofferdam would be expected to exceed the temperature level
of the reservoir and could reach sublethal levels. Release of warm cofferdam water into the
reservoir could cause a temporary increase in blue green algae. To avoid adverse effects during
cofferdam dewatering, warm water discharge to the reservoir would be cooled with a spray
system to maximize evaporative cooling and dilute the warm water over a larger area. Water
returned to the lake would not be allowed to exceed existing reservoir temperatures by more than
five degrees Celsius. These actions would reduce or remove potential adverse temperature
effects for fish.
186
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
In Alternative 3, sheet piles for construction of the cofferdam would be drive by a

vibratory hammer. Vibratory hammers use oscillatory hammers that vibrate the pile, causing
sediment to liquefy and allow pile penetration. Peak sound pressure levels for vibratory
hammers can exceed 180 dB. This range is diagnostic for direct trauma due to high amplitude
shockwaves; however, the sound from these hammers rises relatively slowly, generally
producing an impact that is lower than pile driving (Caltrans 2009). Vibratory pile driving also
produces sustained, versus intermittent, sound during sheet metal installation. In the absence of
established thresholds for vibratory hammers, decibels between 187 and 220 dB have been
assessed (Caltrans 2009) as a relative measurement of decibels associated with vibratory driving.
Pile driving activities that utilize pile drivers with power ratings between 136 to 203 kilojoules
are expected to generate noise levels underwater near 188 to 189 dB RMS at a distance of 328
feet (100 meters) from the pile driver. Sheet pile construction sound attenuation would be
mitigated below NMFS thresholds and is not expected to produce significant effects to fish and
special status species. Construction actions specific to the cofferdam alternative would not cause
significant effects to fish, habitat or special status species found within Folsom Reservoir.
Table 40. Summary and Comparison of Fisheries Effects and Significance.

Environmental Effects/Consequences
Alternative 1
Change diversity or numbers of fish

Adverse alteration of fish habitat
Effects on special status species
Reduce game fish populations
NE
NE
NE
NE

LTSWM
LTSWM
NE
LTSWM
LTS: Less-than-significant LTSWM: Less-than-significant With Mitigation
Alternative 3
Cofferdam
LTSWM
LTSWM
NE
LTSWM
NE: No Effect
4.5.6 Mitigation
The following section addresses mitigation measures and potential BMPs that would be
conducted to reduce effects to fish populations and habitat. Additional mitigation to address
turbidity, storm water runoff, fuel containment and oil spills are addressed under water quality in
Section 4.4.6.
Aquatic construction equipment and boats would be decontaminated of invasive species

prior to placement in Folsom Lake per approval by CDFG. One month prior to
placement of construction vessels in Folsom Lake, the contractor will coordinate with
CDFG to discuss invasive species quagga and zebra mussel decontamination and
inspection species. A decontamination period of up to one month may be required on
vessels originating from infested water bodies.
Speeds would be limited for construction vessels (dredges, barges) to 2 knots or less
when approaching or operating in dredging locations. Smaller support vessels carrying
personnel and supplies would be limited to 5 knots.
The contractors blasting plan would be coordinated with regulatory agencies and
approved by the Corps to reduce adverse blast effects to aquatic organisms.
187
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Surface fish kill would be collected to avoid bird scavenging and to conduct surface
monitoring of fish. Assessment of numbers, size and species would be conducted by a
qualified fisheries specialist to provide an index of blast caused mortality. These results
would be reported to CDFG within the first 24 hours after blasting.
The contractor would record maximum water pressures achieved by the blast shots by a
transducer recording system to ensure compliance with blast thresholds.
Total mercury monitoring would be conducted for water and sentinel species by a
qualified specialist. USFWS and regulatory agencies would be advised of levels in water
and sentinel organisms..
Fish would be removed as possible from enclosed areas subjected to construction

activity. Fish would be recovered and relocated as possible from dewatered construction
areas.
A monitoring plan would be implemented to evaluate turbidity effects on fish within the
project area. Monitor turbidity levels at limnetic, profundal and benthic zones in the
project area as specified by the CVRWQCB. Turbidity levels must not increase to effect
summer salmon habitat in front of Folsom Dam. Additional monitoring of turbidity
levels are to be conducted in front of Folsom Dam from June through October to ensure
turbidity levels do not exceed CVRWQCB thresholds. This monitoring will be
conducted by the Corps.
Regulatory agencies and the Corps would implement a stocking program in Folsom Lake to
compensate for lost angler opportunity and fish incurring mortality from project effects. At a
minimum, approximately 6,000 catchable size triploid rainbow trout will be purchased by the
Corps and stocked in Folsom Lake. Fish restocking numbers and species composition will be
subject to change to compensate for mortality and recreational fishing losses. The following
mitigation measures are relevant to impacts, but will likely not be required by the Corps.
However, the selected contractor will be encouraged to implement these measures where
practicable:
Silt curtains should be installed at excavation, in-water disposal, dredging, blasting, and
fill placement sites as a method to comply with CVRWQB Section 401 turbidity
thresholds and exclude fish from the blast point. Use of this mitigation method will be
decided by the contractor, but is expected in order to achieve compliance with CVRWQB
Section 401 turbidity thresholds.
Charges should be placed in drilled holes with stemming utilizing adequate angular
material to reduce energy dispersal to the environment. Use of this mitigation will be
decided by the contractor.
The blasting plan should be designed to minimize the weight of explosive charges per
delay and the number of days of explosive exposure. Use of this mitigation would be
Explosives should be subdivided using delays to reduce total pressure. Use of this
mitigation will be decided by the contractor.
Where possible use decking in drill holes to reduce total pressure. Use of this mitigation
would be decided by the contractor.
188
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Use shaped charges for superficial charges to focus the blast energy, reducing energy
released to the aquatic environment during demolition. Use of this mitigation will be
Blasting arrays should be configured with maximum charge weights located in the
middles of lesser charge weights as decided by the contractor.
Conduct continuous monitoring on sublethal and lethal blast effects on fish. Conduct
adaptive management to reduce effects of blasting on fish if significance thresholds for
sublethal and lethal effects established by CDFG, USFWS and the Corps are exceeded.
Bubble curtains are recommended for use during blasting and vibratory hammer use in
under water construction. Bubble curtains, when effective, could reduce the velocity of
sound waves and increase sound attenuation
If bubble curtains are implemented, clean air compressors would be used without oil or
contaminants.
Acoustic fish scare methods are an option and may be used prior to blasting as a deterrent
to fish within the blast affected area if determined to be effective. If pre-blast deterrence
is used, non-detonated methods such as decompressed air are recommended; detonated
blasts can cause harm to aquatic organisms and are not recommended.
Install and adjust silt curtains to prevent incidental fish passage. Erect additional barriers
as needed to eliminate potential fish passage during installation and adjustment of silt
curtains. Use effective acoustic noise where appropriate to discourage fish from the
curtain area. Utilize other materials as necessary to prevent incidental fish passage.
When possible, schedule blasting during months when salmonids are using upstream
tributaries (e.g. February through June for rainbow trout) and exclude blasting during
summer months when some species (e.g. salmon) utilize colder water directly in front of
the Folsom Dam. It is unlikely that this mitigation measure will be implemented due to
project schedule constraints.
Blasting methodology will be adapted to reduce game and native fish mortality if fish kill
numbers are above an acceptable threshold established by regulatory agencies and the
Corps.
Submerge the dredge cutterhead within the substrate to the maximum extent practical
when the dredge pumps are engaged, and utilize a slow rotation speed where feasible.
Utilize entrainment lessening equipment where applicable on hydraulic dredging

apparatus to minimize fish kill.
Cutterheads would be no greater than 3 feet from the lakebed floor when cleaning the
pipeline. Pipeline clearing will be kept to the minimum amount necessary.
189
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

This section presents and compares potential adverse effects to aesthetics and visual
resources as compared to the existing conditions discussed in Section 3.6. Potential temporary
and permanent effects could result from the construction of the alternatives described in Chapter
2. Potentially adverse effects are discussed with respect to changes in the scenic attractiveness,
as well as the number and sensitivity of affected viewers. The methodology for this analysis is
described below.
Visual resources could be temporarily affected by construction equipment and excavated
materials processing facilities. Visual resources could be permanently impacted by disposal
areas, the transload facility, spur dike, and approach channel. Table 41 below includes a
summary of the potential effects and their significance.
4.6.1 Methodology
Analysis of the impacts was based on evaluation of the changes to the existing visual
resources that would result from implementation of the project. In making a determination of the
extent and implications of the visual changes, consideration was given to:
Specific changes in the visual composition, character, and valued qualities of the affected
environment;
The visual context of the affected environment;
The extent to which the affected environment contained places or features that have been
designated in plans and policies for protection or special consideration; and
The numbers of viewers, their activities, and the extent to which these activities are
related to the aesthetic qualities affected by the project-related changes.
Potential receptors in the area include motorists and bicyclists viewing the project from
the road, residents viewing the project from homes on the surrounding hillsides, and boaters and
other water based recreationists viewing the project from the reservoir. All groups of viewers
were taken into account during analysis of impacts.
The visual sensitivity of the receptors at each of the project areas is a major factor to be
considered during the aesthetics analysis. The residents near the project area are rated as the
highest sensitivity receptors because of the long-term, constant nature of their exposure to the
visual changes in the project area. Recreationists are also considered highly sensitive, because
they come to the areas for extended durations to enjoy the scenery and relax. The commuter
traffic along Folsom Lake Crossing has a reduced sensitivity to the construction, because they
have fewer viewing opportunities from the road, and the duration of their viewing is short.
190
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, a proposed alternative would result in a potentially
significant impact to aesthetics and visual resources if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings; or,
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.

Under the no action alternative, the Corps and the CVFPB would not participate in the
excavation of the approach channel and, therefore, would not cause any additional effects to
visual resources. Under this alternative, the conditions in the project area would remain
consistent with current conditions. The haul route, Dike 7, MIAD disposal site, and Folsom
Overlook would remain highly disturbed and of low aesthetic quality.
There would be no indirect effects associated with construction of Alternative 2. Direct
effects that would result from this alternative include the temporary effect of ongoing
construction activities due to equipment, boats, and haul trucks operating in the area, the
permanent effect of the change in shoreline due to construction of the approach channel and spur
dike, and the potentially permanent disposal of material in the proposed disposal areas. These
effects are discussed in greater detail below.
Construction of the cutoff wall would create a temporary effect to aesthetics and visual
resources due to the amount of equipment necessary for construction of the wall. Equipment
necessary for construction of the cutoff wall would include large drills, trucks, and the operation
of a concrete batch plant and rock crusher. The drills and trucks would be present on the rock
plug throughout the duration of construction of the cutoff wall, and would be visible to
recreationists on the lake, as well as drivers and bikers using Folsom Lake Crossing. However,
while the use of this equipment would be a visual effect during construction, it would also be
consistent with the existing condition at the Folsom Overlook, rock plug, and auxiliary spillway
site, as these areas are currently in use for construction of the control structure. As a result of
both the temporary nature of this feature, and the ongoing activity at the project area,
construction of the cutoff wall would be considered a less-than-significant effect on aesthetics
and visual resources.
191
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Approach Channel and Spur Dike

Excavation of the approach channel would also consist of a temporary effect associated
with the operation of various types of construction equipment. Much of the excavation activities
would be shielded from the view of sensitive receptors on Folsom Lake Crossing and Folsom
Lake by the rock plug and the control structure, however, cranes and trucks would be visible on
the Folsom Overlook and rock plug during in-the-dry excavation. Additionally, barges would be
operating on the lake during in-the-wet excavation, and the excavation area would be visually
exposed to boaters on the lake. The operation of construction equipment, while a temporary
effect, is considered less-than-significant as it is consistent with existing conditions in the project
area during ongoing construction of the control structure.
Construction of the spur dike would permanently modify the shape of the shoreline.
However, the existing condition of the shoreline is of a low visual quality due to the unvegetated,
riprapped slopes of the Folsom Overlook area. Construction of the spur dike would consist of an
expansion of the Overlook area, and would remain visually consistent with the Overlook. Like
the Overlook, the spur dike would likely remain unvegetated, with riprapped banks. As a result,
the construction of the spur dike would not contrast dramatically with the existing views, and
would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
The approach channel would also consist of a permanent modification to the existing
shoreline. The majority of the approach channel would be submerged after completion, except at
low lake levels. Yearly fluctuations in reservoir levels will vary this visual parameter. During
years of high precipitation, reservoir levels would be retained at a high level throughout the
summer until release in the fall season in order to provide capacity for incoming winter flows.
However, during years of low precipitation, the low reservoir levels would result in an exposed
approach channel, which would be of extremely low visual quality.
While the approach channel is considered a permanent change to the shoreline, and thus a
potentially adverse effect, the southern shore of Folsom Lake is of a low visual quality due to the
presence of Folsom Dam. As a result, the permanent change of the approach channel would be
considered consistent with the overall aesthetic quality of the southern shore of Folsom Lake,
and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site.
Therefore, effects to aesthetics from the construction of the approach channel would be
considered less-than-significant.
Haul Route, Dike 7, and Transload Facility
The haul route is located along the shoreline from the Folsom Overlook to the MIAD
disposal area, and is part of the projects existing condition. Use of the haul route would be
visible by recreationists on the lake, the residents on the hills above Dike 7, and in some rare
cases, by drivers on East Natoma Street. Views of the trucks on the haul route are considered a
temporary effect throughout the duration of project construction, as they will be occurring
intermittently throughout construction. Aesthetic effects due use of the haul route would remain
consistent with the analysis from the 2007 FEIS/EIR.
192
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Dike 7 is located halfway between Folsom Overlook and the MIAD disposal area, and
has been actively used as a disposal site throughout the multi-phase JFP construction. As a
result, aesthetically, the use of Dike 7 as a disposal area is consistent with existing conditions at
the start of the approach channel construction effort. Aesthetic effects due to use of the Dike 7
disposal area would be consistent with the analysis from the 2007 FEIS/EIR.
The temporary transload facility would be constructed adjacent to Dike 7, and would be
considered an effect to the views for the residents above Dike 7 and for recreationists at Folsom
Point and on the lake. Up to 200,000 cy of fill would be deposited in the reservoir to create a
ramp, which would modify the shoreline. However, as the southern shoreline of Folsom Lake is
highly disturbed and modified due to the flood control facilities associated with Folsom Dam and
Dike 7, this effect would not be considered a substantial degradation to the shoreline. Since the
transload facility would be removed at the conclusion of the project, this effect would be
considered less-than-significant.
Activities at the transload facility would include the loading and unloading of material
using barges, cranes, and trucks for up to nine hours per day during construction. Barges in
transit to and from the transload facility would be visible to the residents above Dike 7 and to
recreationists at Folsom Point and on the lakebed. However, since this is a temporary effect that
would be present intermittently during in-the-wet excavation, this effect would not have a
substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas associated with Folsom Lake and is considered
less-than-significant.
MIAD and Dike 8 Disposal Areas
The MIAD disposal area is visible to residents in the neighborhoods on Green Valley
Road and East Natoma Street, as well as shoppers at the strip malls at the intersection of these
two streets. Additionally, the Dike 8 disposal area would be visible to residents on Nature Way,
as well as from the Folsom Point Church on East Natoma Street. A large volume of soil could be
deposited at MIAD or Dike 8, permanently affecting views in their vicinities.
The deposited materials would contrast with the existing landscape during temporary
disposal activities, and would permanently alter the natural landscape after the completion of
construction. Since the view from these neighborhoods is of the hills, disposal of material at
MIAD would not substantially alter the residents long-term viewshed. With implementation of
the mitigation discussed below, disposal at MIAD and Dike 8 would be considered to have a
less-than-significant effect on aesthetics.
Alternative 3 would temporarily affect views and temporarily limit viewing opportunities
from the south end of the reservoir. Direct and indirect effects associated with Alternative 3
would be the same as Alternative 2 at the MIAD disposal area, Dike 7, Dike 8, spur dike, and the
haul road. The transload facility would be active for a longer period of time during construction
under this alternative, since it would be a necessary feature for construction of the cofferdam at
193
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
the beginning of project construction, as well as for the removal of material during in-the-wet
excavation.
Under Alternative 3, the viewshed at the Folsom Overlook would be temporarily altered
during construction. Construction equipment, traffic, and activities will be visible from the
homes on the hillside and Folsom Lake Crossing. The cofferdam would be an additional
engineered feature in the reservoir beside the Folsom Overlook area. The cofferdam, as a
freestanding structure, would shield recreationists on the lake and at Folsom Point from viewing
the excavation area. However, the haul route would be routed over the cofferdam, connecting
the Folsom Overlook area to the haul road during excavation of the rock plug. As a result, there
would be a temporary visual impact to recreationists from trucks and other equipment on the
crown of the cofferdam. Since effects associated with the cofferdam are temporary, and the area
is highly disturbed, this would not be considered a substantial alteration of the overall visual
character of the area.
Table 41. Comparison of Aesthetics Effects and Significance.
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Impacts/Consequences
No Action
Cutoff Wall
Alternative 3
Cofferdam
Temporary Effects
Transload facility would
temporarily modify shoreline.
Staging and stockpile would affect
views from road, reservoir, and
residences.
Construction activities would limit
access to viewing opportunities on
reservoir.
Cofferdam would obstruct views
from Folsom Lake Crossing road
and Folsom reservoir.
Cutoff wall or cofferdam would
affect views from residences.
Excavation would affect views
from reservoir.
from the road.
from residences
Construction activities and
equipment for cutoff wall or
cofferdam would affect views from
the road, reservoir, and residences.
NE
LTS
LTS
NE
LTS
LTS
NE
LTS
LTS
NE
NE
LTS
NE
NE
NE
NE
LTS
NE
NE
LTS
LTS
NE
NE
NE
NE
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Permanent Effects
Spur dike would permanently alter
the shoreline.
NE
194
Environmental
Impacts/Consequences
Approach Channel would
permanently alter the shoreline.
Disposal would result in additional
earth at disposal sites
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Cutoff Wall
Alternative 3
Cofferdam
NE
LTS
LTS
NE
LTSWM
LTSWM
LTS: Less-than-significant LTSWM: Less-than-significant With Mitigation
NE: No Effect
4.6.6 Mitigation
The primary effects described above are associated with the disposal of soil. There is the
potential that some of this soil would be used by USBR for construction of a large landside berm
at the auxiliary dam, however, it is assumed that not all of the material at the disposal sites would
be reused. As a result, the excess material would be recontoured and landscaped to maintain
visual consistency with the surrounding hills. The contractor would revegetate the disposal areas
with native grasses to provide ground cover, erosion control, and to allow it to regain some
aesthetic consistency with the surrounding areas.
Additionally, since the approach channel is the final phase of the overall JFP, the haul
road would be removed following project construction. The area would be regraded and
revegetated with native grasses to return the area to a natural state consistent with the shoreline
of Folsom Lake.
4.7 RECREATION
4.7.1 Methodology
The FLSRA supports a diverse range of outdoor recreation activities and opportunities.
Impacts on recreations are evaluated qualitatively based on temporary and permanent changes to
those resources that would occur with the implementation of the project. In making a
determination of the extent and implications of recreational changes, consideration was given to:
The closure or reduced public availability to recreational sites and access points;
Truck traffic and construction activities interfering with recreation activities and access
points;
Require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities.
Potential receptors in the area include staff, day use recreationist, campers, boaters and
other water based recreationists. All recreational groups were taken into account during analysis
of impacts.
195
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

The alternatives under consideration would result in a significant impact related to
recreation if they would:
Substantially restrict or reduce the availability or quality of existing recreational

facilities and opportunities in the project vicinity;
Implement operational or construction-related activities that would cause a substantial

long-term disruption of any institutionally recognized recreational activities; or
Displace recreation from sites affected by construction would substantially contribute

to overcrowding or exceed the facility capacity at other recreation sites (including
sites within the FLSRA).

Under the No Action Alternative, the Corps and the CVFPB would not participate in
construction of the proposed alternatives; therefore, the project would not disturb existing
recreational opportunities. The conditions at FLSRA would remain similar to existing
conditions. The public would have continued use of the FLSRA without any closures or access
restrictions.
4.7.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff wall

During construction, the waters around the spur dike, approach channel, and transload
facility would be excluded from public access due to safety concerns. The contractor would be
required to construct a physical barrier 3,000 feet from the blast zone which would be maintained
throughout the construction period. Buoys would be installed from approximately Dike 7 to the
Overlook to rope off restrict waters. The safety exclusion boundary would permit access from
the Folsom Point boat access. Because the approach to Folsom Point launch site would be
reduced during low water levels, a safety route and boat hazards will be identified by floating
markers as needed. Recreational boats may need to reduce speeds upon launch point entry when
water levels drop. The Bureau normally closes Folsom Point launch to the public when the lake
level drops to 405 feet (General Plan 2007). The safety exclusion boundary is shown on Figure
17. Boat patrols would be required before, during and immediately after blasts. Construction
would begin in 2013 and continue through 2017. Upon completion of the project the waters in
front of the approach channel would remain blocked off from public use for security reasons.
The surface area of Folsom Lake at gross pool is 11,450 acres (USBR 2009). The safety
exclusion boundary from Dike 7 to Folsom Overlook would be approximately 295 acres which is
less than 3% of Folsom Lakes surface area. Recreation access and reservoir levels would not be
affected by the recreation safety boundary. The safety boundary is not expected to change as
reservoir levels change. Thus, the exclusion of this area from public access is not a substantial
196
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
reduction in the water based recreational opportunities available at the FLSRA. During
construction there would be no impacts to trails or camping facilities. As a result, long-term
effects to recreational activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Direct effects associated with implementation of Alternative 2 include limiting
recreational activities near Folsom Dam, as discussed above, which would be less-thansignificant. Potential indirect effects could be associated with the relocation of those activities to
other local recreation areas. Increased usage at other local recreation areas could potentially
cause wear and tear to recreational facilities. However, all existing recreational areas near the
construction area, including Folsom Point, would remain open during construction. The area
limited by construction area is minimal, so it is assumed that the majority of the recreation
activity would not change. As a result, indirect effects associated with the construction of
Alternative 2 would be less-than-significant. In addition, potential visitors use declines when
lake levels fall between 435 feet and 400 feet in elevation (General Plan 2007) due to limited
access. Beals Point becomes impacted when lake levels reach 430 feet, Granite Bay becomes
out of service at 425 feet, and boats must be removed from the slips at the Marina at 412 feet,
and Folsom Point closes when water levels reach 405 feet (GP 2007). Therefore as lake levels
decline, fewer water based recreationalist would be affected by the safety boundary. During
construction there would be no impacts to trails or camping facilities. As a result, long-term
effects to recreational activities would be considered less than significant.
Day Use Facilities
During off-peak seasons, recreational use within the FLSRA is generally low; therefore,
construction would not cause major restrictions to recreation. During peak summer season,
recreational use is high on weekdays and on weekends. All recreation access points to FLSRA
would not be interrupted during the construction period. Picnic facilities, restrooms, boat
launches, and recreational facilities would remain accessible to the public. Internal haul routes
would be used by trucks to reduce impacts to recreationist entering the FLSRA. Construction
traffic would occur during the scheduled hours indentified in Section 2.4.6.
Folsom Point would be used for the initial launch site to begin construction of the
transload facility. Construction of the transload facility would begin in May 2013. The Corps
would coordinate with USBR and/or State Parks for use of Folsom Point. Use of the site would
be short term (6 to 8 hours) and temporary. The Corps would minimize use of Folsom Point
during peak visitor hours. As a result, any short-term effects would be considered less-thansignificant.
197
~ Feet
0
500 1,000 1,500
.\
-l
N
3,000 Foot Boundary
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Figure 17- Recreation and Blast Safety Boundary
198

December 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Camping
Camping facilities would remain open during construction. Construction would not
occur near the campgrounds or result in any closure of camping facilities. Traffic and noise from
construction activities would not affect camping facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts
would occur. Further discussion regarding noise effects to the Beals Point Campground is
included in the noise analysis in Section 4.9.
Recreational Trails
There would be no permanent construction-related closures to recreational trails during
the construction period. However, the excavation of the approach channel and rock plug would
require use of explosives, causing the temporary closure of Folsom Lake Crossing, including the
bike trail associated with the Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge. The blasting could occur once a day
between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., over 44 months (estimated February 2014 to October 2017).
There would be additional provisions for a second blast in the morning between 10:00 a.m. and
11:00 a.m. The blasting would require an encroachment permit from the City of Folsom. The
contractor would coordinate with the City of Folsom and provide adequate notification to the
public, include signage, prior to beginning blasting. Since the closures would be temporary in
nature (no longer than one hour), consistently scheduled, and proper notification would occur,
any short-term effects would be considered less-than-significant.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would have similar direct and indirect effects and levels
of significance as Alternative 2. Recreational activities between Folsom Dam and Dike 7 would
be restricted. The waters around the spur dike location, transload facility, and approach channel
would be excluded from public access during construction. Construction of the transload facility
would begin May 2013. The area from Dike 7 to Folsom Overlook would remain blocked off
from public use for security reasons upon completion of the project. As in Alternative 2, Folsom
Point would be used for the initial launch site to begin construction of the transload facility.
During construction there would be no impacts to trails or camping facilities, and therefore no
significant effects would occur.
4.7.6 Mitigation
The following measure would be taken to keep the public informed of the project and
reduce effects on recreational activities.
To ensure public safety, warning signs and signs restricting access would be posted
before and during construction, as necessary. Public outreach will be conducted through
mailings, posting signs, coordination with interested groups, and meetings, if necessary,
in order to provide information regarding changes to recreational access in and around
199
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Folsom Lake. Public outreach would also explain the purpose of the safety exclusion
barrier around the blast site and the effects that underwater blasting can have on people if
they are in the water and in range of the blast.
At low water levels, a safety route and hazards will be marked for recreational boaters
access into Folsom Point launch area as needed.
With the implementation of these measures, any effects to recreation would be considered
less-than-significant and no further mitigation would be required.
4.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

This section presents an assessment of the potential traffic effects during the construction
of the proposed project.
4.8.1 Methodology
This analysis considers the range of foreseeable traffic conditions on roadways in and
near the project area and identifies the primary ways that construction of the project could affect
existing traffic conditions. This analysis focuses on construction-related traffic effects and
effects of implementing the action alternatives on existing roadways. Therefore, any incremental
transportation impacts associated with the project are limited to the proposed construction years.
The project is expected to be under construction from 2013 through 2017. On-site haul routes
were not analyzed since they are not considered part of the public roadway network system.
Available literature, including documents published by Federal, State, county, and city
agencies that document traffic conditions, were reviewed for this analysis. The information
obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to establish existing conditions and
to identify potential environmental effects based on the significance criteria presented below.
This analysis evaluates the existing conditions of the project area roadways, as well as,
the peak construction year traffic. Two components of traffic growth are typically considered
when evaluating future year conditions. First, an annual background growth rate is determined
based on historical data. Second, any increase in traffic volumes expected from approved
development projects are added into the network.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Projections Data Set, approved
by the Board of Directors December 16, 2004 (SACOG 2004), has been utilized to develop an
appropriate growth rate. According to the projections, the area is generally expected to
experience a growth rate of 2% or less per year beyond 2010. Therefore, a conservative annual
growth rate for the local routes has been selected as 2% per year compounded through 2017.
Effects associated with potential developments in the vicinity of the project area are already
incorporated into the population, household and job growth rates used to develop the 2 percent
growth rate. Consequently, only the growth rate would be applied to each construction year with
no additional development project-specific traffic volume increases.
200
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The roadway network adjacent to the construction access and a site is well developed
with multiple access patterns. There are two basic categories of traffic accessing the site 1) daily
workers and staff and 2) material deliveries and hauling operations due to earthwork activities.
The daily workers would access the site via the adjacent roadway network depending on their
origin and destinations.
Traffic effects associated with the project are evaluated in two ways; one regarding
average daily traffic and two, in terms of specific time periods during the day (i.e., hourly basis,
as needed). The analysis is based on the following criteria:
Material hauling activity would occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 7pm.
Equipment hauling activity would occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 7pm.
The construction schedule would be 10 hrs a day, 6 days per week, except dredging and
underwater drilling for which double shifts. The 24 hours shifts schedule may be
requested under special requirements to meet the schedule, or other special
circumstances; double shifts schedule would be temporary and short-term.
All material excavated would be hauled and disposed of on-site at the proposed disposal
areas. Any other vehicles using the site due to earthwork operations and heavy materials and
equipment deliveries are expected to access the site via one of two approved and pre-determined
haul routes, one from I-80 and one from Highway 50 (Figure 18). The route originating from I80 would proceed south to Sierra College Boulevard, east on Douglas Boulevard, then south on
Auburn-Folsom Road towards the project site and vice-versa. The route originating from
Highway 50 would be via East Bidwell Street, Oak Avenue, Blue Ravine Road to East Natoma
Street and vice-versa. The aforementioned project haul routes are consistent with city and
county designated truck routes. Additionally, no trucks are allowed to use Auburn-Folsom Road
north of Douglas Boulevard.
Due to the nature of the excavations and earthwork, blasting operations would be
required. Current construction activities associated with the spillways control structure are
implementing blasting techniques. The anticipated blasting operations for the approach channel
excavation are detailed in Section 2.4. Blasting would be conducted during off-peak periods, at
consistent times during the day, and would be permitted through the City of Folsom.

Project alternatives under consideration would result in a significant impact related to
traffic and circulation if they would:
Substantially increase traffic in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the
roadway system.
Substantially disrupt the flow and/or travel time of traffic.

201
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Exceed the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) significance threshold of 50 or

more new peak-direction trips during the peak hour.
Expose people to significant public safety hazards resulting from construction activities
on or near the public road system.
Reduce supply of parking spaces sufficiently to increase demand above supply.

Under Alternative 1, the Corps would not participate in construction of the proposed
alternatives; therefore, the project would not create addition traffic around the project area. The
existing roadway network, types of traffic, and circulation patterns would be expected to increase
traffic by 2% each year. Table 42 shows the increase in traffic based on normal growth due to
other unrelated development projects, general population job and household growth in the area.
The resultant roadway LOS was based on the roadway capacity thresholds summarized in Table
13 in Section 3.8. Table 42 indicates the pre-project roadway segment LOS conditions under
Alternative 1 (by year baseline conditions).
202
Miles
6
N
HWY 50
LEGEN D
- - Hwy 50 Approved Haul Route
Teichert Aggregates,
;::::=:--------Prairie City Borrow Area
- - I..SO Appcove<i H aul Rout e
Materials Route
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
,.}';
Figure 18- Project Transportation Routes
203

December 2012
Table 42. Existing and Baseline LOS Results.

Roadway Segment
Douglas Boulevard Barton Rd
to Folsom-Auburn Rd
Folsom-Auburn Road Douglas
Blvd to Folsom Dam Rd
Folsom-Auburn Road Folsom
Lake Crossing to Greenback Ln
Folsom Boulevard Greenback
Ln to Iron Point Rd
Greenback Lane Natoma Street
to Folsom Boulevard/Folsom
Auburn Road2
Greenback Lane - Hazel Ave to
Madison Ave
East Natoma Street Cimmaron
Cir to Folsom Lake Crossing
East Natoma Street Folsom
Lake Crossing to Green Valley
Rd
Green Valley Road East
Natoma St to Sophia Pwy
Oak Avenue Parkway Blue
Ravine Rd to East Bidwell St
East Bidwell Street Clarksville
Rod to Iron Point Rd
Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue
Pwy to Green Valley Rd
U.S. 50 Hazel Ave to Folsom
Blvd1
U.S. 50 - Folsom Blvd to East
Bidwell St1
U.S. 50 East Bidwell St to
County line1
I-80 north of Douglas Blvd1
I-80 Douglas Blvd to
Greenback Ln1
I-80 south of Greenback Ln1
Year 2011 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Year 2013 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Year 2014 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Year 2015 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Year 2016 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Year 2017 Traffic

Volumes
Traffic
LOS
Volumes
Function
al
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
4AD
35,400
44,806
46,598
47,494
48,390
49,287
50,183
4AD
37,400
44,918
46,715
47,613
48,511
49,410
50,308
4AD
37,400
36,335
37,788
38,515
39,242
39,969
40,695
4AD
37,400
42,131
43,816
44,659
45,501
46,344
47,187
2A
18,700
52,281
54,372
55,418
56,463
57,509
58,555
4AMD
36,000
26,861
27,935
28,473
29,010
29,547
30,084
4AU
28,900
18,502
19,242
19,612
19,982
20,352
20,722
4AU
28,900
30,205
31,413
32,017
32,621
33,226
33,830
4AU
28,900
35,667
37,094
37,807
38,520
39,234
39,947
6AD
56,000
24,744
25,734
26,229
26,724
27,218
27,713
6AD
56,000
43,803
45,555
46,431
47,307
48,183
49,059
4AD
37,400
21,734
22,603
23,038
23,473
23,907
24,342
4FA
89,800
130,183
135,390
137,994
140,598
143,201
145,805
4F
71,400
110,344
114,758
116,965
119,172
121,378
123,585
4F
71,400
91,284
94,935
96,761
98,587
100,412
102,238
4AHD
6F
40,000
107,100
29,425
156,060
C
F
30,602
162,302
C
F
31,191
165,424
C
F
31,779
168,545
C
F
32,368
171,666
D
F
32,956
174,787
D
F
6F
107,100
182,580
189,883
193,535
197,186
200,838
204,490
6F
107,100
190,000
197,600
201,400
205,200
209,000
212,800
Note : Year 2011 traffic volumes from Folsom Control Structure study - calculated from 2010 ADTs (Average Daily Traffic) with an annual 2% growth rate. Future year 2013-2017 volumes calculated using annual 2% growth rate.
* LOS E is the threshold for all roadway segments in Sacramento County while LOS C is applied to Caltrans and Placer County segments. Capacity is calculated as the maximum volume at satisfactory LOS C/E.
1) Data obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch - calculated from 2010 ADTs with an annual 2% growth rate. Future year 2013-2017 volumes calculated using annual 2% growth rate. Level of Service (LOS) evaluated using Caltrans
V/C thresholds.
204
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Construction of Alternative 2 would have temporary direct effects on the traffic and
circulation in the project area. There are no anticipated indirect effects associated with
construction of Alternative 2. Traffic generated by the proposed action would result in growth in
two categories: labor force accessing the project site on a daily basis, and truck trips due the
import of aggregate material for the transload facility and spur dike and large deliveries. New
trips have been determined by calculating the number trips generated by the quantity of materials
and equipment deliveries required for the project construction, as well as trips generated by
construction labor forces. This is estimated trips per day, based on the construction activities and
durations as shown in Table 43. The traffic numbers developed are expected to be worst
case/maximum amounts of traffic volumes based on anticipated work schedules and activities.
Table 43. Alternative 2 Project Daily Trip Generation.
Alternative 2
Construction Year
Worker
Aggregate
Delivery
2013
24
256
6
2014
16
16
6
2015
40
16
6
2016
36
16
6
2017
40
256
6
Total
286
37
62
58
302
An estimated 8 to 20 workers would be onsite each day during construction depending on

scheduled actives. These workers would access the area via regional and local roadways, and
park their vehicles at the staging area. Approximately 82% of the employees are located in the
Sacramento area; approximately 11% are located in Placer County and approximately 7% are
located in El Dorado County. Table 44 presents the assumptions used on where the workers are
expected to originate their trips.
Table 44. Distribution of Labor Force
Region
Rocklin area (Placer County to the north)
Roseville area (Placer County to the west)
Folsom
El Dorado area (Green Valley Road)
El Dorado area (US50)
Sacramento area (I-80)
Sacramento area (US50)
Total
Worker Distribution
5%
5%
5%
2.5%
2.5%
40%
40%
100%
205
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Based on the above assumptions, approximately 2 to 8 worker vehicles would add to I-80
and Highway 50 traffic during commute hours. Approximately one to two worker vehicles
would add to commute traffic in the other regions. All workers would access the staging area
parking from Folsom Lake Crossing. The increase in traffic due to the projects labor force in
relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the roadway system would be less-thansignificant.
Construction vehicles accessing the site would be bringing aggregate materials and large
deliveries. These deliveries would vary during the year depending on construction activities.
The project site is assumed to receive aggregate and batch plant materials from the Tiechert
Prairie City Borrow Source located on Scott Road south of White Rock Road in Sacramento
County. Offsite materials and equipment would be delivered to the project area via East Bidwell
Street to East Natoma Road to Folsom Lake Crossing. Aggregate deliveries would be
approximately 13 trucks per hour during the first year and last year of construction due to the
installation and removal of the transload facility. Deliveries to the project area include steel and
other construction materials would average three per day. The increase in traffic due to the
deliveries of aggregate and other large deliveries in relation to existing traffic load and capacity
of the roadway system would be less-than-significant. Materials for blasting are assumed to be
brought to the project area on a daily basis from Jamestown, CA or Suisun City, CA. One truck
trip a day during blasting periods would not result in a significant impact to traffic.
To determine the significant of the increase truck traffic, the number of haul trips was
estimated for each alternative. Then this number was compared with the ITE significance
threshold of 50 additional peak-hour truck trips. Traffic analysis did not show a LOS
deterioration during any project year. While some roadways in certain years would experience an
increase in volume/ capacity, in all cases the increase is less than the 50 or more new truck trips
during the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour threshold of significance. Furthermore, the haul
trucks trips at any given access route would be short-term. Therefore, construction related traffic
impacts under Alternative 2 would not substantially disrupt the flow and/or travel time of traffic
or exceed the ITE significance threshold. This impact would be less-than-significant. Full
results of the traffic study, including traffic volumes, LOS, and volume/capacity ratio are in
Appendix F.
An additional element of the environmental consequences is the traffic effects due to
blasting operations. Due to the nature of the proposed excavation there would be the required
use of explosives for blasting, causing the temporary closure of some roads. A safety fly rock
zone of 2500 feet would be maintained for human safety. Under Alternative 2, approximately
400 blasts in-the-wet and 200 blasts in-the-dry would occur from February 2014 to August 2017
(approximately 1,100 days of work). This results in an approximately one blast every other day.
Blasting would require an encroachment permit from the City of Folsom, and the contractor
would coordinate with the City of Folsom and provide adequate notification to the public,
include signage, prior to blasting. The contractors blasting plan would be approved by the
Corps prior to blasting commencement.
206
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The blasting would not be permitted to interfere with peak traffic flow, would occur at
consistent time(s) and would require an encroachment permit from the city of Folsom. Folsom
Lake Crossing would experience temporary traffic disruptions during construction at the
roadways that would need to be closed during the rock excavation phase, which would require
blasting. Folsom Lake Crossing would need to be closed for two hours for each blasting event.
This two hour period would allow for 30 minutes to close the road, one hour to conduct the
blasting and 30 minutes to reopen the roadway. Blasting is estimated to be needed during the
excavation of the rock plug. During the blasting period, traffic desiring to cross the American
River via Folsom Lake Crossing would be detoured through Historic Folsom using the same
route that was used prior to the construction of Folsom Bridge.
The traffic effects caused by any short-term roadway stoppage are not considered to be
significant factors to the current and projected traffic conditions in the area. The blasting
activities would be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours thereby minimizing the affects to the
existing traffic patterns. General traffic volumes during off-peak hours are significantly lower
and the short term stoppages due to blasting activities would have no significant degradation to
service levels. Blasting activities would be conducted during a consistent time throughout the
day so the local driving public can be better prepared and adjust their driving patterns
accordingly. The contractor would also provide public information notices for the blasting
operations and associated road closures. These items are generally part of the blasting permit
issued by the local jurisdiction. With the implementation of the road closers, any public safety
hazards resulting from construction activities on or near the public road system would be lessthan-significant.
Implementation of the proposed project would draw a construction workforce, which, in
turn, would create the need for worker vehicle parking areas. Parking would be available at the
staging areas; therefore, the project would not affect the availability of parking spaces and no
significant effects would occur.

Construction of Alternative 3 would create similar temporary traffic increases as
discussed in Alternative 2. There are no anticipated indirect effects associated with Alternative
3. Construction activities could potentially affect the types, volumes, and movement of traffic,
and public safety in and near the project area.
As discussed in Alternative 2, traffic generated by the proposed action would result in
growth by labor force accessing the project site on a daily basis, and truck trips due the import of
aggregate material and large deliveries. New trips were determined by calculating the number of
trips generated by the quantity of materials and equipment deliveries required for the project
construction, as well as trips generated by construction labor forces. Estimated trips per day for
Alternative 3, based on the construction activities and durations as shown in Table 45. The
traffic numbers developed are expected to be worst case/maximum amounts of traffic volumes
based on anticipated work schedules and activities.
207
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 45. Alternative 3 Project Daily Trip Generation.

Construction Year
Alternative 3
Worker
Aggregate
Delivery
2013
12
256
8
2014
24
16
6
2015
40
16
6
2016
40
16
6
2017
48
256
6
Total
270
36
53
53
306
An estimated 6 to 24 workers would be onsite each day during construction depending on

scheduled actives. These workers would access the area via regional and local roadways, and
park their vehicles at the staging area. Table 44, listed above, presents the assumptions used on
where the workers are expected to originate their trips. Based on the above assumptions,
approximately 5 to 10 worker vehicles would add to I-80 and Highway 50 traffic during
commute hours. Approximately one to ten worker vehicles would add to commute traffic in the
other regions. All workers would access the staging area parking from Folsom Lake Crossing.
The increase in traffic due to the projects labor force in relation to existing traffic load and
capacity of the roadway system would be less-than-significant.
As discussed in Alternative 2, aggregate and batch plant materials would be received
from the Tiechert Prairie City Borrow Source and blasting materials would be received from
Jamestown, CA or Suisun City, CA. Offsite materials and equipment would be delivered to the
project area via the same routes. Aggregate deliveries would be approximately 13 trucks per
hour during the first year and last year of construction due to the installation and removal of the
transload facility. Deliveries to the project area include steel and other construction materials
would average four times per day the first year and three times the subsequent years. The
increase in traffic due to the deliveries of aggregate and other large deliveries in relation to
existing traffic load and capacity of the roadway system would be less-than-significant.
Alternative 3 would temporarily add construction related traffic in the near term that
could affect roadway congestion near the project area. Traffic analysis did not show an LOS
deterioration during any project year. While some roadways in certain years would experience an
increase in volume/ capacity, in all cases the increase is less than the 50 or more new truck trips
during the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour threshold of significance. Furthermore, the haul
trucks trips at any given access route would be short-term. Therefore, construction related traffic
impacts under Alternative 2 would not substantially disrupt the flow and/or travel time of traffic
or exceed the ITE significance threshold. Therefore, project impacts to traffic would be lessthan-significant. Full results of the traffic study, including traffic volumes, LOS, and
volume/capacity ratio are in Appendix F.
208
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Under Alternative 3, Folsom Lake Crossing would need to be closed for a two hour
period during blasting events. As discussed under Alternative 2, the two hour period would
allow for 30 minutes to close the road, one hour to conduct the blasting and 30 minutes to reopen
the roadway. Under Alternative 3, there would be approximately 200 blasts in-the-wet and 280
blasts in-the-dry from February 2014 to August 2017 (approximately 1,100 days of work). This
results in approximately one blast every other day. Detoured route, timing of blasting activities,
and public information notices would be under Alternative 2. With the implementation of the
road closers, any public safety hazards resulting from construction activities on or near the public
road system would be less-than-significant.
As discussed in Alternative 2, parking would be available at the staging areas; therefore,
the project would not affect local parking spaces and no significant effects would occur.
4.8.6 Mitigation
Since there would be no significant effects on traffic and circulation, no mitigation would
be required. However, the following measures would be implemented to avoid or minimize any
effects, as well as ensure public safety on area roadways.
The construction contractor would be required to prepare a traffic management plan,

outlining proposed routes to be approved by the appropriate agencies, and implement the
plan prior to initiation of construction. High collision intersections would appropriate
local entity, and implement it be identified and avoided if possible. Drivers would be
informed and trained on the various types of haul routes, and areas that are more sensitive
(e.g., high level of residential or education centers, or narrow roadways).
The construction contractor would develop and use signs to inform the public of the haul
routes, route changes, detours, and planned road closures to minimize traffic congestion and
ensure public safety.
4.9 NOISE
This section presents and compares potential adverse effects noise as compared to the
existing conditions discussed in Section 3.9.
4.9.1 Methodology
Potential noise impacts were assessed at human and wildlife noise-sensitive receiver sites
for noise generated by the proposed project. Project activities that were assessed include:
approach channel excavation, spur dike construction, transload facility construction and
demolition, batch plant operation, cutoff wall construction, and cofferdam construction and
demolition. Noise from blasting, pile driving, and traffic are also analyzed. Potential human
209
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
noise-sensitive receptor sites within the city of Folsom, Sacramento County, Placer County, and
El Dorado County were considered.
Noise effects for the proposed project were predicted using CadnaA for general
construction activities, or all construction activities excluding blasting. BNoise2 was used
alongside CadnaA to model noise effects from blasting. These models are detailed in the Folsom
JFP Noise Technical Report (Appendix G). The assumptions used to calculate the on-site haul
road traffic noise is also detailed in the Technical Report.
For general construction activities, worst-case noise impact scenarios were modeled at
both human and wildlife noise-sensitive receivers, during the highest noise years for each project
Alternative. The data inputs used for noise models can be found in Appendix G. In order to
capture the worst case noise scenario, any individual construction activity expected to occur at
all during any particular year was assumed to occur concurrent with all other construction
activities expected during that year. The noisiest activities for Alternative 2 would occur in 2017
and the noisiest construction activities for Alternative 3 would occur in 2013.
Most general construction activity is proposed to occur during construction noise exempt
times. However, some activities may occur during non-exempt nighttime hours. Nighttime
activities are analyzed separately for project Alternatives 2 and 3. The noisiest nighttime
construction activities would occur in 2017 for both Alternatives 2 and 3.
The Folsom JFP Noise Technical Report (Appendix G) presents the results of the noise
study, and the potential effects to all of the sensitive receptors discussed in Section 3.9.2. The
results of the noise study indicated that there would be no effects to wildlife receptors, therefore,
they are not discussed further in this section. The full analysis of wildlife receptors can be found
in Appendix G. Effects to fish species from noise are discussed in the Fisheries analysis in
Section 4.5.

For the purpose of this project, the City of Folsoms standards (Table 15) will be used to
determine effect levels, because it is the closest jurisdiction with the most restrictive noise
ordinance. The assessment standards are the daytime exterior L50 of 50 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10
p.m. and the nighttime exterior L50 of 45 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. If these criteria are met
within the city of Folsom, noise standards for other nearby jurisdictions will also be achieved.
The City of Folsoms construction noise exempt hours allow for noise generated by
construction to be free from the exterior noise standard limits. These exempt times extend from
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. In the event
that the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard, the applicable
standard shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level
measurement data was reviewed and the published (unadjusted) daytime and nighttime exterior
noise standards are applicable at all related noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, for project
210
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
noise effects from general construction activities to human sensitive receptors, noise would be
considered significant if:
The City of Folsom assessment standards are exceeded outside of the Citys exempt
hours and permitted thresholds.
The project results in a change in the noise level that would cause a substantial number of
people to be highly annoyed by the projects noise.
In determining the significance of noise effects, some of the considerations include noise
source levels, the ambient noise, the distance to the noise source, the time of day, the duration of
the noise, and the zoning of the areas in question.
CEQA requires the consideration of adverse effects associated with the generation of
groundborne noise levels capable of damaging sensitive structures or interfering with land use
activities near the project area. There are no sensitive structures near the project area that have
the potential to be damaged by project construction activities, including blasting. Any potential
vibration generated by project activities would not interfere with land use activities near the
project area.
Under Alternative 1, the Corps and the CVFPB would not participate in the excavation of
the approach channel or the completion of the auxiliary spillway. As a result, there would be no
effect to the acoustic environment as there would not be any construction or operational
activities.
Noise-sensitive receptors may be affected by increased noise levels due to their close
proximity to the proposed project area and amount of possible noise generated by construction
activities related to the proposed project. There would be no indirect effects to noise associated
with Alternative 2. Potential sources of noise from the approach channel excavation include
both on-site construction and off-site construction traffic-related noise sources. Construction
noise related to on-site construction would be associated with noise levels generated by approach
channel excavation, spur dike construction, blasting, batch plant and staging area activities, and
usage of the haul road near noise-sensitive receptors. Construction noise generated by on-site
construction related activities is also assessed quantitatively at noise-sensitive wildlife receptor
sites and qualitatively for fish located in Folsom Lake. Construction noise related to off-site
traffic would be associated with workers and truck deliveries going to and from the project area
via both local and regional roadways.
211
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Construction activities that may be conducted for Alternative 2 are identified in Table 46.
The area that the construction activity would take place, the sound pressure generated by the
activity at 50 feet, and sound power level generated by the construction activity are listed. Nonexempt hour construction activities are identified in the table. Almost all of the construction
activities have the potential to be conducted during non-exempt hours.
Any construction activities and equipment that would be used during the worst-case year
of 2017 were modeled simultaneously with all other construction equipment. All on-site haul
road usage, disposal, and off-site deliveries to the project site were assumed to be conducted
during construction noise exempt hours. Under Alternative 2, if construction activities are
conducted during construction noise exempt hours, noise effects from construction activities
would be considered less-than-significant.
If construction activities are conducted during non-exempt hours, there is the potential for
significant effects. Significance is dependent on the number, type, and location of construction
activities during nonexempt hours, including any mitigation. As several construction activities
could occur simultaneously during non-exempt hours (Table 46), a very large number of activity
combinations could occur. For this reason, night time noise contributing activities were
identified near each noise-sensitive receptor and illustrative example combinations were
modeled. Different potential construction activity combinations were modeled, using a
combination of individual activities paired with the quietest and loudest construction activities
("intake approach walls and slab" and "drill, blast, and dredge rock in the wet", respectively), to
determine if the nighttime noise standard of 45 dBA L50 would be exceeded. The following
tables (and accompanying figures) reflect those modeling results:
Table 47 lists each individual activitys noise impact when paired with the loudest nonexempt hour construction activity that could be conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur
Dike Area.
Table 48 shows the cumulative noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if specific

construction activities would or would not be conducted simultaneously with the loudest
individual construction activity, and provides demonstrations of a number of nighttime
construction activity combinations.
Table 49 lists the individual activitys noise impact when paired with the quietest nonexempt hour construction activity that would be conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur
Dike Area.

construction activities would or would not be conducted simultaneously with the quietest
212
Table 46. Alternative 2 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Levels.
Area of Construction
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.4
131.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.0
130.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.0
130.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
93.1
127.7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
93.0
127.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
92.7
127.3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.6
126.2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.6
126.2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.2
125.8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
90.5
125.1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.9
124.5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.7
124.3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.3
123.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.3
123.9
MIAD Staging Area w/ Rock

Crusher and Batch Plant
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
88.0
122.6
Drill and Blast / Dredge

Rock In-the-Wet***
Dredge Common Material
to Rock*
Teardown, Clean Up, and
Site Restoration***
Set up and Operate Silt
Curtain/ possible Bubble
Curtain**
Site Prep / Haul Road
Prep
Transfer Excavation Material
to Disposal Site*
Remove Transload
Facility***
Construct Transload
Facility*
Rock Excavation In-theDry*
Common Excavation to
Disposal*
Cutoff Wall Concrete
Placement*
Mobilization for Approach
Walls*
Spur Dike Riprap***
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
213
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
88.0
122.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
84.9
119.5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
Dike 8 Disposal Area*

On-Site Haul Road Usage to
and From Excavation Site
and MIAD* a
On-Site Haul Road Usage for
Construction of Transload
Facility* a
Removal of Transload
Facility* a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
Overlook Staging Area w/

Rock Crusher and Batch
Plant
MIAD Staging Area w/
Batch Plant*
Batch Plant*
Prison Staging Area w/
Batch Plant*
Intake Approach Walls and
Slab Construction*
MIAD Disposal and Staging
Area*
Overlook Staging Area*
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
*potential nighttime activity

**potential nighttime activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only)
a
total SPL is 52.6 dBA Leq from 4.5 haul truck round-trips along haul road per hour
214
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
For noise modeling purposes, the following conditions are assumed during non-exempt
hours:
Haul roads are being utilized.
As a worst-case scenario, batch plants are in operation at each modeled staging area if the
staging area is being utilized.
Rock crushing and blasting activities would not be conducted during nighttime hours.
While the City of Folsom uses the L50 metric as its baseline noise criterion, modeling
outputs yield potential construction noise in terms of Leq, a more conservative value. Table 47
lists the noise levels generated at noise-sensitive receptors by individual construction activities,
including drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet, at specific areas of the proposed
project during non-exempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative noise level is listed
under each noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities would be conducted
simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the proposed project. Figure
19 illustrates potential noise contours which would result from these construction activities being
conducted simultaneously. Table 48 illustrates, for comparative purposes, potential
combinations of construction activities and lists the modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive
receptors if specific activities are removed from simultaneous non-exempt hour construction
activities. In both Tables 47 and 48, individual and cumulative noise levels are highlighted in
gray where nighttime noise threshold would be exceeded.
Table 49 lists the noise levels generated at noise-sensitive receptors by individual
construction activities, including intake approach walls and slab construction, at specific areas
of the proposed project during non-exempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative
noise level is listed under each noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities
would be conducted simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the
proposed project. Figure 20 depicts the noise contours assuming these construction activities are
conducted simultaneously. Table 50 explores potential combinations of construction activities
and lists the modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if specific activities are removed
from simultaneous non-exempt hour construction activities. In both Tables 49 and 50, individual
and cumulative noise levels are highlighted in gray if the nighttime noise threshold would be
exceeded.
215
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 47. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet.
Noise Levels Generated by Individual Construction Activities at Noise-Sensitive Receptor
During Non-Exempt Hours (Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock In-the-Wet)
MR-1a
MR-1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
44
42
46
55
41
37
43
46
51
44
49
45
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
29
46
59
21
25
24
23
33
31
54
28
Dike 8 Disposal Area

MIAD Disposal and Staging Area w/
Batch Plant
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant
27
21
35
39
35
30
24
23
57
47
31
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
32
33
41
30
26
35
37
36
33
37
34
Haul Road
14
13
21
34
28
14
37
32
24
30
Cumulative Noise Level
47
44
51
62
60
44
48
47
60
55
55
55
Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock Inthe-Wet

Prison Staging Area w/ Batch Plant
Transload Facility
Construction/Removal
Dike 7 Staging Area
Note: Noise effects are highlighted in gray if construction (1) could be conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and (2) would exceed either the daytime exterior
noise standard of 50 dBA L50 or the nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA L50.
216
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 48. Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet.
Construction Activity Combinations
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Drill
and Blast and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Prison
Staging Area w/ Batch Plant)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without
Transload Facility Construction)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Dike 7
Staging Area)
Disposal Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without MIAD
Disposal and Staging Area w/ Batch Plant)
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant)
Disposal and Staging Areas and Dike 8
Disposal Area)
Transload Facility Construction and Dike
7 Staging Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (With Drill and
Blast and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet,
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant,
and Haul Road Only)
Overall Noise Levels Generated by Simultaneous Construction Activity Combinations at NoiseSensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Drill and Blast/Dredging Rock In-the-Wet)
MR-1a MR-1b LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6 ST-7 ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
46
44
51
62
60
44
45
47
60
55
55
55
46
44
49
60
60
43
48
46
58
55
55
55
46
44
49
59
60
44
48
47
60
55
50
55
47
44
51
62
60
44
48
47
56
54
55
49
47
44
51
62
45
40
48
47
60
51
55
55
46
44
51
62
60
44
48
46
60
55
55
55
46
44
51
62
44
40
48
47
56
49
55
49
45
43
47
55
60
43
48
46
58
55
49
55
44
43
46
55
41
37
44
46
51
44
49
45
217
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 49. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction.
Noise Levels Generated by Individual Construction Activity at Noise-Sensitive Receptor
MR-1a
32
MR-1b
31
LT-2
35
LT-3
43
LT-4
29
LT-5
25
LT-6
32
ST-7
34
ST-8
39
MR-9
32
MR-10
37
MR-11
33

Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
29
46
59
21
25
24
23
33
31
54
28

Batch Plant
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch
Plant
Haul Road
27
21
35
39
35
30
24
23
57
47
31
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
32
33
41
30
26
35
37
36
33
37
34
14
13
21
34
28
14
37
32
24
30
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
Intake Approach Walls and Slab
218
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 50. Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Construction.
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Intake
Approach Walls and Slab Construction)
Staging Area)
Disposal Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Overlook
Disposal Area)
Transload Facility Construction and Dike 7
Staging Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (With Intake
Approach Walls and Slab Construction,
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant, and
Haul Road Only)
Overall Noise Levels Generated by Simultaneous Construction Activity Combinations at NoiseSensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction)
MR-1a
MR-1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
42
39
49
61
60
43
40
41
59
55
54
55
42
38
47
59
60
42
46
40
58
54
54
54
44
40
47
57
60
43
46
41
59
55
45
55
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
55
54
54
47
44
40
49
61
43
38
46
41
59
50
54
55
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
40
59
55
54
55
44
40
49
61
42
37
46
41
55
47
54
47
41
38
41
47
60
42
46
40
58
54
42
54
37
35
37
46
34
29
37
39
42
37
40
37
219
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
A brief description of the major noise contributing construction activities that could
generate noise impacts at each noise-sensitive receptor is included below. Major noise
contributing construction activities are defined as activities that generate noise levels of 35 dBA
or higher any noise-sensitive receptors.
At Folsom State Prison (MR-1a and MR-1b), it is assumed that the prison structures
would provide a minimum of 30 dBA attenuation due to the concrete walls and small,
thick glass windows. It is also assumed that the exterior concrete walls surrounding the
prison facility would provide an additional 5 dBA of attenuation. Taking these
assumptions into account noise levels at Folsom State Prison would not be significant.
At Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street (LT-2), drill and blasting and dredging rock inthe-wet, transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area utilization
activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise
standard if the activities would be conducted individually. The major noise contributing
activities at LT-2 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities,
transload facility construction/removal activities, and utilization of the Dike 7 staging
area.
At Mountain View Drive (LT-3), drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet,
transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities
would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard
if the activities would be conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities
at LT-3 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload facility
construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 7 and Overlook staging areas, and
utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area.
At East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road (LT-4), MIAD disposal and staging area
utilization would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior
noise standard if it was utilized without any other simultaneous construction activities.
The major noise contributing activities at LT-4 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
construction activities, transload facility construction/removal activities, utilization of the
Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging areas.
At East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint Circle (LT-6), utilization of the Prison
staging area would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior
noise standard if it was utilized without any other simultaneous construction activities.
The major noise contributing activities at LT-6 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
construction activities, utilization of the Prison or Overlook staging areas, and transload
facility construction/removal activities.
At the Beals Point Campground (ST-7), guests would be staying overnight. Drill and
blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet construction activities would generate noise levels
that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if it would be conducted by
itself without any other simultaneous construction activities. The major noise
contributing activities at ST-7 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction
activities, transload facility construction/removal activities, utilization of the Overlook
staging area.
220
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
At Folsom Point Park (ST-8), guests would not be staying overnight. Therefore, there are
no anticipated noise impacts during non-exempt hours.
At East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive (MR-9), transload facility
construction/removal, Dike 8 disposal area utilization, and MIAD staging and disposal
area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted individually. The
major noise contributing activities at MR-9 are Approach Channel/Spur Dike
Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging area.
At Lorena Lane (MR-10), drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet and Dike 7
staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
major noise contributing activities at MR-10 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
Dike 7 staging area, and utilization of the Overlook staging area.
At Folsom Church of Christ (MR-11), drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet,
transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 8 disposal area utilization activities
would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard
if the activities would be conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities
at MR-11 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload
facility construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area, and
utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging area.
Due to the uncertainty in regards to the time and location of construction activities and
equipment that would be utilized during nighttime hours, it is difficult to ascertain when there
would or would not be noise impacts at specific noise-sensitive receptors.
Under Alternative 2, mitigation measures would be necessary for all of these long-term,
short-term, and modeled receiver sites where the daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards
would be exceeded outside of construction noise exempt hours. Implementation of the
mitigation measures discussed in Section 4.9.6 would reduce the construction noise effects
during non-exempt hours at human noise sensitive receptors to less-than-significant.
Additionally, if noise complaints are to occur from construction activities in non-exempt hours, it
is expected that the Corps contractor would address those complaints and implement further
mitigation, as needed, to reduce these effects. As a result, it is assumed that any significant
effects associated with noise would be reduced to less-than-significant, with the implementation
of the mitigation discussed in Section 4.9.6, and by responding to noise complaints when they
are received. Furthermore, due to the many variables that need to be taken into account for nonexempt construction activities, it is recommended that a noise monitoring program be instituted
in order to ensure compliance and establish the necessary mitigation measures where they are
needed.
221
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Any construction activities and equipment that would be used during the worst-case year
of 2013 was modeled simultaneously with all other construction equipment within that year.
Models assumed that all on-site haul road usage, disposal, and off-site deliveries to the project
site would be conducted during construction noise exempt hours. There would be no indirect
effects to noise associated with Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, if construction activities are
conducted during construction noise exempt hours, noise effects from construction activities
would be considered less-than-significant at all human and wildlife noise-sensitive receptor sites.
Construction activities that may be conducted for Alternative 3 are identified in Table
51. The area where the construction activity would take place, the sound pressure generated by
the activity at 50 feet, and the sound power level generated by the construction activity are listed.
Non-exempt hour construction activities are identified in the table. Almost all of the
construction activities have the potential to be conducted during non-exempt hours.
If construction activities are conducted during non-exempt hours, there is the potential for
significant effects. Significance is dependent on the number, type, and location of construction
activities during nonexempt hours, including any mitigation. As several construction activities
could occur simultaneously during non-exempt hours (Table 51), a very large number of activity
combinations could occur. For this reason, night time noise contributing activities were
identified near each noise-sensitive receptor and illustrative example combinations were
modeled. Different potential construction activity combinations were modeled, using a
combination of individual activities paired with the quietest and loudest construction activities
("intake approach walls and slab" and fill cells, respectively), to determine if the nighttime
noise standard of 45 dBA L50 would be exceeded. The following tables (and accompanying
figures) reflect those modeling results:
Table 52 lists each individual activitys noise impact when paired with the loudest nonexempt hour construction activity that could be conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur
Dike Area.

construction activities would or would not be conducted simultaneously with the loudest
Table 54 lists the individual activitys noise impact when paired with the quietest nonexempt hour construction activity that would be conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur
Dike Area.

construction activities would or would not be conducted simultaneously with the quietest
222
Table 51. Alternative 3 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Levels.
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Approach
Channel /
Spur
Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
102.2
136.8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
101.7
136.3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.8
131.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.3
130.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.0
130.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
96.0
130.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
95.9
130.4
Remove Sheets*
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
94.4
128.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
93.2
127.8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
92.8
127.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
92.7
127.3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.6
126.2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.2
125.8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
91.1
125.7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
90.4
124.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.7
124.3
Spur Dike Riprap***
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89.3
123.9
MIAD Staging Area w/ Rock

Crusher
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
88.0
122.6
Fill Cells*
Construction of Sheet Pile
Cells*
Common Dredge Below
Cofferdam*
Rock In-the-Wet***
Dredge Common Material to
Rock*
Site Restoration***

Curtain**
Transfer Excavation Material
to Disposal Site*
Construct Transload
Facility*
Remove Transload
Facility***
Common Excavation Below
Cofferdam*
Walls*
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
223
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
88.0
122.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
87.7
122.3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
86.4
121.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
84.9
119.5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
83.8
118.4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
52.6
n/a
Approach
Channel /
Spur
Dike

Rock Crusher

Batch Plant*
Batch Plant*
Batch Plant*
Intake Approach Walls and
Slab*
MIAD Disposal and Staging
Area*
On-Site Haul Road Usage to

and From Excavation Site
and MIAD* a
Construction of Transload
Facility* a
Import of Construction
Material* a
Removal of Transload
Facility* a

**potential nighttime construction activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only)
a
224
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
For noise modeling purposes, the following conditions are assumed during non-exempt
hours:
Haul roads are being utilized
As a worst-case scenario, batch plants are in operation at each modeled staging area if the
staging area is being utilized
Rock crushing and blasting activities would not be conducted during nighttime hours

construction activities, including fill cells, at specific areas of the proposed project during nonexempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative noise level is listed under each noisesensitive receptor column if the construction activities would be conducted simultaneously from
each respective construction activity area for the proposed project. Figure 21 depicts the
resulting cumulative noise contours if these construction activities were conducted
simultaneously. Table 53 explores potential combinations of construction activities and lists the
modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if specific activities are removed from
simultaneous non-exempt hour construction activities. In Tables 52 and 53, individual and
cumulative noise levels are highlighted in gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise threshold
would be exceeded during non-exempt hours at each noise-sensitive receptor.
construction activities, including intake approach walls and slab construction, at specific areas
of the proposed project during non-exempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative
noise level is listed under each noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities
would be conducted simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the
proposed project. Figure 19 illustrates the resulting cumulative noise contours if these
construction activities were conducted simultaneously. Table 55 explores potential combinations
of construction activities and lists the modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if specific
activities are removed from simultaneous non-exempt hour construction activities. In Tables 54
and 55, individual and overall noise levels are highlighted in gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime
noise threshold would be exceeded during non-exempt hours at each noise-sensitive receptor. As
with Alternative 2, modeling outputs in terms of Leq provide conservative comparisons to L50
values.
225
Table 52. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Fill Cells Activities.
During Non-Exempt Hours (Fill Cells)
MR-1a
49
MR-1b
48
LT-2
52
LT-3
61
LT-4
46
LT-5
42
LT-6
49
ST-7
51
ST-8
56
MR-9
49
MR-10
54
MR-11
51

Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
29
46
59
21
25
24
23
33
31
54
28

Batch Plant
Plant
Haul Road
27
21
35
39
35
30
24
23
57
47
31
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
32
33
41
30
26
35
37
36
33
37
34
14
13
21
34
28
14
37
32
24
30
50
49
54
64
60
46
51
52
61
56
57
56
Fill Cells
226
Table 53. Alternative 3 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet.
Overall Noise Levels Generated by Simultaneous Construction Activity Combinations
at Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Fill Cells)
Combinations
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Fill
Cells)
Prison Staging Area w/ Batch Plant)
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Dike
7 Staging Area)
8 Disposal Area)
Batch Plant)
MIAD Disposal and Staging Areas and
Dike 8 Disposal Area)
Transload Facility Construction and
Dike 7 Staging Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (With Fill
Cells, Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch
Plant, and Haul Road Only)
MR-1a
MR-1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
50
49
54
64
60
46
50
52
61
56
57
56
50
49
53
63
60
45
51
52
60
55
57
56
50
49
53
62
60
46
51
52
61
56
55
56
50
49
54
64
60
46
51
52
59
55
57
52
50
49
54
64
48
44
51
52
61
53
57
56
50
49
54
64
60
46
51
52
61
56
57
56
50
49
54
64
48
43
51
52
59
52
57
52
50
49
52
61
60
45
51
52
60
55
55
56
50
48
52
61
47
43
49
52
56
50
54
51
227
Table 54. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction.
MR-1a
32
MR-1b
31
LT-2
35
LT-3
43
LT-4
29
LT-5
25
LT-6
32
ST-7
34
ST-8
39
MR-9
32
MR-10
37
MR-11
33

Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
29
46
59
21
25
24
23
33
31
54
28

MIAD Disposal and Staging Area
w/ Batch Plant
Plant
Haul Road
27
21
35
39
35
30
24
23
57
47
31
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
32
33
41
30
26
35
37
36
33
37
34
14
13
21
34
28
14
37
32
24
30
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
228
Table 55. Alternative 3 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Construction.
Staging Area)
Disposal Area)
Disposal Area)
Transload Facility Construction and Dike
7 Staging Area)
Approach Walls and Slab Construction,
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant,
and Haul Road Only)
Overall Noise Levels Generated by Simultaneous Construction Activity Combinations at NoiseSensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction)
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
42
39
49
61
60
43
40
41
59
55
54
55
42
38
47
59
60
42
46
40
58
54
54
54
44
40
47
57
60
43
46
41
59
55
45
55
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
55
54
54
47
44
40
49
61
43
38
46
41
59
50
54
55
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
40
59
55
54
55
44
40
49
61
42
37
46
41
55
47
54
47
41
38
41
47
60
42
46
40
58
54
42
54
37
35
37
46
34
29
37
39
42
37
40
37
229
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Many of the construction activities listed in Table 51 have the potential to be conducted
simultaneously and there is no definitive time and place where construction activities would be
conducted during non-exempt construction hours. Tables 52-54 illustrate that certain
construction activities generate noise impacts at specific receptors more than other receptors. A
brief description of the major noise contributing construction activities that could generate noise
impacts at each noise-sensitive receptor is included below. Major noise contributing
construction activities would be activities that generate noise levels of 35 dBA or higher at noisesensitive receptors.
At Folsom State Prison (MR-1a and MR-1b), it is assumed that the prison structures
would provide a minimum of 30 dBA attenuation due to the concrete walls and small,
thick glass windows. It is also assumed that the exterior concrete walls surrounding the
prison facility would provide an additional 5 dBA of attenuation. Taking these
assumptions into account, noise would not be an issue at the prison.
At Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street (LT-2), fill cells, transload facility
construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities would generate noise
levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would
be conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities at LT-2 would be
Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload facility
construction/removal activities, and utilization of the Dike 7 staging area.
At Mountain View Drive (LT-3), fill cells, transload facility construction/removal, and
Dike 7 staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45
dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted
individually. The major noise contributing activities at LT-3 would be Approach
Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload facility construction/removal
activities, utilization of the Dike 7 and Overlook staging areas, and utilization of the Dike
8 disposal area.
At East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road (LT-4), fills cells and MIAD disposal and
staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
major noise contributing activities at LT-4 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging areas.
At East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint Circle (LT-6), fills cells and Prison staging
construction activities, utilization of the Prison or Overlook staging areas, and transload
facility construction/removal activities.
At the Beals Point Campground (ST-7), guests would be staying overnight. Fill cells
construction activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime
exterior noise standard if it would be conducted by itself without any other simultaneous
construction activities. The major noise contributing activities at ST-7 would be
230
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

construction/removal activities, utilization of the Overlook staging area.
At Folsom Point Park (ST-8), guests would not be staying overnight. Therefore, there are
no anticipated noise impacts during non-exempt hours.
At East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive (MR-9), fill cells, transload facility
construction/removal, Dike 8 disposal area utilization, and MIAD staging and disposal
major noise contributing activities at MR-9 are Approach Channel/Spur Dike
Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging area.
At Lorena Lane (MR-10), fill cells and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities would
generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the
activities would be conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities at
MR-10 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload facility
construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 7 staging area, and utilization of
the Overlook staging area.
At Folsom Church of Christ (MR-11), fill cells, transload facility construction/removal,

and Dike 8 disposal area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the
45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted
individually. The major noise contributing activities at MR-11 would be Approach
activities, utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal
and staging area.
Due to the uncertainty in regards to the time and location of construction activities and
equipment that would be utilized during nighttime hours, it is difficult to ascertain when there
would or would not be noise impacts at specific noise-sensitive receptors. Under Alternative 3,
mitigation measures would be necessary for all of these long-term, short-term, and modeled
receiver sites where the daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards would be exceeded
outside of construction noise exempt hours. Implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in Section 4.9.6 is expected to reduce the construction noise effects during non-exempt
hours at human noise sensitive receptors to less-than-significant. Additionally, if noise
complaints are to occur from construction activities in non-exempt hours, the Corps contractor
would address those complaints and implement further mitigation or reduction of activity
producing excessive noise, as needed, to reduce these effects. As a result, it is reasonable to
expect that any significant effects associated with noise would be reduced to less-thansignificant, with the implementation of the mitigation discussed in Section 4.9.6, and by
responding to noise complaints when they are received. Furthermore, due to the many variables
that need to be taken into account for non-exempt construction activities, it is recommended that
a noise monitoring program be instituted in order to ensure compliance and establish the
necessary mitigation measures where they are needed.
231
~ Feet
500 1,000 1,500
j
N
Control Siructure
Cuto:Wa11
Cof er Dam
C:0 E:< is6ng0wriook

~ O.~bok E xp.an sion
~ In lake Oisp~:a! Ar ea {S ite
f52S2J DJe 7
2) .::J Oi!<e 8
AuxiliarySpillwayCZJ S)Ur Dike

Chute & Stilling Sa sin .--.o Ptoposed Sediment Pl acermnt
1
....-...J Haul Roads
L-J In lake Disposal Area {Site t)
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
::::3 Folsom Prison Staging Are.; Soun d Pre ssure l ev els

Transload Facility
Ul'.D
Max Decibe l Range
45.0 - 50.0
50. 1 - eO.O
80. 1 ~0.0
+
70. 1 10.0
80. 1 - 95.0
Figure 19- Alternative 2- Noise Level Contours
232

Decmeber 2012
~ Feet
500 1,000 1,500
j
N
Contro i St'ucture
euto:wan
Cof er Dam
[JJ Ex::stng OwrOOk

IZ:J Folsom Prison Staging Area Sound P ress!.lre l e vels
c:s:JOwdook Expansion
~ Olrc 1
Max Decibel Range
lnla keOisposal Area (S it-: 2) [:J ake 8
45.0 50.0
Auxilia!ySpillwayf::3 spu Dike

C hute & StiHing Sa sin .-,.....-,.Proposed Sediment Placement _..__. Haul R03ds
L--! In t ake Oispcr:al Ar ea { S ite t)
Transbld Facility
ULb.O
!IJ. f - 60.0
60 1 700
70. t - 80.0
~. l -95.0
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Figure 20 -Alternative 3- Noise Level Contours
233

December 2012
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.9.6 Mitigation
The following measures would be implemented in order to reduce noise effects from
general construction activities to less-than-significant. Any activity that would generate noise
that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant would be conducted only during those hours
when construction noise is exempt.
Conduct the loudest construction activities during construction noise exempt hours, or as
permitted by the City of Folsom. These activities include blasting, drilling, and dredging.
Establish a noise monitoring program for construction activities that may exceed noise
thresholds outside of construction noise exempt hours in order to maintain compliance
with exterior noise standards and permits. See Appendix G for monitoring program
guidelines.
Maintain a standard 24 hour hotline for noise complaints.
Contractor would be responsible for maintaining equipment in best possible working

condition.
Each piece of construction equipment would be fitted with efficient, well-maintained

mufflers.
Schedule truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations during exempt construction
hours as much as practical.
Locate construction equipment as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

In particular, locating the batch plant at the Folsom Overlook staging area would reduce
noise effects on sensitive receptors during non-exempt hours.
Situate construction equipment so that natural berms or aggregate stockpiles are located
in between the equipment and noise-sensitive receptors.
Enclose pumps that are not submerged and enclose above-ground conveyor systems in
acoustically treated enclosures.
Line or cover hoppers, conveyor transfer points, storage bins and chutes with sounddeadening material.
Acoustically attenuating shielding (barriers) and shrouds would be used when possible.
Use blast mats to cover blasts in order to minimize the possibility of fly rock.
For construction activities being conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours,
the Contractor would obtain a permit from all nearby cities and counties in the vicinity of
the project and maintain compliance with established limits.
For drilling activities in the water, the use of down-the-hole-hammers are recommended,
which produce much less noise than top-hammer drills from the striking bar.
234
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section presents and compares potential adverse effects to cultural resources as
compared to the existing condition discussed in Section 3.11.2. Adverse effects could result
from the implementation of the three alternatives described in Chapter 2. Potentially adverse
effects are discussed with respect to changes in the characteristics and integrity of historic
properties within the APE for the preferred alternative.
Cultural resources could be adversely affected by construction activities and physical
alterations to buildings, structures, and objects that may be historic properties. The changes to
the visual environment caused by the temporary and permanent construction activities could
result in adverse effects to cultural resources if visual character is an important criterion that
makes a cultural resource a historic property.
4.10.1 Methodology
Analysis of the impacts was based on evaluation of the changes to the existing historic
properties that would result from implementation of the project. In making a determination of
the effects to historic properties, consideration was given to:
Specific changes in the characteristics of historic properties in the APE.

The temporary or permanent nature of changes to the historic properties and the visual
APE around the historic properties.
The existing integrity considerations of historic properties in the APE and how the
integrity was related to the specific criterion that makes a historic property eligible for
listing in the NRHP.

Any adverse effects on cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the
NRHP are considered to be significant. Effects are considered to be adverse if they:
Alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify
that resource for the NRHP so that the integrity of the resource's location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, or association is diminished.
In California, effects to a historic resource or unique archaeological resource are

considered to be adverse if they
Materially impair the significance of a historical or archaeological resource.
235
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Under the no action alternative, the Corps would not participate in the excavation of the
approach channel and, therefore, would not cause any additional effects to cultural resources.
The conditions in the project area would remain consistent with current conditions. The haul
road, areas around Dikes 7 and 8, MIAD disposal site, and the area around Folsom Dam would
remain highly disturbed. The spur dike, approach channel, transload facility, and sediment
placement locations within the reservoir would not be used as previously described. There
would be no indirect effects to cultural resources under Alternative 1.
4.10.4 Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall

Folsom Dam, which includes the right and left wing dams, has been found individually
eligible for listing in the NRHP due to its role in flood control, hydropower, and irrigation in the
Sacramento region and eligible as a contributing element to the larger CVP. Dikes 7 and 8 were
found eligible for listing in the NRHP as integrated components of Folsom Dam and as
important structural elements in the formation of Folsom Lake. Previous determinations of
affect for activities relating to the Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction phases of the JFP
have been made for USBR and Corps projects within the current project APE. Those
determinations of affect have been that there would be no adverse effect to historic properties
within the APE (Folsom Dam and Dikes 7 and 8).
The Corps has made the preliminary determination that construction of the cutoff wall
would not result in an adverse effect to historic properties within the APE. Construction of the
secant pile cutoff wall and removal of the rock plug would occur in existing solid rock or fill
material placed since the construction of Folsom Dam. Excavation of the approach channel and
construction of the spur dike, transload facility, and placement of sediment would occur within
Folsom Lake. Some activities would require underwater excavation and in-the-wet construction.
There are no known historic properties within the APE for the approach channel, spur dike,
transload facility, and sediment placement site within Folsom Lake. Although an intensive
archaeological survey of these areas could not be conducted due to the high lake level of the
reservoir, there are not likely to be existing cultural resources in these areas. Photos of the
construction of Folsom Dam show that the area adjacent to the dam and around the dikes was
heavily disturbed by earthmoving activities. Additionally, the slope of the shoreline and hillside
of this area is steep and would have likely precluded settlement. Equipment necessary for
construction would use existing haul routes, borrow areas, and staging areas.
For those activities where excavation of material from within the reservoir would occur,
where possible an archeological monitor will be present to examine the excavated material. If
the reservoir lake level lowers and reveals previously unsurveyed areas within the APE that have
been inundated in the past those areas will be surveyed for the presence of historic properties. If
historic properties are discovered within the APE during these inventory efforts their eligibility
for listing in the NRHP will have to be determined and an evaluation of effect made. If it is
determined that a historic property will be adversely affected by the project a programmatic
236
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
agreement or memorandum of agreement will be executed between the Corps and the SHPO in
order to mitigate for adverse effects.
The historic properties and cultural resources in the APE are described in Section 3.1.2.
CA-SAC-934H would be avoided by the proposed project. CA-SAC-358H may be affected by
placement of disposal material within the reservoir but it has been determined to be likely
destroyed and lacking sufficient integrity to make it eligible as a historic property.
The construction of the approach channel, spur dike, and transload facility would result in
additional permanent flood risk management features associated with Folsom Dam and Dikes 7
and 8. Although Folsom Dam and Dikes 7 and 8 are historic properties and have made
significant contributions to the broad patterns of our history, they would not be adversely
affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would visually affect the landscape
within the APE, but the landscape is not a characteristic with which Folsom Dam and Dikes 7
and 8 are eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The proposed project would not result in a change in the primary function of Folsom
Dam and Dikes 7 and 8. The eligibility of Folsom Dam as a historic property that represents and
functions as an important flood control, hydropower, and irrigation feature in the Sacramento
region and as a contributing element to the larger CVP, would not be altered, resulting in no
adverse affects to this historic property by the proposed project. The eligibility of Dikes 7 and 8
as historic properties that represent integrated components of Folsom Dam and as important
structural elements in the formation of Folsom Lake would not be altered, resulting in no adverse
affects to these historic properties by the proposed project, therefore the impacts would be lessthan-significant. There would be no indirect effects to cultural resources under Alternative 2.
Effects associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 at the MIAD
Disposal Area, Dike 7, spur dike, transload facility, sediment placement location, approach
channel, and haul road. For potential adverse effects to historic properties, the Corps has made
the preliminary determination that the construction of the cofferdam would be similar as those
actions and affects described under Alternative 2 for the approach channel and spur dike. There
are no known historic properties within the APE for the cofferdam within Folsom Lake.
Although an intensive archaeological survey of these areas could not be conducted due to the
high level of the reservoir, there are not likely to be existing cultural resources in this area.
Photos of the construction of Folsom Dam show that the area adjacent to the dam and around the
dikes was heavily disturbed by earthmoving activities. Additionally, the slope of the shoreline
and hillside of this area is steep and would have likely precluded settlement.
The construction of the cofferdam would not result in additional potential adverse effects
to Folsom Dam and Dikes 7 and 8, and therefore no significant effects would occur. The effects
to these existing historic properties would be the same as described in Alternative 2. There
would be no indirect effects to cultural resources under Alternative 3.
237
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.10.6 Mitigation
The Corps has made preliminary determinations of eligibility for all of the known historic
properties within the APE and those potentially affected by the proposed project. For those areas
where survey of historic properties may still be completed, if historic properties are discovered
they will need to be recorded and evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP prior to
approval of the EIS/EIR. Additionally, if consultation with potentially interested Native
Americans results in the identification of potential historic properties within the APE,
recordation and evaluation of effects to those properties would also need to be completed prior to
approval of the EIS/EIR. Those determinations will be sent to the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) for comment and concurrence. If the SHPO concurs with the Corps
preliminary determinations that construction of the proposed project would have no adverse
effects on historic properties there would be no need for mitigation measures.
During inventory and evaluation efforts, if it is determined that a historic property may be
adversely affected by the proposed project, a programmatic agreement or memorandum of
agreement will be executed between the Corps and the SHPO in order to mitigate for adverse
effects.
However, if archeological deposits are found during project activities, work would be
stopped pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b), Discoveries without Prior Planning, to determine the
significance of the find and, if necessary, complete appropriate discovery procedures.
4.11 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
4.11.1 Methodology
This section evaluates whether construction of the project would result in potential
adverse impacts related to the general topography and existing soil conditions. The evaluation
and analysis of topography and soils are based, in part, on review of various soils maps and
reports. The primary sources include available resources from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and some summaries of soil and
topographical data (USBR 2007; Corps 2007). Both short-term and long-term program effects
are analyzed to determine their significance under NEPA and CEQA.

Adverse affects on topography and soils were considered significant if implementation of
an alternative would:
Substantially change the elevation or surface relief of the area;
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

238
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Under Alternative 1, the Corps and the CVFPB would not participate in construction of
the proposed alternatives. There would be no construction related effects involving direct
ground-disturbing activities that could result in changes to topography and soils.
Excavation of the approach channel would include permanently excavating the rock plug
area, and would result in a permanent reduction of elevation of the shoreline. Approximately
700 linear feet of the rock plug would be removed which represents 0.18% of the total shoreline.
The approach channel would be consistent with the land use on the southwest/downstream
shoreline of the reservoir. The topographical change of the approach channel would be
consistent with the functionality of the existing Folsom Dam.
The construction of the spur dike would change the topography of a small portion of the
Folsom Lake area. The spur dike would be a permanent expansion of the Folsom Overlook area.
The construction of the spur dike would alter approximately 1% of Folsom Reservoirs 75-miles
of shoreline. The topography of the spur dike would be consistent with the surrounding shoreline
of the Folsom Overlook area, and would not change the overall topography of the area
Construction of Alternative 2 would be conducted continuously over four years, to the
extent feasible. These activities would result in substantial soil disturbance and the replacement
of soils with concrete. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily expose disturbed
areas to erosion caused by wind or early-season rainfall events. Soil types have a moderate to
high erosion potential; because of the steep slopes within the project area, and the active
excavation and grading of soil during construction activities, which could result in erosion. The
construction contractors shall be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and comply with
the conditions of the NPDES general stormwater permit construction activity. Potential erosion
during construction would be addressed through the implementation of BMPs. Further
discussion of potential erosion concerns and the associated BMPs are addressed in Section 4.4,
Water Quality.
There would be no indirect effects to topography and soils associated with Alternative 2.
Discussion of the project area geology and seismicity are addressed in 3.1.1, Geology and
Seismicity. The design and construction of the approach channel would comply with the
regulatory standards of the Corps, USBR, and CVFPB and meet or exceed applicable design
standards for static and dynamic stability, seismic-related ground failure including subsidence
and landslides. As a result, less-than-significant effects are expected to topography and soils.
239
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.11.5 Alternative 3- Cofferdam

Under Alternative 3, the effects on topography and soils would be the same as described
in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also includes the construction of a cofferdam. Since
topographical change resulting from the cofferdam would be short term and temporary, this
effect would be less-than-significant. There would be no indirect effects to topography and soils
associated with Alternative 2.
4.11.6 Mitigation
There would be no significant long-term effects on topography and soils, therefore, no
mitigation would be required.
4.12 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
4.12.1 Methodology
The factors that are important for evaluating the context and intensity of impacts on
vegetation and wildlife species include a qualitative assessment of whether the action would
cause a substantial loss, degradation, or fragmentation of any sensitive natural vegetation
communities or wildlife habitat or if it were to interfere with the movement of any resident or
migratory wildlife species. The Corps and USFWS conducted field surveys in June and October
2012 to determine the existing conditions of vegetation and wildlife in the project area, and to
evaluate the potential range of effects.

Effects on vegetation and wildlife would be considered significant if the alternative
would result in any of the following:
Substantial loss, degradation, or fragmentation of any natural communities or wildlife

habitat.
Substantial effects on a sensitive natural community, including Federally-protected

wetlands and other waters of the U.S., as defined by Section 404 of the CWA.
Substantial reduction in the quality or quantity of important habitat, or access to such

habitat, for wildlife species.
240
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

the proposed alternatives. There would be no construction related effects to vegetation and
wildlife, and conditions in the project area would remain consistent with those analyzed in
Section 3.12.
Vegetation
The majority of the project area is previously disturbed due to ongoing Folsom JFP
construction. The previously undisturbed areas include the in-reservoir disposal site and Dike 8.
The in-reservoir disposal site has no vegetation associated with it, and consists of open water
habitat. Effects associated with the use of this disposal site, and proposed mitigation to reduce
those effects, are discussed in Section 4.4, Water Quality. In addition, there would be temporary
and permanent direct effects to open water habitat associated with the placement of fill in
Folsom Reservoir to construct the spur dike, transload facility, and haul route embankment.
Effects associated with the placement of fill in Folsom Reservoir are discussed in Section 4.4.
The Dike 8 disposal area consists of up to 15.8 acres of currently undisturbed habitat.
Use of the Dike 8 disposal area would result in the permanent loss of ruderal herbaceous, oak
savannah, transitional wetland, and open water/ reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone habitats on
the north of the dike. A summary of the affected vegetation is shown in Table 56 below. The
loss of vegetation habitat would be potentially significant, however, with the implementation of
mitigation, this would be considered less-than-significant.
Table 56. Summary of Estimated Vegetation Effects at the Dike 8 Disposal Area.
Habitat Type
Effect
Acreage
Ruderal Herbaceous
Permanent
6.1
Oak Savannah
Permanent
4.2
Permanent
2.5
Open Water/ Reservoir Shoreline
Permanent
3.0
Fluctuation Zone
Total
15.8
In addition to the habitat loss discussed above, there are up to 30 trees that have the
potential to be removed. These trees are associated primarily with the oak savannah and
transitional wetland habitat communities discussed above. Tree surveys were conducted by
Corps and USFWS biologists on June 11, 2012, and October 2, 2012. The results of their survey
are shown in Table 57. Tree data and map is located in Appendix I. In the project area there are
12 Valley Oaks and 2 Live Oaks at various sizes from less than 5 inches to 34 inches in diameter
which have the potential to fall under the Sacramento County Oak Tree Ordinance. The Corps
would coordinate with the County prior to removal of the oak trees.
241
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Wildlife
Species utilizing the project area should be accustomed to the noise and activity of the
area, due to the long-term nature of the Folsom JFP. The construction of the approach channel,
transload facility, and spur dike would not increase disturbance to the areas wildlife species
beyond current operations, with the exception of the increase of in-water work associated with
the approach channel excavation, which has the potential to affect aquatic species. Potential
affects to fish and other aquatic wildlife are discussed in Section 3.5, Fisheries.
The proposed Dike 8 disposal site is a previously undisturbed area. Use of this area has the
potential to affect a variety of wildlife species, including duck species and any amphibian species
that use the transitional wetland habitat in the northern reach of the Dike 8 area. It is anticipated
that most of the terrestrial species using the area would temporarily relocate due to increased
disturbance and activity in the area.
In order to preemptively avoid direct effects to amphibian and wetland species, materials
would be placed during low water levels. In addition, the culvert under the haul route that allows
the flooding of the Dike 8 area would be closed during low water levels prior to use of the Dike 8
area. As a result, this area would not flood, and the seasonal habitat would not be created for
these species during the construction period. Since the flooding of this area fluctuates with
reservoir levels, and does not annually flood, this would be considered a less-than-significant
direct impact on these wildlife species. However, since the loss of the transitional wetland
habitat would likely be permanent, as discussed above, this long-term habitat loss would be
considered a significant indirect effect to these species, as they would no longer be able to
seasonally access this habitat. As a result, mitigation for the permanent loss of transitional
wetland habitat would be required. To mitigate for the 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands
associated with fill placement at Dike 8, the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal
wetlands at a Corps approved mitigation bank.
Table 57. Trees Potentially Affected at the Dike 8 Disposal Area.
Species
Number of Trees
Total Diameter at Breast
Height (inches)
Cottonwood
5
173.5
1
Conifer, unknown
1
18
1
Eucalyptus
3
125.5
Live Oak
2
68
Valley Oak
12
286
Willow
6
145
Total
783.5
Notes: 1 non-native
Additionally, if the trees discussed above are removed, this has the potential to affect
nesting birds and raptors using this habitat. To ensure that there would be no effect to migratory
birds, preconstruction surveys would be conducted, if needed, in and around the project area. If
any migratory birds are found, a protective buffer would be delineated, and USFWS and CDFG
242
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
would be consulted for further actions. Recommendations proposed by the USFWS in their Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report are listed in Section 4.15.
Effects associated with Alternative 3 would be consistent with Alternative 2 for the
proposed use of the Dike 8 disposal site and its associated effects to terrestrial vegetation and
wildlife species. There is the potential for additional effects to aquatic habitat and species due to
the construction of the cofferdam in the wet. Effects to water quality and fish species associated
with the cofferdam are discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.
4.12.6 Mitigation
Mitigation measures have been implemented since the start of the Folsom JFP
construction in 2008. The mitigation measures listed below would continue to be implemented
throughout the final phase, as committed to in the 2007 FEIS/EIR and ROD.
To minimize dust impacts to wildlife, vegetation, and wetlands, unpaved access roads
would be frequently watered with raw water using a sprayer truck during periods when
trucks and other construction vehicles are using the roads, except during periods when
precipitation has dampened the soil enough to inhibit dust. The speed limit on unpaved
roads would be limited to avoid visible dust.
Prior to bringing in equipment from other sites, contractors would clean all mud, soil, and
plant/animal material from the equipment. This would help prevent the importation of
plants that are exotic or invasive.
The contractor would avoid impacts to native trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation to the
greatest extent possible and that construction is implemented in a manner that minimizes
disturbance of such areas to the extent feasible. Temporary fencing would be used during
construction to prevent disturbance of native trees that are located adjacent to
construction areas but can be avoided. The contractor would coordinate with Corps
Biologist prior to beginning work.
A Revegetation Plan would be developed to address potential losses to all habitats

impacted within the project footprint, and a mitigation and monitoring plan. The
Revegetation Plan would be implemented immediately following construction in
accordance with requirements in the SWPPP, Planning Aid Letter, and Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP).
In addition, mitigation for the permanent loss of habitat discussed above would be
required. This mitigation would be conducted in accordance with the recommendations provided
in the Coordination Act Report. The final Coordination Act Report is included in Appendix I.
The final Coordination Act Report outlines the specific mitigation requirements for the removal
of trees and loss of habitat.
243
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
All disturbed areas outside the reservoir area would be reseeded with forbs and grasses at
the completion of construction.
Pre-construction surveys for active nests along proposed construction site, haul roads,
staging areas, and disposal/stockpile sites would be performed by a qualified biologist.
Work activity around active nests should be avoided until the young have fledged. The
following protocol from the CDFG for Swainsons hawk would suffice for the preconstruction survey for raptors.
Note: A focused survey for Swainsons hawk nests would be conducted by a qualified
biologist during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to identify active nests
within 0.25 miles of the project area. The survey would be conducted no less than 14
days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction. If nesting
Swainsons hawks are found within 0.25 miles of the project area, no construction would
occur during the active nesting season of February 1 to August 31, or until the young
have fledged (as determined by a qualified biologist), unless otherwise negotiated with
the California Department of Fish and Game. If work is begun and completed between
September 1 and February 28, a survey is not required.
Any native trees or shrubs removed outside of the Dike 8 disposal area with a diameter at
breast height of 2 inches or greater should be replaced on-site, in-kind with container
plantings so that the combined diameter of the container plantings is equal to the
combined diameter of the trees removed. These replacement plantings should be
monitored for 5 years or until they are determined by USFW to be established and selfsustaining.
The Corps would compensate for the loss of the 30 trees at Dike 8 with a dbh of 2 inches
or greater known to be lost by the project by planting 3,134 seedlings (live and valley
oaks, cottonwoods) on a 13.34 acre site(s). Development of this site would be
coordinated with the Service and CDFG. These plantings should be monitored for 5 years
or until they are determined to be established and self-sustaining. The planting site(s)
would be protected in perpetuity. The compensation was derived by totaling the dbh of
the 30 impacted trees (783.5 inches) and multiplying it by 4 (assumes each seedling is inch in diameter) to get 3,134 trees. The area (13.34 ac) was based on planting densities
used for oak woodland on other Corps projects that were 235 plants per acre.
All revegetated or disturbed areas would be monitored annually by the Corps for invasive
non-native plant species, particularly French broom and pampas grass, for five years
following completion of construction, with the assistance of a qualified botanist. If
invasive species are becoming established on areas disturbed by project activities during
the five-year period, invasive species would be removed at times that preclude the plants
from setting new seed.
244
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The Corps would compensate for the loss of three acres of open water/ reservoir shoreline
fluctuation zone by assisting USBR with restoration at Mississippi Bar or purchasing
credits at a mitigation bank.
To mitigate for the 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands associated with fill placement at
Dike 8, the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal wetlands at a Corps approved
mitigation bank.
In the event that mitigation is not initiated within this two-year period, the mitigation
ratios would increase by 0.5:1 if initiated within two to five years, and by 1:1 if
mitigation is initiated more than five years after the permanent or temporary impacts
occur
The Corps would coordinate with Reclamation and Sacramento Country on site
restoration, as necessary. Any additional mitigation that could not be conducted on site would be
accomplished by purchasing credits at a USFWS approved mitigation bank. A summary of the
preliminary USFWS recommendations are included in Section 4.18.
4.13 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
4.13.1 Methodology
A list of Federally-listed and candidate species, and species of concern that may be
affected by projects in USGS quads Clarksville and Folsom was obtained on June 13, 2012 via
the USFWS website. In addition, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) conducted on June 18, 2012 indicated that there were no reported occurrences of the
Federal or State listed species in the project reach. The USFWS and CNDDB lists are included
in Appendix J.

Adverse effects on special status species were considered significant if an alternative
would result in any of the following:
Direct or indirect reduction in the growth, survival, or reproductive success of species

listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal or State
Endangered Species Acts.
Direct mortality, long-term habitat loss, or lowered reproduction success of Federally- or

State-listed threatened or endangered animal or plant species or candidates for Federal
listing.
245
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Direct or indirect reduction in the growth, survival, or reproductive success of substantial

populations of Federal species of concern, State-listed endangered or threatened species,
species of special concern, or regionally important commercial or game species.
Have an adverse effect on a species designated critical habitat.

the proposed alternatives. There would be no construction related effects to special status
species, and conditions in the project area would remain consistent with those analyzed in
Section 3.12.
Use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area has the potential to directly impact VELB
habitat. Additionally, it could result in direct and indirect impacts to white-tailed kites, if they
are nesting in the area. These effects would be considered significant, unless mitigation is
implemented.
As discussed in Section 3.13, three elderberry shrubs have begun to grow back along the
left wing dam approximately 0.25 miles from the approach channel project area; however, these
shrubs would not be affected by approach channel construction activities. There is the potential
for the four elderberry shrubs at Dike 8 to be directly affected by use of the proposed disposal
site. Stem counts and data on the four elderberry shrubs are included in Table 58 below. No exit
holes were visible on the four shrubs. Elderberry shrub data and map is located in Appendix J.
Table 58. Proposed Dike 8 Disposal Area Elderberry Shrub Data.
Shrub No.
Stem Size
Number of Stems
Location
1
2
3
4
5 +
1-3
1-3
5 +
Total
1
1
1
1
4
Non-Riparian
Non-Riparian
Non-Riparian
Non-Riparian
Exit Holes
No
No
No
No
Use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area would result in direct and indirect effects to the
four elderberry shrubs. Direct effects would include removal or trimming of the shrubs. Indirect
effects, if the shrubs are not removed, would include physical vibration and an increase in dust
246
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
during disposal activities. These effects would be considered significant, unless the mitigation
discussed below is implemented.
White-tailed Kite
Use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area could potentially result in direct and indirect
effects to the white-tailed kite if they begin nesting in the area. Construction activities in the
vicinity of a nest have the potential to result in forced fledging or nest abandonment by adult
kites. Therefore, if present, the white-tailed kite could be adversely affected by use of the
disposal site.
Prior to use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area, preconstruction surveys would be
conducted to determine if there are nests present within 1,000 feet of the disposal area. If the
survey determines that there are active nests in the project area, CDFG would be contacted to
determine the proper course of action. If necessary, a buffer would be delineated and the nests
would be monitored during construction activities. With coordination and mitigation, as
discussed below, it is anticipated that effects to white-tailed kite would be less-than-significant.
Effects associated with Alternative 3 would be consistent with Alternative 2 for the
proposed use of the Dike 8 disposal site and its associated potential effects to VELB and whitetailed kites. If used, disposal activities at Dike 8 would have potentially adverse effects to these
listed species. The mitigation discussed in Section 4.13.6 would be implemented under either
alternative, if the disposal site is used, in order to reduce effects to these species to less-thansignificant.
4.13.6 Mitigation
If the proposed Dike 8 disposal site would be used during project construction,
consultation was initiated with USFWS and CDFG to assess the impacts discussed above and
determine appropriate mitigation measures. The following mitigation measures was proposed by
the Corps during consultation to reduce the potentially significant effects associated with the
Dike 8 disposal area to less-than-significant.
The Corps would compensate for the loss of the four elderberry shrubs, if they are
removed. The four elderberry shrubs would be transplanted to USFW approved location and
monitored for 5 years. Compensation would also consist of planting elderberry shrubs and
associated natives at an existing Corps mitigation site in the American River Parkway or
purchasing credits at a USFWS approved mitigation bank. If the shrubs are not removed, and the
proposed Dike 8 disposal area is used, the following measures taken from the USFWS
247
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, July 1999 would be
incorporated into the project to minimize potential take of the VELB:
A minimum setback of 100 feet from the dripline of all elderberry shrubs would be
established, if possible. If the 100 foot minimum buffer zone is not possible, the next
maximum distance allowable would be established. These areas would be fenced,
flagged, and maintained during construction.
Environmental awareness training would be conducted for all workers before they begin
work. The training would include status, the need to avoid adversely affecting the
elderberry shrub, avoidance areas and measures taken by the workers during
construction, and contact information.
Signs would be placed every 50 feet along the edge of the elderberry buffer zones. The
signs would include: This area is the habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a
threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines,
and imprisonment. The signs should be readable from a distance of 20 feet and would
be maintained during construction.
Impacts to VELB would be less-than-significant with the implementation of the USFWS

conservation guidelines for the beetle.
White-tailed Kite
The following mitigation measures would be implemented prior to use of the proposed
Dike 8 disposal area to reduce potential adverse effects to white-tailed kites:
A qualified biologist would survey the project area, and all areas within one-half mile of
the project, prior to initiation of construction. If the survey determines that a nesting pair
is present, the Corps would coordinate with CDFG and/or USFWS, and the proper
avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented.
If a nesting pair is present, a biological monitor would be on-site during construction

activities to ensure, in coordination with CDFG, that white-tailed kites are not adversely
affected by project construction.
To avoid potential impacts to birds and raptor species, any trees that must be removed
prior to use of the Dike 8 disposal area would be removed during the time period of
August 15 to February 15. If trees must be removed outside of that timeframe, a
qualified biologist must survey the area prior to tree removal to verify the presence or
absence of nesting birds.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, effects to white-tailed kites

associated with the proposed use of the Dike 8 disposal area would be less-than-significant.
248
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2[b]) states that any significant environmental
effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented must be described. This
description includes significant adverse effects which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level
of insignificance. No effects were identified that were significant and unavoidable where
mitigation would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The environmental effects of the project alternatives on environmental resources are
discussed in Section 4. The analysis indicates that one or more of the project alternatives could
result in adverse effects on air quality, water quality, fisheries, and noise. Most of these adverse
effects can be avoided by implementing appropriate mitigation measures, and all adverse effects
can be mitigated to less-than-significant. Some temporary adverse effects which cannot be
avoided even when mitigation measures are implemented will affect air quality, water quality,
fisheries, and noise, but these adverse effects would be less-than-significant.
Air quality has potential to exceed the Federal Clean Air Act General Conformity Ruling
for the length of the project. Air emissions will rise in the immediate project area, but NOx
would be mitigated to less-than-significant by utilizing lower emission producing equipment, and
by following prescribed mitigation measures. In addition, air quality basin offsets will be created
by providing payment to SMAQMDs required NOX mitigation fee to reduce the NOx levels to
85 pounds per day (SMAQMDs threshold of significance), and by inclusion in the State
Implementation Plan.
Water quality has potential to cause temporary adverse effects in the immediate project
area due to the increase in turbidity, but compliance with Federal and State thresholds will retain
effects at a less-than-significant level. Some individual fish could incur sublethal or lethal
effects in the immediate project area due to turbidity and underwater blasting, but with
mitigation, effects to fish populations, habitat, and recreational fishing would be less-thansignificant.
Noise will increase while project construction occurs, with potential to exceed noise
thresholds particularly during non-exempt construction hours. With mitigation actions of
acoustic shielding, construction activity selection, and equipment placement, noise effects are
expected to be less-than-significant.
4.15 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

In accordance with NEPA, this section discusses the relationship between local shortterm uses of the human environment and maintenance of long-term productivity for the project.
Construction of Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve short-term uses of air quality, water quality,
recreation and traffic. The alternatives would narrow the range of beneficial uses of these
resources during construction.
249
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
However, adverse effects on these resources would be limited to the construction phase
of the project. No short-term uses of the environment are expected after the project is placed in
operation. The air quality, water quality, recreation, traffic and noise levels would return to preproject levels after construction is completed. In addition, operation of the approach channel as
part of the JFP would increase the long-term productivity of the environment by helping to
ensure public safety and protecting natural resources.
4.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

In accordance with NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16) and the CEQA Guidelines
(Statute 21083, 21100.1, and Sections 15126.2[c] and 15127[c]), this supplemental EIS/EIR
discusses any significant irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes that would be
caused by the proposed project, should it be implemented. Significant irreversible environmental
changes are defined as uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of
the alternatives that may be irreversible due to the large commitment of these resources.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the irretrievable commitment of lands and alteration
to the reservoir, in addition to construction materials, fossil fuels, and other energy resources
needed to construct the approach channel, spur dike and transload facility. The lands needed to
construct the approach channel and spur dike would experience an irreversible change in land
use. The approach channel would be compatible with the other dam-related uses of the
surrounding area.
Construction would require the increased use of materials and fossil fuels. The proposed
permanent approach channel and spur dike would result in the irretrievable commitment of
construction material and fossil fuels during the construction phase of the project.
4.17 COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Table 59 summarizes the effects of Alternatives 1 through 3 for all resource areas.
250
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 59. Comparative Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation, and Levels of Significance.
Geology and Minerals

Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Hydrology and Hydraulics

No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public Utilities and Services

Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Land Use and Socioeconomics

No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public Health and Safety

Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public safety risk associated with construction site

access and the operation of heavy construction
equipment. Public safety risk associated with
blasting.
affected zones.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Public safety risk associated with construction

site access and the operation of heavy
construction equipment. Public safety risk
associated with blasting.
affected zones.
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes

No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
251
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Air Quality
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Not applicable.
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

minimis threshold. Project exceeds SMAQMD air
quality basin thresholds. Higher emissions of 3
NOx tons per year produced than in Alt. 3.
Less-than-significant with mitigation and inclusion
into State Implementation Plan.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation. To meet
CAA, project will be included in SIP. Higher
tiered and electrical equipment will be used to
lower emissions. State mitigation fee payments for
excess NOx emissions.

minimis threshold. Project exceeds SMAQMD
air quality basin thresholds. Lower emissions of
3 NOx tons per year produced than in Alt. 2.
Less-than-significant with mitigation and
inclusion into State Implementation Plan.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation. To
meet CAA, project will be included in SIP.
Higher tiered and electrical equipment will be
used to lower emissions. State mitigation fee
payments for excess NOx emissions.
Climate Change
construction.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigations and use

construction.
Compliance with SMAQMD mitigation and use
Water Quality and Jurisdictional Waters

Higher risk of turbidity exceeding CVRWQCB
thresholds than in Alternative 3. Higher risk of
mercury bioaccumulation potential, and chemical,
gas and oil introduction into reservoir during
excavation and blasting than Alt. 3.
open water, and creation of 2.5 acres of new open
water habitat through approach channel excavation.
with CVRWQCB thresholds specified in the
Section 401 certification. To address loss of open
water, 10 acres of riparian wetlands at Mississippi
252
Lower risk of turbidity exceeding CVRWQCB

thresholds than in Alternative 2. Risk of mercury
bioaccumulation potential, and chemical, gas and
oil introduction into reservoir.
open water, and creation of 2.5 acres of new
open water habitat through approach channel
excavation.
with CVRWQCB thresholds specified in 401
certification, To address loss of open water, 10
acres of riparian wetlands at Mississippi Bar
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Bar would be created. Credits would be purchased

at a Corps mitigation bank if 2.5 acres of seasonal
would be created. Credits would be purchased at

a Corps mitigation bank if 2.5 acres of seasonal
Fisheries
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Higher risk of sublethal and lethal effects on

individual fish from turbidity and blasting than in
and gas habitat contamination. Potential of physical
crushing.
Mitigations, blasting minimization measures,
monitoring, BMPs, compliance with state water
quality certification. Rainbow trout would be
fishing.
Lower risk of sublethal and lethal effects on

individual fish from turbidity and blasting than
and gas habitat contamination. Potential of
physical crushing.
Mitigations, blasting minimization measures,
monitoring, BMPs, compliance with state water
quality certification. Rainbow trout would be
fishing.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Effect
No effect.

Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
grasses.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Not applicable.
Temporary closure of the lake from Dike 7 or 8 to

Folsom Overlook. Temporary closure of the
Folsom Lake Crossing bike trail during scheduled
blasts.

Temporary visual effect of cofferdam
surrounding the approach channel area within
Folsom Lake.
grasses.
Recreation
253
Temporary closure of the lake from Dike 7 or 8

to Folsom Overlook. Temporary closure of the
Folsom Lake Crossing bike trail during
scheduled blasts.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Mitigation
Not applicable.

remain unaffected.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

Effect
No effect.
Construction activities during non-exempt (night)

hours could violate the local noise ordinance, if
construction equipment (batch plant, rock crushers)
are operated simultaneously at impactful areas
(Dike 7).
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

non-exempt time periods. Compliance with City of
Folsom permits. Maintain equipment in best
reduce as noise as needed.
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
No effect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No effect.
Not applicable.
construction, work would be discontinued pursuant
to 36 CFR 800.13(b), Discoveries without Prior
remain unaffected.
Traffic and Circulation

Noise
Construction activities during non-exempt
(night) hours could violate the local noise
ordinance, if semi-permanent construction
equipment (batch plant, rock crushers) are
operated simultaneously at impactful areas (Dike
7).
non-exempt time periods. Compliance with City
of Folsom permits. Maintain equipment in best
reduce noise as needed.
Cultural Resources
254
No effect.
Not applicable.
construction, work would be discontinued
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b), Discoveries
SEIS/EIR
December 2012

Planning, to determine the significance and, if
necessary, complete appropriate discovery
procedures.
without Prior Planning, to determine the
significance and, if necessary, complete
appropriate discovery procedures.
Topography and Soils

Effect
No effect.

Temporary disturbance to soils during
construction.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Effect
No effect.

and up to 30 trees with use of Dike 8 disposal site.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

credits.
Effect
No effect.
Significance
Mitigation
Not applicable.
Not applicable.


Temporary change in topography due to the
cofferdam. Temporary disturbance to soils
during construction.
Not applicable.
Vegetation and Wildlife

and up to 30 trees with use of Dike 8 disposal
site.
credits.
Special Status Species
255

SEIS/EIR
December 2012
4.18 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

USFWS submitted a preliminary draft CAR for the Folsom Dam Modification Project,
Approach Channel February 2012. The recommendations from that CAR are presented below
and the Corps responses follow each recommendation. The preliminary draft CAR is included in
Appendix I.
The USFWS recommends that the Corps:
Avoid impacts to native trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation outside of the Dike 8
disposal area. Any native trees or shrubs removed with a diameter at breast height of 2
inches or greater should be replaced on-site, in-kind with container plantings so that the
combined diameter of the container plantings is equal to the combined diameter of the
trees removed. These replacement plantings should be monitored for 5 years or until they
are determined to be established and self-sustaining. The planting site(s) should be
protected in perpetuity.
Corps response: Impacts to native vegetation would be minimized to the greatest extent
possible. However, up to 30 trees may be removed from Dike 8. The Corps would
mitigate the tree removal by planting in-kind, on-site or at a USFWS approved mitigation
site. Plantings would be monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to be
established and self-sustaining by the Corps and USFWS.
Avoid future impacts to the site by ensuring all fill material used for the spur dike is free
of contaminants.
Corps response: The Corps would comply with CVRWQCB requirements in a 401
water quality certification for the project which would ensure contaminants are not added
by fill material placement. No contaminants were identified in the HTRW assessment.
Avoid impacts to migratory birds nesting along the access routes and adjacent to the
proposed construction sites by conducting pre-construction surveys migratory bird active
nests along proposed construction site, haul roads, staging areas, and disposal/stockpile
sites. Work activity around active nests should be avoided until the young have fledged.
The following protocol from the CDFG for Swainsons hawk would suffice for the preconstruction survey for raptors.
A focused survey for Swainsons hawk nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist
during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to identify active nests within 0.25
miles of the project area. The survey will be conducted no less than 14 days and no more
than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction. If nesting Swainsons hawks are
found within 0.25 miles of the project area, no construction will occur during the active
nesting season of February 1 to August 31, or until the young have fledged (as
determined by a qualified biologist), unless otherwise negotiated with the California
256
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Department of Fish and Game. If work is begun and completed between September 1 and
February 28, a survey is not required.
Corps response: The Corps would avoid adverse effects to nesting migratory birds, by
complying with the Migratory Bird Act and USFWS recommendations below.
Avoid introducing aquatic invasive species into the reservoir by requiring the contractor
to develop and implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan (HACCP) as
described above. This plan should be provided to the resource agencies for review and
approval prior to any in-water work.
Corps response: The Corps would require the contractor to develop and implement the
HACCP plan. This plan would be provided to the resource agencies for review and
approval. In addition, coordination with CDFG will be conducted prior to in-water work
to avoid introduction of invasive species.
Avoid introduction of fuels/lubricants by requiring containment on barges and conducting

land-based fueling operation in areas where spills cannot enter the reservoir (containment
areas).
Corps response: The Corps would require the contractor to comply with the Fuel and Oil
BMPs listed in Section 4.5.6.
Minimize impacts to sport fishery resources by implementing the BMPs discussed above
for all in-water blasting.
Corps response: The Corps would work with the contractor to implement the BMPs
recommended by the Corps and requested by the USFWS.
Minimize project impacts by reseeding all disturbed areas outside the reservoir area at the
completion of construction with forbs and grasses.
Corps response: All disturbed areas that would not be used after the project is completed
for maintenance would be seeded with native grasses.
Minimize potential for mobilizing contaminated sediments outside the immediate work
area (sediment removal area and transload facility) by developing a dredging plan prior to
construction which utilizes silt curtains or other means to prevent sediment from being
released into the lake and potentially the lower American River.
Corps response: The Corps would not require the use of silt curtains and other means
specified in BMPs to prevent sediment release, but would require the contractor to
comply with water quality thresholds with the CVRWCQB through a Section 401
Certification. A plan would be required of the contractor for use of the silt curtains and
turbidity threshold compliances and associated monitoring.
257
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Compensate for the loss of the 30 trees with a dbh of 2 inches or greater known to be lost
by the project by planting 3,134 seedlings (live and valley oaks, cottonwoods) on a 13.34
acre site(s). Development of this site should be coordinated with the Service and CDFG.
These plantings should be monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to be
established and self-sustaining. The planting site(s) should be protected in perpetuity.
Note: The compensation identified in Recommendation #10 above was derived by
totaling the dbh of the 30 impacted trees (783.5 inches) and multiplying it by 4 (assumes
each seedling is -inch in diameter) to get 3,134 trees. The area for plantings was based
on information provided by the Corps on planting densities used for oak woodland
(235/acre) on other projects.
Corps response: The Corps would compensate for the loss of 30 trees removed at Dike 8
by planting in-kind, on-site or at a USFWS approved mitigation site. Plantings would be
monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to be established and self-sustaining by
the Corps and USFWS.
Compensate for losses to fish resources by stocking Folsom Reservoir with rainbow
trout, Chinook salmon, and warm water sport fish. The quantity of stocking should be
developed by a work group comprised of the Corps and resources agencies.
Corps response: The Corps would respond to requests for stocking in Folsom Reservoir.
CDFG has specified restocking of 6,000 trout.
Contact NOAA Fisheries for possible effects of the project on federally listed species
under their jurisdiction.
Corps response: The Corps has contacted NOAA Fisheries. NOAA fisheries has not
provided a response.
Contact the CDFG regarding possible effects of the project on State listed species.
Corps response: The Corps has coordinated with CDFG and received comments
regarding concerns with project effects that are addressed by BMPs and mitigation
measures in Section 4.5.6. CDFG also recommended the purchase of hatchery-raised
trout for release for recreational fishing as an additional mitigation measure. CDFG
requests that the Corps submit a fish rescue plan for dewatering of the cofferdam and
recommends the Corps to conduct surveys of harmed or dead fish floating on the water
surface after blasting.
258
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
5.0 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

NEPA and CEQA require the consideration of cumulative effects of the proposed action,
combined with the effects of other projects. NEPA defines a cumulative effect as an effect on
the environment that results from the incremental effect of an action when combined with other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The CEQA Guidelines
(CERES 2007) define cumulative effects as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, compound or increase other environmental impacts (Section 15355
5.1 METHODOLOGY
The cumulative effects analysis determines the combined effect of the proposed project
and other closely related, reasonably foreseeable projects. Cumulative effects were evaluated by
identifying projects in and around the Folsom Dam vicinity that could have significant, adverse,
or beneficial effects. These potential effects are compared to the potential adverse and beneficial
effects of the proposed alternative to determine the type, length, and magnitude of potential
cumulative effects. Additional detailed information on cumulative effects on the approach
channel project is included in the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a). Mitigation of significant
cumulative effects could be accomplished by rescheduling actions of proposed projects and
adopting different technologies to meet compliances. Significance of cumulative effects is
determined by meeting Federal and State mandates and specified criteria identified in this
document for affected resources.
5.2 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

The geographic area that could be affected by project effects varies depending on the type
of environmental resource being considered. Air and water resources extend beyond the
confines of the project footprint since effects on these mediums would not necessarily be
confined to the project area. When the effects of the project are considered in combination with
those of other past, present, and future projects to identify cumulative effects, the other projects
that are considered may also vary depending on the type of environmental effects being assessed.
The following are the general geographic areas associated with the different resources addressed
in the analysis:
Air Quality: the air basin under the jurisdiction of SMAQMD.
Climate Change: the air basin under the jurisdiction of SMAQMD.
Water Quality: Folsom Lake.
Fisheries: Folsom Lake.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources: the FLSRA and surrounding neighborhoods in the City
of Folsom.
Recreation: the FLSRA.

259
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Traffic and Circulation: the roadways in the project region where traffic generated by
multiple projects would interact with the public on a cumulative basis.
Noise: the area under the jurisdiction of the City of Folsom and Sacramento County.
Cultural Resources: the APE, as described in Section 3.10, Cultural Resources.
5.3 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS

The projects with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects during construction and
operation of the approach channel project are briefly described below. Each of these projects is,
or has been, required by Federal, state, and/or local agencies to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate
any significant adverse effects on environmental resources to less-than-significant, when
possible. Those effects that cannot be reduced to less-than-significant are likely to have a greater
cumulative effect. Sequencing and timing of construction for the projects would also affect the
cumulative effects.
5.3.1 Folsom Joint Federal Project Activities

Due to the fact that the JFP is a multi-phased, accelerated effort, overlapping construction
efforts would occur adjacent and in the vicinity of the project area throughout the course of
construction of the approach channel. The concurrent activities on site include both the various
aspects of the approach channel work upstream of the control structure, as analyzed in this
SEIS/EIR, as well as other phases of the JFP that would be constructed by both the Corps and
USBR. The approach channel construction window would extend from August 2013 through
October 2017. Other activities associated with the Folsom JFP are discussed below. A timeline
illustrating the overlap of these projects with the various aspects of the approach channel project
can be seen on Plate 4.
Control Structure, Chute, and Stilling Basin
Spring 2011 to Fall 2017. Phase III of the JFP consists of construction of the auxiliary
spillway control structure. This effort is currently under construction by the Corps and
completion is expected during fall 2014. Concrete lining of the spillway chute and stilling basin
will be conducted by the Corps as the final phase of the JFP. These actions will be constructed
from approximately summer 2013 to fall 2017. Construction of the control structure, and the
concrete lining of the chute and stilling basin were addressed under the Corps 2010 EA/EIR
(Corps 2010).
Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification Project
The MIAD modification project improvements include excavation and replacement of the
foundation, and placement of an overlay with drains and filters, which would occur concurrently
with the first year of approach channel excavation. USBR released the Draft EIS/EIR for the
MIAD Modification Project in December 2009. Phase 1 of the project, which involves
260
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
installation of the key block is nearing completion. Recently the project design for the overlay
portion of the project has changed from a static overlay to a seismic overlay, which requires a
larger volume of construction material, particularly imported material. A supplemental EA/IS is
expected to be completed by August 2013 to assess the design change. An air quality assessment
results will determine the needed schedule length to distribute annual air emissions over a longer
time period in order to comply with the CCA. In addition, all four action alternatives in the Draft
Supplemental EIS/EIR include habitat mitigation proposed for up to 80 acres at Mississippi Bar
on the shore of Lake Natoma to address impacts from the JFP.
Folsom Dam Water Control Manual Update
The JFP project currently under construction, will improve the ability of Folsom Dam to
manage large flood events by allowing releases earlier in a storm event. In order to fully realize
the benefits of the JFP, the current Folsom Dam and Reservoir Water Control Manual (WCM)
must be updated.
The WCM update will identify, evaluate and recommend changes to the flood
management operation rules of Folsom Dam and Reservoir to reduce flood risk to the
Sacramento area by utilizing the new auxiliary spillway and y incorporating an improved
understanding of the American River Watershed upstream of Folsom Dam. The finding of the
evaluation will be used to help define the Dams new flood operations plan, with the intention of
meeting flood risk management objectives and dam safety requirements in a manner that
conserves as much water as possible and maximizes all authorized Folsom Dam project uses to
the extent practicable.
The study will result in a Corps Engineering Report and will be followed by WCM
implementing the recommendations of the study. The initial WCM will implement the
recommendation of the study, but will focus on the increased capabilities the JFP provides
Folsom Dam. Future improved abilities provided by the Dam Raise and additional Common
Features project improvements will be documented in the subsequent WCM updates when these
projects have been completed.
Folsom Dam Raise
This project includes raising the Folsom Dam, Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam and the
auxiliary dikes around Folsom Reservoir by 3.5 feet; replacing the three emergency spillway
gates; and three ecosystem restoration projects downstream including Bushy and Woodlake site
restoration. The ecosystem restoration projects have been prioritized at different levels and
separated, and two downstream restoration sites are to be completed in approximately 20162017.
5.3.2 Other Local Projects
Johnny Cash Folsom Prison Blues (Folsom Lake) Trail: Historic Truss Bridge to
Green Valley Road Segment
261
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
This project is planned to provide approximately 2.5 miles of Class I bike trail from the
Historic Truss Bridge to Green Valley Road. A majority of the trail alignment will be within the
Folsom Prison property. The project is broken into three major segments consisting of:
Phase 1 - Folsom Lake Crossing bike/pedestrian overcrossing to the Hancock Drive

intersection (currently under construction).
Phase 2 - Folsom Prison entry road to Rodeo Park (existing trail end).
Phase 3 - Hancock Drive intersection to the Folsom Prison entry road.
Phase 4 - Folsom Lake Crossing bike/pedestrian overcrossing to the El Dorado County

line.
Incorporation of a separated grade crossing at the new Folsom Lake Crossing/East

Natoma Street re-alignment was included within the new bridge crossing construction.
Construction would begin in 2012 with continued work expected through the earlier years of the
approach channel project.
Widening of Green Valley Road
Green Valley Road runs between both the City of Folsom and El Dorado County. Both
agencies have proposed projects to widen Green Valley Road from two to four lanes. The El
Dorado County Green Valley Road widening project from the county line to Francisco Drive
was constructed prior to 2009, with environmental mitigation to be completed from 2009 to 2012
(El Dorado County 2010). The City of Folsom plans to widen Green Valley Road; however, the
ongoing construction of the Bureaus MIAD Modification project limits their ability to conduct
the road widening project. There is currently no environmental compliance documentation and
no construction schedule for the project within the City of Folsom. The project could take four
years to construct.
El Dorado 50 HOV lanes
California Department of Transportation will construct bus-carpool (HOV) lanes in the
eastbound and westbound directions by widening U.S. Highway 50 from approximately El
Dorado Hills Boulevard to just west of Greenstone Road. The project will ultimately extend the
current HOV lane system to provide approximately 23 continuous miles of eastbound and
westbound HOV lanes between Sacramento and El Dorado counties. The project also includes
bridge modifications, lighting improvements and new asphalt overlay. The project will be
constructed in three phases: Phase 1extend the current HOV lanes from west of El Dorado Hills
Boulevard to west of Bass Lake Road. Phase 2 will extend the lanes from west of Bass Lake
Road to approximately Ponderosa Road. Construction is currently targeted to begin in Summer
2013 with completion in Fall 2015. Phase 3, currently on hold pending determination of funding
source, will extend the lanes from Ponderosa Road to Greenstone Road (Caltrans 2012).
262
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Hazel Avenue Improvement Project.

Sacramento Department of Transportation completed Phase 1 of the Hazel Avenue
Improvement Project. The primary portion of Phase 1 involved the widening of Hazel Avenue
from four to six lanes over the American River Bridge from U.S. 50 to Curragh Downs Drive.
Construction was completed in 2010. Phase 2 of the Hazel Avenue Projects includes widening
Hazel Avenue from four to six lanes from Curragh Downs Drive to Madison Avenue. This phase
will also include traffic signal modifications at Curragh Downs Drive, Winding Way, La Serena
Drive, the fire station at Roediger Lane and a new signal at Phoenix Avenue. Construction of
Phase 2 is currently targeted to begin in 2012 with completion in 2013.
5.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This section discusses the potential cumulative effects of the approach channel project
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. If the project is not
expected to contribute to a cumulative effect on a resource, that resource is not addressed; these
resources include geology, topography, soils, minerals, hydrology, public utilities and services,
socioeconomics, vegetation and wildlife, special status species, and HTRW. The 2007 Folsom
Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction draft and final EIS/EIR addresses hydraulics and land
use in detail. The other resources that could involve a cumulative effect are discussed in more
detail below. Table 62 summarizes the effects and related mitigation measures.
5.4.1 Air Quality

The approach channel projects construction period (2012-2017) would overlap with
other JFP construction activities, including the control structure, chute, and stilling basin projects
(2010-2016). These other activities are referred to in this section as the downstream project,
and are considered to be a codependent project subject to evaluation for the General Conformity
Rule by the USEPA.
Other concurrent projects listed above, with the exception of the downstream project and
the Folsom Dam Raise, are considered discrete projects outside the consideration of the General
Conformity Ruling for the approach channel project. Emission projections with the Folsom Dam
Raise project, which may begin in 2017, were not considered here since the project is in early
planning stages. When Folsom Dam Raise emission figures are determined, they may also
require cumulative assessment with the approach channel and downstream project for the
purpose of General Conformity determination.
263
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Long-term emissions associated with the completion of the JFP would be analyzed as a
part of the Folsom Dam Water Control Update. However, it is anticipated that any long-term
emissions associated with operation of the auxiliary spillway would be well below State and
Federal thresholds, and would not significantly contribute to the overall cumulative impacts.
Combined JFP (Upstream and Downstream Projects) Analysis
This section discusses the quantitative analysis of the cumulative short-term air quality
effects of the approach channel project alternatives in combination with the other features of the
JFP. Qualitative discussions of the cumulative effects of the approach channel project and the
other projects identified in Section 5.3 are also included. Prior cumulative air quality effects
assessed from the 2007 EIS/EIR did not specifically address the approach channel project and
other regional projects. Air emission models, project elements, the NOx de minimis threshold
and resulting calculated emissions differed substantially between the 2007 EIS/EIR and the
current Folsom Dam JFP project.
Sufficient construction activity information was available to perform a quantitative
analysis of cumulative air quality effects, using the General Conformity de minimis thresholds,
for the approach channel project and the downstream project. The methodology for emission
estimates and assumed mitigation measures for the downstream project are detailed in Appendix
A. Because these estimates are conducted for the USEPA rather than CEQA, emission
calculations were estimated using OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2007 models.
Table 60 summarizes total annual unmitigated emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10,
and PM2.5 for the project and the downstream project. Emissions in Table 60 are compared to
the GCR de minimis thresholds for determination of impacts relative to compliance with the
GCR. Based on Table 60, unmitigated NOx and PM10 emissions would exceed their respective
de minimis thresholds in all overlapping years (2013-2017) for Alternative 2. For Alternative 3,
unmitigated NOx and PM10 emissions would exceed their respective de minimis thresholds in all
overlapping years except in 2016 for NOx emissions. ROG CO, and PM2.5 unmitigated
emissions would be below their respective de minimis thresholds in all overlapping years (20132017) for both alternatives.
264
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 60. Combined JFP Cumulative Unmitigated Emission Summary for NEPA.
Pollutant (tons/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Alternative 2
3
39
18
107
26
<1
2013 Total
3
33
17
189
77
<1
2014 Total
2
29
16
134
72
<1
2015 Total
4
49
25
192
74
<1
2016 Total
4
52
26
103
13
<1
2017 Total
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
General Conformity de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
3
42
19
127
26
<1
2013 Total
3
30
15
157
73
<1
2014 Total
2
27
15
115
67
<1
2015 Total
2
22
13
188
70
<1
2016 Total
5
59
30
104
13
<1
2017 Total
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
Note: For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2007 models.
Emissions rates might not add up due to rounding.
Table 61 summarizes total annual mitigated emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10,
and PM2.5 for the project and the downstream project. Mitigation for the approach channel
project is presented in Section 4.2.7. Mitigation measures for exhaust emissions at the
downstream project were based on SMAQMD guidance for on-site off-road construction and onsite haul trucks (greater than 50 horsepower), including owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles. Additional mitigation measures would include watering controls to reduce fugitive
dust.
Based on Table 61, mitigated NOx would exceed the de minimis thresholds in 2016 and
2017 for Alternative 2 and in 2017 for Alternative 3. Mitigated ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions would be below their respective de minimis thresholds in all overlapping years (20132017) for both alternatives. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the criteria pollutant emissions
from the approach channel project and the downstream project would be less-than-significant for
ROG, CO, SO2, and PM2.5, less-than-significant with mitigation for PM10.
NOx emissions associated with the combined JFP exceeds the GCR de minimis threshold.
However, SMAQMD has evaluated the JFPs exceedance and has prepared a conformity
determination based on the estimated emissions discussed in this SEIS/EIR. The general
conformity evaluation is included as Appendix B of this document. The evaluation determined
that the current emissions estimated in the SIP were overestimated and as a result, the JFP
emissions could be included as a part of CARBs 2011 SIP amendment. As a result, the
265
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
combined emissions associated with this project would be in compliance with the GCR and
would be considered less-than-significant with mitigation.
Table 61. Combined JFP Cumulative Mitigated Emission Summary for NEPA.
Pollutant (tons/yr)
Activity
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Alternative 2
2
22
12
31
6
<1
2013 Total
2
24
15
24
4
<1
2014 Total
2
20
14
13
3
<1
2015 Total
2
28
19
24
4
<1
2016 Total
2
25
18
29
4
<1
2017 Total
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
Alternative 3
2
24
14
37
7
<1
2013 Total
2
24
15
19
4
<1
2014 Total
2
20
14
11
3
<1
2015 Total
2
17
12
24
4
<1
2016 Total
3
29
21
29
4
<1
2017 Total
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
Note: For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2007 models.
Regional Cumulative Projects Analysis

Concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom Reservoir could have
adverse cumulative air quality impacts, although these impacts would be temporary. Regional
projects that could overlap with the Folsom JFP project include the Johnny Cash Folsom Prison
Blues Trail (Historic Truss Bridge to Green Valley Road Segment projected for construction in
year 2013 and unknown completion), the El Dorado 50 HOV lanes (2013-2015), Hazel Avenue
Improvement Project (2013) and the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification Project (years
2013-2014). The projected dates for widening of Green Valley Road are undetermined at this
time. Each of these projects could temporarily overlap the Folsom Dam JFP project from one to
two years and contribute to regional emissions.
It is expected that the primary impacts from these concurrent projects would result from
construction activities. Construction of these projects would increase emissions of criteria
pollutants, including ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, from on-site
construction activities, including transport of materials.
As defined by the Federal Clean air Act, the general conformity de minimis thresholds
apply to the individual emissions from a project, but do not apply to the cumulative emissions
266
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
from regional projects. With mitigation required by SMAQMD, individual construction projects
would likely result in emission totals less than SMAQMDs CEQA significance threshold levels.
However, if regional construction projects within the SMAQMDs are implemented
concurrently, these combined construction activities could generate cumulative emissions above
CEQA and general conformity thresholds. Since final emissions projections have not been
finalized for these projects, exceedances are not known at this time.
The USBR has recently extended the MIAD Modification Project over a longer
construction period in order to reduce annual emissions in order to comply with the SMAQMD
thresholds. Though construction emissions would be mitigated below CEQA for the MIAD
project, the cumulative emissions from these two projects (MIAD plus Folsom JFP project)
could exceed the local air quality thresholds through years 2013 and 2014, and potentially,
additional years as well. Additional regional project emissions within the boundaries of the
SMAQMD could also contribute to exceedance of the emission thresholds.
However, incorporation of the Folsom JFPs emissions into the SIP by the SMAQMD,
effectively accounts for the Folsom JFPs contribution to cumulative emissions, within the
Sacramento Valley Air Basin. As a result, the Folsom JFP project would result in a less-thansignificant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
5.4.2 Climate Change

It is unlikely that any single project by itself could have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to GHGs. However, the cumulative effect of human activities has been
clearly linked to quantifiable changes in the composition of the atmosphere, which, in turn, have
been shown to be the main cause of global climate change (IPCC 2007). Therefore, the analysis
of the environmental effects of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact issue. While
the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from
multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative effect with respect to global
climate change.
It is expected that the primary impacts from these concurrent projects would be due to
construction activities. On an individual basis, these projects would mitigate emissions below the
general reporting threshold. If these projects are implemented concurrently, the combined
cumulative effects could be above reporting requirements for GHG emissions. If this was the
case, concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom Dam could have adverse
cumulative effects on climate change.
However, in order to reduce the significance of GHG emissions associated with this
project, the Corps is implementing a number of mitigation and minimization measures, as
discussed in Sections 4.2.6 and 4.3.6. By implementing the LACMTA Green Construction
Policy, the Corps would reduce overall emissions associated with the Approach Channel project,
and in doing so reduce the potential cumulative GHG emissions in the area. Additionally, the
majority of the related projects in the area consist of flood risk management and dam safety
seismic improvement actions. By implementing these actions, the Corps and USBR would be
267
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
reducing potential future emissions associated with future flood emergency actions. As a result,
the related projects could combine to reduce long-term potential GHG emissions in the
Sacramento area. As a result, the overall cumulative GHG emissions from these concurrent
project are considered to be less-than-significant.
5.4.3 Water Quality

Other concurrent projects were researched by the Corps, but they are not expected to
contribute to water quality effects in Folsom Reservoir and as a result they are not considered
significant. Folsom JFP construction would result in increased dam safety and flood risk
mitigation. This long-term effect would be beneficial and therefore does not require mitigation.
The Lower American River Common Features Project and Long-Term Reoperation of Folsom
Dam and Reservoir have the potential to collectively increase the flood damage reduction in even
greater amounts. These projects would culminate in long-term beneficial impacts for flood
damage reduction and dam safety. None of these concurrent projects are expected to contribute
to mercury bioaccumulation, and therefore cumulative impacts are not anticipated.
5.4.4 Fisheries
Cumulative effects are not expected for fisheries and as a result, not expected to be
significant. Short-term land based activities of concurrent or cumulative projects would comply
with federal and state water quality mandates to avoid contributions towards aquatic effects that
could have an adverse effect on fisheries. Project compliance with Federal and State water
quality regulations will ensure that effects are negligible or produce less-than-significant
cumulative effects upon Folsom Reservoir fish. No effects are expected upon Federal or State
species of concern or their habitat in conjunction with the Approach Channel project.
5.4.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Excavation of the approach channel would overlap with construction of the control
structure, concrete lining of the chute and stilling basin, and for only the first year of
construction, the seismic improvements project at MIAD. Concurrent construction of the
approach channel, spillway, and control structure will result in short-term cumulative effects on
visual resources in the project area. Additional vegetation clearing, earth moving, construction
equipment and stockpile from these projects could contribute to a larger temporary overall visual
impact. The control structure will contrast with the existing shoreline, leading to a long-term
permanent visual impact. However, cumulative effects are expected to be less-than-significant,
because Folsom Lakes southern shoreline is of low visual quality and other large manmade
features such as Folsom Dam are already well established in the landscape.
Improvements at MIAD, including excavation and replacement of the foundation, and
placement of an overlay with drains and filters, would occur concurrently with the first year of
approach channel excavation. Significant effects to the existing landscape at MIAD would be
268
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
reduced by USBR with the creation of 80 acres of habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar. The new
overlay could use up to 775,000 cy of the excavated materials disposed at MIAD by the Corps
under previous phases of the JFP, which would reduce the overall impact of the MIAD disposal
area (USBR 2010). Therefore, the combination of the MIAD Improvement project and the
approach channel excavation would reduce the overall visual cumulative effects associated with
the MIAD disposal site.
5.4.6 Recreation
There is only one project considered in the cumulative analysis that would have the shortterm potential to limit recreation at FLSRA, and three projects that have to potential to increase
recreational access on a long-term basis.
The Corps completed construction of Folsom Lake Crossing in 2009, which has provided
increased recreation opportunities due to the new bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Likewise, the
Johnny Cash Folsom Prison Blues (Folsom Lake) Trail would increase bicycle and pedestrian
access from the Historic Truss Bridge to Green Valley Road. The rough grading of the approach
ramp was completed in October 2011. Construction of the bridge and trail is expected to begin
in fall of 2012. Future construction of the bike trail has the potential to have a significant, longterm positive effect upon recreation and public access to the FLSRA.
The Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification is currently being constructed and is
scheduled to be completed in 2014; this project would produce short term impacts to recreation.
The approach channel is scheduled to begin in summer 2013, therefore, the construction periods
of these two projects would overlap by one and a half years. No construction is proposed on the
waterside of MIAD so there would be no impacts to boating or aquatic activities. The FolsomBrowns Ravine Trail atop MIAD and the parking lots at MIAD would be closed to the public
during construction because of the potential public safety hazards at the construction site.
Visitors would need to park at Browns Ravine or find alternate parking areas. While these
projects would have a cumulative effect on recreation, the MIAD Modification Project would
only temporarily impact land-based activities, whereas the approach channel construction would
impact water-based activities. Because the projects affect different recreation activities, and the
MIAD Modification Project impacts would be temporary, it is not expected that visitation would
be substantially reduced and with this order of magnitude, effects are not considered to be
significant.
5.4.7 Traffic and Circulation

There are seven short-term projects that have the potential to effect traffic. The Hazel
Avenue Improvement Project, widening of Green Valley Road, and the Folsom Bridge Project
are completed projects that have benefited traffic volumes. There is the potential for future
construction activities in the vicinity of the JFP to be constructed concurrently with the proposed
action. It is anticipated that construction would be ongoing for the Control Structure, Chute, and
Stilling Basin by the Corps and the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification Project by
269
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
USBR. Caltrans has planned two Highway 50 improvement projects, the El Dorado 50 HOV
lanes, and Sacramento 50 Bus-Carpool Lane and Community Enhancements Project that have
the potential to temporarily increase traffic levels along Highway 50.
Simultaneous construction of these projects would temporarily increase traffic levels
from the transport of materials and the labor forces shift work. Deliveries of materials to the
project site would range from two to three times a day. The addition of three truck trips along
Highway 50 would not significantly add to congestion. Workers accessing the project area
would do so during commute hours, whereas, Caltrans construction hours are during non-peak
times. In acknowledgement, a growth factor of 2% per year consistent with previous studies was
applied for future baseline projections on all study roadway segments in the traffic effects
analysis to account for potential cumulative activities as well as ambient traffic growth in the
area. Due to the staggered schedules, magnitude of vehicles involved and the short-term increase
of traffic to existing roads, these projects are not expected to be cumulatively significant.
5.4.8 Noise
There is the potential for future construction activities in the vicinity of the JFP to be
constructed concurrently with the proposed action. These projects are short-term projects that
include the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification Project, Folsom Dam Raise, and the
Johnny Cash Folsom Prison Blues Trail construction. No long-term effects are expected. In
addition, it is anticipated that construction would be ongoing by the Corps for the Control
Structure, Chute, and Stilling Basin work associated with the JFP. Concurrent construction of
these projects has the potential to temporarily increase noise levels in the surrounding areas.
Simultaneous construction of these projects would increase noise levels, from onsite
construction and transport of materials. The worst case assumption indicates that simultaneous
construction could potentially increase source noise emissions by 3 dBA. If these construction
projects are implemented concurrently, the combined cumulative effects could be above
significance thresholds. If this were the case, each project would need to mitigate individual
noise effects which could decrease overall cumulative effects for less-than-significant effects..
However, without consideration of scheduling and sequence of activities, determination of
whether concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom Lake could have
significant cumulative noise effects is not possible. Construction involved with both the Folsom
Dam JFP and the projects listed above are short-term and, therefore, there will be no long-term
cumulative noise effects other than increases in noise levels during simultaneous construction
activities.
270
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
5.4.9 Cultural Resources

None of the projects identified would result in a cumulative effect that would adversely
or significantly affect cultural resources. The area around Folsom Lake is an established
recreation and transportation corridor area and additional projects such as bike trails, widening of
roads, HOV, and carpool lanes would not result in short-term or long-term adverse affects to any
of the historic properties within the APE (Folsom Dam and Dikes 7 and 8) since the projects
would not affect the characteristics that make those properties eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Construction of projects such as pipelines, office buildings, the ongoing Folsom Dam
Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Projects, and the Folsom Dam Flood Management
Operations Study also would not adversely affect the historic properties within the APE. As with
the approach channel project, these projects would not affect the characteristics that make
Folsom Dam and Dikes 7 and 8 eligible for listing in the NRHP.
5.4.10 Topography and Soils

There are two projects that have the potential to effect soils and topography. Both the
Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification and the Johnny Cash Folsom Prison Blues (Folsom
Lake) Trail requires large volumes of soils to be moved. Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
Modification is currently being constructed and is scheduled to be completed in 2014. The first
segment of the Folsom Lake Trail includes a bike/pedestrian overcrossing of the Folsom Lake
Crossing Road and rough grading of the approach ramp has been completed. Although the
construction of the projects would involve a substantial amount of soil moving activities, impacts
associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be mitigated. Upon completion of the
projects, the general topography at the site would change from current conditions but would
remain consistent with the areas land use. Cumulative effects associated with soil resources and
topography would be less-than-significant.
5.4.11 Vegetation and Wildlife

In addition to the Folsom JFP approach channel excavation, the Mormon Island Auxiliary
Dam Modification project has identified effects to vegetation and wildlife. To mitigate for their
effects, USBR will create a mitigation site with associated riparian habitat at Mississippi Bar on
Lake Natoma. Mitigation would also be created as a result of any vegetation and wildlife effects
associated with the use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area. Mitigation associated with riparian
plantings on Lake Natoma or within the American River Parkway has the potential to increase
the contiguous riparian corridor along the river and would increase habitat continuity. As a
result, successful mitigation associated with both of these projects has the potential to increase
overall habitat quality in the long-term. As a result, the cumulative effect of these two projects
habitat loss would be considered less-than-significant, with the implementation of the projects
proposed mitigation.
271
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
5.4.12 Special Status Species

In addition to the Folsom JFP approach channel excavation, prior to the onset of the
MIAD Modification project USBR transplanted elderberry shrubs from their project footprint.
To mitigate for the transplanting of these shrubs, USBR will include elderberry plantings in their
Mississippi Bar mitigation site. VELB populations are highly affected by fragmented habitat, so
by improving this site, USBR would also be improving the contiguous corridor for the VELB
along the American River. Past Corps projects, including the Folsom Bridge Project, also
included elderberry mitigation that added to this corridor. The four elderberry shrubs that could
be removed with the use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area are non-riparian and are
disconnected from any contiguous habitat. If removed, mitigation conducted would include
plantings, which would likely occur within the American River Parkway. As a result, the
mitigation would benefit the species by adding habitat connectivity. As a result, the cumulative
effect of these two projects effects to elderberry shrubs would be considered less-thansignificant, with the implementation of the projects proposed mitigation.
272
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Table 62. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects and Mitigation

Resource
Significance
Effect
Air Quality
Less-than-significant
with mitigation.
Project emissions of individual projects

are included with the State
Implementation Plan through air basin
management by the SMAQMD.
Climate Change
with mitigations
Emissions would exceed reporting

threshold. No federal or state
significance threshold established.
Water Quality
with mitigation
Increased turbidity; risk for chemical,

gas and oil introduction into reservoir.
Fisheries
with mitigation
Increased turbidity.
Construction of concurrent projects

would result in a permanent change to
the visual landscape of the area.
Aesthetics and Visual

Resources
Recreation
Traffic and
Circulation

would include temporary closures to
recreation areas.
would not significantly overlap truck
273
Mitigation
Folsom JFP project emissions would
be included in the SIP. SMAQMD
mitigation will be implemented. State
mitigation fees would be compensated.
Use of higher tiered and electrical
equipment .
Compliance with SMAQMD
recommended mitigation. Use of
higher tiered and electrical equipment.
Use of mitigation, and BMPs to
achieve compliance with CVRWQCB
certifications. Contaminants
containment plan, and containment
equipment on site
Use of mitigation, and BMPs to
achieve compliance with CVRWQCB
certifications. Contaminants
containment plan, and containment
equipment on site
The area is already highly disturbed
due to flood control features in the
area. Changes to the landscape would
be consistent with the land use and
visual character of the area.
Public outreach would be conducted to
ensure that the boaters and hikers are
aware of the closures.
None required.
Resource
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Significance
Effect
Mitigation
traffic during peak hours.
Noise
with mitigation
Cultural Resources
N/A
Simultaneous construction could

potentially increase source noise
emissions by 3 dBA, and thus above
significance thresholds.
Vegetation and
Wildlife
with mitigation
No Effect
Multiple projects with soil-moving
activities.
Multiple projects with associated
permanent habitat loss.
Special Status
Species
with mitigation
Multiple projects with removal of

elderberry shrubs.
Topography and Soils Less-than-significant
274
Concurrent projects would each be

responsible for mitigating their noise
levels to below threshold levels.
Additionally, each project would be
required to comply with local
jurisdictions permitting requirements.
None required.
None required.
Site restoration and habitat creation or
credits purchased at a mitigation bank.
Transplanting and planting of new
elderberry shrubs and associated
natives to add connectivity to the
American River corridor.
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
5.5 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an environmental document to:
Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove
obstacles to population growth (CERES, 2007)
In general, an action would be considered growth inducing if it caused or contributed to
economic or population growth. Growth-inducing effects would result in more economic or
population growth than would have occurred otherwise from other factors. Thus, a growthinducing action would promote or encourage growth beyond that which could be attributed to
other factors known to have a significant relationship to economic or population growth.
Within the study area, growth and development are controlled by the local governments
of the City of Folsom, and Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer Counties. Consistent with
California law, each of these local governments has adopted a general plan and each general plan
provides an overall framework for growth and development within the jurisdiction of each local
government. Local, regional, and national economic conditions also directly affect growth and
development.
The alternatives currently considered for the approach channel excavation would not
contribute directly to population or economic growth by constructing additional housing or by
building new businesses. However, the overall JFP would generate additional economic benefits
during construction and would contribute to greater flood risk management for the Sacramento
area once complete. The potential for any growth-inducing effects associated with the overall
JFP were analyzed under the 2007 FEIS/EIR (USBR 2007a)
The approach channel excavation is of a limited scope, and would not promote or
contribute to any regional economic or population growth. Any future local growth would be
required to remain consistent with the local general plans, as described above.
275
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS

The status of the approach channel projects compliance with applicable Federal, State,
and local environmental requirements is summarized below. Prior to initiation of construction,
the project would be in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.
6.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

Clean Air Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.)
Full Compliance. Emissions estimates determined that the Approach Channel project
operating concurrently with other JFP projects would be above the de minimus level. These
emission reductions were incorporated into the project analysis. Even with implementation of
mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2, emissions would not be reduced below the
USEPAs general conformity de minimis threshold. Based upon preliminary analysis of air
quality effects from the proposed action, it was evident that mitigated construction actions would
result in exceeding SMAQMD standards for NOx. Compliance with the CAA was accomplished
by inclusion in the State Implementation Plan and additional mitigation that implements a green
construction policy requiring use of higher tiered construction equipment and electrified
equipment where possible.
Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance, , October 5, 2009
Full Compliance. Executive Order 13514 requires federal agencies to set a 2020 GHG
emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum
consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage
federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
The Corps is requiring lower emission (higher tiered) equipment for use in construction and
electric batch plants and rock crushers
Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.)
Full Compliance. The potential effects of the proposed project on water quality have
been evaluated and are discussed in section 4.4. Prior to construction, the contractor will prepare
and implement a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will help identify
the sources of sediment and other pollutants, and establish BMPs for storm water and non-storm
water source control and pollutant control. Additionally, compliance with the CWA will be
accomplished by obtaining certifications through the CVRWQCB and internally through the
Corps. As part of the permits, contractors will be required to implement best management
practices to avoid and minimize any adverse effects of construction on surface waters. The
following National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits will be obtained:
276
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
1. Storm Water Permit: NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.
2. Industrial Storm Water Permit: NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities.
3. Limited Threat Discharge Permit: NPDES Permit for Limited Threat Discharges of
Treated/Untreated Groundwater to Surface Water.
The CWA also requires that a permit be obtained from the USEPA and the Corps when
discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United States occurs.
Section 404 of the CWA requires the USEPA and Corps to issue individual and general permits
for these activities. The Corps does not permit itself but conducts an internal assessment to
ensure that all requirements of Section 404 are met. A 404(b)(1) analysis has been completed
and is included as Appendix D of this SEIS/EIR.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.)
Full Compliance. A list of threatened and endangered species that have potential to
occur in the Folsom area was obtained from USFWS on June 13, 2012. Based on the analysis
contained in this document, the Corps has determined that the project has the potential to affect
Federally-listed threatened or endangered species if the proposed Dike 8 disposal site were used.
If the proposed Dike 8 disposal site is selected for use, the Corps would initiate consultation with
USFWS under Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act to assess the impacts to VELB and
determine appropriate mitigation measures. USFWS consultation, or the decision to eliminate
this proposed disposal site, would constitute full compliance with this law. There are no
additional potential effects to Federally-listed species beyond the elderberry shrubs at Dike 8.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management
Full Compliance. The objective of this Executive Order is the avoidance, to the extent
possible, of long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification
of the base floodplain (1 in 100 annual event) and the avoidance of direct and indirect support of
development in the base floodplain wherever there is a practicable alternative. The proposed
project is a portion of the JFP, and it has been determined by the project partners and Congress
that constructing the JFP is the only practicable way to reduce flood risk to the greater
Sacramento area. The JFP, in combination with other area flood risk reduction projects, protects
the existing urban population while providing residual risk information to the appropriate
agencies making land use decisions in the area. Therefore, the proposed project does not
contribute to increased development in the floodplain and is in compliance with the executive
order.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
Full Compliance. This Executive Order directs Federal agencies, in carrying out their
responsibilities, to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve
277
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. There are 2.5 acres of transitional
wetlands in the project area at Dike 8. If Dike 8 is used as a disposal area then the Corps would
purchase 2.5 acres of seasonal wetlands at an approved bank to compensate for the loss of fish
habitat function. Some wetlands are located within mile of the project area, on the landside of
MIAD. These wetlands would not be directly impacted by any project activities. There is the
potential for fugitive dust to affect the wetlands; however, dust suppression measures would be
implemented throughout project construction. With the implementation of the dust suppression
measures listed in Section 4.2, there would be no adverse effects to wetlands in the vicinity of
the project area.
Executive Order 12989, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Full Compliance. This Executive Order states that Federal agencies are responsible for
conducting their programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health of the
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the
effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting
persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race,
color, or national origin. The proposed construction project is located on public lands and is not
located near any minority or low income communities. The benefits of the JFP would extend to
all areas of the greater Sacramento area; therefore it would not provide disproportionate benefits
or effects to any minority or low income populations and is in compliance with this Executive
Order.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq.)
Full Compliance. There are no designated prime or unique farmlands within the project
area; therefore there would be no adverse effects to farmland and the project is in compliance
with this Act.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.)
Full Compliance. Federal agencies undertaking water projects are required to fully
consider recommendations made by the USFWS in the provided Coordination Act Report (CAR)
or Planning Aid Letter associated with the project. USFWS and CDFG have participated in
evaluating the proposed project, and USFWS has completed a final CAR which accompanies this
document (Appendix I).
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16. U.S.C. 1801)
Full Compliance. There is no essential fish habitat in the project area; therefore, the
Corps has determined that the proposed action would have no effect on essential fish habitat.
The project is in full compliance with this legislation.
278
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1936, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.)
Full Compliance. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and
conventions between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia, providing protection
for migratory birds as defined in 16 U.S.C. 715j. The proposed action is located in an ongoing
construction area, which has been active since 2008. There is potential nesting habitat located at
the proposed Dike 8 disposal area. To ensure that the project does not affect migratory birds,
preconstruction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist in areas adjacent to the
project site. If breeding birds are found in the area, a protective buffer would be delineated and
USFWS and CDFG would be consulted for further actions.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.)
Full Compliance. NEPA applies to all Federal agencies and most of the activities they
manage, regulate, or fund that affect the environment. This act requires full disclosure of the
environmental effects, alternatives, potential mitigation, and environmental compliance
procedures of proposed actions. NEPA requires the preparation of an appropriate document to
ensure that Federal agencies accomplish the laws purposes. Full compliance will be achieved
when the final EIS/EIR is filed with USEPA and the Corps issues a Record of Decision.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470)
Full Compliance. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effects of a proposed undertaking on properties that have been
determined to be eligible for, or included in, the National Register of Historic Places.
The implementing regulations for Section 106 are 36 CFR 800.
In a letter dated December 22, 2011, the Corps initiated consultation with the SHPO,
informing the SHPO of the proposed project, and asked for comments on the determination of
the APE and on the proposed efforts to identify historic properties within the APE. In a letter
dated January 25, 2012, the SHPO did not object to Corps determination of the APE and
concluded that the Corps efforts to identify historic properties were reasonable and sufficient.
Letters to potentially interested Native Americans were initially sent on October 13, 2011
to inquire if those individuals have knowledge of locations of archaeological sites, or areas of
traditional cultural value or concern in or near the APE. Both the United Auburn Indian
Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
(SSB) contacted the Corps in reference to the proposed project. Corps staff met with
representatives of the UAIC on December 6, 2011 to discuss the project and any concerns the
UAIC had on the proposed project. The Corps provided information on the known historic
properties and past surveys and determinations of affect to historic properties within the APE to
both the UAIC and the SSB.
Follow up letters to potentially interested Native Americans were sent on December 22,
2011 requesting those individuals notify the Corps if they have any interest in the project. The
UAIC responded in a letter dated January 12, 2012 that they did not have any further
279
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
archaeological concerns for the project. The Corps met with representatives of the SSB on
March 16, 2012. The SSB indicated they are interested in activities occurring within the project
area and they requested a site visit. A site visit with SSB was conducted on July 19 2012.
Follow up phone calls and emails to the SSB did not indicate that the SSB had any further
questions or concerns about the project. No other responses from potentially interested Native
Americans have been received. Correspondence related to Section 106 consultation is included
in Appendix H.
The Corps has made preliminary determinations of affect for historic properties within
the proposed project APE. The only historic properties identified were (1) Folsom Dam,
including the right and left wing dams, which was found eligible for listing in the NRHP for its
role in the history of flood control in the Sacramento region, and (2) Dikes 7 and 8, which were
found eligible for listing in the NRHP for their role as integrated components of Folsom Dam
and as an important structural element in the formation of Folsom Lake. The Corps has made a
preliminary determination that the proposed project will not adversely affect these historic
properties. Once the SHPO has concurred with the Corps determination of effects, the project
will be in compliance with Section 106.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1217, et seq.)
Full Compliance. This act was enacted to preserve selected rivers or sections of rivers in
their free-flowing condition in order to protect the quality of river waters and to fulfill other
national conservation purposes. The Lower American River, below Nimbus Dam, has been
included in the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers system since 1981. The proposed project is
located above this reach of the American River, and, therefore, does not affect this portion of the
river.
6.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

Full Compliance. Section 4.2 of this document discusses the effects of the proposed
project on the local and regional air quality. Emissions estimates determined that the Approach
Channel project operating concurrently with other JFP projects would exceed existing local
thresholds of the California Clean Air Act as administered by SMAQMD for NOx. However,
inclusion of project emission within the SIP has addressed cumulative project concerns. It is
anticipated that compliance with the California Clean Air Act would be reached with
incorporated mitigations specified in section 4.2.
California Water Code

been evaluated and are discussed in section 4.4. Compliance with the California Water Code
will be accomplished by obtaining certifications through the CVRWQCB and completion of the
Corps 404(b)(1) analysis.
280
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
California Endangered Species Act

Full Compliance. This Act requires the non-Federal sponsor to consider the potential
adverse affects of State-listed species. As a joint NEPA/CEQA document, this EIS/EIR has
considered the potential effects to State-listed species and has determined that there is the
potential for suitable habitat for State-listed species at Dike 8. If the Dike 8 disposal area is
selected for use, biological surveys would be conducted and CDFG would be consulted for
potential conservation measures, as needed. Completion of consultation with CDFG, if needed,
would fulfill compliance with this law. If Dike 8 is not used, the project is in full compliance
with CESA.
Full Compliance. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that state and local agencies
identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions, including potential significant air
quality and climate change impacts, and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, when feasible. The
CEQA amendments of December 30, 2009, specifically require lead agencies to address GHG
emissions in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by a project, and to
consider feasible means to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions (California Natural
Resources Agency 2012). The CVFPB, as the non-Federal sponsor, will undertake activities to
ensure compliance with the requirements of this Act. CEQA requires the full disclosure of
environmental effects, potential mitigation, and environmental compliance for the proposed
project. This joint NEPA/CEQA document would fully comply with CEQA requirement. The
CVFPB will consider certifying the final EIR, adopting its findings, adopting mitigation and
monitoring plan, and approving design refinements.
been evaluated and are discussed in section 4.4. This project expects to achieve full compliance
with the Water Quality Control Act by achieving compliance with CVRWQCB certification
mandates for Section 401.
281
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This chapter describes the public involvement activities associated with the design and
evaluation of the Folsom Dam Modifications Project, Approach Channel. These activities
included agency meetings and coordination; a community outreach program with public
workshops, notices, and media; and distribution of the draft documents for public review and
comment.
7.1 AGENCY COORDINATION

The Corps has been coordinating with various agencies throughout the duration of the
JFP effort to discuss the concerns and issues of these agencies regarding the project. The other
agencies involved in the coordination include:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
California Department of Water Resources
California Water Quality Control Board
City of Folsom
7.2 PUBLIC INTEREST

On October 20, 2011 the Corps and CVFPB staff held a public meeting to present the
status of the approach channel project and obtain public input. The meeting was publicized in an
NOI/NOP, the Sacramento Bee, and on the CVFPBs website.
282
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
The purpose of the meeting was to continue the flow of information on the Folsom Dam
Modification Project, Approach Channel, while gathering additional information and community
comments from citizens who live, work, and commute near the project area. In attendance were
agency partners from SAFCA, USBR, and CVFPB. Interested parties from SMAQMD, HDR,
Northern California Power Agency, State Parks, El Dorado County, the City of Folsom, and two
community members attended the meeting.
At the meeting, the Corps and CVFPB provided visual displays explaining the planning
procedure, back ground information of Folsom Dam, project location, description of the control
structure and approach channel, as well as, computer generated images. The Corps presented the
history of the JFP, NEPA and CEQA, the current phase of the project, and scheduled completion
dates. After the Corps presentation, one question was asked regarding changes to the operation
of Folsom Dam once improvements are complete. The public was encouraged to submit written
comments. No comments were received during the meeting.
project beyond recommendations for the use of native plans and resources in potential mitigation
banking activities. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (SSB) requested information on
the project and to meet with the Corps regarding the project. The Corps provided project
information and background, as requested, and met with representatives of the SSB on March 16,
2012. The SSB indicated they are interested in activities occurring within the project area and
they requested a site visit. A site visit with SSB was conducted on July 19 2012. Follow-up
phone calls and emails to the SSB did not indicate that the SSB had any further questions or
concerns about the project. No other responses from potentially interested Native Americans
have been received. Correspondence related to Section 106 consultation is included in Appendix
J.
7.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOI/NOP

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a draft EIS/EIR for the Folsom Modification
Project, Approach Channel was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2011. The
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a joint draft EIS/EIR for the project was also submitted to the
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, by the CVFPB on October 3, 2011
(Appendix K). No comments were received in response to the NOI.
Letters in response to the NOP were received from the CA Department of Parks and
Recreation (State Parks), Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD), U.S. Coast
Guard, FEMA, NOAA, and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD). State Parks and SRCSD have property and/or operations that could be directly
affected by the project. State Parks manages recreation in the Folsom Lake area and expressed
283
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
concerns to restricted recreational access, water quality, and public safety during construction.
SRCSD operates two wastewater pipelines which cross under the American River and expressed
concerns that potential changes to operations could impact their pipelines.
The other four agencies had specific comments related to the potential effects of the
project. The U.S. Coast Guard stated the project is outside their jurisdiction and further
coordination is no longer required. FEMA reviewed the actions needed to satisfy the
requirements of the National Flood insurance Program related to floodplain management
building requirements. NOAA requests that potential impacts to listed fish are address through
an evaluation of any changes to dam operations, effects on flow and ramping in the American
River, and identify potential effects upstream and downstream of the dam, and potential water
quality effects. As a regulating agency, SMAQMD indicated the need to identify the amount and
duration of construction related emissions and to determine if construction related emissions
would cause a significant impact based on air quality criteria. In addition, SMAQMD indicated
the need to analyze naturally occurring asbestos in the soils and identify sensitive receptors.
SMAQMD also indicated the need to implement mitigation measures and BMPs to reduce
emissions and to identify any operational emissions.
Comments received in response to the NOI/NOP are included in Appendix K.
7.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR

A notice of availability (NOA) of the draft SEIS/EIR was published in the Federal
Register and a Notice of completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse July 20, 2012. The
45-day public review period for the draft document began July 25 and ended September 10,
2012.
Two public workshops were held on August 23, 2012 by the Corps and the CVFPB at
Folsom City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to provide informational updates on the
Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel and provide opportunity for comments on
the draft SEIS. The SEIS /EIR presentation was conducted in a similar format as for the October
2011 meeting. A registered professional reporter certified in shorthand, recorded the
proceedings. Public formal statements were solicited from the attendees. No formal comments
were received during the meeting.
During the public review period, seven comment letters were received on the draft
SEIS/EIR from Federal, State, and local agencies and one letter from a member of the public.
Comments were received by letter, email, public workshop verbal comment transcription, and
telephone. Comments addressed air quality, water quality, blasting, disposal of materials,
erosion, wildlife and fisheries, recreational impacts and public safety, and site restoration.
All comments received during the public review period are addressed and incorporated
into the final SEIS/EIR, as appropriate. The Response to Comments Appendix (Appendix L),
contains copies of all written and email comments received on the draft SEIS/EIR and all verbal
284
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
comments received at the August 23, 2012 workshop (in the form of the written transcripts of the
meeting).
7.5 INTENDED USES OF THE SEIS/EIR

This SEIS/EIR is a public information document under both NEPA and CEQA. Its
purpose is to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant
effects of the project. The document also identifies measures to avoid or minimize significant
effects and describes reasonable alternatives to the project. The purpose or intent of an EIS/EIR
is not to recommend either approval or disapproval of a project, but to disclose the potential
effects of that project.
On the Federal level, after completion of the review process, the final SEIS/EIR will be
submitted first to the District Engineer, who will issue a Record of Decision regarding the
adequacy of the document and the desirability of going forward with the project as designed. If
the District Engineer reaches a decision in favor of construction, the project would move directly
to the construction phase. Congress has already authorized the project for construction.
On the State and local levels, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, as the projects
lead agency under CEQA, will consider staff recommendations and public comment and decide
whether to certify the SEIS/EIR, adopt findings, adopt the mitigation and monitoring plan, and
approve design refinements.
SAFCA and other local agencies may use the final SEIS/EIR when they consider permits
or approvals that may be associated with the project. Coordination with agencies such as the
SMAQMD will be necessary to obtain permits or approvals.
7.6 DOCUMENT RECIPIENTS

The following Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations would either receive a
copy of the final EIS/EIR or a notification of document availability. Individuals who may be
affected by the project or have expressed interest through the public involvement process would
also be notified.
7.6.1 Elected Officials and Representatives

Governor of California
Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
United States Senate
Honorable Barbara Boxer
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
285
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
United States House of Representatives

Honorable Doris Matsui
Honorable Daniel E. Lundgren
Honorable Tom McClintock
California Senate
Honorable Ted Gaines
Honorable Darrell Steinberg
Honorable Doug LaMalfa
Honorable Lois Wolk
California State Assembly
Honorable Richard Pan
Honorable Alyson Huber
Honorable Beth Gaines
Honorable Roger Dickinson
Honorable Dan Logue
7.6.2 Government Departments and Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
Western Area Power Administration
State of California Agencies
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

286
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Native American Heritage Commission
State Office of Historic Preservation
State Clearinghouse
State Lands Commission
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Regional, County, and City Agencies
Sacramento County
Placer County
El Dorado County
City of Folsom
287
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Nancy Sandburg
Senior Biological Sciences Environmental Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
30 years biological and environmental studies and management
Report coordination, preparation and review
Jamie LeFevre
Biological Sciences Environmental Manager
5 years environmental management and environmental studies
Report preparation and coordination
Anne Baker
Social Science Environmental Manager
5 years environmental planning and writing
Melissa Montag
Historian/Social Science Environmental Manager
10 years cultural resources management, environmental planning, and writing
Lynne Stevenson
Environmental Resources Manager
25 years environmental management and document review
Report review
Aimee Kindel
Environmental Manager
1 year environmental planning
Report preparation
Destani Hobbs
GIS Specialist
GIS figures and graphics preparation
288
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
State of California
David Martasian
Senior Environmental Scientist
8 years CEQA compliance
Review and Coordination
Vincent Heim
Environmental Scientist
2 years CEQA compliance
Review and Coordination
Contractors
Brown and Caldwell/ URS (A Joint Venture):
Air quality modeling and analysis (Tim Rimpo, Avanti Tamhane, Jon Tamimi)
Water quality and bioaccumultation assessment (Khalil Abusaba, Carol Lazzorato)
Traffic modeling and analysis (Noel Casil PE, Neelam Sharma TE)
Noise modeling and analysis (Ryan McMullan)
289
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
9.0 REFERENCES
9.1 PRINTED SOURCES
Allison, J.D., T.L. Allison, and R.B. Ambrose. 2005. Partition Coefficients for Metals in
Surface Water, Soil, and Waste. Washington DC.
Bailey, Jim. 2005. Central Valley Project California, Historic Engineering Features: A Multiple
Property Documentation Form (DRAFT). U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver,
Colorado.
Bartlett, R. J. 1991. Chromium cycling in soils and water: links, gaps, and methods.
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 92, pp 17-24.
Beranek, L.L. (ed.). 1988. Noise and Vibration Control. Second Edition. Institute of Noise
Control Engineering. New York.
Berry, W., N. Rubinstein and B. Melzian. 2003. The Biological Effects of Suspended and
Bedded Sediment (SABS) in Aquatic Systems: A Review. Internal Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Narrangansett, RI. 32 pp.
Birtwell, I.K. 1999. The Effects of Sediment on Fish and their Habitat. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada Science Branch. West Vancouver B.C. V7V 1N6. 34pp.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2007. Fire Hazard Severety
Zone Re-mapping Project. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/fhz.html Accessed
January 2012.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2001. 17 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 93105. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying and Surface Mining Operation. Adopted July 26, 2001.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012. Maps from 2010 State Area Designations.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012a. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Level and 2020 Limit. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012b. Air Assembly Bill 1493 Climate Change
Backgrounder: The Greenhouse Effect and California.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccbackground.pdf.
290
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012c. ARB Programs, Climate Change. Assembly
Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks). 1978a. Resource Management Plan
(Review Draft): Folsom Lake State Recreation.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks). 1979. Resource Inventory Report:
Auburn -Folsom Project. Volume One: Natural Resources. Sacramento, CA. 188
pp.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies. State of California Department of Transportation. 19pp.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Final
Report # CA05-0537. Prepared by M.C. Hastings and A. Popper for Jones & Stokes.
Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. Technical Guidance for Assessment
and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared by ICF
Jones & Stokes. February 2009. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012a. El Dorado 50 HOV lanes
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/projects/hov50/index.htm
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012b. Caltrans traffic count database:
http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov
California Department of Parks and Recreation and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (State Parks and
USBR). 2007a. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area and Folsom Powerhouse State
Historic Park General Plan and Resource Management Plan. Volume I Preliminary
General Plan and Resource Management Plan. Folsom, California.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22322
California Department of Parks and Recreation and Bureau of Reclamation (State Parks and
USBR). 2007b. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area & Folsom Powerhouse State
Historic Park General Plan and Resource Management Plan. Volume 2 Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Folsom, California.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22322
California Education Development Department (EDD). 2011. Unemployment Rate and Labor
Force. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1006
California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions
And Sinks: 1990 To 2004 Final Staff Report.
291
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES). 2007. CEQA Guidelines.

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/
California Geological Survey. 2006. Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring
Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California. Special Report 192. July 2006.
California Geological Survey. 2007. Index to Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps
California Native Plant Society. 2011. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi
California Natural Diversity Database. 2011. Results of electronic database search. California
Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2012. CEQA Guidelines. 2009 SB 97 Rulemaking.
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines. Accessed January 2012.
California Office of Planning and Research 2009. CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases,
Proposed CEQA Amendments. April 13, 2009. http://www.opr.ca.gov/. Accessed
January 2012.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2007. Fourth Edition of the
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River
Basins. Sacramento, California.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010. Contaminants in Fish from
California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening
Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP).,
Sacramento, CA.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003. California Stormwater Quality
Associated BMP Handbook Construction. http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary TMDL for Methlymercury Staff Report.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. American River Fish Mercury
Data Compilation. Preliminary Dataset for the American River Watershed
Methylmercury TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment. Website:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/americ
an_river_hg/index.shtml
City of Folsom. 1993. City of Folsom, California Municipal Code. Chapter 8.42, Table
8.42.040.
292
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
City of Folsom. 2011. Folsom Website. http://www.folsom.ca.us/

City of Sacramento. 2005. General Plan Update Technical Background Report. Sacramento,
California.
Clarke, D. G., and Wilber, D. H. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging
operations due to sediment resuspension, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC
TN-DOER-E9), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the
Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18, 2010.
Cramer, C H; Toppozada, T R; Unite, D L. 1978. Seismicity of the Foothills fault system of the
Sierra Nevada between Folsom and Oroville, California. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America. Volume 68, no.1.
El Dorado County Planning Department. 2004. El Dorado County General Plan. Conservation
and Open Space Element. El Dorado County, California.
El Dorado County. 2010. Capital Improvement Program.
http://www.edcgov.us/Government/DOT/CIP.aspx
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Mercury Study Report to Congress:
Overview. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/reportover.htm,
Fehr and Peers. 2005. Traffic analysis section prepared for the Folsom Bridge SEIS/SEIR.
Roseville, CA.
Flowers and Sanjayan, 2007 (Abstract): Green House Gas Emissions Due to Concrete
Manufacture, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 12, Number 5,
July 2007. Landsberg, Germany: Ecomed.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). 1997. Stabilization of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological, and
Socio-Economic Implications. IPCC Technical Paper III. Geneva, Switzerland. February
1997.
Folsom History Museum. 2006. Folsoms Unique History.
http://www.folsomhistorymuseum.org/history.htm.
Gerwick, Ben C. Inc.. 2012. Fish protection against waterborne pressures (draft). Report
prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Contract No. W9123809-R-0026. 24 p.
Harden, Deborah R. 1997. California Geology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
293
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Harris, C.M. (ed.). 1991. The Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third
Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York.
Hempen, G.L. 2008. Destructive Water-Borne Pressure Waves 6th International Conference on
Case Histories In Geotechnical Engineering. Paper No. 4.17. Arlington Virginia.
Hoover, M., et al. 1990. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Houghton, J.P. and D.R. Munday. 1987. Effects of Linear Explosive Seismic Energy Releases
on Fish in Alaskas Transition Zone. Final Report to The Alaska Oil and Gas
Association. Dames & Moore, Anchorage, Alaska.
Hubbs, C.L., E.P. Schultz, and R. Wisner. 1960. Investigations of effects on caged fish from
underwater nitro-carbo-nitrate explosions. Unpublished Preliminary Report, Scripps
Institute of Oceanography.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1997. Stabilization of Atmospheric
Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological, and Socio-Economic Implications. IPCC
Technical Paper III. Geneva, Switzerland. February 1997.
JBF Scientific Corporation. 1978. An analysis of the functional capabilities and performance of
silt curtains. Technical Report D-78-39, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas With Locations
and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California Geologic Data Map Series Map No.
6. Scale 1:750,000. California Department of Mines and Geology.
Keevan, T.M. and G.L. Hempen. 1997. The Environmenal Effect of Underwater Explosions
with Methods to Mitigate Impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis Missouri.
August 1997.
Landfield, Anne H. and Karra, Vijia. 2000. Life cycle assessment of a rock crusher. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling. Vol. 28 , Issues 34 page 207217. February 2000.
Lawler, Mtusky, and Skelly Engineers. 1983. Results of water quality tests in prototype silt
curtain testing program Westway Project. LMSE-83/0161&232/019, LMS
Environmental Science and Engineering Consultants, Pearl River, NY.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). 2011. Green
Construction Policy. July 21, 2011
Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis
Issues
294
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Lloyd, F.D. 1987. Turbidity as a water quality standard for salmonid habitats in Alaska; a
review of published and unpublished literature relevant to the use of turbidity as a water
quality standard. Rep. 85-1. Alaska Dept., Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. 101 p.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2003. Environmental Conditions: Noise. City of Folsom General Plan.
Policy 30.5, 1988. Irvine, CA. Available at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/
500/files/Noise.pdf.
MacDonald, DD; Ingersoll, CG; Berger, TA. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensusbased sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology Journal.
Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and
Los Angeles, CA. 502 pp.
MWH Laboratories. 2003. Laboratory Report for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Interior.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996. Contaminants in Aquatic
Habitats at hazardous waste sites: Mercury. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
ORCA 100. Seattle Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division. Seattle,
Washington.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1993. Soil Survey Sacramento County,
California.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Custom Soil Resource Report for El
Dorado Area, California; Placer County, California, Western Part; and Sacramento
County, California.
Nedwell, J.R. and B. Edwards. 2004. A review of measurements of underwater man-made noise
carried out by Subacoustech Ltd, 1993 2003. Prepared for DTI by Subacoustech Ltd,
Southampton, Hampshire.
Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A
synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North Amer. J. Fish.
Management 16: 693-727.
Newcombe, D.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediment on aquatic
ecosystems. North Amer. J. Fish. Management. 11:72-82.
O'Keefe, D. J. and G. A. Young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of underwater
explosions. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448. Report No.
NSWC TR 83-240.
295
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Office of the Governor. 2007. Executive Order S-01-07. Internet Address:

http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/5172/. Issued January 18, 2007.
Olsen, K. 1969. Directional response in herring to sound and noise stimuli. International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea. 8 p.
Placer County Public Works Agency (PCWA). 2002. American River Pump Station Project
Final EIS/EIR. Placer County Water Agency. Auburn, CA
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2004. Projections Data Set.
http://www.sacog.org/
Sacramento County. 2005. General Plan, General Plan Technical Background Report.
Sacramento County. 2009. General Plan Update Land Use Element.
Sacramento County. 2002. Hazel Avenue Widening Project Madison Avenue to U.S.
Highway 50. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. (Control
Number 00-PWE-0549). http://www.msa.saccounty.net/hazelavenue/pdfs/000594NOP.pdf
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2006. Compliance
Assistance Advisory: Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2011a. Guide to Air
Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised 2011.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2011a. Guide to Air
Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised 2011.
San Juan Water District. 2006. Master Plan Update. http://www.sjwd.org/Technical-Docs.html
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). 2010. Revised Draft Big Bear Lake TMDL
Action Plan. Riverside, CA.
http://www.sawpa.org/documents/RevisedDraft_BigBearLakeTMDLActionPlan8-262010signed.pdf
Shaw, E.A. and J.S. Richardson. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration on
stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorrhynchus mykiss) growth and
survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:2213-2221 (2001).
Turnpenny, A. and J. R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on marine fish, diving mammals and birds of
underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. Prepared for the UK Offshore Operators
Association by Subacoustech Ltd, Southampton, Hampshire. Appendix A.
296
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.

URS. 2008. Draft Report: Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Design
Ground Motions for Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway, California. Folsom Cofferdam JFP
Alternatives Feasibility Study Contract No. W91238-07-D-0012. September 23.
URS. 2009. Cofferdam Feasibility Study for Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project. Contract No.
W91238-07-D-0012. Task 5 Approach Channel Constructability Analysis. May 12.
URS. 2009. Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project Auxiliary Spillway Site-Specific Seismic Hazard
Analyses and Development of Design Ground Motions Contract No. W91238-07-D-0012
Task 6 Final Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis.
URS. 2010. Approach channel cofferdam Design, Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom
Dam, CA. Contract No. W91238-09-R-0026. November 18.
URS. 2011a. Approach Channel Cofferdam Design. Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom
Dam, CA. Contract No. W91238-09-R-0026. Task 3 Geotechnical Exploration Report.
URS. 2011b. Approach Channel Cofferdam Design, Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom
Dam , CA. Contract No. W91238-10-D-0004. Task 4 35% Cofferdam Plans and
Preliminary Design Analysis Report. November 4.
URS and Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. 2008a. Draft Report: Task 2 Preliminary Cofferdam
Alternatives Feasibility Study. Folsom Cofferdam JFP Alternatives Feasibility Study
Contract No. W91238-08-D-0001. April 16.
URS and Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. 2008b. Final Report: Task 5 Cofferdam Alternatives
Feasibility Study. Folsom Cofferdam JFP Alternatives Feasibility Study Contract No.
W91238-08-D-0001. Draft Final Report. August 22.
URS and Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. 2008c. Final Report: Task 4 Cofferdam Alternatives and
Approach Channel Excavation Study. Folsom Cofferdam JFP Alternatives Feasibility
Study Contract No. W91238-07-D-0012. December 5.
URS and Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. 2009. Final Report: Joint Federal Project Early Approach
Channel Excavation Noise Analysis. Oakland, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1991a. American River Watershed Investigation,
California. Feasibility Report. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1991b. American River Watershed Investigation,
California. Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento,
California.
297
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1995. Assessment of Impacts Associated With Rock
Blasting. Wilmington, North Carolina. www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/seis-rock.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2001a. Final EA/Initial Study, American River
Watershed, California, Folsom Dam Modification Project. Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2001b. American River Watershed, California, Long
Term Study, Vol. 1, Draft Supplemental Plan Formulation Report/EIS/EIR. Sacramento,
CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2004. Blast Monitoring Program for the Kill Van Kull
Deepening Project. District. New York, NY.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Silt Curtains as a Dredging Project Management
Practice. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Dredging Operations
and Environmental Research. ERDC TN-DOER-E21.
http://el.erdc.usace.army,mil/elpubs/pdf/doere21.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2007. American River Watershed Project, Post
Authorization Change Report. Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise
Projects. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008a. American River Watershed Project, CA. Folsom
Dam Modification and Raise Project, Economic Reevaluation Report (ERP).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008b. American River Watershed Project Joint Federal
Project Auxiliary Spillway General Design Documentation Report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008c. Sediment Characterization Study at the Folsom
Dam Auxiliary Spillway Within the Area of the Seismic Refraction Study. Sacramento,
California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2009. Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Impact Report. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction, Early Approach Channel Excavation. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Impact Report. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction, Control Structure, Chute, and Stilling Basin Work. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2011. Draft Summary Report of Sediment Testing PreDredge Sediment and Water Quality Samples, Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway Project.
Sacramento, California.
298
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2012. Environmental Site Assessment. Folsom Dam.
Modification Approach Channel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Corps and USBR). 2007.
Record of Decision. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Joint Federal
Project. Folsom, California.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2005. Water quality profile data of samples collected from
Folsom Reservoir on June 28, 2005. Received via electronic mail on February 27, 2006
from Shawn E. Oliver, Natural Resource Specialist, USBR.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2006a. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction, Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.
Volume I-II. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2006b. Joint Federal Project Auxiliary Spillway Folsom
Lake: Sediment Characterization Trace Mercury and Total Metals. Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2007a. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2007b. Revised Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and
Other Waters of the U.S. for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction
Action.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2008. Joint Federal Project Haul Road Folsom Lake:
Assessment of Total Mercury in Haul Road Soil. Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2009. Joint Federal Project-Folsom Dam Auxiliary
Spillway Approach Channel Geologic Investigation. May 2009.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2010. Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam Modification
Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report. Folsom, California.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2011. Avian Monitoring Study Results 2010. Folsom
Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction Project. Folsom California.
U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2010. American Factfinder. Profile of General Population and
Housing Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_
10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table
299
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USBR and Corps). 2007.
Folsom DS/FDR Biological Assessment. Folsom, California. Prepared by Entrix, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. EPA-905-B94-003.Ch 4.
www.epa.gov/greatlakes/arcs.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. Accessed January 2012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. EPA and NHTSA [National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration] Propose Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse
Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks.
http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f09047.htm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) 5-year review: summary and evaluation.
Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report.
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Results of electronic search of endangered
species lists. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_list.htm
U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management.
Agriculture Handbook Number 701. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Wagner, D. L., Jennings C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and Bortugno E.J. 1981. California
Geological Survey. Index to Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones. Geological Map
of the Sacramento Quadrangle. Last revised 2007.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/sacramento/sacramento.html
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, LLC; LSA Associates; Geotechnical Consultants, Inc; Psomas;
Concept Marine Inc. 2003. Draft Resource Inventory for Folsom Lake State Recreation
Area. Prepared for: CDPR and Reclamation.
Welton J.S., Beamont W.R.C. & Clark R.T. 2002. The efficacy of air, sound and acoustic
bubble screens in deflecting Alantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts in the River Frome,
UK. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2002, 9, 11-18.
300
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Wilbur, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: a review of
suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in
estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 121:855-875.
Wilson, N.L. and Arlean H.T. 1978. Nisenan. In Handbook of North American Indians.
Volume 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Wright, D.G. 1982. A discussion paper on the effects of explosives on fish and marine
mammals in the waters of the Northwest Territories. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sce.
1052: v + 16 p.
Wright, D.G., and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the use of explosives in or near Canadian
fisheries waters. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2107: iv + 34p.
301
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
9.2 PERSONAL CONTACTS

Anderson, Charles. 2012. Program Coordinator for Plan Coordination, Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District. Personal communication via email with Megan
Giglini, URS Corporation regarding PM2.5 attainment status. January 16, 2012.
Huss, Karen. 2011. Associate Air Quality Planner/ Analyst, Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District. Personal communication via email with Tim Rimpo, URS
Corporation regarding construction equipment list and EMFAC guidance. October 24,
2011.
Keevin, Thomas. 2012. Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Telephone conversation and
emails regarding blasting effects on fish and mitigations. January 2012.
Rowan, Jay. 2012. Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Telephone
conversation and emails regarding Folsom Reservoir Fish populations. February 2012.
Thomas, Kevin. 2011. Biologist., California Department of Fish and Game. Personal
communication regarding Folsom Reservoir Fish populations. June 11, 2011.
302
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
10.0 INDEX
Acronyms & Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xii
Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................................................................. 82, 189, 266
Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 36
Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................. 280
Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 47, 124, 261
Alternative 1 - No Action ............................................................................................................. 12
Alternative 2 - Approach Channel Construction with Cutoff Wall .............................................. 13
Alternative 3 - Approach Channel Construction with Cofferdam ................................................ 30
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 10
Alternatives not Considered in Detail ........................................................................................... 11
Authorization .................................................................................................................................. 2
Batch Plant Operations ................................................................................................................. 23
Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 56, 144, 265
Cofferdam ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Comments on the NOI/NOP ....................................................................................................... 281
Comparative Effects of the Alternatives ..................................................................................... 248
Comparative Summary of Environmental Effects ...................................................................... 249
Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 15
Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies, and Plans ............................................................. 274
Construction Details................................................................................................................ 25, 33
Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants ............................................................................ 129
Construction Emissions of TACs........................................................................................ 132, 137
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 108, 234, 269
Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................................... 261
Cutoff Wall Construction.............................................................................................................. 13
Document Recipients .................................................................................................................. 283
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 123
Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies .................................................................................... 274
Fisheries ................................................................................................................................ 74, 266
Geographic Scope ....................................................................................................................... 257
Geologic Setting............................................................................................................................ 37
Geology, Topography, Soils, and Minerals .................................................................................. 36
Growth-Inducing Effects ............................................................................................................ 273
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes ................................................................................ 46
Hydrology and Hydraulics ............................................................................................................ 39
Intended Uses of the EIS/EIR ..................................................................................................... 283
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................................... 248
JFP Phase Timeline ......................................................................................................................... 4
Land Use and Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 43
List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................... 286
Mercury ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Naturally Occurring Asbestos ..................................................................................................... 129
303
SEIS/EIR
December 2012
Noise ........................................................................................................................... 102, 208, 268

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects ....................................................... 258
Plan Formulation ........................................................................................................................... 10
Previous Environmental Documents............................................................................................... 7
Project Area .................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Transportation Routes..................................................................................................... 202
Project Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 5
Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 1
Public Health and Safety............................................................................................................... 45
Public Interest ............................................................................................................................. 280
Public Involvemnt ....................................................................................................................... 280
Public Review and Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR ................................................................. 282
Public Utilities and Services ......................................................................................................... 41
Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................... 6
Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 89, 194, 267
Recreation Safety Boundary ....................................................................................................... 197
References ................................................................................................................................... 290
Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity................................................. 247
Report Organization ........................................................................................................................ 8
Resources not Evaluated in Detail ................................................................................................ 36
Significant Issues ............................................................................................................................ 6
Special Status Species ................................................................................................................. 118
Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction ............................................................................. 20
State of California Laws, Regulations, and Policies ................................................................... 278
Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 271
Traffic and Circulation .................................................................................................. 95, 199, 267
Transload Facility ......................................................................................................................... 22
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendations ..................................................................... 254
Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................................................................................... 247
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 115
Water Resources and Quality........................................................................................ 60, 148, 266
304
PLATES
LEGEND
Au xiliary Spillw ay- - Chute & Stil ling Basin

- - Con trol Structure
-
- Coffer Dam
cutoff Wall
__.._.._ Hau l Roads
m Folsom Prison Staging Area

o verlook Expansion
EZJ In Lake Disposal Area (Site 2)

EZJ Spur Dike
[]]) Ex isting Overlook
-
Transload Facility
.---~Proposed Sediment Placement
L___j In Lake Disposal Area (Site 1)
1&8&1 Dike 7
I ! Dike8
MIAD
~.
US Army Corps
of Engineer$
sacnnwi!IO Olr.trice
Plate 1 - Project Area Map

December 2012
m.
US Army Corp ~
of l!.ngirioet'S
Plate 2 - Future Project Rendering

December 2012
Truckee
Gras6 Valley
Lake
Tahoe
.,.AmericantRiver Watershed
Yolo Bypass
Sacramento County
...

Approach Channel
iii
16!)
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Plate 3- American River Watershed Map

December 2012
JFP C ONCURRENT C ONSTRUCTION A CTIVITIES

JW E 2013 TO 0CToeER 20 17
A PPROACH CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION
I
I
AUg. 2013 - My 2014
CURJI'FWML~
Aug. 20 13 - Nov. 2015
l RA.IIli.OioO fACIUTY CONITRUC110N
w..oow
....:
~~
~ = ~
......
Aug. 20 1~ - Oct. 201!
ROCK P LUO DRY f XCAVATC:W
2014
JioHUioftY
2015
.-.....
.IUOE
2013
Nov. 21110 - MaR:Il2015

CCinla..I'IIUC'UIEc:c..nucn.
I
I
0Cl2015 - JUI)' 2017
I
I
Oct. 2015 - JUly 2017

I , _ DIKE cc..numc.
ROCK PWO W ET EXCAVATION
......,..,
......,..,
2018
2017
I
I
OCToiiER
2017
I
JUIJ 2013 -
J~ 2017
. . . . . . . . . 'III'I'ID CIIUIE. .....
Jury 2013 - June 2016

$ nWNO 8.uilf WORK
O THER CONCURRENT
CONSTRUCTION
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngirioen
S..cno...nlo Ob trld
Plate 4 - Timeline of JFP Construction Activities
Folsom Dam Modification Proj ect,

December 2012
~ Feet
500 1,000 1,500
_\
N
Auxiliary Spilhvs.y
- - Chute & Stilling Bas in
- - Control Structur e
-
- Coffet Dam
cutoff W all
........... Haul Roads

-
M ateria& Route
ICJJ Fo lsom PtGon S taging A res

~ Over loot
" - ' ' in
L~ e
Expansion
Dispose lAres { Sit~ 2)
CZJ Spur Dike
ICJJ Ex& ting Overlook
. . Trans load Facility

,_,.., Propos ed Sediment Placement
L-.J In Late Disposa I A rea (Site 1)

~ Di~e7
::J oih S
MIAD
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngiriOCH"S
Plate 5- Haul Routes & Staging Areas

December 2012
M R- 1a
M R- 1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
8 10-2
8 10-6
ST-8
MR-9
Bio-s ens itive Mess ur ement
Long Term M easur ement
0
0
Modeled Sensitive Receiver
North Side of Folsom Pri son

East Side of Folsom Prison
Tacana D ri ve and E . Natoma S t
M ountain V iew Dr.
E . Natoma S t and Green V alley Rd.
Shudowfox Court
East of Folsom A uburn Rd . and Robin Ln.
Haddington D r. and E . Natoma S t
Folsom Point (P ark)
NortheasterrHTlost Residence at Intersection of
East Natoma Street and B ri ggs Ranch Drive
WesterrHTlost Residence on Lorena Lane
Folsom Point Church of Christ
FOLSOM LAKE
Short Term M ess ur ement
m.
US Army Corps
of l!ngirioet"S
S..cno...nlo Oillrld
Plate 6 - Sensitive Noise Receptors
Folsom Dam Modific.a tion Project,

December 20 12
Appendix A
Air Quality Technical Analysis
Joint Federal Project (JFP) at Folsom Dam, Upstream and Downstream (for
Cumulative Conformity Purposes)
Air Quality Technical Report
Sacramento, CA
October 2012
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 Settings/ Affected Environment ........................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Description ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.3.1 Alternative 2: Approach Channel Excavation with Cutoff Wall........... 1-2
1.3.2 Alternative 3: Approach Channel Excavation with Cofferdam ........... 1-3
1.4 Regulatory Settings ...................................................................................... 1-4
1.4.1 Federal Regulations .......................................................................... 1-5
1.4.2 State Regulations .............................................................................. 1-9
1.4.3 Local Regulations ............................................................................ 1-12
1.5 Pollutants and Health Effects ..................................................................... 1-12
1.5.1 Criteria Pollutants ............................................................................ 1-13
1.5.2 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) ....................................................... 1-13
1.5.3 Greenhouse Gases ......................................................................... 1-15
1.6 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-16
1.6.1 Meteorology and Climate................................................................. 1-16
1.6.2 Existing Air Quality .......................................................................... 1-17
1.6.3 Attainment Status ............................................................................ 1-22
1.6.4 State Implementation Plans............................................................. 1-23
2.0 Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Significance Criteria ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds ...................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Thresholds......................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 NEPA Significance Determinations ................................................... 2-4
2.1.4 CEQA Significance Determinations ................................................... 2-4
2.2 Methodology and Assumptions .................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Criteria Pollutant and GHG Emission Calculations ............................ 2-5
2.2.2 Fugitive Dust Emission Calculations................................................ 2-10
2.2.3 Greenhouse Emission Calculations ................................................. 2-13
2.2.4 Air Dispersion Modeling................................................................... 2-15
3.0 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Construction Impacts ................................................................................... 3-1
Joint Federal Project (JFP) at Folsom Dam,
Upstream
Table of Contents
Exhaust Emissions ............................................................................ 3-1

Fugitive Dust Emissions .................................................................... 3-3
Comparison to General Conformity de minimis thresholds................ 3-4
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management NOx
Threshold .......................................................................................... 3-5
3.1.5 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management PM10
Threshold .......................................................................................... 3-6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................... 3-6
3.2 Offensive Odors ........................................................................................... 3-7
3.3 Toxic Air Contaminants ................................................................................ 3-7
3.3.1 Diesel Particulate Matter ................................................................... 3-7
3.3.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ............................................................ 3-7
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
4.0 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Emissions Control
Practices ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Fugitive Dust Emission Mitigation
Measures ..................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Asbestos Measures ........................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Unpaved roads .................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.3 Cut and fill ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Stockpile handling and stockpile wind erosion .................................. 4-3
4.2.5 Blasting.............................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.6 Rock crushing facility ......................................................................... 4-4
4.2.7 Concrete batch plant ......................................................................... 4-4
4.2.8 Post-Construction .............................................................................. 4-4
4.3 Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Exhaust Emission Mitigation Measures .............. 4-4
4.3.1 Cleaner Off-Road Equipment ............................................................ 4-5
4.3.2 Marine Engine Standards .................................................................. 4-5
4.3.3 Haul truck controls ............................................................................. 4-5
4.3.4 Use of Electrical Equipment .............................................................. 4-6
4.4 Mitigation Measure AQ-4: NOx Mitigation Fee ............................................. 4-6
4.5 Mitigation Measure AQ-5: GHG Emission Reduction Measures .................. 4-6
4.6 Mitigated Construction Impacts .................................................................... 4-8
4.6.1 Comparison to General Conformity de minimis thresholds.............. 4-11
4.6.2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management NOx
Threshold ........................................................................................ 4-12
4.6.3 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management PM10
Threshold ........................................................................................ 4-12

Upstream
ii
Table of Contents
4.6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................ 4-13

5.0 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 JFP Folsom Dam, Downstream and Upstream Projects .............................. 5-1
5.1.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Comparison to General Conformity de minimis thresholds................ 5-3
5.2 Other Cumulative Projects ........................................................................... 5-6
5.2.1 Criteria Pollutants .............................................................................. 5-6
5.2.2 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................... 5-6
6.0 References ............................................................................................................. 1

Upstream
iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms
1990 CAAA
AB
AQMD
APCD
ATCM
CAA
CAAA
CAAQS
CARB
CCAA
CEQ
CEQA
CFR
CH4
CO
CO2
CO2e
Corps
DPM
E.O.
GHG
GWP
HAP
HFC
HFE
hp
JFP
LACMTA
lbs/day
g/m3
MIAD
mph
MPO
MY
N/A
N2O
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

assembly bill
air quality management district
air pollution control district
airborne toxic control measures
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Amendments
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
White House Council on Environmental Quality
methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
United States Army Corps of Engineers
diesel particulate matter
executive order
greenhouse gas emissions
global warming potential
hazardous air pollutant
hydrofluorocarbon
hydrofluorinated ether
horsepower
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
pounds per day
micrograms per cubic meter
miles per hour
Metropolitan Planning Organization
model year
not applicable
nitrous oxide

Upstream
iv
Table of Contents
NAAQS
NEPA
NF3
NOA
NOx
NO2
O3
OEHHA
Pb
PFC
PM
PM10
PM2.5
PMF
ppm
ROG
SCS
SF6
SIP
SMAQMD
SO2
SVAB
TAC
tons/yr
ULSD
USBR
USEPA
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

nitrogen trifluoride
naturally occurring asbestos
nitrogen oxides
nitrogen dioxide
ozone
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
lead
perfluorocarbon
particulate matter
particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns
in diameter
particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns
in diameter
probable maximum flood
parts per million
reactive organic gases
sustainable communities strategies
sulfur hexafluoride
State Implementation Plan
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District
sulfur dioxide
Sacramento Valley Air Basin
toxic air contaminant
tons per year
ultra-low sulfur diesel

Upstream
Table of Contents
Tables
Table ES-1. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream: Mitigated Annual Criteria Pollutant
Emission Summary ............................................................................... ES-2
Emission Summary ............................................................................... ES-3
Table 1-1.
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................... 1-6
Table 1-2.
Summary of Relevant California GHG Regulations................................ 1-10
Table 1-3.
Criteria Pollutants Health Effects............................................................ 1-13
Table 1-4.
Sacramento County 2010 Emissions Inventories ................................... 1-18
Table 1-5.
Sacramento County 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory ............................ 1-19
Table 1-6.
California 2008 GHG Emissions Inventory ............................................. 1-19
Table 1-7.
Summary of Pollutant Monitoring Data in Sacramento Del Paso

Manor Monitoring Station ....................................................................... 1-20
Table 1-8.
Federal and State Attainment Status ..................................................... 1-22
Table 2-1.
General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds ............................................. 2-1
Table 2-2.
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Daily Mass Emissions

Thresholds for NOx from Construction Emissions .................................... 2-2
Table 2-3.
Summary of Data Sources and Uses ....................................................... 2-5
Table 2-4.
On-site pickup truck trips .......................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-5.
On-site haul truck trips ............................................................................. 2-8
Table 2-6.
Off-site haul truck trips ............................................................................. 2-9
Table 2-7.
Worker Commute Trips .......................................................................... 2-10
Table 2-8.
Stockpile Volume ................................................................................... 2-12
Table 2-9.
Wind Erosion Stockpile Surface Area .................................................... 2-12
Table 3-1.
Unmitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for

NEPA ....................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3-2.
Unmitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for

CEQA ....................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-3.
Unmitigated Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Summary for

NEPA and CEQA ..................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-4.
JFP Folsom Dam Upstream: Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant

Emission Summary for NEPA .................................................................. 3-5
Table 3-5.
Unmitigated GHG Emission Summary for CEQA and NEPA ................... 3-6
Table 4-1.
Mitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for

NEPA ....................................................................................................... 4-8

Upstream
vi
Table of Contents
Table 4-2.
Mitigated Total Emission Summary for CEQA.......................................... 4-9
Table 4-3.
Mitigated Total Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Summary

for CEQA and NEPA .............................................................................. 4-10
Table 4-4.
JFP Folsom Dam Upstream: Mitigated Criteria Pollutant

Emission Summary for NEPA ................................................................ 4-11
Table 5-1.
JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream: Unmitigated

Criteria Pollutant Emission Summary for NEPA ....................................... 5-4
Table 5-2.
JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream: Mitigated Criteria

Pollutant Emission Summary for NEPA ................................................... 5-5

Upstream
vii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The final phase of the Folsom Modification project, known as the Joint Federal
Project (JFP) at Folsom Dam Upstream, is the completion of the approach channel and
spur dike. There are two alternatives that are being considered for this project: (1)
approach channel excavation with cutoff wall (known henceforth as Alternative 2), and
(2) approach channel excavation with cofferdam (known henceforth as Alternative 3).
URS Corporation/ Brown and Caldwell Joint Venture has been contracted by the
Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to perform an air quality
impact analysis for the Approach Channel portion of the JFP. This technical report
explains relevant air regulations and quantifies air emissions that would be expected
during the construction of the Project alternatives. The analysis:
Describes the affected environment and identifies sensitive receptors,
Lists the air quality attainment status for criteria pollutants,
Describes the methodology and calculations used to estimate air emissions,
Explains the construction schedule, excavation equipment, and level of effort

associated with each alternative,
Estimates project specific and cumulative air quality impacts, and
Identifies mitigation measures to reduce the severity of air impacts.
This report analyzes federal and state criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Criteria pollutants and TACs are identified by
the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The TACs
relevant to this project are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and naturally occurring
asbestos (NOA).
The JFP at Folsom Dam Upstream project would temporarily increase both
criteria pollutants and TACs from construction. Sources of pollutants include heavy
equipment, on-site pickup trucks, on-site and off-site haul trucks, off-site worker vehicle
trips, and earth disturbance activities (stockpiling, cut and fill, blasting) that create
fugitive dust.
Although there are residences and a church located within 1,000 feet of the
construction area, they would not be exposed to substantial DPM emissions because of
the limited construction activities in the vicinity. Although no NOA has been found onsite, fugitive dust mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce NOA impacts.
With proposed mitigation, NOx emissions would be below the de minimis
thresholds in all years for Alternative 2, and NOx emissions would be below the de
minimis thresholds in all years for Alternative 3. The estimated mitigated emission
inventories are presented below in Table ES-1.

Upstream
ES-1
Executive Summary
Emission Summary
Activity
Alternative 2
2013 Total
ROG
Pollutant (tons per year [tons/yr])

NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
29
<1
2014 Total
<1
17
<1
2015 Total
<1
<1
2016 Total
14
11
19
<1
2017 Total
15
12
28
<1
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
34
<1
2014 Total
<1
12
<1
2015 Total
<1
2016 Total
<1
20
<1
2017 Total
20
16
29
<1
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
N/A
N/A
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
2013 Total
Notes:
1. For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using the OFFROAD2011 and
EMFAC2007 models (based on USEPA guidance).
2. Emissions rates might not add up due to rounding.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
PM10 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
SO2
sulfur dioxide
ROG reactive organic gases
The JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream project construction period (2013-2017) would
overlap for multiple construction months with the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream
project (2010-2017). The USEPA had directed the Corps to complete a quantitative
cumulative analysis for the JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream projects, and
compare these emissions to the General Conformity de minimis thresholds. The
combined Downstream and Upstream project NOx emissions would exceed the de
minimis thresholds in 2016 and 2017 for Alternative 2, and the NOx emissions would
exceed the de minimis thresholds in 2017 only for Alternative 3. The estimated
mitigated emission inventories for the JFP Upstream and Downstream project during

Upstream
ES-2
Executive Summary
overlapping years are presented below in Table ES-2. Values which exceed de minimis
thresholds are highlighted.
Table ES-2. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream: Mitigated Annual
Criteria Pollutant Emission Summary
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
CO2
<1
10,388
24
<1
27,145
14
13
<1
26,427
28
19
24
<1
26,808
25
18
29
<1
7,388
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
24
14
37
<1
8,611
2014 Total
24
15
19
<1
27,994
2015 Total
20
14
11
<1
27,141
2016 Total
17
12
24
<1
25,023
2017 Total
29
21
29
<1
9,275
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
Activity
Alternative 2
2013 Total
ROG
NOx
22
12
31
2014 Total
24
15
2015 Total
20
2016 Total
2017 Total
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
2013 Total
Notes:
1. For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2007
models.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that exceed 85 pounds per day (lbs/day) after
incorporation of mitigation measures would be subject to a mitigation fee by the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). SMAQMD uses
that fee to fund NOx reductions from existing sources of NOx. The maximum NOx
emissions for Alternative 2 (92 lbs/day in 2016 and 98 lbs/day in 2017) and Alternative 3
Upstream
ES-3
Executive Summary
(121 lbs/day) could exceed the 85 lbs/day threshold. Therefore NOx mitigation fees
could apply to the project. However, it is difficult to determine the worst-case daily NOx
emissions due to potential changes in equipment type, timing, and use. Project
contractors and the Corps will need to maintain accurate equipment use records to
determine the level of mitigation fees that must be paid to SMAQMD to mitigate the
project.

Upstream
ES-4
Settings/ Affected Environment
1.0
S ETTINGS / AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1.1
Background
spur dike. There are two action alternatives that are being considered for this project in
addition to the No Action Project Alternative (Alternative A): (1) approach channel
excavation with cutoff wall (known henceforth as Alternative 2), and (2) approach
channel excavation with cofferdam (known henceforth as Alternative 3).
The project is subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
General Conformity regulations because of the involvement of a federal agency - the
Corps. General Conformity regulations implement Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act
which prohibits federal agencies from taking actions that may cause or contribute to
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The project is also
subject to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)
CEQA thresholds and mitigation requirements.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The URS Corporation/ Brown and Caldwell Joint Venture has been contracted by
the Sacramento District, Corps, to perform an air quality impact analysis for the
approach channel portion of the JFP at Folsom Dam. The scope of work includes
producing a technical report detailing relevant air regulations, and quantifying air quality
environmental impacts during the construction of the alternatives. This analysis:
Describes the affected environment and identifies sensitive receptors,
Lists the air quality attainment status for criteria pollutants,
Describes the methodology and calculations used to estimate air emissions,
Explains the construction schedule, excavation equipment, and level of effort

associated with each alternative ,
Estimates project specific and cumulative air quality impacts, and
Identifies mitigation measures to reduce the severity of air impacts.

Upstream
1-1
1.3
Project Description
The following sub-sections describe the project alternatives, along with relevant
details of some construction techniques.
1.3.1 Alternative 2: Approach Channel Excavation with Cutoff Wall
Key components of Alternative 2 are the cutoff wall, approach channel, spur dike,
transload facility, concrete batch plant and staging areas. The following sub-sections
describe each of these components in greater detail.
Cutoff Wall
The proposed cutoff wall would be located adjacent to Folsom Lake southeast of
the Left Wing Dam and east of the Auxiliary Spillway chute excavation. The cutoff wall
would provide seepage control to the spillway excavation between the rock plug and the
Control Structure. The cutoff wall would consist of a reinforced concrete secant pile wall
installed across the width of the future approach channel. The total length of the wall
would be approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would be socketed into the underlying
highly weathered granitic rock.
Approach Channel
The approach channel for the auxiliary spillway extends approximately 1,100 feet
upstream of the concrete control structure. The approach channel converges as it
approaches the control structure. The approach channel excavation includes excavation
of rock material within the envelope of the approach channel, shaping and scaling of the
channel surfaces, excavation of any rock trap recesses in the floor of the channel,
placement of the approach slab, armoring of any side slopes susceptible to erosion.
Excavation would occur both in-the-dry and in-the-wet.
Excavation of the rock plug would begin between the control structure and the
cutoff wall to install the concrete slab and approach channel walls. The remaining rock
plug excavation would be timed to follow the dropping lake level; top-down excavation
of the rock plug would be performed following the lake level down to elevation 425.34
feet or less. As lake levels rise, excavation of the rock plug would be performed in-thewet. To achieve the flood risk reduction benefits of the spillway earlier in the project life,
a notch would be cut through the reduced rock plug down to elevation 350. The notch
would be wide enough to pass a 200-year flood event. The in-the-wet excavation would
continue to widen the channel in phases, until a width that passes the probable
maximum flood (PMF) is reached.
Spur Dike
A spur dike is an embankment designed to direct water into an opening; in this
case the opening would be the approach channel. The proposed elliptical-shaped spur
dike would be located directly to the northwest of the approach channel. The core of the
spur dike would be constructed of a decomposed quartz diorite core, commonly known
as decomposed granite. This would be followed by a compacted random rock fill
Upstream
1-2
followed by a stone riprap cap. Material for the spur dike construction would come from
the excavation of the approach channel excavation, or Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
(MIAD).
Transload Facility
A trans-load facility would be needed for mobilization/demobilization of marine
equipment (e.g., sectional barges and heavy cranes), dredge spoil off-loading from
barges to trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges,
equipment maintenance, and marine crew deployment. The proposed trans-load facility
would be comprised of a ramp, crane and crane pad, and a fuel transfer station. The
trans-load facility would be located adjacent to Dike 7. The trans-load facility is
temporary and would be removed after the completion of the approach channel project
in 2017. Ramp material would be removed with excavators and hauled for disposal at
MIAD.
Concrete Batch Plant and Staging Areas
The construction of the approach channel and cutoff wall would require large
quantities of temperature controlled concrete. This would necessitate the use of a
contractor-provided, on-site concrete batch plant and deliveries of large quantities of
concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and cement. The batch plant would be powered by
electricity from overhead Sacramento Municipal Utility District lines. One batch plant will
be used for the duration of the project.
1.3.2 Alternative 3: Approach Channel Excavation with Cofferdam
Key components of Alternative 3 are the cofferdam, approach channel, spur dike,
transload facility, concrete batch plant and staging areas. The following sub-sections
describe each of these components in greater detail.
Cofferdam
The cofferdam consists of a series of 84-foot diameter circular sheet pile cells
constructed using 85-foot-long flat sheet piles. The location of the cofferdam is based
on a trade-off between cofferdam size and the amount of in-the-wet excavation. To
prepare the foundation for the cofferdam, soft materials would be dredged until the
decomposed granite is reached. Once the foundation is set, the cofferdam would be
constructed. The construction of the cells requires sheet piles to be installed using a
template. The template consists of two to three horizontally mounted ring wales provide
support for the vertical flat sheets. The sheet piles are installed using a vibratory
hammer, working progressively around the ring. Once erected, the cells would be filled
with well-graded crushed rock. The same plan dimension is maintained throughout the
cofferdam, allowing for one sheet pile installation template to be utilized for construction
of all of the circular cells. A layer of riprap would be placed along the upstream toe of
the cells for scour protection. The cells are founded directly on the decomposed granite.
After the cofferdam is installed, the downstream area would be dewatered.
Timing would be coordinated with the completion of the control structure. When the
Upstream
1-3
control structure is operational the rock plug would be excavated and the approach
channel slab and walls would be installed. Once the approach channel is excavated to
final grade the cofferdam would be removed.
Approach Channel
Under Alternative 3, the excavation of the approach channel and the installation
of the concrete slab and walls would be constructed as described in Section 1.3.1 for
Alternative 2.
Spur Dike
Under Alternative 3, a spur dike would be constructed as described in Section
1.3.1 for Alternative 2.
Transload Facility
Under Alternative 3, a trans-load facility would be constructed as described in
Section 1.3.1 for Alternative 2.
Concrete Batch Plant and Staging Areas
Under Alternative 3, a batch plant would be constructed and operated as
described in Section 1.3.1 for Alternative 2.
1.4 Regulatory Settings
Air quality management and protection responsibilities exist in federal, state, and
local levels of government. The primary statutes that establish ambient air quality
standards and establish regulatory authorities to enforce regulations designed to attain
those standards are the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and California Clean Air Act
(CCAA).
The enforcement of federal and state air statutes and regulations is complex and
the various agencies have different, but interrelated responsibilities. The USEPA is
responsible for establishing the NAAQS, setting minimum New Source Review
permitting and Operating Permit requirements for stationary sources; establishing New
Source Performance Standards, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants
and the Acid Deposition Control program; and administering regional air quality
initiatives. The California Air Resources Boards (CARBs) role includes development,
implementation, and enforcement of Californias motor vehicle pollution control program,
administration of the states air pollution research program, adoption and updating, as
necessary, of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), review of local air
pollution control district (APCD) activities, and coordination of the development of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achievement of the NAAQS. Local APCDs are
responsible for implementing federal and state regulations at the local level, permitting
stationary sources of air pollution, and developing the local elements of the SIP.
Emissions from indirect sources, such as automobile traffic associated with

Upstream
1-4
development projects, are addressed through the APCDs air quality plans, which are
each air quality districts contribution to the SIP.
1.4.1 Federal Regulations
The following sections summarize the key federal regulations related to air
quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Clean Air Act
As required by the Federal CAA, the USEPA has established and continues to
update the NAAQS for specific criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10),
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS for these pollutants are
listed in Table 1-1 and represent the levels of air quality deemed necessary by USEPA
to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
General Conformity Rule and de minimis levels
Pursuant to CAA Section 176(c) requirements, USEPA promulgated the General
Conformity Rule, which applies to most federal actions, including the Folsom JFP
project.
The General Conformity Rule is used to determine if federal actions meet the
requirements of the CAA and the applicable SIP by ensuring that pollutant emissions
related to the action do not:
Cause or contribute to new violations of a NAAQS.
Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of a NAAQS.
Delay timely attainment of a NAAQS or interim emission reduction.
A conformity determination under the General Conformity Rule is required if the

federal agency determines: the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance
area; that one or more specific exemptions do not apply to the action; the action is not
included in the federal agencys presumed to conform list; the emissions from the
proposed action are not within the approved emissions budget for an applicable facility;
and the total direct and indirect emissions of a pollutant (or its precursors), are at or
above the de minimis levels established in the General Conformity regulations.

Upstream
1-5
Table 1-1.
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ambient Air Quality Standards

;
Averaging
Polluta nt
Ti me
.....
Respi rab l e
Parti cu lat e
Matt er (PM 10)
" """
50 19ln'
Fine
~ ~
N rtrogen
Dioxide (N0 2)1
( SO~'
Beta At~
35 19m'
All""'
12pgtln'
Gra.llm=-!r!Cor
BetaAt:erwtrOC'I
15 pgtrtf
Hour
"' -
(23 mgm')
9.0 ppm (10 mg-'m')
Sne a&
Pf'lmaty Sfa'lc1W
""-
same as
Pf'lmaf)' Sla'l63n:l
3S pt:m (40 ln9"lni
9 ppm ( 10 fl'9'"l1'11)
lr&.wea PntXorne!J')'
(NOlft)
CU:."~.
6 ppm {7 fl'9'"l1'1' )
1 Hour
0 . 18 ppm (339JjC}') n)}
All""'
An!M'te:IC Me3n
0.030 ppn (57 1-9ln3}
53ppo (100 191n'l
(6SS ~9'1n'l
75 ppo (1 96 1-9~
11'iour
Sul fur
150 IJ9ln'
GraJJm=-!r!Cor
.....
Monoxi de
(CO)
0.075 ppn( 1.:17JJ9'mi
2A HCU
Carbon
20 l-9ln'
AntM'IE".lC Mean
same as
Pno:omecry
All.....
Antrme:t Me3n
Particulate
Matter. ,.
1D 1
ur""""'
.""""
p, ;ma<y "
Met ho d
0.09 ppm (1 80 JjC}'~
1-
Ozone (01 )
0.25 -
.....,..
,..,..
100 PPl (188j.9tln1)
" ""'
J0 Day Average
1.S IJ9"m'
""""'<:Ence
Same a.
{!!! .
1~-~
,.
Method
UJ:Ia\{Oig
P"""'"eG)'
JnEfttail sep..vauon
ana Gravlmetr. c
M>l)<!$
lnEftfal S eparation
ana Gravlmetr.c
M>l)<!$
NO<>[)(-
lrQa,-e<l Pnotol'nell')'
(NDIR)
........
O'lemlkln'Uie6C:Ef!Ce
.~:~ ""'
U~t
O.D' ppm ( I DS JIC}'~
...
'
Ut~
FICUKCei'ICe:
~ometry
(Patafo&.lnlllle
MEG'IOO}
All.....
Antrme:t Me3n
A'>e
' rage
8 Hour
see tOCI!l"ICM- 12
l ead'o.u
Roll~ J-..YO.n
Alr!IC AD6orpl:fOC'I
""
1 ~g,
Hlgf\VOili'I'IE'
same as
Sanp~er
ana N.OtrfJ;;
on
0.15 pgr)n)
Vi sibiHty
Reducing
Particles':
Sulfat es
Hydro ge n
Sulfide
v ;nyt
s"'
" ""'
2S l-9'ln)
Tranotro:ianoe
ron OVOm>"1"')r-
National
U~t
Hour
0..03 ppm (.:::2 il9'11D
""""<:Ence
" ""'
o..o1wn (261J9'nn
Gl&
CIVOma:ogf31:tly
No
mrougn FiltH Tape
Standards
; on n exl pa ge
For mortiaformatioo please caDARB--PIOat (916) 322-2990

Upstream
C atifor Dia Air Resour ces Board (217112)
1-6
Source: CARB 2010a

Upstream
1-7
An action will be determined to conform to the applicable SIP if the action meets
the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.158(c). In addition,
federal activities may not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards,
exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely attainment or required interim
emissions reductions toward attainment.
Federal GHG Regulations
Laws and regulations, as well as plans and policies, address global climate
change issues. This section summarizes key federal regulations relevant to the project.
In Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 549 U.S. 497
(2007), the United States Supreme Court ruled that GHG fits within the CAAs definition
of a pollutant, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate GHG.
On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13514;
Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, E.O. 13514
requires Federal agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target
within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption;
conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage federal
purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
On December 7, 2009, the Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases (endangerment finding), under Section 202(a) of the
CAA went into effect. The endangerment finding states that current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere [carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases
including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs)]) threaten the
public health and welfare of current and future generations. Furthermore, it states that
the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new
motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and
welfare (USEPA, 2012a).
Under the endangerment finding, USEPA is developing vehicle emission
standards under the CAA. USEPA and the Department of Transportations National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration have issued a joint proposal to establish a
national program that includes standards that will reduce GHG emissions and improve
fuel economy for light-duty vehicles in model years (MYs) 2012 through 2016. This
proposal marks the first GHG standards proposed by the USEPA under the CAA as a
result of the endangerment and cause or contribute findings (USEPA, 2012b).
On February 18, 2010, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
released draft guidance regarding the consideration of GHG in National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents for federal actions. The draft guidelines include a
presumptive threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
emissions from a proposed action to trigger a quantitative analysis. CEQ has not

Upstream
1-8
established when GHG emissions are significant for NEPA purposes; rather, it poses
the question to the public (CEQ 2010).
1.4.2 State Regulations
Key state regulations related to air quality and GHGs are summarized below.
The CCAA establishes an air quality management process that generally
parallels the federal process. The CCAA, however, focuses on attainment of the
CAAQS that, for certain pollutants and averaging periods, are more stringent than the
comparable NAAQS. The CAAQS are included in Table 1-1.
The CCAA requires that air quality management districts (AQMDs) and APCDs
prepare a clean air plan if the district violates the CAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, or O3. The
plan must include strategies for attaining the CAAQS for each non-attainment pollutant.
These plans are required to be updated triennially. The regions SIPs, which apply to
the NAAQS, are described below in Section 1.6.4.
The CCAA requires that the CAAQS be met as expeditiously as practicable, but
does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the act established increasingly
stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards.
The air quality attainment plan requirements established by the CCAA are based on the
severity of air pollution problems caused by locally generated emissions. Upwind
APCDs are required to establish and implement emission control programs
commensurate with the extent of pollutant transport to downwind districts.
Air pollution problems in Sacramento County are primarily the result of locallygenerated emissions. However, Sacramentos air pollution occasionally includes
contributions from the San Francisco Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. In addition,
Sacramento County has been identified as a source of ozone precursor emissions that
occasionally contribute to air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and
the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). Consequently, the air quality planning for
Sacramento County must not only correct local air pollution problems, but must also
reduce the areas effect on downwind air basins.
California GHG Regulations
California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs as it is the second largest
contributor in the U.S. and the sixteenth largest in the world (CEC, 2006). From 1990 to
2003, Californias gross state product grew 83 percent while GHG emissions grew 12
percent. While California has a high amount of GHG emissions, it has low emissions per
capita. The major source of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent
of the States total GHG emissions (CEC, 2006). Electricity generation is the second
largest generator, contributing 22 percent of the States GHG emissions. Emissions
from fuel use in the commercial and residential sectors in California decreased 9.7
percent over the 1990 to 2004 period (CEC, 2006).
Upstream
1-9
California has taken proactive steps, briefly described in the following sections, to
address the issues associated with GHG emissions and climate change. A summary of
the major California GHG regulations are presented below.
Table 1-2. Summary of Relevant California GHG Regulations
Bill, Year
Description
Assembly Bill (AB)

4420, 1988,
Directed California Energy Commission, in consultation with the

CARB and other agencies, to study and reporton how global
warming trends may affect Californias energy supply and
demand, economy, environment, agriculture, and water
supplies.
Requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce
automobile and light-truck GHG emissions. These stricter
emissions standards apply to automobiles and light trucks
beginning with the 2009 MY. Although litigation was filed
challenging these regulations and EPA initially denied
Californias related request for a waiver, the waiver request has
now been granted.
The goal of E.O. S-3-05 is to reduce Californias GHG
emissions to (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by
2020, and (3) 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050.
Sets overall GHG emissions reduction goals and mandates that
CARB create a plan that includes market mechanisms and
implement rules to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective
reductions of greenhouse gases.
1. Requires statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020 (The 1990 CO2e level is 427 million metric
tonnes of CO2e (CARB, 2012a)).
2. Directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to
reduce statewide emissions from stationary sources.
3. Specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB
1493 be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles
4. Requires CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG
emissions representing 1990 emissions levels
5. Includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an
economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure
that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected
by the reductions.
Requires the carbon intensity of Californias transportation fuels
is to be reduced by at least 10% by 2020.
Requires CARB to develop regional reduction targets for GHG
emissions, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce
emissions from passenger vehicle use throughout the state.
AB 1493, 2002
Executive Order
(E.O.) S-3-05, 2005
AB 32, 2006
California Global
Warming Solutions
Act of 2006
E.O. S-01-07, 2007

Senate Bill 375, 2008
Source: CARB, 2012a, CARB, 2012b, CARB, 2012c, Office of the Governor, 2007

Upstream
1-10
California Environmental Quality Act GHG Amendments

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines require
that state and local agencies identify the significant environmental impacts of their
actions, including potential significant air quality and climate change impacts, and to
avoid or mitigate those impacts, when feasible. The CEQA amendments of December
30, 2009, specifically require lead agencies to address GHG emissions in determining
the significance of environmental effects caused by a project, and to consider feasible
means to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emission (California Natural Resources
Agency, 2012).
Provisions of the CEQA amendments relevant to the Project include the following
(Office of Planning and Research 2009):
A lead agency may consider the following when assessing the significance of
impacts from GHG emissions:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG
emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance
that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local
plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
When an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the agency

may consider adverse environmental effects in the context of regionwide or
statewide environmental benefits.
Lead agencies shall consider feasible means of mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions that may include, but not be limited to:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the
reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead
agencys decision;
(2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through
implementation of project features, project design, or other
measures;
(3) Offsite measures, including offsets;
(4) Measures that sequester GHGs;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, longrange development plan, or GHG reduction plan, mitigation may
include the identification of specific measures that may be
implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also
include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in
an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative
effect of emissions.

Upstream
1-11
Asbestos Control Measures

CARB has adopted two airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) for controlling
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA): the Asbestos ATCM for Surfacing Applications and
the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations. CARB and local air districts have been delegated authority by the USEPA
to enforce the Federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
regulations for asbestos.
1.4.3 Local Regulations
Relevant local air quality and GHG regulations are detailed below.
SMAQMD is responsible for implementing federal and state regulations at the
local level, permitting stationary sources of air pollution, and developing the local
elements of the SIP. Emissions from indirect sources, such as automobile traffic
associated with development projects, are addressed through the APCDs air quality
plans, which are each air quality districts contribution to the SIP. In addition to
permitting and rule compliance, air quality management at the local level is also
accomplished through AQMD/APCD imposition of mitigation measures on project
environmental impact reports and mitigated negative declarations developed by project
proponents under CEQA. Specific to project construction emissions, CEQA requires
mitigation of air quality impacts that exceed certain significance thresholds set by the
local AQMD/APCD. The SMAQMDs CEQA significance thresholds, which would be
applicable to the project, are described below.
SMAQMD GHG Requirements
The SMAQMD has not developed screening levels for GHG emissions from
projects in Sacramento County.
To assess whether the incremental quantity of GHG emissions generated by a
project is cumulatively considerable, a context for comparison must first be established.
SMAQMD recommends that thresholds of significance for GHG emissions should be
related to AB 32s GHG reduction goals (Table 1-2, SMAQMD, 2011).
1.5 Pollutants and Health Effects
Three categories of air quality pollutants of relevance to this Project are
discussed in this section. Criteria pollutants have established national standards; toxic
air contaminants (TACs) are defined by the state of California but do not have ambient
air quality standards because often no safe levels have been determined; and GHGs
are defined as gases that trap heat within the atmosphere.

Upstream
1-12
1.5.1 Criteria Pollutants

Pollutants that have established national standards are referred to as criteria
pollutants. For these pollutants, federal and state ambient air quality standards have
been established to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include CO,
NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not emitted
directly to the atmosphere. Instead, it forms by the reaction of two ozone precursors
reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and high
temperatures. The sources of these pollutants, their effects on human health and the
nation's welfare, and annual emission to the atmosphere vary considerably.
The following table (Table 1-3) provides a general description (including potential
health effects) of the criteria pollutants that could be emitted from the Project.
Table 1-3. Criteria Pollutants Health Effects
Pollutant
CO
Characteristics
Odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic.
Formed by the incomplete combustion of
fuels.
NO2
Reddish-brown gas formed during

combustion.
A highly reactive photochemical pollutant
crated by the action of sunshine on ozone
precursors (reactive organic gases
(ROGs) and oxides of nitrogen.)
Small particles that measure 10 microns or
less are termed PM10 (fine particles less
than 2.5 microns are PM2.5). Solid and
liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols,
smoke, ash, and pollen and other matter
that are small enough to remain
suspended in the air for a long period.
Colorless gas with a pungent odor.
O3
PM10 and
PM2.5
SO2
Health Effects
Impairment of oxygen
transport in the bloodstream.
Aggravation of
cardiovascular disease
Fatigue, headache,
dizziness, death.
Increased risk of acute and
chronic respiratory disease.
Eye irritation
Respiratory function
impairment
Aggravation of chronic
disease and heart/lung
disease symptoms.
Increased risk of acute and

chronic respiratory disease.
1.5.2 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)

A TAC is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may
pose a present or potential hazard to human health. USEPA uses the term hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) in a similar sense. Controlling air toxic emissions became a national
priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), whereby Congress
Upstream
1-13
mandated that USEPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as HAPs. TACs can be
emitted from stationary and mobile sources.
Ten TACs have been identified through ambient air quality data as posing the
greatest health risk in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to
cause cancer, birth defects, damage to brain and nervous system and respiratory
disorders.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards because often no safe levels of
TACs have been determined. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the
health risks associated with a given exposure. The requirements of the Air Toxic Hot
Spots Information and Assessment Act apply to facilities that use, produce, or emit
toxic chemicals. Facilities that are subject to the toxic emission inventory requirements
of the Act must prepare and submit toxic emission inventory plans and reports, and
periodically update those reports.
The TACs of concern for this project are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and
NOA.
DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road,
diesel-fueled engines contribute approximately 24 percent of the statewide total, with an
additional 71 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining
equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources
contribute about 5 percent of total DPM.
In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen
(California OEHHA and the American Lung Association, 2005). Diesel exhaust and
many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde,
and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer.
Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any
toxic air contaminant evaluated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA). CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that
the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel
exhaust particles.
Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust
can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches,
lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust
particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are
allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation
in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the
frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.
Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and
people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially
sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels
Upstream
1-14
in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and
premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because childrens
lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are more susceptible than
healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased
frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.
NOA was identified as a TAC in 1986 by CARB. NOA is located in many parts of
California and is commonly associated with ultramafic rocks, according to the California
Department of Geologys special publication titled Guidelines for Geologic
Investigations of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in California. The project area has been
identified as within an area where the local geology supports the formation of NOA.
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally fibrous minerals that are a
human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysolite,
but other types such as termolite and actinolite are also found in California. Serpentinite
may contain chrysotile asbestos. Ultramafic Rock, a rock closely related to serpentinite,
may also contain asbestos minerals. All types of asbestos are hazardous and may
cause lung disease and cancer.
For individuals living in areas of NOA, there are many potential pathways for
airborne exposure. Exposures to soil dust containing asbestos can occur under a
variety of scenarios, including children playing in the dirt; dust raised from unpaved
roads and driveways covered with crushed serpentine; grading and earth disturbance
associated with construction activity; quarrying; gardening; and other human activities
(SMAQMD, 2011).
1.5.3 Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, which are often referred to as GHGs, are
necessary to life, because they keep the planets surface warmer than it otherwise
would be. This is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. As concentrations of
greenhouse gases increase, however, the Earths temperature increases. According to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) data, the Earth's average surface temperature has
increased by 1.2F to 1.4F in the last 100 years (NOAA, 2007; NASA, 2007). Eleven of
the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years on record (since 1850), with the
warmest 2 years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very
likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing,
such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.
Some GHGs, such as CO2, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere
through both natural processes and human activities. Other GHGs (e.g., fluorinated
gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. Each GHG traps a
different amount of heat. In order to compare emissions of different GHGs, a weighting
factor called a Global Warming Potential (GWP) is used, in which a single metric ton
(1,000 kilograms) of CO2 is taken as the standard. Emissions are expressed in terms of
Upstream
1-15
CO2e. Therefore, the GWP of CO2 is 1; the GWP of CH4 is 21; and the GWP of N2O is
310. These three GHGs would be applicable to the project and potentially emitted
during project construction activities, as detailed in Section 3.1.6 below. The principal
GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are described below.
CO2. Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels (oil,
natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of
other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the
atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological
carbon cycle.
CH4. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas,
and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and
from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
N2O. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well
as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated Gases. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are synthetic, powerful GHGs that
are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes
used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs],
hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], and halons). These gases are typically emitted in
smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to
as High GWP gases.
The proposed project alternatives would be expected to emit CO2, CH4, and N2O
but are not expected to result in the emission of fluorinated gases.
1.6 Existing Conditions
1.6.1 Meteorology and Climate
The project area is located at the southern end of the Sacramento Valley, which
has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot dry summers and mild rainy winters.
During the year the temperature may range from 20 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit with
summer highs usually in the 90s and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average
annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevailing winds are
moderate in strength and vary from moist breezes from the south to dry land flows from
the north.
The mountains surrounding the Sacramento Valley create a barrier to airflow,
which can trap air pollutants in the valley when meteorological conditions are right and a
temperature inversion exists. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the
autumn and early winter when large high-pressure cells lie over the valley. The lack of
surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical flow caused by less surface
heating reduces the influx of outside air and allows air pollutants to become
concentrated in the air. The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these

Upstream
1-16
conditions are combined with smoke from agricultural burning or when temperature
inversions trap cool air, fog and pollutants near the ground.
The ozone season (May through October) in the Sacramento Valley is
characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the Delta sea breeze arriving
in the afternoon out of the southwest. Usually the evening breeze transports the
airborne pollutants to the north out of the Sacramento Valley. During about half of the
days from July to September, however, a phenomenon called the Schultz Eddy
prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing for the prevailing wind patterns to move
north carrying the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern
and pollutants to circle back southward. This phenomenons effect exacerbates the
pollution levels in the area and increases the likelihood of violating the federal and state
air quality standards (SMAQMD 2011).
1.6.2 Existing Air Quality
This existing air quality section includes a discussion of the existing emissions
inventory for Sacramento County and California, criteria pollutant data collected at a
local monitoring station, and sensitive receptors. Existing air quality values described in
the emissions inventory and monitoring data sections provide a background against
which project values are measured. Only criteria air pollutants and GHGs are shown, as
no numeric standards exist for TACs.
Emissions Inventory
Table 1-4 shows Sacramento Countys 2010 emissions inventory. There are two
main categories of emission sources in any area: stationary and mobile. On-road motor
vehicles are the major source of reactive organic gases (ROGs), CO, and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions in Sacramento County. Other (off-road) mobile vehicles and
equipment contribute substantially to ROG, CO, and NOx emissions. Motor vehicles and
other mobile sources are the largest contributors to the Countys SO2 emissions.
Fugitive dust, primarily from construction sites, paved and unpaved roadways, and
farming operations, is the major source of PM10 and PM2.5. Residential fuel
combustion also substantially contributes to PM2.5 emissions. Criteria pollutant sources
are summarized in Table 1-4.

Upstream
1-17
Table 1-4. Sacramento County 2010 Emissions Inventories

Source
Type
Category
Stationary Fuel Combustion
Stationary Waste Disposal
Cleaning and
Stationary Surface
Coatings
Petroleum
Stationary Production and
Marketing
Industrial
Stationary
Processes
Solvent
Area-wide
Evaporation
Miscellaneous
Area-wide
Processes
On-Road Motor
Mobile
Vehicles
Other Mobile
Mobile
Sources
Total
Average Emission in Tons Per Day (tons/day)1

ROG
CO
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
0.3
3.8
3.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.5
13.5
0.0
0.0
4.1
40.8
3.1
0.1
40.1
10.3
20.1
181.8
39.1
0.2
2.0
1.4
12.1
85.5
23.5
0.2
1.4
1.3
58.0
312.2
69.6
0.6
45.1
13.9
Source: CARB 2009

1. Totals may differ slightly than the sum of the individual pollutant sources due to rounding.
Table 1-5 shows Sacramento Countys 2008 GHG emissions, and Table 1-6
shows Californias GHG emissions. Transportation was the largest GHG emission
source for both Sacramento County and California. Residential, commercial and
industrial sources were the two other largest GHG sources in Sacramento County.
Additional major statewide GHG emission sources were electric power and industries.

Upstream
1-18
Table 1-5. Sacramento County 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory

Annual Estimate of CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) (million metric tons/yr)
2.44
Source Category
Residential
Commercial and Industrial
2.23
Industrial Specific
0.041
On-Road Transportation
6.73
Off-Road Vehicle Use
0.58
Waste
0.74
Wastewater Treatment
0.13
Water-Related
0.064
Agriculture
0.20
High Global Warming Potential (GWP)
0.57
Sacramento International Airport

Total Emissions
0.20
13.9
Source: County of Sacramento, 2009.
Table 1-6. California 2008 GHG Emissions Inventory

Source Category
Annual Estimate of CO2 equivalent

(CO2e) (million metric tons/yr)
Transportation
174.99
Electric Power
116.35
Commercial and Residential
43.13
Industrial
92.66
Recycling and Waste
6.71
High GWP
15.65
Agriculture
28.06
Forestry
0.19
Total Gross Emissions
477.74
Source: CARB 2010b

Upstream
1-19
Monitoring Data Criteria Pollutants

Air quality data from the Del Paso monitoring station near the area of analysis is
summarized in Table 1-7. The Del Paso monitoring station is located approximately
11 miles from the project site. It was selected to best represent the regional conditions
of the area of analysis because all relevant criteria pollutants (CO, O3, NO2, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2) are sampled there.
Monitored CO levels have been trending down over the last several years. The
downward trend is primarily a result of the use of oxygenated gasoline during the winter
CO season. During 2008-2010, both the 1-hour and 8-hour maximum CO
concentrations were less than 4 parts per million (ppm). The 8-hour CO CAAQS and
NAAQS were last exceeded in the early 1990s. The area has attained the standards
since then, and Sacramento County was re-designated a maintenance area for the CO
NAAQS in March 1998 (USEPA, 2012c).
The 1-hour O3 CAAQS had been exceeded up to 17 times each year at the
individual monitoring station shown on Table 1-7. The recorded 8-hour O3
concentrations exceeded the NAAQS up to 18 times in 2008 and exceeded the CAAQS
up to 32 times in 2009. Substantial year-to-year variations in monitored O3 levels are
common. However, no clear trend in O3 levels is demonstrated by monitoring results
from the 1990s through 2010.
Monitored NO2 and SO2 concentrations varied minimally year-to-year during the
three year monitoring period and did not exceed the applicable CAAQS and/or NAAQS
(Table 1-7).
The 24-hour and annual PM10 and annual PM2.5 CAAQS were exceeded during
the monitoring period. Additionally, during this monitoring period, the NAAQS PM10 was
not exceeded and the NAAQS PM2.5 was exceeded, as shown in Table 1-7.
Table 1-7. Summary of Pollutant Monitoring Data in Sacramento
Del Paso Manor Monitoring Station
Criteria Air Pollutant
CO
Highest 1-Hour concentration
(ppm)(1)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS
CO
Highest 8-Hour concentration
(ppm)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS

Upstream
2008
Yearly Monitoring Data

2009
2010
2011
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2.5
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1-20
Criteria Air Pollutant

O3 1 Hour
Highest concentration (ppm)(2)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS
O3 8 Hour
Highest concentration (ppm)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS
NO2 1 Hour
Highest concentration (ppm)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS
PM10
Highest 24-hour concentration
(g/m3)
Arithmetic mean (g/m3)
Days above CAAQS
Days above NAAQS
PM2.5
(g/m3)
Arithmetic mean (g/m3)
Days above NAAQS
SO2
(ppm)
Days above CAAQS
2008
Yearly Monitoring Data

2009
2010
2011
0.113
17
0
0.122
14
0
0.105
6
0
0.11
1
0
0.097
23
18
0.102
32
15
0.102
7
5
0.097
9
3
0.058
0
0
0.049
0
0
0.052
0
0
0.047
9
0
72.0
23.2
12.1
0
48.0
18.7
0
0
44.0
16.3
0
0
66.0
20.7
12.2
0
93.1
18.9
24.1
71.7
15.4
8.9
41.6
8.7
0
62.2
10.4
9.5
0.002
0
0.002
0
0.001
0
0.001
0
Source: CARB 2012d, USEPA 2012d

Notes:
1. Carbon monoxide concentration is based on average of two recorded maximum values.
2. Highest concentration and arithmetic mean for all pollutants, except carbon monoxide, displayed from
the State and Federal Monitoring Data.
Acronyms
3
g/m microgram per cubic meter
CO
carbon monoxide
nitrogen dioxide
NO2
ozone
O3
ppm
parts per million
sulfur dioxide
SO2

Upstream
1-21
Sensitive Receptors
Some locations are considered more sensitive to adverse effects from air
pollution than others. These locations are termed sensitive receptors. For CEQA
purposes, a sensitive receptor is generically defined as a location where human
populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are found, and there is
reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to the averaging
period for the ambient air quality standard (e.g., 24-hour, 8-hour, and 1-hour). These
typically include residences, hospitals, and schools. Locations of sensitive receptors
may or may not correspond with the location of the maximum offsite concentration. The
air quality analysis evaluates impacts at the worst-case location, typically adjacent to
the source of emissions, regardless of the presence of a sensitive receptor.
1.6.3 Attainment Status
Sacramento County, in which the Folsom Dam is located, is designated as a
severe non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and as nonattainment for the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS. The county is a designated maintenance area for the CO NAAQS.
Since the project is located in a nonattainment area for ozone, the projects emissions of
ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) must be compared to the federal conformity
thresholds to determine whether the project is subject to conformity. Similarly, since
Sacramento County is nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, and maintenance for CO,
the projects emissions of these pollutants must also be compared to the federal
conformity thresholds.
Table 1-8. Federal and State Attainment Status
Pollutant
O3
PM10
PM2.5
CO
NO2
SO2
State Status
Non-Attainment, serious for 1
hour and 8 hour average
Non-attainment, 24 hour standard
and Annual mean
Non-attainment, annual standard
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Federal Status
Non-attainment, severe (1-hour
and 1997 8-hour standards) (1)
Non-attainment (2), moderate
Non-attainment
Maintenance Area (3)
Attainment
Attainment
Sources: SMAQMD 2012a, CARB 2012e; USEPA 2012e.

Notes:
1. The USEPA is in the process of implementing and finalizing new attainment area designations based
on the 2008 O3 NAAQS. The USEPAs initial Sacramento County area designation, as of December
2011, is nonattainment for this standard.
2. Air quality meets Federal PM10 Standards. The USEPA is in the process of reviewing the CARBs
request, on behalf of SMAQMD, to formally designate the area as in attainment.
3. As of September 27, 2010, all carbon monoxide nonattainment areas within Sacramento County have
been redesignated to maintenance areas.
Acronyms
CO
carbon monoxide
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
O3
ozone
Upstream
1-22
Pollutant
State Status
Federal Status

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter/
SO2
sulfur dioxide
1.6.4 State Implementation Plans

Counties or regions that are designated as federal non-attainment areas for one
or more criteria air pollutants must prepare a plan that demonstrates how the area will
achieve attainment of the standards by the federally mandated deadlines. In addition,
those areas that have been redesignated as attainment will have maintenance plans
that demonstrate how the area will maintain the standard. These regional plans,
prepared by local air districts, go into the SIP, which is compiled by the CARB and
eventually approved by USEPA. These regional plans are themselves sometimes
referred to as SIPs. SIPs are not single documents; rather, they are a compilation of
new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling,
permitting, etc.), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. SIPs are not
required for NO2 and SO2 in Sacramento County because the county is in attainment for
these pollutants. The Sacramento County maintenance plans and/or SIPs for the other
criteria pollutants are described below.
Ozone: The USEPA has designated Sacramento County as being in
nonattainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm (SMAQMD 2012b). An
attainment plan for the 2008 standard has not yet been prepared. In the past, ozone
attainment plans were prepared to address nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Carbon monoxide: On November 30, 2005, USEPA published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 71776) its direct final rule approving ten CO Maintenance Plans in
California, including the Sacramento Urbanized Area CO Maintenance Plan. This plan
provides the CO budgets for the next 10 years that will demonstrate continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS.
PM10: The Sacramento County area is currently designated as non-attainment
for the PM10 NAAQS, although the area has not measured any violations of the PM10
NAAQS in more than ten years. To formally change the PM10 area designation to
attainment, on December 7, 2010, the CARB submitted the PM10
Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-Designation Request for Sacramento County
to the USEPA. The USEPA is still in the process of reviewing the plan and attainment
redesignation request. (SMAQMD, 2012a).
PM2.5: On October 8, 2009, the USEPA signed the final PM2.5 nonattainment
designations for the Sacramento area. The designations became effective on
December 14, 2009. In May 2012, CARB requested that the USEPA find that the SVAB
is in attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and suspend the attainment
demonstration and elements (i.e., attainment plan preparation) associated with reaching

Upstream
1-23
attainment (CARB 2012f). SMAQMD is preparing a redesignation request and

maintenance plan for submission in early 2013. (Anderson, 2012, SMAQMD 2012c).

Upstream
1-24
Analysis Methodology
2.0
ANALYS IS METHODOLOGY
2.1
Significance Criteria
This section discusses how significance criteria are determined for both CEQA
and NEPA, which would both be applicable to the project, and then presents the criteria
for both federal and state levels. Significance criteria take into account each of the
thresholds or measurements discussed below.
2.1.1 General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds
The General Conformity de minimis levels are based on the non-attainment
classification of the air basin. The project is located in the SVAB, which is an ozone
nonattainment area, classified as severe. The SVAB is also designated as
nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, and a maintenance area for CO. The General
Conformity de minimis levels for this project are shown below (Table 2-1). These
thresholds were applied to the projects estimated emissions and used to determine
NEPA impact significance as detailed in the NEPA significance criteria section below.
Table 2-1. General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds
Pollutant
Ozone precursor (NOx)
Ozone precursor (ROGs)
CO
SO2
PM2.5
PM10
Pb
Federal Attainment Status

Maintenance
Attainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment: Moderate
No designation
Source: USEPA 2011a

Notes:
1. Thresholds from 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
N/A
not applicable
nitrogen oxides
NOx
Pb
lead
sulfur dioxide
SO2

Upstream
2-1
Threshold Values
(tons/yr)1
25
25
100
N/A
100
100
N/A
2.1.2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Thresholds

SMAQMD has published CEQA significance thresholds for projects that would
release criteria pollutants, TACs, and/or objectionable odors. SMAQMD has also
published general guidance, but no thresholds, for GHGs. Applicable significance
criteria are presented in the following sections. Because project impacts are limited to
construction, not operations, only SMAQMDs construction related thresholds are
presented.
Mass Emission Thresholds
Table 2-2 shows SMAQMDs construction specific NOx significance threshold. If
the project construction emissions exceed the CEQA NOx threshold, the project
applicant must pay mitigation fees of $17,080 per ton of NOx to offset any excess
emissions.
Table 2-2. Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Daily Mass Emissions Thresholds for
NOx from Construction Emissions
Project Type
Short-term Effects (Construction)
NOx (lbs/day)
85
Source: SMAQMD, 2011
Ambient Concentration Thresholds

For construction projects disturbing more than 15 acres per day, PM10 CAAQS
are applied as thresholds except for areas with existing or projected nonattainment
designations for the PM10 CAAQS. Due to the SVABs nonattainment designation,
SMAQMD has determined that a projects emissions in the SVAB would be significant
and considered substantial contributors if they equal or exceed 5 percent of the PM10
CAAQS. A project would have a substantial PM10 contribution if it increases ambient
concentrations by 2.5 g/m3 or more over 24 hours or by 1 g/m3 or more over a year.
For construction projects disturbing more than 15 acres per day, dispersion modeling is
required by SMAQMD to determine whether the projects emissions would exceed the
PM10 CAAQS or the substantial PM10 CAAQS thresholds. For projects disturbing 15 or
fewer acres per day, dispersion modeling is not required. Instead, the project must
implement all Basic Construction Emission Control Practices. If all such measures are
incorporated, project impacts are considered less than significant.
SMAQMD has also designated the CAAQS as construction thresholds for PM2.5,
CO, and SO2. SMAQMD has not designated a construction threshold for ROG. The
CAAQS threshold for PM2.5 is 0.6 g/m3. The CO CAAQS 8-hour substantial threshold
is 500 g/m3 and the 1-hour substantial threshold is 1,150 g/m3. The 24-hour and 1hour SO2 CAAQS substantial thresholds are, respectively, 5.25 and 32.75 g/m3.
Because PM2.5 is a subset of PM10, SMAQMD assumes that construction projects that
do not generate concentrations of PM10 that exceed the concentration-based threshold
of significance would also be considered less than significant for PM2.5 impacts. For
Upstream
2-2
other criteria pollutants, NOx, SO2, and CO, SMAQMD requires that the proximity of a
project to sensitive receptors and the duration of emissions be used to determine
whether concentrations need to be estimated (SMAQMD, 2011). For the proposed
project, the location of the projects emission sources in relation to sensitive receptors
does not warrant estimates of criteria pollutant concentrations.
GHG Thresholds
GHG emissions have the potential to adversely affect the environment because
they contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Although the
SMAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, the
SMAQMD does provide methodologies for GHG emission analysis and mitigation in
their CEQA guidelines (SMAQMD, 2011). The SMAQMD recommends that project
applicants consider thresholds of significance for GHG emissions that are related to AB
32s GHG reduction goals as described in Table 1-2 above.
Offensive Odors
Specific significance thresholds are not available for offensive odors; however, a
project would be considered to have significant adverse air quality impacts if it has the
potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In
addition, the SMAQMD Rule 402 prohibits any person or source from emitting air
contaminants that cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number
of persons or the public (SMAQMD, 2011). The project is analyzed based on the
SMAQMD recommendations that significance determinations be made on a case-bycase basis and consider parameters such as recommended odor screening distances,
or odor complaint history.
The SMAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold of significance for
construction-related TAC emissions. Therefore, the SMAQMD recommends that project
applicants address this issue on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the
specific construction-related characteristics of each project and the projects proximity to
off-site receptors (SMAQMD, 2011). Consequently, this analysis evaluates DPM based
on the quantity of emissions and the distance to nearby receptors.
Significance criteria for NOA are determined by whether or not a project involves
earth moving activities within areas moderately likely to contain NOA as documented
within the report The Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring
Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California.(California Geological Survey,
2006).
If a project would be located in an area at least moderately likely to contain
NOA, then the impact shall be considered potentially significant (SMAQMD, 2011).
Upstream
2-3
2.1.3 NEPA Significance Determinations

The criteria discussed below were applied in the EIR/EIS Air Quality chapter to
determine NEPA significance conclusions but are not applied in this technical report:
No effect: there are no measurable pollutant emissions;

Negligible: If the project pollutant emissions are below the corresponding
general conformity thresholds, and are expected to cause pollutant
emissions that do not exceed other applicable emissions, air quality, or
health risk thresholds (i.e., SMAQMD thresholds);
Moderate air quality effects: pollutant emissions below corresponding
general conformity thresholds, but having the potential to exceed other
applicable emissions, air quality, or health risk thresholds; and
Substantial effects: pollutant emissions that are greater than the
corresponding general conformity threshold, or having the potential to
exceed other applicable emissions, air quality, or health risk thresholds.
2.1.4 CEQA Significance Determinations

The criteria discussed below were applied in the EIR/EIS Air Quality chapter to
determine CEQA significance conclusions but are not applied in this technical report:
2.2
No effect: there are no measurable pollutant emissions;
Less than significant: If the project pollutant emissions are below the
appropriate SMAQMD CEQA significance thresholds;
Less than significant with mitigation: pollutant emissions below appropriate

SMAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, after mitigation; and
Significant and unavoidable effects: pollutant emissions are greater than the
appropriate SMAQMD CEQA significance thresholds even with
implementation of mitigation.
Methodology and Assumptions
The methods for evaluating impacts are intended to satisfy the federal and state
requirements, including NEPA, CEQA, and general conformity. In general, the
construction emissions were estimated from several emission models and spreadsheet
calculations, depending on the source type and data availability. Models used include
the CARB Emission Factor (EMFAC2007/ EMFAC2011) 1 models (onroad vehicle
emission factor model), and the CARB OFFROAD2011 model. Daily and total project
The EMFAC2011 model has been adopted by SMAQMD for CEQA purposes, but this model has yet to
be accepted by the USEPA for the General Conformity determinations. Based on a conversation with
Karen Huss and Dawn Richmond of USEPA Region 9, we estimated emissions using the EMFAC2007
model versions for NEPA purposes (Huss, 2011, personal communication) and the EMFAC2011 model
updates for CEQA purposes (Huss, 2011, personal communication).
Upstream
2-4
emissions were estimated from appropriate emission factors from the models or USEPA
AP-42 guidance, the type of equipment being operated, the level of equipment activity,
and the associated construction schedules.
2.2.1 Criteria Pollutant and GHG Emission Calculations
The following section describes the methodology used to estimate criteria
pollutant and GHG emissions from each construction activity associated with upstream
activities. Cumulative emissions associated with upstream plus downstream activities
are described in Section 5.0. A variety of Corps-provided documents or personal
communications were used to calculate the upstream project emissions as summarized
in Table 2-3. Sources of emission factors used in the calculations are detailed in the
following sections.
Table 2-3. Summary of Data Sources and Uses
Source
Corps, 2011a.
Information Used
Construction equipment lists for Alternatives B and C.
Schedule used to assume equal on-site haul truck activity in
various years (Alternative 2: 2013, 2014, and 2016;
Alternative 3: 2013, 2016, and 2017)
Number of workers by construction activity and total days
worked for both alternatives (2013-2017).
Annual tonnage of rock processed at rock crushing facility
Corps, 2011b.
Corps, 2011c.
Corps, 2011d and

Corps, 2011e.
Concrete batch plant assumptions regarding schedule and

the aggregate and concrete placement quantities.
Corps, 2011f.
Corps, 2009a.
Quantities of materials (aggregate or dredged) required for

spur dike, transload facility, ramp construction for off-site
haul truck calculations.
Haul truck distances to MIAD and Jamestown, CA
Ratio of aggregate quantity needed for production of
specific concrete quantity
Truck trips in 2017 to remove ramp for transload facility
Blasting material truck trips (February 2014 to August 2017)
Blasting input parameters
Updated concrete quantities moved from and produced at
concrete batch plant during construction years 2014 -2016
Distance to concrete batch plant
Updated schedule for concrete batch plant activities
Fastest wind speed at site
Corps, 2009b.
Amount of excavated material
Wisniewski, J., 2012.

Sandburg, N., 2012a.

Upstream
2-5
Haul truck distances to aggregate material origin and for

miscellaneous purposes.
For the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream Project: Haul
truck assumptions and emission factors, assumptions for
worker commute travel, aggregate material storage piles
assumptions for concrete batch plants, assumptions for
stockpile wind erosion emissions, and assumptions for
heavy diesel truck travel.
Note: All data sources apply to the JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream Project unless
otherwise noted.
Corps, 2010.
The upstream emissions analysis includes the following activities:
On-site construction off-road equipment, such as excavators, backhoes,

bulldozers and scrapers, will be used for site preparation, construction and
removal of the transload facility, excavation of the approach channel,
construction of the spur dike, and installation of the concrete cutoff wall or
installation and removal of the cofferdam
Marine equipment will be used for placement and removal of the cofferdam,
in-the-wet excavation and blasting, dredging, placement of silt curtains, and
other on-water support services.
On-site pickup and haul trucks will be used for general construction support
and for hauling materials from excavated areas to staging or disposal areas,
to the spurdike from excavation or staging areas, from the transload facility to
disposal areas, or for cofferdam fill material to disposal areas.
Off-site haul trucks. Aggregate will be trucked from off-site for construction of
the transload facility and for concrete production. In addition, blasting
materials will be stored off site and trucked in only on the day when they will
be used onsite. In addition, haul trucks will be used to transport material from
the concrete batch plant to the construction area.
Off-site worker vehicles will be used for daily worker commutes.
Fugitive dust sources will include in-the-dry blasting for the approach channel,
stockpile handling, wind erosion of stockpiles, paved roads, unpaved roads,
in-the-dry excavation for approach channel, operation of the rock crusher, and
operation of the concrete batch plant. Stockpiles would be used for materials
or fill associated with excavation of the approach channel, and the aggregate
for the concrete batch plant. An unpaved road would be created onsite to
support all construction activities. Use of paved roads would support off-site
haul truck activities and construction worker commutes. The rock crusher
would be used for the concrete batch operations. The concrete batch plant
would support concrete production for construction activities.

Upstream
2-6
On-site construction off-road equipment

Off-road construction equipment exhaust emissions were estimated using the
OFFROAD2011 model for construction years 2013-2017. The emission factors were
based on equipment horsepower rating. The exhaust emissions were calculated from
the emission factor, the number of pieces of equipment, the engine duty, and the
operating schedule. Activity data for construction equipment was provided by the
projects engineers (Corps, 2011a).
On-site construction marine equipment
Marine exhaust emissions were estimated using the emission factors from the
California Air Resources Boards Harbor Craft model (CARB, 2012g). The Harbor Craft
models emission factors are listed as a function of year and horsepower range.
The exhaust emissions were calculated from the emission factor, load factor the
number of pieces of equipment, the engine duty, and the operating schedule. Activity
data for construction equipment was provided by the projects engineers (Corps,
2011a).
On-site pickup trucks
On-site pickup truck exhaust emissions were estimated using the
EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 models for light duty trucks in Sacramento County. The
emission factors were based on a speed of 10 miles per hour (mph).
On-site pickup truck information was provided by the project engineers (Corps,
2011a), and is summarized in Table 2-4 below.
Table 2-4. On-site pickup truck trips
No. of
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Activity
Trucks (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)
Alternative 2
Mobilization for Approach Walls (Roads , Crane Pads) (3 months) (Mid 2015)
Pickup's standard F-150
(gas)
5
15,000
Pickup's Ford 150 4X4 (gas)
2
6,000
Mech trucks
2
8,400
Fuel trucks
2
8,400
Pipe Fitters Truck
1
840
Electric - Line Man Truck
1
1,120
Flatbed trucks
2
7,200
Intake Approach Walls & Slab (13 months) (September 2015-March 2017)
1
3,975
3,975
3,975
Site Restoration/Teardown (1 Month) (July-August 2014)
Pickup Trucks
6
43,200
Shop Trucks
2
19,200
Upstream
2-7
No. of
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Activity
Trucks (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)
Site Restoration Work (4 Months) (2017)
(gas)
1
4,800
Flatbed trucks
1
1,080
Totals
0 62,400 50,935
3,975
9,855
Alternative 3
1
11,925
1
3,975
3,975
3,975
Site Restoration/Teardown (1 Month) (July - August 2014)
Pickup Trucks
6
43,200
Shop Trucks
2
19,200
Remove Downstream rock Cofferdam (2 Months) (2017)
1
1,800
(gas)
1
4,800
Flatbed trucks
1
1,080
Totals
0 62,400 15,900
3,975 11,655
On-site haul trucks
On-site haul truck exhaust emissions were estimated using the EMFAC2007/
EMFAC2011 models for heavy-heavy duty diesel truck travel in Sacramento County.
The emission factors were based on a speed of 10 mph. The on-site haul truck
emission estimates generated for this project assume that all excavated material will be
transported from the approach channel to the disposal areas at the MIAD or Dike 7,
which is a one-way trip distance of 2 miles. This represents the worst case scenario.
However, a portion of the excavated material may be transported a shorter distance
(from the approach channel to the Dike 8 disposal area).
On-site haul truck information was estimated assuming a truck capacity of 20
cubic yards (cy) and the annual volume of soil materials excavated (URS, 2012). The
information is summarized in Table 2-5 below.
Table 2-5. On-site haul truck trips
Activity
Alternative 2
Approach Channel
Excavation
No. of
trucks
2013
2014
2015
2016
(Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)
26,880
35,840

Upstream
2-8
35,840
35,840
2017
(Miles)
Transload Facility Dredging

Spur Dike Construction
Totals
Alternative 3
Approach Channel
Excavation
Transload Facility Dredging
Cofferdam Fill Material
Totals
900
19,750
3,600
39,440
35,840
26,333
62,173
52,667
52,667
26,880
900
14,960
19,750
35,840
3,600
14,960
54,400
14,960
14,960
35,840 35,840
29,920
26,333 52,667
62,173 118,427
Off-site haul trucks

Off-site haul truck exhaust emissions were estimated using the
EMFAC2007/EMFAC 2011 models for heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks in Sacramento
County. The emission factors were based on a speed of 35 mph. Off-site materials
would be transported from three locations. Aggregate material would be transported
from aggregate facilities, which are a one-way trip distance of 18 miles. Explosive
material would be transported from a storage facility in Jamestown, CA, which is a oneway trip distance of 80 miles. Concrete would be transported from the concrete batch
plant at the Folsom Prison staging area, which is a one-way trip distance of 0.5 miles.
Off-site haul truck information was estimated assuming a haul truck capacity of
20 cy or 30 tons, a concrete mixer truck capacity of 10 cy and the material volume
transported (URS, 2012). The information is summarized in Table 2-6 below.
Table 2-6. Off-site haul truck trips
Activity
Alternative 2
Aggregate Material for
Concrete Mixing
Transload Facility
Concrete from Folsom
Prison Staging Area
Explosive Material from
Jamestown, CA
Totals
Alternative 3
Concrete Mixing
Transload Facility
Concrete from Folsom
No. of
trucks
2013
(Miles)
2014
(Miles)
2015
(Miles)
2016
(Miles)
2017
(Miles)
350
2,288
3,432
3,432
3,432
27,000
486,000
2,420
440
660
660
660
600
486,000
488,726
24,558
28,650
26,791
30,833
26,791
30,833
17,860
503,860
188
2,125
2,318
2,318
27,000
1,300
486,000
-
409
446
446
486,000
-

Upstream
2-9
Prison Staging Area

Explosive Material from
Jamestown, CA
Totals
600
486,000
24,558
27,091
26,791
29,554
26,791
29,554
17,860
503,860
Off-site worker vehicle

Worker commute exhaust emissions were estimated using the
EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 models for light duty automobiles and light duty trucks in
Sacramento County. The emission factors were based on a speed of 65 mph.
URBEMIS estimated that the average commute distance traveled within Sacramento
County is 15 miles for a one-way trip. Workers were assumed to take 3.02 one-way trips
to incorporate lunch trips as well as the trip to and from home. These commute
distances and trip rates were based on the value and data from URBEMIS for General
Light Industry.
The number of worker vehicles was provided by the project engineers (Corps,
2011b). The information is summarized in Table 2-7 below.
Table 2-7. Worker Commute Trips
Activity
Alternative 2
Transload Facility
Workers
Approach Channel
Workers
Total
Alternative 3
Transload Facility
Workers
Approach Channel
Workers
Totals
No. of
Workers
2013
(Miles)
2014
(Miles)
2015
(Miles)
2016
(Miles)
2017
(Miles)
27
42,401
113,069
113,069
113,069
39
70,668
113,069
169,603
282,672
141,336
254,405
169,603
282,672
41
84,802
70,668
113,069
113,069
169,603
43
84,802
98,935
169,603
169,603
282,672
169,603
282,672
169,603
339,206
2.2.2 Fugitive Dust Emission Calculations

The following section provides the methodology used to estimate fugitive dust
emissions from unpaved and paved roads, and various construction activities.
Unpaved road entrained road dust
Unpaved road entrained fugitive dust emissions were estimated using AP-42
emission factors (USEPA, 2006a) and the vehicle miles traveled. The emission factor
was calculated based on the silt content of the road, the weight of the vehicle, and the
number of days per year where precipitation was over 0.01 inches. The silt content of
Upstream
2-10
the unpaved roads was obtained from the Folsom Dam Safety EIS calculations (U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation [USBR] , 2007). The on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be
light duty trucks with an average weight of 2 tons. The on-site haul trucks were
assumed to be heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks with an average weight of 23.25 tons.
The number of days where precipitation was over 0.01 inches (wet days) was obtained
from AP-42 Figure 13.2.1-2 (USEPA, 2011a) and was found to be 90 days for the
project area.
The total vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for the on-site pickup trucks were
calculated using the mileage values from Table 2-4 (see methodology for on-site haul
truck exhaust emissions). The total VMT for the on-site haul trucks were calculated
using the mileage values from Table 2-5 (see methodology for on-site haul truck
exhaust emissions).
Paved road entrained road dust
Paved road entrained fugitive dust emissions were estimated using the AP-42
emission factor (USEPA, 2011a) and the VMT. The emission factor was calculated
based on the silt content of the road, the weight of the vehicle, and the number of days
where precipitation was over 0.01 inches.
The vehicles were assumed to travel on five different types of paved roads:
freeway, arterial (major street/highway), collector road, local road surface and rural road
surface. The silt content of these roads and the percentage of vehicle travel on these
roads were estimated from the Midwest Research Institute Study (Muleski, 1996)
The off-site haul trucks were assumed to be heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks with
an average weight of 23.25 tons. The worker fleet was assumed to be 50% light duty
automobiles and 50% light duty trucks, with an average weight of 1.75 tons. The
number of days per year where precipitation was over 0.01 inches (wet days) was
obtained from AP-42 Figure 13.2.1-2 (USEPA, 2011a) and was found to be 90 days for
the project area.
The total VMT for the off-site haul trucks were calculated using the mileage
values from Table 2-6 (see methodology for off-site haul truck exhaust emissions). The
total vehicle miles traveled for worker commute were calculated using the mileage
values from Table 2-7 (see methodology for worker commute exhaust emissions).
Cut and fill
Cut and fill emissions were estimated using the low detail emission factors from
the URBEMIS2007 model for excavation fugitive dust. The URBEMIS2007 emission
factor allows the calculation of fugitive dust emissions based on the maximum material
daily volume disturbed. The total material volume disturbed was assumed to be 304,500
cubic yards (cy) for Alternative 2 and 355,600 cy for Alternative 3 (URS, 2009). Material
for Alternatives B and C will be excavated over 1 year.

Upstream
2-11
Stockpile handling
Stockpile handling emissions for early excavated material storage piles were
estimated using AP-42 emission factors (USEPA, 2006b) and the amount of material
handled. The emission factor was based on the mean wind speed and material moisture
content. The mean wind speed and material moisture content values were obtained
from the SMAQMD Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County (SMAQMD,
2004). The density and the volume of the storage pile were used to estimate the amount
of material being handled. The volume of material stockpiled and handled is presented
in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8. Stockpile Volume
Activity
Aggregate Volume
Excavation Volume
Total
Aggregate Volume
Excavation Volume
Total
2013
(cy)
5,243
304,500
309,743
355,600
355,600
2014
(cy)
5,243
5,243
0
2015
(cy)
1,095
1,095
1,095
1,095
2016
(cy)
3,284
133,700
136,984
3,284
92,100
95,384
2017
(cy)
821
821
821
821
Stockpile wind erosion

Stockpile wind erosion emissions were estimated using the AP-42 emission
factor (USEPA, 2006c) and the surface area exposed to wind. The emission factor was
based on the fastest mile wind speed (miles/hour) and the number of disturbances to
the storage pile. The fastest mile wind speed (miles/hour) and the average wind
direction were obtained a 1985 wind rose at Sacramento Executive Airport weather
station (Corps, 2009a; USBR, 2007). The station is approximately 22 miles southwest of
the Folsom project site, and it is representative of wind speeds and directions at the
project site. The wind speed threshold velocity (the minimum wind speed required to
initiate particle motion) was assumed to be the threshold velocity for coal overburden
from AP-42 Table 13.2.5-2 (USEPA, 2006c).
Material will be added to the stockpile every day during construction activities.
Therefore the number of disturbances to the storage pile was assumed to be 312, which
is the maximum number of days for stockpiling. Each stockpile is assumed to have an
average depth of 10 meters. The total stockpile surface area in square meters (m2)
exposed to wind erosion is calculated from the stockpile volumes in Table 2-8, and is
presented in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9. Wind Erosion Stockpile Surface Area
Activity
Aggregate Volume
Excavation Volume
Upstream
2013
(m2)
401
23,281
2-12
2014
(m2)
401
-
2015
(m2)
84
-
2016
(m2)
251
10,222
2017
(m2)
63
-
Total
Aggregate Volume
Excavation Volume
Totals
23,682
27,188
27,188
401
0
84
84
84
10,473
251
7,042
7,293
63
63
63
Blasting
Blasting emissions were estimated using the methodology in the Blue Rock
Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (Sonoma County, 2005) based on a blasting
emission factor and number of blasts per year. The calculation of the blasting emission
factors depended on the blast area, blast depth and moisture content.
The blast information was provided by project engineers at the Corps. The blast
area was estimated to be 1,550 m2, the blast depth was estimated to be 20 feet, and the
material moisture content was estimated to 2% for both alternatives (Wisniewski, 2012).
The Corps estimated that the total number of blasts for Alternative 2 was 200 blasts,
while the total number of blasts for Alternative 3 was 280 blasts.
Rock crushing facility
Rock crushing emissions were estimated using the AP-42 emission factors
(USEPA, 2004) and the annual production of the one rock crushing facility. Information
about the annual production of the rock crushing facility was provided by the project
engineers (Corps, 2011c). It was estimated that 70,000 tons of rock would be processed
at the facility annually for both alternatives.
Concrete batch plant
Concrete batch plant emissions were estimated using the AP-42 emission factors
(USEPA, 2006c) and the amount of concrete processed at the one batch plant. The
amount of concrete processed at the plant was provided by the Corps (Corps, 2011d;
Wisniewski, 2012). The amount of concrete required for Alternative 2 was estimated to
be 24,200 cy. The amount of concrete required for Alternative 3 was estimated to be
13,000 cy.
2.2.3 Greenhouse Emission Calculations
The three most common GHG pollutants are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Emissions for
individual GHG pollutants were estimated, and then converted to CO2e using the GWP
listed in Section 1.5.3.
The CO2 and CH4 emissions were estimated using the OFFROAD2011 model for
construction years 2013-2017; similar to the method used to estimate exhaust criteria
pollutant emissions. Emission factors for N2O were not available in the model. These
emissions are expected to be negligible and therefore were not estimated.

Upstream
2-13
On-site construction marine equipment

The CO2 emissions were estimated using the emission factors from the California
Air Resources Boards Harbor Craft model (CARB, 2012f).
The CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions were estimated using the EMFAC2007 model
for light duty trucks in Sacramento County; similar to the method used to estimate
exhaust criteria pollutant emissions. The CO2 emissions were estimated using the
EMFAC2011 model for light duty trucks in Sacramento County. This model does not
provide emission factors for CH4 and N2O, so The Climate Registry (TCR) emissions
factors were used for emission calculations (TCR, 2012).
On-site haul trucks
for heavy-heavy duty trucks in Sacramento County; similar to the method used to
estimate exhaust criteria pollutant emissions. The CO2 emissions were estimated using
the EMFAC2011 model for heavy-heavy duty trucks in Sacramento County. This model
does not provide emission factors for CH4 and N2O, so TCR emissions factors were
used for emission calculations (TCR, 2012).
for heavy-heavy duty trucks in Sacramento County; similar to the method used to
estimate exhaust criteria pollutant emissions. The CO2 emissions were estimated using
the EMFAC2011 model for heavy-heavy duty trucks in Sacramento County. This model
does not provide emission factors for CH4 and N2O, so TCR emissions factors were
used for emission calculations (TCR, 2012).
for light duty automobiles and light duty trucks in in Sacramento County; similar to the
method used to estimate exhaust criteria pollutant emissions. The CO2 emissions were
estimated using the EMFAC2011 model for light duty automobiles and light duty trucks
in in Sacramento County. This model does not provide emission factors for CH4 and
N2O, so TCR emissions factors were used for emission calculations (TCR, 2012).
Indirect greenhouse gas
According to the SMAQMD CEQA guidance, indirect GHG emissions should be
estimated from utility providers associated with the projects electricity demands
(SMAMQD, 2011). Electrification of the rock crushing facility and concrete batch plant is
a mitigation measure (discussed in 4.0). However the methodology to estimate indirect
GHG emissions is presented below.

Upstream
2-14
Electricity for rock crushing facility

The rock crushing plant will be electric (Sandburg, 2012b), which would result in
indirect GHG emissions. According to the life cycle analysis for a rock crusher
(Landfield and Karra, 2000), the power consumption of the rock crusher, normalized to
the functional unit of 1,000 short tons of crushed rock, was 650 kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Based on these metric, the electricity usage emission factor was estimated to be 0.65
kWh per ton of crushed rock. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) CO2
emission factor was found to be 0.268 tons of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (SMUD,
2010).
Rock crushing facility GHG emissions were estimated using the electricity usage
and CO2 emission factors; the amount of rock processed annually was estimated to be
70,000 tons for both alternatives.
Electricity for concrete batch plant
The manufacture of concrete requires large amounts of energy; the electrification
of this process results in substantial indirect GHG emissions. Studies have shown that
CO2 emissions generated by typical normal strength concrete mixes were found to
range between 0.29 and 0.32 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per cubic meter of concrete
(Flowers and Sanjayan, 2007). In order to be conservative, this study assumed 0.32
metric tons (320 kilograms) of CO2 would be created per cubic meter of concrete
produced.
Concrete batch plant operations GHG emissions were estimated using the
emissions from these studies (Flowers and Sanjayan, 2007) and the amount of concrete
processed. The amount of concrete required for Alternative 2 was estimated to be
24,200 cy. The amount of concrete required for Alternative 3 was estimated to be
13,000 cy.
2.2.4 Air Dispersion Modeling
During typical construction projects the majority of particulate matter emissions
(i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are generated in the form of fugitive dust during ground
disturbance activities. PM emissions are also generated in the form of equipment
exhaust and reentrained road dust from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces.
The SMAQMD recommends that PM10 emissions be addressed as a localized
pollutant. Thus, the SMAQMD considers PM10 emissions to be a significant impact at
the project level if they would exceed the SMAQMDs concentration-based threshold of
significance at an off-site receptor location. Because PM2.5 is a subset of PM10, the
SMAQMD assumes that construction projects that do not generate concentrations of
PM10 that exceed the Districts concentration-based threshold of significance would
also be considered less-than-significant for PM2.5 impacts (SMAQMD, 2011).
The SMAQMD recommends that lead agencies model the PM10 emission
concentrations generated by construction activity for all projects except those that
Upstream
2-15
implement all Basic Construction Emission Control Practices, and where the maximum
daily disturbed area would not exceed 15 acres (based on 25% of the total project area
if the exact maximum daily disturbed area is not known at the time of the analysis).The
total JFP Phase 4 Folsom Dam project area is approximately 56 acres; therefore the
maximum daily disturbed area is 14 acres. Since the maximum daily disturbed area is
less than the SMAQMD threshold, and the project will implement all Basic Construction
Emission Control Practices (see Section 4.0), no modeling would be required.

Upstream
2-16
3.0
IMP ACTS ANALYS IS
Using the methodologies described in Section 2.2, the impacts of the proposed
project were evaluated and are discussed in the following sections.
3.1
Construction Impacts
3.1.1 Exhaust Emissions

Emissions of criteria pollutants would occur during construction activities at the
proposed site. These construction activities include off-road equipment, marine
equipment, on-site pickup trucks, on-site haul trucks, off-site haul rucks, and off-site
worker vehicles.
In cases where emission factors were only provided for PM10, a ratio is used to
estimate emissions for PM2.5. Table 3-1 summarizes the unmitigated construction
exhaust emissions by activity for Alternatives 2 and 3 in years 2013-2017 for NEPA
purposes. Table 3-2 summarizes the unmitigated construction exhaust emissions by
activity for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 in years 2013-2017 for CEQA purposes.
Table 3-1. Unmitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for NEPA
Pollutant (tons)
CO
PM10
PM2.5 1
SO2
<1
15
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Off-site worker vehicles
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
TOTAL
10
116
58
<1
Alternative 3
On-site construction offroad
53
29
<1
On-site construction
marine
24
10
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
On-site haul trucks
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Activity
Alternative 2
ROG
NOx
On-site construction offroad
68
37
marine
36
<1
On-site haul trucks

Upstream
3-1
Activity
Off-site worker vehicles
TOTAL
ROG
<1
NOx
<1
90
Pollutant (tons)
CO
PM10
2
<1
46
PM2.5 1
<1
SO2
<1
<1
Notes:
1. The OFFROAD2011 model does not provide emission factors for PM2.5 from on-site construction offroad road equipment. Therefore emissions for PM2.5 were based on the CEIDARS 0.92 PM10/PM2.5
conversion ratio (SCAQMD, 2006).
2. EMFAC2007 was used to estimate on-road emission factors for NEPA purposes.
3. Emission rates might not add up due to rounding
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Table 3-2. Unmitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for CEQA
Activity
Pollutant (lbs/yr)
CO
PM10
ROG
NOx
PM2.5
SO2
2,662
43,112
18,587
196,609
41,067
39
1,766
19,538
10,327
189,769
35,790
16
2,047
23,557
13,656
80,441
24,959
14
5,872
68,643
33,438
211,945
39,501
21
6,486
83,009
38,423
204,606
24,741
18,833
237,859 114,431
883,370
166,058
99
Alternative 2
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
Total (lbs)
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
12
152
73
566
106
<1
3,414
50,698
21,113
235,951
40,974
46
1,237
13,760
7,623
124,802
24,510
16
1,773
18,667
10,797
41,193
16,307
20
Alternative 3
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total

Upstream
3-2
Activity
ROG
NOx
1,229
13,765
7,666
8,000
98,793
15,653
10
2016 Total
2017 Total
Total (lbs)
Pollutant (lbs/yr)
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
202,583
32,272
12
46,223
206,790
25,741
108
195,683
93,422
811,319
139,804 202
125
60
520
90
<1
Note: Total emissions (lbs) were divided by the total number of days in the construction period (1,560) to
estimate the daily emissions (lbs/day).
3.1.2 Fugitive Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions would occur during construction activities at the
proposed site. These construction activities include unpaved and paved entrained road
dust, cut and fill, stockpiling, blasting of rock, rock crushing, and concrete batch plant
operations.
In cases where emission factors were only provided for PM10, a ratio is used to
estimate emissions for PM2.5. Table 3-3 summarizes the unmitigated construction
exhaust emissions for both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 in years 2013-2017 for NEPA
and CEQA purposes.
Table 3-3. Unmitigated Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Summary for NEPA
and CEQA
Pollutant (tons)
PM10
PM2.51
Activity
Alternative 2
331
33
23
Cut and fill
18
Stockpile handling
<1
<1
<1
Blasting
Rock crushing
53
35
TOTAL
Alternative 3
437
79

Upstream
3-3
Pollutant (tons)
PM10
PM2.51
307
31
Activity
23
Cut and fill
21
Stockpile handling
<1
<1
<1
Blasting
11
Rock crushing
35
24
TOTAL
402
67
Notes:
1. The methodology for cut and fill, blasting, rock crushing and the concrete batch plant does not provide
emission factors for PM2.5. Therefore emissions for PM2.5 were based on the CIEDARS
PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio (SCAQMD, 2006). The PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio for cut and fill is
0.208, for blasting is 0.3, for rock crushing is 0.3, and for the concrete batch plant is 0.674.
2. Emission rates might not add up due to rounding.
Acronyms:
3.1.3 Comparison to General Conformity de minimis thresholds

Table 3-4 summarizes total annual emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10,
and PM2.5 from all the activities described above.
In Table 3-4, Alternative 2 and 3 emissions are compared to both the General
Conformity de minimis thresholds for determination of significance of impacts. Based on
Table 3-4, Alternative 2 unmitigated NOx emissions would exceed the de minimis
thresholds in 2016-2017, and unmitigated PM10 emissions would exceed the de
minimis thresholds in 2016-2017. In all years of the construction period, ROG, CO, and
PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the de minimis thresholds. Based on Table 3-4,
Alternative 3 unmitigated NOx emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds in
2017, and unmitigated PM10 emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds in
2013 and 2016-2017. Mitigation measures and mitigated emissions compared to the de
minimis levels are discussed in Section 4.0 below.

Upstream
3-4
Table 3-4. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream: Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emission
Summary for NEPA
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
Alternative 2
2013 Total
21
10
98
21
<1
2014 Total
95
18
<1
2015 Total
12
40
12
<1
2016 Total
34
17
106
20
<1
2017 Total
40
20
102
12
<1
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
24
11
118
21
<1
2014 Total
62
12
<1
2015 Total
21
<1
2016 Total
101
16
<1
2017 Total
48
24
104
13
<1
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
2013 Total
SO2
Notes:
1. For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using OFFROAD2011 and
EMFAC2007 models.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
SO2
sulfur dioxide
3.1.4 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management NOx Threshold

According to the SMAQMD CEQA guidance, construction-generated NOx
emissions shall be evaluated for significance under CEQA on a daily mass emission
basis of 85 pounds per day because NOx is an ozone precursor, which is a pollutant of
regional concern (SMAQMD, 2011, SMAQMD 2012d). The unmitigated average daily
NOx emissions from the JFP Folsom Dam Upstream would be 152 pounds per day for
Alternative 2, and 125 pounds per for Alternative 3. Both alternatives exceed the
Upstream
3-5
SMAQMD NOx CEQA threshold. Mitigation measures and mitigated emissions

compared to the SMAQMD NOx threshold are discussed in Section 4.0 below.
3.1.5 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management PM10 Threshold
As described above, because the projects maximum daily disturbed area is less
than 15 acres, there is no applicable SMAQMD threshold for PM10 emissions and the
PM10 CAAQS would not be applicable to the project. However, the project would be
required to comply with SMAQMDs Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.0 below.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions would be emitted from the project due to fuel combustion, as
well as indirect emissions from the electricity used to operate the rock crusher and
concrete batch plant. GHG emissions generated from construction of the project would
be short-term. However, because the time that CO2 remains in the atmosphere cannot
be definitively quantified due to the wide range of time scales in which carbon reservoirs
exchange CO2 with the atmosphere, there is no single value for the half-life of CO2 in
the atmosphere (IPCC, 1997). Therefore, the duration that CO2 emissions from a shortterm project would remain in the atmosphere is unknown.
The SMAQMD currently does not have any significance thresholds for GHG
emissions, though they recommend that GHG emissions consider the AB 32s GHG
reduction goals. Table 3-5 summarizes Alternative 2 and 3 total annual emissions for
GHGs from all the activities described above. Mitigation measures are discussed in
Section 4.0 below.
Table 3-5. Unmitigated GHG Emission Summary for CEQA and NEPA
Year
Alternative 2
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
Alternative 3
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total

Upstream
5,507
4,006
4,261
6,350
5,118
3,078
2,760
2,905
2,755
6,082
3-6
3.2
Offensive Odors
The JFP Folsom Dam Upstream project is not expected to have any short- or long-term
impacts associated with offensive odors. The SMAQMD recommends that significance
determinations be made on a case-by-case basis and consider parameters such as the
Recommended Odor Screening Distances, or odor complaint history. SMAQMDs odor
screening distances have been developed for stationary odor sources. SMAQMD has
not developed any specific odor screening distances for construction activities.
However, because ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is now required in California, the potential
for diesel-related odor effects from construction equipment and trucks is minimal. These
odors would be temporary in nature and would not cause an odor nuisance.
3.3
3.3.1 Diesel Particulate Matter

DPM would be emitted from on-site off-road heavy construction equipment, onsite pickup trucks, on-site haul trucks and off-site haul trucks. DPM is considered a
carcinogen and the project would expose nearby receptors to these emissions during
the construction period.
SMAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold of significance for
construction-related TAC emissions, but direct project applicants to consider project
proximity to off-site receptors. Sensitive receptors such as residences and a nearby
church, the Folsom Point Church of Christ, are located within 1,000 feet of the
construction area. Therefore these sensitive receptors could be potentially exposed to
the DPM cancer risk from the project.
However, health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic substances are
typically measured over 70 years of exposure. Since the proposed project is a shortterm construction project lasting only five years, the potential human exposure to DPM
from this alternative would be short-term. In addition, all off-site receptors are located
near the staging areas, where the only construction activities would involve the on-site
pickup trucks and on-site haul trucks. In the worst-case scenario, they will be exposed
to daily DPM mass emissions (using PM10 emissions as a substitute for DPM
emissions) of 2 pounds per hour for Alternative 2, and 3 pounds per hour for Alternative
3. The nearby sensitive receptors could potentially be impacted by DPM emissions.
Proposed mitigation measures for MY 2010 haul trucks would reduce the daily
DPM mass emissions to <1 pounds per hour for Alternative 2, and 1 pound per hour for
Alternative 3 (see 4.0). Therefore, these sensitive receptors would be exposed to a
limited and less than significant DPM cancer risk from the project.
3.3.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The Folsom Dam area has been identified as an area where the local geology
supports the formation of NOA, within ultramafic rock specifically. According to the
SMAQMD CEQA guidance, a site investigation should be performed to determine
whether and where NOA is present in the soil and rock on the project site and areas
Upstream
3-7
that would be disturbed by the project (SMAQMD 2011). A previous investigation of the
project areas geology, including soil testing efforts, indicated that the project area
overlies granitic rock except for the MIAD area, which overlies metamorphic rock
(ultramafic rocks) (USBR 2009). The granitic material would not be expected to contain
any NOA materials (LeFevre, 2012). Although no NOA has been discovered in the
MIAD area (Corps, 2010; LeFevre, 2012.), ultramafic rock near this area could include
NOA and pose a risk to construction workers or sensitive receptors. However, the JFP
Folsom Upstream Projects implementation of mitigation measures to reduce PM10
emissions and comply with CARBs Section 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control
Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining (Asbestos ATCM)
(CARB 2001), as discussed in Section 4.0 below, would reduce the potential for workers
or sensitive receptors to be exposed to airborne NOA. These impacts would be
expected to be less than significant with mitigation.

Upstream
3-8
4.0
MITIGATION MEAS URES
Unmitigated NOx and PM10 emissions from the construction of the JFP Folsom
Dam, Upstream project would exceed applicable CEQA and NEPA significance criteria.
Therefore, the Corps will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce the
potential air quality effects of the project.
4.1
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices
The SMAQMD requires construction projects to implement basic construction

emission control practices to control fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions
(SMAQMD, 2011). These measures are required by the SMAQMD, and therefore would
not be considered mitigation measures. The Corps would comply with the following
control measures for the JFP Folsom Dam, Upstream project: 2:
1) Water all exposed surfaces twice daily. Exposed surfaces include but are not
limited to: soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and
access roads.
2) Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks
transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks
that would travel along freeways or major roadways should be covered.
3) Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud
or dirt from adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
4) Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, or parking lots to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6) Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [required by California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]. Provide clear signage
that posts this requirement for workers at the site entrances.
7) Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to
the manufacturers specifications. The equipment must be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it
is operated.
The project would not require dispersion modeling because of compliance with these control measure
and limiting the maximum daily disturbed area to 14 acres, which is less than the SMAQMD 15-acre
threshold.
Upstream
4-1
4.2
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Construction Area Particulate Matter Mitigation

Measures
If the projects construction contractor determines that the construction activities

would actively disturb more than 15 acres per day, then the contractor would be
required to conduct PM10 and PM2.5 dust modeling. If that modeling shows violations
of SMAQMD's PM10 substantial CAAQS significance thresholds or the PM2.5 CAAQS
thresholds, then the contractor would be required to implement sufficient mitigation to
eliminate any significant PM10 or PM2.5 impacts.
4.3
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Fugitive Dust Emission Mitigation Measures
Fugitive dust mitigation will require the use of adequate measures during each
construction activity and will include frequent water applications or application of soil
additives, control of vehicle access, and vehicle speed restrictions. Mitigated emissions
are presented in Table 4-3.
4.3.1 Asbestos Measures
A geologist will monitor the project area for the presence of NOA during all
construction activities. If found, the Corps will comply with the CARBs Section 93105,
2002-07-09 Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (CARB, 2008). In addition, the Corps will implement the fugitive dust
mitigation measures below, which are similar to those required under an Asbestos Dust
Control Plan.
4.3.2 Unpaved roads
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from on-site traffic on unpaved roads, the
Corps would implement the following measures:
1. Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 10 miles per hour, and
2. Water at least every two hours of active construction activities or
sufficiently often to keep the area adequately wetted.
3. Remove any visible track-out from a paved public road at any location
where vehicles exit the work site; this removal effort shall be accomplished
using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter- equipped vacuum device daily.
4. Install one or more of the following track-out prevention measures:
a. A gravel pad designed using good engineering practices to clean
the tires of exiting vehicles,
b. A tire shaker,
c. A wheel wash system,

Upstream
4-2
d. Pavement extending for not less than 50 feet from the intersection
with the paved public road, or
e. Any other measure(s) as effective as the measures listed above.
Speed limit controls would contribute to 44% emission control efficiency (Western
Governors Association, 2004), while watering controls would contribute to 55%
emission control efficiency (SCAQMD, 2007)
4.3.3 Cut and fill
To mitigate fugitive dust emission from cut and fill activities, the Corps would
implement the following measures:
1. Pre-wet the ground to the depth of anticipated cuts, and
2. Suspend any excavation operations when wind speeds are high enough
to result in dust emissions across the property line, despite the application
of dust mitigation measures.
Watering activities would contribute to 55% emission control efficiency
(SCAQMD 2007).
4.3.4 Stockpile handling and stockpile wind erosion
To mitigate stockpile handling and stockpile wind erosion fugitive dust emissions,
the Corps would keep the active storage pile adequately wetted using wet suppression
controls. Wet suppression controls would contribute to 90% emissions control efficiency
(Fitz, 2000).
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from storage piles that would remain inactive
for more than seven days, the Corps would implement one or more of the following
measures:
1. Wet suppression controls,
2. Establishment and maintenance of surface crusting sufficient to satisfy the
surface crusting test identified in the Asbestos ATCM,
3. Apply chemical dust suppressants or chemical stabilizers,
4. Cover with tarp(s) or vegetative cover,
5. Install wind barriers across open areas,
6. Install wind barriers of 50 percent porosity around three sides of the storage
pile, and/or
7. Any other measure(s) as effective as the measures listed above.
Upstream
4-3
4.3.5 Blasting
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from in-dry blasting operations, the Corps
would apply water every 4 hours within 100 feet of the demolition area. Watering
controls would contribute to 36% control efficiency (Western Governors Association,
2004).
4.3.6 Rock crushing facility
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from the rock crushing facility, the Corps
would implement wet suppression controls. Wet suppression controls would contribute
to 94% control efficiency (USEPA, 2004)
4.3.7 Concrete batch plant
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from the concrete batch plant operations, the
Corps would implement one or more of the following measures:
1. Applying water sprays,
2. Setting up enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds, movable and telescoping
chutes, and/or
3. Installing a central dust collection system.
These measures would contribute to 94% to 99.9% control efficiency (USEPA,
2006d).
4.3.8 Post-Construction
To mitigate staging area or haul road emissions, the Corps would, upon
completion of the project, accomplish post-construction stabilization of disturbed
surfaces using one or more of the following measures:
1. Establishing a vegetative cover,
2. Placing at least 12 inches of non-asbestos-containing material,
3. Paving, and/or
4. Implementing any other measure deemed sufficient to prevent wind speeds of
10 miles per hour or greater from causing visible dust emissions.
4.4
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Exhaust Emission Mitigation Measures
Four categories of mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the total

project NOx and PM10 emissions as discussed in a report presented to the Corps (URS
2011). These mitigation measures were accepted by the Corps (Sandburg, 2012b) and
are presented below. Mitigated emissions are presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2.

Upstream
4-4
4.4.1 Cleaner Off-Road Equipment

The project will incorporate the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) Green Construction Policy (LACMTA 2011) requirements for the
on-site construction off-road equipment.
The Corps would use Tier 3 off-road equipment for the first two years of
construction (2013-2014), and use interim Tier 4 off-road equipment beginning in 2015.
This mitigation measure is expected to create a 59% reduction in NOx emissions, a 62%
reduction in ROG emissions, and a 71% reduction in PM10 emissions for Alternative 2.
This mitigation measure is expected to create a 62% reduction in NOx emissions, a 61%
reduction in ROG emissions, and a 75% reduction in PM10 emissions for Alternative 3
(see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2).
Mitigated emissions for off-road equipment was estimated using the
OFFROAD2011 model, and specifying the model years where Tier 3 or interim Tier 4
engine standards would be met. The model years in which engine standards would be
met was obtained from the CARB (CARB 2012h).
4.4.2 Marine Engine Standards
The USEPA adopted Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for newly-built marine engines
in 2008. The Tier 3 standards reflect the application of technologies to reduce engine
PM and NOx emission rates. Tier 4 standards reflect application of high-efficiency
catalytic after-treatment technology enabled by the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD). These Tier 4 standards would be phased in over time for marine engines
beginning in 2014 (USEPA, 2008).
The Corps would use Tier 2 and 3 marine engines standards to reduce marine
exhaust emissions. Due to uncertainty as to the availability of Tier 4 marine engines
within the required project timeline, mitigation measures did not include use of Tier 4
marine engines. However, should they become available during the appropriate
construction periods, use of these engines would further lower project emissions.
This mitigation measure would result in a 56% reduction in NOx emissions, a
65% reduction in ROG emissions and a 65% reduction in PM10 emissions for
Alternative 2. This mitigation measure would result in a 56% reduction in NOx
emissions, a 66% reduction in ROG emissions and a 69% reduction in PM10 emissions
for Alternative 3. (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2).
Mitigated emissions for marine equipment were estimated using the CARB and
USEPA marine engine standards and multiplying the standards by the load factors used
to estimate the unmitigated emissions.
4.4.3 Haul truck controls
The USEPA adopted emissions standards for MY 2007 and later heavy-duty
highway engine, such as haul trucks, in January 2001 (USEPA, 2001). These emission
Upstream
4-5
standards were expected to be phased in between 2007 and 2010, with few engines
meeting the NOx requirements until 2010.
Since haul truck NOx emissions account for approximately 7% of the total
construction NOx emissions, the Corps would implement the use of MY 2010 or newer
haul trucks beginning in 2013. This measure would ensure the maximum reduction in
NOx emissions, since these engines are required to meet the USEPA NOx standards.
This mitigation measure would reduce haul truck NOx emissions by 92%, ROG
emissions by 63%, and PM10 emissions by 91% for Alternative 2. This mitigation
measure would reduce haul truck NOx emissions by 99%, ROG emissions by 97%, and
PM10 emissions by 99% for Alternative 3 (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2).
Mitigated emissions for haul trucks were estimated using the
EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 model, employing the same methodology that was described
in Section 2.2.1.
4.4.4 Use of Electrical Equipment
Construction equipment powered by electricity, rather than fuel, does not
contribute to diesel exhaust emissions. Electrification would result in a small amount of
indirect CO2 emissions due to the operation of the electric grid. Various types of
construction equipment may feasibly be run on electricity.
The Corps would electrify the concrete batch plant and the rock crushing facility. This
mitigation measure would reduce NOx emissions, ROG emissions and PM10 emissions
from the concrete batch plant and the rock crushing plant by 100% (see Table 4-1 and
Table 4-2). These measures would increase indirect GHG emissions, but this increase
would be offset by the decrease in GHG emissions from fuel-based operations.
4.4.5 Contractor Requirements
The Corps has committed to ensure that air pollution specifications are
incorporated into all construction contracts. Those specifications would require that
contractors limit annual emissions to levels that do not exceed the annual estimates
shown in Table 4-4 below.
4.5
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: NOx Mitigation Fee
The Corps will provide payment of the appropriate SMAQMD-required NOx

mitigation fee to offset the project's NOx emissions when they exceed SMAQMD's
threshold of 85 lbs/day.
4.6
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: GHG Emission Reduction Measures
The SMAQMD recommends the following mitigation measures for reducing GHG
emissions from construction projects. The use of electric equipment is already listed
above and will reduce direct GHG emissions from fuel-based equipment. The Corps will
implement the following mitigation measures wherever possible.

Upstream
4-6
1) Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment:

a. Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (5
minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure
[Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of
Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for
workers at the entrances to the site.
b. Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition
according to manufacturers specifications. The equipment must be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition before it is operated.
c. Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment.
d. Use the proper size of equipment for the job.
e. Use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric
drive trains).
2) Perform on-site material hauling with trucks equipped with on-road
engines (if determined to be less emissive than the off-road engines).
3) Use an ARB approved low carbon fuel for construction equipment. (NOx
emissions from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and
increases mitigated.)
4) Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or
secure bicycle parking for construction worker commutes.
5) Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris
(goal of at least 75% by weight).
6) Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal
of at least 20% based on costs for building materials, and based on
volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood
products utilized should be certified through a sustainable forestry
program.
7) Produce concrete on-site if determined to be less emissive than
transporting ready mix.
8) Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries and equipment transport.
9) Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.

Upstream
4-7
4.7
Mitigated Construction Impacts
The estimated mitigated criteria pollutant emission summary is presented in

Table 4-1. The estimated mitigated fugitive dust emissions are presented in Table 4-3
and are based on implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4
above. Off-site employee vehicles criteria pollutant emissions could not feasibly be
controlled by quantifiable mitigation measures.
Table 4-1. Mitigated Total Construction Exhaust Emission Summary for NEPA
Pollutant (tons)
CO
PM10
PM2.5 1
SO2
<1
15
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Off-site worker
vehicles
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
TOTAL
47
34
<1
Alternative 3
off-road
20
13
<1
marine
11
10
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
On-site haul trucks
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Off-site worker
vehicles
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
TOTAL
40
30
<1
Activity
Alternative 2
ROG
NOx
off-road
28
16
marine
16
<1
On-site haul trucks

Upstream
4-8
Notes:
1. The OFFROAD2011 model does not provide emission factors for PM2.5 from on-site
construction off-road road equipment. Therefore emissions for PM2.5 were based on the
CEIDARS 0.92 PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio (SCAQMD 2006).
2. EMFAC2007 was used to estimate on-road emission factors for NEPA purposes.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Table 4-2. Mitigated Total Emission Summary for CEQA

Activity
Pollutant (lbs/yr)
CO
PM10
ROG
NOx
PM2.5
SO2
1,118
14,690
7,350
57,365
9,087
39
821
9,005
6,569
34,399
4,605
16
898
9,962
8,868
13,617
2,441
14
2,318
28,850
22,180
38,612
5,301
21
2,648
30,439
24,785
56,448
7,542
7,803
92,946
69,752
200,441
28,977
99
60
45
128
19
<1
2,949
17,261
10,251
67,740
10,353
46
1,196
5,281
5,208
24,071
3,527
16
1,768
6,801
7,404
8,230
1,910
20
1,251
4,273
4,775
38,784
4,913
12
8,101
37,804
31,327
57,674
8,024
108
15,266
71,420
58,964
196,499
28,727
202
Alternative 2
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
Total (lbs)
Alternative 3
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
Total (lbs)

Upstream
4-9
Activity
ROG
NOx
10
46
Pollutant (lbs/yr)
CO
PM10
38
126
PM2.5
SO2
18
<1
Notes:
1. The OFFROAD2011 model does not provide emission factors for PM2.5 from on-site construction
off-road road equipment. Therefore emissions for PM2.5 were based on the CEIDARS 0.92
PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio (SCAQMD 2006).
2. EMFAC2011 was used to estimate on-road emission factors for CEQA purposes.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
nitrogen oxide
NOx
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Table 4-3. Mitigated Total Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Summary for
CEQA and NEPA
Pollutant (tons)
PM10
PM2.51
Activity
Alternative 2
63
21
Cut and fill
Stockpile handling
<1
<1
<1
<1
Blasting
<1
Rock crushing
<1
<1
TOTAL
99
12
58
21
Cut and fill
Alternative 3

Upstream
4-10
Stockpile handling
<1
<1
<1
<1
Blasting
Rock crushing
<1
<1
<1
TOTAL
97
14
Notes:
1. The methodology for cut and fill, blasting, rock crushing and the concrete batch plant does not provide
emission factors for PM2.5. Therefore emissions for PM2.5 were based on the CIEDARS
PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio (SCAQMD 2006). The PM10/PM2.5 conversion ratio for cut and fill is
0.208, for blasting is 0.3, for rock crushing is 0.3, and for the concrete batch plant is 0.674.
2. Emission rates might not add up due to rounding.
Acronyms:

Table 4-4 summarizes total annual Upstream Project emissions for ROG, NOx,
CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4
described above.
Mitigated emissions in Table 4-4 are compared to both the General Conformity
de minimis thresholds for determination of significance of impacts. Based on Table 4-4,
with proposed mitigation, NOx emissions would be below the de minimis thresholds in
all years for Alternative 2, and NOx emissions would be below the de minimis thresholds
in all years for Alternative 3. All other mitigated criteria pollutant emissions would also
be below the de minimis thresholds.
Table 4-4. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream: Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emission
Summary for NEPA
Activity
Alternative 2
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10
ROG
NOx
1
<1
<1
1
1
7
4
5
14
15
4
3
4
11
12
25
25
100

Upstream
4-11
PM2.5
SO2
29
17
7
19
28
5
2
1
2
3
1
<1
<1
1
1
100
100
N/A
2013 Total
2014 Total
2015 Total
2016 Total
2017 Total
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
1
<1
1
<1
2
9
4
5
4
20
5
3
4
3
16
34
12
4
20
29
5
2
1
3
4
1
<1
1
<1
2
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
Notes:
models.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
SO2
sulfur dioxide
4.7.2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management NOx Threshold

As discussed above, NOx emissions that exceed 85 pounds per day after
incorporation of mitigation measures would be subject to a mitigation implementation
fee used to control other emission sources in the proposed action region.
Implementation of mitigation measures in Section 4.2 above would reduce NOx
emissions from the project but maximum daily emissions could potentially exceed the
SMAQMD threshold. The maximum NOx emissions for Alternative 2 (92 lbs/day in 2016
and 98 lbs/day in 2017) and Alternative 3 (121 lbs/day) could exceed the 85 lbs/day
threshold. Therefore NOx mitigation fees (Mitigation Measure AQ-5) could apply to the
project. However, it is difficult to determine the worst-case daily NOx emissions due to
potential changes in equipment type, timing, and use. Project contractors and the Corps
will need to maintain accurate equipment use records to determine the level of
mitigation fees that must be paid to SMAQMD to mitigate the project.
4.7.3 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management PM10 Threshold

There is no applicable SMAQMD threshold for PM10 emissions for the project.
However, the SMAQMD requires construction projects to implement basic construction
emission control practices to control fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions
(SMAQMD, 2011). The project would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ3, and AQ-4 described above.

Upstream
4-12
4.7.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The SMAQMD currently does not have any significance thresholds for GHG
emissions, though they recommend that GHG emissions consider the AB 32s GHG
reduction goals. The project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-6 described
above to reduce GHG emissions. This mitigation measure would increase the energy
efficiency of the construction project, which is in line with the AB 32s requirement that
GHG emissions in 2020 be no greater than 1990 emissions.
The JFP Folsom Dam Upstream project is not designed to reduce future carbon
emissions, for instance, by incorporating hydropower facilities. The spillway approach
channel is required for seismic and flood safety, rather than for carbon reduction
strategies. However, by providing increased seismic safety and decreased risk of
catastrophic flooding with associated loss of infrastructure, this project is expected to
prevent the extra production of carbon which would be associated with demolition,
repair, and reconstruction of flood-induced infrastructure losses.

Upstream
4-13
Cumulative Impacts
5.0
CUMULATIVE IMP ACTS
This section presents the cumulative analysis of implementing the JFP at Folsom
Dam Upstream project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects that may result in environmental impacts
5.1
JFP Folsom Dam, Downstream and Upstream Projects
The JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream project construction period (2013-2017)

would overlap for multiple construction months with the JFP at Folsom Dam,
Downstream project (2010-2017). The USEPA had directed the Corps to complete a
quantitative cumulative analysis for the JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream
projects, and compare these emissions to the General Conformity de minimis
thresholds (Sandburg, 2012b).
5.1.1 Methodology
The unmitigated and mitigated emission estimates for construction activities at
the JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream project were estimated in Sections 3.0 and 4.0,
respectively. Emission estimates for construction activities at the JFP at Folsom Dam,
Downstream project are estimated as described below.
Exhaust Criteria Pollutant Emission Calculations
The on-site construction off-road equipment emission rates were estimated using
the OFFROAD2011 model using equipment and activity data for construction equipment
provided by the projects engineers (Corps, 2011a). The on-site construction marine
equipment were estimated using the emission factors from the California Air Resources
Boards Harbor Craft model (CARB, 2012f) and activity data for construction equipment
was provided by the projects engineers (Corps, 2011a).
On-site pickup truck exhaust emissions were estimated using OFFROAD2011
and truck trip information from the Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Impact Report Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction Control Structure, Chute, and Stilling Basin Work [known henceforth as Final
Supplemental EA/EIR] (Corps, 2010). 3
On-site and off-site haul truck exhaust emissions were estimated using the
EMFAC 2007/EMFAC 2011 models for heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks in Sacramento
County. The truck speeds and trip information was obtained from the Final
Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010).
Exhaust emissions for on-site pickup trucks for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream project were
estimated using EMFAC2007/EMFAC2011 because of the SMAQMD recommended GHG mitigation
measure (Section 4.5). However, this mitigation measure was not in place for the Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction Control Structure, Chute, and Stilling Basin Work; therefore the on-site pickup truck exhaust
emissions for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream project should be estimated with OFFROAD2011.
Upstream
5-1
Cumulative Impacts
Off-site worker vehicle exhaust emissions were estimated using the

Sacramento County. The vehicle trip information was obtained from the Final
Fugitive Dust Emission Calculations
Unpaved road dust generated by on-site trucks was estimated using the AP-42
emission factors (USEPA, 2006a) and trip information from the Final Supplemental
EA/EIR (Corps, 2010).
Paved road entrained road dust for off-site truck and worker vehicles was
estimated using the AP-42 emission factor (USEPA, 2011a) and trip information from
the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010).
Cut and fill fugitive dust emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007
model emission factors and daily volume disturbed from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR
(Corps, 2010).
Stockpile handling fugitive dust emissions were estimated using AP-42 emission
factors (USEPA, 2006b) and the amount of material handled from the Final
Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010). Stockpile wind erosion fugitive dust emissions
were estimated using the AP-42 emission factor (USEPA, 2006c) and area exposed to
wind from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010).
On-site blasting fugitive dust emissions were estimated using emission factors
and blasting data from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010). There will no rock
crushing facility, but there will be one concrete batch plant for the JFP at Folsom Dam,
Downstream project. Concrete batch plant fugitive dust emissions were estimated using
the AP-42 emission factors (USEPA, 2006c) and the amount of concrete processed
from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010).
Greenhouse Emission Calculations
The on-site construction off-road equipment GHG emission rates were estimated
using the OFFROAD2011 model and equipment and activity data for construction
equipment was provided by the projects engineers (Corps, 2011a). The on-site
construction marine equipment emissions were estimated using the emission factors
from the USEPA guidance (USEPA, 2000). Activity data for construction equipment was
provided by the projects engineers (Corps, 2011a).
On-site pickup truck GHG emissions were estimated using OFFROAD2011 and
truck trip information from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps, 2010). On-site and
off-site haul truck GHG emissions were estimated using the EMFAC 2007/EMFAC 2011
models for heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks using in Sacramento County. The truck
speeds and trip information was obtained from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps,
2010).

Upstream
5-2
Cumulative Impacts
Off-site worker vehicle GHG emissions were estimated using the

Sacramento County. The vehicle trip information was obtained from the Final
The electricity indirect GHG emissions from the concrete batch plant were
estimated using the Flower and Sanjayan methodology (Flowers and Sanjayan, 2007)
and the amount of concrete produced from the Final Supplemental EA/EIR (Corps,
2010).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for exhaust emissions at the JFP at Folsom Dam,
Downstream project were based on SMAQMD guidance for on-site off-road construction
and on-site haul trucks (> 50 horsepower), including owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles. This mitigation measure would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent
reduction in NOx exhaust emissions and 45 percent reduction in PM10/PM2.5 exhaust
emissions (Corps, 2010).
Watering controls for cut and fill activities would reduce PM10/PM2.5 fugitive
dust emissions by 55%, while watering controls for unpaved road entrained dust would
reduce PM10/PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by 44% (Corps, 2010).
Watering controls for the stockpile handling would reduce PM10/PM2.5 fugitive
dust emissions by 90%, and watering controls for the concrete batch plant would reduce
PM10/PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by 90% due to watering controls. Watering controls
for on-site blasting would reduce PM10/PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by 36% (Corps,
2010).
Table 5-1 summarizes total annual unmitigated emissions for ROG, NOx, CO,
SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream and Downstream
projects.
Emissions in Table 5-1 are compared to both the General Conformity de minimis
thresholds for determination of significance of impacts. Based on Table 5-1, unmitigated
NOx and PM10 emissions would exceed their respective de minimis thresholds in all
overlapping years (2013-2017) for Alternative 2. Based on Table 5-1, unmitigated NOx
and PM10 emissions would exceed their respective de minimis thresholds in all
overlapping years (2013-2017) for Alternative 3, except for NOx in 2016. ROG, PM2.5,
and CO unmitigated emissions would be below their respective de minimis thresholds in
all overlapping years (2013-2017) for both alternatives.

Upstream
5-3
Cumulative Impacts
Table 5-1. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream: Unmitigated Criteria
Pollutant Emission Summary for NEPA
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10 PM2.5
SO2
CO2
26
<1
10,434
189
77
<1
27,587
16
134
72
<1
26,869
49
25
192
74
<1
27,213
52
26
103
13
<1
7,388
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
42
19
127
26
<1
7,762
2014 Total
30
15
157
73
<1
26,220
2015 Total
27
15
115
67
<1
25,373
2016 Total
22
13
188
70
<1
23,254
2017 Total
59
30
104
13
<1
8,462
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
Activity
Alternative 2
ROG
NOx
2013 Total
39
18
107
2014 Total
33
17
2015 Total
29
2016 Total
2017 Total
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
2013 Total
Notes:
models.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Table 5-2 summarizes total annual mitigated emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SO2,
PM10, and PM2.5 for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream and Downstream projects.
Mitigation for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream project is presented in Section 4.0,
while mitigation for the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream project is presented in Section
5.1.1.
Mitigated emissions in Table 5-2 are compared to the General Conformity de
minimis thresholds for determination of significance of impacts. Based on Table 5-2,
Upstream
5-4
Cumulative Impacts
mitigated NOx would exceed the de minimis thresholds in 2016-2017 for Alternative 2.
Based on Table 5-2, mitigated NOx emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds
in only the last overlapping year (2017) for Alternative 3. Mitigated ROG, CO, PM2.5,
and PM10 emissions would be below their respective de minimis thresholds in all
overlapping years (2013-2017) for both alternatives.
Table 5-2. JFP Folsom Dam Upstream and Downstream: Mitigated Criteria
Pollutant Emission Summary for NEPA
Pollutant (tons/yr)
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
CO2
<1
10,388
24
<1
27,145
14
13
<1
26,427
28
19
24
<1
26,808
25
18
29
<1
7,388
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
24
14
37
<1
8,611
2014 Total
24
15
19
<1
27,994
2015 Total
20
14
11
<1
27,141
2016 Total
17
12
24
<1
25,023
2017 Total
29
21
29
<1
9,275
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
Activity
Alternative 2
2013 Total
ROG
NOx
22
12
31
2014 Total
24
15
2015 Total
20
2016 Total
2017 Total
General Conformity
de minimis Levels
Alternative 3
2013 Total
Notes:
For NEPA purposes, emission calculations are estimated using OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2007
models.
Acronyms:
CO
carbon monoxide
NOx
nitrogen oxide
N/A
not applicable
SO2
sulfur dioxide

Upstream
5-5
Cumulative Impacts
5.2
Other Cumulative Projects
The JFP at Folsom Upstream project could potentially overlap with other ongoing
Corps, Reclamation, and City of Folsom projects that are in and around the vicinity of
the Folsom Facility, in addition to the JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream project
described above. The cumulative impacts from these concurrent construction activities
will be analyzed qualitatively as described below.
5.2.1 Criteria Pollutants
It is expected that the primary impacts from these concurrent projects would be
due to construction activities. Construction of these projects would increase emissions
of criteria pollutants, including ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, from
onsite construction activities, including transport of materials.
The JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream project would be above the NOx de minimis
threshold, even with mitigation. However, with mitigation, it would be less than the
CEQA significance thresholds levels. Therefore, if these construction projects are
implemented concurrently, the combined cumulative effects could be above CEQA
thresholds for air quality emissions and would exceed the de minimis thresholds.
If this were the case, without consideration of scheduling and sequence of
activities, concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom Reservoir
could have adverse cumulative air quality impacts, although these impacts would be
temporary. To address these potential cumulative effects, the Corps would coordinate
the scheduling and sequence of construction activities with Reclamation, City of Folsom
and SMAQMD. For example, should construction activities such as excavation
significantly overlap such that SMAQMD thresholds would be exceeded, the agencies
could stagger the work in order to comply with the thresholds, reducing the potential for
cumulative effects. This coordination could reduce any potential air quality effects to
less than significant.
5.2.2 Greenhouse Gases
It is unlikely that any single project by itself could have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to GHGs. However, the cumulative effect of human activities
has been clearly linked to quantifiable changes in the composition of the atmosphere,
which, in turn, have been shown to be the main cause of global climate change (IPCC,
2007).
Therefore, the analysis of the environmental effects of GHG emissions is
inherently a cumulative impact issue. While the emissions of one single project will not
cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the
world could result in a cumulative effect with respect to global climate change. With
respect to global warming, CO2 is tracked as a contributor to GHG emissions.
It is expected that the primary impacts from these concurrent projects would be
due to construction activities. On an individual basis, these projects would mitigate
Upstream
5-6
Cumulative Impacts
emissions below significance threshold levels. If these projects are implemented

concurrently, the combined cumulative effects could be above reporting requirements
for GHG emissions. If this was the case, without consideration for scheduling and
sequence of activities, concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom
Dam could have adverse cumulative effects on climate change. To address these
potential cumulative effects, the Corps should coordinate the scheduling and sequence
of construction activities with Reclamation, the City of Folsom, and SMAQMD. For
example, should construction emissions that contribute to climate change (GHG)
significantly overlap such that CO2 emissions increase significantly, the agencies would
stagger the work in order to comply with the thresholds, reducing the potential for
cumulative effects. This coordination would likely reduce any potential effects to less
than significant.

Upstream
5-7
6.0
REFERENCES
Anderson, Charles 2012. Program Coordinator for Plan Coordination. Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Personal communication via email
with Megan Giglini, URS Corporation regarding PM2.5 attainment status.
January 16, 2012.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2008. 2002-07-29 Asbestos Airborne Toxic
Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining
Operation Final Regulation Order.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm. Last Reviewed July 29, 2008.
CARB 2009. Almanac Emission Projection Data. California Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Resources Board. Internet Address:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Published 2009
CARB 2010a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Internet Address:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Updated September 2010
CARB 2010a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2008 by Category as
Defined in the Scoping Plan. Internet Address:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_0008_2010-05-12.pdf. Updated: May 2010
CARB 2012a. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit.
Internet Address: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm.
Accessed February 2012.
CARB 2012b. Air Assembly Bill 1493 Climate Change Backgrounder: The Greenhouse
Effect and California. Internet Address:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccbackground.pdf. Accessed January 2012.
CARB 2012c. ARB Programs, Climate Change. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming
Solutions Act. Internet Address: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
Accessed January 2012
CARB 2012d. Air Quality Data Statistics. Internet Address:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed January and
October 2012.
CARB 2012e. Maps from 2010 State Area Designations. Internet Address
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed January 2012.
CARB 2012f. Letter from CARB to the USEPA on May 9, 2012 re: request for the
USEPA to find that the Sacramento Region is in attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Available at:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/pm/PM2.5/index.shtml
Upstream
6-1
CARB 2012g. Harbor Craft Model. Available at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles
CARB 2012h. CARB and USEPA Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engine
Standards. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/documents/OffRoad_Diesel_Stds.xls. Accessed May 2012
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas
Emissions And Sinks: 1990 To 2004 Final Staff Report.
California Geological Survey 2006. Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally
Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California. Special Report
192. July 2006.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2012. CEQA Guidelines. 2009 SB 97
Rulemaking. Internet Address: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines. Accessed
January 2012.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the
American Lung Association, 2005. Health Effect of Diesel Exhaust. Internet
Address: http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/diesel4-02.pdf
County of Sacramento. 2009. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for Sacramento
County. June 2009
Fitz, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of Watering to Control Dust in High Winds. April 2000.
Flowers and Sanjayan, 2007 (Abstract): Green House Gas Emissions Due to Concrete
Manufacture, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 12,
Number 5, July 2007. Landsberg, Germany: Ecomed.
Huss, Karen. 2011. Associate Air Quality Planner/ Analyst. Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District. Personal communication via email with Tim Rimpo,
URS Corporation regarding construction equipment list and EMFAC guidance.
October 24, 2011.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1997. Stabilization of Atmospheric
Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological, and Socio-Economic Implications.
IPCC Technical Paper III. Geneva, Switzerland. February 1997.
Landfield, Anne H. and Karra, Vijia. 2000. Life cycle assessment of a rock crusher.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Vol. 28 , Issues 34 page 207217.
February 2000.
LeFevre, Jamie. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Personal communication via
email with Nancy Sandburg, Corps, regarding Folsom Dam Soils Report, rock
formations in project area, and potential NOA locations near project area.
January 25, 2012.
Upstream
6-2
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). 2011. Green

Construction Policy. July 21, 2011
Muleski, Greg. 1996, Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1),
Final Report. Midwest Research Institute. March 29, 1996
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2007. GISS Surface
Temperature Analysis. Internet Address:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. State of the Climate
Report. Internet Address:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/dec07.html.
Office of the Governor. 2007. Executive Order S-01-07. Internet Address:
http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/5172/. Issued January 18, 2007.
Office of Planning and Research 2009. CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases,
Proposed CEQA Amendments. April 13, 2009. http://www.opr.ca.gov/. Accessed
January 2012.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2004, CEQA
Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County
SMAQMD 2011. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised
2011.
SMAQMD 2012a. PM10 Federal Planning. Internet Address:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/pm/pm10/index.shtml. Accessed January
2012.
SMAQMD 2012b. 8-hour Ozone (1997 NAAQS). Internet address:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/9hr1997/index.shtml. Accessed
September 2012.SMAQMD 2012c. Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and Planning
Internet Address: http://airquality.org/plans/federal/pm/PM2.5/index.shtml.
Accessed January 2012.
SMAQMD 2012d. 8-Hour Ozone (2008 NAAQS). Internet Address:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/8hr2008/index.shtml. Accessed
January 2012.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). 2010. EPS REPORT. Internet Address
https://www.crisreport.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=3021843&name=
DLFE-2106819.pdf. Accessed January 2012.
Sandburg, Nancy. 2012a. Biological Sciences Environmental Manager Planning,
Environmental Analysis Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal
communication via telephone with Tim Rimpo, Senior Air Quality Scientist, URS
Upstream
6-3
Corporation and Avanti Tamhane, Air Quality Engineer, URS Corporation

regarding the concrete quantities at concrete batch plant, batch plant operation
schedule, and distance to batch plant. January 9, 2012.
Sandburg, Nancy. 2012b. Biological Sciences Environmental Manager Planning,
Environmental Analysis Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal
communication via email with Tim Rimpo, Senior Air Quality Scientist, URS
Corporation and Avanti Tamhane, Air Quality Engineer, URS Corporation
regarding the use of electric equipment. January 6, 2012.
Sonoma County. 2005. Blue Rock Quarry Expansion, Draft Environmental Impact
Report. SCH# 2001032062.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2006. Updated CEIDARS
Table with PM2.5 Fractions. September 2006.
SCAQMD 2007. Software Users Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows. Appendix A
The Climate Registry (TCR) 2012. Climate Registry Default Emission Factors. Internet
address: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2012/01/2012-ClimateRegistry-Default-Emissions-Factors.pdf. Published January 6, 2012.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2009a. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Reduction Early Approach Channel Excavation Final Environmental
Assessment/Initial Study.
Corps 2009b. Presentation on Cofferdam Feasibility Study Folsom Dam JFP Contract
No. W91238-07-D-0012 Approach Channel Constructability Analysis. File name:
Folsom Construct Presentation_RV.ppt.
Corps 2010. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Control Structure,
Chute, and Stilling Basin Work. August 2010.
Corps 2011a. File name: Equipment Estimate Summary.xlsx
Corps. 2011b. File name: equipment_estimates_103111.pdf
Corps. 2011c. File name: Data Request Task 1A.docx
Corps. 2011d. File name: Batch plant project description.docx
Corps. 2011e. File name: Additional Concrete Information for Batch Plant Operations
Oct 2011.docx.
Corps 2011f. File name: Project Description_nov28_2011_RV. docx.

Upstream
6-4
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Mid-Pacific Region, 2007, Folsom Dam Safety
and Flood Damage Reduction Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report.
USBR. 2009. Joint Federal Project-Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel
Geologic Investigation. May 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Analysis of
Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. EPA420-R00-002. February 2000.
USEPA 2001. 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86. Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel
Sulfur Control Requirements; Final Rule. Adopted January 2001.
USEPA 2004. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 11.19.2. Crushed Stone
Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing. August 2004.
USEPA 2006a. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 13.2.2. Unpaved Roads.
November 2006.
USEPA 2006b. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and
Storage Piles. November 2006.
USEPA 2006c. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 13.2.5 Industrial Wind Erosion.
November 2006
USEPA 2006d. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 11.12 Concrete Batching. June
2006
USEPA 2008. 40 CFR Parts 9, 85 et al. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30
Liters per Cylinder; Final Rule. Adopted May 2008.
USEPA 2011a. General Conformity: De Minimis Levels. Internet Address:
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/genconform/deminimis.html. Accessed December
2011.
USEPA 2011b. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 13.2.1. Paved Roads. January
2011.
USEPA 2012a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Internet Address:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. Accessed January 2012.
USEPA 2012b. EPA and NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]
Propose Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve

Upstream
6-5
Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. Internet Address:

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f09047.htm. Accessed January 2012.
USEPA 2012c. Sacramento Area CO Attainment Plan. Internet Address:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/088DAD3BDD1006F1882
569FA006976DA?OpenDocument. Accessed January 2012
USEPA 2012d. AirData (for 1-Hour CO only). Internet Address:
http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. Accessed January 2012.
USEPA 2012e. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Internet
Address: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed January &
October 2012.
URS Corporation (URS). 2009. Cofferdam Dam Feasibility Study Folsom Dam JFP.
Contract No. W91238-07-D-0012. January 16, 2009
URS 2011. General Conformity Mitigation Options Report. December 2011.
URS 2012. Folsom Dam Modification Joint Federal Project Environmental Study
EIR/EIS. February 2012.
Western Governors Association. 2004. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook.
Wisniewski, Jeffrey 2012. Engineer. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal
communication via email with Avanti Tamhane and Rebecca Verity, URS
Corporation regarding blasting parameters. January 9, 2012
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on
Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
February 18, 2010.

Upstream
6-6
Appendix B
SMAQMD Conformity Determination Analysis
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
Larry Greene
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
May 18, 2012

Nancy H. Sandburg
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: General Conformity Determination - Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project
Dear Ms. Sandburg,
On August 3, 2011, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (District) staff met
with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the Department of Water
Resources, and the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to discuss general conformity
determination of the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project. USAGE determined that the Folsom
Dam Project would exceed the de minimis threshold for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
and must make a conformity determination.
The existing General Conformity budgets in the applicable SIP (1994 Sacramento Area
Regional Ozone Attainment Plan) for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA) do
not provide a basis for making a positive conformity determination because the current
emissions estimates are higher and the project will cause emissions beyond the time period
covered by the 1-hour ozone SIP. However, the criterion under 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5) provides
that a State can commit to revising the SIP in such a way as to accommodate a Federal action,
and the SIP commitment itself provides the basis for a positive conformity determination.
A conformity analysis evaluation was prepared by the District in cooperation with the GARB and
consultation with US EPA Region 9. District staff used the 2009 Sacramento Regional
8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan ("2009 Attainment and RFP
Plan" submitted by the State to EPA on April 17, 2009) and the 2011 Sacramento Attainment
and RFP Plan (adopted by SMAQMD on November 10, 2011 but not yet submitted by the State
to EPA) to show there are excess emission reductions (margin of safety) available to
accommodate the Folsom Dam project.
In addition to accommodating the emissions increases, the 2009/2011 SFNA Ozone SIP also
fulfills the 5 criteria identified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B) for SIP revisions that may be relied
upon by Federal agencies to make a positive conformity determination. Each of the criteria is
discussed below.
777 12th Street, 3rd Floor I Sacramento, CA 95814-1908

916/874-4800 I 916/874-4899 fax
www.airquality.org
General Conformity Determination - Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project

Page2
( 1) A specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to the SIP which would achieve
the needed emission reductions prior to the time emissions from the Federal action would occur;
The 2009 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan was submitted by the
State to EPA on April17, 2009 and the 2011 Sacramento Attainment and RFP Plan was
adopted by SMAQMD on November 10, 2011 but not yet submitted by the State to EPA. In a
conference call with GARB and EPA Region IX staff on March 12, 2012, Sylvia Oey of GARB
acknowledged that GARB is working on providing a technical update to reductions from state
strategy measures in the 2009 and 2011 Attainment and RFP plans. GARB has committed to
submit the SIP revisions by the end of 2012.
( 2) Identification of specific measures for incorporation into the SIP which would result in a
level of emissions which, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance
area, would not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP;
This criterion is met through the adoption and submittals of the 2009 Attainment and RFP Plan
and the 2011 Plan revision. Additional specific measures are not needed because this project
consumes a nominal amount of the excess emission reduction buffer, which provides a margin
of safety for achieving attainment, as shown in the 2009 and 2011 Attainment and RFP plans.
GARB will ensure that their technical revisions associated with state measures do not consume
the excess emission reduction and cause the Folsom Dam Project to exceed the emissions
budget. The NOx emissions from the project are less than 0.1% of the nonattainment inventory
and will consume less than 2% of the excess reduction buffer. Even if the excess reduction
buffer is decreased due to GARB's technical updates, the project will still only consume a
nominal amount of the margin of safety. The accompanying analysis provides more detail
information addressing this criterion.
( 3) A demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements are being implemented in the
area for the pollutants affected by the Federal action, and that local authority to implement
additional requirements has been fully pursued;
Figures 7-1 and 7.2 of the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan show the reductions that the District
and GARB have achieved from adopting and implementing control measures in the previous
ozone plans. Tables 7-1A and 7-41ist new reasonable available control measures that are
included in the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan. The existing control measures surpass the
amount of emission reductions needed for the reasonable further progress (RFP) targets by a
margin that meets the contingency measure requirements. The additional measures in Tables
7-1A and 7-4 are not included in the RFP demonstration and provide an additional safety
margin.
GARB is also acting on its current SIP commitments, as demonstrated in the Status Report on
the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision
to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, submitted to U.S. EPA on
August 12, 2009. The status report identified rules adopted by GARB that will provide the
needed reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the state committed to in order to attain the
ozone standard in the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area in 2018.
General Conformity Determination - Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project

Page3
( 4) A determination that the responsible Federal agencies have required all reasonable
mitigation measures associated with their action; and
Since Folsom Dam Modification project will be required to comply with all state and local
regulations and will employ additional emission mitigation measures including electrification and
use of cleaner construction equipment, trucks and marine vessels to meet California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation requirements, it meets the criteria for
implementation of all reasonable mitigation measures.
( 5) Written documentation including all air quality analyses supporting the conformity
determination;
This general conformity evaluation serves to meet the requirement to provide air quality
analyses to support conformity determination.
Therefore, the District has concluded the total direct and indirect mitigated emissions from
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project would be accommodated by the SFNA's 2009 Attainment
and Reasonable Further Progress Plan and 2011 Plan revision. In addition, 2009/2011 SFNA
SIP satisfies the individual criteria in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B) for SIP revisions that may be
relied upon for conformity determinations
If you have any question regarding this document please contact me at (916) 874-4802, or Mr.
Charles Anderson, Program Coordinator, Planning and Emission Inventory at (916) 874-4831.
Sincerely,
Larry Greene
Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer
Attachments: Conformity Determination Evaluation, May 15, 2012
cc
Dawn Richmond, USEPA, Region 9
Jeff Wehling, USEPA, Region 9
John Ungvarsky, USEPA, Region 9
Sylvia Oey, GARB
Scott King, GARB
Brigette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Charles Anderson, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Hao Quinn, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Karen Huss, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
777 12th Street. 3rd Floor
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CONFORMITY DETERMINATION EVALUATION
DATE:
ENGINEER:
PROJECT NAME:
May 15, 2012

Hao Quinn
JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT AT FOLSOM DAM
LOCATION:
FOLSOM DAM, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
PROPOSAL:
FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION:

SPILLWAY
CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUXILIARY
INTRODUCTION:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the lead agency responsible for the joint federal
project (JFP), Folsom Dam Modification, for construction an auxiliary spillway consisting of a
control structure, spillway chute, stilling basin, approaching channel, and spur dike. The
construction project is for providing dam safety and flood damage reduction at Folsom Dam
located downstream from confluence of North and South Forks of the American River near the
city of Folsom, California.
All federal projects are subject to the U.S. EPA General Conformity regulations 1 . The purpose
of the General Conformity Rule is to ensure that federal activities (1) do not cause or contribute
to new violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), (2) do not cause additional
or worsen existing violations of or contribute to new violations the NAAQS, and (3) delay in
attainment of the NAAQSs. The General Conformity de minimis thresholds for the Sacramento
Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA) are: 25 tpy for NOx and 25 tpy for VOC (ozone - severe
nonattainment), 100 tpy for PM 10 (PM, 0 - moderate nonattainment), 100 tpy for PM2.s (PM2.s nonattainment) and 100 tpy for CO (CO- maintenance}'.
The Folsom Dam construction project is expected to exceed the General Conformity de minimis
threshold for NOx over the life of the project when mitigated. Therefore, the USAGE must
demonstrate conformity by (1) showing the project will meet all ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP) control requirements3 , and (2) meeting one of following options4 :
1. Demonstrate that the total direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified and
1
40 CFR 6.303, 51.853 and 93.153

40 CFR 93.153(b), EPA Website on Status of SIP Requirements,
http:l/www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/ca_areabypoll.html
3
Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan, SMAQMD, November 15, 1994; and Sacramento
Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, SMAQMD, November 10,
2011
4
40 CFR 93.158(a)
2
General Conformity Evaluation

Folsom Dam Modification JFP
May 15, 2012
Page2
accounted for in the applicable SIP.

2. Demonstrate that the total direct and indirect emissions would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP.
3. Obtain a written commitment from the State to revise the SIP to include the emissions
from the action.
4. Fully offset the total direct and indirect emissions by reducing emissions of the same
pollutant or precursor in the same non-attainment or maintenance area.
The option applicable to this project is to obtain a written commitment from the State Governor
or the Governor's designee for SIP actions, as described in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), to
revise the SIP to achieve the needed emission reductions prior to the time emissions from the
Federal action would occur, such that total direct and indirect emissions from the action do not
exceed the 2011 SIP emissions budgets. This evaluation and verification are conducted on the
mitigated project emissions provided by USAGE.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 :
USAGE is building a control spillway at Folsom Dam on the American River systems. Phase 3
(JFP at Folsom Dam, Downstream) of the project includes construction of a control structure,
spillway chute and stilling basin, and has a construction period of 2010 to 2016. Phase 3
overlaps with the final phase, Phase 4 (JFP at Folsom Dam, Upstream), which is expected to
take place, from 2013 to 2017. Phase 4 project will include construction of an approach
channel, spur dike, and either a temporary cut-off wall (Alternative 2) or a cofferdam (Alternative
3) for approach channel excavation. Construction activities include excavation, blasting, rock
processing and concrete batching and the following sources of direct and indirect emissions are
expected:

On-site marine engine
On-site and off-site haul truck engine
On-site and off-site haul truck entrained paved and unpaved road dust
Off-site worker vehicle trip entrained road dust for trip to and from the site
On-site excavation
On-site material storage piles
On-site in-the-dry blasting
Rock crushing and concrete batching
Source: Chapter 1 of Air Quality Technical Report, "Joint Federal project (JFP) at Folsom Dam,
Upstream", prepared by URS for USACE, May 2012.

May 15, 2012
Page 3
Table 1 contains project timeline and operation schedule. It is followed by an aerial photo of
the project site.
Source: Cover page of Air Quality Technical Report, "Joint Federal project (JFP) at Folsom Dam,
Upstream", prepared by URS for USAGE, May 2012.
8
Source: Emission calculation spreadsheet, Folsom Dam Modifications Calculations AQ Comparison

Summary 5_3_12.xlsx.

May 15, 2012
Page4
EMISSION MITIGATION MEASURES9 :
USACE will utilize mitigation measures to reduce the total project NOx and PM 10/PM2. 5
emissions. They are:
1. Off-road construction equipment complying with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Green Construction Policy. Use Tier 3 off-road
equipment for first two years of construction (2013-2014) and Tier 4 off-road equipment
beginning 2015.
2. Marine engines complying with U.S. EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 engine standards. Use Tier 2
marine engines for the first two years of construction (2013-2014) and Tier 3 marine
engines beginning 2015.
3. Use of model year 2010 or newer haul trucks beginning in 2013.
4. Electrification of concrete batch plant and rock crushing plant.
5. Fugitive dust controls which include watering controls on blasting operations, unpaved
roads, excavation, wet suppression on stockpiles, and speed control.
Source: Chapter 4 of Air Quality Technical Report, "Joint Federal project (JFP) at Folsom Dam,

May 15, 2012
Page 5
PROJECT EMISSIONS:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through URS Corporation/Brown and Caldwell Joint Venture,
has estimated the following project emissions with mitigation measures11
Table 2. Folsom JFP Approach Channel Project

(Upstream+Downstream) Summary: Emissions After Mitigation
(tons/year)
Activity Year
voc
NOx
co
PM1o
PM2.s
so2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Alternative 2 (Approach Channel Excavation With Cutoff Wall)

22
12
24
20
15
14
31
24
13
19
24
28
25
6
4
3
4
18
29
<1
25
25
100
100
100
100
7
4
3
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2
2
2
2
2017
General Conformity De
Minimis Levels
Alternative 3 (Approach Channel Excavation With Cofferdam)

24
14
37
2013
2
2014
2
24
15
19
14
11
2015
2
20
2016
2
17
12
24
2017
29
21
29
<1
General Conformity De
Minimis Levels
25
25
100
100
100
100
Using the aforementioned mitigation measures, all pollutant emissions except NOx would be
below the General Conformity annual de minimis threshold during all construction years.
Mitigated NOx emissions would be above the de minimis thresholds in 2016 and 2017 for
Alternative 2 and 2017 for Alternative 3. Therefore, a conformity determination is required for
NOx emissions.
11
Source: Table 5-2 of Air Quality Technical Report, "Joint Federal project (JFP) at Folsom Dam,

May 15, 2012
Page 6
CONFORMITY DETERMINATION:
Section 176(c) (42 U.S. C. 7506) of the Clean Air Act requires federal agencies to ensure that
their actions conform to the applicable SIP for attaining and maintaining the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). Conformity with the applicable SIP must be determined for each
federal action pollutant that exceeds the de minimis threshold 12 The applicable SIP (or EPA
approved SIP13 ) for SFNA is the 1994 Sacramento 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP (94SIP). It was approved by EPA, effective February 7, 1997 (62 FR 1150). In July 1997,
EPA promulgated an 8-hour standard for ozone14 to provide greater protection of public health.
The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked in 2005 (70 FR 44470) and replaced with an 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, the 2011 Sacramento Attainment and RFP Plan (2011
Attainment and RFP Plan) was adopted by SMAQMD on November 10, 2011 and is pending
submittal by the State to EPA. ARB is committed to submit the SIP revisions by December
2012.
Steps for Determining Applicable Sections in 40 CFR 93.158 for SFNA Ozone SIP Conformity
Determination
1. 68FR32843 (June 2, 2003) states that once 1-hour ozone standard is revoked, the federal
project must conform to the 8-hour standard.
"Once the 1-hour ozone standard is revoked in whole or in part, Federal agencies will be
required to conduct conformity determinations for the 8-hour standard if the project/action is
in an area designated nonattainment for that standard. The general conformity regulations
specify requirements for actions/projects in areas without an approved SIP.
Those
requirements would apply to 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas until the SIP is approved by
EPA."
2. However, 73FR1415 (January 8, 2008) states that the 1-hour ozone SIP is considered the
applicable SIP until a revised SIP is submitted and approved by EPA. Therefore, conformity
determination must be made with respect to the 1-hour ozone SIP under 40 CFR 93.158(a).
3.
Since the project will cause emissions beyond the time period covered by the 1-hour SIP,
40 CFR 93.162 (Emissions beyond the time period covered by the SIP) is applicable. It allows
(a) conformity with the last emission budget in the applicable SIP (94SIP) or {b) submittal of a
revised SIP which accommodates the emissions from the Federal action.
However, a SIP
revision has already been submitted. The 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan was prepared and is
pending submittal by ARB to EPA. It demonstrates how the region will attain the federal1997 8hour ozone standard and meet reasonable further progress requirements in the Sacramento
Nonattainment Area. We will apply 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i){B) to determine whether the
project causes emissions to be above the emissions budget in the 2011 Attainment and RFP
Plan.
12
40 CFR 93.158(a)
40 CFR 93.152
14
"National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone"(62FR38855, July 18, 1997)
13

May 15, 2012
Page 7
40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B)
(B) The total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined
by the State agency responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which,
together with all other emissions in the nonattainment (or maintenance) area, would exceed an
emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP and the State Governor or the Governor's
designee for SIP actions makes a written commitment to EPA which includes the following:
For the Federal agency to make a positive conformity determination under 40 CFR
93.158(a}(5)(i)(B), the air district will need to submit a letter to EPA (with a cc to the United
States Corps of Engineers) addressing the following 5 elements outlined in this section. Each of
the elements is discussed below:
( 1) A specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to the SIP which would achieve
the needed emission reductions prior to the time emissions from the Federal action would occur,
The 2009 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan was submitted by the
State to EPA on April 17, 2009 and the 2011 Sacramento Attainment and RFP Plan was
adopted by SMAQMD on November 10, 2011 but not yet submitted by the State to EPA. In a
conference call with GARB and EPA Region IX staff on March 12, 2012, Sylvia Oey of GARB
acknowledged that GARB is working on providing a technical update to reductions from state
strategy measures in the 2009 and 2011 Attainment and RFP plans. GARB has committed to
submit the SIP revisions by the end of 2012.
( 2) Identification of specific measures for incorporation into the SIP which would result in a
level of emissions which, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance
area, would not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP;
This criterion is met through the adoption and submittals of the 2009 Attainment and RFP Plan
and the 2011 Plan revision. Additional specific measures are not needed because this project
consumes a nominal amount of the excess emission reduction buffer, which provides a margin
of safety for achieving attainment, as shown in the 2009 and 2011 Attainment and RFP plans.
GARB will ensure that their technical revisions associated with state measures do not consume
the excess emission reduction and cause the Folsom Dam Project to exceed the emissions
budget. The NOx emissions from the project are less than 0.1% of the nonattainment inventory
and will consume less than 2% of the excess reduction buffer. Even if the excess reduction
buffer is decreased due to GARB's technical updates, the project will still only consume a
nominal amount of the margin of safety.
Chapter 7 of the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan contains new and amended control measures
and strategies for meeting the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress and
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The plan contains control measures with excess
emission reductions beyond emission reduction target for attainment, such that the emissions
from the Folsom Dam Modification project, together with all other emissions in the
nonattainment or maintenance area, would not exceed the emissions budget.

May 15, 2012
Page 8
Conformity With 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan Emissions Budget

The highest annual project NOx emission level after mitigation at 29 tons/year occurs in
2017 under Alternative 3. This is equal to an average day of 0.08 ton/day (29 tons/yr I
365 days/yr = 0.08 ton/day), and is less than 0.1% of total SFNA NOx emissions.
Table 8-1 15 , Summary of Attainment Demonstration for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2018
"Severe" Classification Scenario, of the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan shows
attainment by 2018 with an additional 3.8% NOx emission reduction beyond the emission
reduction target. This excess NOx emission reduction is 4 tpd NOx (104 tpy * 3.8% = 4
tpd). It provides a margin of safety for achieving attainment target (Emissions Budgets)
of 91 tpd NOx (104 tpy *(100%-12.5%) = 91 tpd).
Since the amount of highest average daily project NOx at 0.08 tpd 16 (29 tons/yr I 365
day/yr
0.08 ton/day) is about 2% of the 4 tpd NOx (0.08 tpd/4 tpd * 100%
2%)
reduction buffer, additional emissions from Folsom Dam Modification will not cause the
region to exceed the 2011 SIP emissions budget.
In addition, the recent U.S. economic downturn, beginning in 2008, has not been
accounted in the ozone SIP plan. The economic downturn has caused significant
reductions in construction activities as noted in the loss of employment and housing
starts. In Sacramento County, employment in the construction industry has decreased
by 48% (a loss of 21,882 employees) from 2005 to 2010 17. New single-family home
permits issued in Sacramento County have decreased by 81% from 2006 to 201018
Since the impacts of the economic downturn are not yet included in the SIP planning
inventory, the forecasted attainment year inventory is overestimated.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) conducted a comprehensive review of the
construction inventory as a result of a 2009 study by Rob Harley at UC Berkeley which
determined that the off-road equipment inventory is overestimated by more than a factor
of three based on a fuel-based method. 19 As a result, CARS has recently made
significant updates to the off-road emission inventory to reflect the reduced activities due
to recession, and more accurate lower population, hours of use, load factor and growth
forecasts. The revised (or more realistic) emissions are substantially lower (about 1/3)
than the off-road equipment inventory in the 2011 SIP. ARB anticipates submitting the
revised inventory and attainment demonstration by December 2012 and will ensure that
the conclusion presented here remains valid.
15
Table 8-1 ,"Summary of Attainment Demonstration for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2018 "Severe"
Classification Scenario", Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further
Progress Plan, SMAQMD, November 10, 2011.
16
The 49 tpy is highest annual emission after mitigation and it occurs in 2017, see emission data under
Project Emissions.
17
Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed January 2012, http://www.bls.gov/cew/data.htm
18
Construction Industry Research Board, 2006, 2010 (cited by California Building Industry Association),
http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/newsroom/housing-statistics/housing-starts/
19
GARB webpage, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#offroad motor vehicles;
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/201 O/offroadlsi1 0/offroadappd .pdf

May 15, 2012
Page 9
( 3) A demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements are being implemented in the
area for the pollutants affected by the Federal action, and that local authority to implement
additional requirements has been fully pursued;
Figures 7-1 and 7.2 of the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan show the reductions that the District
and CARB have achieved from adopting and implementing control measures in the previous
ozone plans. Tables 7-1A and 7-4 (presented below) of the 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan list
new reasonable available control measures that are included in the plan. The existing control
measures surpass the amount of emission reductions needed for the reasonable further
progress (RFP) targets by a margin that meets the contingency measure requirements. The
additional measures in Tables 7-1A and 7-4 are not included in the RFP demonstration and
provide an additional safety margin.
Table 7-1A
Adopted New State and Federal SIP Measures
Expected 2018 Emission Reductions
Sacramento Nonattainment Area
New SIP Measures Adopted by End of 2008
Locomotives measure relies on U.S. EPA rulemaking.

Includes motor vehicle inventory from SACOG FEB 2008 submittal.
Updated emission reductions from adopted measures provided by CARB (Lynn Terry e-mail10-21-08}.

May 15, 2012
Page 10
Table 7-4
Summary of New Regional and Local Proposed Control Measures
Sacramento Nonattainment Area
Control Measure Name
Regional Non-regulatory Measures

Regional Mobile Incentive Program -On-road
Regional Mobile Incentive Program -Off-road
Spare The Air Program
SACOG Transportation Control Measures
Urban Forest Development Program
Total Regional Non-regulatory Measures
Local Regulatory Measures
Architectural Coating
Automotive Refinishing
Degreasinq/Solvent Cleaning
Graphic Arts
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Natural Gas Production and Processing
Boilers, Steam Generator, and Process Heaters
IC Engines
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers
Total Local Regulatory Measures
Total Reductions*
2018 Emission Reductions

{TPD)
voc
NOx
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
..
0. 0.2
..
..
0.1
0.9
1.5
0.2
1.4
..
na
..
..
<0.1
0.1
..
..
..
3.2
3.4
..
..
..
0.2
<0.1
0.9
1.2
2.2
Notes: Numbers are truncated to one decimal place.

na ::::not available
*Total reductions are summed from untruncated values. See summary table in Appendix C- Proposed Control Measures.
GARB is also acting on its current SIP commitments, as demonstrated in the Status Report on
the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision
to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, submitted to U.S. EPA on
August 12, 2009. The status report identified rules adopted by GARB that will provide the
needed reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the state committed to in order to attain the
ozone standard in the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area in 2018.

May 15, 2012
Page 11
( 4 ) A determination that the responsible Federal agencies have required all reasonable
mitigation measures associated with their action; and
Since Folsom Dam Modification project will be required to comply with all state and local
regulations and will employ additional emission mitigation measures including electrification and
use of cleaner construction equipment, trucks and marine vessels to meet California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation requirements, it meets the criteria for
implementation of all reasonable mitigation measures.
( 5) Written documentation including all air quality analyses supporting the conformity
determination;
This general conformity evaluation serves to meet the requirement to provide air quality
analyses to support conformity determination.
CONCLUSION:
A positive conformity determination can be made for the mitigated emissions from the Folsom
Dam Modification project. This finding is based on:
Folsom Dam Modification project will be required to comply with all state and local
regulations, thus it will meet all SIP control requirements. Folsom project will employ
additional emission mitigation measures including electrification and use of cleaner
construction equipment, trucks and marine vessels.
The 2011 Attainment and RFP Plan provides 4 tpd NOx in margin of safety for achieving
NOx emission attainment target; the emissions increase from Folsom Dam Modification
project (maximum emissions of 0.08 tpd NOx) is a nominal portion (2%) of the margin of
safety provided; therefore, this margin of safety ensures the project will not cause the
nonattainment area to exceed the 2011 Attainment and RFP emissions budget.
ARB has committed to submit SIP revisions by December 2012 and will ensure that ARB's
technical revisions associated with state measures do not consume the excess
emissions allocated to the Folsom Dam Project.

May 15, 2012
Page 12
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This evaluation recommends that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers makes a positive general
conformity determination for Folsom Dam Modification project with emission mitigation. The
district will submit a commitment letter to EPA to show that, in addition to accommodating the
emissions increase from the Folsom Dam Modification project, the 2011 Attainment and RFP
Plan also satisfies the 5 elements identified in 40CFR93.158(a)(5)(i)(B) for SIP revisions.
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
~UA\:\S
2.-
lfo
1,
70 12...
I z__.--
Appendix C
Water Quality Technical Analysis

Approach Channel Excavation
Folsom, California
Draft Water Quality and Bioaccumulation Technical Memorandum
February 2012
US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Appendix C
Water Quality and Bioaccumulation Technical
Memorandum
January 2012
Folsom Dam (JFP) Environmental Study
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 Settings/ Affected Environment ............................................................................. 8
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................... 8
1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................ 8
1.3.1 Alternative 2: Approach Channel Construction with Cutoff Wall ............. 8
1.3.2 Alternative 3: Approach Channel Excavation with Cofferdam .............. 24
1.4 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................... 30
1.4.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................. 30
1.4.2 State Regulations ................................................................................. 33
1.4.3 Local Regulations ................................................................................. 37
1.4.4 Beneficial Uses and Metals Water Quality Objectives .......................... 38
2.0 Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 39
2.1 Water Quality Data for Construction Area ....................................................... 39
2.2 Methodology.................................................................................................... 40
2.2.1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................. 40
2.2.2 Methods and Assumptions ................................................................... 41
2.3 Water Quality Standards ................................................................................. 41
2.3.1 Factors Affecting Dissolved Metals Concentrations ............................. 42
2.4 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 44
2.4.1 Previous Sediment Sampling ............................................................... 45
2.5 Results ............................................................................................................ 50
2.6 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 50
2.6.1 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................... 50
2.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts Common to Alternatives
2 and 3 ............................................................................................... 53
2.6.3 Alternative 3 ......................................................................................... 56
2.7 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 58
3.0 Mercury Bioaccumulation .................................................................................... 61
3.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 61
3.1.1 Site History ........................................................................................... 61
3.1.2 Environmental Effects .......................................................................... 61
3.2 Methodology.................................................................................................... 63
3.2.1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................. 63
3.2.2 Methods and Assumptions ................................................................... 64
3.2.3 Mercury Standards ............................................................................... 65
January 2012
Table of Contents
3.2.4 Sources of Inorganic Mercury and Methylmercury in the American River

Watershed .......................................................................................... 66
3.3 Results ............................................................................................................ 67
3.3.1 Mercury in Folsom Reservoir Fish ........................................................ 67
3.3.2 Mercury in Folsom Reservoir Sediments.............................................. 72
3.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 74
3.4.1 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................... 74
3.4.2 Environmental Consequence/Impacts Common to Both Alternatives 2
and 3 .................................................................................................. 77
3.4.3 Alternative 3 ......................................................................................... 80
3.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 84
4.0 References ............................................................................................................. 86
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Area Map............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Cutoff Wall Cross Section ............................................................................. 11
Figure 4. Spur Dike ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5. Approximate location of sediment samples collected by Reclamation (2006) 46
Figure 6. Specific location of sediment samples collected by Reclamation (2006)........ 47
Figure 8. Chart of Folsom Lake Fish Mercury Concentrations ...................................... 69
Figure 9. Correlation of Mercury Concentrations in Large Mouth Bass with Length ..... 70
Figure 10. Comparison of Mercury Concentrations in Folsom Reservoir
Large Mouth Bass with Other Lakes in the Central Valley. ................................... 71
Figure 11. Mercury concentrations in Large Mouth Bass (standardized to 350 mm
length) in Folsom Lake compared to waterbodies in the Central Valley (Region 5)
and throughout the State (Region 1-9) .................................................................. 72
Figure 12. Total Mercury in Sediment Samples from the Project Area, 2006, 2008 and
2011 ...................................................................................................................... 74
January 2012
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1. Approach Channel Excavation Estimates Alternative Comparison ............... 13
Table 2. Alternative 2 Proposed Construction Activities by Year .................................. 21
Table 3. Proposed Disposal Sites and Capacity........................................................... 22
Table 4. Alternative 3 Proposed Construction Activities by Year .................................. 29
Table 5. CVRWQCB Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives .......................................... 35
Table 6. Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria Given for 100 mg/L Hardness and
Corrected for 30 mg/L Hardness ........................................................................... 37
Table 7. Acute Aquatic Life Criteria Given for 100 mg/L Hardness and
Corrected for 30 mg/L Hardness ........................................................................... 37
Table 8. Water Quality Parameters (1992-1998) ........................................................... 39
Table 9. Water Quality Parameters (2001-2005) .......................................................... 40
Table 10. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Sediments ............................... 42
Table 11. Log Kp Values For Freshwater Sediments from Literature
(Allison, et al. 2005) .............................................................................................. 43
Table 12. Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel Sediment
Quality Samples ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 13. Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Fish Tissue Mercury Criteria .............. 66
January 2012
iii
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
January 2012
Basin Plan
CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the

Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins
BMP
Best Management Practice
CASQA
California Stormwater Quality Association
CEQA
CFR
Code of Federal Regulation
CFS
Cubic feet per second
Corps
CTR
CVP
Central Valley Project
CVRWQCB
Construction
General Permit
State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges

Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities, Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ
CWA
Clean Water Act
cy
Cubic yards
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
ERL
Effect Range-Low
ERM
Effect Range-Median
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MIAD
MPN
Most Probable Number
MSL
Mean Sea Level
NEPA
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI
Notice of Intent
NPDES
PEC
Probable Effect Concentration
OAL
Office of Administrative Law
iv
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont)
January 2012
Reclamation
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SQG
Sediment Quality Guideline
SWAMP
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
SWTR
Surface Water Treatment Rule
TEC
Threshold Effect Concentration
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
USEPA
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
spur dike. There are two action alternatives that are being considered for this project:
(1) approach channel excavation with cutoff wall (known henceforth as Alternative 2),
and (2) approach channel excavation with cofferdam (known henceforth as Alternative
3).
URS Corporation/Brown and Caldwell Joint Venture has been contracted by the
Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to perform a water quality
and mercury bioaccumulation impact analysis for the Approach Channel portion of the
JFP. This technical report explains relevant water quality regulations and
quantifies/qualifies water quality and mercury bioaccumulation impacts that would be
expected during the construction of the Project alternatives. The analysis:
Describes the affected environment and identifies sensitive receptors and

pathways for water quality impacts and mercury bioaccumulation,
Lists the regulatory criteria for water pollutants,
Describes the methodology and calculations used to estimate water quality
impacts,
Describes mercury speciation processes related to project activities and mercury
bioaccumulation pathways
Estimates project specific and cumulative impacts, and
Identifies mitigation measures to reduce the severity of impacts.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide supporting details for

the analysis of potential effects on water quality and mercury bioaccumulation potential
related to the JFP at Folsom Dam, Approach Channel Excavation. Section 1 provides
an overview of the affected environment and the regulatory setting, including priority
pollutants and water quality objectives. Section 2, Water Quality, presents details on
existing water quality and sediment conditions and an analysis of the relationship
between metals concentrations in sediments, total suspended solids (TSS)
concentrations, and dissolved metals in the water column. Section 3, Mercury
Bioaccumulation, provides details on the conceptual model for mercury sources,
transformations, and bioaccumulation processes relevant to the analysis of impacts.
Major Findings
The major findings of the water quality and bioaccumulation studies include the
following:
Models of TSS and the affinity of metals to adsorb to TSS demonstrated that
controlling and mitigating TSS, would also reduce suspended metals.
Sources of inorganic mercury in the American River Watershed include tunnels
and hydraulic mine workings from historic gold mining operations, municipal
January 2012
Executive Summary
discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and deposition from the air.
Methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury, is formed from this inorganic
mercury by particular bacteria in lakes and stream beds.
Mercury concentrations in the Sediment Samples collected within Folsom Lake
around the area of the Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel alignment were
compared to the mercury probable effect concentration (PEC) objective. All 29
sediment samples collected were below the mercury PEC objective of 1.06
mg/kg. This would indicate that the mercury contaminant concentration levels
are below the amount in which harmful effects on sediment-dwelling organisms
would be expected to occur on a frequent basis. Moreover, of the 29 samples
collected, only 2 samples exceeded the mercury threshold effect concentration
(TEC) objective of 0.18 mg/kg. Therefore, for most of the sediment samples
collected, the concentrations of mercury were below the level in which no harmful
effects would occur to sediment dwelling organisms.
With proper mitigation and application of best management practices, both
Alternatives 2 and 3 pose less than significant impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act, and negligible impacts under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
January 2012
1.0 Settings/Affected Environment
1.0 S ETTINGS / AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

1.1 Background
spur dike. There are two action alternatives that are being considered for this project in
addition to the No Action Project Alternative (Alternative A): (1) approach channel
excavation with cutoff wall (known henceforth as Alternative 2), and (2) approach
channel excavation with cofferdam (known henceforth as Alternative 3).
1.2 Purpose and Scope
URS Corporation/Brown and Caldwell Joint Venture has been contracted by the
Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to perform a water quality
and mercury bioaccumulation impact analysis for the Approach Channel portion of the
JFP. This technical report explains relevant water quality regulations and
quantifies/qualifies water quality and mercury bioaccumulation impacts that would be
expected during the construction of the Project alternatives. The analysis:
Describes the affected environment and identifies sensitive receptors and

pathways for water quality impacts and mercury bioaccumulation,
Lists the regulatory criteria for water pollutants,
Describes the methodology and calculations used to estimate water quality
impacts,
Describes mercury speciation processes related to project activities and mercury
bioaccumulation pathways
Estimates project specific and cumulative impacts, and
Identifies mitigation measures to reduce the severity of impacts.
1.3 Project Description

The following sub-sections describe the project alternatives, along with relevant
details of some construction techniques. The project site is depicted in Figure 1. The
construction footprint of each site is shown on Figure 2.
1.3.1 Alternative 2: Approach Channel Construction with Cutoff Wall
Proposed construction elements for Alternative 2 are discussed below in detail,
beginning with construction of the cutoff wall (Figure 3).
Cutoff Wall Construction
Installation of the cutoff wall across the width of the future approach channel
would occur in-the-dry.
January 2012
LEGEND
-
Haul Road
EZJ Dike7
Dike 6
IZZJPrison Stl'l!Jing Area

-
Exi:;tl'lg Ovetloo~fSpur Dike
t : Jc otterDa m
~ Control Structure
C::J cLtoffWall
MIAD Disposal Hea
:n::l
.IIIJ>:ill8ry Spilwt'lyf ~pro&eh Channel
Project Area Map
~.
us Atmy c;o,..o
~~.!.'!'-~:.
Proposed Sedim en! P lacem enl
2,000 Feet
1 ,OOJ

O.ot:
Transload f~~t y
500
July 2012
ES - 2
Figure 1. Project Area Map
January 2012
LEGEND
-
AJternative 2: Cutoff Wall

AJternative 3: Cofferdam
Spur Dike
c:J
c:J A uxiliary Spillway
Construction Footprints of
Alternatives 2 and 3
125
250
500 Feet
lf1Zl)
USA,noyCa 'IK
:!~:=!l

D.ol
July 2012
Figure 4
Figure 2. Comparison of Alternatives
January 2012
10
Control Struct ure
Approach Channel
Fols om
Lake
Spillway
Cross Section of Cutoff Wall

s
Alternative 2 - Cutoff Wall

Alignment, Cross Section
U S Army Corp
of l!ngln..,.
S~o OIIIJiel
March 2012
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cutoff Wall Cross Section
January 2012
11

The approach channel for the auxiliary spillway is expected to extend
approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control structure (Figure 1). In the
dry excavation effort for the approach channel would consist of removal of rock plug
material between the constructed control structure and the cutoff wall in the dry over
eighteen months. During this timeframe the control structures bulkhead gates would be
completed and operational. Excavation of the rock plug would continue in-the-dry until
the approach channel is ready for flooding or the lake level overtops the rock plug.
The remaining rock plug excavation would be timed to follow the dropping lake
level as possible and maximize in the dry excavation; top-down excavation of the
rock plug would be performed following the lake level down to elevation 425.34
feet or less.
As lake levels rise, excavation of the rock plug would be performed in-the-wet.
An estimated total of 400,000 cubic yards (cy) is expected to be excavated inthe-wet under Alternative 2 (Table 1).
Blasting and dredging would be required for rock plug excavation. Dredging of
approximately 122,000 cy of soft material and silts on the lake bottom would be
conducted first to reduce turbidity during the blasting phase. Large silt curtains
would be utilized for all operations conducted in-the-wet in order to contain and
minimize turbidity. Low lake levels would be utilized where possible to maximize
activity in lower lake levels or dry conditions. After fine materials are removed,
the underlying rock would be blasted. Blasted material would be dredged using a
barge-mounted clam shell or hydraulic excavator dredge, down to an elevation of
350 feet. The dredging would be performed from barges and would require
marine equipment to be mobilized and the transload facility to be operational.
The removal of remaining rock fragments from the dredging operations would be
conducted using airlift systems. An airlift system is utilized to vacuum rock
fragments from the lakebed up through a riser to bring fragments to the surface
for discharge into a barge.
In-the-wet excavation would continue to widen the channel. Once the lake level
has risen sufficiently to inundate the approach channel between the reduced rock
plug and the control structure, the area would be flooded in a controlled fashion
to prevent damage to the approach slab and wall and to avoid uncontrollable
erosion of the remaining rock plug. The remaining rock plug would be excavated
in-the-wet, using underwater blasting and dredging techniques. Seepage and
water overflow will be treated and/or discharged back into the lake under
appropriate permits.
Wet dredged material would be drained at site behind silt curtains, and will not be
transported with high water content to disposal sites.
January 2012
12
Table 1. Approach Channel Excavation Estimates Alternative Comparison

Activity
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Quantities of excavated material in-the-dry
(cubic yards)
Quantities of excavated and dredge
material in-the-wet (cubic yards)
Number of days of construction in-the-dry
600,000
800,000
400,000*
200,000**
465
390
Number of days of construction in-the-wet
456
290***
*An additional 400,000 cy of temporary fill material associated with the haul route embankment would be
removed under Alternative 2.
**An additional 150,000 cy of cofferdam fill material would be removed under Alternative 3.
***An additional 100 days of in-the-wet deconstruction work may be required for the cofferdam removal.

Land-based rock excavation would consist of conventional drilling and blasting
methods. Water-resistant emulsified slurry would be required since water intrusion is
anticipated. Explosives would be stored off-site, and would be trucked to the site on a
daily basis. The land-based blasting would be conducted up to one blast per day
between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 PM., over 48 months (estimated February 2014 to October
2017) for up to six days per week. Up to 200 land-based blasts are expected in
Alternative 2.
Underwater rock excavation would be accomplished by drill and blast methods
(URS 2009). Each blast would produce approximately 2,000 cy of rock. The removal of
material would be completed in two blasted consecutive layers, or lifts, when the rock
depth exceeds 30 to 40 feet. Approximately 400 blasts will be conducted underwater
over a projected period extending from 2015 to 2017.
The contractors blasting plan would be approved by the Corps, and public
notices and meetings will be conducted by the contractor prior to commencement
of blasting.
Explosives would be stored off-site and trucked to the site on a daily basis.
Barge platforms would be transported and assembled on-site to accommodate
drilling and excavation equipment.
Down-the-hole hammer drills would bore 5-inch holes and the holes would be
charged with emulsified slurry explosives. Blasting techniques including decking,
delayed charges and stemming will be conducted to reduce underwater blast
pressures. All charges at least 20-charge diameters would be confined by rock
burden and crushed stone stemming to limit the blast over-pressures.
Up to ten test blasts with reduced charges will be conducted over a week period
prior to production blasting. Underwater blast pressures would be limited to 5.8
January 2012
13
pounds per square inch at a distance of 2,500 feet from the blast point for human
safety.
A floating safety and exclusion boundary would be maintained at 3,000 feet from
the blast point for safety of recreational swimmers and boaters.
Prior to detonations, the drill and fleeting barge would move 300 to 500 feet from
the blast area.
After verification all charges have been detonated, a long stick excavator or
crane supported clam shell would dredge the shot rock into material barges for
tow to the temporary transload facility.
The cleanup of rock fragments would be removed from the channel by airlift
systems. Following the use of airlifts, in-the-wet inspection of the lakebed would
take place to identify areas where rock fragments remain and designate areas
that have been cleared.
The airlift and inspection divers would work iteratively until all grid areas have
been verified to be free of rock fragments. Dredged material would be drained at
site behind silt curtains, and will not be transported with high water content to
disposal sites.
The dredging equipment that could be utilized for this project includes barges,
excavators, and airlifts:
A barge-mounted large long reach excavator, with an effective excavating depth

of 90 to 95 feet, would be used. Different size buckets can be changed out for the
various soil and rock materials to be encountered during construction. The
excavator method is limited by its effective digging depth. Accordingly, a 3
month (mid-November to end of February) low lake level window would be
required to effectively dredge to the final grades.
A 225-ton class barge-mounted crawler crane clam shell unit would supplement
the hydraulic excavator to dredge shot rock and common material to grade in
periods where the lake level is too high for the hydraulic excavator to dredge to
final grade.
An airlift or sweep would be set up on the drill barge to perform foundation clean
up for approximately 90 days in Alternative 2.
The long reach excavator, conventional clam shell, and other overwater
equipment would be mounted on portable Flexifloat units, sized and assembled to
maintain stability and manage the excavation sets. The size of the Flexifloat barges
would be approximately 180 to 200 feet by 40 to 50 feet by 7 feet deep. The barges
would be held in position by large winch controlled spuds, or in water over 50 feet deep,
by a four-point mooring system using bottom founded anchors.
Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction
A spur dike is an embankment designed to induce a free, even flow of water into
an opening; in this case the opening would be the approach channel (Figure 2). An
January 2012
14
extension of the overlook would be constructed by the placement of up to 1,400,000 cy

of material to construct a spur dike, which is also referred to as an overlook extension.
The proposed elliptical-shaped spur dike, or overlook extension, would be located
directly to the northwest of the approach channel (Figure 4). The spur dike would have
one vertical (V) by 2 horizontal (H) slopes. The surface area of the top of the spur dike
would be up to approximately 9 acres; the overall foot print of the spur dike would be up
to approximately 22 acres. The crown elevation would be approximately elevation
483.34 feet (NAVD88 vertical datum).
Lakebed fines would be dredged from under the footprint of the spur dike
(approximately 40,000 cy to 80,000 cy), and this material would be placed into
another in-water section of the lake or drained and removed to a terrestrial
disposal site.
The amount of excavated disposal material to be placed into the combined spur
dike and overlook extension would determine the footprint size of the spur dike.
The core of the spur dike would be constructed of a decomposed quartz diorite
core, commonly known as decomposed granite. This would be followed by a
compacted random rock fill followed by a stone riprap cap.
A silt curtain would be used around the construction area as needed to contain
turbidity.
Equipment needed for wet construction includes barges, traditional or clamshell
excavator, and hydraulic suction dredging equipment. The work zone would be
protected within a series of contractor-designed turbidity curtains. The
construction would take place over 24 months from 2015 to 2017.

All concrete work and placement in the approach channel would be conducted inthe-dry conditions; no concrete work would be conducted in-the-wet.
The existing haul road provides access to the disposal areas from the auxiliary
spillway. Because excavation of the rock plug would cause loss of the current haul
route, approximately 165,000 cy of fill material would be placed east of the rock plug in
the wet to create an embankment in order to maintain the haul road connection to the
auxiliary spillway.
Approximately 40,000 cy of lakebed soft material would be dredged before

placement of fill material.
Fill would consist of 6 inch minus crushed rock with less than 5% fines
(approximately 145,000 cy) with slope protection consisting of two layers of 1/4
ton rock (approximately 20,000 cy).
January 2012
15
Spur Dike
Figure 4. Spur Dike
January 2012
16
Transload Facility Construction

A transload facility would be needed for mobilization and demobilization of
marine equipment (e.g., sectional barges and heavy cranes), dredge spoil off-loading
from barges to trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges,
equipment maintenance, and marine crew deployment. The proposed transload facility
transload facility would be located adjacent to Dike 7 as shown on Figure 1. The ramp
structure would require progressive construction to accommodate seasonal and variable
lake levels between the elevations of 355 to 475 feet (NAVD 88).
At approximately 1,000 feet from the haul road the ramp would intersect the
existing lake bottom. From 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet, steel planks would lie on the
existing bottom to control mud and minimize siltation and turbidity within the lake.
The ramp would be constructed from approximately 30,000 to 230,000 cy of
compacted 3 inch maximum graded fill with less than five percent fines. Approximately
20,000 cy of ton riprap would be placed on top of the main fill for protection from
wave action. Dredging up to 20,000 cy, or an average of three feet of material, from
under the footprint of the ramp may be required depending on the soils at the lake
bottom. A silt curtain would be used during construction and removal of the transload
facility to contain turbidity.
Depending on lake levels, ramp material could be placed directly into the water.
The fines content of the ramp material would be reduced as much as possible to
limit water turbidity during placement of material. Full depth silt curtains would
surround the ramp installation to control turbidity and silt movement into the
greater lake body.
The ramp would incur progressive construction, with each stage of horizontal
extension depending upon the existing lake level, and depth needed to
accommodate the reach to barges. Construction would begin at the shoreline
junction with the haul road with extension constructed into the reservoir as
needed in response to fluctuating lake levels. Completion of the ramp
construction is expected to require four months.
To offload the dredge spoils from barges, a crane would be at the furthermost
extension of the ramp just above lake level. Timber mats would form a work
platform for the crane on top of a level crushed rock pad that would be relocated
to accommodate fluctuating lake levels.
A fuel transfer station would be located on the ramp to refuel marine vessels.
The transfer station would include a flexible hose from the ramp that would be
supported intermittently by a small float anchored offshore. The float would be
used to service a utility barge with a storage tank, and then recalled to the ramp
January 2012
17
to prevent severage by boat traffic. The tank would hold one day's supply of fuel
for the floating equipment at the project site. Fuel would be delivered by trucks
and pumped from the trucks through the fuel transfer facility to the tank on the
utility barge. Protections, BMPs and spill plans will be instituted specifically for
fuel actions to maintain water quality.
The transload facility is intended as a temporary structure that will be removed
after the completion of the approach channel project in 2017. Ramp material would be
removed with excavators and hauled for disposal. Preferably the ramp material will be
removed during low lake levels. Silt curtains will be utilized to contain turbidity during
transload facility removal if conducted in-the-wet.
Batch Plant Operations
Approximately 13,000 cy of concrete would be needed for the approach channel
and approximately 11,200 cy of concrete would be needed for the cutoff wall. This
concrete will be exported from off site or be provided via an on-site concrete batch
plant with deliveries and stocking of concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and cement.
The batch plant would be located either at Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD),
Folsom Overlook, downstream chute, or the Folsom Prison site.
The concrete batch plant area would consist of the aggregate storage system,
aggregate rescreen system (if needed), rewashing facility (if needed), the batching
system, cement storage, ice manufacturing, and the concrete mixing and loading
system.
The aggregate storage system consists of three course aggregate piles and a
fine blended sand pile. The aggregate would be transported to the project,
dumped into a truck unloading hopper, then conveyed up to an overhead shuttle
conveyer, and dropped into respective storage piles.
The sand and the aggregate would be loaded out of the storage piles with a front
end loader, placed into bin hoppers, and conveyed to the batching day hoppers.
The aggregates would then be mixed and transported into transit agitator trucks
or mixer trucks. Once ready for placement, the concrete would be transported by
truck or conveyer from the batch plant site across the auxiliary spillway access
road to the concrete conveyor or truck unloading hopper. After delivery of the
mix to the unloading hopper, the concrete would be conveyed by a crane for
targeted placement.
Generally, work associated with the batch plant operations would occur during
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., however, it is likely that some batching and
placements would have to occur in the very early morning or night-time hours.
This is especially true for large volume placements and placements that occur in
the hot summer season.
Due to the large amounts of rock material being excavated, disposed, and
processed as concrete for the project, an on-site rock crushing facility would be
January 2012
18
necessary. A rock crusher is a machine used to reduce stone to particle sizes that are
convenient for their intended uses. Reduction in material size is generally
accomplished in several stages and for this project may be used to produce three to six
inch rock and smaller aggregate. The rock crusher would be located at either the
Folsom Overlook staging area or the MIAD staging and disposal area. The rock crusher
would be operated only during noise exempt hours or as permitted by the City of
Folsom.
Construction Details
Hydraulic Dredging
Hydraulic cutterhead dredging is proposed for dredge material that does not
require blasting prior to excavation or dredging. Hydraulic cutterhead dredging is
necessary for site preparation of the transload facility, spur dike, approach channel, and
the haul road embankment. A hydraulic dredge floats on the water and excavates and
pumps the material through a temporary pipeline to another location. The dredge acts
like a floating vacuum cleaner that can remove sediment very precisely.
A 24-inch or smaller pipeline cutterhead dredge is anticipated to be used to

dredge sandy or soft material. A 24-inch pipeline would have an estimated
volumetric flow rate, or pumping capacity, of 2,700 to 7,200 cy of dredged
sediment slurry per hour, depending on the constraints of the placement site
being used (including distance) and the type of sediment being dredged.
Approximately every 500 feet, the 24-inch flexible pipeline sections would be
anchored in the bottom of Folsom Lake to secure it. Pipeline sections and
anchors not in use would either be secured on a floating barge, capped and
lashed together to float in the project area, or would be stored at the designated
staging areas.
Hydraulic dredging would occur between 2013 and 2017.
Placement of dredged material

approximately 122,000 from the approach channel, approximately 40,000 cy of material
from the haul road embankment, and up to 80,000 cy of the spur dike/expanded
overlook footprint could be placed in the proposed dredging deposition site shown in
Figure 1.
Material deposited in the proposed Folsom Lake site below Dike 7 would be
spread out to produce a level plane in the depressed lake elevations.
Silt curtains would be installed to contain sediment and reduce turbidity.
January 2012
19
Access and Staging

Access roads to the site, as well as on site haul roads, would be used to
transport materials, supplies, equipment, and personnel for the approach channel
construction.
The contractor would require staging areas for the following main items and
activities: assembly of barges and other marine equipment; stockpiling of materials;
contractors lay-down area; transload facility; concrete batch plant, rock crushing plant;
fuel storage; and marine construction and excavation equipment. Staging and stock
pile areas would be located at Dike 7, MIAD, Folsom Overlook, and Folsom Prison
property (Figure 1). Some staging activities would also occur in the auxiliary spillway
chute. The staging area at Dike 7 covers approximately 9 acres and is currently in use
to stock pile crushed rock for construction of the control structure. The MIAD staging
area is also currently in use for rock crushing and for stockpiling of materials for control
structure construction. The Folsom Overlook is approximately 5 acres in size, and is
currently in use for equipment staging and stockpiling for the control structure
construction.
The haul road between the construction site and the MIAD disposal area is an
existing feature and is currently in use for control structure construction activities.
Another existing haul road extends from the Folsom Overlook to the chute construction
site and down the length of the auxiliary spillway to the stilling basin. This haul road is
currently being used for the control structure construction work.
Site Preparation
Prior to construction, the projects office facilities and a parking area would be set
up at Dike 7 staging area, the Folsom Overlook point, or the Folsom Prison property.
Additional haul road improvements by the rock plug may be implemented. Before
construction begins, a safety buffer area up to 1,500 feet wide from all existing
construction activity would be physically delineated to serve as safety protection for the
public. The 1,500 foot safety buffer will not impede recreational boat traffic from Folsom
Point. Lake bed dredging under the footprint of the transload facility may be conducted
in initial site preparation depending upon the existing lake level.
Schedule
Alternative 2 would have an expected project length from beginning through
completion of approximately 33 months (Table 2). This includes pre-work planning, site
preparations, and a five month gap to accommodate construction of the approach
channel slab and walls, drilling and blasting operations, excavation of common and
blasted rock, spur dike and transload facility construction and bottom cleaning
operations. Preparatory work would include an estimated 140 days for setting up office
facilities, haul route improvements, and the construction of the transload facility.
Construction of the cutoff wall would require approximately 293 days. In-the-dry
January 2012
20
excavation of the approach channel and casting of the concrete approach channel slab
and walls would be conducted over approximately 1,029 days. In-the wet-excavation of
the approach channel including clean up and inspection would extend over
approximately 484 days. Demobilization and site restoration would require
approximately 16 days.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Batch Plant at MIAD, Prison, or Overlook Staging
X
X
X
X
X
Areas*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From Excavation
X
X
X
X
X
Site and MIAD*
On-Site Haul Road Usage for Construction of
X
Transload Facility*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction*
X
X
X
Set up and Operate Silt Curtain/ possible Bubble
X
X
X
X
X
Curtain**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Spur Dike Riprap***
X
X
X
Transfer Excavated Material to Disposal Site***
X
X
X
X
X
Teardown, Clean Up, and Site Restoration***
X
X
X

Imported rock material may be used for construction of the temporary transload
facility, spur dike and concrete production. Material for the remainder of construction
activities would originate from on-site sources, such as the spillway and approach
January 2012
21
channel excavation. Material to construct the spur dike core would likely be shorthauled directly from the approach channel excavation. The riprap and bedding for the
spur dike would need to be processed to provide the required gradations for structure
stability. Processing this material would also ensure that it contains less than 5 % fines
in order to reduce introduction of silt into the reservoir.
There is approximately 1.4 million cy of disposal material associated with
construction of the approach channel project. Five potential on-site disposal sites
proposed for use as a part of the proposed project. Disposal sites being considered for
excavated materials include: 1) the spur dike 2) an in-reservoir site around the transload
facility; 3) the MIAD disposal site; and 4) Dike 8 (land based and in-reservoir). The inReservoir, Dike 8 and the spur dike would serve as permanent disposal for excavated
material. MIAD and Dike 7 would serve as temporary disposal sites, where excavation
material will be eventually removed and used for other purposes. The proposed
disposal sites are listed in Table 3 below, along with the maximum disposal capacity
feasible at each site. The proposed disposal site boundaries are displayed on Figure 1.
Table 3. Proposed Disposal Sites and Capacity
Proposed Disposal Site
MIAD disposal area

Dike 7
Dike 8 (land-based and inreservoir)
Spur Dike
In-reservoir
up to 1 million cy
up to 160,000 cy
up to 730,000 cy
up to 220,000 cy
Site use feasibility is under assessment at this time for all proposed disposal
sites, therefore all proposed disposal sites are to be addressed as options.
Environmental effects associated with the use of these sites differ, and the effects of
project construction would depend on sites and site combinations selected by the
contractor for disposal. Therefore, the effects analyzed in this document accommodate
worst-case scenarios to cover all disposal options. It is unlikely that all disposal sites
assessed would be used, but it is probable that multiple sites would be selected for use
in partial capacity. Currently, all disposal sites are situated on land under the
jurisdiction of Reclamation.
The MIAD temporary disposal area is the environmentally preferred disposal site,
as it is a previously-disturbed, terrestrial site with minimal overall impacts, and material
disposed here will be removed for future projects. However, the use of the MIAD
disposal site requires coordination with the scheduling of Reclamations MIAD Seismic
Modifiation project. Due to potential conflicts in site use, it is possible that this site
would not be available during multiple years of construction.
There is potential for additional disposal sites to be proposed for the approach
channel construction. Proposed disposal sites must be within a 1.5 to 2 mile radius of
January 2012
22
the approach channel construction area to remain in compliance with the air quality
assessment. Written concurrence is required from the Corps and Reclamation before
any disposal site can be used.
Dredged and excavated material that is not used for spur dike construction would
be stockpiled at one of the proposed disposal sites. Excavated material not suitable for
fill, such as vegetation, debris, and old fill, would be disposed of at a local landfill.
Asphalt, concrete, and other material would be removed or recycled in an appropriate
manner.
Once construction of the approach channel is complete, all equipment and
excess materials would be transported offsite via the haul routes discussed above. The
access roads and staging areas not used as permanent features of the project would
also be restored to pre-project conditions. The work sites and staging areas would be
cleaned of all rubbish, and all parts of the work area would be left in a safe and neat
condition suitable to the setting of the area. Any un-vegetated areas disturbed during
construction would be hydro-seeded with native grass species. Reclamation would
conduct additional native vegetative plantings after project completion outside the scope
of the Corps project work. Construction debris would be hauled to an appropriate
facility. Equipment and materials would be removed from the site, and staging areas
and any temporary access roads would be restored to pre-project conditions.
Demobilization would occur in various locations as construction proceeds along various
elements.
Long term operations of the approach channel would be performed by
Reclamation under a Flood Management Operations Study that is currently in
production, and outside the scope of this assessment. The Flood Management
Operations Study for Folsom Dam will develop, evaluate, and recommend changes to
the flood control operations at Folsom Dam that will further reduce flood risks to the
Sacramento area. Operational changes may be necessary to fully realize the flood risk
reduction benefits of the following:
The additional operational capabilities created by the auxiliary spillway;

The increased downstream conveyance capabilities anticipated to be provided by
the American River Common Features Project (Common Features);
The increased flood storage capacity anticipated to be provided by completion of
the Folsom Dam Raise Project (Dam Raise); and
The use of improved forecasts from the National Weather Service.
Further, the Flood Management Operations Study will evaluate options for
the inclusion of creditable flood control transfer space in Folsom Reservoir in
conjunction with Union Valley, Hell Hole, and French Meadows Reservoirs (also
January 2012
23
referred to as Variable Space Storage). The study will result in a Corps decision
document and will be followed by a water control manual implementing the
recommendations of the Study. It should be recognized that the initial water control
manual will implement the recommendations of the study, but will not include the
capabilities to be provided by the Dam Raise and additional Common Features project
improvements until such time as these projects have been completed.
1.3.2 Alternative 3: Approach Channel Excavation with Cofferdam
Alternative 3 consists of excavation of the approach channel integral using a
cofferdam technique. The proposed action is to excavate an approach channel and
construct an adjacent spur dike, which would channel flood flows to the auxiliary
spillway.
Cofferdam
The cofferdam consists of a series of 84-foot diameter circular sheet pile cells
constructed using 85-foot-long flat sheet piles.
Prior to cofferdam construction, lake sediments and other soils would be dredged
to expose decomposed granite. A silt curtain placed around the perimeter of the
excavation and during cofferdam installation would be required to control turbidity
in the lake.
The total estimated volume of cofferdam fill materials would be 149,600 cy,
almost all of which is cell fill. The construction of the cells requires sheet piles to
be installed using a template of two to three horizontally mounted ring wales to
provide support for the vertical flat sheets. The sheet piles are installed using a
vibratory hammer, working progressively around the ring.
Once erected, the cells would be filled with well-graded clean crushed rock. The
same plan dimension is maintained throughout the cofferdam, allowing for one
sheet pile installation template to be utilized for construction of all of the circular
cells.
A layer of riprap would be placed along the upstream toe of the cells for scour
protection. The cells are founded directly on the decomposed granite.
A temporary haul road would be created on top of the cofferdam with the
placement of approximately one foot of crushed rock in order to provide
continuing access to the overlook. The cofferdam accommodates a high design
lake level of elevation 468.34 feet.
After the cofferdam is installed the downstream area would be dewatered. Timing
would be coordinated with the completion of the control structure.
After excavation of the approach channel is completed, the cofferdam would
have a provision for controlled but rapid flooding of the approach channel area to
allow for quick equalization of hydraulic loads on both sides of the cofferdam.
Rapid flooding of the approach channel excavation would be achieved by two or
more flood gates installed in the connector cells. Each gate would consist of an
approximately 100-foot long, 4-foot diameter pipe mounted with a slide gate on
January 2012
24
the upstream side of the cofferdam. Infilling of the approach channel excavation
area up to the high lake level at elevation 468.34 feet would be expected to occur
within about 6 hours.
After approach channel flooding is completed, the cofferdam would be removed.
Any remaining materials would be dredged using a barge-mounted clam shell or
hydraulic excavator dredge until elevation 350 is reached. Silt curtains would be
utilized to contain turbidity.
As described in Alternative 2 (Section 1.3.1), the approach channel would extend

approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the concrete control structure (Figure 1). The
primary difference within Alternative 3 is that a reduced amount of excavation would
occur within in-the-wet conditions. Approximately 200,000 cy would be excavated inthe-wet under Alternative 3 (Table 1). After construction of the cofferdam, the
downstream area would be dewatered prior to the in-the-dry excavation for the
approach channel slab, walls, and rock trap.
As described in Alternative 2, ripping and blasting would be required to facilitate
rock excavation. The approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed
once sufficient excavation material is removed. The approach channel excavation and
blasting could continue during construction of the approach channel slab and walls
provided they do not damage or interfere with the construction of the slab and walls or
damage the cofferdam. During this timeframe the control structures bulkhead gates
would be constructed. Once the control structures bulkhead gates are installed and the
approach channel is completed, the area downstream of the cofferdam would be
flooded in a controlled fashion to equalize the water with lake levels. In-the-wet
excavation begins with the removal of the cofferdam.
The remaining common material would be excavated in-the-wet, using
underwater blasting and dredging techniques as described in Alternative 2. The
remainder of the approach channel excavation under a flooded status would be
conducted from barge mounted equipment. Residual rock fragments would be removed
from the channel with airlift systems.
Land-based excavation methods would be similar to those described under
Alternative 2. An increased amount of land based blasting would occur under
Alternative 3 (Table 1) since a decreased amount of blasting and excavation would
occur under in-the-wet conditions. Terrestrial based blasting could be expected for up
to 137 days. Removing more material in-the-dry, would reduce the total amount of
blasting needed for the project due to the higher material density that can be removed in
the dry than in the wet.
January 2012
25

Underwater drill and blast methods are the same as discussed under Alternative
2, and material removal by dredge equipment and barge is expected to follow a similar
prescription. The primary difference within Alternative 3 is the reduced amount of
blasting and excavation activity in the wet (Table 1) corresponding to installation of a
cofferdam. Under Alternative 3, approximately 45 underwater blasts could be expected
over a period of 180 days in-the-wet conditions.
Spur Dike (Overlook Extension) Construction
Under Alternative 3, a spur dike would be constructed as described in
Alternative 2.
The approach channel concrete lining, in-the-wet and in-the-dry excavation and
blasting methods for Alternative 3 would be the same as described under Alternative 2
with the exception of the material amounts excavated under wet conditions versus dry
conditions (Table 1).
The haul road embankment specified under Alternative 2 will not be built
adjacent to the rock plug under Alternative 3 (Figure 2). Because construction of the
cofferdam affords a longer term access to the overlook area, the current haul road
accessing the overlook area would be shifted to the top of the cofferdam. The
cofferdam affords sufficient level area to support a haul road that would be incorporated
into the cofferdam construction by placement of approximately one foot of crushed rock
on top of the cofferdam.
Under Alternative 3, a transload facility would be constructed as described in
Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, the transload facility would likely be constructed
within an earlier time frame of the construction schedule to provide facilities for
construction of the cofferdam.
Batch Plant Operations
Under Alternative 3, a batch plant would be constructed and operated as
described in Alternative 2 with the exception that a reduced amount of concrete would
be produced for Alternative 3. Concrete produced by the batch plant would be used
only for the construction of the approach channel slab and walls. Approximately
13,000 cy of concrete would be produced under Alternative 3.
January 2012
26
Construction Details
Hydraulic Dredging
the haul road embankment. A hydraulic dredge floats on the water and excavates and
pumps the material through a temporary pipeline to another location. The dredge acts
like a floating vacuum cleaner that can remove sediment very precisely.
A 24-inch or smaller pipeline cutterhead dredge is anticipated to be used to

dredge sandy or soft material. A 24-inch pipeline would have an estimated
volumetric flow rate, or pumping capacity, of 2,700 to 7,200 cy of dredged
sediment slurry per hour, depending on the constraints of the placement site
being used (including distance) and the type of sediment being dredged.
Approximately every 500 feet, the 24-inch flexible pipeline sections would be
anchored in the bottom of Folsom Lake to secure it. Pipeline sections and
anchors not in use would either be secured on a floating barge, capped and
lashed together to float in the project area, or would be stored at the designated
staging areas.
Hydraulic dredging would occur between 2013 and 2017.
Placement of dredged material

approximately 122,000 from the approach channel, approximately 40,000 cy of material
from the haul road embankment, and up to 80,000 cy of the spur dike/expanded
overlook footprint could be placed in the proposed dredging deposition site shown in
Figure 1.
Material deposited in the proposed Folsom Lake site below Dike 7 would be
spread out to produce a level plane in the depressed lake elevations.
Silt curtains would be installed to contain sediment and reduce turbidity.
Access and Staging
Access and staging areas under Alternative 3 would be the same as described in
Alternative 2.
Site Preparation
Site preparation of the project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as
described in Alternative 2.
January 2012
27
Schedule
Alternative 3 requires combined in-the-dry and in-the-wet excavation of the
approach channel with a cofferdam. The construction schedule of Alternative 3 would
run approximately 37 months through completion. Work would include pre-work
planning, cofferdam construction and demolition (Table 4), a 5-month gap to
accommodate construction of the approach channel slab and side walls, in-the-dry and
in-the-wet drilling and blasting operations, in-the-dry and in-the-wet excavation of
blasted rock, spur dike construction, and bottom cleaning operations. Preparatory work
includes 140 days for setting up office facilities, haul route improvements/construction
and the construction of the transload facility. Construction of the cofferdam is expected
to require approximately 240 days, which includes in-the-dry excavation allowing for soft
lake sediments removal below cofferdam along existing shoreline, dredging of soft lake
sediments below cofferdam foot print, and the installation of the cofferdam. Dewatering
of the approach channel excavation would take place upon installation of all pumps,
monitoring and instrumentation equipment. In-the-dry excavation and blasting of the
approach channel and casting of the concrete approach channel slab and walls would
require approximately 600 days. The removal of the cofferdam would engage
approximately 115 days. In-the wet-excavation of the approach channel including clean
up and inspection would extend over approximately 290 days. Demobilization and site
restoration would be expected to take approximately 16 days.
Material for the cofferdam would be reused from onsite excavation of the
approach channel. Materials for the transload facility, spur dike and approach channel
under Alternative 3 would be the same as described in Alternative 2. The disposal of
materials would also be the same as described in Alternative 2.
Removal of the cofferdam would begin during low lake levels and the aggregate
would be disposed at one of the proposed disposal area or at a landfill. The remainder
of the restoration and cleanup of the project area under Alternative 3 would be similar to
that described in Alternative 2. An exception would include the amount of an estimated
60 days, rather than 90 days, for foundation clean up by an airlift or sweep.
Under Alternative 3, long term operations would follow the description provided in
Alternative 2.
January 2012
28

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fill Cells*
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From Excavation Site
and MIAD*
Facility*
Spur Dike Riprap*
Remove Sheets*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

**potential nighttime construction activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only), if needed
January 2012
29
1.4 Regulatory Setting

This section discusses federal, state, and local regulatory standards applicable to
in-water activities, water quality, dredging and discharge of materials into water bodies,
and aquatic priority pollutants including mercury.
Dredging projects subject to regulation from a government agency consist of the
following four activities:
The physical removal of sediment material from the bottom of a water body;
The incidental discharge of sediment during the dredging, as a result of
disturbing and physically moving the sediments;
The placement of the dredged sediments on land; and
The return of any water from the dredged sediments back to surface water either
during removal or after placement.
1.4.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law governing water pollution.
It established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters
of the U.S. and gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority
to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for
industries (USEPA 2002). In certain states such as California, the USEPA has
delegated authority for the CWA to state agencies.
The CWA requires that a permit be obtained from the USEPA and the Corps
when discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United States
occurs. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps regulates such discharges and
issues individual and/or general permits for these activities. Before the Corps can issue
a permit under CWA Section 404, it must determine that the project is in compliance
with the CWA Section 404(b) (1) guidelines. The 404(b)(1) guidelines specifically
require that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practical alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact
on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant
adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR 230.10[a]). The USEPA, however, has
veto authority over permits issued by the Corps. When performing its own civil works
projects, the Corps does not issue itself these permits, rather, the Corps must determine
that the project is incompliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines issued by
the USEPA as stated in Corps regulations.
Section 401 of the CWA regulates the water quality for any activity which may
result in any in-water work or discharge into navigable waters. These actions must not
violate federal or state water quality standards. The Central Valley Regional Water
January 2012
30
Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) administers Section 401 in the State of California,
and either issues or denies water quality certifications depending upon whether the
proposed discharge or fill material complies with applicable State and Federal laws.
Water quality certifications for large or complex actions such as this Project typically
include project-specific requirements established by the CVRWQCB to ensure
attainment of water quality standards and compliance with applicable policies and
regulations.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that States establish priority rankings for
water on the lists and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs), to improve water quality (USEPA 2002). A TMDL is a tool for implementing
water quality standards and is based on the relationship between pollution sources and
in-stream water quality conditions.
The Lower American River, downstream of the Project setting, has been placed
on the States list of impaired water bodies (the 303(d) list of the CWA) for mercury and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and unknown toxicity. The upper American River,
including Lake Natoma downstream of the Project Setting, Folsom Lake within the
project setting, and the North and South Forks of the American River, upstream of the
Project setting, have been placed on the 303(d) list for mercury. Placement on the
States 303(d) list means that TMDLs will eventually be required for those pollutants in
each affected water body. Mercury TMDLs for all those water bodies will be addressed
though a Statewide mercury TMDL plan, which is anticipated to be completed in 2013.
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Regulated or jurisdictional waters include all wetlands adjacent to navigable
waters in addition to navigable waters, interstate waters, and their tributaries. Therefore,
any discharge of dredged or fill material into these jurisdictional waters would be subject
to compliance with Section 404 and 401 of the CWA. Project construction related to
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be subject to regulations stated within these
permits. All waters of the United States are also considered waters of the State and are
subject to regulation under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Seasonal wetlands and freshwater marshes exist along the margins of the
reservoir, typically within or adjacent to streams, swales, or other drainages. In addition,
groundwater upwelling is creating a wetland near Dike 5 on the western side of the
reservoir.
The Corps verified a wetland delineation submitted by Reclamation for the 2007
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on December 11,
2007. Approximately 314.46 acres of waters of the United States, including Folsom
Lake, the American River, and wetlands, were present within the survey area. The
survey did not delineate any wetlands within the project area that comprises
approximately 10 acres of Folsom Lake. Folsom Lake and all tributaries are regulated
January 2012
31
under Section 404 of the CWA, since they are tributaries to navigable waters of the
United States.
The Mormon Island Wetlands Natural Preserve is located south of Green Valley
Road between Natoma Street and Sophia Parkway. The 100-acre preserve is
approximately 0.50 miles upstream from the project site. The excavation of the
approach channel and disposal of materials at the MIAD disposal area would not impair
wetland functions of the Mormon Island Wetlands Natural Preserve.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates alteration of (and
prohibits unauthorized obstruction of) any navigable waters of the United States.
Construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways of
the U.S. is prohibited without Congressional approval. Construction plans for a bridge or
causeway must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, while
construction plans for a dam or dike must be submitted to and approved by the Corps.
Excavation or fill within navigable waters also requires the approval of the Corps.
All point sources that discharge into navigable waters of the United States must
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under
provisions of Section 402 of the CWA. In California, the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and CVRWQCBs are responsible for the implementation of the
NPDES permitting process at the state and regional levels, respectively. Individual
NPDES permits have previously been issued in California to dewatering operations
having a long duration, but not for shorter duration dewatering activities such as the
Folsom Dam JFP.
The NPDES permit process also provides a regulatory mechanism for the control
of non-point source pollution created by runoff from construction and industrial activities,
and general and urban land use, including runoff from streets. Projects involving
construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, or excavation) involving land disturbance
greater than one acre must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the CVRWQCB to indicate
their intent to comply with the State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2010-0014DWQ Construction General Permit (CGP). This Project would be required to file an NOI
to and comply with the provisions of the CGP.
The Construction General Permit establishes conditions to minimize sediment
and pollutant loadings and requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The SWPPP is intended to
help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants, and to establish Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water and non-storm water source control and
pollutant control. The Construction General Permit also has detailed requirements
January 2012
32
regulating the use of active treatment systems (ATS) used to control turbidity for
construction and dewatering. ATS are used where traditional erosion and sediment
controls are not sufficient to prevent water quality standards from being exceeded. If
this Project were to implement ATS, an approved ATS would be required by the CGP.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of
drinking water in the United States. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially
designated for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources, in
other words, the municipal drinking water beneficial use of Folsom Reservoir.
Contaminants of concern in a domestic water supply are those that either pose a health
threat or in some way alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water and are currently
regulated by the USEPA as primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). Therefore, MCLs set the water quality standards for municipal drinking water
uses.
1.4.2 State Regulations
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 established the
SWRCB and nine regional water quality control boards within the State of
California. These groups are the primary state agencies responsible for protecting
California water quality to meet present and future beneficial uses and regulating
appropriative surface rights allocations. The preparation and adoption of water
quality control plans, or Basin Plans, and statewide plans, is the responsibility of
the SWRCB.
California Water Code and Basin Plans
State law requires that Basin Plans conform to the policies set forth in the
California Water Code beginning with Section 13000 and any State policy for water
quality control. These plans are required by the California Water Code (Section
13240) and supported by the Federal CWA. Section 303 of the CWA requires
states to adopt water quality standards which "consist of the designated uses of
the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based
upon such uses." According to Section 13050 of the California Water Code, Basin
Plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified
area of beneficial uses to be protected and water quality objectives to protect those
uses. Adherence to Basin Plan water quality objectives protects continued
beneficial uses of water bodies.
The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Region
(Region 5) office of the RWQCB, which guides and regulates water quality in
streams and aquifers of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley through designation
January 2012
33
of beneficial uses, establishment of water quality objectives, administration of the

NPDES permit program for storm water and construction site runoff, and Section
401 water quality certification where development results in fill of jurisdictional
wetlands or waters of the US under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and
San Joaquin River Basins presents the beneficial uses that the Regional Board
has specifically designated for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the
Delta, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to
protect these uses. The project site within Folsom Lake drains to American River.
The following applicable beneficial uses include:
Folsom Lake:
Municipal and agricultural water supply

Power
Contact and non-contact aquatic recreation
Warm and cold freshwater wildlife habitat
Warm-water fish spawning
Downstream of Folsom Dam to the Sacramento River:
Municipal and agricultural water supply

Power and Industrial supply
Contact and non-contact aquatic recreation
Warm and cold freshwater wildlife habitat
Warm and cold water fish migration
Warm and cold water fish spawning
To protect the beneficial uses, the Basin Plan includes numerical and
narrative water quality objectives for physical and chemical water quality
constituents. Numerical objectives are set for temperature, dissolved oxygen
(DO), turbidity, and pH; total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity,
bacterial content and various specific ions; trace metals; and synthetic organic
compounds. Narrative objectives are set for parameters such as suspended
solids, biostimulatory substances (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus), oil and grease,
color, taste, odor, and aquatic toxicity. The primary method used by the
CVRWQCB to ensure conformance with the Basin Plans water quality objectives
and implementation policies and procedures is to issue Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) for projects that may discharge wastes to land or water.
WDRs specify terms and conditions that must be followed during the
implementation and operation of a project.
Table 5 presents surface water objectives for TDS, DO, turbidity,
temperature and pH for the construction area. These parameters are discussed in
relation to their particular water quality objectives as stated in the CVRWQCB
Basin Plan.
January 2012
34
Table 5. CVRWQCB Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives

Minimum
Maximum
Parameter
Requirement
Requirement
pH
6.5
8.5
Turbidity
Except during periods of

storm runoff, per the
CVRWQCB Basin Plan
10
7.0 mg/L for
support cold water
ecosystems and
spawning,
reproduction and/or
early development
beneficial uses
5.0 mg/l for water
designated to
support warm water
ecosystems
NA
NA
NA
DO
TOC
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
TDS
Average of 5.0 mg/l in water

designated to support warm
water ecosystems daily
minimum is 85 percent of
saturation in the main water
mass, and the 95th
percentile concentration
minimum 75 percent of
saturation
NA
NA
NA
100 mg/L
5oF
Temperature
Electric Conductivity
Comments
NA
90th percentile
Maximum allowable
increase in temperature of
waterbody
NA
NA not applicable as no water quality objectives for this parameter are presented in the Basin Plan
On May 18, 2000, the USEPA published the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in the
Federal Register, adding Section 131.38 to Title 40 of the CFR and establishing new
water quality objectives for some constituents in the Basin Plans. On May 22, 2000, the
Office of Administrative Law approved, with modifications, the Policy for Implementation
of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of
California (Phase 1 of the Inland Surface Waters Plan and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
Plan). The Policy establishes implementation procedures for three categories of priority
pollutant criteria or water quality objectives. These are:
1) Criteria promulgated by the U.S. EPA in the National Toxics Rule that
apply in California;
2) Criteria proposed by the USEPA in the California Toxics Rule; and
3) Water quality objectives contained in RWQCB Basin Plans.
January 2012
35
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) is responsible for protecting and enhancing public health and the
environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances. In
the Project setting, OEHHAs recent Public Health Goal (PHG) for hexavalent
chromium in drinking water and risk assessment guidelines for mercury in fish
are used to establish thresholds for effects. The California Department of Health
(DPH) implements guidance established by OEHHA, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and other sources by establishing maximum
concentration limits (MCLs) for chemical constituents in drinking water. MCLs
are enforceable as numeric water quality objectives in California. The PHG for
hexavalent chromium established by OEHHA has not yet been adopted as an
MCL by DPH. An MCL for hexavalent chromium may be adopted by DPH during
the duration of the Project, but the final value is not certain and the
implementation plan for that MCL has not been specified by DPH.
Although federal MCLs are used for municipal drinking water uses, the
aquatic life objectives put forth in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) are more
stringent because, in general, aquatic life are more sensitive to metals exposure
than people are through drinking water. At least one exception to this is
hexavalent chromium, which has a PHG of 0.02 g/L for human exposure
through drinking water, as compared to a chronic water quality objective of 11
g/L for protection of freshwater organisms.
The aquatic life objectives are the average for two periods for exposure: a
4-day chronic exposure and a 1-hr acute exposure. The analysis presented in the
memo focuses on the chronic exposure because this is a lower, more stringent
value. These objectives are based on the dissolved metal concentrations.
Dissolved metal concentration is the metal concentration present in a sample that
has passed through a 0.45 m filter. The dissolved metal form is most damaging
to aquatic organisms, entering through the gills and membranes. Due to the
formation of inorganic complexes, the hardness concentration in the sample
affects the toxicity of many metals to aquatic organisms. Therefore, aquatic life
objectives are expressed as hardness dependent equations for cadmium, total
chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
The aquatic life objectives, in other words, the not to exceed
concentrations, presented in the CTR (2000) are based on 100 mg/L of
hardness. Background data provided for Folsom Lake indicate that the hardness
concentration is approximately 30 mg/L; therefore, the aquatic life objectives
were corrected assuming a hardness of 30 mg/L (Tables 6 and 7).
January 2012
36
Table 6. Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria Given for 100 mg/L

Hardness and Corrected for 30 mg/L Hardness
Chronic
Chronic
(4-day average)
(4-day average)
Trace Element
(100 mg/L Hardness) (30 mg/L Hardness)
Arsenic
150
150
Cadmium
2.2
0.92
Chromium (total)
180
66.
Copper
9.0
3.20
Lead
2.5
0.66
Nickel
52
19.
Zinc
120
43.
Table 7. Acute Aquatic Life Criteria Given for 100 mg/L

Hardness and Corrected for 30 mg/L Hardness
Acute
Acute
(1-hr average)
(1-hr average)
Trace Element
(100 mg/L Hardness)
(30 mg/L Hardness)
Arsenic
340
340
Cadmium
4.3
1.2
Chromium (total)
550
205
Copper
13
4.3
Lead
65
17.
Nickel
470
170
Zinc
120
44
1.4.3 Local Regulations

General Plans for El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties each have
provisions aimed at protecting local water resources for future and current use. The El
Dorado County General Plan establishes a county-wide water resources program to
conserve, enhance, manage, and protect water resources and their quality from
degradation. These objectives consist of the following: ensuring an adequate quantity
and quality of water is available; protection of critical watersheds, riparian zones, and
aquifers; improvement and subsequent maintenance of the quality of both surface water
and groundwater; wetland area protection; utilization of natural drainage patterns; and
encouraging water conservation practices including re-use programs for applicable
areas such as agricultural fields (El Dorado County 2004).
January 2012
37
The Placer County General Plans main goal pertaining to local water resources
states that the natural qualities of its streams, creeks and groundwater would be
protected and enhanced. To accomplish this goal, the County has enacted policies such
as requiring various setbacks and easements from sensitive habitat areas or creek
corridors, requiring mitigation measures for developments encroaching water bodies,
implementing BMPs to protect streams from runoff during construction activities or due
to agricultural practices, and protecting groundwater resources from contamination
(Placer County 1994).
The Conservation Element of Sacramento Countys General Plan contains
measures to implement water conservation and to protect surface water supplies and
surface water quality. Specific goals include the following: use of surface water to
ensure long-term supplies exist for residents while providing recreational and
environmental benefits; protecting surface water quality for both public use and support
of aquatic environment health; and promoting water conversation and reuse measures.
In general, it is assumed that compliance with Federal and State water quality
regulations will ensure compliance with local policies and regulations.
1.4.4 Beneficial Uses and Metals Water Quality Objectives
The federal SDWA was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the
United States. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designated for
drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources, in other words, the
municipal (MUN) beneficial use of Folsom Reservoir. Contaminants of concern in a
domestic water supply are those that either pose a health threat or in some way alter
the aesthetic acceptability of the water and are currently regulated by the USEPA as
primary and secondary MCLs. Therefore, MCLs set the water quality standards for MUN
uses.
Although MCLs are used for MUN, the aquatic life objectives put forth in the CTR
are more stringent because, in general, aquatic life are more sensitive to metals
exposure than people are through drinking water. At least one exception to this is
hexavalent chromium, which has a PHG of 0.02 g/L for human exposure through
drinking water, as compared to a chronic water quality objective of 11 g/L for protection
of freshwater organisms.
The aquatic life objectives are the average for two periods for exposure: a 4-day
chronic exposure and a 1-hr acute exposure. The analysis presented in the memo
focuses on the chronic exposure because this is a lower, more stringent value. These
objectives are based on the dissolved metal concentrations. Dissolved metal
concentration is the metal concentration present in a sample that has passed through a
0.45 m filter. The dissolved metal form is most damaging to aquatic organisms,
entering through the gills and membranes. Due to the formation of inorganic complexes,
the hardness concentration in the sample affects the toxicity of many metals to aquatic
organisms. Therefore, aquatic life objectives are expressed as hardness dependent
equations for cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
January 2012
38
2.0 Water Quality
2.0 WATER QUALITY

This section provides details on existing water and sediment conditions in
Folsom Reservoir, at the project site, and downstream in the American River. It reviews
sediment samples collected to characterize existing conditions and details the analysis
of potential impacts to water quality parameters, including dissolved metals
concentrations, as a result of project construction.
Snowmelt and precipitation from the upper American River Watershed
discharges water into Folsom Reservoir. In general, runoff from the relatively
undeveloped watershed is of very high quality, rarely exceeding the State of Californias
water quality objectives (Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, et al. 2003).
The following beneficial uses have been defined by the CVRWQCB for Folsom
Reservoir: municipal and domestic water supply; irrigation; industrial power; water
contact and non-contact recreation; warm and cold freshwater habitat, warm freshwater
spawning habitat; and wildlife habitat, along with potential beneficial uses for industrial
service supply (RWQCB 1998). Water quality within Folsom Reservoir is generally
acceptable to meet the beneficial uses currently designated for the waterbody.
However, in the past, occasional taste and odor problems have occurred in municipal
water supplies diverted from Folsom Reservoir. Blue-green algal blooms that
occasionally occur in the reservoir due to elevated water temperatures were identified
as the cause of these problems.
2.1 Water Quality Data for Construction Area
This section presents data describing general water quality parameters including
pH, turbidity, DO, total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen, phosphorus, electric
conductivity, TDS, and fecal coliform for Folsom Reservoir.
The minimum, maximum, and average levels of pH, turbidity, DO, TOC, nitrogen,
phosphorous, and electric conductivity within Folsom Reservoir are presented in
Table 8. All of the data were collected over a six year period from 1992 to 1998; 104
samples were taken for both pH and turbidity; 47 samples were taken for TOC; and 101
samples were taken for electric conductivity (Larry Walker Associates 1999).
Table 8. Water Quality Parameters (1992-1998)
Parameter
Minimum Maximum
Average
pH
5.82
8.46
7.09
Turbidity
1
68
1.2
DO
6.1
13.6
10.3
TOC
2
3.5
NA
Nitrogen
NA
NA
NA
Phosphorus
NA
NA
NA
Electric
18.5
123
52.2
January 2012
39
2.0 Water Quality
Conductivity
Table 9 presents the minimum, maximum, and average levels of pH, electric
conductivity, DO, turbidity, TOC, nitrogen, phosphorus, and TDS within Folsom
Reservoir. The pH, electric conductivity, DO, and turbidity data were collected on June
28, 2005; a total of 47 samples were taken. The TOC data were collected on June 11,
2003; a total of 6 samples were taken. The nitrogen, phosphorus, and TDS data were
collected over a 13-month period from February 2001 to February 2002; 5 samples
were taken for each of these parameters.
Table 9. Folsom Reservoir Water Quality Parameters (2001-2005)
Parameter
Minimum
Maximum
Average
pH
Turbidity
DO
TOC
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
TDS
Electric Conductivity
6.6
1
4.95
1.5
<0.050
<0.010
39
32.5
8.23
126.9
7.93
1.8
0.11
<0.050
44
61.6
6.94
8.4
6.88
1.6
0.062
0.0212
41.8
46.2
2.2 Methodology
Potential impacts associated with each alternative were assessed through a
qualitative evaluation. Information presented in the existing conditions as well as
construction practices and materials, location, and duration of construction were
evaluated during the assessment process.
2.2.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA Significance Criteria and NEPA Substantial Effects Criteria
Thresholds of significance are used to define indicators of significant
environmental effects. In general, thresholds should be objective, quantitative wherever
reasonably possible, and based on existing standards wherever possible.
Based on CEQA Guidelines, effects on hydrologic resources and water quality
conditions as it applies to bioaccumulation potential would be significant if construction
would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
January 2012
40
2.0 Water Quality
b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially degrade water quality.
2.2.2 Methods and Assumptions
Water quality standards and sediment quality criteria, described below, were
applied to the methods used for the assessment process. The standards and criteria,
with the existing conditions, construction practices and materials, location, and duration
of construction were evaluated during the assessment process.
Any assumptions applied during the assessment process are detailed in the
section describing each assessment.
2.3 Water Quality Standards
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin
River Basins, Fourth Edition (Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses, establishes water
quality objectives, contains implementation plans and policies for protecting water of the
basin, and incorporates by reference plans and policies adopted by the CVRWQCB.
The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses of Folsom Lake. The existing beneficial
uses that apply to the Project are as follows.
Water contact recreation (REC-1);
Freshwater fish habitat (WARM and COLD);
Wildlife habitat (WILD)
The Basin Plan also states, under the section, Other Discharge Activities, that
the Regional Water Board regulates dredging operations on a case-by-case basis.
Operational criteria may result from permits or the water quality certification
requirements stemming from Section 401(a) of the CWA.
Sediment Quality Criteria
The SWRCB published in November 2006, the Revision of the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List of the Water Quality Limited Segments, Volume 1. The purpose of
this staff report was to present the SWRCB section 303(d) listing methodology. The
SWRCB recommended sediment quality guidelines based on published peer-reviewed
literature or developed by state or federal agencies. Acceptable guidelines included
selected values (e.g., effects range-median, probable effects level, probable effects
January 2012
41
2.0 Water Quality
concentration), and other sediment quality guidelines. Only those sediment guidelines
that are predictive of sediment toxicity were used (i.e., those guidelines that have been
shown in published studies to be predictive of sediment toxicity in 50 percent or more of
the samples analyzed).
The SWRCB values for freshwater sediments were based on the sediment
quality guidelines (SQG) developed by MacDonald, et al. (2000), in the document
entitled, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality
Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. This document was an effort to develop
standardized limits using various published SQGs. For each contaminant of concern,
two SQGs were developed from the published SQGs - a threshold effect concentration
(TEC) and a PEC. TECs would indicate a reliable basis for predicting the absence of
sediment toxicity. Similarly, PECs provide a reliable basis for predicting sediment
toxicity.
The sediment quality guidelines for freshwater sediments are presented below in
Table 10.
Table 10. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Sediments
Probable Effect Concentrations
Substance
Units
(PEC)
Arsenic
mg/kg
33.0
Cadmium
mg/kg
4.98
Chromium
mg/kg
111
Copper
mg/kg
149
Lead
mg/kg
128
Mercury
mg/kg
1.06
Nickel
mg/kg
48.6
Zinc
mg/kg
459
2.3.1 Factors Affecting Dissolved Metals Concentrations

Water quality objectives for metals are based on the dissolved fraction (i.e., that
fraction which passes through a 0.45 m filter). Dissolved metal concentrations in water
can be modeled based on assumptions about the total suspended soilds (TSS)
concentration, the metal concentration in suspended sediments, and the sedimentwater partition coefficient for the metal in question. That model is used in this analysis to
forecast the potential for exceeding dissolved metal water quality objectives.
A partition coefficient (Kp) models the equilibrium of metals between the
dissolved and particulate phase by relating the concentrations of dissolved metals,
particulate (i.e., sediment) metals, and total suspended sediment concentrations. The
maximum and minimum log Kp values found in the literature are presented with the
January 2012
42
2.0 Water Quality
mean sediment concentrations in Table 11. By applying a partition coefficient or a range

of partition coefficients, in combination with known sediment and TSS data, the
dissolved metal concentration can be determined. Modeling this calculation, with a
range of partition coefficients and TSS concentrations, can forecast potential
exceedances of the aquatic life objectives. Kps are typically presented as log base 10
values, Table 11.
Table 11. Literature-based1 log Kp Values For Freshwater Sediments
Water
Mean Sediment
Log Kp Log Kp
quality
Substance
Concentration
(Max)
(Min)
objective
(g/kg)
(g/L)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
74000
250
6.0
6.3
2.0
2.8
150
0.9
65000
6.0
3.9
66
56000
20000
76000
80000
6.1
6.5
5.7
6.9
3.1
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.2
0.7
52
120
Sediment concentrations based on Reclamation (2006); cadmium concentration is based on half the detection limit.
Log Kp Values For Freshwater Sediments from Allison et al. (2005)
Water quality objectives based on the chronic (4-day average) criteria established in the CTR assuming a hardness of
30 mg/L.
Water-column partition coefficients are a ratio between the particulate metal

concentration (or sorbed metal) and the dissolved metal concentration and are
calculated as presented in the following equation (Allison et al. 2005):

( )
=
=

where:
Cd
dissolved concentration of the metal (g/L)
TSS
total suspended solids (mg/L)
Ct
total concentration of the metal (g/L) and
(Allison, et al. 2005)
January 2012
43
2.0 Water Quality
=
where:
Cs TSS
106
Cs
concentration of the metal in the sediment (g/Kg)
106
unit conversion factor = 106 mg in 1 Kg
By rearranging these terms and substituting TSS and Cs for Ct, Cd becomes:
Cs
106
+
A model was developed to solve this equation for the TSS concentration that
would yield a Cd that exceeds the water quality objective for that metal. The Kp values
applied to the model were the maximum and minimum values presented in Allison et al.
(2005). The water quality objectives were corrected for typical hardness concentrations,
29 32 mg/L. The results from this model are discussed in the Results section.
Folsom Dam and Reservoir is a multipurpose water project constructed by the
Corps and operated by The United States Bureaus of Reclamation (Reclamation) as
part of the Central Valley Project (CVP). At an elevation of 466 feet above mean sea
level (msl), Folsom Reservoir is the principal reservoir on the American River
impounding runoff from a drainage area of approximately 1,875 square miles. Folsom
Reservoir has a normal full-pool storage capacity of approximately 975,000 acre-feet,
with a seasonally designated flood management storage space of 400,000 acre-feet. An
interim agreement between the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and
Reclamation provides variable flood storage ranging from 400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet.
Flood-producing runoff occurs primarily during the months of October through
April and is usually most extreme between November and March. From April to July,
runoff is primarily generated from snowmelt from the upper portions of the American
River watershed. Approximately 40 percent of the runoff from the watershed results
from snowmelt. Runoff from snowmelt usually does not result in flood-producing flows;
however, it is normally adequate to fill Folsom Reservoirs available storage.
Folsom Reservoir
Folsom Reservoir comprises approximately 12,000 acres of the North Fork,
South Fork, and main stem of the American River. Although the maximum depth of the
January 2012
44
2.0 Water Quality
Reservoir is 266 feet just behind Folsom Dam, most of the reservoir is shallower,
averaging 66 feet in depth. The reservoir has about 85 miles of shoreline. The waters of
Folsom Reservoir stratify in the warmer months from April through November, with a
layer of warmer water sitting on top of a bottom layer of cold water. Boating, swimming,
and fishing are common uses of the Folsom Reservoir.
Habitat within Folsom Reservoir allows for a diverse assemblage of native and
introduced fish species to coexist. Folsom Reservoir is managed as a two-story fishery,
with cold-water fish such as trout inhabiting the cold layer and warm-water fish such as
bass and sunfish inhabiting the warm layer and shoreline areas. Two cold water
fisheries for rainbow trout and Chinook salmon are actively maintained through a
stocking program. The populations of most other species are currently self-supporting.
Introduced fish are more commonly found in the reservoirs than are native fish. Most of
these fish were introduced into the State as game fish or as forage fish to support game
fish populations. Some of the introduced fish may have been unintentionally introduced
into Folsom Reservoir over the past 50 years.
Wetlands
Regulated or jurisdictional waters include all adjacent wetlands in addition to
navigable waters, interstate waters, and their tributaries. Therefore, any discharge of
dredged or fill material into these jurisdictional wetlands would also be subject to
compliance under Section 404 and 401 of the CWA. Project construction related to
effects to jurisdictional wetlands would be subject to regulations stated within these
permits.
Seasonal wetlands and freshwater marshes exist in the construction area
typically within or adjacent to streams, swales, or other drainages. Furthermore,
groundwater upwelling is creating a wetland near Dike 5 on the western side of the
reservoir.
2.4.1 Previous Sediment Sampling
In an effort to characterize the sediments within the project area, the Corps and
Reclamation conducted several assessments to characterize sediment contaminants.
These assessments are summarized below. Trace element (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc) concentrations in sediments are used below to
predict dissolved metals concentrations under different TSS concentrations. Mercury
concentrations are used in Section 3 below to evaluate the potential for mercury
bioaccumulation effects.
Joint Federal Project Auxiliary Spillway Folsom Lake Sediment Characterization
(August 2006).
January 2012
45
2.0 Water Quality
Reclamation conducted an assessment (Reclamation, 2006) of the

concentrations of mercury and metals present within the reservoir sediments that would
become suspended as a result of the construction activities related to the Auxiliary
Spillway. Of the 18 samples that were collected, two were reported at 0.2 mg/kg, which
is the threshold for mercury. No samples exceeded the threshold. The mean of all sites
was 0.16 mg/kg for mercury. Table 12 below provides the mean concentrations of the
reported results for mercury and other metals within the sediment samples. Locations of
the sediment samples are indicated in Figure 5 and 6 below.
Figure 5. Approximate location of sediment samples collected

by Reclamation (2006)
January 2012
46
2.0 Water Quality
Figure 6. Specific location of sediment samples collected by Reclamation (2006)

Sediment Characterization Study at Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway within the
Area of the Seismic Refraction Study (March 2008).
The Corps prepared a Sediment Characterization Report (Corps 2008) along the
alignment of the Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway. Eight sediment samples were collected
and analyzed for concentrations for metals. Table 12 below provides the reported mean
concentrations of mercury and other metals within the sediment samples.
Draft Summary Report of Sediment Testing Pre-dredge Sediment and Water
Quality Samples, Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway (October 2011).
The Corps report (Corps 2011) was prepared to document the pre-dredge
sediment concentrations for the proposed Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway. Two
composite samples were collected from the proposed approach channel location and
one composite sample was collected from the proposed transload facility location.
Chemical constituents for characterization include metals, total petroleum
hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
January 2012
47
2.0 Water Quality
Table 12 below provides the reported mean concentrations of the reported results for
mercury and other metals within the sediment samples.
January 2012
48
2.0 Water Quality
Table 12. Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel

Sediment Quality Samples
August 2006
March 2008
October 2011
(Reclamation
Element
(Natural
Background)* Units
Arsenic
(4.8 0.5)
Cadmium
(.09 .01)
Chromium
(92 17)
Copper
(28 4)
Lead
(17 0.5)
Mercury
(0.05 + 0.04)
Nickel
(47 11)
Zinc
(67 6)
mg/kg
2006)
Range
Mean
(USACE 2008)
(USACE 2011)
Range
Range
Mean
Mean
4.1-12
7.44
1.67-5.74
2.84
0.711-2.13
1.43
33.0
mg/kg <0.4-<0.61
<0.50
<1.00<1.00
<1.00
<0.400<0.400
<0.400
4.98
mg/kg
44-87
65.06
13.2-36.39
18.52
20.1-35
26.80
111
mg/kg
41-72
56.34
4.98-8.29
6.88
10.7-26.5
16.90
149
mg/kg
12-26
19.65
3.43-8.3
5.02
2.63-6.97
4.47
128
mg/kg
0.12-0.2
0.16
<0.100<0.100
<0.100
0.0150.0528
0.03
1.06
mg/kg
50-100
76.28
10.4-17
13.49
16.1-33.9
22.30
48.6
mg/kg
60-99
80.06
15.3-30.3
23.20
21.7-45.4
30.83
459
18
Total Samples
*Note: Natural background concentrations based on average 1 standard deviation of upper continental
crustal abundance, as reported by Rudnick (2003).
January 2012
PEC
49
2.0 Water Quality
2.5 Results
The modeled TSS results indicate that exceedances of the water quality
objectives in the CTR will likely occur for dissolved lead for TSS concentrations greater
than 33 mg/L. Exceedances likely occur for dissolved copper for TSS concentrations
greater than 54 mg/L. Exceedances of the CTR are likely to occur for dissolved nickel
for TSS concentrations greater than 507 mg/L. TSS concentrations less than 1000 mg/L
will not cause exceedances of the CTR the other dissolved metals.
Based on the model results, some trace elements (arsenic, cadmium, and
chromium) are not likely to exceed the aquatic life objectives at any TSS concentration;
however, copper, lead, zinc, and nickel could exceed the objectives at moderate TSS
(30 100 mg/L). These are the metals most commonly observed in exceedances.
The analysis signifies that the two circumstances driving the water quality
exceedances are site specific Kp values, which cannot be controlled, and turbidity,
which can be controlled. Mitigation in this case is turbidity control (previously described),
and monitoring for dissolved metals during operations. If exceedances are detected, a
higher frequency monitoring program should be installed to evaluate the 4-day average.
If this does not control the dissolved metals concentrations, then work should be slowed
until the concentrations decrease.
There are several options for controlling TSS and mitigating the dissolved metal
exceedances. These include:
Silt curtains and other measures that control TSS outside working zone
Use monitoring to address dissolved trace elements inside and outside

working zone
If dissolved objectives are exceeded outside working zone:

o Increase monitoring frequency and monitor at night to evaluate the
four-day average
o Slow down work to bring down four-day average
o Perform active treatment within working area using alum or some
other coagulant.
2.6 Impact Analysis

2.6.1 Alternative 2
Construction of the Approach Channel with the use of a Cut-off Wall
alternative would degrade water quality
January 2012
50
2.0 Water Quality
An approach channel excavation associated with Alternative 2 could result

in impacts to water quality caused by dredging, underwater blasting, underwater
excavation, on-water engines, and blasting hoses and materials. Alternative 2
consists of more dredging, blasting and excavation in-the-wet than Alternative 3.
However, Alternative 2 does not require the additional in-the-wet construction
and dewatering of a cofferdam.
Dredging, excavation and blasting would occur within Folsom Reservoir as
part of Alternative 2. These activities could create substantial turbidity, thus
affecting water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations, and negatively
impacting water quality. Additionally, these activities have the potential to
mobilize existing contaminants such as mercury or to cause a bedrock chromite
release. An estimated 1,000,000 cy of earthen material would be excavated as
part of the approach channel construction, with over half of this being removed
in-the-wet. A portion of the earthen material removed may be used to construct
the spur dike.
Installation of the Cut-off Wall
Before spillway excavation, a cut-off wall would be installed adjacent to
Folsom Lake southeast of the Left Wing Dam and east of the Auxiliary Spillway
chute excavation. The cut-off wall would provide seepage control to the spillway
excavation between the rock plug and the Control Structure. The cut-off wall
would consist of a reinforced concrete secant pile wall installed across the width
of the future approach channel. The total length of the wall would be
approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would be socketed into the underlying highly
weathered granitic rock. As cut-off wall construction would be conducted in-thedry, there is a negligible risk to water quality.
The construction of the cut-off wall would require large quantities of
temperature controlled concrete. This would necessitate the use of a contractorprovided, on-site concrete batch plant and deliveries of large quantities of
concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and cement. Approximately 11,200 cy of
concrete would be needed for the cutoff wall.
This has a low potential for impact to water quality. Mitigation Measures
HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
BMPs would be used to control runoff, and to prevent mixing between
concrete and water the batch plant would be located at Dike 7 away from
Folsom Lake.
Determination: Less than significant with mitigation under CEQA, and
negligible under NEPA.
Excavation in-the-Dry
January 2012
51
2.0 Water Quality
Once the cut-off wall is installed, the excavation of the spillway in-the-dry
would commence. This construction would create runoff with potentially high
concentrations of TSS. Should the runoff reach the reservoir it has the potential
to create turbidity or introduce new contaminants to the receiving waters.
Additionally, since there would be some seepage from the reservoir into the
excavation area, dewatering would be necessary. This could affect water quality
should the water being removed have high TSS content and thus contribute to
turbidity.
This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ1 and HWQ-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The
use of silt curtains and water quality monitoring should be effective control.
Since construction is primarily in-the-dry conditions, this activity has low
potential to increase the bioaccumulation of mercury.
Excavation in-the-Wet
Alternative 2 would involve finishing the excavation and dredging of the spillway
approach channel and blasting to the spur dike in-the-wet. These activities have
the potential to create substantial turbidity, thus affecting water temperature and
dissolved oxygen concentrations, and negatively impacting water quality. These
activities have the potential to mobilize existing contaminants such as mercury or
to cause a bedrock chromite release. Additionally, during construction, it would
be necessary to transport and assemble barge platforms on-site to accommodate
drilling and excavation equipment. Construction activities that could pose
impacts to water quality are listed below:
Removal of sediments via dredge

Underwater excavation of granite via dredge
Underwater blasting
On-water engines
Approximately 400,000 cy of material would be removed under the in-the-wet

conditions of the project area. This includes 109,240 cy of soil and existing fill
material, 166,310 cy of decomposed granite, and 146,360 cy of weathered and
fresh granite.
This has a high potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1,
HWQ-2, HWQ-3 HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level. Turbidity curtains, silt curtains and a thorough
monitoring plan would be necessary to perform this construction and avoid
impacting water quality.
January 2012
52
2.0 Water Quality

Cut-off Wall Removal would not affect water quality
After the conclusion of the in-the-dry spillway channel excavation and the
approach channels slab has been placed, it would be necessary to remove the
cut-off wall before starting construction in-the-wet. Cut-off wall removal should
have negligible effect on water quality if proper BMPs are in place and
maintained.
This has a low potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level..
Placement of Concrete for Approach Channel Walls
The construction of the approach channel would require large quantities of
concrete would be needed for the approach channel.
This has a low potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and
HWQ-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. BMPs would
be used to control runoff, and to prevent mixing between concrete and
water the batch plant would be located at Dike 7 away from Folsom Lake.
Determination: Less than significant with mitigation under CEQA, and negligible
under NEPA.
2.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts Common to Alternatives
2 and 3
Construction of the Spur Dike
For both Alternatives 2 and 3, spur dike construction would be located
directly to the northwest of the approach channel. The core of the spur dike
would be constructed of a decomposed quartz diorite core, commonly known as
decomposed granite. This would be followed by a compacted random rock fill
followed by a stone riprap cap. The quantity of material estimated to complete
the spur dike is 395,000 cy. Material for the spur dike construction would come
from the excavation of the approach channel excavation, or MIAD. The
construction equipment needed to build the spur dike consists of normal
January 2012
53
2.0 Water Quality
scrapers, bulldozers, and sheep-foot rollers for the body of the spur dike, and
backhoes, bulldozers, and smooth rollers for the bedding, riprap, and surfacing
materials. Spur dike construction would commence in-the-dry leading to
negligible impacts to water quality if proper BMPs for sediment control are in
place.
This has the potential for impact to water quality. Mitigation Measures
HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3, HWQ-4, HWQ-6 and HWQ-8 would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. It is essential that BMPs for
sediment control be used, and that fill material for the spur dike be
processed and analyzed prior to installation to ensure that no pollutants,
such as mercury, would be introduced into the reservoir.
Construction of the Transload Facility
For both Alternatives 2 and 3, during transload facility construction, it may
be necessary to place ramp material directly into the water. This would be
dependent on lake levels. The ramp would be constructed from approximately
30,000 to 230,000-250,000 cy of compacted 3 inch maximum graded fill with little
or no fines. Approximately 20,000 cy of ton riprap would be placed on top of
the main fill for protection from wave action. Dredging out an average of three
feet of material under the footprint of the ramp (up to 20,000 cy) may be required
depending on the soils at the lake bottom. These construction processes have
the potential to cause turbidity in Folsom Lake, thus negatively impacting the
water quality.
This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-3,
HWQ-4, HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Specifically, the fines content of the ramp material would
be reduced as much as possible to limit water turbidity during placement
of material. Full depth silt curtains would surround the ramp installation to
control turbidity, the mobilization of mercury, and silt movement into the
greater lake body. Additionally, ramp material must be analyzed prior to
installation to ensure that no pollutants that would harm water quality
objectives would be introduced into the reservoir.
Construction of the Haul Road
It would also be necessary to maintain the existing haul roads connection
to the spillway. Approximately 165,000 cy of fill material would be placed east of
January 2012
54
2.0 Water Quality
the rock plug to maintain this. The fill would consist of 3 inch minus crushed rock
(approximately 145,000 cy) and a slope protection consisting of two layers of 1/4
ton rock (approximately 20,000 cy). Material would be placed during the low lake
period utilizing land based equipment. As the haul road construction would be
conducted in-the-dry conditions, it should have little impact on water quality as
long as appropriate BMPs are in place.
This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, the installation
of silt curtains would be used to contain the turbidity within the
construction area of the lake.
under NEPA.
Disposal of Dredge Materials on Land
For Alternatives 2 and 3 it would be necessary to dispose of excess
dredge material on land. To offload the dredge spoils from barges, a crane would
be placed on a level crushed rock pad located near the bottom of the ramp just
above lake level. Timber mats would form a work platform for the crane. The
pad would need to be relocated to accommodate fluctuating lake levels.
Dredged and excavated material that is not used for spur dike construction
would be stockpiled in disposal sites D1 (22 acres) and D2 (71 acres) at MIAD
disposal site, approximately 1.5 to 2 miles southeast of the approach channel.
Excavated material not suitable for fill, such as vegetation, debris, and old fill,
would be disposed of at a local landfill. As the haul road construction would be
This has a low potential for impact. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
under NEPA.
Dam Operations Upon Completion
Long term operations of Folsom Dam would be performed by Reclamation. The
Flood Management Operations Study is being completed in conjunction with the
Folsom JFP and would develop, evaluate, and recommend changes to the flood
control operations at Folsom Dam that would further reduce flood risks to the
Sacramento, California area. At the conclusion of this study, operational changes
may be necessary to fully realize the flood risk reduction benefits. This study
should not have any impact on water quality. However, should findings indicate
January 2012
55
2.0 Water Quality
that further updates are necessary for the dam to maintain public safety, an
additional EIS/EIR would be required.
This has a low potential for impact. Mitigation Measures would be selected
at the conclusion of the Flood Management Operations Study should
further construction activities be necessary.
2.6.3 Alternative 3
Construction of the Approach Channel with the use of the small cofferdam
alternative would degrade water quality
Approach channel and spillway excavation associated with Alternative 3 could
result in impacts to water quality caused by construction runoff, dredging,
underwater blasting, underwater excavation, dewatering, water entrainment, onwater engines, and blasting hoses and materials. For Alternative 3, construction
would be conducted both in-the-wet and in-the-dry conditions.
Construction of the Cofferdam
Alternative 3 requires the use of a small cofferdam. To prepare the foundation for
the cofferdam, lake sediments and other soft materials would be dredged until
decomposed granite is reached. The following activities under this Alternative have
the potential to resuspend sediments and would create risks involving turbidity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, mobilization of existing contaminants and fuel
spills:
Removal of sediments via dredge

Underwater excavation of granite via dredge
Underwater blasting
Placement of cofferdam cells
On-water engines
The total amount of excavated material in-the-wet is 266,300 cy.

This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1,
HWQ-2, HWQ-3, HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level. Specifically, a silt curtain placed around the
perimeter of the excavation would be required to control turbidity or the
mobilization of mercury in the lake, and stemming and bubble curtains
would be used to reduce blast induced water pressures.
Dewatering behind the Cofferdam
January 2012
56
2.0 Water Quality
Once the cofferdam is in place, dewatering would take place to create an

in-the-dry working environment within the reservoir. Dewatering would also be
necessary to mitigate seepage from the reservoir into the excavation area. This
could affect water quality should the water being removed have high TSS content
and thus contribute to turbidity.
This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ1 and HWQ-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The
use of silt curtains and water quality monitoring should be effective control.
Excavation in-the-dry
After the cofferdam is in place and dewatered, excavation and blasting of
the spillway in-the-dry would occur. Approximately 800,000 cy of excavation in
the dry would occur under Alternative 3. This includes 355,600 cy of sediment
removal and 310,700 cy of sediment removed from blasting activities. This
construction could create runoff with potentially high concentrations of TSS or
other substances. The runoff could deposit sediments that may contain mercury
concentrations that could affect the downstream receiving waters.
This has the potential to impact water quality. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The use of silt
curtains and water quality monitoring should be effective control.
under NEPA.
Removal of the Cofferdam
The removal of the cofferdam would commence by flooding the construction site
until water levels on both sides of the reservoir were level. This could potentially
lead to turbidity should the water entering the construction site stir up bottom
sediment. Following this process it would be necessary to excavate the fill from
the cofferdam while also pulling out the sheet piles. This would involve the
mobilization of equipment on the water surface opening up the potential for a fuel
spill. Also, removing the sheet piles could potentially cause turbidity within the
reservoir or cause variation in lake levels.
This has a medium potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
January 2012
57
2.0 Water Quality
Excavation in-the-wet
After cofferdam removal, construction would continue to occur within Folsom
Reservoir as part of Alternative 3. The bathymetry outside of the cofferdam
leading to the approach channel spillway would need to be smoothed out. The
remaining materials would be dredged using a barge-mounted clam shell or
hydraulic excavator dredge until elevation 350 is reach (that matches the slab).
These activities in-the-wet could create substantial turbidity, thus affecting water
temperature and DO concentrations, and negatively impacting water quality.
Additionally, these activities have the potential to mobilize existing contaminants
such as mercury or to cause a bedrock chromite release.
Under Alternative 3, approximately 200,000 cy of material would be removed
under the in-the-wet conditions of the project area. The excavation activities inthe-wet (dredging and blasting) have the potential to mobilize existing
contaminants present in lake sediments.
This has a high potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2,
HWQ-3 HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Turbidity curtains, silt curtains and a thorough monitoring
plan would be necessary to perform this construction and avoid impacting
water quality.
Construction of the Approach Channel Walls
This has a low potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and
HWQ-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. BMPs would
be used to control runoff, and to prevent mixing between concrete and
water the batch plant would be located at Dike 7 away from Folsom Lake.
2.7 Mitigation Measures
January 2012
58
2.0 Water Quality
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-8 would reduce the

significant impact on water quality and water levels to a less than significant level.
Compliance and evaluation as part of the provisions stated for the various permits
discussed below would serve to minimize and mitigate potential hydrologic impacts due
to construction activities.
HWQ-1: An NPDES permit would be obtained prior to construction activities,
commencing by filing an NOI with the CVRWQCB and preparing a SWPPP. As required
under the General Permit, the SWPPP would identify implementation measures
necessary to mitigate potential water quality degradation as a result of construction.
These measures would include BMPs and other standard pollution prevention actions
such as erosion and sediment control measures, proper control of non-stormwater
discharges, and hazardous spill prevention and response. The SWPPP would also
include requirements for BMP inspections, monitoring, and maintenance.
The NOI indicates the intent to comply with the General Permit which outlines
conditions to minimize sediment and pollutant loading.
The following items are examples of BMPs that would be implemented during
construction to avoid causing water quality degradation:
Erosion control BMPs such as use of mulches or hydroseeding to prevent

detachment of soil following guidance presented in the California BMP
Handbooks Construction (The California Stormwater Quality Association
(CASQA) 2003). A detailed site map would be included in the SWPPP outlining
specific areas where soil disturbance may occur, and drainage patterns
associated with excavation and grading activities. In addition, the SWPPP would
provide plans and details for the BMPs to be implemented prior, during and after
construction to prevent erosion of exposed soils and to treat sediments before
they are transported offsite.
Sediment control BMPs such as silt fencing or detention basins that trap soil
particles.
Construction staging areas designed so that stormwater runoff during
construction would be collected and treated in a BMP such as a detention basin.
Management of hazardous material and wastes to prevent spills.
Vehicle and equipment fueling BMPs so these activities occur only in designated
staging areas with appropriate spill controls.
Maintenance checks of equipment and vehicles to prevent spills or leaks of
liquids of any kind.
HWQ-2: Measures to control on-site spills would be included in the SWPPP. In

addition to the spill prevention and control BMPs presented above, the SWPPP would
contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for pollutants
that are non-visible to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. Proper storage and
handling of materials and equipment servicing would only occur in designated areas.
Should a spill occur, appropriate steps would be taken to inform local regulatory
January 2012
59
2.0 Water Quality
agencies as well as implementation of a spill response program as outlined in the

SWPPP.
HWQ-3: Permits prepared by the responsible Federal agency would be obtained
and abided by as stated in Section 401 and Section 404 of the CWA regarding dredging
or filling of waters of the United States, and activities involving discharging into those
waters, which include wetlands, respectively. Construction activities related to
temporary or permanent alteration of any water body within the construction area would
be subject to regulation pursuant to these permits. Compliance under these permit
provisions would serve to minimize construction activity impacts on water quality.
HWQ-4: Guidance would be obtained from the CVRWQCB for testing earthen
materials before constructing work area platforms within or adjacent to the reservoir to
ensure any potentially associated pollutants would not be introduced into the reservoir
that would violate water quality standards or substantially degrade existing water
quality. Fill material would be placed in the reservoir during periods of lower water
elevation, when possible. Best management practices would be adhered to in order to
minimize water quality impacts during the placement of fill in the reservoir.
HWQ-5: The Corps would obtain a dewatering permit from CVRWQCB and
would implement applicable water quality monitoring during dewatering of the existing
Stilling Basin.
HWQ-6: Mitigation measures to minimize water quality impacts due to
construction within and along the reservoir shoreline would be developed in consultation
with CVRWQCB staff. These measures may include placement of a silt curtain
surrounding the construction zone or construction of cofferdams. If appropriate, routine
water samples would be collected at the start and completion of each dredging and/or
blasting period.
HWQ-7: During the process of dredging material to construct the approach
channel for the Auxiliary Spillway, sediment containing mercury would be controlled
using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, silt curtains, silt fences, as well
as other BMPs and construction methods approved by the CVRWQCB.
HWQ-8: A water quality monitoring plan would be developed for review by the
CVRWQCB prior to any in reservoir construction work. The plan would address
sampling requirements during dredging, blasting, excavation, and placement of fill within
the reservoir. If turbidity readings exceed action level values established by the
CVRWQCB, corrective actions would be implemented in accordance with the plan.
January 2012
60
3.0 Mercury Bioaccumulation
3.0 MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION

This analysis begins with an overview of mercury environmental effects, with a
specific focus on processes relevant to Folsom Reservoir. Following that overview,
information on mercury concentrations in fish and sediments in Folsom Reservoir is
summarized and put into context by comparison to expected background
concentrations.
3.1.1 Site History
Mercury is the specific focus of this analysis because Folsom Reservoir, the
American River, and the downstream waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta have all been placed on the State of Californias list of impaired waterbodies (the
303-d list) because of mercury concentrations in fish that exceed risk assessment
thresholds.
Mercury is known to have been used and released in the upper watershed of the
American River as a result of the historic use of mercury to extract gold in mining
operations carried out in the Sierra Foothills (CVRWQCB 2010). Atmospheric deposition
is another substantial source of mercury to all surface waters, as a result of releases to
the atmosphere from natural sources (i.e., volcanos) and human activities such as coal
combustion (Fitzgerald 1994).
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that occurs in several different chemical forms
(Mason 1995). The most common form is inorganic mercury (Hg2+), which can form
complexes in solution with anions such as chloride and sulfide. Mercury produced from
mining is inorganic mercury present as mercury sulfide, the reddish ore also known as
cinnabar. Cinnabar ore was crushed and roasted during mining operations to produce
elemental mercury (Hg0), the silvery liquid also known as quicksilver.
In the California Coast ranges during the time period of 1840-1972, millions of
pounds of cinnabar ore were mined to produce quicksilver. Much of that quicksilver
produced in California was transported to the Sierra Foothills, where it was used to
extract gold from placer deposits mobilized by hydraulic mining. As a result of the
historic mining use, many lakes and streams in California have mercury-contaminated
sediments present (Alpers, et al. 2000).
The chemical form of greatest concern is known as methylmercury, which is
inorganic mercury with a carbon attached by a covalent bond. Methylmercury has an
extremely high affinity for sulfur atoms present in amino acids, and therefore binds to
proteins. Small aquatic organisms (zooplankton and benthic invertbrates) that graze on
algae that have assimilated methylmercury into protein will tend to retain the protein,
and therefore accumulate mercury (bioaccumulation). Algae pick up methylmercury that
January 2012
61
is released from methylating bacteria by both direct excretion as well as indirectly, when
the bacteria die off and decay.
Bacteria are constantly growing and splittinglike algae, they have bloom and
decay cycles (as colonies, or whole populations, not individual organisms) which
fluctuate daily and seasonally with temperature, light, food, oxygen availability, etc. The
cycle of methylation and demethylation is constantly running. The goal is to avoid, or
mitigate for, project activities that push the cycle towards greater net methylation.
Zooplankton graze on bacteria, algae, detritus, anything they can find according
to their feeding strategy. Some graze by filtering and straining and, consequently, pick
up more bacteria. Some zooplankton scoop up algae in a more targeted manner.
The cycle of methylation and demethylation is constantly running, both in the
water column and down in the bottom sediments. In the bottom sediments, where
dissolved oxygen is low, the methylation part of the cycle runs faster than the
demethylation part; so a net increase of methylmercury concentrations occurs when
dissolved oxygen concentrations decrease. Methylmercury produced by methylating
bacteria would be released from bacteria cells both by direct excretion and also when
they die off and decay. Algae exposed to methylmercury in the water column take it up
by either passive diffusion or active transport; it is not yet definitively known.
In general, the bottom sediments are where much of the net methylation occurs,
because the bacteria are more numerous and low oxygen conditions are more prevalent
than in overlying waters. Resuspension of bottom sediments first brings methylmercury
attached to those sediments, and present in sediment porewater, up into the water
column, where it is assimilated by algae more readily than if those sediments were lying
inert on the bottom.
A second result of resuspension is to move bottom sediments with inorganic
mercury attached into an environment where it can be more readily methylated. The
process is thought to involve increasing the bioavailability of inorganic mercury to the
bacteria that turn it into methylmercury. In undisturbed bottom sediments, inorganic
mercury is tied up by sulfide, organic matter, and possibly other complexing agents,
making it harder for the bacteria to take up the inorganic mercury and methylate it.
Shaken up into the water column, some of those complexes break down, making the
inorganic mercury that was originally in bottom sediments more available to methylating
bacteria. This second process has not been completely documented, other than at the
research level. Research has also shown that atmospherically-deposited mercury is
more bioavailable initially, but becomes less available with time (in a lake) or with
watershed transport across a forest.
Under construction activities with the use of turbidity curtains, mixing bottom
sediments and porewater with methylmercury into the overlying waters is more likely to
occur than increased methylation rates due to increased bioavailability.
The bubble curtain involved in blasting would keep the Lake well oxygenated in
the vicinity of the curtain. Although oxygenation is sometimes used as a mitigation tool
during dredging to reduce methylmercury, this effect would ameliorate increased
methylmercury bioaccumulation, but not entirely mitigate for this increase.
January 2012
62
Although most sentinel organisms have a short life span (fish species such as
wakasagi smelt live only one year, and they comprise the greatest fish numbers and
volume), that does not reduce the potential for bioaccumulation resulting from the
project to a low level. Despite the short duration of in-the-wet activities, and the small
footprint of the working area, a small increase of methylmercury within the working area
water column caused by resuspension would still have a small net effect on transfer of
mercury to higher trophic levels. Predatory birds can catch wakasagi smelt, for example,
from all over the lake, whereas only a small fraction of the entire smelt population in the
lake would be exposed to the working area (with turbidity curtains in place). The short
life span also means that any increased exposure to predatory birds is of short
durationno more than a year.
Bioaccumulation of mercury tends to increase at successively higher levels in the
food web (biomagnification). Biomagnification of methylmercury is approximately 1
million fold from dissolved methylmercury in water to the flesh of a top level aquatic
predator; in other words, an average concentration of 1 ng/L of methylmercury in water
can lead to an average concentration of 1 mg/kg in the flesh of a large mouth bass.
Exposure of people and wildlife to methylmercury through consumption of fish is
the focus of this environmental analysis. Exposure to elemental mercury through
inhalation is more of an industrial / occupational concern, and not relevant to the project
setting. Exposure to mercury through drinking water is also not relevant to this
environmental analysis. The very small difference between the CTR criterion for
mercury in potable water (0.050 ng/L) and non-potable water (0.051 ng/L) reflects the
relatively low risk of exposure to inorganic mercury through the drinking water pathway
as compared to consumption of organisms; conventional drinking water treatment to
remove sediment is also highly effective at removing inorganic mercury, because of its
tendency to adhere to particles.
Methylmercury is produced from inorganic mercury by the metabolic action of
naturally occurring bacteria; in particular, sulfate reducing bacteria that thrive under low
oxygen conditions are known to be significant sources of methylmercury.
3.2 Methodology
Potential effects associated with each alternative were assessed through a
qualitative evaluation. Thresholds of significant effects are primarily based on the states
program for water quality standards. Information presented in the existing conditions as
well as construction practices and materials, location, and duration of construction were
evaluated.
3.2.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA Significance Criteria and NEPA Substantial Effects Criteria
Thresholds of significance are used to define indicators of significant
environmental effects. In general, thresholds should be objective, quantitative wherever
reasonably possible, and based on existing standards wherever possible.
January 2012
63
Based on CEQA Guidelines, effects on hydrologic resources and water quality

conditions as it applies to bioaccumulation potential would be significant if construction
would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially degrade water quality.
3.2.2 Methods and Assumptions
Water quality standards, described below, were applied to the methods used for
the assessment process. The standards, with the existing conditions, construction
practices and materials, location, and duration of construction were evaluated during the
assessment process. Any assumptions applied during the assessment process are
detailed in the section describing each assessment.
Water Quality Standards
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin
River Basins, Fourth Edition (Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses, establishes water
quality objectives, contains implementation plans and policies for protecting water of the
basin, and incorporates by reference plans and policies adopted by the CVRWQCB.
The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses of Folsom Lake. The existing beneficial
uses that apply to the bioaccumulation potential for the Project are as follows.
Water Contact Recreation (REC1);

Wildlife habitat (WILD);
REC1 applies to people catching and eating fish from Folsom Lake. The
CVRWQCB views people eating fish from a watershed as tantamount to those
individuals coming into contact with the waterbody. Numeric risk assessment thresholds
for mercury concentrations in fish consumed by people would be used to evaluate the
significance of effects.
WILD applies to wildlife (e.g., predatory birds and mammals) that eat fish from
Folsom Lake. Numeric risk assessment thresholds for mercury concentrations in fish
consumed by wildlife would be used to evaluate the significance of effects.
January 2012
64
The Basin Plan also states, under the section, Other Discharge Activities, that
the Regional Water Board regulates dredging operations on a case-by-case basis.
Operational criteria may result from permits or the water quality certification
requirements stemming from Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act.
3.2.3 Mercury Standards
The USEPA has recommended criteria for mercury to protect aquatic life and
human health. The recommended water-quality criterion is 50 ng/L. For fish tissue, EPA
and the SWRCB recommend a target of an average of no more than 0.3 mg/kg of
methylmercury.
Numerical SQGs for freshwater ecosystems have been developed for a variety of
federal, state, and local agencies using matching sediment chemistry and biological
effects data. Sediment quality guidelines were developed by MacDonald, et al. (2000)
in the document entitled, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment
Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. This document was an effort to develop
standardized limits using various published SQGs, consensus-based SQGs were
developed for 28 chemicals of concern in freshwater sediments (i.e., metals, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides). For each
contaminant of concern, two SQGs were developed from the published SQGs - a TEC
and a PEC. TECs would indicate a reliable basis for predicting the absence of sediment
toxicity. Similarly, PECs provide a reliable basis for predicting sediment toxicity. For
this analysis, a PEC of 1.06 mg/kg and a TEC of 0.18 mg/kg are applied.
The applicable standards for mercury and methylmercury are presented in
Table 13 below.
January 2012
65
Table 13. Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Fish Tissue Mercury Criteria
Parameter
Substance
Agency
Units
Concentration
Water Quality
Total Mercury 2
(Drinking Water)
USEPA
ng/L
50
Total Mercury 3
(Freshwater)
USEPA
ng/L
770
Freshwater Sediments
Total Mercury 4
SWRCB
mg/kg
1.06
Fish Tissue
Total Mercury 5
USEPA,
SWRCB
mg/kg
0.3
A major concern with mercury pollution is the accumulation of methylmercury in

biota, particularly at the top of aquatic food webs. Mercury occurs in many forms, but
methylmercury is the form which poses the highest bioaccumulation risk. Methylmercury
is converted from inorganic mercury primarily by the metabolic activity of bacteria.
Water quality regulators have been struggling for a number of years to develop
standards that are based on methylmercury in the food chain, rather than total mercury
in the water column. This analysis of mercury effects to both the Project and regional
setting focuses on methylmercury in the food chain. This recognizes the latest science
supporting water quality standards and moves the evaluation closer to the actual
beneficial uses of interest: protecting bird reproduction and making fish safe for wildlife
and people to eat.
The linkage between inorganic mercury and methylmercury is complex. Clearly,
when no inorganic mercury is present, no methylmercury can be formed. Increased
inorganic mercury concentrations in sediments are known to drive increased
methylmercury production.
3.2.4 Sources of Inorganic Mercury and Methylmercury in the American
River Watershed
Sources of inorganic mercury in the American River Watershed include tunnels
and hydraulic mine workings from historic gold mining operations, municipal discharges,
urban and agricultural runoff, and deposition from the air. Methylmercury, a highly toxic
form of mercury, is formed from this inorganic mercury by particular bacteria in lakes
and stream beds.
Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. USEPA. EPA-823-R-01-001.
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, USEPA, 1999.
4
Revision to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of the Water Quality Limited Segments, Volume 1. SWRCB,
November 2006.
5
Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. USEPA. EPA-823-R-01-001.
3
January 2012
66
Mercury was mined from the Coast Ranges of California starting in the late
1800s. Much of this mercury was transported to the Sierra Nevada and Klamath-Trinity
Mountains to be used for placer gold mining operations. While it is essential to clean up
mine sites, mercury lost during historic mining activities is now distributed along miles of
downstream streams and rivers. Controlling erosion and transport of contaminated
sediment, limiting mercury releases to water and the atmosphere from modern sources,
and determining effective ways to reduce production of methylmercury are the most
common watershed tools for reducing fish mercury levels in fish.
3.3 Results
This section provides the details of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
potential for environmental effects due to mercury bioaccumulation as a consequence of
project activities. The qualitative analysis relies on a conceptual model of mercury
sources, transformations, and bioaccumulation processes in Folsom Reservoir
(Figure 7). The quantitative analysis compares mercury concentrations in sediments to
effect levels of concern.
3.3.1 Mercury in Folsom Reservoir Fish
Surveys conducted by the SWRCB Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
(SWAMP) show that mercury concentrations in fish exceed the USEPAs recommended
maximum level of 0.3 ppm for protection of human health (Figure 8). Mercury
concentrations in higher trophic level fish (e.g., bass) and bottom feeders (e.g., catfish)
tends to be higher compared to lower trophic level fish (e.g., bluegill) and regularly
stocked fish (e.g., trout).
Mercury in large predatory fish such as large mouth bass tends to increase with
increasing age. Length, used as a proxy for age, is correlated with mercury
concentrations in large mouth bass (Figure 9). When comparing mercury in fish from
one reservoir to another, it helps to use the same fish species and use a standardized
length for comparison. The SWAMP program uses a standardized length of 350 mm.
Mercury concentrations in large mouth bass are comparable to bass in other lakes and
reservoirs throughout the Central Valley (Figure 10) and California (Figure 11).
January 2012
67
Figure 7: Mercury Conceptual Model
January 2012
68
0.00
Largemouth Bass
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Chinook Salmon
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Smallmouth Bass
Spotted Bass
Spotted Bass
Spotted Bass
Spotted Bass
Spotted Bass
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
White Catfish
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
EPA Limit
for Total
Mercury
0.20
Figure 8. Chart of Folsom Lake Fish Mercury Concentrations

Source: CVRWQCB, Reclamation, and Davis et al. (2010
January 2012
69
Largemouth Bass in Folsom Lake

(2004 & 2008 Data)
2.000
1.800
Folsom
350mm
1.600
350AVE1
350AVE2
350AVE3
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
1.400
Upper 95% CI
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
Best Fit Line

0.400
Lower 95% CI
0.200
0.000
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
Fish Length (mm)
Figure 9. Correlation of Mercury Concentrations in

Large Mouth Bass with Length
Dots labeled 350 AVE1, 350 AVE2, and 350 AVE3 represent best estimates for mercury concentrations
in fish from three different locations within Folsom Reservoir. Red dot labeled 350 mm represents best
estimate of mercury concentration in a 350 mm fish using entire data set of all three locations.
January 2012
70
0
Antelope Lake
Bass Lake
Blue Lakes
Brite Valley lake
Camanche Reservoir
Castac Lake
Clear Lake
Collins Lake
Contra Loma Reservoir
Cosumnes River
Discovery Bay
Don Pedro Reservoir
East Park Reservoir
Eastman Lake
Finger Lake
Folsom Lake
Hensley Lake
Isabella Lake
Jenkinson Lake
Lake Amador
Lake Berryessa
Lake California
Lake Combie
Lake Kaweah
Lake McClure
Lake McSwain
Lake Natomas
Lake of the Pines
Lake Webb
Los Banos Reservoir
Los Vaqueros Reservoir
Lower Blue Lake
Marsh in Fresno Slough
Meadows Slough
Millerton Lake
New Bullards Bar Reservoir
New Hogan Lake
New Melones Lake
O'Neill Forebay
Paradise Lake
Pine Flat
San Luis Reservoir
Stony Gorge Reservoir
Thermalito Afterbay
Tulloch Reservoir
Turlock Lake
Unnamed Lake 1
Unnamed Lake 2
Whiskeytown Lake
Woodward Reservoir
Yosemite Lake
Zayak/Swan Lake
Average Mercury Concentration
Average Mercury Levels in 350mm Largemouth Bass

(Region 5 Waterbodies)
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
Mean + 1 Stdev
(0.667 ppm)
0.4
Folsom Lake
(0.470 ppm) Mean
(0.406 ppm)
0.2
Mean - 1 Stdev
(0.145 ppm)
Figure 10. Comparison of Mercury Concentrations in Folsom Reservoir Large

Mouth Bass with Other Lakes in the Central Valley.
Averages represent best estimates of mercury concentrations in 350 mm Large Mouth Bass.
January 2012
71
Average Mercury Concentrations

(350mm Largemouth Bass)
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Folsom Lake
Region 5 Waterbodies Region 1-9 Waterbodies
Figure 11. Mercury concentrations in Large Mouth Bass (standardized to 350 mm

length) in Folsom Lake compared to waterbodies in the Central Valley (Region 5)
and throughout the State (Region 1-9)
Data shown indicate the mean +/- one standard deviation. Bold gridline indicates the EPA threshold of 0.3 ppm. Data from Davis et al.
(2010), based on the 2007 2008 survey of mercury in fish conducted by SWAMP.
3.3.2 Mercury in Folsom Reservoir Sediments

This section compares mercury concentrations in Folsom Reservoir sediments to
thresholds of concern.
January 2012
72

Numerical SQGs for freshwater ecosystems have been developed for a variety of
federal, state, and local agencies using matching sediment chemistry and biological
effects data. Sediment quality guidelines were developed by MacDonald, et al. (2000)
in the document entitled, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment
Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. This document was an effort to
develop standardized limits using various published SQGs, consensus-based SQGs
were developed for 28 chemicals of concern in freshwater sediments (i.e., metals,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides). For each
contaminant of concern, two SQGs were developed from the published SQGs - a TEC
and a PEC. TECs would indicate a reliable basis for predicting the absence of sediment
toxicity. Similarly, PECs provide a reliable basis for predicting sediment toxicity.
All 29 sediment samples collected by Reclamation (2006) were below the
mercury PEC objective of 1.06 mg/kg (Figure 12). This would indicate that the mercury
contaminant concentration levels are below the amount in which harmful effects on
sediment-dwelling organisms would be expected to occur on a frequent basis. More
over, of the total 29 samples collected, only 2 samples exceeded the mercury TEC
objective of 0.18 mg/kg. Therefore, for most of the sediment samples collected
concentrations of mercury were below the level in which harmful effects to sediment
dwelling organisms would be expected.
January 2012
73
0.30
0.25
American River Avg. Mercury Concentration

(WY 1984-2003)
0.20
Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) SQO

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure 12. Total Mercury in Sediment Samples from the Project Area, 2006, 2008
and 2011
3.4 Project Impacts
3.4.1 Alternative 2
Installation of the cut-off wall
Before spillway excavation, a cut-off wall would be constructed within the
rock plug portion of the approach channel area. The cut-off wall would consist of
a reinforced concrete secant pile wall (or the slurry wall alternative) installed
across the width of where the approach channel would be constructed. The total
length of the cut-off wall would be approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would be
socketed into the underlying highly weathered granitic rock. The cutoff wall
construction would be conducted in-the-dry there is a negligible risk to increasing
the bioaccumulation of mercury.
January 2012
74
This activity has a low potential for impact to the aquatic environment.
Mitigation Measures identified to protect water quality would also protect
the aquatic environment present in the adjacent lake area, HWQ-1 and
HWQ-2 would reduce effects to a less than significant level.
Construction of the haul road
It will also be necessary to maintain the existing haul roads connection to
the spillway. Approximately 165,000 cy of fill material would be placed east of the
rock plug to maintain this. The fill will consist of 3 inch minus crushed rock
(approximately 145,000 cy) and a slope protection consisting of two layers of 1/4
ton rock (approximately 20,000 cy). Material would be placed during the low lake
period utilizing land based equipment. As the haul road construction will be
Since construction is primarily in-the-dry conditions, this activity has
low potential to increase the bioaccumulation of mercury.
Determination: Less than significant under CEQA, and negligible under
NEPA.
Excavation in-the-dry
Excavation in-the-dry for the approach channel slab and wall would require a
combination of ripping and blasting to facilitate the rock excavation. Drilling
would be performed in lifts and patterns to facilitate thorough pulverization of the
granite material. Blasting would typically consist of approximately 15,000 cubic
yards rock shots. Blasted rock would be excavated with shovels or loaders,
placed in haul trucks, and hauled to the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD)
disposal area, located approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from the excavation area.
This has low potential for impact to the aquatic environment. Blasting
activities could result in air deposition of sediments containing mercury
and potentially affect the adjacent lake water quality. Mitigation measures
contained in HWQ-1, HWQ-5, and BP-1 would reduce the potential effects
to a less than significant level.
Excavation in-the-wet (dredge sediment, dredge granite, blasting, etc)
January 2012
75
Rock excavation under water would be accomplished by drill and blast methods.
Barge platforms would be transported and assembled on-site to accommodate
drilling and excavation equipment. Down-the-hole hammer drills would bore 5inch holes and the holes would be charged with emulsified slurry explosives.
Prior to detonations, the drill and fleeting barge would move 300 to 500 feet from
the blast area. Each blast would produce approximately 2,000 cy of rock. The
removal of material would be completed in two lifts when the rock depth exceeds
30 to 40 feet. To limit the blast over-pressures, all charges would be confined by
rock burden and crushed stone stemming in amounts that are at least 20-charge
diameters. A bubble curtain would reduce the blast-induced dynamic water
pressure that could be transmitted to the lake.
Approximately 400,000 cy of material would be removed under the in-the-wet
conditions of the project area. The excavation activities in-the-wet (dredging and
blasting) have the potential to mobilize existing contaminants such as mercury.
This has a high potential for impact. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1,
HWQ-2, HWQ-3 HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level. Turbidity curtains, silt curtains and a thorough
monitoring plan would be necessary to perform this construction and avoid
impacting water quality and assist in mitigating bioaccumulation effects.
In addition to the above, mitigation measure BP-1, this would consist of
the implementation of an Adaptive Management Plan during construction.
Samples for water quality, sediment quality, and toxicity tests from outside
of the construction zone area would be collected to assess the effects of
construction dredging and blasting to water quality and the aquatic
environment.
Cut-off Wall Removal will not increase the potential for bioaccumulation of
mercury
approach channels slab has been placed, it will be necessary to remove the cutoff wall before starting construction in-the-wet. Cut-off wall removal should have
negligible effect on water quality if proper BMPs are in place and maintained.
This activity has low potential to increase the potential for mercury to
bioaccumulate. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce impacts to less
than significant level.
NEPA.
January 2012
76
Placement of concrete for the construction of the approach channel walls

This has no potential for impact to the bioaccumulation of mercury.
NEPA.
3.4.2 Environmental Consequence/Impacts Common to Both
Construction of the Spur Dike
Spur dike construction would be located directly to the northwest of the approach
channel. The core of the spur dike would be constructed of a decomposed quartz
diorite core, commonly known as decomposed granite. This would be followed by
a compacted random rock fill followed by a stone riprap cap. In order to complete
the spur dike, approximately 395,000 cy of material will be placed within the
existing reservoir. Material for the spur dike construction would come from the
excavation of the approach channel excavation, or MIAD. Placement of material
within the existing reservoir has the potential to resuspend sediments and could
result in the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments, including
mercury.
This has the potential to impact the bioaccumulation of mercury.
Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3, HWQ-4, HWQ-6 and
HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. It is essential
that BMPs for sediment control be used, and that fill material for the spur
dike be processed and analyzed prior to installation to ensure that no
pollutants, such as mercury, would be introduced into the reservoir.
January 2012
77
Construction of the Transload Facility

During transload facility construction, it would be necessary to place ramp
material directly into the water. The quantity placed in the wet would be
dependent on lake levels. The ramp would be constructed from approximately
30,000 to 230,000 250,000 cy of compacted 3 inch maximum graded fill with little
or no fines. Approximately 20,000 cy of ton riprap would be placed on top of
the main fill for protection from wave action. Dredging out an average of three
feet of material under the footprint of the ramp (approximately 18,000 cy) may be
required depending on the soils at the lake bottom. These activities have the
potential to cause turbidity in Folsom Lake, thus increasing the potential for
bioaccumulation of mercury.
This has a potential to increase the potential for bioaccumulation
effects to the aquatic environment. Mitigation Measures HWQ-3, HWQ-4,
HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Specifically, the fines content of the ramp material would
be reduced as much as possible to limit water turbidity during placement
of material. Full depth silt curtains would surround the ramp installation to
control turbidity, the mobilization of mercury and silt movement into the
greater lake body. Additionally, ramp material would be analyzed prior to
installation to ensure that no pollutants that would harm water quality
objectives would be introduced into the reservoir.
Disposal of Dredge Materials on Land
Dredged and excavated material that is not used for spur dike construction would
be stockpiled in disposal sites D1 (22 acres) and D2 (71 acres) at MIAD disposal
site, approximately 1.5 to 2 miles southeast of the approach channel. Excavated
material not suitable for fill, such as vegetation, debris, and old fill, would be
disposed of at a local landfill. Asphalt, concrete, and other material from the old
roadway segments would be removed, incorporated into roadway fill, or recycled.
This activity has low potential to increase the potential for mercury to
bioaccumulate in the aquatic environment.
NEPA.
January 2012
78
Folsom Dam Operations of the Control Structure and Auxiliary Spillway

Upon Completion
Long term operations of Folsom Dam would be performed by
Reclamation. The Flood Management Operations Study is being completed in
conjunction of the Joint Federal Project. The Flood Management Operations
Study for Folsom Dam will develop, evaluate, and recommend changes to the
flood control operations at Folsom Dam that will further reduce flood risks to the
Sacramento, California area.
Folsom Dam would have four methods of releasing flows from the
reservoir: three power penstocks, eight flood control outlets (four upper tier and
four lower tier, all 5 ft x 9 ft), tainter/radial spillway gates set near the main
spillway crest (five service and three emergency), and six submerged tainter
gates in the proposed Auxiliary Spillway.
The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would allow the objective release of 115,000
cfs to be achieved sooner in a flood event, and would lessen peak flows fore
large, infrequent hydrologic events. A maximum flood release of 160,000 cfs,
which is the emergency downstream channel capacity, would be made through
the Auxiliary Spillway when necessary based on observed and anticipated
reservoir inflows. Emergency releases of 160,000 cfs or above would not be
made any sooner with the JFP spillway features than under existing conditions.
Variations in releases utilizing the Folsom DS/FDR features would not be
any larger than those allowed under existing conditions. Under this alternative,
the amount of water that would ultimately be released would be the same as
existing conditions (due to operational constraints), but operators would have the
ability to release water sooner in a hydrologic event. Features of this alternative
would be operated under existing operating criteria; therefore, would not have
adverse impacts to downstream water quality or the potential to increase the
bioaccumulation of mercury.
This activity has low potential to increase the potential for mercury
pollutants to bioaccumulate within Folsom Lake. Additional studies will be
determined under the Flood Management Operations Study along with the
collaboration between Reclamation and the CVRWQCB in addressing the
listing of Folsom Lake for mercury pollutants under the 2010 303(d) list.
NEPA.
January 2012
79
3.4.3 Alternative 3
Construction of the Cofferdam (dredging for the footprint plus placement of
cells and fill) could increase the potential for the bioaccumulation of mercury
Alternative 3, the small cofferdam, consists of a series of 84-foot diameter
circular sheet pile cells constructed using 85-foot-long flat sheet piles. The
construction of the cells requires sheet piles to be installed using a template. The
template consists of two to three horizontally mounted ring wales provide support
for the vertical flat sheets. The sheet piles are installed using a vibratory hammer,
working progressively around the ring. Once erected, the cells would be filled
with well-graded crushed rock. The same plan dimension is maintained
throughout the cofferdam, allowing for one sheet pile installation template to be
utilized for construction of all of the circular cells. A layer of riprap would be
placed along the upstream toe of the cells for scour protection. The cells are
founded directly on the decomposed granite. The cofferdam accommodates a
high design lake level of elevation 468.34 feet.
Approach channel and spillway excavation associated with Alternative 3
from dredging operations, underwater blasting, and underwater excavation would
mobilize the sediments into the water column, increasing the potential for
mercury contaminants to bioaccumulate. For Alternative 3, construction would
be conducted both in-the-wet and in-the-dry conditions.
To prepare the foundation for the cofferdam, lake sediments and other soft
materials would be dredged until decomposed granite is reached. The following
activities under this Alternative have the potential to resuspend sediments and
could result in the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments:
Removal of sediments via dredge (48,000 cy)
Approach channel dredging (64,300 cy)
Underwater blasting and excavation (171,500 cy)
The construction of the cofferdam has the potential for bioaccumulation effects
due to the movement and transport of mercury that may be present within the
lake sediments along with other water quality factors that affect net
methylmercury production and bioaccumulation.
The construction of the cofferdam has the potential to increase
bioaccumulation of mercury within Folsom Lakes aquatic environment.
Mitigation Measures that have been identified to protect water quality
would also protect the aquatic environment, HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3,
HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Specifically, a silt curtain placed around the perimeter of
the excavation would be required to control turbidity or the mobilization of
mercury in the lake, and stemming and bubble curtains would be used to
reduce blast induced water pressures.
January 2012
80
In addition to the above, mitigation measure BP-1 will also be

implemented. This would consist of the implementation of an Adaptive
Management Plan during construction. Samples of water sediment, and
biota would be collected and compared to water quality standards and
other thresholds to assess the effects of construction dredging and
blasting to water quality and mercury in the food web. If thresholds of
significance are exceeded, corrective measures would be implemented.
The impoundment of water within the cofferdam may increase potential for
the bioaccumulation of mercury
The cofferdam would have a provision for controlled but rapid flooding of
the approach channel area to allow for quick equalization of hydraulic loads on
both sides of the cofferdam. Rapid flooding of the approach channel excavation
would be achieved by two or more flood gates installed in the connector cells.
Each gate would consist of an approximately 100-foot-long, 4-foot diameter pipe
mounted with a slide gate on the upstream side of the cofferdam. Two pipes
would allow for infilling of the approach channel excavation area up to the high
lake level at elevation 468.34 feet within about 6 hours.
The flooding of the approach channel could affect water quality and
increase the potential for the bioaccumulation of mercury onto
downstream areas of the project. Implementation of mitigation measure
BP-1 will assist in evaluating the concentration of mercury present along
the excavated area of the proposed auxiliary spillway approach channel
and compared with the sediment quality guidelines for mercury.
Dewatering behind the Cofferdam
After the cofferdam is installed, the downstream area would be dewatered
to create the in-the-dry excavation area. The dewatering system will be utilized
to conduct an initial mass dewatering between the cofferdam and the rock
plug/excavation area and subsequently address seepage from the lake to the
excavation area.
These activities may affect the potential for the bioaccumulation of
mercury. Implementation of mitigation measures to protect water quality
HWQ-1 and HWQ-5, would reduce impacts to less than signficant level
January 2012
81
and mitigation measure BP-1 will assist in evaluating and controlling the
concentration of mercury present in the lake water and the sediments.
Excavation and blasting in-the-dry (downstream of the cofferdam)
After the cofferdam is in place and dewatered, excavation and blasting of
the spillway in-the-dry would occur. Approximately 800,000 cy of excavation in
the dry would occur under Alternative 3. This includes 355,600 cy of sediment
removal and 310,700 cy of sediment removed from blasting activities. This
construction could create runoff with potentially high concentrations of TSS and
mercury. The runoff could deposit sediments that may contain mercury
concentrations that could affect the downstream receiving waters.
This has a potential to impact the bioaccumulation potential of mercury to
the downstream aquatic environment. Mitigation measures proposed for
water quality contained in HWQ-1 would also reduce the potential effects
of mercury to a less than significant level. The use of silt curtains, water
quality monitoring, and bioaccumulation monitoring should be effective
control.
Placement of concrete for the construction of the approach channel walls
This has a no potential for impact to the bioaccumulation of
mercury.
NEPA.
Removal of the Cofferdam
approach channels slab has been placed, it will be necessary to remove the
Cofferdam before starting construction in-the-wet. Cofferdam removal will require
the filling system to convey water from the lake onto the approach channel to the
January 2012
82
control structure and could affect the resuspension of sediments from filling
activities and removal of the cofferdam.
Mitigation Measures developed to protect water quality, HWQ-1,
would reduce impacts a less than significant level. In addition, mitigation
measure BP-1, this would consist of the implementation of an Adaptive
Management Plan, would assist in monitoring for bioaccumulation
potential effects.
NEPA.
Excavation in-the-wet (dredge sediment, dredge granite, blasting, etc)
Rock excavation under water would be accomplished by drill and blast
methods. Barge platforms would be transported and assembled on-site to
accommodate drilling and excavation equipment. Down-the-hole hammer drills
would bore 5-inch holes and the holes would be charged with emulsified slurry
explosives. Prior to detonations, the drill and fleeting barge would move 300 to
500 feet from the blast area. Each blast would produce approximately 2,000 cy
of rock. The removal of material would be completed in two lifts when the rock
depth exceeds 30 to 40 feet. To limit the blast over-pressures, all charges would
be confined by rock burden and crushed stone stemming in amounts that are at
least 20-charge diameters. A bubble curtain would reduce the blast-induced
dynamic water pressure that could be transmitted to the lake.
Under Alternative 3, approximately 200,000 cy of material would be
removed under the in-the-wet conditions of the project area. The excavation
activities in-the-wet (dredging and blasting) have the potential to mobilize existing
contaminants such as mercury.
This has a high potential for impact. Mitigation Measures developed
to protect water quality, HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3 HWQ-6, HWQ-7 and
HWQ-8 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Turbidity
curtains, silt curtains and a thorough monitoring plan would be necessary
to perform this construction and avoid impacting water quality and assist in
mitigating bioaccumulation effects.
In addition to the above, mitigation measure BP-1, this would consist of
the implementation of an Adaptive Management Plan during construction.
Samples of water sediment, and biota would be collected and compared
to water quality standards and other thresholds to assess the effects of
construction dredging and blasting to water quality and mercury in the
food web. If thresholds of significance are exceeded, corrective measures
would be implemented.
January 2012
83

3.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures, HWQ-1 through HWQ-8, has been
referenced in this section and presented in detail in the Water Quality Section. In
addition, Mitigation Measure BP-1, Adaptive Management Plan is presented below.
BP-1: An Adaptive Management Plan will be developed as a mitigation control
measure to assist with the management of construction control BMPs and monitor the
effects onto the aquatic environment. It is difficult to predict the precise effects
construction activities would have on sedimentation and an increase on total mercury
and methylation of mercury. Therefore, monitoring and adaptive management of
construction controls are critical components of protecting against significant effects to
bioaccumulation. The Adaptive Management Plan would consist of monitoring the
environment outside of the construction zones as specified in the 401 Water Quality
Permit, and would specify triggers for adaptive management actions to avoid exceeding
significance thresholds for mercury.
The main trigger for adaptive management would be monitoring mercury
concentrations in sentinel organisms. Sentinel organisms means organisms that are
good indicators of mercury accumulation in the food web; these include benthic
invertebrates (e.g., worms, fly larvae) crustaceans (e.g., crayfish), and small fish (e.g.,
minnows). Sentinel organisms are useful because mercury in their tissues increases
more rapidly in response to increased methylmercury exposure, as compared to larger
fish that are eaten by people and wildlife. Adaptive Management Plan monitoring could
include methylmercury concentrations in water and sediments, as well as special
studies of methylmercury production, degradation, and transport. Management actions
would be triggered by changes in food web indicators.
Since thresholds are defined by tissue concentrations in predators (bird eggs,
larger food fish for people, smaller prey fish for wildlife), the triggers should be
concentrations in their prey (small fish, benthic invertebrates, zooplankton and algae).
An early implementation action for the Adaptive Management Plan would be to develop
a suite of sentinel species and associated desirable mercury concentrations that are
based on a food web model.
Following development of sentinel species and trigger levels, baseline levels in
sentinel species would be monitored so that changes in response to construction
activities can be detected. It is important to note that the fish tissue samples in Folsom
Lake indicate that these species are already impacted by mercury, so it would be
expected that many sentinel species may already exceed desirable levels of mercury for
a healthy ecosystem under baseline conditions.
January 2012
84
Therefore, adaptive management actions should be triggered when sentinel

species mercury concentrations increase substantially, regardless of whether they are
over or under desirable levels. The goal of the Adaptive Management Plan for mercury
is to ensure that over time Project actions do not cause or contribute to an increase of
mercury in the food chain for the Project duration.
January 2012
85
4.0 References
4.0 REFERENCES
Allison, J.D., T.L. Allison, and R.B. Ambrose. Partition Coefficients for Metals in
Surface Water, Soil, and Waste. Washington DC, 2005.
American River Fish Mercury Data Compilation. Preliminary Dataset for the
American River Watershed methylmercury TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment. Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. January 2011.
Website:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/americ
an_river_hg/index.shtml
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary TMDL for Methlymercury Staff Report.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. April 2010
Corps 2008. Sediment Characterization Study at the Folsom Dam Auxiliary
Spillway Within the Area of the Seismic Refraction Study. US Army Corps of Engineers.
Environmental Chemistry Section. Sacramento District. March 17, 2008.
Corps 2011. US Army Corps of Engineers. Draft Summary Report of Sediment
Testing Pre-dredge Sediment and Water Quality Samples, Folsom dam Auxiliary
Spillway Project. Environmental Chemistry Section. Sacramento District. October 2011.
Fitzgerald, W. F., R. P. Mason, et al. (1994). Air-Water Cycling of Mercury in
Lakes. Mercury Pollution: Integration and Synthesis. C. J. Watras and J. W. Huckabee.
Ann Arbor, Lewis Publishers: 203-220.
Mason, R. P., J. R. Reinfelder, et al. (1995). "Bioaccumulation of mercury and
methylmercury." Water Air and Soil Pollution 80(1-4): 915-921.
MWH Laboratories. 2003. Laboratory Report for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of Interior.
Macdonald 2000a. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment
quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. MacDonald, DD; Ingersoll, CG; Berger,
TA. Accepted January 13, 2000. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology Journal.
SWRCB 2010. Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs,
2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface
Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources
Control Board, Sacramento, CA. Davis, J.A., A.R. Melwani, S.N. Bezalel, J.A. Hunt, G.
Ichikawa, A. Bonnema, W.A. Heim, D. Crane, S. Swenson, C. Lamerdin, and M.
Stephenson. May 14, 2010.
URS Corp. and Ben C. Gerwick Inc. Cofferdam Feasibility Study Folsom Dam
JFP. Sacramento, CA, January 16, 2009.
January 2012
86
4.0 References
URS Corp. and Corps. Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR. Section 3.1, Hydrology,
Water Quality, and Groundwater. December, 2006.
URS Corp. and Corps. Project Description. Section 2.4, Alternative 1: Approach
Channel Excavation with Cutoff Wall and Section 2.6, Alternative 3: Approach Channel
Excavation with Cofferdam. November, 28, 2011.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2005d. Water quality profile data of samples
collected from Folsom Reservoir on June 28, 2005. Received via electronic mail on
February 27, 2006 from Shawn E. Oliver, Natural Resource Specialist, Reclamation.
Reclamation 2006. Joint Federal Project Auxiliary Spillway Folsom Lake.
Sediment Characterization. Trace Mercury and Total Metals. U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Environmental Monitoring Branch, MP-157. August
14, 2006.
Reclamation 2008. Joint Federal Project Haul Road Folsom Lake. Assessment of
Total Mercury in Haul Road Soil. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region,
Environmental Monitoring Branch, MP-157. May 2008.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins,
Fourth Edition. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. September 15,
1998. Revised October 2011.
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, LLC; LSA Associates; Geotechnical Consultants,
Inc; Psomas; Concept Marine Inc. 2003. Draft Resource Inventory for Folsom Lake
State Recreation Area. Prepared for: CDPR and Reclamation.
January 2012
87
Appendix D
JFP 404 (b)(1)
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Section 404 (b) (1) Evaluation
APPENDIX D
SECTION 404(b)(1) WATER QUALITY EVALUATION

FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
FOLSOM DAM JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT
APPROACH CHANNEL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
This document constitutes the Statement of Findings, and review and compliance
determination according to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed work
(preferred alternative) described in the Draft EIS/EIR issued by the Sacramento District.
This analysis has been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR Part 230- Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines and USACE Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1 105-2- 100.
I.
Project Description
a. Proposed Project
Information on alternatives is taken from Section 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom JFP) project is a cooperative effort by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the Corps non-federal sponsors. The Corps have created a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), dated July
2012. The Draft Supplemental Folsom Dam Modification Project Approach Channel
Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR) will be
referenced throughout the document to describe the existing conditions near the project
site, as well as, some potential impacts of the proposed project and the other alternatives.
The primary and permanent structures proposed consist of a 1,200 foot long
excavated approach channel and a spur dike and the construction of a concrete secant pile
cutoff wall to provide seepage control during approach channel excavation (Plate 2). A
transload facility and concrete batch plant will be constructed as necessary temporary
structures to facilitate the construction. Additional existing sites and facilities that would
be utilized for the length of the project include the existing Folsom Overlook, the MIAD
disposal area, Dike 7, and Dike 8. These sites and facilities are connected by an internal
project haul road.
The proposed project requires discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of
the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and includes the following proposed
elements:
Approach Channel - To begin construction of an approach channel a temporary
transload facility and a haul road embankment would be required to gain/ maintain
access to the project area. Dredging the footprint of these structures is required to create
a stable foundation prior to construction. In addition, the footprint of the approach
channel would need to be dredged prior to excavation. The proposed approach channel
including the transload facility and haul road embankment would involve the discharge
of 180,000 cy of dredge material and 440,000 cy of rock material into 91.0 acres of
waters of the U.S., including 88.5 acres of open waters, and 2.5 transitional wetlands.
2
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Spur Dike - Construction of a spur dike is required to induce a free, even flow of
water into the approach channel. Dredging the footprint of the spur dike is required to
create a stable foundation prior to construction. The spur dike would involve the
discharge of approximately 40,000 cy to 80,000 of dredge material and up to 1.4 million
cy of rock material into 22 acres of open waters.
b. Location
Location information is taken from Section 1.3 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The project area is located in the city of Folsom at Folsom Dam, approximately
20 miles northeast of Sacramento. The project area consists of the ongoing auxiliary
spillway construction area; the footprint of the approach channel, as described in the
EIS/EIR; the existing project haul routes; the existing project staging areas at the Folsom
Overlook and Folsom Prison sites; proposed new disposal sites at Dike 8 and inreservoir; and the existing project disposal areas at MIAD and Dike 7. The project area
can be seen on the map in Plate 1.
c. Purpose and need
The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom facility do not have sufficient
discharge capacity for managing the predicted probable maximum flood (PMF) and
lesser flood event inflows above a 100-year event (an event that has a 1% chance of
occurring in any given year). Structural modifications associated with the Folsom JFP are
proposed to address increasing discharge capability and/or increasing storage during
extreme flood events above the 200-year event level.
An auxiliary spillway adjacent to Folsom Dam was selected in 2007 as the plan to
safely pass part or the entire PMF event. The auxiliary spillway consists of a 1,000 foot
long approach channel into Folsom reservoir, a grated control structure including six
submerged retainer gates, a 3,000 foot long spillway chute, and a stilling basin.
Construction of the auxiliary spillway began in 2008. Section 1.2 of the Draft SEIS/EIR
includes additional description on the background of the Folsom Modification project.
This phase of the project addresses the construction of the approach channel and
associated spur dike. The approach channel and its related features, as evaluated in the
SEIS/EIR, are necessary functional features of the auxiliary spillway. Without the
completion of these features, the auxiliary spillway would not be completed and the
Folsom facility would remain unable to pass the PMF and provide a higher level of flood
damage reduction. As a result, the 200-year level of protection would not be
accomplished, and the Sacramento area would remain at risk for a more frequently
occurring potential flood event.
3
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
d. Authority
The Folsom Dam Modifications Project was authorized by Section 101(a)(6) of
the WRDA 1999 (1111 Stat. 274). Further authorization and guidance for the
collaboration between the Corps and the USBR under the Folsom JFP was provided by
the Energy and Water Development and Appropriations Act of 2006 (119 Stat. 2259).
Formal authorization for the Folsom JFP was included in Section 3029(b) of WRDA
2007. The relevant text of these public laws is included in Section 1.2 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
e. Alternatives [40 CFR 230.10]: Unless otherwise noted, the information is from the
Draft SEIS/EIR.
(1) No action: The no action alternative would have no impacts to wetlands or
other waters of the U.S., however, this would not achieve the dam safety and
flood damage reduction improvements to the Sacramento area and enhanced
public safety would not be realized. This alternative is not practicable, as it would
not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project.
(2) Other project designs:
Alternative 2 - Approach Channel Construction with Cutoff Wall.
Alternative 2 includes a cutoff wall, concrete batch plant operations, spur dike and
transload facility. The final phase of the Folsom Modification project is the
completion of the approach channel and spur dike. The cutoff wall would provide
seepage control to the spillway excavation between the rock plug and the Control
Structure. A trans-load facility and concrete batch plant are necessary for
construction. A full description of Alternative 2 is in Section 2.4 of the Draft
SEIS/EIR.
This alternative has been retained as a potential alternative. Therefore, this
alternative will be retained as a practicable alternative and an evaluation of the
impacts of Alternative 2 will be discussed throughout this document.
Alternative 3 - Approach Channel Construction with Cofferdam.
Alternative 3 includes a cofferdam, concrete batch plant operations, spur dike and
transload facility. The final phase of the Folsom Modification project is the
completion of the approach channel and spur dike. A cofferdam would be utilized
to maximize construction activities in-the-dry. A transload facility and concrete
batch plant are necessary for construction. A full description of Alternative 3 is in
Section 2.5 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
Although this has a higher risk to maintaining dam safety during construction, it
has been determined that this alternative is practicable. Therefore, this alternative
will be retained as a practicable alternative and an evaluation of the impacts of
4
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Alternative 3 will be discussed throughout this document in order to determine if

it is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
f. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material
(1) General Characteristics of Material
Fill is required below ordinary high water for the purpose of 1) construction of the
spur dike 2) construction of the temporary features (transload facility and haul road
embankment) and 3) disposal of dredge materials. Completion of these actions would
require dredging of fines and excavation of the rock plug. Substrate is mostly fine
sand and silt, and granitic rock.
Transload facility would be constructed from 3 inch maximum graded fill with
less than five percent fines and ton riprap placed on top protection from wave
action. Haul road embankment would be constructed from 6 inch minus crushed rock
with slope protection consisting of two layers of 1/4 ton rock.
The proposed fill for other practicable build alternative would come from on-site
construction or imported fill material. The no action/no project alternative would
result in no changes.
(2) Quantity of Material
Approximately 260,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged and
redistributed within the designated disposal areas. Approximately 1.4 million cubic
yards of granitic material would be excavated from the approach channel (rock plug)
area and used for the construction of the spur dike or disposed of within the
designated disposal areas.
(3) Source of Material
Material for the transload facility and haul road embankment would be imported
from a licensed, permitted facility that meets all Federal and State standards and
requirements, or use onsite materials from Dike 7 or MIAD. The material would be
transported along existing roadways and construction access roads. The spur dike
would utilize the onsite material excavated from the approach channel.
g. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site
(1) Location
The location of the discharge sites would be in the designated lake disposal area,
spur dike, adjacent to the rock plug, MIAD, Dike 7, or Dike 8 (Plate 1).
(2) Size
Table 1 shows the acreage of each disposal site and estimated capacity in cubic
yards. In-water dredge disposal site is 85 acres, spur dike location is 22 acres,
5
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
transload facility is 2.5 acres, haul road embankment is 1 acre. Dike 8 includes 3
acres of in-water disposal.
Upland disposal sites, if available, included 9 acres at Dike 7, and 93 acres at
MIAD (D1, 22 acres and D2, 71 acres). These sites are previously disturbed and
would not generate discharge into waters of the U.S. Dike 8 includes 13 acres of
undisturbed upland and transitional wetlands.
Table 1. Estimated Acreage of Disturbance
Proposed Discharged Site
In-reservoir
up to 220,000 cy
Spur Dike
Transload Facility
40,000 cy
400,000 cy
Dike 8
up to 730,000 cy
Acres
85
22
2.5
1
16
The other practicable build alternative would encompass the same disposal sites.
However, Alternative 3 would generate a larger amount disposal material due to the
cofferdam. The cofferdam would be constructed over 2 acres of open water. The no
action/no project alternative would have no have impacts to disposal sites.
(3) Type of Site
The type of disposal site is a lake bed, previously disturbed upland disposal sites, and
reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone.
(4) Type of Habitat
The following habitat types were identified at and around the project area:
Open Water/ Reservoir Shoreline Fluctuation Zone
Approximately 175 acres of open water habitat is located within the project area
from the Dike 8 staging area to Folsom Outlook Point. Open water habitat in the
study area is largely unvegetated. The reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone at
Dike 8 has scattered willows in low lying areas. Open water/ reservoir shoreline
fluctuation zone habitat provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other wetland
species.
This habitat type occurs primarily in low areas of the shoreline, in pools of
shallow standing water or in saturated soil. This habitat occurs mostly during the
high lake levels (about April through October) are defined as transitional wetland.
Approximately 2.5 acres at Dike 8, are dominated by low sedges, water-tolerant
grasses, and cottonwood. Emergent vegetation may occur in a continuous patch,
or may exist in small areas of standing or slowly flowing water.
Upland
6
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Upland areas beyond the floodplain, mostly ruderal and barren areas occur along
the haul road and within the construction site. Also includes disturbed areas
dominated by yellow star thistle, introduced pasture grasses, and other weedy
forbs and grasses.
Oak Woodland and Savanna
This habitat is adjacent to the project area. Dominant vegetation included blueoak,
and interior live oak. A herbaceous layer includes introduced pasture grasses, and
a variety of other native or weedy forbs. Oak woodlands and savannas offer
diverse, abundant, and valuable wildlife habitat.
Developed/Disturbed Areas
The greater project area is highly disturbed and largely devoid of vegetation, with
the exception of small areas of annual grasses and forbs. These areas are
categorized as developed/disturbed habitat areas. Various buildings, dams, water
control facilities, and related facilities have been constructed near the project area.
The lands surrounding these structures are often heavily disturbed during
construction. The Folsom Overlook staging area and MIAD and Dike 7 disposal
sites are previously disturbed areas of State and Federal land. These areas have
been developed under previous actions of the Folsom JFP and are active
construction zones. This area provides little to no habitat for wildlife and has
little to no vegetation or ground cover.
(5) Timing and Duration of Discharge
Construction of the project would be conducted over four years, beginning in
2013 and continuing through fall 2017. Dredging and construction of the transload
facility and haul road would begin in Summer 2013. Dredging and construction of
the approach channel and spur dike would begin in 2015 and continue through 2017.
Timing of construction would correspond to low lake levels, when feasible, to
minimize impacts to water quality and to reduce the quantity of dredged materials.
When lakes levels are low, more material would be removed and/or constructed in
dry conditions. Revegetation would occur immediately after construction from
October to December.
h. Description of Disposal Method
The description of the disposal methods within the proposed project area are taken
from the Draft SEIS/EIR.
the haul road embankment. If mechanical clamshell dredging is utilized, dredged
material will be placed on a barge by clamshell and transported to the transload facility.
Dredged sediment will then be transferred to trucks and placed at the Morman Island
Auxiliary Dam site.
7
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
The dredging equipment that could be utilized for the approach channel
excavation and spur dike construction includes barges, excavators and airlifts. The
dredging equipment that could be utilized for this project includes barges, excavators, and
airlifts:
A barge-mounted large long reach excavator, with an effective excavating depth

of 90 to 95 feet, would be used. Different size buckets can be changed out for the
various soil and rock materials to be encountered during construction. The
excavator method is limited by its effective digging depth. Accordingly, a 3
month (mid-November to end of February) low lake level window would be
required to effectively dredge to the final grades.
A 225-ton class barge-mounted crawler crane clam shell unit would supplement
the hydraulic excavator to dredge shot rock and common material to grade in
periods where the lake level is too high for the hydraulic excavator to dredge to
final grade.
An airlift or sweep would be set up on the drill barge to perform foundation clean
up.
The long reach excavator, conventional clam shell, and other overwater
equipment would be mounted on portable Flexifloat units, sized and assembled to
maintain stability and manage the excavation sets. The size of the Flexifloat barges
would be approximately 180 to 200 feet by 40 to 50 feet by 7 feet deep. The barges
would be held in position by large winch controlled spuds, or in water over 50 feet deep,
by a four-point mooring system using bottom founded anchors.
The cleanup of rock fragments would be removed from the channel by airlift
systems. Following the use of airlifts, in-the-wet inspection of the lakebed would take
place to identify areas where rock fragments remain and designate areas that have been
cleared. The airlift and inspection divers would work iteratively until all grid areas have
been verified to be free of rock fragments.
The other practicable build alternative would utilize similar disposal methods.
The no action/no project alternative would not require the disposal of materials.
II.
Factual Determinations
a. Physical Substrate Determinations (Sections 230.11 (a) and 230.20)

(1) Comparison of Existing Substrate and Fill
The description of the current substrate within the proposed project area is taken
from Section 3.11.2 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
8
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
The soils within the proposed project area are mapped as Andregg, Argonaut,
Auburn, Inks, Xerolls, and Xerothents. Large areas of the project area have been
graded and altered during the original construction of Folsom Dam and its supporting
infrastructure, with further modifications performed as part of routine maintenance
activities.
Fill material used during project construction would come from existing on-site
substrate excavated as part of construction of the new auxiliary spillway and would
be placed at locations both inside and outside of Folsom Reservoir. Fill material
placed outside of Folsom Reservoir would be placed on Federal property. Fill
material would be of granitic rock origin and lake sediment.
(2) Changes to Disposal Area Elevation
The description changes to the disposal sites within the proposed project area are
taken from Section 2.4.3 and 4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
Dredge materials deposited in the lake disposal area would be discharged
uniformly as to not significantly alter substrate elevation and create new features.
The spur dike would be a permanent expansion of the Folsom Overlook area. The
construction of the spur dike would alter approximately 1% of Folsom Reservoirs
75-miles of shoreline. The spur dike would alter substrate elevation and reduce the
surface area of the Folsom Reservoir by 9 acres. The spur dike is part of the project
description to direct water into the approach channel. The overall circulation, depth,
current pattern, and water fluctuation of the Folsom Reservoir would not change from
the spur dike.
The disposal materials deposited on land would contrast with the existing
landscape during temporary disposal activities, and would permanently alter the
natural landscape after the completion of construction.
With the mitigation measures proposed to avoid and minimize impacts, the
impacts of the proposed project would be minimal.
The other practicable build alternative would cause similar impacts to the
disposal sites. The no action/no project alternative would not modify the substrate
elevation or bottom contours.
(3) Migration of Fill
The description of materials and placement are taken from Section 2.4.2 and
4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The proposed action would involve the removal of approximately one million cubic
yards and the addition of 1.4 million cubic yards of material into Folsom Reservoir
9
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
for the construction of the approach channel and spur dike. Because the reservoir is
well regulated and because the fill material would consist of granitic material, as long
as the contractor utilizes BMPs to prevent erosion during construction activities, the
proposed project would have minimal effects on erosion and accretion patterns.
Mitigation measures, including BMPs are in Section 4.4.6 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The other build alternative to the proposed project would have the same impacts
on erosion and accretion patterns and would be minimized with the use of BMPs.
Additional information on Alternative 3 is in Section 2.5.2 and Section 4.4.5 of the
Draft SEIS/EIR.
The no action alternative would not result in any change to erosion and accretion
patterns.
(4) Duration and Extent of Substrate Change
The proposed action would result in the removal of some native substrate as well
as cause the soils at the site to become compacted and could reduce the water storage
capacity of the soils. However, because the project is to provide for flood damage
reduction and dam safety modifications, this impact to the soil would not reduce the
flood storage capacity of the Folsom Reservoir.
The other practicable build alternative would cause similar impacts to substrate.
The no action/no project alternative would not modify the substrate.
(5) Changes to Environmental Quality and Value
Folsom Reservoir is a regulated facility and the in water disposal site is devoid of
vegetation. The proposed project would not adversely change the environmental
value of the lake. Upland disposal sites at MIAD and Dike 7 are previously disturbed
designated disposal area. Placement of material at these locations would be consistent
with current land use. Disposal at Dike 8 would change the current land use and
impact 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands. Additional information on vegetation and
wildlife is in Section 3.12 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The other practicable build alternative would cause similar changes in
environmental quality and value. The no action/no project alternative would not
modify the environmental quality and value.
(6) Actions to Minimize Impacts
Construction would have minor, short-term impacts. Standard erosion prevention
practices would be employed such as silt fences and silt curtains to contain turbidity.
These BMPs would minimize erosion and transport of soils and substrate. Additional
information on mitigation measures, including BMPS is in Section 4.4.6 of the Draft
SEIS/EIR.
b. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations
10
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
(1) Alteration of Current Patterns and Water Circulation

The Folsom Reservoir is located within the American River Basin, which covers
an area of approximately 2,100 square miles and has an average annual unregulated
runoff volume of 2,700,000 acre-feet, however, because Folsom Reservoir is
managed as a flood control facility, the annual runoff volume has varied in the past
from 900,000 acre-feet to 5,000,000 acre-feet. The Folsom Reservoir is fed by the
North Fork American River and the Middle Fork American River, and the water is
released on a regulated basis into Lake Natoma and the South Fork American River.
Folsom Reservoir is the principal reservoir on the American River, impounding
runoff from a drainage area of approximately 1,875 square miles.
Because the Folsom Dam and Reservoir is an already regulated system designed
for flood protection, the impacts of the proposed project and all other practicable
build alternatives would have minimal impact to current, circulation and drainage
patterns.
The no action/no project alternative assumes no action would be taken. This
would cause the currents, circulation and drainage patterns of Folsom Reservoir to
remain the same.
(2) Interference with Water Level Fluctuation
Because the Folsom Facility is regulated to allow a specific amount of water to be
released into Lake Natoma and the lower American River, the proposed project, the
other practicable build alternative and the no action/no project alternative would not
change water level fluctuation patterns.
(3) Salinity Gradients Alteration
Salinity gradients would not be affected.
(4) Effects on Water Quality
The description of the current water quality condition of the reservoir is taken
from Section 3.4.2 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The water quality within Folsom Reservoir is currently good, with the water being
utilized for: municipal and domestic water supply; irrigation; industrial power; water
contact and non-contact recreation; warm and cold freshwater habitat, warm
freshwater spawning habitat; and wildlife habitat.
(a) Water Chemistry
Project activities involving concrete and concrete wash water have the
potential to affect pH, turbidity, and hexavalent chromium in receiving
waters. Concrete wash water tends to have relatively high pH (between 10
and 14). Approved BMPs for managing concrete wash water include
curing / air drying, off hauling for treatment, and active treatment onsite
11
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
using carbon dioxide or a stronger acid such as sulfuric or acid.

Hexavalent chromium is present in Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) and
PCC grindings. Active treatment systems (ATS) targeting pH and turbidity
may not remove hexavalent chromium, unless they are augmented with
ferrous sulfate or some other chemical agent to reduce hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium.
Mitigation measures proposed for pH and turbidity would be development
and implementation of an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), including an ATS if needed to attain water quality objectives.
To mitigate for hexavalent chromium risks, the ATS plan would include
monitoring and treatment measures to attain no significant increase of
hexavalent chromium in receiving waters.
(b) Salinity
The project would not change salinity levels.
(c) Clarity
Excavation and placement of excavated material in the disposal area
would temporarily reduce clarity due to an increase in total suspended
solids. However, the reduction of clarity caused by construction activities
would be short in duration and would return to pre-construction levels
upon project completion.
(d) Color
Excavation and placement of excavated material in the disposal area
would temporarily induce a color change due to an increase in turbidity.
However, conditions would return to pre-construction levels upon
completion of the project.
(e) Odor
The project would not affect odor.
(f) Taste
The project would not affect taste.
(g) Dissolved Gas Levels
The proposed project would have temporary impacts on dissolved gas
levels. Dissolved gas levels would be affected by the release of
dewatering discharges having high chemical oxygen demand (COD) or
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Development and implementation of
an approved SWPPP would avoid significant negative effects for these
two parameters.
(h) Temperature
12
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
The excavation activities in-the-wet (dredging and blasting) have the

potential to create substantial turbidity, thus affecting water temperature.
Proposed mitigation measures, specifically, a silt curtain placed around
the perimeter of the excavation would be required to control turbidity and
the mobilization of pollutants that may be present in lake sediments.
(i) Nutrients
Release of suspended sediments from project activities could potentially
cause turbidity thresholds to be exceeded. This could concurrently cause
thresholds for metals and nutrients to be exceeded. Turbidity would be
controlled outside the working area using a combination of BMPS,
turbidity curtains, and active treatment as appropriate. An approved Active
treatment systems plan would also include an assessment of the total
residual TDS load in treated water in comparison to receiving water
volumes to assure that TDS thresholds are not exceeded.
Development and implementation of an approved SWPPP, along with the
initial dredging to remove sediments, would also prevent release of excess
nutrients into the Lake.
(j) Eutrophication
The project would not input excess nutrients into the stream or promote
excessive plant growth. The project would not contribute to
eutrophication.
The proposed project could impact the water quality of the Folsom Reservoir
during construction from earth moving operations, dredging operations, storage and
handling of construction materials on site and the operation and maintenance of
construction equipment on-site. Construction and associated materials, including
solvents, paints, waste materials and oil and gas associated with operation and
maintenance of construction equipment present on-site could introduce hazardous
or toxic materials and silt and debris into surrounding waters and could cause
degradation of the water quality within the Folsom Reservoir. Although there may
be significant impacts to water quality during project construction, these impacts
would be short term. The operation of the newly constructed project would not
affect the water quality of the Folsom Reservoir.
Construction and excavation would be timed with low water levels to minimize
impacts. The impacts to water quality due to construction activities would be
minimized by the special conditions required by the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CVRWQCB).
13
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
In addition, proposed mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts of

the proposed project on water quality. These mitigation measures are located in the
Water Quality Section (4.4.7) of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The contractor would be required to implement the proposed mitigation measures
during project construction, therefore, impacts to the water quality within Folsom
Reservoir from project construction would be minimal.
c. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations
(1) Alteration of Suspended Particulate Type and Concentration
According to the EIS/EIR, the runoff from the relatively undeveloped watershed
is of very high quality, rarely exceeding the State of Californias water quality
objectives. In the past, however, occasional taste and odor problems have occurred in
municipal water supplies diverted from Folsom Reservoir. Blue-green algal blooms
that occasionally occur in the reservoir due to elevated water temperatures were
identified as the cause of these problems.
Within Folsom Reservoir, turbidity should be less than or equal to 10
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), except for periods of storm runoff, according
to the CVRWQCB Basin Plan. The turbidity within the Folsom Reservoir, as tested
between February 2001 and February 2002, ranged between a minimum of 1.0 NTU
to a maximum of 126.9 NTU, with an average of 8.4 NTU. The turbidity within Lake
Natoma between January 2001 through June 2002 range from 0.5 NTU to 5.0 NTU.
It is likely that the maximum turbidity level within Folsom Reservoir occurred
following a storm event.
During construction, there could be increased levels of turbidity as soils are
exposed and during rain events, which may erode these soils into the reservoir. In
addition, the dredging of material and placement of fill materials could cause a
release of suspended sediments and increased turbidity into the reservoir. This
exposed material could be eroded by wave action or storm runoff. The water could
enter the Folsom Reservoir, and could migrate into Lake Natoma to the south. It is
likely, however, that the suspended particulates would settle within Lake Natoma and
it is unlikely that the lower American River would be affected. The use of best
management practices (BMPs), such as utilizing erosion control devices (silt fencing,
silt curtains) within the project area, and stabilizing the side slopes of all exposed fills
until they can be revegetated would minimize any increases in suspended sediments
or turbidity associated with the proposed project. Additional information on water
quality is in Section 3.4 and 4.4 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The no action/no project alternative would result in the project not being
completed, which would result in no impacts to suspended sediment and turbidity.
(2) Particulate Plumes Associated with Discharge
14
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Temporary and local particulate plumes may occur during construction activities
but would quickly dissipate after construction is complete.
Particulate plumes resulting from any construction activity are not expected to
persist after project completion. Particulates suspended within the disposal area are
not expected to differ in type from particulates currently within the project area.
Effects would be minimized by performing work during low lake level periods.
The duration of construction would be limited to the shortest timeframe practicable.
As a result of mitigation measures listed in Section 4.4.6 of the Draft SEIS/EIR,
increases in sedimentation and turbidity would be minimized and temporary.
d. Contaminant Determinations
The potential biological hazard for sediments within Folsom Reservoir stems
from mercury released into the American River and its tributaries from historic
mining activities. Chemical testing of reservoir sediment has not identified
concentrations of mercury above background in areas where in-reservoir work may
occur. There may also be residual contaminants on the downstream side of the
reservoir from the original construction of the Folsom Facility, likely as a result of
spills of petroleum products during initial construction. The soil contamination is
being handled through standard hazardous materials protocols and is not at risk of
being released into the terrestrial or aquatic environments.
In order to ensure that there are no contaminants within the proposed borrow or
fill material, BMPs listed in the Water Quality Section (Section 4.4.7) of the Draft
SEIS/EIR would be implemented. Provided these mitigation measures are
implemented by the contractor, there would be minimal impacts to aquatic resources
from contaminants.
Because the other practicable build alternative involves the use of borrow
material, the impacts from contaminants to the aquatic ecosystem would be similar.
The no action alternative would result in no impacts due to potential contaminants.
e. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations
(1) Effects on Plankton
Plankton are drifting organisms that inhabit the pelagic zone of oceans, seas, or
bodies of fresh water. Construction of the project would be temporary and short
termed. Effects to plankton would be temporary and not significant.
(2) Effects on Benthos
15
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Benthic organisms are found in the benthic zone which is the ecological region at
the lowest level of a body of water such as an ocean or a lake, including the sediment
surface and some sub-surface layers. Dredging may initially result in the complete
removal of benthic organisms from the excavation site. However, recovery would
occur relatively quickly since the discharge material is from the same parent source.
Benthic organisms will be smothered by the discharge of excavated material at
disposal areas; however, benthic organisms from adjacent habitat would recolonize
substrate material in the disposal areas. Additional information on impacts to benthic
organisms is in Section 4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
(3) Effects on Nekton
Nekton are of actively swimming aquatic organisms. Descriptions of fish and
other aquatic resources are from Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR.
Folsom Reservoir inundates approximately 12,000 acres of the North Fork, South
Fork, and main stem of the American River. Although the maximum depth of the
reservoir is 266 feet just behind Folsom Dam, most of the reservoir is shallower,
averaging 66 feet in depth. The reservoir has about 75 miles of shoreline. The
waters of Folsom Reservoir stratify in the warmer months from April through
November, with a layer of warmer water known as the epilimnion sitting on top of a
bottom layer of cold water known as the hypolimnion.
Nimbus Dam is located about 6 miles downstream of Folsom Dam and inundates
the American River for most of this reach, creating Lake Natoma. Anadromous
fish, such as Chinook salmon and steelhead can access about 23 miles of the lower
American River downstream of Nimbus Dam but do not ascend the river beyond
Nimbus Dam. The Nimbus Hatchery was constructed as a mitigation hatchery for
the original Folsom Dam project.
Habitat within Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma allow for a diverse
assemblage of native and introduced fish species to coexist. Folsom Reservoir is
managed as a two-story fishery, with cold-water fishes such as trout inhabiting the
hypolimnion and warm water fishes such as bass and sunfish inhabiting the
epilimnion and shoreline areas. Two cold water fisheries for rainbow trout and
Chinook salmon are actively maintained through a stocking program.
The Folsom Reservoir provides habitat for game fish such as: Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawytcha), Brown Trout
(Salmo trutta), Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), Redear sunfish (Lepomis
microlophus), Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), White crappie (Promoxis
annularis), Black crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus), Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), Brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), White catfish (Ictalurus catus), and Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus). Native, non-game fishes present within the project area
include: Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), Sacramento pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus grandis), California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento
16
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and Riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus). Introduced,

non-game fishes common to the Folsom Reservoir include: Threadfin shad
(Dorosoma pretenense) and Wakasagi smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis),
The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 11.5
acres of potential fish habitat. In addition, construction activities could result in
adverse impacts to habitat from an increase in suspended sediments and turbidity
associated with the proposed project. Impacts to habitat can be minimized through
the use of BMPs and other mitigation measures proposed which are described in
Section 4.4.7. Provided the proposed mitigation measures and compensatory
mitigation are conducted, the proposed project would have minimal impacts on fish
and aquatic wildlife habitat.
Due to the common footprints of the other practicable build alternative, the
impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms would be the same as for the proposed
project. The no-action alternative would result in no losses of habitat for fish and
other aquatic organisms.
(4) Effects on Aquatic Food Web
Description of ecological effects is taken from Section 4.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR.
Excessive turbidity in aquatic systems can lead to light altered regimes that can
directly affect primary productivity, species distribution, behavior, foraging,
reproduction and survival of aquatic biota (Wilber and Clarke 2001). Aquatic
system productivity can also be reduced. As an indirect effect, the suppression of
aquatic productivity is not as apparent as direct effects on larger organisms.
Sustained turbidity can cause the shading of primary phytoplankton, zooplankton
and invertebrates which serve as food for smaller fish, and larval fish upon which
game fish forage (Lloyd 1987). Sufficient turbidity can result in direct lethal or
sublethal effects on fish (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). An increase of
resuspended dissolved or particulate organic carbon from the sediment may
decrease dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Reduction in DO availability for
aquatic species causes reduced oxygen uptake. Turbidity can clog fish and
amphibian gills and cause physical abrasion to the level of sub-lethal or lethal
effect. Settling of suspended sediment can coat fish and amphibian eggs,
reducing or eliminating DO uptake required for development or survival.
Implementation of BMPs and other mitigation measures proposed (Section
4.5.6.) would result in minimal impacts on fish and aquatic wildlife habitat.
Due to the common footprints and similar construction methods of the other
practicable build alternative, the impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms
would be the same as for the proposed project.
17
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
The no-action alternative would result in no effect fish and other aquatic
organisms.
(5) Effects on Special Aquatic Sites
(a) Sanctuaries and Refuges
No sanctuaries and refuges are within the project area.
(b) Wetlands
Wetland vegetative communities were mapped inside the reservoirinfluenced zone. The wetland area within the project area is seasonal.
These communities experience wetland hydrology for a limited period of
time, although it may be for long enough duration to develop indicators of
wetland soil and hydrology and to seasonally host hydric vegetation.
Additionally, wetlands are found below the ordinary high water mark of
466 feet.
The proposed project would involve the discharge of material into
approximately 2.5 acres of wetlands on the project site. This would cause
the permanent loss of 2.5 acres of wetlands for the disposal of material.
(c) Mud Flats
No mud flats are within the project area.
(d) Vegetated Shallows
No vegetated shallows are within the project area.
(e) Coral Reefs
No coral reefs are within the project area.
(f) Riffle and Pool Complexes
No riffle and pool complexes are within the project area.
(6) Threatened and Endangered Species
The proposed activity may affect Federally-listed and California- listed
endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. Chapter 3 Section 13 and
Chapter 4 Section 13 of the Draft SEIS/EIR discuss Federal and State listed species
in detail. If the proposed Dike 8 disposal site would be used during project
construction, formal consultation would be initiated with USFWS pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and with CDFG pursuant to the California
Endangered Species Act. Habitat exists for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
and, white-tailed kites.
Use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area would result in direct and indirect
effects to the four elderberry shrubs. Direct effects would include removal or
18
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
trimming of the shrubs. Indirect effects, if the shrubs are not removed, would
include physical vibration and an increase in dust during disposal activities. These
effects would be considered significant, unless the mitigation is implemented.
Use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area could potentially result in direct and
indirect effects to the white-tailed kite if they begin nesting in the area. Construction
activities in the vicinity of a nest have the potential to result in forced fledging or
nest abandonment by adult kites. Therefore, if present, the white-tailed kite could be
adversely affected by use of the disposal site.
Prior to use of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area, preconstruction surveys would
be conducted to determine if there are nests present within 1,000 feet of the disposal
area. If the survey determines that there are active nests in the project area, CDFG
would be contacted to determine the proper course of action. If necessary, a buffer
would be delineated and the nests would be monitored during construction activities.
With coordination and mitigation, as discussed below, it is anticipated that effects to
white-tailed kite would be less than significant.
The no action alternative would not result in direct impacts to endangered and/or
threatened species.
(7) Other Wildlife
The project could have short-term effects on resident mammals, birds, reptiles,
and amphibians. Noise from construction equipment and increased human presence
could temporarily displace some wildlife, and temporary alteration of riparian and
aquatic habitat would occur.
Species utilizing the project area should be accustomed to the noise and activity
of the area, due to the long-term nature of the Folsom JFP. The construction of the
approach channel, transload facility, and spur dike would not increase disturbance to
the areas wildlife species beyond current operations, with the exception of the
increase of in-water work associated with the approach channel excavation, which
has the potential to affect acquatic species.
To ensure that there would be no effect to migratory birds, preconstruction
surveys would be conducted, if needed, in and around the project area. If any
migratory birds are found, a protective buffer would be delineated, and USFWS and
CDFG would be consulted for further actions. Recommendations proposed by the
USFWS in their Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report are listed in Section
4.15.
The majority of the project area is previously disturbed due to ongoing Folsom
JFP construction. The previously undisturbed areas include the in-reservoir disposal
site and Dike 8. The in-reservoir disposal site has no vegetation associated with it,
and consists of open water habitat.
The Dike 8 disposal area consists of up to 15.8 acres of currently undisturbed
habitat. Use of the Dike 8 disposal area would result in the permanent loss of 6.1
19
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
acres of ruderal herbaceous, 4.2 acres of oak savannah, and 2.5 acres of transitional
wetland habitats on the waterside of the dike. On the landside of the dike, 3.0 acres
of primarily disturbed, non-native grasslands would be permanently lost and up to 30
trees may be removed. A detailed analysis of impacts to vegetation is in Section
4.12. The loss of vegetation habitat would be potentially significant, however, with
the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, impacts would be
considered less than significant.
In order to preemptively avoid direct effects to amphibian and wetland species,
the culvert under the haul route that allows the flooding of the Dike 8 area would be
closed during low water levels prior to use of the Dike 8 area. As a result, this area
would not flood, and the seasonal habitat would not be created for these species
during the construction period. Since the flooding of this area fluctuates depending
on reservoir levels, and does not annually flood, this would be considered a less than
significant direct impact on these wildlife species. However, since the loss of the
transitional wetland habitat would likely be permanent, this long-term habitat loss
would be considered a significant indirect effect to these species, as they would no
longer be able to seasonally access this habitat. As a result, mitigation for the
permanent loss of transitional wetland habitat would be required.
.
The other practicable build alternative would occupy similar footprints; therefore,
result in similar impacts to wildlife. The no action alternative would result in
nodirect impacts to endangered and/or threatened species.
Many mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic
environment, as well as, compensatory mitigation measures in order to compensate
for unavoidable impacts are proposed. Mitigation measures is listed in Section 4.4.7
of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The Folsom Reservoir is a man-made facility that is well regulated. While many
fish species currently inhabit the reservoir, a majority of them are either stocked in
the reservoir and/or are non-native species. The proposed project would cause the
placement of fill material into approximately 113.0 acres of waters of the U.S.,
including 110.5 acres of open water habitat.
Although it would result in the placement of fill material into 22 acres of open
waters of the U.S, the spur dike would not cause the permanent loss of functions
and/or values of the water. The net loss of functions and services of aquatic resources
due to the spur dike is 9 acres of surface waters that would be converted to upland.
The proposed location of the spur dike is adjacent to previous fill placed by
Reclamation. Reclamation is required to construct approximately 10 acres of riparian
wetland habitat for compensatory mitigation to impacts to open water habitat. The
20
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
compensatory mitigation required for the impacts by Reclamation is sufficient to

compensate for the Corps' impacts from the construction of the spur dike.
Compensatory mitigation has already been required to off-set those losses of
functions at the Overlook. The additional fill from the spur dike will not result in
additional acreage impacts or losses in functions that have not been already accounted
for. The Corps will be required to assist Reclamation with their mitigation
requirements to ensure the 10 acres of riparian wetlands would be initiated by 2013.
The discharge of dredge materials would temporarily impact approximately 85
acres of waters of the U.S. The haul road embankment and transload facility are
temporary project elements and would be removed after three to four years. Through
the incorporation of mitigation measures which would require the restoration of
temporary impact zones, impacts would be minimal. However, the Corps would also
assist Reclamation to create an additional 2 to 5 acres of riparian wetlands at
Mississippi Bar to compensate for temporal losses from these elements.
It has been determined that the ordinary high water mark of the Folsom Reservoir
is at 466 elevation, which is the upper limit of the fluctuation zone for the Folsom
Reservoir. However, Attachment 2 shows a graph showing the Folsom Dam
Reservoir Water Surface Elevations between 1955 and 2005. This document shows
the percentage of time that the Folsom Reservoir water levels are over a certain
elevation. According to the table, the water level within the reservoir only reaches
the 466 elevation approximately 1.1% of the time. In addition, almost 50% of the
time, the reservoir is above the 429 elevation, and 100% of the time is above the
347 elevation.
The proposed fill material at Dike 8 would generally be placed between the
reservoir elevation of 420-feet and 460-feet. Based on Attachment 2, the fill material
would be under water and suitable for fish habitat between approximately 1% and
68% of the time, with the majority of the fill material being suitable fish habitat less
than 50% of the time. In addition, the proposed fill material, which would consist of
primarily gravel and cobble material, and would have only minor impacts to aquatic
wildlife habitat.
Therefore, a mitigation ratio of less than 1:1 for compensatory mitigation is
appropriate to mitigate for losses to fish habitat function of the Folsom Reservoir.
However, because the areas to be filled would provide suitable fish habitat for an
average of 50% of the time, compensation for the loss of functions of the Folsom
Reservoir related to fish habitat is required.
If Dike 8 is used as a disposal area then the Corps would purchase 2.5 acres of
seasonal wetlands at an approved bank to compensate for the loss of fish habitat
function. In the event that mitigation is not initiated within a two-year period, the
mitigation ratios would increase by 0.5:1 if initiated within two to five years, and by
1:1 if mitigation is initiated more than five years after the impacts occur.
21
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Although this mitigation is off-site and out-of-kind mitigation, it would

compensate for losses at Folsom Reservoir, and would provide valuable fish and
wildlife habitat at an alternate location. The off-site mitigation would provide fish
and wildlife habitat within an area that is not heavily regulated for flood control and
water supply, which would provide more benefits to fish and wildlife species than
additional mitigation within the Folsom Reservoir. The proposed off-site mitigation
would be sufficient to compensate for the losses of function at the Folsom Reservoir
due to the proposed project.
In addition, 33 C.F.R. Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources (Mitigation Rule) gives preference to the use of mitigation banks.
Currently, there is one mitigation bank that has seasonal wetland credits available to
compensate for the impacts associated with Dike 8.
The contractor will avoid impacts to native trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation to
the greatest extent possible and that construction is implemented in a manner that
minimizes disturbance of such areas to the extent feasible. Temporary fencing shall
be used during construction to prevent disturbance of native trees that are located
adjacent to construction areas but can be avoided. The contractor will coordinate
with Corps Biologist prior to beginning work. Any native trees or shrubs removed at
Dike 8 with a diameter at breast height of 2 inches or greater should be replaced onsite, in-kind with container plantings so that the combined diameter of the container
plantings is equal to the combined diameter of the trees removed. These replacement
plantings should be monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to be
established and self-sustaining.
All revegetated or disturbed areas would be monitored annually by the Corps for
invasive non-native plant species, particularly French broom and pampas grass, for
five years following completion of construction, with the assistance of a qualified
botanist. If invasive species are becoming established on areas disturbed by project
activities during the five-year period, invasive species would be removed at times that
preclude the plants from setting new seed.
f. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations

(1) Mixing Zone Size Determination
The proposed project would involve placement of dredged material, which
would be removed from the construction of the approach channel as well as the
proposed dredge material disposal site, below the ordinary high water mark of the
Folsom Reservoir. Some work may be conducted within open waters of the Folsom
Reservoir. Because the excavated material would be granitic in nature, and
appropriate BMPs, including silt fencing and/or silt curtains, would be implemented
these impacts would be minimal.
22
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
Alternative 3 would result in the excavation and placement of less dredge

material than the proposed alternative, and therefore would cause fewer impacts to
the mixing zone. Alternative 2, would involve the excavation and placement of more
fill material than the proposed alternative, however, because the material that would
be placed would be granitic in nature and because BMPs would be utilized, the
impacts of these alternatives on the mixing zone would be minimal.
The no action/no project alternative would result in no impacts to the mixing zone.
(2) Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards
The fill material would not violate Environmental Protection Agency or State
water quality standards or violate the primary drinking water standards of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f - 300j). Project design, standard construction and
erosion practices would preclude the introduction of substances into surrounding
waters.
The proposed project would not affect existing or potential water supplies, nor
would the other alternatives, including the no-action alternative.
(3) Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
a) Municipal and Private Water Supplies
The fill material would not violate Environmental Protection Agency or
State water quality standards or violate the primary drinking water
standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f 300j).
Project design, standard construction and erosion practices would preclude
the introduction of substances into surrounding waters. Materials removed
for disposal off-site would be disposed of in an appropriate landfill or
other upland area.
b) Recreation and Commercial Fisheries
The Folsom Reservoir is heavily used for recreational fishing for both
warm and cold water fish such as rainbow trout, brown trout, black bass,
catfish, crappie, and bluegill. A description of these game fish was given in
Fisheries, Section 3.5. The proposed project could affect recreational fisheries
in the project area, as temporary access restriction may be necessary at some
locations while construction is occurring. Proposed mitigation measures are
located in Section 4.5.6 in the Draft SEIS/EIR, including providing advanced
notification to the public of any closures, and directing the public to
alternative lake access sites for recreational fisheries. The proposed
mitigation measures for notifying recreational users of closures and to
minimize impacts from suspended sediments and turbidity, as well as the
proposed compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of fish and habitat
would reduce potential impacts to recreational fisheries to less than minimal.
23
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
The other practicable build alternative to the proposed project would result
in similar impacts to recreational fisheries; although Alternatives 3 would
likely cause a slight increase in these impacts, since the cofferdam has the
potential to entrap a larger number of fish. The no-action alternative would
result in no impacts to recreational fisheries.
c) Water-related recreation
In addition to recreational fishing, Folsom Reservoir is a popular location for
picnicking, swimming and boating. Temporary access restrictions may be
necessary at some locations while construction and excavation is occurring.
The public will be notified in advance of any closures and will be directed to
alternative lake access sites for recreational opportunities. The reservoir itself
would not be closed during construction and the public would be allowed
access to launch boats and are expected to continue recreational activities.
Therefore, the impacts to other water related recreation from the proposed
project would be less than minimal. Additional information on recreation is in
Section 4.7 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
All of the practicable build alternatives would have similar impacts to
other water related recreation as the proposed alternative. The no-action
alternative would result in no impacts to other water related recreation.
d) Aesthetics
The project site is within a reservoir that was created through the
construction of 4 dams and 8 dikes. In addition, the area surrounding the
Folsom Reservoir is a growing urban development with electric transmission
facilities, industrial areas, and residential subdivisions and roadways.
Although the manmade reservoir was created for flood control, water
supply and power generation, and there is a growing urban development near
the site, the resulting waterfront setting gives a dramatic panorama of the
water and the surrounding natural landscape. These resources include a
combination of views in which the reservoir forms the dominant foreground
element and the surrounding Sierra Foothills landscape forms the background,
as well as distinctive landscape and built features. Because of the large
fluctuations in the water level within the Folsom Reservoir (up to 70 feet in a
year), the reservoir sides are void of vegetation. Therefore, as the water levels
within the reservoir decrease during the dry season, so does the quality of the
visual aesthetic along the 85 miles of coast within the Folsom Reservoir.
The proposed project would temporarily negatively affect the aesthetics of
the area during construction. The proposed project site would consists of
exposed piles of soil, gravel and rock, large amounts of construction
equipment, a haul road within the reservoir, and excavation sites. In addition,
there would be a loss of waters within the project site which could negatively
24
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
affect the aesthetics of the Folsom Reservoir. Finally, the approach channel
and spur dike would permanently alter the aesthetics of the site, as it would
convert the area into open water and upland areas.
The impacts to the aesthetics within the project area due to construction
activities would be temporary, and would mainly affect only those that live
adjacent to the reservoir and visitors. However, because these impacts would
be temporary and the site already consists of man-made structures, it is
expected that these impacts would be minor. Although the approach channel
would change the aesthetics of the area, the proposed project would convert a
current construction area into an area of open water, which would not
negatively affect the aesthetics of the area. Additional information on
aesthetics is in Section 4.6 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The other practicable build alternative to the proposed project would cause
similar impacts to the aesthetics of the area, while the no-action alternative
would not alter the aesthetics and therefore would have no impacts.
e) Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness
Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves.
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA) is managed by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. This area attracts
approximately a million visitors annually for boating, swimming, hiking,
biking, equestrian activities, and picnicking. Additional information on
recreation is in Section 3.7 of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
Proposed mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts of the
proposed project on the state recreation area are located in Section 4.4.6 in the
Draft SEIS/EIR. These mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of the
proposed project on the state recreation area to minimal.
The other practicable build alternative would result in the potential for
similar impacts, although Alternative 3 would likely cause slightly greater
impacts, as it would involve the excavation of a larger quantity of material due
to the removal of the cofferdam. The no action alternative would not affect
the current state recreation area.
g. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
The proposed project would permanently impact approximately 11.5 acres
of waters of the U.S., including the permanent loss of approximately 10.5
acres of open water and 2.5 acres of transitional wetlands. Impacts would be
minimized to these waters through the use of BMPs. In order to compensate
for the loss of these waters, 2.5 acres of seasonal wetlands would be
purchased at a USFWS approved mitigation site. In addition, in order to
25
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. the Corps is

proposing to assist Reclamation in developing 10 acres of riparian habitat
within the Folsom Reservoir. Because of the amount of waters of the U.S.
existing within the analysis area and the proposed and completed mitigation
measures, cumulative impacts of the proposed project are expected to be
minor.
h. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
Secondary impacts to the proposed project area could include: the
discharge of fill material outside of the proposed project area, an increase in
contaminants from vehicles parking at the Overlook, vehicles accessing the
Folsom Reservoir via the haul roads, an increase in animal predation, and
adverse impacts from future maintenance activities at the project site.
The proposed project could result in the unintentional placement of dredge
and/or fill material outside of the proposed project area. This could result in
additional adverse impacts to water quality, erosion and accretion patterns,
aquatic and other wildlife habitat, recreation, aesthetics and air quality. In
order to minimize impacts associated with the placement of fill material
outside the proposed project area, a special condition would require that the
contractor mark the project boundaries, and that all work be conducted either
when the project area is dewatered or that the contractor install erosion control
(i.e. silt fencing, silt curtains) within any standing waters.
At the spur dike location, fill material from the approach channel
excavation, is proposed to to induce a free, even flow of water into the
approach channel. The spur dike could have the indirect effect of causing an
increase in runoff and contamination within Folsom Reservoir from vehicles
parking at the Overlook. Although these activities may increase
contamination in Folsom Reservoir from petroleum products, it is likely that
these vehicles would be associated with the operation and maintenance of the
Folsom Facility and would already be located at one of the additional parking
areas and/or access points to Folsom Reservoir. Therefore, these impacts are
expected to be minor and not significant.
The proposed project may also cause the indirect effect of increasing
predation of animals. Because the proposed project would cause permanent
impacts to approximately 11.5 acres of the 175 acres of waters of the U.S. that
were identified within the project area, this would lead to the conversion of
open water and wetlands that contain wildlife habitat, to areas cleared of
vegetation. Therefore, any small mammals, avian species and other wildlife
that use these cleared areas as transportation corridors may face a greater risk
of predation from other animals. However, because these areas are a small
percent of the overall project area, and because it is unlikely that wildlife
26
APPENDIX D
October 2012
FOLSOM JFP
Approach Channel
would use these cleared areas as habitat, it is expected that these impacts
would not be significant.
III.
Findings of Compliance or Non-Compliance with the Restrictions on

Discharge
(1) No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this
evaluation.
(2) No practicable alternative exists which meets the study objectives that does
not involve discharge of fill into waters of the United States.
(3) The discharges of fill materials will not cause or contribute to, after
consideration of disposal site dilution and dispersion, violation of any
applicable State water quality standards for waters. The discharge operations
will not violate the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean
Water Act.
(4) The placement of fill materials in the project area(s) will not jeopardize the
continued existence of any species listed as threatened or endangered or
result in the likelihood of destruction or adverse modification of any critical
habitat as specified by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(5) The placement of fill materials will not result in significant adverse effects on
human health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies,
recreational and commercial fishing, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special
aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic species and other wildlife will not be
adversely affected. Significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem
diversity, productivity and stability, and recreational, aesthetic, and economic
values will not occur.
(6) Appropriate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on
aquatic systems will be implemented.
(7) On the basis of the guidelines the proposed disposal site for the discharge of
dredged material is specified as complying with the requirements of the
guidelines with the inclusion of appropriate and practicable conditions to
minimize pollution or adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem.
27
APPENDIX D
October 2012
Folsom Lake Elevations (1984-2011)

470.00
1984
1985
1986
- 1 987
1988
- 1989
1990
1991
-1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
- 2000
-2001
2002
2003
2004
-2005
2006
2007
-2008
2009
2010
2011
460.00
450.00
440.00
430.00
420.00
llO
00
~ 410.00
E
I:
0
400.00
=
(C
>
~ 390.00
380.00
370.00
360.00
350.00
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
DES
Appendix E
Peak Underwater Blast Pressures
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE
28 November 2012
Project: Folsom JFP Phase IV

Subject: Peak underwater blast pressures
Overview
The Phase IV contractor will conduct a significant volume of excavation in-the-wet utilizing underwater blasting
methodologies. Based on assumed but reasonable initial blast parameters and characteristics of what is expected to
take place during the excavation of the approach channel, the attenuation of unmitigated peak pressures of a
confined underwater blast can be estimated in the following chart.
As shown above, the recommended allowable maximum pressure for fish protection of 14.5 psi is reached at
approximately 800 feet from the blast origin. Similarly, the recommended allowable maximum pressure for human
protection of 5.8 psi is reached at approximately 2,000 feet from the blast origin. Both allowable pressures are
Imperial unit equivalents of established Australian standards.
Conclusion
An underwater pressure of 14.5 psi at 800 feet from the blast origin is of greater distance than the previous
assumption made of the same pressure at 350 feet used for fisheries assessment in the draft SEIS/EIR. However,
the change in distance is not significant and will not affect the proposed mitigation for fisheries impacts: restocking of
fish upon completion of the project (which will take place in Phase V).
Jeffrey B. Wisniewski, PE
Technical Lead
CESPK-ED-JF
References:
AS 2187.2-2006, Explosives Storage and use Use of explosives
Email correspondence with Greg Hempen re: Miami Harbor project
Appendix F
Preliminary Dredging Feasibility Memo
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Sacramento District
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project

Folsom Dam, CA
1300 Clay Street, 7th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612
Tel. 510 839 8972
Fax. 510 839 9715
www.gerwick.com
Approach Channel Excavation - Preliminary Engineering

Assessment of Dredging Feasibility
Introduction
An auxiliary spillway adjacent to Folsom Dam has been selected to meet the objectives of the Folsom
Modification authorized project. The proposed spillway consists of a 1,100-ft long approach channel
into Folsom reservoir, a gated control structure including six submerged tainter gates, a 3,000-ft long
spillway chute, and a stilling basin. Flows from the auxiliary spillway empty into the American River
about 1,500-ft downstream of the main dam.
Both the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are
participating in this project. USBR is responsible for the excavation of the spillway chute and stilling
basin and is doing a partial excavation for the control structure. The USACE is responsible for the
final excavation for the gated control structure and the approach channel, as well as the construction
of the concrete structures.
The project is being phased such that the excavation and construction of the gated control structure is
done using the existing topography and natural rock formation as a natural dam or plug. After the control structure becomes operational, final excavation of the approach channel will be performed, which
will include removal of soil and rock by excavation in the dry and dredging.
The present memorandum summarizes a preliminary feasibility assessment of dredging operations
with emphasis on turbidity control. It also outlines additional turbidity analyses and evaluations that
will be performed as it relates to dredging and in-lake disposal of dredged materials for the excavation
of the Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway approach channel.
Dredging and Disposal Operations
Dredging would take place in connection with the construction of both permanent and temporary features of the project. Dredging is currently planned for the following project features:
Auxiliary spillway approach channel

Document no.
2010-046-dredge01
Version
1.0
Date of issue
June 19, 2012
Prepared
CXB
Checked
MPJ
Approved
MKOS
2/3
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom Dam, CA.
Temporary rock embankment foundation
Spur dike foundation
Transload facility at Dike 7.
The dredging methods envisioned include:
Hydraulic dredging using small portable units
Mechanical dredging using a water crane-operated clamshell and/or a barge-mounted long

reach hydraulic excavator.
The rock formation in the approach channel prism will require underwater drilling and blasting prior
to dredging the material for subsequent disposal. Disposal of dredged materials could be in-lake and
upland, or a combination thereof.
In-lake disposal would be practical for the soft sediment/soil layer overlaying the rock formation and
for the final clean-up of the final invert of the approach channel. The in-lake disposal area is planned
to be located in the Dike 7 vicinity. If hydraulically dredged, the discharge line length would then be
less than one mile. In addition, the final clean-up to remove rock fragments that remain following
production dredging on the floor of the approach channel would be disposed of in-lake. It is anticipated the clean-up would be performed hydraulically.
Suitable dredged material may be placed in the prism of the Spur dike and north of the existing Overlook area. The placement in this area would be a combination of in-lake and upland operations.
Turbidity Control Measures
To limit the turbidity in the lake to acceptable levels, a series of silt curtains could be applied to encircle all dredging and disposal operations. Considering that the currents in the lake are low, full depth
silt curtains would be an effective method to mitigate the migration of suspended solids.
From an operational standpoint the silt curtains would require deployment to permit marine equipment ingress and egress. The silt curtain system is anticipated to have movable gates. This system
may consist of primary disposal gated containment and an access/transition zone gated containment.
To quantify the effectiveness of plausible silt curtain layouts and material specification, a turbidity
analysis/plume analysis would be performed to quantify the expected turbidity from dredging and marine operations.
Turbidity Analysis
A turbidity analysis would be performed that quantifies the turbidity intensity in zones within and
outside of the silt curtain. The analysis would consider:
P:\2010\2010-46\reports\12000\Dredging\Folsom Dredging Feasibility Assessment Rev 1.0.docx

.
3/3
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom Dam, CA.
1. The nature of the dredged materials, grain size distribution and fines content.
2. Anticipated types of marine equipment used for dredging and disposal operations.
3. Anticipated method(s) of dredging and disposal.
4. Silt curtain containments with a series of encirclements to isolate the disposal, transition and
entry zones.
5. Anticipated marine operations such as material transport/tows to facilitate dredging and disposal of dredged material.
Preliminary Dredging Feasibility Evaluation
From a constructability point of view, Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. finds that the planned approach channel
excavation can be performed in compliance with environmental turbidity requirements by confining
the zones where dredging and in-lake disposal of dredged materials would take place. The confinement of areas with higher turbidity would be achieved by deployment of fixed and moveable silt curtains during the dredging operations.
P:\2010\2010-46\reports\12000\Dredging\Folsom Dredging Feasibility Assessment Rev 1.0.docx

.
Appendix G
Traffic Technical Analysis

Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum
Sacramento, CA
Draft
February 2012
U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
Section 2.0 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 4
2.1
2.2
2.3
Level of Service Description ............................................................ 4

Road Segment Level of Service Standards and Methodology ........ 4
Assessment Periods and Criteria .................................................... 5
Section 3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 7

3.1
3.2
Existing Roadway Network ............................................................. 7

Existing Level of Service Analysis ................................................. 10
Section 4.0 Project Description ................................................................................. 12

4.1
4.2
4.3
Alternative B .................................................................................. 12
Alternative C.................................................................................. 12
Project Trips Generation and Distribution ..................................... 12
Section 5.0 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................ 16

Section 6.0 Project Alternatives Analysis ................................................................. 18
6.1
6.2
Alternative B .................................................................................. 18
Alternative C.................................................................................. 24
Section 7.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 30

Section 8.0 References ................................................................................................. 1

Phase 4
Table of Contents
Acronyms
USACE
ADT
Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans
CEQA
EA
Environmental Assessment
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
HCM
Highway Capacity Manual
I-80
Interstate 80
LOS
Level of Service
NEPA
National Environmental Protection Act
Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

SACOG
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SR
State Route
Tables
Table 1. LOS Thresholds ................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Existing LOS Results ....................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Distribution of Labor Force .............................................................................. 13
Table 5. Existing and Baseline LOS Results ................................................................. 17
Table 6. 2013 Baseline and Alternative B Project LOS Results .................................... 19
Table 10. 2017 Baseline and Project Alternative B LOS Results .................................. 23
Table 11. 2013 Baseline and Project Alternative C LOS Results .................................. 25
Phase 4
ii
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Proposed Project Routes .............................................................................. 15

Phase 4
iii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
URS Corporation has been contracted to evaluate the potential traffic effects associated
with project alternatives for the construction of the Folsom Approach Channel Project or
the project and recommend potential mitigation measures to reduce traffic effects.
Based on the results of the traffic effect assessment, all project construction alternatives
were determined to generate traffic below levels of significance. Since the project would
not exceed the traffic effects thresholds, no traffic effects mitigations are explicitly
proposed.
The following measures would be implemented not as a result of direct project action
effects but rather as proactive measures customary to project construction activities.
Due to the dynamic nature of the project construction environment, the following
individual measures or combination of measures might need to be implemented in
response to the needs of the construction activities at the project site.
T-1: In conjunction with the development and review of more detailed project
design and construction specifications, a peak hour capacity analysis would be
performed on specific intersections to evaluate the need for changes to traffic
signal timing, phasing modification, provision of additional turn lanes through
restriping or physical improvements, as necessary and appropriate to reduce
project-related effects to an acceptable level. In conjunction with that
assessment, the potential need for roadway improvements or operation
modifications (i.e., temporary restrictions on turning movements, on-street
parking, etc.) to enhance roadway capacity in light of additional traffic from the
project will be evaluated. The completion of these evaluations and the
identification of specific traffic improvement measures, as deemed necessary
and appropriate in light of the temporary nature of effects, will be coordinated
with the transportation departments of the affected jurisdictions.
T-2: Construction contractor will prepare a transportation management plan,

outlining proposed routes to be approved by the appropriate local entity, and
implement it. High collision intersections will be identified and avoided if possible.
Drivers will be informed and trained on the various types of haul routes, and
areas that are more sensitive (e.g., high level of residential or education centers,
or narrow roadways).
T-3: Construction contractor will develop and utilize appropriate signage to inform
the general public of the haul routes and route changes, if applicable.

Phase 4
ES-1
Executive Summary

Phase 4
ES-2
Introduction
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report is to analyze traffic impacts
associated with the Folsom Dam Approach Channel project. This study was prepared
according to the County of Sacramento (County) and Caltrans traffic study guidelines.
The final phase of the Folsom Modification project is the completion of the approach
channel and spur dike. The preferred alternative for this phase is a cutoff wall that would
provide seepage control to the spillway excavation between the rock plug and the
control structure. The cutoff wall would be installed to maximize the in-the-dry
excavation of the rock plug.
Folsom Dam is located in the City of Folsom (City) north of US Highway 50. Figure 1
shows the project vicinity map in context to the regional circulation system.
The analysis focuses on the potential traffic effects to the surrounding roadway
circulation system and the development of mitigation measures at affected locations.
The following scenarios were typically evaluated:
Existing Conditions (2011) - Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS
analysis of affected study roadway segments.
Future 2013 Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Growth Without Construction) Peak hour LOS analysis used as Year 2013 baseline.
Future 2013 Conditions with Construction (Alternatives B and C) includes

project rip generation, distribution, and assignment during Year 2013 when
project Alternatives B and C are under construction.

project trip generation, distribution, and assignment during Year 2014 when

Phase 4
Introduction

project trip generation, distribution, and assignment during the Year 2015 when



Phase 4
Introduction
Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map

Phase 4
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Level of Service Description
The evaluation of transportation effects associated with the project focuses on capacity
analysis. A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of levels of service to
traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. The capacity analysis methodology
is based on the concepts and procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual. The concept
of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions
within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-ofservice (LOS) definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort,
convenience, and safety
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are assigned letter
designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and
LOS F the worst. Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic
flows placed upon it, such a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of service,
depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of year.
A description of the operating condition under each level of service is provided
LOS A describes conditions with little to no delay to motorists.

LOS B represents a desirable level with relatively low delay to motorists.
LOS C describes conditions with average delays to motorists.
LOS D describes operations where the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Delays are still within an acceptable range.
LOS E represents operating conditions with high delay values. This level is
considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.
LOS F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers with high delay values
that often occur, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Road Segment Level of Service Standards and Methodology

Fehr & Peers developed a listing of LOS thresholds based on daily volumes, number of
lanes and facility type as presented in Table 1 (from the Folsom Bridge EIS/EIR -Corps
2006b). These thresholds were calculated based on the HCM and will be used to
evaluate roadway segment level of service for the purposes of this project.

Phase 4
Table 1. LOS Thresholds

LOS Capacity Threshold (Total vehicles per
day in both directions)
Functional Class
Code
2-Lane Collector
2C
5,700
9,000
9,800
Minor 2-Lane Highway
MI2
900
2,000
6,800
14,100
17,400
Major 2-Lane Highway
MA2
1,200
2,900
7,900
16,000
20,500
4-Lane, Multilane Highway
MH4
10,700
17,600
25,300
32,800
36,500
2A
9,700
17,600
18,700
4-Lane Arterial, Undivided
4AU
17,500
27,400
28,900
4AD
19,200
35,400
37,400
6AD
27,100
53,200
56,000
8AD
37,200
71,100
74,700
2-Lane Arterial, moderate access control1
2AMD
10,800
12,600
14,400
16,200
18,000
4-Lane Arterial, moderate access control1
4AMD
21,600
25,200
28,800
32,400
36,000
2-Lane Arterial
6-Lane Arterial, moderate access control
6AMD
32,400
37,800
43,200
48,600
54,000
4AHD
24,000
28,000
32,000
36,000
40,000
6AHD
36,000
42,000
48,000
54,000
60,000
4F
22,200
40,200
57,600
71,400
80,200
4FA
28,200
51,000
72,800
89,800
100,700
6F
33,300
60,300
86,400 107,100
120,300
6FA
42,300
76,500 109,200 134,700
151,050
4-Lane Arterial, high access control

4-Lane Freeway2
4-Lane Freeway with Auxiliary Lanes
6-Lane Freeway
6-Lane Freeway with Auxiliary Lanes
Notes:
(1) Used to analyze roadways within County of Sacramento. LOS Capacity Thresholds from Traffic
Impact Analysis Guidelines, County of Sacramento, July 2004
(2) Includes mixed flow lanes only. HOV lanes and volumes are excluded from the analysis because a
review of existing HOV counts and forecasts showed the HOV lanes to be operating under capacity.
Assessment Criteria
Transportation effects associated with the project are evaluated in two ways; one
regarding average daily traffic and the other in terms of specific time periods during the
day (i.e., hourly basis, as needed). The analysis is based on the following criteria:
Material hauling activity will occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 7pm.
Equipment hauling activity will occur during normal work hours, from 7am to 7pm.

Phase 4
The construction schedule would be 10 hrs a day, 6 days per week, except
dredging and underwater drilling for which double shifts. The 24 hours shifts
schedule may be requested under special requirements to meet the schedule, or
other special circumstances; double shifts schedule would be temporary and
short-term.
The first component of the traffic impact analysis is an evaluation of the increase in
traffic volumes on a daily basis. Most of the thresholds in the area focus on whether the
existing LOS along a roadway is degraded by one or more letter grades due to projectrelated traffic, (i.e., LOS C to LOS D or worse). However, when a facility is already
experiencing a LOS F, the Sacramento County guidelines illustrate that an increase in
the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.05 is also of concern. Therefore, only
those roadways that are expected to experience LOS deterioration, or currently operate
at LOS F and would experience an increase in the V/C ratio of more the 0.05 due to the
project would typically be evaluated for hourly impacts, which is normally the second
component of detailed traffic impact analysis conducted for a specific project.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides general guidance that can be considered
in determining whether a project would result in a significant impact related to
transportation/traffic. Considerations identified therein include the following:
Would the project:
A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
E. Result in inadequate emergency access?
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
G. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Relative to the project, the CEQA considerations presented above, with the exception of
Criterion C (i.e., none of the alternatives would have any influence on air traffic
patterns), and the local significance thresholds presented earlier in Table 1 were taken
into account in evaluating whether the projects traffic impacts are significant.

Phase 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing study area roadway circulation system, key study
intersections and roadways segments, existing daily roadway and peak hour
intersection traffic volume information and LOS analysis results for existing conditions.
Existing Roadway Network
Folsom Boulevard
Folsom Boulevard is functionally classified as a divided arterial and provides northsouth access between the cities of Auburn to the north and Folsom to the south.
Headed north from the US Highway 50 Interchange, Folsom Boulevard is a six-lane
divided roadway to Iron Point Road. At Iron Point Road, the northbound side is reduced
to two lanes while the southbound side maintains 3 lanes. At Natoma Station Drive, the
southbound side of Folsom Boulevard also is reduced to two lanes. From Natoma
Station Drive to Blue Ravine Road/Auburn-Folsom Road, Folsom Boulevard is a fourlane divided roadway. The speed limit is posted at 50 miles per hour (mph). Land use
along much of the roadway is predominantly commercial.
Auburn-Folsom Road
Auburn-Folsom Road is functionally classified as an undivided arterial and provides
north-south access between the cities of Auburn to the north and Folsom to the south.
Beginning at the intersection of Greenback Lane/Riley Street/Folsom Boulevard,
Auburn-Folsom Road is a four-lane divided roadway. Heading north, Auburn-Folsom
Road continues with two lanes in each direction, becoming an undivided roadway
outside of the City of Folsom limits, to its intersection with Folsom Dam Road.
Continuing north, Auburn-Folsom Road narrows to one lane in each direction, crosses
the Sacramento/Placer county line, and remains a two-lane undivided roadway to the
Douglas Boulevard intersection. The speed limit is posted at 50 miles mph. Land use
along Auburn-Folsom Road is mixed; commercial, residential and light industrial,
however in downtown Folsom the land use becomes mainly commercial.
Douglas Boulevard
Douglas Boulevard is an east-west roadway and is functionally classified as a divided
arterial. Between Sierra College Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road, Douglas
Boulevard consists of two lanes in each direction. Continuing east, it further narrows to
a two-lane undivided roadway. Land uses along much of the roadway are offices and
commercial to Sierra College Boulevard; residential/vacant/open space with limited
commercial between Sierra College Boulevard and Auburn-Folsom Road; and primarily
residential east of Auburn-Folsom Road. Douglas Boulevard west of Interstate 80 is two
lanes in each direction through heavily developed and densely populated areas.
Blue Ravine Road

Phase 4
Blue Ravine Road is an east-west roadway connecting Folsom Boulevard to East

Natoma Street. It is classified as an arterial. Between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City
Road/Sibley Street, Blue Ravine Road consists of three lanes in each direction. East of
Sibley Street, Blue Ravine Road narrows to two lanes in each direction to the
intersection of Joerganson Road and then continues east varying between one-lane and
two-lane configurations to East Natoma Street/Green Valley Road. Blue Ravine Road is
classified as a divided arterial. The speed limit is 45 mph and the roadway is posted as
a local truck route. Land uses along much of the roadway are mixed commercial/office
with dense residential along its full length.
East Natoma Street
Natoma Street is an east-west roadway in the City of Folsom. It is classified as an
undivided arterial. Natoma Street consists of one lane in each direction from Folsom
Boulevard to Stafford Street. East of Stafford Street, Natoma Street widens to two lanes
in each direction and continues as a four-lane undivided roadway to Fargo Way. At
Fargo Way, Natoma Street becomes East Natoma Street and continues to Folsom Dam
Road as a two-lane undivided roadway. At Folsom Dam Road, the eastbound side of
the roadway increases to two lanes; it continues as a three-lane road to Green Valley
Road/Blue Ravine Road. Natoma Street is posted at 35 mph through the City of Folsom
and then increases to 45 mph at the Prison entrance and increases again to 50 mph at
Briggs Ranch Drive. Within the downtown area, land use is mixed use
residential/commercial/office; east of Fargo Way the land use changes to
residential/recreational.
Green Valley Road
Green Valley Road is an east-west roadway that begins at the intersection with East
Natoma/Blue Ravine Road and continues east into El Dorado County. Within the
Folsom Dam area, Green Valley Road is a two-lane undivided roadway and is classified
as an undivided arterial. The speed limit is posted at 45 mph. Green Valley Road does
not have sidewalks or marked bicycle facilities. The land use along much of the
roadway is primarily residential/recreational.
Folsom Dam Road
Folsom Dam Road was closed to the public in February 2003 by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) indefinitely for reasons of security and public safety.
Subsequently a new Folsom Dam bridge and roadway alignment (Folsom Lake
Crossing Road) was constructed downstream of the dam. In March of 2009, the
construction of Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge was completed. The 1,000-foot bridge
links Folsom-Auburn Road to East Natoma Street and the newer areas of Folsom to Old
Folsom, along Folsom Lake Crossing Road.

Phase 4
Folsom Lake Crossing Road

Folsom Lake Crossing Road was formed as part of the new bridge and roadway
alignment that bypasses and replaces the previous Folsom Dam road alignment that
previously routed traffic directly over the Folsom Dam. The construction of this road
involved the realignment of East Natoma Street to link with Folsom-Auburn Road via the
new bridge just west of the dam. The balanced cantilever cast-in-place segmental
bridge is approximately 1,000 feet in length with a 430-foot center span and two 270foot connecting spans. The estimated project opening traffic was 26,000 vehicles per
day as compared to the 18,000 vehicles per day that used to traverse the dam at the
time of closure in 2003. The new bridge design and cross-section provides four travel
lanes plus bicycle lanes and could accommodate up 40,000 vehicles per day.
East Bidwell Street
East Bidwell Street is a north-south roadway that connects Highway 50 with downtown
Folsom. Within the project study area, East Bidwell Street varies between four and six
divided lanes. A marked bicycle lane and sidewalks are present along some sections of
East Bidwell Street. The roadway is classified as a divided arterial. The speed limit is
posted at 45 mph. Land use along much of the roadway is predominantly commercial
and residential.
Oak Avenue Parkway
Oak Avenue Parkway is a six-lane divided roadway. Within the project study area
between East Bidwell Street and Blue Ravine Road there are no center left turn lanes
for access to off-side driveways. All changes of direction are made at the intersections.
Oak Avenue Parkway is classified as a divided arterial. The speed limit is posted at 45
mph. Land use along much of the roadway is predominantly residential with some small
retail. Marked bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided intermittently along the
roadway.
Greenback Lane
Greenback Lane is a four-lane, divided roadway with center left turn lanes for cross
street and driveway access. It runs predominantly in an east-west direction and
connects the City of Folsom with Interstate 80 and points west. Sidewalks are present
intermittently on both sides of the roadway; there are marked bicycle facilities from
Auburn-Folsom Road to Madison Avenue. It is classified as a divided arterial. The
posted speed limit is 45 mph. The land use along much of the roadway within the study
area is predominantly residential and small commercial/retail.
Scenic Route 70
Scenic Route 70 is an east-west highway that connects Route 99 near Sacramento to
Highway 395 north of Reno, Nevada. It is part of both the California Freeway and
Expressway system and the Scenic Route system. The freeway section of Highway70
ends at the North Beale/Feather River Road exits and then continues east as a scenic
Phase 4
route. Scenic Route 70 is classified as principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 65
mph. It is a four-lane divided highway from the North Beale/Feather River Road exit
south to the junction with Highway 65.
Scenic Route 65
Scenic Route 65 is a north-south state highway composed of two sections connecting
Bakersfield to Exeter and Roseville to Yuba City. A highway section to connect the two
pieces has not been constructed. Highway 65 is part of the California Freeway and
Expressway system. The section of Highway 65 used as a regional haul route
between Highway 70 and Interstate 80 is classified as a principal arterial. It consists of
two, undivided lanes with varying shoulder width. The posted speed limit varies along
the route, from low 25-30 mph sections through higher population areas to 55-65 mph
sections through the rural/agricultural areas.
Interstate 80
Interstate 80 is the second-longest interstate highway in the United States. The section
of Interstate 80 located within the study area runs from Eureka Road to Sierra College
Boulevard in a predominantly north-south direction within the analysis area, but, in
general, is considered an east-west route. It is classified as a freeway. Interstate 80
consists of six lanes, divided by barriers, within the analysis area with
Highway 50
Highway 50 is a U.S. highway that runs from coast to coast. The section of Highway 50
located within the study area runs from Hazel Avenue to El Dorado Hills Boulevard in a
predominantly east-west direction within the analysis area. Highway 50 consists of four
lanes with two carpool lanes, divided by barriers, within the analysis area with
Existing Level of Service Analysis
The key study area roadway segments shown in Table 2 have been identified for
analysis in the traffic study.
The existing traffic data was obtained from the Control Structure EA/EIR (2010).
Existing 2010 ADTs from the Control Structure Study were increased with an annual 2%
growth rate per the methods described in Section 2.3.
LOS analyses under existing conditions were conducted using the methodologies
described in Section 2.0. Table 2 summarizes the results of the existing roadway
segment analysis. As shown in the tables, the following roadway segments are
currently operating at LOS E or F:
Douglas Boulevard Barton Rd to Folsom-Auburn Rd

Phase 4
10
Folsom-Auburn Road Douglas Blvd to Folsom Dam Rd

Folsom Boulevard Folsom Dam Rd to Greenback Ln
Folsom Boulevard Greenback Ln to Iron Point Rd
East Natoma Street Folsom Dam Rd to Green Valley Rd
Green Valley Road East Natoma St to Sophia Pwy
U.S. 50 Hazel Ave to Folsom Blvd
U.S. 50 - Folsom Blvd to East Bidwell St
U.S. 50 East Bidwell St to County line
SR-80 north of Douglas Blvd
SR-80 Douglas Blvd to Greenback Ln
SR-80 south of Greenback Ln
Table 2. Existing LOS Results

Year 2011 Traffic
Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
4AD
35,400
44,806
4AD
37,400
44,918
4AD
37,400
36,335
4AD
37,400
42,131
4AMD
36,000
26,861
East Natoma Street Cimmaron Cir to Folsom Dam Rd
4AU
28,900
18,502
4AU
28,900
30,205
4AU
28,900
35,667
Oak Avenue Parkway Blue Ravine Rd to East Bidwell St
6AD
56,000
24,744
East Bidwell Street Clarksville Rod to Iron Point Rd
6AD
56,000
43,803
Blue Ravine Road Oak Avenue Pwy to Green Valley Rd
4AD
37,400
21,734
4FA
89,800
130,183
4F
71,400
110,344
4F
71,400
91,284
4AHD
40,000
29,425
SR-80 north of Douglas Blvd1
6F
107,100
156,060
SR-80 Douglas Blvd to Greenback Ln1
6F
107,100
182,580
SR-80 south of Greenback Ln1
6F
107,100
190,000
Roadway Segment
Greenback Lane - Hazel Ave to Madison Ave

Phase 4
11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The final phase of the Folsom Modification project is the completion of the approach
channel and spur dike. A trans-load facility and concrete batch plant are necessary for
construction and discussed in detail below. Two Approach Channel alternatives are
proposed for this final phase of construction.
Alternative B
Alternative B consists of approach channel excavation with a cutoff wall. The propose
cutoff wall would be located adjacent to Folsom Lake southeast of the Left Wing Dam
and east of the Auxiliary Spillway chute excavation. The cutoff wall would provide
seepage control to the spillway excavation between the rock plug and the Control
Structure. The cutoff wall would consist of a reinforced concrete secant pile wall
installed across the width of the future approach channel. The total length of the wall
would be approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would be socketed into the underlying
highly weathered granitic rock.
Alternative C
Alternative C consists of a medium size cofferdam located downstream, near the rock
plug, at about Station 4+00. The location of the cofferdam is based on a trade-off
between cofferdam size and the amount of in-the-wet excavation. To prepare the
foundation for the cofferdam, soft materials would be dredged until the decomposed
granite is reached. Once the foundation is set, the cofferdam would be constructed as
described below. After the cofferdam is installed, the downstream area would be
dewatered. Timing would be coordinated with the completion of the control structure.
When the control structure is operational the rock plug would be excavated and the
approach channel slab and walls would be installed. Once the approach channel is
excavated to final grade the cofferdam would be removed. Any remaining materials
would be dredged using a barge-mounted clam shell or hydraulic excavator dredge until
elevation 350 is reached (that matches the slab).
Project Trips Generation and Distribution
Trip Generation
New trips have been determined by calculating the number of one-way trips (round trips
multiplied by 2) generated by quantity of materials and equipment deliveries required for
the project construction as well as trips generated by construction labor forces. Table 3
below shows the trip generation estimates for both alternatives.

Phase 4
12
Table 3. Project Trip Generation

Construction
Year
Worker
Alt B
Alt C
Aggregate
Delivery
Total
Worker
Aggregate
Delivery
Total
2013
265
265
12
256
268
2014
16
14
33
24
36
2015
40
14
58
40
10
53
2016
36
14
53
40
10
53
2017
40
256
298
48
256
306
Source: URS AQ Input parameters_v2 (January 12, 2012) Notes: Aggregate and Delivery truck traffic with 2.5 PCE.
The above trip generation assumptions were based from and consistent with the Air
Quality analysis assumptions developed from data provided by the Corps Equipment
Estimates summary dated October 31, 2011 incorporating worker commute data, onsite
vehicle movements (not included) and material and equipment delivery trips (included)
along the project study roadway segments.
Trip Distribution
The project site will receive aggregate and batch plant materials from the Tiechert
Prairie City Borrow Source located on Scott Road south of White Rock Road in
Sacramento County. Offsite materials and equipment will be delivered to the site via US
Highway 50.
Labor Force
Since 82% of the unemployed are located in Sacramento area, with 11% in Placer
County and 7% in El Dorado County. Table 4 presents the assumptions used on where
the workers are expected to originate their trips.
Table 4. Distribution of Labor Force
Rocklin area (Placer County to the north)
Worker
Distribution
5%
Roseville area (Placer County to the west)
5%
Folsom
5%
Region
El Dorado area (Green Valley Road)
2.5%
El Dorado area (US50)
2.5%
Sacramento area (I-80)
40%
Sacramento area (US50)
40%
Total
100%

Phase 4
13
Figure 2 outlines the project routes.

Phase 4
14
Figure 2. Proposed Project Routes

Phase 4
15
BASELINE CONDITIONS
This section will evaluate the performance of the baseline without project condition for
Future Year 2013 to 2017.
Based on the review of the 8 cumulative projects identified in the Control Structure
EA/EIR (2010), none of those projects will overlap with the proposed action under the
2013-2017 construction timeframe. Additionally, the 7 cumulative projects identified for
this project were examined and the majority of the projects were found to be either
completed, geographically distant, have low trip generation potential and nonconcurrent with the exception to the Folsom DS/FDR projects ongoing construction
activities which are adequately covered in the effects analysis. Since the dam
construction site is a dynamic work environment in general with many concurrent and
ongoing activities along with day-to-day dam operations, the Folsom approach channel
project has the potential to cumulatively contribute traffic to the study roadway
segments. In acknowledgement, a growth factor of 2% per year consistent with
previous studies was applied for future baseline projections on all study roadway
segments in the traffic effects analysis to account for potential cumulative activities as
well as ambient traffic growth in the area. The aforementioned assumption is
conservative given the recent economic downturn and the slow process of recovery that
has generally lowered traffic activity statewide.
Should there be any concerns with potential cumulative effects; the Corps would
coordinate the scheduling and sequencing of construction activities with Reclamation
and DOT to reduce any potential cumulative effects to less than significant.
Additionally, close coordination by the Corps with Reclamation, the City of Folsom and
the County of Sacramento to monitor traffic conditions is necessary to ensure that the
effects of potential cumulative construction activities will be minimized by deploying Proactive Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 including staggering construction-related
traffic, thereby reducing the potential for cumulative effects to the study roadway
segments.
Table 5 below outlines the results of the analysis.

As shown in the table, all roadways segments operating at unsatisfactory LOS under
existing conditions continue to operate at LOS E or F. No roadway segments deteriorate
to LOS E or F from acceptable LOS C or D with growth in the area.

Phase 4
16
Table 5. Existing and Baseline LOS Results
Year 2011 Traffic

Volumes
Year 2013 Traffic

Volumes
Year 2014 Traffic

Volumes
Year 2015 Traffic

Volumes
Year 2016 Traffic

Volumes
Year 2017 Traffic

Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
Trafic
Volumes
LOS
4AD
35,400
44,806
46,598
47,494
48,390
49,287
50,183
4AD
37,400
44,918
46,715
47,613
48,511
49,410
50,308
4AD
37,400
36,335
37,788
38,515
39,242
39,969
40,695
4AD
37,400
42,131
43,816
44,659
45,501
46,344
47,187
4AMD
36,000
26,861
27,935
28,473
29,010
29,547
30,084
4AU
28,900
18,502
19,242
19,612
19,982
20,352
20,722
4AU
28,900
30,205
31,413
32,017
32,621
33,226
33,830
4AU
28,900
35,667
37,094
37,807
38,520
39,234
39,947
6AD
56,000
24,744
25,734
26,229
26,724
27,218
27,713
6AD
56,000
43,803
45,555
46,431
47,307
48,183
49,059
4AD
37,400
21,734
22,603
23,038
23,473
23,907
24,342
4FA
89,800
130,183
135,390
137,994
140,598
143,201
145,805
4F
71,400
110,344
114,758
116,965
119,172
121,378
123,585
4F
71,400
91,284
94,935
96,761
98,587
100,412
102,238
4AHD
40,000
29,425
30,602
31,191
31,779
32,368
32,956
6F
107,100
156,060
162,302
165,424
168,545
171,666
174,787
6F
107,100
182,580
189,883
193,535
197,186
200,838
204,490
6F
107,100
190,000
197,600
201,400
205,200
209,000
212,800
Roadway Segment
Note : Year 2011 traffic volumes from Folsom Control Structure study - calculated from 2010 ADTs (Average Daily Traffic)with an annual 2% growth rate. Future year 2013-2017 volumes calculated using annual 2% growth rate.
* LOS E is the threshold for all roadway segments in Sacramento County while LOS C is applied to Caltrans and Placer County segments. Capacity is calculated as the maximum volume at satisfactory LOS C/E.
1) Data obtained from Caltrans Traffic Data Branch - calculated from 2010 ADTs with an annual 2% growth rate. Future year 2013-2017 volumes calcultated using annual 2% growth rate. Level of Service (LOS) evaluated using Caltrans
V/C thresholds.

Phase 4
17
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

This section will evaluate the performance of the future with project condition for both
Alternatives B and C for Future Year 2013 to 2017.
Alternative B
The Baseline plus Project analysis builds upon the Future Year 2013 to 2017 Base
conditions and incorporates project Alternative B traffic.
Tables 6 through 10 present the traffic effects associated with Alternative B for each
construction year from 2013 through 2017. The tables include the ADT, V/C ratio, and
LOS rating for each key roadway in the study area, as estimated for the No Action/No
Project Alternative and each action alternative. The basis of comparison for determining
the significant effects of each action alternative is any deterioration in LOS rating or an
increase in V/C of 0.05 for roadways with an existing LOS of F compared against the No
Action/No Project Alternative.
No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017. In addition,
there would be some roadways in certain years that would experience an increase in v/c
however the increase is less than the 0.05 threshold. Therefore, the project construction
activity would have no effect on the roadway network.

Phase 4
18
Table 6. 2013 Baseline and Alternative B Project LOS Results

Year 2013 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2013 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
46,598
1.32
46,598
1.32
4AD
37,400
46,715
1.25
46,715
1.25
4AD
37,400
37,788
1.01
37,788
1.01
4AD
37,400
43,816
1.17
43,816
1.17
4AMD
36,000
27,935
0.78
27,935
0.78
4AU
28,900
19,242
0.67
19,242
0.67
4AU
28,900
31,413
1.09
31,678
1.10
4AU
28,900
37,094
1.28
37,094
1.28
6AD
56,000
25,734
0.46
25,999
0.46
6AD
56,000
45,555
0.81
45,820
0.82
4AD
37,400
22,603
0.60
22,869
0.61
4FA
89,800
135,390
1.51
135,390
1.51
4F
71,400
114,758
1.61
114,758
1.61
4F
71,400
94,935
1.33
94,935
1.33
4AHD
40,000
30,602
0.77
30,602
0.77
6F
107,100
162,302
1.52
162,302
1.52
6F
107,100
189,883
1.77
189,883
1.77
6F
107,100
197,600
1.85
197,600
1.85
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
19

Year 2014 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2014 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
47,494
1.34
47,499
1.34
4AD
37,400
47,613
1.27
47,618
1.27
4AD
37,400
38,515
1.03
38,522
1.03
4AD
37,400
44,659
1.19
44,662
1.19
4AMD
36,000
28,473
0.79
28,476
0.79
4AU
28,900
19,612
0.68
19,613
0.68
4AU
28,900
32,017
1.11
32,039
1.11
4AU
28,900
37,807
1.31
37,807
1.31
6AD
56,000
26,229
0.47
26,249
0.47
6AD
56,000
46,431
0.83
46,452
0.83
4AD
37,400
23,038
0.62
23,059
0.62
4FA
89,800
137,994
1.54
138,002
1.54
4F
71,400
116,965
1.64
116,970
1.64
4F
71,400
96,761
1.36
96,762
1.36
4AHD
40,000
31,191
0.78
31,202
0.78
6F
107,100
165,424
1.54
165,424
1.54
6F
107,100
193,535
1.81
193,538
1.81
6F
107,100
201,400
1.88
201,406
1.88
Roadway Segment


Phase 4
20

Year 2015 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2015 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
48,390
1.37
48,402
1.37
4AD
37,400
48,511
1.30
48,523
1.30
4AD
37,400
39,242
1.05
39,258
1.05
4AD
37,400
45,501
1.22
45,509
1.22
4AMD
36,000
29,010
0.81
29,018
0.81
4AU
28,900
19,982
0.69
19,984
0.69
4AU
28,900
32,621
1.13
32,651
1.13
4AU
28,900
38,520
1.33
38,521
1.33
6AD
56,000
26,724
0.48
26,750
0.48
6AD
56,000
47,307
0.84
47,334
0.85
4AD
37,400
23,473
0.63
23,499
0.63
4FA
89,800
140,598
1.57
140,616
1.57
4F
71,400
119,172
1.67
119,182
1.67
4F
71,400
98,587
1.38
98,589
1.38
4AHD
40,000
31,779
0.79
31,807
0.80
6F
107,100
168,545
1.57
168,547
1.57
6F
107,100
197,186
1.84
197,194
1.84
6F
107,100
205,200
1.92
205,216
1.92
Roadway Segment


Phase 4
21

Year 2016 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2016 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
49,287
1.39
49,297
1.39
4AD
37,400
49,410
1.32
49,421
1.32
4AD
37,400
39,969
1.07
39,983
1.07
4AD
37,400
46,344
1.24
46,351
1.24
4AMD
36,000
29,547
0.82
29,554
0.82
4AU
28,900
20,352
0.70
20,354
0.70
4AU
28,900
33,226
1.15
33,254
1.15
4AU
28,900
39,234
1.36
39,235
1.36
6AD
56,000
27,218
0.49
27,244
0.49
6AD
56,000
48,183
0.86
48,209
0.86
4AD
37,400
23,907
0.64
23,933
0.64
4FA
89,800
143,201
1.59
143,218
1.59
4F
71,400
121,378
1.70
121,388
1.70
4F
71,400
100,412
1.41
100,414
1.41
4AHD
40,000
32,368
0.81
32,393
0.81
6F
107,100
171,666
1.60
171,668
1.60
6F
107,100
200,838
1.88
200,845
1.88
6F
107,100
209,000
1.95
209,014
1.95
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
22
Table 10. 2017 Baseline and Project Alternative B LOS Results

Year 2017 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2017 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
50,183
1.42
50,195
1.42
4AD
37,400
50,308
1.35
50,320
1.35
4AD
37,400
40,695
1.09
40,711
1.09
4AD
37,400
47,187
1.26
47,195
1.26
4AMD
36,000
30,084
0.84
30,092
0.84
4AU
28,900
20,722
0.72
20,724
0.72
4AU
28,900
33,830
1.17
34,099
1.18
4AU
28,900
39,947
1.38
39,948
1.38
6AD
56,000
27,713
0.49
27,980
0.50
6AD
56,000
49,059
0.88
49,326
0.88
4AD
37,400
24,342
0.65
24,609
0.66
4FA
89,800
145,805
1.62
145,822
1.62
4F
71,400
123,585
1.73
123,595
1.73
4F
71,400
102,238
1.43
102,240
1.43
4AHD
40,000
32,956
0.82
32,984
0.82
6F
107,100
174,787
1.63
174,789
1.63
6F
107,100
204,490
1.91
204,498
1.91
6F
107,100
212,800
1.99
212,816
1.99
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
23
Alternative C
The Baseline plus Project analysis builds upon the Future Year 2013 to 2017 Base
conditions and incorporates project Alternative C traffic.
Tables 11 through 15 present the traffic effects associated with Alternative C for each
construction year from 2013 through 2017. The tables include the ADT, V/C ratio, and
LOS rating for each key roadway in the study area, as estimated for the No Action/No
Project Alternative and each action alternative. The basis of comparison for determining
the significant effects of each action alternative is any deterioration in LOS rating or an
increase in V/C of 0.05 for roadways with an existing LOS of F compared against the No
Action/No Project Alternative.
No LOS deteriorations would occur in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017. In addition,
there would be some roadways in certain years that would experience an increase in v/c
however the increase is less than the 0.05 threshold. Therefore, the project construction
activity would have no effect on the roadway network.

Phase 4
24
Table 11. 2013 Baseline and Project Alternative C LOS Results

Year 2013 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2013 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
46,598
1.32
46,602
1.32
4AD
37,400
46,715
1.25
46,718
1.25
4AD
37,400
37,788
1.01
37,793
1.01
4AD
37,400
43,816
1.17
43,819
1.17
4AMD
36,000
27,935
0.78
27,938
0.78
4AU
28,900
19,242
0.67
19,243
0.67
4AU
28,900
31,413
1.09
31,672
1.10
4AU
28,900
37,094
1.28
37,094
1.28
6AD
56,000
25,734
0.46
25,992
0.46
6AD
56,000
45,555
0.81
45,814
0.82
4AD
37,400
22,603
0.60
22,862
0.61
4FA
89,800
135,390
1.51
135,395
1.51
4F
71,400
114,758
1.61
114,760
1.61
4F
71,400
94,935
1.33
94,936
1.33
4AHD
40,000
30,602
0.77
30,610
0.77
6F
107,100
162,302
1.52
162,303
1.52
6F
107,100
189,883
1.77
189,886
1.77
6F
107,100
197,600
1.85
197,605
1.85
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
25

Year 2014 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2014 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
47,494
1.34
47,502
1.34
4AD
37,400
47,613
1.27
47,620
1.27
4AD
37,400
38,515
1.03
38,525
1.03
4AD
37,400
44,659
1.19
44,664
1.19
4AMD
36,000
28,473
0.79
28,477
0.79
4AU
28,900
19,612
0.68
19,613
0.68
4AU
28,900
32,017
1.11
32,036
1.11
4AU
28,900
37,807
1.31
37,808
1.31
6AD
56,000
26,229
0.47
26,246
0.47
6AD
56,000
46,431
0.83
46,448
0.83
4AD
37,400
23,038
0.62
23,055
0.62
4FA
89,800
137,994
1.54
138,006
1.54
4F
71,400
116,965
1.64
116,971
1.64
4F
71,400
96,761
1.36
96,763
1.36
4AHD
40,000
31,191
0.78
31,207
0.78
6F
107,100
165,424
1.54
165,425
1.54
6F
107,100
193,535
1.81
193,540
1.81
6F
107,100
201,400
1.88
201,410
1.88
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
26

Year 2015 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2015 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
48,390
1.37
48,402
1.37
4AD
37,400
48,511
1.30
48,523
1.30
4AD
37,400
39,242
1.05
39,258
1.05
4AD
37,400
45,501
1.22
45,509
1.22
4AMD
36,000
29,010
0.81
29,018
0.81
4AU
28,900
19,982
0.69
19,984
0.69
4AU
28,900
32,621
1.13
32,646
1.13
4AU
28,900
38,520
1.33
38,521
1.33
6AD
56,000
26,724
0.48
26,745
0.48
6AD
56,000
47,307
0.84
47,329
0.85
4AD
37,400
23,473
0.63
23,495
0.63
4FA
89,800
140,598
1.57
140,616
1.57
4F
71,400
119,172
1.67
119,182
1.67
4F
71,400
98,587
1.38
98,589
1.38
4AHD
40,000
31,779
0.79
31,807
0.80
6F
107,100
168,545
1.57
168,547
1.57
6F
107,100
197,186
1.84
197,194
1.84
6F
107,100
205,200
1.92
205,216
1.92
Roadway Segment


Phase 4
27

Year 2016 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2016 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
49,287
1.39
49,299
1.39
4AD
37,400
49,410
1.32
49,422
1.32
4AD
37,400
39,969
1.07
39,985
1.07
4AD
37,400
46,344
1.24
46,352
1.24
4AMD
36,000
29,547
0.82
29,555
0.82
4AU
28,900
20,352
0.70
20,354
0.70
4AU
28,900
33,226
1.15
33,250
1.15
4AU
28,900
39,234
1.36
39,235
1.36
6AD
56,000
27,218
0.49
27,240
0.49
6AD
56,000
48,183
0.86
48,205
0.86
4AD
37,400
23,907
0.64
23,929
0.64
4FA
89,800
143,201
1.59
143,220
1.59
4F
71,400
121,378
1.70
121,389
1.70
4F
71,400
100,412
1.41
100,414
1.41
4AHD
40,000
32,368
0.81
32,396
0.81
6F
107,100
171,666
1.60
171,668
1.60
6F
107,100
200,838
1.88
200,846
1.88
6F
107,100
209,000
1.95
209,016
1.95
Roadway Segment
U.S. 50 - Folsom Blvd to East Bidwell St
U.S. 50 East Bidwell St to County line


Phase 4
28

Year 2017 Traffic
Volumes
Year 2017 + Project

Traffic Volumes
Functional
Class
Capacity
(LOS
C/D/E)
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
Traffic
Volumes
LOS
V/C
4AD
35,400
50,183
1.42
50,197
1.42
4AD
37,400
50,308
1.35
50,323
1.35
4AD
37,400
40,695
1.09
40,714
1.09
4AD
37,400
47,187
1.26
47,196
1.26
4AMD
36,000
30,084
0.84
30,094
0.84
4AU
28,900
20,722
0.72
20,725
0.72
4AU
28,900
33,830
1.17
34,102
1.18
4AU
28,900
39,947
1.38
39,948
1.38
6AD
56,000
27,713
0.49
27,982
0.50
6AD
56,000
49,059
0.88
49,328
0.88
4AD
37,400
24,342
0.65
24,611
0.66
4FA
89,800
145,805
1.62
145,826
1.62
4F
71,400
123,585
1.73
123,596
1.73
4F
71,400
102,238
1.43
102,240
1.43
4AHD
40,000
32,956
0.82
32,990
0.82
6F
107,100
174,787
1.63
174,790
1.63
6F
107,100
204,490
1.91
204,499
1.91
6F
107,100
212,800
1.99
212,819
1.99
Roadway Segment

Phase 4
29
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Mitigation measures would be required of the project whenever the effects of the project
exceed the thresholds identified in Section 2.2. Since the proposed action would not
exceed the traffic effect thresholds identified in Section 2.2, no project traffic effect
mitigations are explicitly proposed.
The following measures would be implemented not as a result of direct project action
effect but rather as proactive measures customary to project construction activities.
Due to the dynamic nature of the project construction environment, the following
individual measures or combination of measures might need to be implemented in
response to the needs of the construction activities at the project site.
T-1: In conjunction with the development and review of more detailed project
design and construction specifications, a peak hour capacity analysis would be
performed on specific intersections to evaluate the need for changes to traffic
signal timing, phasing modification, provision of additional turn lanes through
restriping or physical improvements, as necessary and appropriate to reduce
project-related effects to an acceptable level. In conjunction with that
assessment, the potential need for roadway improvements or operation
modifications (i.e., temporary restrictions on turning movements, on-street
parking, etc.) to enhance roadway capacity in light of additional traffic from the
project will be evaluated. The completion of these evaluations and the
identification of specific traffic improvement measures, as deemed necessary
and appropriate in light of the temporary nature of effects, will be coordinated
with the transportation departments of the affected jurisdictions.
T-2: Construction contractor will prepare a transportation management plan,
outlining proposed routes to be approved by the appropriate local entity, and
implement it. High collision intersections will be identified and avoided if possible.
Drivers will be informed and trained on the various types of haul routes, and
areas that are more sensitive (e.g., high level of residential or education centers,
or narrow roadways).
T-3: Construction contractor will develop and utilize appropriate signage to inform
the general public of the haul routes and route changes, if applicable.

Phase 4
30
Appendix A Detailed Unmitigated and Mitigated Emissions
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of
Traffic Impact Studies. State of California Department of Transportation. 19pp.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. Caltrans traffic count
database: http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/
City of Folsom. 2012.
http://www.folsom.ca.us/about/whats_new/bridge/project_overview.asp
County of Sacramento. 2004. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2004. Projections Data Set.
http://www.sacog.org/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2011. File name: Equipment Estimate
Summary.xlsx
Corps 2010. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Control Structure,
Chute, and Stilling Basin Work. August 2010.
Corps 2006. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR). December 2006.
Joint Federal Project (JFP) at Folsom Dam, Phase 4
A-1
Appendix H
Folsom JFP Noise Technical Report

Noise Technical Memorandum
Sacramento, CA
Final
October 2012
U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 SETTINGS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................ 1-1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Components Analyzed for Noise Impacts ........................................ 1-1
1.4 Fundamentals of Acoustics .......................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Applicable Noise Criteria ............................................................................ 1-10
1.5.1 City of Folsom ................................................................................. 1-10
1.5.2 Sacramento County ......................................................................... 1-11
1.5.3 Placer County .................................................................................. 1-12
1.5.4 El Dorado County ............................................................................ 1-13
1.5.5 Wildlife Noise Criteria ...................................................................... 1-15
1.5.6 Assessment Criteria ........................................................................ 1-16
1.6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................... 1-18
1.6.1 Noise-Sensitive Receptors .............................................................. 1-18
1.6.2 Ambient Noise Survey ..................................................................... 1-20
1.6.3 Long-Term Site Monitoring .............................................................. 1-21
1.6.4 Short-Term Site Monitoring ............................................................. 1-22
1.6.5 Sensitive Wildlife Receptor Monitoring ............................................ 1-22
2.0 IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Construction Schedules and Durations for Alternatives 2 and 3 ........ 2-5
2.1.3 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source Levels for
Alternatives 2 and 3 ........................................................................... 2-7
2.2 Noise Prediction Model Method for Construction Activities ........................ 2-15
2.2.1 Noise Prediction Model Inputs for Construction Activities Conducted
During Construction Noise Exempt Hours for Alternatives 2 and 3 . 2-15
During Non-Exempt Hours for Alternative 2 .................................... 2-17
During Non-Exempt Hours for Alternative 3 .................................... 2-19
2.3 Noise Prediction Model Results ................................................................. 2-20
2.3.1 Noise Prediction Model Results for Alternative 2 during Construction
Noise Exempt Hours........................................................................ 2-21
October 2012
Table of Contents
2.3.2 Noise Prediction Model Analysis for Alternative 2 during Construction

2.3.3 Noise Prediction Model Results for Alternative 3 during Construction
2.3.4 Noise Prediction Model Analysis for Alternative 3 Activities during
Construction Noise Exempt Hours................................................... 2-23
2.3.5 Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Alternative 2 during
Non-Exempt Construction Noise Hours ........................................... 2-24
2.3.6 Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Alternative 3 NonExempt Construction Noise Hours Activities ................................... 2-34
2.3.7 Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Blasting Activities 2-43
2.3.8 Noise Impacts on Fish ..................................................................... 2-44
2.4 Mitigation.................................................................................................... 2-46
2.5 Cumulative ................................................................................................. 2-48
2.6 Summary/Conclusion ................................................................................. 2-49
3.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 3-1
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Project Site .................................................................................................... 1-9

Figure 2. Ambient Noise Level Measurement and Modeling Locations ...................... 1-17
Figure 3. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction
Activities w/ Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet ......................... 2-23
Figure 4. Alternative 2 and 3 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction
Activities w/ Intake Approach Walls and Slab .............................................. 2-24
Figure 5. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction
Activities w/ Fill Cells ................................................................................... 2-32
List of Tables
Table 1: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (A-Weighted
Sound Levels) ...................................................................................................... 1-7
Table 2: Noise Ordinance Standards (City of Folsom)* .............................................. 1-11
Table 3: Noise Ordinance Standards (Sacramento County)* ..................................... 1-12
Table 4: Noise Ordinance Standards (Placer County)* .............................................. 1-13
Table 5. Noise Level Performance Protection Standards For Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Affected by Non-Transportation Sources (El Dorado County)* .......................... 1-14
Table 6. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure For Non-Transportation Noise Sources In
Community Regions and Adopted Plan Areas - Construction Noise (El Dorado
County)** ............................................................................................................ 1-14
October 2012
ii
Table of Contents

Rural Centers - Construction Noise (El Dorado County)* ................................... 1-15
Rural Regions - Construction Noise (El Dorado County)* .................................. 1-15
Table 9. Long-Term Measurement Sites .................................................................... 1-20
Table 10. Short-Term Measurement Sites ................................................................. 1-20
Table 11. Noise Sensitive Wildlife Receptor Sites ...................................................... 1-21
Table 12. Long-Term Measurement Site Data ........................................................... 1-21
Table 13. RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors ......... 2-2
Table 14. Alternative 2 Proposed Construction Activities by Year ................................ 2-5
Table 15. Alternative 3 Proposed Construction Activities by Year ................................ 2-6
Table 16. Alternative 2 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source
Levels ................................................................................................................... 2-9
Table 17. Alternative 3 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source
Levels ................................................................................................................. 2-11
Table 18. Alternative 2 Total Combined PWL for Each Area of Construction by Year
(dBA) .................................................................................................................. 2-16
Table 19. Alternative 3 Total Combined PWL for Each Area of Construction by Year
(dBA) .................................................................................................................. 2-16
Table 20. PWL for Area Sources Input into the Cadna/A Model (dBA) ...................... 2-17
Table 21. Alternative 2 Total PWLs for Each Area of Construction during Simultaneous
Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock Inthe-Wet Activities) (dBA) .................................................................................... 2-18
Table 22. Alternative 2 Total PWLs for Each Area of Construction during
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Activities) (dBA)................................................................................... 2-18
Table 23. Alternative 3 Total PWLs for Each Area of Construction during Simultaneous
Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock Inthe-Wet Activities) (dBA) .................................................................................... 2-19
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Activities) (dBA)................................................................................... 2-20
Table 25. Measured Ambient Noise Levels and Noise Levels Due to Construction
Activities for Alternative 2 in 2017 ...................................................................... 2-21
Activities for Alternative 3 in 2013 ...................................................................... 2-23
Table 27. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet .................................................................................. 2-28
Table 28. Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity
Combinations with Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet...................... 2-28
Table 29. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Construction .............................................................................. 2-29
October 2012
iii
Table of Contents

Combinations with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction ..................... 2-30
Table 31. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Fill Cells Activities2-36
Combinations with Fill Cells Activities ................................................................ 2-36
Table 33. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Construction .............................................................................. 2-37
Combinations with Intake Approach Walls and Slab Construction ..................... 2-38
Table 35. Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Receivers due to Individual Blasts........... 2-43
Table E-1: Noise Ordinance Standards (City of Folsom)* ............................................. 29
Appendices
A
Long-Term Measurement Data
Short-Term Measurement Data
Bio-Receptor Measurement Data
Equipment Estimate Summary
Noise Control Plan
October 2012
iv
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADT
ANSI
Bio-x
BNoise
Cadna/A
CEQA
Cfm
CFR
CNEL
cy
dB
dB(A)
EIR
EIS
FHWA
FTA
ISO
Hz
JFP
kHz
Ldn
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
LORS
Lxx
LT-x
MIAD
Pa
mph
MR-x
NAC
NOAA
October 2012
Average Daily Traffic

American National Standards Institute
Bio measurement site x (x = site number)
Blast Noise
Computer-Aided Noise Abatement
Cubic Feet per Minute
Community Noise Equivalent Level
Cubic yard
decibels
decibel A-Weighted
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
International Standard of Organization
hertz
kilohertz
day-night sound level
equivalent sound level
maximum sound level
minimum sound level
laws, ordinances, regulations and standards
percentile-exceeded sound level
long term measurement site x (x = site number)
micro-Pascals
miles per hour
Modeled Receiver x (x = site number)
noise abatement criteria
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont)

NSR
OSHA
PWL
RCNM
RMS
ROD
SEL
SPL
ST-x
NAVD
TNM
USBR
USDOT
USEPA
USFWS
October 2012
Noise Study Report

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Sound Power Level
Road Construction Noise Model
root-mean-square
Record of Decision
Sound exposure level
sound pressure level
short term measurement site x (x = site number)
North American Vertical Datum
Traffic Noise Model
US Department of Transportation
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
vi
1.0 SETTINGS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1.0
SETTINGS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1.1
Background
As part of the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project, also
referred to as the Joint Federal Project (JFP), an auxiliary spillway is under construction
jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). The JFP is intended to provide increased flood damage reduction
and mitigate dam safety issues related to a Probable Maximum Flood event. The new
auxiliary spillway would be operated in concert with the existing spillway gates and river
outlets on Folsom Dam to manage flood flows from Folsom Reservoir.
The final phase of the proposed project is the completion of the approach
channel and spur dike. A trans-load facility and concrete batch plant are necessary for
construction to be completed. The project would be phased such that maximum
excavation of the approach channel, and construction of the spur dike, can be
completed during low lake levels in the dry, to minimize both project costs and water
quality and biological impacts. There are currently three potential alternatives for the
proposed project: Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Alternative 1 is the no
project Alternative. Alternative 2 includes approach channel excavation with the
utilization of a cutoff wall while Alternative 3 includes approach channel excavation with
the utilization of a cofferdam.
1.2
Purpose and Scope
This section presents the results of a noise impact analysis for the Folsom Dam
JFP and includes relevant noise laws, ordinances, and regulations, the results of an
ambient noise survey, and a quantitative analysis of noise environmental impacts during
project activities. The analysis includes:
1.3
Discussion of source terrestrial noise emissions from construction

schedules and activities such as excavation, blasting, construction of the
spur dike, material delivery, batch plant utilization and utilization of the onsite haul road
Descriptions of the affected environment including identification of human
and wildlife sensitive receptors
Development and use of appropriate air and noise quantification models
Potential noise impacts
Qualitative discussion on impacts due to underwater excavation and
blasting activities
Mitigation measures
Cumulative effects
Project Components Analyzed for Noise Impacts
The project involves the following aspects depending on whether Alternative 2 or

3 is selected: approach channel excavation, spur dike construction, transload facility
construction, batch plant operations, cutoff wall construction and cofferdam
construction.
October 2012
1-1

The approach channel concrete slab and walls would extend for approximately
100 feet upstream of the control structure. The concrete slab would be approximately 5
feet thick, and both the right and left sides would flare out five degrees to increase the
width of the slab upstream. A 30-foot wide by 10-foot deep rock trap would be located
immediately upstream of the approach slab so that rocks on the approach channel
invert block debris from entering the auxiliary spillway. Approach channel walls would
be constructed of concrete from the control structure extending approximately 100 feet
upstream. All concrete work and placement in the approach channel would be
conducted in-the-dry conditions; no concrete work would be conducted in-the-wet.
Land based rock excavation would be accomplished with conventional drilling
and blasting methods and rock excavation underwater would be accomplished by drill
and blast methods (URS, 2009). In dry holes, ANFO (ammonium nitrate-fuel oil) would
be utilized and primed with cast boosters. Blasting would typically consist of
approximately 15,000 cubic yards rock shots. Rock excavation under water would be
accomplished by drill and blast methods (URS, 2009). Each blast would produce
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of rock. Water-resistant emulsified slurry would be
required since water intrusion is anticipated. Explosives would be stored off-site. The
explosives storage facility is assumed to be located in Jamestown, California,
approximately 80 miles from the site. Explosives would be trucked to the site on a daily
basis.
A spur dike is an embankment designed to direct water into an opening; in this
case the opening would be the approach channel. The proposed elliptical-shaped spur
dike would be located directly to the northwest of the approach channel. The core of the
spur dike would be constructed of a decomposed quartz diorite core, commonly known
as decomposed granite. This would be followed by a compacted random rock fill
followed by a stone riprap cap. The quantity of material estimated to complete the spur
dike is 1,400,000 cubic yards. Material for the spur dike construction would come from
the excavation of the approach channel excavation or Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
(MIAD) disposal area. The construction equipment needed to build the spur dike
consists of normal scrapers, bulldozers, and sheep-foot rollers for the body of the spur
dike, and backhoes, bulldozers, and smooth rollers for the bedding, riprap, and
surfacing materials. The construction would take place over 24 months from 2015 to
2017.
A transload facility would be needed for mobilization/demobilization of marine
equipment (e.g., sectional barges and heavy cranes), dredge spoil off-loading from
barges to trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges,
equipment maintenance, and marine crew deployment. The proposed trans-load facility
transload facility would be located adjacent to Dike 7. The transload facility is temporary
and would be removed after the completion of the approach channel project in 2017.
October 2012
1-2
Ramp material would be removed with excavators and hauled for disposal at the MIAD
disposal area.
Batch Plant and Staging Area Operations
Activities at each staging area have not been definitively determined. The four
locations for the staging areas are the Folsom Prison staging area, MIAD staging area,
Overlook staging area and Dike 7 staging area. The construction of the approach
channel and cutoff wall would require large quantities of temperature controlled
concrete. This would necessitate the use of a contractor-provided, on-site concrete
batch plant and deliveries of large quantities of concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and
cement. The batch plant would be powered by electricity from overhead Sacramento
Municipal Utility District lines.
Disposal Areas
There is approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of disposal material associated
with construction of the approach channel project. Five potential on-site disposal sites
are proposed for use as a part of the proposed project. Disposal sites being considered
for excavated materials include: 1) the spur dike, 2) an in-reservoir site around the
transload facility; 3) the MIAD disposal site; and 4) Dike 8 (land based and in-reservoir).
The in-reservoir, Dike 8 and the spur dike would serve as permanent disposal for
excavated material. MIAD and Dike 7 would serve as temporary disposal sites, where
excavation material will be eventually removed and used for other purposes.
Cutoff Wall Construction
A cutoff wall is proposed for Alternative 2. The proposed cutoff wall would be
located adjacent to Folsom Lake southeast of the Left Wing Dam and east of the
Auxiliary Spillway chute excavation. The cutoff wall would consist of a reinforced
concrete secant pile wall installed across the width of the future approach channel. The
total length of the wall would be approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would be socketed
into the underlying highly weathered granitic rock.
The secant wall would be constructed by drilling 3-foot diameter holes for the
primary piles on 4-foot centers. After the drilling, the hole would be filled with concrete
and a reinforcing cage. The top section of the piles would be drilled with a steel casting
used to support the layers of cobbles and boulders. The bottom section of the pile that
penetrates the decomposed and highly weathered granite would not require casing. The
casing would be removed as concrete is placed in the hole. The average pile length is
estimated to be 85 ft.
Three-foot diameter holes for the secondary piles would then be drilled on 4-foot
centers between the primary piles. The secondary piles would be reinforced and
constructed with concrete and a reinforcing cage. Both primary and secondary piles
would be filled with concrete. No impact or vibratory pile driving is anticipated under this
alternative (Mike Forrest, pers com to R. Verity, Jan 3 2012).
October 2012
1-3
Cofferdam Construction
A cofferdam is proposed for Alternative 3. The cofferdam consists of a series of
84-foot diameter circular sheet pile cells constructed using 85-foot-long flat sheet piles.
The construction of the cells requires that sheet piles be installed using a template. The
template consists of two to three horizontally mounted ring wales to provide support for
the vertical flat sheets. The sheet piles are installed using a vibratory hammer, working
progressively around the ring. Once erected, the cells would be filled with well-graded
crushed rock. The same plan dimension is maintained throughout the cofferdam,
allowing for one sheet pile installation template to be utilized for construction of all of the
circular cells. A layer of riprap would be placed along the upstream toe of the cells for
scour protection. The cells are founded directly on the decomposed granite. The
cofferdam accommodates a high design lake level of elevation 468 feet.
The cofferdam would have a provision for controlled but rapid flooding of the
approach channel area to allow for quick equalization of hydraulic loads on both sides of
the cofferdam. Rapid flooding of the approach channel excavation would be achieved
by two or more flood gates installed in the connector cells. Each gate would consist of
an approximately 100-foot-long, 4-foot diameter pipes mounted with a slide gate on the
upstream side of the cofferdam. Accounting for energy losses at the inlet, outlet, and
friction along the pipe walls and at the slide gate, two pipes would allow for infilling of
the approach channel excavation area up to the high lake level at elevation 468.34 feet
within about 6 hours.
Prior to cofferdam construction, lake sediments and other soils would be dredged
to expose decomposed granite. A silt curtain placed around the perimeter of the
excavation will be required to control turbidity in the lake. The total estimated volume of
cofferdam fill materials would be 149,600 cubic yards, almost all of which is cell fill.
Potential noise impacts were assessed at noise-sensitive human and wildlife
receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project. All project activities with potential
for off-site noise impacts were assessed. These activities includeapproach channel
excavation and spur dike construction activities, blasting activities and project-related
vehicular traffic. A qualitative discussion of potential effects on fish species residing in
Folsom Lake in the vicinity of underwater approach channel excavation will be
developed. Potential noise-sensitive human receptors within the City of Folsom,
Sacramento County, Placer County and El Dorado County were considered. Potential
noise-sensitive wildlife is assessed within a five-mile radius of the proposed approach
channel excavation and spur dike construction area.
1.4
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound

that is typically associated with human activity and interferes with or disrupts normal
activities. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause
hearing loss, the principal human response to typical environmental noise exposure
levels is annoyance. The responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse
and influenced by many factors including the type of noise, the perceived importance of
October 2012
1-4
the noise, its appropriateness to the setting, the time of day and the type of activity
during which the noise occurs, and noise sensitivity of the individual.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel
through a medium, such as air, which are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally
characterized by several variables, including frequency and amplitude. Frequency
describes the sounds pitch (tone) and is measured in cycles per second (Hertz [Hz]),
while amplitude describes the sounds pressure (loudness). Because the range of
sound pressures that occur in the environment is extremely large, it is convenient to
express these pressures on a logarithmic scale that compresses the wide range of
pressures into a more useful range of numbers. The standard unit of sound
measurement is the decibel (dB).
Hz is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure
wave passes a fixed point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the
drum vibrates a number of times per second. When the drum skin vibrates 100 times
per second it generates a sound pressure wave that is oscillating at 100 Hz, and is
perceived by the ear/brain as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between
20 and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the healthy human ear.
Sound level is expressed by reference to a specified national/international
standard. The Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is used to describe sound at a specified
distance or specific receptor location. In expressing sound pressure level on a
logarithmic scale, sound pressure is compared to a reference value of 20 micropascals
(Pa). SPL depends not only on the power of the source, but also on the distance from
the source and the acoustical characteristics of the transmission path (absorption,
reflection, etc.).
Outdoor sound levels decrease logarithmically as the distance from the source
increases. This is due to wave divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground
attenuation. Sound radiating from a source in a homogeneous and undisturbed manner
travels in spherical waves. As the sound waves travel away from the source, the sound
energy is dispersed over a greater area decreasing the sound pressure of the wave.
Spherical spreading of the sound wave from a point source reduces the noise level at a
rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.
Atmospheric absorption also influences the sound levels received by an
observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence of the atmosphere
and the resultant fluctuations. Atmospheric absorption becomes important at distances
greater than 1,000 feet. The degree of absorption varies depending on the frequency of
the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. For example, atmospheric
absorption is lowest (i.e., sound carries further) at high humidity and high temperatures
and lower frequencies are less readily absorbed (i.e., sound carries further) than higher
frequencies. Over long distances, lower frequencies become dominant as the higher
frequencies are more rapidly attenuated. Turbulence, gradients of wind and other
atmospheric phenomena also play a significant role in determining the degree of
attenuation. For example, certain conditions, such as temperature inversions can
October 2012
1-5
channel or focus the sound waves resulting in higher noise levels than would result from
simple spherical spreading.
Most sounds consist of a broad band of many frequencies differing in sound
level. Because of the broad range of audible frequencies, methods have been
developed to quantify these values into a single number. The most common method
used to quantify environmental sounds uses a weighting system that is reflective of
human hearing. Human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high
frequencies than at the mid-range frequencies. This process is termed A weighting,
and the resulting dB level is termed the A weighted decibel (dBA). A weighting" is
widely used in local noise ordinances and state and federal guidelines. In practice, the
level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that
includes a filter corresponding to the dBA weighting curve. Unless specifically noted, the
use of A weighting is always assumed with respect to environmental sound and
community noise even if the notation does not show the A. Underwater sound levels
are not weighted and these measurements reflect the entire frequency range of interest.
A sound level of 0 dBA is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is
barely audible by a healthy ear under extremely quiet listening conditions. This
threshold is the reference level against which the amplitude of other sounds is
compared. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels
above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort, progressing
to pain at higher levels. An increase (or decrease) in sound level of about 10 dBA is
usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sounds
loudness.
Because of the logarithmic nature of the dB unit, sound levels cannot be added
or subtracted directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically.
However, some simple rules are useful in dealing with sound levels. First, if a sounds
intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound
level. Thus, for example: 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and 80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB.
Remember however, that it requires about a 10 dB increase to double the perceived
intensity of a sound and it is interesting to note that a doubling of the acoustical energy
(a 3 dB increase) is at the lower limit of readily perceived change.
Although dBA may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most ambient environmental
noise includes a mixture of noise from nearby and distant sources that creates an ebb
and flow of sound including some identifiable sources plus a relatively steady
background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor called
the equivalent sound level (Leq) is used to describe sound that is constant or changing in
level. Leq is the energy-mean dBA during a measured time interval. It is the equivalent
constant sound level that would have to be produced by a given constant source to
equal the acoustic energy contained in the fluctuating sound level measured during the
interval. In addition to the energy-average level, it is often desirable to know the
acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the
maximum Leq (Lmax) and minimum Leq (Lmin) indicators that represent the root-meansquare (RMS) maximum and minimum noise levels measured during the monitoring
October 2012
1-6
interval. The Lmin value obtained for a particular monitoring location is often called the
acoustic floor for that location.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or
percentile noise descriptors L10, L50, and L90 may be used. These are the noise levels
equaled or exceeded during 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the measured
time interval. Sound levels associated with L10 typically describe transient or short-term
events. L50 represents the median sound level during the measurement interval, while
L90 levels are typically used to describe background noise conditions.
The Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL) represents the average sound
level for a 24-hour day and is calculated by adding a 10 dB penalty only to sound levels
during the night period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The Ldn is the descriptor of choice
used by nearly all federal, state, and local agencies throughout the United States to
define acceptable land use compatibility with respect to noise. Within the State of
California, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is sometimes used. CNEL is
very similar to Ldn, except that an additional 5 dB penalty is applied to the evening hours
(7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Because of the time-of-day penalties associated with the Ldn
and CNEL descriptors, the Ldn or CNEL dBA value for a continuously operating sound
source during a 24-hour period will be numerically greater than the dBA value of the 24hour Leq. Thus, for a continuously operating noise source producing a constant noise
level operating for periods of 24 hours or more, the Ldn will be 6 dB higher than the 24hour Leq value. To provide a frame of reference, common sound levels are presented in
Table 1, Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments.
Table 1: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments
(A-Weighted Sound Levels)
Human Judgment
of Noise Loudness
Scale of
(Relative to a
A-Weighted
Noise
Reference
Sound Level
Environme
Loudness of 70
Distance)
in Decibels
nt
Decibels*)
Military Jet Take-off with
140
Carrier
After-burner (50 ft)

Flight Deck
Civil Defense Siren (100 ft) 130
Commercial Jet Take-off

120
Threshold of Pain
(200 ft)
*32 times as loud
Pile Driver (50 ft)
110
Rock Music *16 times as loud
Concert
Ambulance Siren (100 ft)
100
Very Loud
Newspaper Press (5 ft)
*8 times as loud
Power Lawn Mower (3 ft)
Propeller Plane Flyover
90
Boiler Room *4 times as loud
(1,000 ft)
Printing
Diesel Truck, 40 mph (50
Press Plant
ft)
October 2012
1-7
Table 1: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments

(A-Weighted Sound Levels)
Human Judgment
of Noise Loudness
Scale of
(Relative to a
A-Weighted
Noise
Reference
Sound Level
Environme
Loudness of 70
Distance)
in Decibels
nt
Decibels*)
Motorcycle (25 ft)
Garbage Disposal (3 ft)
80
High Urban
*2 times as loud
Ambient
Sound
Passenger Car, 65 mph
70
Moderately Loud
(25 ft)
*70 decibels
Living Room Stereo (15 ft)
(Reference
Vacuum Cleaner (3 ft)
Loudness)
Air Conditioning Unit (100
60
Data
*1/2 as loud
ft)
Processing
Normal Conversation (5 ft)
Center
Department
Store
Light Traffic (100 ft)
50
Private
*1/4 as loud
Business
Office
Bird Calls (distant)
40
Lower Limit
Quiet
of Urban
*1/8 as loud
Ambient
Sound
Soft Whisper (5 ft)
30
Quiet
Very Quiet
Bedroom
20
Recording
Studio
10
Extremely Quiet
0
Threshold of
Hearing
Source: Compiled by URS Corporation from various published sources and widely-used references
such as The Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition, edited by C.M.
Harris, 1991; Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992, Modified by
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004 and Noise and Vibration Control, Second Edition, edited by L.L.
Beranek, 1988 Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
October 2012
1-8
Figure 1. Project Site (CHANGE)
October 2012
1-9
1.5
Applicable Noise Criteria
Federal and state governments do not provide any specific guidelines for
construction noise other than OSHA guidelines for worker protection. The proposed
project is located in the vicinity of four convergent jurisdictions: the City of Folsom,
Sacramento County, Placer County, and El Dorado County. Construction noise from the
project may impact noise sensitive receptors in each of these four jurisdictions. Noise
sensitive receptors consist of both human receptors and wildlife receptors. The
applicable noise ordinances for each of the four jurisdictions are discussed and
summarized in this section.
Each jurisdiction has its own unique standards regarding noise and nuisance.
These standards are set out in county or municipal codes and general plans. Each
noise ordinance and/or noise element within a municipal/county code or general plan
will address noise levels that create a nuisance on surrounding communities. Noise
ordinances occasionally classify different districts within these communities based on
zoning standards. Such zones can include residential areas (analyzed further based on
the density of the population), industrial areas, commercial areas, agricultural areas and
rural areas, among many more. The possible adverse effects of construction noise are
included in municipal noise ordinances.
Noise levels, the ambient noise environment, the distance from the noise source
to the receiver, the time of day, the duration of the noise and the zoning of the areas in
question are all considered when considering the adverse effects of noise. All municipal
codes categorize noise by decibel levels that are A-weighted (dBA). Most standards use
a baseline originating from the L50, which reflects the 50th percentile of sound measured
at one-second intervals throughout a given timeframe. This 50th percentile means that
half of the measured one-second noise levels within the given timeframe will fall below
this number and half of the measured one-second noise levels will be above this
number. Therefore, if a noise source is generating noise levels over a given timeframe,
the 50th percentile of the one-second noise levels that are being generated cannot
exceed the L50 metric found in the noise standard. Alternatively some standards are
expressed as hourly continuous noise equivalent levels (Leq) in order to reflect the
sound levels over a given timeframe, which is an hour in this case, as a measurement
that would equal the same energy of the fluctuating sound level over the entire time that
a measurement was taken. An hourly Leq will be a higher level than an L50 because it is
taking the top 50th percentile into account while the L50 does not.
Noise generated by off-site vehicular traffic is related to construction activities.
These activities are temporary in nature and have no operational noise impacts.
1.5.1
City of Folsom
The City of Folsom uses L50 as the baseline criterion noise metric. Construction noise is
exempt from these regulations during the periods of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. If construction were to occur outside of these
periods, activities would be required to comply with exterior and interior noise limits at
residential receptors, as summarized in Table 2. In the event the measured ambient
noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in Table 2, the applicable
October 2012
1-10
standard shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. For impulse noise
(such as impact pile driving or blasting), the limits are reduced by 5 dBA.
Table 2: Noise Ordinance Standards (City of Folsom)*
No is e Le ve ls No t To
Be Exc e e de d In
Re s id e n tia l Zo n e
(d BA)**
Exte rio r No is e S ta n d a rd s
Ma xim u m Tim e o f
Exp o s u re
30 Minutes/Hour
15 Minutes/Hour
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
No is e
Me tric
L50
L25
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
7 a .m . to 10 p .m . to
10 p .m .
7 a .m .
(d a ytim e ) (n ig h ttim e )
50
45
55
50
60
55
65
60
70
65
In te rio r No is e S ta n d a rd s
45
50
55
35
40
45
*Construction Noise Exemption Times:
7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Weekdays

8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Weekends
**5 dBA reduction for impact noise during non-exempt times
SOURCE: City of Folsom, CA Municipal Code. Chapter 8.42, Table 8.42.040
1.5.2
Sacramento County
Like the City of Folsom, the Sacramento County Noise Ordinance specifies noise
levels in terms of L50. Construction noise levels are exempt from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on weekdays and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. If construction were to occur
outside of these periods, activities would be required to comply with exterior and interior
noise limits at residential receptors, as summarized in Table 3. For impulse noise (such
as impact pile driving or blasting), the limits are reduced by 5 dBA.
October 2012
1-11
Table 3: Noise Ordinance Standards (Sacramento County)*

Be Exc e e de d In
(d BA)**
Exp o s u re
30 Minutes/Hour
15 Minutes/Hour
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
No is e
Me tric
L50
L25
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
7 a .m . to 10 p .m . to
10 p .m .
7 a .m .
55
50
60
55
65
60
70
65
75
70
-

SOURCE: Sacramento County Municipal Code, Chapter 6.68.070.
1.5.3
Placer County
Placer County, unlike Sacramento County and the City of Folsom, prescribes an
hourly Leq instead of an L50 standard and specifies that noise levels should be measured
at the property line. Similar to Sacramento County and Folsom, construction noise is
exempt from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on
weekends. If construction were to occur outside of these periods, activities would be
required to comply with exterior and interior noise limits at residential receptors, as
summarized in Table 4. For impulse noise (such as impact pile driving or blasting), the
limits are reduced by 5 dBA. A variance may be applied for if noise levels are expected
to exceed these limits.
October 2012
1-12
Table 4: Noise Ordinance Standards (Placer County)*

No is e Le ve ls No t To Be Exc e e de d
in Re s id e n tia l Zo n e (d BA)**
7 a .m . to 10
p .m .
(d a ytim e )
55
70
S o u n d Le ve l De s c rip to r
Hourly Leq
Any Period of Time (Lmax)
10 p .m . to 7 a .m .
(n ig h ttim e )
45
65
*Construction Noise Exemption Times: 6:00 a.m. 8:00 p.m. Weekdays

8:00 a.m. 8:00 p.m. Weekends
SOURCE: Placer County Code, Chapter 9.36.
1.5.4
El Dorado County
The County of El Dorado Noise Element is contained within Chapter 6.5 of the El
Dorado County General Plan. El Dorado County uses hourly Leq in order to categorize
noise disturbance, but further regulates noise according to land use zone, and applies
different noise standards to each zone. Construction noise exempt times include 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. If
construction were to occur outside of these periods, activities would be required to
comply with exterior noise limits at residential receptors, as summarized in Table 5. For
impulse noise (such as impact pile driving or blasting), the limits are reduced by 5 dBA.
A variance may be applied for of noise levels are expected to exceed these limits, and
would require noise monitoring. El Dorado County adds an hourly evening Leq between
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. As shown in Table 5, the evening Leq takes the last three hours
from the daytime Leq and applies a different criterion. In addition to adding an evening
standard, community and rural districts are split and given distinct criteria. A 5 dBA
reduction in all noise level limits will be applied for impulse noise.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 categorize separate zones and the construction noise
standards that apply to each of the regions and the planned land use in each region.
Table 6 refers to areas that are community regions or adopted plan areas. Table 7
refers to areas that are designated as rural centers. Table 8 refers to areas that are
rural regions. According to Policy 6.5.1.12 of the El Dorado County General Plan, at
outdoor activity areas of residential use, if the existing or projected future traffic levels
are less than 60 dBA Ldn and there is going to be more than a 5 dBA Ldn increase in
level from new traffic, this is considered significant. If the levels are or will be between
60 and 65 dBA Ldn, a 3 dBA Ldn increase or more is considered significant, and, finally, if
the levels are or will be greater than 65 dBA Ldn, an increase of 1.5 dBA Ldn or more is
considered significant. Increases in the Ldn that are greater than this will pose a problem
and construction will need to be reassessed. Ambient noise level increases of more
than 5 dBA will be deemed a nuisance if the ambient noise level is in accordance to
October 2012
1-13
Table 5. If the ambient noise level is not in accordance with Table 6, then only a 3 dBA
increase is allowed.
Table 5. Noise Level Performance Protection Standards For Noise

Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Non-Transportation Sources (El Dorado
County)*
No is e Le ve ls No t To Be Exc e e de d in Re s id e n tia l
Zo n e s (d BA)**
7 a .m . - 7 p .m .
(d a ytim e )
No is e Le ve l
De s c rip to r
Hourly Leq
Any Period of Time
(Lmax)
7 p .m . - 10 p .m .
(e ve n in g )
10 p .m . - 7 a .m .
(n ig h ttim e )
Co m m u n ity
Ru ra l
Co m m u n ity
Ru ra l
Co m m u n ity
Ru ra l
55
50
50
45
45
40
70
60
60
55
55
50
*Construction Noise Exemption Times: 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Weekdays

8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Weekends/Holidays
SOURCE: El Dorado County General Plan, Chapter 6.5.
Table 6. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure For Non-Transportation

Noise Sources In Community Regions and Adopted Plan Areas Construction Noise (El Dorado County)**
No is e Le ve l
(d BA)**
La n d Us e De s ig n a tion
Higher-Density Residential
Tim e P e rio d
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
Any Time
Commercial and Public Facilities

Industrial
October 2012
1-14
Le q
55
50
45
70
65
80
Lm a x
75
65
60
90
75
90

Noise Sources In Rural Centers - Construction Noise (El Dorado County)*
No is e Le ve l (d BA)**
All Residential
Commercial, Recreation, and Public

Facilities
Industrial
Open Space
Tim e P e rio d
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
Any Time
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
Le q
55
50
40
Lm a x
75
65
55
65
75
60
70
55
50
70
80
75
65

Noise Sources In Rural Regions - Construction Noise (El Dorado County)*
No is e Le ve l (d BA)**
All Residential
Commercial, Recreation, and Public

Facilities
Rural Land, Natural Resources, Open
Space and Agricultural Land
1.5.5
Tim e P e rio d
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Le q
55
50
40
65
60
70
Lm a x
75
6
55
75
70
80
7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
55
75
Wildlife Noise Criteria
Potential noise-sensitive biological receptors were identified by project biologists

within a five-mile radius of the project site (Figure 2). Eight potential sites were
identified: all are nesting or rookery habitat for four bird species. These include the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), great egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).
Noise criteria for these species have not been designated. The Draft
Comprehensive Species Management Plan for the least Bells vireo evaluated the
potential for masking of least Bells vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) song by traffic noise and
recommended that continuous noise levels above 60 dBA Leq within habitat areas may
affect the suitability of habitat use by least Bells vireo (SANDAG 1988). Since then,
many regulatory agencies recommend the use of 60 dBA Leq hourly levels to be
October 2012
1-15
considered a significant impact for sensitive avian species at the edge of suitable
habitat.
In the absence of species specific criteria, the 60 dBA Leq will be used to
determine noise impacts on wildlife.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have agreed upon the use of interim criteria for
injury to fish from pile driving or blasting. The current thresholds for injury are 206 dB
peak, 187 dB cumulative SEL for fish greater than 2 grams, and 183 dB cumulative SEL
for fish less than 2 grams. The current threshold for disturbance is 150 dB RMS.
1.5.6
Assessment Criteria
In order to determine the noise effects of the project, the closest jurisdiction with
the most restrictive noise level guidelines will be used as the construction noise level
criterion threshold for most project-related activities on human sensitive receptors. For
the purpose of this project, the City of Folsoms noise standards will be followed as
Folsom is the closest jurisdiction and has the most restrictive noise ordinance. Project
compliance with City of Folsom standards will guarantee project compliance with all
relevant ordinances.
Where construction activities would be conducted outside of the City of Folsom
construction noise exempt times, then the exterior noise standards limits are used to
determine impact significance. In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds
the applicable noise level standard in Table 2, the applicable standard shall be adjusted
so as to equal the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level is above 50 dBA, then
this becomes the new standard at each individual noise-sensitive receptor.
The 60 dBA Leq will be used to determine noise impacts on birds and the noise
impacts on fish will be addressed qualitatively.
October 2012
1-16
Figure 2. Ambient Noise Level Measurement and Modeling Locations
October 2012
1-17
1.6
Existing Noise Environment
The proposed project would be located in City of Folsom on the south side of
Folsom Lake. The proposed project area would be located southeast of the Folsom
Dam, east of American River and northwest of Folsom Point Park ( See Figure 2). As
shown in Figure 2, there are four proposed staging areas:
the MIAD disposal area

the Dike 7 staging area northeast of the intersection of Folsom Lake
Crossing and East Natoma Street
the Overlook staging area located directly west of the proposed spur dike
the Prison staging area located southeast of Folsom Lake Crossing and
north of Folsom Prison Road and just east of the American River.
Folsom State Prison is located south of the proposed project area, on the far side
of Lamb Chop Hill. The haul road, which would be used to transport material from the
approach channel to disposal areas, extends east from the proposed project area along
the edge of Folsom Lake to the disposal sites located on the northwest side of the
intersection of East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road. The proximity of the haul
road to noise-sensitive receivers is less than 1,000 feet along sections of Mountain View
Drive and Elvie Lane and runs just south of Folsom Point Park. Several residential
areas within the project vicinity may be affected by noise from approach channel
excavation, spur dike construction, transload facility construction and removal, staging
area operations, blasting and traffic.
1.6.1
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive receptors are defined as areas where there is a reasonable

expectation of quiet and correspondingly high degree of sensitivity to noise. These
areas include human dwellings, hospitals, schools, churches,libraries and recreational
areas. Wildlife may also be sensitive to noise, and certain types of habitat, such as
nesting areas for migratory or special status birds, may be considered noise-sensitive
receptors. Figure 2 depicts site locations for all measured human and wildlife sensitive
receptors.
There are several areas within the City of Folsom that are classified as noisesensitive receptors (See Figure 2). By jurisdiction, these include:
October 2012
Folsom State Prison. The prison is located approximately 2,700 feet south
of proposed approach channel excavation activities, 2,300 feet west of the
proposed Dike 7 staging area, and is considered a residential area.
A residential neighborhood located approximately 5,700 feet west of
proposed approach channel excavation activities and the Overlook staging
area. The residential community is an apartment complex located west of
American River and east of the Folsom Auburn Road and Pierpoint Circle
intersection.
A large neighborhood that stretches from the western intersection of
Briggs Ranch Drive and East Natoma Street to the intersection of Green
Valley Road and East Natoma Street. Residences in this neighborhood
1-18
are located approximately 3,700 feet south of proposed approach channel

excavation activities, 1,000 feet south of the Dike 7 staging area, and
approximately 600 feet south of the MIAD disposal and staging areas.
Several residences scattered throughout the area located immediately
west of Folsom Point Park and Folsom Lake Crossing. These single-family
residences are located within 500 feet of the haul road and 400 feet of the
Dike 7 Staging Area. The closest residences to the proposed approach
channel excavation activities are located at the western end of Mountain
View Drive and the western end of Lorena Lane. These residences are
located approximately 3,300 feet southeast of proposed approach channel
excavation activities.
Folsom Point Park. The park is located approximately 4,800 feet
southeast of proposed approach channel excavation activities and within
500 feet of the proposed Dike 7 staging area and MIAD disposal area.
The Folsom Point Church of Christ, which is located directly south of the
boundary of the proposed Dike 8 disposal area. The church is located at
the northwest corner of the intersection of East Natoma Street and Briggs
Ranch Drive and is approximately 300 feet south of the Dike 8 disposal
area and 800 feet west of the MIAD disposal and staging areas.
A residential community located approximately 8,000 feet southeast of
proposed approach channel excavation activities and across the street
from the MIAD disposal and staging areas. This community is located at
the northeast corner of Green Valley Road and East Natoma Street.
Two residences located directly southwest of the boundary of the
proposed MIAD staging area. These homes are located at the northeast
corner of Briggs Ranch Drive and East Natoma Street. The nearest
residence is located approximately 300 feet southwest of the MIAD
staging area.
Within Placer County, the Beals Point campground is located about 8,600 feet
northwest of proposed approach channel excavation activities. This park is located east
of where State Rec Area Road and Beals Point intersect.
The only sensitive receptors in El Dorado County that could be affected by
construction noise are located in a community along Agora Way, Shadowfax Lane and
Shadowfax Court. This community is approximately 2,500 feet east from the MIAD
disposal and staging areas and 10,500 feet from proposed approach channel
excavation activities.
Wildlife Receptors. As discussed in section 1.5.5, eight potential sensitive sites
for wildlife were identified within five miles of proposed approach channel
excavation activities; all are protected habitat for nesting birds (Figure X, Bio-1
through Bio 8). Habitats for the tri-colored blackbird are found at three locations
(Bio-4, Bio-6, and Bio-8), that are over 2 miles from proposed approach channel
excavation activities to the south, southeast, and northwest, respectively. The
great egret habitat (Bio-1) is located over 4 miles southwest of proposed
approach channel excavation activities. Habitat for the great blue heron (Bio-2) is
October 2012
1-19
found approximately 5,000 feet west of proposed approach channel excavation

activities and approximately 1,500 feet west of the proposed Prison staging area.
This is the closest sensitive bio-receptor. White-tailed kite habitats (Bio-3, Bio-5,
and Bio-7) are located over 1.8 miles to the southwest and southeast from
proposed approach channel excavation activities.
1.6.2
Ambient Noise Survey
An ambient noise level survey was conducted between March 24 and March 26,
2009 in the project area to characterize existing noise conditions. The survey consisted
of short-term (10 minutes) and long-term measurements (24-hours) at noise-sensitive
receptors and wildlife habitats. Weather conditions were consistent over the three days
of noise monitoring. The temperature ranged from 55 degrees Fahrenheit at night to 75
degrees Fahrenheit during the day. Winds were mild to 6 or 7 miles per hour during
noise monitoring. Long-term measurements were conducted using three Larson Davis
Model 820 ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Type 1 Integrating Sound
Level Meters (Serial Numbers 1527, 1528 and 1598). The sound level meters were
bolted to trees, telephone poles or fences approximately five feet above the ground in
order to approximate the height of the human ear. Short-term monitoring was conducted
using a Bruel and Kjaer Model 2250 ANSI Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter (Serial
Number 2672071). All sound level meters were calibrated before and after the
measurement periods with a Larson Davis Model CAL200 calibrator (Serial Number
2794). All sound level measurements conducted by URS were in accordance with ISO
1996a, b, c.
The long-term and short-term measurement sites for human noise-sensitive
receptors are summarized in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. All long-term and
short-term measurement sites are representative of single-family homes or communities
near the project site. Table 11 shows measurement sites for wildlife receptors. Figure 2
illustrates the locations of all ambient noise measurement locations. Additional modeling
locations can be found in Figure 2. These modeling locations were necessary for noise
modeling purposes due to the residences being near proposed construction activities.
Table 9. Long-Term Measurement Sites
S ite ID
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
Lo c a tio n
Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street
Mountain View Drive
East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road
Shadowfax Court
East of Folsom Auburn Road and Pierpoint
Circle
Table 10. Short-Term Measurement Sites

S ite ID
Lo c a tio n
ST-2
Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street
ST-3
Mountain View Drive
October 2012
1-20
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7
ST-8
East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road

Shadowfax Court
East of Folsom Auburn Road and Pierpoint
Circle
Beals Point
Folsom Point
Table 11. Noise Sensitive Wildlife Receptor Sites

S ite
ID
Bio-1
Bio-5
Lo c a tio n
Main Avenue and Sunset Avenue
5,000 Feet West of Proposed Excavation Site
(near American River)
Erwin Avenue and Snipes Boulevard (SnipesPershing Park)
South Lexington Drive and Oak Avenue
Parkway
Willow Bend Road and Grey Fox Court
Bio-6
Haddington Drive and East Natoma Street
Bio-7
Sturbridge Drive and Stonemill Drive
Bio-8
Wellington Way and Grizzly Way
Bio-2
Bio-3
Bio-4
1.6.3
Re le va n t S p e c ie
Great Egret
Great Blue Heron
White-Tailed Kite
Tri-Colored
Blackbird
White-Tailed Kite
Tri-Colored
Blackbird
White-Tailed Kite
Tri-Colored
Blackbird
Long-Term Site Monitoring
Five long-term measurements were conducted. Long-term data was not collected
at the Folsom State Prison (LT-1) as prison security did not allow access to Prison
property. In place of monitoring data for LT-1, construction noise levels were modeled at
the prison on both the north and east sides of the prison in order to account for noise
levels due to construction. Table 12 summarizes the long-term measurement site data
for all other LT sites. The raw data for each long-term measurement site is provided in
Appendix A-Noise.
Table 12. Long-Term Measurement Site Data
S ite
ID
LT-2
Lo c a tio n
Tacana Drive and E. Natoma
October 2012
Ho u rly
S ta rt
S ta rt
Le q Ra n g e CNEL
Da te
Tim e
(d BA)
(d BA)
3/25/2009 17:00:00 51.5 - 69.4
71
1-21
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
St.
Mountain View Dr.
E. Natoma St. and Green
Valley Rd.
Shadowfax Court
East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and
Pierpoint Circle
3/25/2009 15:00:00 32.8 - 50.9
50
3/24/2009 14:00:00 58.0 - 75.2
76
3/24/2009 13:00:00 34.1 - 57.5
51
3/24/2009 15:00:00 31.7 - 56.8
50
Hourly Leqs ranged from 31.7 to 75.2 dBA and from 50 to 76 dBA CNEL
depending on the location of the long-term measurement location.
1.6.4
Short-Term Site Monitoring
Eight short-term measurements were conducted during the day (7:00 a.m.-7:00
p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) and night (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) periods for all of
the corresponding long-term measurement sites except for LT-1, or Folsom State
Prison, where no measurements were completed due to security concerns. Each
measurement lasted a total of 10 minutes. Short-term measurement Site 7 (ST-7) is
located at Beals Point Campground. Beals Point Campground is located 8,600 feet
northwest of the proposed Project area. Only daytime measurements could be
completed here due to campground closure during the evening and nighttime periods.
The campground is located on the west side of Lake Folsom. ST-8 is the measurement
site located at Folsom Point Park. The haul road runs just south of Folsom Point Park.
The proposed MIAD disposal and staging areas and Dike 8 disposal area are located
directly south of Folsom Point Park as well. The park is located approximately 4,800
feet southeast of proposed approach channel excavation activities. Daytime and
evening measurements were conducted. Nighttime measurements were not conducted
as the park is closed after 10:00 p.m. The data for all short-term measurements can be
found in Appendix B.
1.6.5
Sensitive Wildlife Receptor Monitoring
Short-term day, evening, and night ambient noise level measurements were
completed at eight noise-sensitive wildlife locations. Table 11 identifies the species as
well as the location of each wildlife receptor site. The data for these locations can be
found in Appendix C.
October 2012
1-22
2.0 IMPACTS
2.0
IMPACTS
2.1
Noise Prediction Model
Potential noise impacts for the proposed project are predicted using Cadna/A for
approach channel excavation, spur dike construction, transload facility construction and
removal, disposal area, and staging area activities. BNoise2 is used to model noise
impacts from blasting. Cadna/A is a Windows-based computer software modeling
program that allows for the input of sound sources and their corresponding noise source
output levels. Cadna/A takes both topography and attenuation due to sound wave
divergence into account in order to produce accurate results. BNoise2 is a computer
software program that allows for the user to model blast noise sound levels over a
specified range. BNoise2 generates results by taking both the type and amount of
charge used when blasting is taking place.
Noise impacts due to proposed construction activities from Alternatives 2 and 3
are analyzed separately. The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet titled Equipment Estimate
Summary provided by the USACE, dated October 24, 2011, is used in order to
estimate the worst-case noise impact scenarios at human and wildlife noise-sensitive
receivers during the year in which the noisiest construction activities would presumably
occur for both Alternatives 2 and 3. A condensed version of the Equipment Estimate
Summary for both Alternatives 2 and 3 can be found in Appendix D.
Due to the vast amount of construction equipment and the indefinite construction
phasing schedule listed in the Equipment Estimate Summary spreadsheet, if any
individual construction activity that is listed to occur at all during any particular year, it is
assumed that that particular construction activity could possibly occur at the same time
as all other construction activities that may be conducted during that year. This
methodology provides the annual worst-case noise impact scenario that would occur
sometime in between the years 2013 and 2017. Non-exempt hour construction activities
are analyzed separately. The noisiest activities for Alternative 2 would occur in 2017
and the noisiest construction activities for Alternative 3 would occur in 2013.
2.1.1
Construction Noise Levels
Construction noise levels are analyzed at the noise-sensitive receivers. Table 13

displays the equipment levels found in the Federal Highway Administrations Roadway
Construction Noise Models (RCNM) User Guide (FHWA RCNM, Version 1.0 Users
Guide). The reference noise sources are presented in order of descending loudness
from an impact pile driver, to a refrigerator unit. The column on the right indicates the
distance at which the noise level from the referenced equipment will fall to the criterion
level. The Actual Measured Lmax at 50 feet is used to calculate this distance unless it
reads N/A. If the table indicates N/A, the specifications (Spec. 721.560) taken from
the Big Dig in Boston are used. The Big Dig was a large Central Artery/Tunnel
Project that utilized many types of construction equipment. During the construction of
the project, noise measurements were conducted to quantify equipment noise levels..
October 2012
2-1
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 13. RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors
Actual
Spec. Measured
721.560 Lmax @
Lmax @ 50ft (dBA,
Acoustical
50ft
slow)
(dBA, samples
Equipment
Usage
Description
Factor
slow)
avg.
Impact Pile Driver**
20
95
101
Vibratory Pile Driver
20
95
101
Sand Blasting
20
85
96
(single nozzle)
Sheers (on
40
85
96
backhoe)
Hydra Break Ram**
10
90
N/A
Mounted Impact
Hammer (hoe
20
90
90
ram)**
Jackhammer**
20
85
89
Clam Shovel
20
93
87
(dropping)**
Blasting**
50
85
N/A
Concrete Saw
20
90
90
Pavement Scarifier
20
85
90
Vibrating Hopper
50
85
87
All Other Equipment
50
85
N/A
> 5 HP
Compressor (air)
50
85
N/A
Generator(<25KVA,
50
85
N/A
VMS Signs)
Grader
40
85
N/A
Horizontal Boring
50
85
N/A
Hydraulic Jack
Pneumatic Tools
50
85
85
Vacuum Excavator
40
85
85
(Vac-Truck)
Auger Drill Rig
20
85
84
Chain Saw
20
85
84
Flat Bed Truck
40
84
N/A
Rivet
Buster/Chipping
20
85
79
Gun**
October 2012
2-2
Number
of Actual
Data
Samples
(Count)
11
44
Distance
At Which
Level =
50 dBA
(45 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
31,548
17,741
Distance
At Which
Level =
45 dBA
(40 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
56,101
31,548
9,976
17,741
9,976
17,741
8,891
15,811
212
8,891
15,811
133
7,924
14,092
6,295
11,194
0
55
2
1
5,000
5,000
5,000
3,540
8,891
8,891
8,891
6,295
2,812
5,000
2,812
5,000
2,812
5,000
2,812
5,000
2,812
5,000
90
2,812
5,000
149
2,812
5,000
36
46
0
2,506
2,506
2,506
4,456
4,456
4,456
19
2,506
4,456
2.0 IMPACTS
Equipment
Description
Scraper
Tractor
Boring Jack Power
Unit
Concrete Batch
Plant
Gradall
Warning Horn
Dozer
Grapple (on
backhoe)
Vacuum Street
Sweeper
Concrete Pump
Truck
Crane
Excavator
Generator
Pumps
Rock Drill
Bar Bender
Drum Mixer
Roller
Slurry Trenching
Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Vibratory Concrete
Mixer
Concrete Mixer
Truck
Drill Rig Truck
Front End Loader
Ventilation Fan
Backhoe
October 2012
Actual
Spec. Measured
721.560 Lmax @
Lmax @ 50ft (dBA,
Acoustical
50ft
slow)
(dBA, samples
Usage
Factor
slow)
avg.
40
85
84
40
84
N/A
Number
of Actual
Data
Samples
(Count)
12
0
Distance
At Which
Level =
50 dBA
(45 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
2,506
2,506
Distance
At Which
Level =
45 dBA
(40 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
4,456
4,456
50
80
83
2,233
3,972
15
83
N/A
2,233
3,972
40
5
40
85
85
85
83
83
82
70
12
55
2,233
2,233
1,991
3,972
3,972
3,540
25
80
82
1,991
3,540
10
80
82
19
1,991
3,540
20
82
81
30
1,774
3,155
16
40
50
50
20
20
50
20
85
85
82
77
85
80
80
85
81
81
81
81
81
N/A
80
80
405
170
19
17
3
0
1
16
1,774
1,774
1,774
1,774
1,774
1,581
1,581
1,581
3,155
3,155
3,155
3,155
3,155
2,812
2,812
2,812
50
82
80
75
1,581
2,812
50
80
N/A
1,581
2,812
20
80
80
1,581
2,812
40
85
79
40
1,409
2,506
20
40
100
40
84
80
85
80
79
79
79
78
22
96
13
372
1,409
1,409
1,409
1,256
2,506
2,506
2,506
2,233
2-3
2.0 IMPACTS
Actual
Spec. Measured
721.560 Lmax @
Lmax @ 50ft (dBA,
Acoustical
50ft
slow)
(dBA, samples
Equipment
Usage
Description
Factor
slow)
avg.
Compactor (ground)
40
80
78
Slurry Plant
100
78
78
Paver
50
85
77
Dump Truck
40
84
76
Man Lift
20
85
75
Pickup Truck
40
55
75
Welder/Torch
40
73
74
Refrigerator Unit
100
82
73
Number
of Actual
Data
Samples
(Count)
18
1
9
31
23
1
5
3
Distance
At Which
Level =
50 dBA
(45 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
1,256
1,256
1,119
998
889
889
792
706
Distance
At Which
Level =
45 dBA
(40 dBA
impact)
(in feet)
2,233
2,233
1,991
1,774
1,581
1,581
1,409
1,256
Several assumptions are made regarding construction activities, not including

blasting, and they include:
October 2012
Normal staging area construction operations include 2 dozers, 2 dump

trucks and a batch plant at all four proposed staging areas for both
Alternatives 2 and 3.
For both Alternatives 2 and 3, rock crushing activities would occur at either
the MIAD staging area or at the overlook staging area and would not occur
during non-exempt construction noise activities.
Normal disposal area construction operations include 2 dozers and 2
dump trucks for both Alternatives 2 and 3.
For Alternative 2, the worst case annual noise construction level year is
2017, and there would be approximately 13,167 annual truck round-trips
along the on-site haul road going to and from the MIAD, Dike 7, and Dike
8 areas and the spur dike construction area.
For Alternative 3, the worst case annual noise construction level year is
2013, and there would be approximately 8,960 annual truck round-trips
along the on-site haul road going to and from the Dike 8 and MIAD
disposal areas and the approach channel excavation area; 900 annual
truck round-trips going to and from the transload facility and the MIAD.
Dike 7, and Dike 8 areas, and 3,740 annual truck round-trips to move
cofferdam cell fill material that would be assumed to be coming from Dike
8 and the MIAD areas. The total annual truck round-trips along the on-site
haul road in 2013 is 13,600.
2-4
2.0 IMPACTS
2.1.2
Using the total number of annual truck round-trips along the on-site haul
road for both Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be approximately 4.5 truck
round-trips per day that will be used for modeling purposes.
Construction Schedules and Durations for Alternatives 2 and 3
Construction of both Alternatives 2 and 3 would begin in mid-2013 and end in

late 2017. Tables 14 and 15 provide the schedule for all construction activities listed in
the Equipment Estimate Summary for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. The tables list
construction activities and the year(s) in which they may occur. Additional construction
activities listed in the table, but not listed on the original provided Equipment Estimate
Summary, include all five staging and/or disposal area construction activities; and onsite haul road usage going to and from the MIAD and Project site during approach
channel excavation and spur dike construction; and on-site haul road usage going to
and from the MIAD and transload facility during construction of the transload facility.
There would only be one batch plant located at one of the four proposed staging
areas. Batch plant operations have the potential to be conducted during non-exempt
construction noise hours. All potential non-exempt construction noise activities are
marked with an asterisk. Rock crushing activities would be conducted at either the
MIAD staging area or Overlook staging area. In Tables 14 and 15, for each year, every
construction activity is marked if it would occur at some time during that year.
For both Alternatives 2 and 3, blasting would take place in between February
2014 and August 2017. Blasting activities are not listed in Tables 14 and 15. Potential
noise impacts from blasting activities are analyzed separately.
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MIAD Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
X
X
X
X
X
MIAD Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
X
X
X
X
X
MIAD Disposal and Staging Area*
X
X
X
X
X
Overlook Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
X
X
X
X
X
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Prison Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From
X
X
X
X
X
October 2012
2-5
2.0 IMPACTS
Excavation Site and MIAD*
On-Site Haul Road Usage for Construction
of Transload Facility*
Construction*
Set up and Operate Silt Curtain/ possible
Bubble Curtain**
Spur Dike Riprap***
Transfer Excavated Material to Disposal
Site***
Teardown, Clean Up, and Site
Restoration***
On-Site Haul Road Usage for Removal of
Transload Facility*
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


Fill Cells*
MIAD Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
MIAD Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
MIAD Disposal and Staging Area*
Overlook Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
October 2012
2013
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-6
2014
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2015
2016
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.0 IMPACTS
Prison Staging Area w/ Batch Plant*
On-Site Haul Road Usage to and From
Excavation Site and MIAD*
On-Site Haul Road Usage for Construction
of Transload Facility*
Spur Dike Riprap*
Transfer Excavation Material to Disposal
Site*
Remove Sheets*
2013
X
X
X
X
X
2014
X
X
X
X
X
2015
X
X
X
X
X
2016
X
X
X
X
X
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

2.1.3
Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source Levels for

Tables 14 and 15 list all of the construction activities contained in the Equipment
Estimate Summary provided by the USACE for Alternatives 2 and 3. Appendix D
provides a detailed breakdown of the equipment required for each activity. In Appendix
D, under each construction activity, the quantity; horsepower; hours per day; duty cycle;
total sound pressure levels (SPL) at 50 feet and sound power levels (PWL) for the
quantity of individual types of equipment; and total SPLs at 50 feet and PWLs for all of
the equipment combined for each construction activity are listed. Tables 16 and 17,
below, present areas where the individual construction activities occur, along with the
total combined SPL (at 50 feet) and PWL for all of the required construction equipment.
The areas of designation for the construction activities are significant because these
designated areas indicate where each individual construction activity is modeled. On-
October 2012
2-7
2.0 IMPACTS
site haul road truck usage has been combined into one activity in order to generate a
worst case annual haul road round-trip SPL at 50 feet for all trips.
October 2012
2-8
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 16. Alternative 2 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source Levels
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity (dBA
Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)

Rock In-the-Wet***
96.4
131.0

to Rock*
96.0
130.6

Site Restoration***
96.0
130.6

Curtain/ possible Bubble
Curtain**
93.1
127.7
Site Prep / Haul Road

Prep
93.0
127.6
Transfer Excavation
Material to Disposal Site*
92.7
127.3
Remove Transload
Facility***
91.6
126.2
Construct Transload
Facility*
91.6
126.2
91.2
125.8
Common Excavation to
Disposal*
90.5
125.1
Cutoff Wall Concrete

Placement*
89.9
124.5

Walls*
89.7
124.3
October 2012
2-9
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity (dBA
Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Spur Dike Riprap***
89.3
123.9
89.3
123.9
88.0
122.6
88.0
122.6
86.4
121.0
86.4
121.0
86.4
121.0
84.9
119.5
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
52.6
n/a

Plant

Plant

Batch Plant*

Batch Plant*

Batch Plant*
Intake Approach Walls
and Slab Construction*
MIAD Disposal and
Staging Area*
X
X
X

X
X
a
Material*
October 2012
2-10
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Transload
Facility
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity (dBA
Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
On-Site Haul Road Usage

to and From Excavation
a
Site and MIAD*
52.6
n/a

for Construction of
a
Transload Facility*
52.6
n/a

for Removal of Transload
a
Facility*
52.6
n/a

**potential nighttime activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only)
a
Table 17. Alternative 3 Areas of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Source Levels
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Fill Cells*
102.2
136.8
Construction of Sheet Pile

Cells*
101.7
136.3
October 2012
2-11
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Common Dredge Below

Cofferdam*
96.8
131.4

Rock In-the-Wet***
96.3
130.9

to Rock*
96.0
130.6

Site Restoration***
96.0
130.6
Dewater Behind
Cofferdam*
95.9
130.4
Remove Sheets*
94.4
128.9
93.2
127.8

Curtain**
92.8
127.4
Transfer Excavation
Material to Disposal Site*
92.7
127.3
Construct Transload
Facility*
91.6
126.2
Remove Transload
Facility***
91.2
125.8
91.1
125.7
Common Excavation
Below Cofferdam*
90.4
124.9

Walls*
89.7
124.3
October 2012
2-12
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Spur Dike Riprap***
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
X
X

Batch Plant*

Batch Plant*

Batch Plant*
MIAD Disposal and

Staging Area*
X
X
X

X
X

to and From Excavation
a
Site and MIAD*
October 2012
Haul
Road

Rock Crusher
Intake Approach Walls

and Slab*
Dike 8
Disposal
Area

Rock Crusher
Prison
Staging
Area
2-13
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
89.3
123.9
88.0
122.6
88.0
122.6
87.7
122.3
86.4
121.0
86.4
121.0
86.4
121.0
84.9
119.5
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
83.8
118.4
52.6
n/a
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach
Channel /
Spur Dike
Transload
Facility
MIAD
Staging
and
Disposal
Area
Dike 7
Staging
Area
Overlook
Staging
Area
Prison
Staging
Area
Dike 8
Disposal
Area
Haul
Road
Total SPL @
50 Feet per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)
Total PWL
per
Construction
Activity
(dBA Leq)

for Construction of
a
Transload Facility*
52.6
n/a
a
Material*
52.6
n/a

for Removal of Transload
a
Facility*
52.6
n/a

**potential nighttime construction activity (four 1500 CFM compressors only)
a
October 2012
2-14
2.0 IMPACTS
For both alternatives, the noisiest construction activities are being conducted at
the approach channel excavation and spur dike construction areas. Noise generated by
haul road trips is the construction activity that generates the least amount of noise
because the trucks are going at a relatively low speed and they only briefly pass by
noise-sensitive receptors.
2.2
Noise Prediction Model Method for Construction Activities
Tables 14 through 17 are used to calculate total combined sound power levels
for all of the construction activities that are taking place in distinct areas of the overall
proposed Project area. These total combined sound power levels for distinct areas are
incorporated in the Cadna/A model as a worst case year construction noise level
scenario. For example, Table 14 identifies the years in which all construction activities
would be conducted for Alternative 2. Table 15 identifies the specific areas where the
construction activities for Alternative 2 would be conducted along with the combined
total sound pressure levels (SPLs) at 50 feet and sound power levels (PWLs) for each
construction activity. By cross-referencing Tables 14 and 16, the sound power levels for
each area of construction for each year are summed up in order to generate a total
potential sound power level. In 2017, and for Alternative 2, the acoustic power level for
all construction activities being conducted at the approach channel excavation and spur
dike construction area is 136.4 dBA PWL and, in 2016, it is 137.1 dBA PWL. This
process is carried out for both Alternatives 2 and 3 for the following designated
construction areas in order find the year with the worst-case noise generating scenario
due to construction:
Approach Channel Excavation and Spur Dike Construction Area

Transload Facility Construction and Removal Area
MIAD Disposal and Staging Areas
Dike 7 Staging Area
Overlook Staging Area
Prison Staging Area
Haul Road
Blast noise and off-site traffic noise due to construction is analyzed separately
from the on-site construction activities listed in Tables 14 through 17.
2.2.1
Noise Prediction Model Inputs for Construction Activities Conducted

During Construction Noise Exempt Hours for Alternatives 2 and 3
Table 18 and Table 19 list the combined PWLs for all of the construction
equipment for activities being conducted during daytime hours at each respective
construction area by year. Construction activities would be conducted from year 2013
through 2017 at the approach channel excavation and spur dike construction area.
Transload facility construction occurs in 2013 and removal of the transload facility
occurs in 2017. Rock crushing would only occur at either the MIAD or Overlook staging
area, but not at both. Haul road round-trips cannot be assigned a PWL because traffic
noise is measured by the sound pressure level (SPL) at 50 feet.
October 2012
2-15
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 18. Alternative 2 Total Combined PWL for Each Area of Construction by
Year (dBA)
Approach Channel / Spur Dike
Transload Facility
Rock Crusher and Batch Plant
Dike 7 Staging Area
Overlook Staging Area w/ Rock
Haul Road*
2013
135.5
126.2
2014
132.4
0.0
2015
136.3
0.0
2016
137.1
0.0
2017
136.4
126.2
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
118.4
118.4
118.4
118.4
118.4
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
*noise due to on-site haul road round-trips is analyzed using FHWA Model that generated SPLs
Table 19. Alternative 3 Total Combined PWL for Each Area of Construction by
Year (dBA)
Approach Channel / Spur Dike
Transload Facility
Rock Crusher and Batch Plant
Dike 7 Staging Area
Overlook Staging Area w/ Rock
Haul Road*
2013
141.4
126.2
2014
141.3
0.0
2015
136.2
0.0
2016
137.2
0.0
2017
138.1
126.2
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
118.4
118.4
118.4
118.4
118.4
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
122.6
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
121.0
118.4
n/a
Table 18 confirms that construction activities during year 2017 would generate
the highest levels of noise associated with Alternative 2, and Table 19 confirms that
construction activities during year 2013 would generate the highest levels of noise
associated with Alternative 3. For Alternative 2, year 2017 is a worst-case scenario for
noise generated by construction activities rather than year 2016 as transload facility
construction activities are conducted in 2017 while they are absent in 2016.
Construction activities conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours are
analyzed and modeled separately..
In the Cadna/A model, area noise sources are placed near the general vicinity
of where the proposed area of construction would be conducted. The area sources are
October 2012
2-16
2.0 IMPACTS
input into the Cadna/A model with the overall PWL found under the year 2017 column
for each respective construction activity in order to generate a worst-case scenario from
noise due to construction. Using Alternative 2, for example, in the vicinity of the
approach channel excavation and spur dike construction area, an area source is input
into the Cadna/A model that has a PWL of 136.4 dBA and an area source with a PWL of
126.2 dBA is input into the model where the transload facility would be located. The
same goes for the five staging and/or disposal areas and their respective PWLs.
Table 20 displays the general octave band spectrum for diesel engines that is
used to input area sources in the Cadna/A model. This octave band spectrum originates
from the octave band spectrum for an articulated 40 ton truck found in the 2009 Early
Approach Channel Excavation EIS (URS, 2009).
Table 20. PWL for Area Sources Input into the Cadna/A Model (dBA)
S o u n d P owe r Le ve ls (d B)
No is e S o u rc e
40 TN Articulated
Trucks*
63
Hz
125
Hz
250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Hz Hz
Hz
Hz
Hz
Hz
102
108
106 101
100
97
91
82
Ove ra ll
Le ve l
(d BA)
105
*octave band levels are increased for area sources in order to make up for differences in overall PWLs
There is also a haul road that extends from the approach channel excavation and
spur dike construction area to the MIAD staging and disposal areas. Inputs for
roadways into the Cadna/A model are different than area sources. A road source is
input into the Cadna/A model using nine trucks going at a speed of 10 mph; and then
the road source is calibrated to match the output of the FHWA of the FHWA model.
This results in a calculated SPL of 52.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.
2.2.2

During Non-Exempt Hours for Alternative 2
Many of the construction activities have the potential to be conducted during nonexempt hours. These activities are marked with an asterisk in Tables 14-17 for both
alternatives. Rock crushing and blasting activities would not be conducted during nonexempt hours. Only one batch plant would be in operation and the location has yet to be
determined. For modeling purposes, a worst-case scenario was established assuming
that the batch plant would be operating during nighttime hours at the Prison, Overlook,
or MIAD staging areas. As shown in Table 16, during non-exempt hours at the
Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area, the loudest individual construction activity that
would potentially be conducted is drill and blast and dredging rock in-the-wet and the
quietest individual construction activity would potentially be intake approach walls and
slab construction. Table 16 lists the sound power levels associated with each nonexempt hour construction activity. Many of the construction activities listed in Table 16
would have the potential to be conducted simultaneously and there is no definitive time
October 2012
2-17
2.0 IMPACTS
and place where construction activities would be conducted during non-exempt

construction hours. This results in a large number of potential combinations of
construction activities during non-exempt hours.
For Alternative 2, the worst-case scenario non-exempt hour construction
activities at each respective construction area were modeled with drill and blast and
dredging rock in-the-wet and intake approach walls and slab construction activities
being conducted individually at the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area. By generating
these two individual noise models, the loudest and quietest activities that would be
conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area are taken into account in order to
generate two potential combinations for non-exempt construction hour activities during
non-exempt hours. Tables 21 and 22 list the calculated PWLs that were used in each
noise model for each respective specific construction area.
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet Activities) (dBA)
Approach Channel / Spur Dike (Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet Activities ONLY)
Transload Facility Construction/Removal
MIAD Disposal and Staging Area w/ Batch Plant
Dike 7 Staging Area
Haul Road*
PWL (dBA)
131.0
126.2
121.0
118.4
121.0
121.0
118.4
n/a
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Activities) (dBA)
October 2012
2-18
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach Channel / Spur Dike (Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Activities ONLY)
Dike 7 Staging Area
Haul Road*
PWL (dBA)
119.5
126.2
121.0
118.4
121.0
121.0
118.4
n/a
2.2.3

During Non-Exempt Hours for Alternative 3
Table 17 indicates the loudest individual construction activity that would

potentially be conducted for Alternative 3 at the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area is
fill cells during non-exempt hours. The quietest individual construction activity would
potentially be intake approach walls and slab construction during non-exempt hours at
the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area. Table 17 lists the sound power levels
associated with each non-exempt hour construction activity. Similar to Alternative 2,
many of the construction activities listed in Table 17 would have the potential to be
conducted simultaneously and there is no definitive time and place where construction
activities would be conducted during non-exempt construction hours. This results in an
large number of potential combinations of construction activities during non-exempt
hours. For Alternative 3, the worst-case scenario non-exempt hour construction
activities at each respective construction area were modeled with fill cells and intake
approach walls and slab construction activities being conducted individually at the
Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area. By generating these two individual noise models,
the loudest and quietest activities that would be conducted at the Approach
Channel/Spur Dike Area are taken into account in order to generate two potential
combinations for non-exempt construction hour activities during non-exempt hours.
Tables 23 and 24 list the calculated PWLs that were input into each noise model for
each respective specific construction area.
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Drill and Blast and
Dredging Rock In-the-Wet Activities) (dBA)
Approach Channel / Spur Dike (Fill Cells Activities
October 2012
2-19
PWL (dBA)
136.8
2.0 IMPACTS
ONLY)
Dike 7 Staging Area
Haul Road*
126.2
121.0
118.4
121.0
121.0
118.4
n/a
Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities (w/ Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Activities) (dBA)
Approach Channel / Spur Dike (Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Activities ONLY)
Dike 7 Staging Area
Haul Road*
PWL (dBA)
119.5
126.2
121.0
118.4
121.0
121.0
118.4
n/a
2.3
Noise Prediction Model Results
For both Alternatives 2 and 3, worst-case scenarios due to construction activities

during construction noise exempt hours were input into the noise model in order to
obtain noise levels at long-term (LT-X), short-term (ST-X), modeled (MR-X), and wildlife
receivers (Bio-X). MR-1a, MR1b, MR-9, MR-10, and MR-11 are modeled noisesensitive receivers. MR-1a is a modeled noise-sensitive receiver located on the north
end of Folsom Prison and MR-1b is a modeled noise-sensitive receiver located on the
east end of Folsom Prison. MR-9 is located at the eastern-most single-family residence
that is located immediately southwest of the MIAD disposal and staging area and north
of the intersection of Briggs Ranch Drive and East Natoma Street. MR-10 is located at
the western end of Lorena Lane and immediately southeast of the Dike 7 staging area.
MR-11 is the Folsom Point Church of Christ that is located on the northwest corner of
East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive and is located immediately south of the
Dike 8 disposal area. These noise modeling locations are utilized because ambient
noise level measurements were not conducted at these locations and, due to the
October 2012
2-20
2.0 IMPACTS
activities at the Dike 7 staging area, Dike 8 disposal area, and MIAD disposal and
staging areas, it is important to know what type of noise would be generated by
construction equipment at the noise modeling locations. Figure 2 illustrates the location
of all noise measurement and noise modeling locations. The noise levels at the noisesensitive receivers have been compared to the measured ambient noise levels to see if
there would be noise impacts. The same process was also conducted for blasting and
construction activities conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours for both
Alternatives 2 and 3.
2.3.1
Noise Prediction Model Results for Alternative 2 during Construction

Noise Exempt Hours
Under Alternative 2, the worst-case scenario is 2017 as the result of noise levels
generated by construction activities during exempt hours. The area sources, and their
respective PWLs, found in Table 18, are input into the Cadna/A model to generate noise
levels at ST, LT, MR, and Bio noise-sensitive sites. Table 25 displays the resulting Leq
values at each noise-sensitive receiver. The City of Folsom uses the L50 metric as its
baseline noise criterion, but comparing the Leq with the L50 results is a conservative
model because Leq values are always higher than L50 values.
Activities for Alternative 2 in 2017
S ite ID
MR-1a
MR-1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
Bio-1
Bio-2
October 2012
Mo d e le d No is e
Le ve l Du e to
Co n s tru c tio n
Ac tivitie s (d BA
Le q )
50
48
54
63
62
46
51
52
61
57
57
56
30
47
2-21
L50 (a m b ie n t n o is e
le ve l in d BA fro m 7:00
to 18:00 fo r LTs a n d
d a ytim e L50 fo r Bio
a n d S T)
n/a
n/a
66
46
73
45
47
43
40
n/a
n/a
n/a
42
49
2.0 IMPACTS
S ite ID
Bio-3
Bio-4
Bio-5
Bio-6
Bio-7
Bio-8
2.3.2
Mo d e le d No is e
Le ve l Du e to
Co n s tru c tio n
Ac tivitie s (d BA
35
41
44
46
37
33
L50 (a m b ie n t n o is e
le ve l in d BA fro m 7:00
to 18:00 fo r LTs a n d
d a ytim e L50 fo r Bio
42
51
49
51
41
57
Noise Prediction Model Analysis for Alternative 2 during Construction

Noise Exempt Hours
Construction activities that would be conducted during construction noise exempt

hours in the year 2017 for Alternative 2 of the Project will generate exterior noise levels
which exceed significance criteria established by the City of Folsom at several noisesensitive receivers. The 50 dBA daytime L50 noise standard is exceeded at MR-1a, LT2, LT-3, LT-4, LT-6, ST-7, ST-8, MR-9, MR-10 and MR-11. At LT-2 and LT-4, the
modeled Leq is below the measured daytime L50 and therefore, there would be no noise
impacts at these noise-sensitive receivers. Although the modeled noise levels due to
daytime construction activities for Alternative 2 would exceed the L50 noise standard and
existing ambient daytime L50s at MR-1a, MR-1b, LT-3, LT-6, ST-7, ST-8, MR-9, MR-10,
and MR-11, construction noise is exempt from local standards from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. during weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. The will be no
significant noise impacts if construction activities are conducted within these
construction noise exempt times.
If construction activities are conducted in between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., then
mitigation would be necessary in order to meet the daytime noise standard of 50 dBA
L50 at all respective noise-sensitive receivers where the modeled Leq is above 50 dBA
Leq. If construction activities are conducted in between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., then
mitigation would be necessary in order to meet the nighttime noise standard of 45 dBA
Leq.
Noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at any wildlife receptor site, therefore
there are no expected impacts to wildlife habitat.
2.3.3
Noise Prediction Model Results for Alternative 3 during Construction

Noise Exempt Hours
Under Alternative 3, the worst-case scenario is 2013 as the result of noise levels
generated by construction activities during exempt hours. The area sources, and their
respective PWLs, found in Table 19, are input into the Cadna/A model to generate noise
October 2012
2-22
2.0 IMPACTS
levels at ST, LT, MR, and Bio noise-sensitive sites. Table 26 displays the resulting Leq
values at each noise-sensitive receiver.
Activities for Alternative 3 in 2013
Site ID
MR-1a
MR-1b
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
Bio-1
Bio-2
Bio-3
Bio-4
Bio-5
Bio-6
Bio-7
Bio-8
2.3.4
Modeled Noise
Level Due to
Construction
Activities (dBA
Leq)
55
53
57
66
62
49
55
56
63
58
60
58
34
51
39
45
48
49
41
37
L50 (ambient noise

level in dBA from
7:00 to 18:00 for LTs
and daytime L50 for
Bio and ST)
n/a
n/a
66
46
73
45
47
43
40
n/a
n/a
n/a
42
49
42
51
49
51
41
57
Noise Prediction Model Analysis for Alternative 3 Activities during

Construction Noise Exempt Hours
Construction activities that are proposed to be conducted during construction

noise exempt hours in the year 2013 for Alternative 3 of the Project would generate
exterior noise levels which exceed significance criteria established by the City of Folsom
at several noise-sensitive receivers. The 50 dBA daytime L50 noise standard is
October 2012
2-23
2.0 IMPACTS
exceeded at MR-1a, MR-1b, LT-2, LT-3, LT-4, LT-6, ST-7, ST-8, MR-9, MR-10, and
MR-11. At LT-2 and LT-4, the modeled Leq is below the measured daytime L50 and
therefore, there would be no noise impacts at these noise-sensitive receivers. Although
the modeled noise levels due to daytime construction activities for Alternative 3 would
exceed the L50 noise standard and existing ambient daytime L50s at MR-1a, MR-1b, LT3, LT-6, ST-7, ST-8, MR-9, MR-10 and MR-11, construction noise is exempt from local
standards from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
on weekends. There would be no significant noise impacts if construction activities are
conducted within these construction noise exempt times.
If construction activities are conducted in between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., then
mitigation will be necessary in order to meet the daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50
at all respective noise-sensitive receivers where the modeled Leq is above 50 dBA Leq. If
construction activities are conducted in between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., then
mitigation would be necessary in order to meet the nighttime noise standard of 45 dBA
Leq.
there are no expected impacts to wildlife habitat.
2.3.5
Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Alternative 2 during NonExempt Construction Noise Hours
There are several potential construction activities planned for Alternative 2 that
may be conducted outside of construction noise exempt times. These activities are
marked with an asterisk in Tables 14 and 16. Drill and blasting and dredging rock inthe-wet and intake approach walls and slab activities were the only construction
activities modeled at the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area because they are the
loudest and quietest individual construction activities, respectively, that would be
conducted during non-exempt hours for Alternative 2. Table 27 lists the noise levels
generated at noise-sensitive receptors by individual construction activities, including
drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet, at specific areas of the proposed
project during non-exempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative noise level
is listed under each noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities would
be conducted simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the
proposed project. Figure 3 depicts what the resulting cumulative noise contours if these
construction activities were conducted simultaneously. Table 28 explores potential
combinations of construction activities and lists the modeled noise levels at noisesensitive receptors if specific activities are removed from simultaneous non-exempt
hour construction activities. In Tables 27 and 28, individual and cumulative noise levels
are highlighted in gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise threshold would be exceeded
during non-exempt hours at each noise-sensitive receptor. Table 29 lists the noise
levels generated at noise-sensitive receptors by individual construction activities,
including intake approach walls and slab construction, at specific areas of the
proposed project during non-exempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative
noise level is listed under each noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction
activities would be conducted simultaneously from each respective construction activity
October 2012
2-24
2.0 IMPACTS
area for the proposed project. Figure 4 depicts the resulting cumulative noise contours
if these construction activities were conducted simultaneously. Table 30 explores
potential combinations of construction activities and lists the modeled noise levels at
noise-sensitive receptors if specific activities are removed from simultaneous nonexempt hour construction activities. In Tables 29 and 30, individual and cumulative
noise levels are highlighted in gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise threshold would be
exceeded during non-exempt hours at each noise-sensitive receptor. It should be noted
that there is a 50 dBA L50 daytime noise standard that would be applicable from 6:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. because noise construction activities would potentially occur during
this timeframe and outside of the construction noise exempt hours. The 50 dBA L50
daytime noise standard would not be allowed to be exceeded from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m. as well. The 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise standard is the most restrictive nonexempt hour noise standard and it is used for analyzing potential noise impacts outside
of construction noise exempt hours since there is no definitive construction schedule.
Many of the construction activities listed in Table 16 have the potential to be
activities would be conducted during non-exempt construction hours. Tables 27, 28, 29
and 30 illustrate that certain construction activities generate higher levels of noise
impacts at specific receptors. A brief description of the major noise contributing
October 2012
2-25
2.0 IMPACTS
Figure 3. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction Activities w/ Drill and Blast and Dredging
Rock In-the-Wet (INSERT FIGURE)
October 2012
2-26
2.0 IMPACTS
Figure 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction Activities w/ Intake

Approach Walls and Slab Activities (INSERT FIGURE)
October 2012
2-27
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 27. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Drill and Blast and Dredging Rock In-theWet
Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock In-theWet
Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
Batch Plant
Haul Road

During Non-Exempt Hours (Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock In-the-Wet)
44
42
46
55
41
37
43
46
51
44
49
45
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
27
29
21
46
35
59
39
21
35
25
30
24
24
23
23
33
57
31
47
54
31
28
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
14
47
32
13
44
33
21
51
41
34
62
30
28
60
26
14
44
35
9
48
37
4
47
36
37
60
33
32
55
37
24
55
34
30
55
Note: Noise effects are highlighted in gray if construction (1) could be conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and (2) would exceed either the
daytime exterior noise standard of 50 dBA L50 or the nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA L50.
Table 28. Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Drill and Blast
and Dredging Rock In-the-Wet
Combinations
Cumulative Noise Level (Without Drill
and Blast and Dredging Rock In-theWet)
Prison Staging Area w/ Batch
Plant)
October 2012
Cumulative Noise Levels Generated by Simultaneous Construction Activity Combinations at

Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock In-theWet)
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
46
44
51
62
60
44
45
47
60
55
55
55
46
44
49
60
60
43
48
46
58
55
55
55
2-28
2.0 IMPACTS
Combinations
Batch Plant)
Plant)
and Dike 8 Disposal Area)
Cumulative Noise Level (With Drill
and Blast and Dredging Rock In-theWet, Overlook Staging Area w/ Batch

Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Drill and Blast / Dredging Rock In-theWet)
46
44
49
59
60
44
48
47
60
55
50
55
47
44
51
62
60
44
48
47
56
54
55
49
47
44
51
62
45
40
48
47
60
51
55
55
46
44
51
62
60
44
48
46
60
55
55
55
46
44
51
62
44
40
48
47
56
49
55
49
45
43
47
55
60
43
48
46
58
55
49
55
44
43
46
55
41
37
44
46
51
44
49
45
Table 29. Alternative 2 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls and Slab
Construction
Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
October 2012

MR-1a MR-1b LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6 ST-7 ST-8 MR-9 MR-10
MR-11
32
31
35
43
29
25
32
34
39
32
37
33
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
29
46
59
21
25
24
23
33
31
54
28
2-29
2.0 IMPACTS
MIAD Disposal and Staging Area
w/ Batch Plant
Plant
Haul Road

MR-1a MR-1b LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6 ST-7 ST-8 MR-9 MR-10
MR-11
27
21
35
39
35
30
24
23
57
47
31
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
32
33
41
30
26
35
37
36
33
37
34
14
44
13
40
21
49
34
61
28
60
14
43
9
46
4
41
37
59
32
55
24
54
30
55
Table 30. Alternative 2 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Construction
Combinations
Construction)
Prison Staging Area w/ Batch Plant)
7 Staging Area)
8 Disposal Area)
Batch Plant)
Plant)
October 2012

Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Intake Approach Walls and Slab
Construction)
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
42
39
49
61
60
43
40
41
59
55
54
55
42
38
47
59
60
42
46
40
58
54
54
54
44
40
47
57
60
43
46
41
59
55
45
55
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
55
54
54
47
44
40
49
61
43
38
46
41
59
50
54
55
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
40
59
55
54
55
2-30
2.0 IMPACTS
Combinations
and Dike 8 Disposal Area)
Approach Walls and Slab
Construction, Overlook Staging Area
w/ Batch Plant, and Haul Road Only)

Construction)
44
40
49
61
42
37
46
41
55
47
54
47
41
38
41
47
60
42
46
40
58
54
42
54
37
35
37
46
34
29
37
39
42
37
40
37
October 2012
2-31
2.0 IMPACTS
construction activities that could generate noise impacts at each noise-sensitive

receptor is included below. Major noise contributing construction activities are defined
as activities that generate noise levels of 35 dBA or higher at any noise-sensitive
receptors.
1.
At Folsom State Prison (MR-1a and MR-1b), it is assumed that the prison
structures would provide a minimum of 30 dBA attenuation due to the concrete
walls and small, thick glass windows. It is also assumed that the exterior
concrete walls surrounding the prison facility would provide an additional 5 dBA
of attenuation. Taking these assumptions into account, noise levels at Folsom
State Prison would not be significant.
2.
At Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street (LT-2), drill and blasting and dredging
rock in-the-wet, transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area
utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted individually.
The major noise contributing activities at LT-2 would be Approach Channel/Spur
Dike construction activities, transload facility construction/removal activities, and
utilization of the Dike 7 staging area. Potential construction noise impacts may be
generated at LT-2 if construction activities are conducted outside of construction
noise exempt hours and mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise
impacts at LT-2.
3.
At Mountain View Drive (LT-3), drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet,
transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area utilization
activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime
exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted individually. The
construction activities, transload facility construction/removal activities, utilization
of the Dike 7 and Overlook staging areas, and utilization of the Dike 8 disposal
area. Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at LT-3 if
construction activities are conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours
and mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at LT-3.
4.
At East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road (LT-4), MIAD disposal and
staging area utilization would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
nighttime exterior noise standard if it was utilized without any other simultaneous
construction activities. The major noise contributing activities at LT-4 would be
construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area, and
utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging areas. Potential construction noise
impacts may be generated at LT-4 if construction activities are conducted outside
of construction noise exempt hours and mitigation may be necessary in order to
prevent noise impacts at LT-4.
5.
At East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint Circle (LT-6), utilization of the Prison
staging area would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime
exterior noise standard if it was utilized without any other simultaneous
construction activities. The major noise contributing activities at LT-6 would be
October 2012
2-32
2.0 IMPACTS
Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, utilization of the Prison or

Overlook staging areas, and transload facility construction/removal activities.
Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at LT-6 if construction
activities are conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and
mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at LT-6.
6.
At the Beals Point Campground (ST-7), guests would be staying overnight. Drill
and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet construction activities would generate
noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if it
would be conducted by itself without any other simultaneous construction
activities. The major noise contributing activities at ST-7 would be Approach
activities, utilization of the Overlook staging area. Potential construction noise
impacts may be generated at ST-7 if construction activities are conducted
outside of construction noise exempt hours and mitigation may be necessary in
order to prevent noise impacts at ST-7.
7.
At Folsom Point Park (ST-8), guests would not be staying overnight. Therefore,
there are no anticipated noise impacts during non-exempt hours.
8.
At East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive (MR-9), transload facility
construction/removal, Dike 8 disposal area utilization, and MIAD staging and
disposal area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45
individually. The major noise contributing activities at MR-9 are Approach
activities, utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD
disposal and staging area. Potential construction noise impacts may be
generated at MR-9 if construction activities are conducted outside of construction
impacts at MR-9.
9.
At Lorena Lane (MR-10), drill and blasting and dredging rock in-the-wet and Dike
7 staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the
45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted
individually. The major noise contributing activities at MR-10 would be Approach
activities, utilization of the Dike 7 staging area, and utilization of the Overlook
staging area. Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at MR-10 if
and mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at MR-10.
10.
At Folsom Point Church of Christ (MR-11), drill and blasting and dredging rock inthe-wet, transload facility construction/removal, and Dike 8 disposal area
utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50
nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be conducted individually.
The major noise contributing activities at MR-11 would be Approach
October 2012
2-33
2.0 IMPACTS

generated at MR-11 if construction activities are conducted outside of
construction noise exempt hours and mitigation may be necessary in order to
prevent noise impacts at MR-11.
Due to the uncertainty in regards to the time and location of construction

activities and equipment that would be utilized during nighttime hours, it is difficult to
ascertain when there would or would not be noise impacts at specific noise-sensitive
receptors. Under Alternative 2, mitigation measures would be necessary for all of these
long-term, short-term, and modeled receiver sites where the daytime and nighttime
exterior noise standards would be exceeded outside of construction noise exempt
hours. Implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in Section 2.4 would
reduce the construction noise effects during non-exempt hours at human noise sensitive
receptors to less than significant. Additionally, if noise complaints are to occur from
construction activities in non-exempt hours, it is expected that the Corps contractor
would address those complaints and implement further mitigation, as needed, to reduce
these effects. As a result, it is assumed that any significant effects associated with
noise would be reduced to less than significant, with the implementation of the
mitigation discussed in Section 2.4, and by responding to noise complaints when they
are received. Furthermore, due to the many variables that need to be taken into
account for non-exempt construction activities, it is recommended that a noise
monitoring program be instituted in order to ensure compliance and establish the
there are no expected impacts to wildlife habitat during non-exempt construction noise
hours.
2.3.6
Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Alternative 3 NonExempt Construction Noise Hours Activities
There are several potential construction activities planned for Alternative 3 that may be
conducted outside of construction noise exempt times. These activities are marked with
an asterisk in Tables 15 and 17. Fill cells and intake approach walls and slab
activities were the only construction activities modeled at the Approach Channel/Spur
Dike Area because they are the loudest and quietest individual construction activities,
respectively, that would be conducted during non-exempt hours for Alternative 3. Table
31 lists the noise levels generated at noise-sensitive receptors by individual construction
activities, including fill cells, at specific areas of the proposed project during nonexempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative noise level is listed under each
noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities would be conducted
simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the proposed project.
Figure 5 depicts the resulting cumulative noise contours if these construction activities
were conducted simultaneously. Table 32 explores potential combinations of
construction activities and lists the modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if
October 2012
2-34
2.0 IMPACTS
Figure 5. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Simultaneous Construction Activities w/ Fill Cells Activities (INSERT
FIGURE)
October 2012
2-35
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 31. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Fill Cells Activities
Fill Cells
Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
Batch Plant
Haul Road

During Non-Exempt Hours (Fill Cells)
STMR-1a MR-1b LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6
ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
7
49
48
52
61
46
42
49
51
56
49
54
51
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
27
29
21
46
35
59
39
21
35
25
30
24
24
23
23
33
57
31
47
54
31
28
54
26
20
33
34
60
42
24
22
43
53
29
36
35
14
50
32
13
49
33
21
54
41
34
64
30
28
60
26
14
46
35
9
51
37
4
52
36
37
61
33
32
56
37
24
57
34
30
56
Table 32. Alternative 3 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Fill Cells
Activities

Cumulative Noise Level (Without Fill
Cells)
Staging Area)
October 2012

Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Fill Cells)
ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
7
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
50
49
54
64
60
46
50
52
61
56
57
56
50
49
53
63
60
45
51
52
60
55
57
56
50
49
53
62
60
46
51
52
61
56
55
56
2-36
2.0 IMPACTS

Disposal Area)
Disposal and Staging Area w/ Batch
Plant)
Plant)
Disposal and Staging Areas and
Cumulative Noise Level (With Fill Cells,

Noise-Sensitive Receptor During Non-Exempt Hours (Fill Cells)
ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
7
50
49
54
64
60
46
51
52
59
55
57
52
50
49
54
64
48
44
51
52
61
53
57
56
50
49
54
64
60
46
51
52
61
56
57
56
50
49
54
64
48
43
51
52
59
52
57
52
50
49
52
61
60
45
51
52
60
55
55
56
50
48
52
61
47
43
49
52
56
50
54
51
Table 33. Alternative 3 Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activities with Intake Approach Walls and Slab
Construction
Transload Facility
Dike 7 Staging Area
October 2012

MRSTMR-1a
LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6 ST-7
MR-9 MR-10
MR-11
1b
8
32
31
35
43
29
25
32
34
39
32
37
33
39
35
31
33
21
22
45
32
28
27
32
24
40
36
46
56
41
36
35
37
55
47
43
46
30
27
26
29
21
20
46
35
33
59
39
34
21
35
60
25
30
42
24
24
24
23
23
22
33
57
43
31
47
53
54
31
29
28
54
36
2-37
2.0 IMPACTS
Batch Plant
Haul Road

MRSTMR-1a
LT-2 LT-3 LT-4 LT-5 LT-6 ST-7
MR-9 MR-10
MR-11
1b
8
35
14
44
32
13
40
33
21
49
41
34
61
30
28
60
26
14
43
35
9
46
37
4
41
36
37
59
33
32
55
37
24
54
34
30
55
Table 34. Alternative 3 Simultaneous Non-Exempt Hour Construction Activity Combinations with Intake Approach
Walls and Slab Construction

Staging Area)
Disposal Area)
Disposal and Staging Area w/ Batch
Plant)
Plant)
October 2012

Construction)
ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
7
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
59
55
54
55
42
39
49
61
60
43
40
41
59
55
54
55
42
38
47
59
60
42
46
40
58
54
54
54
44
40
47
57
60
43
46
41
59
55
45
55
44
40
49
61
60
43
46
41
55
54
54
47
44
40
49
61
43
38
46
41
59
50
54
55
43
40
49
61
60
43
46
40
59
55
54
55
2-38
2.0 IMPACTS

Disposal and Staging Areas and
Approach Walls and Slab
Construction, Overlook Staging
Area w/ Batch Plant, and Haul
Road Only)

Construction)
ST-8 MR-9 MR-10 MR-11
7
44
40
49
61
42
37
46
41
55
47
54
47
41
38
41
47
60
42
46
40
58
54
42
54
37
35
37
46
34
29
37
39
42
37
40
37
October 2012
2-39
2.0 IMPACTS
specific activities are removed from simultaneous non-exempt hour construction

activities. In Tables 31 and 32, individual and cumulative noise levels are highlighted in
gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise threshold would be exceeded during non-exempt
hours at each noise-sensitive receptor. Table 33 lists the noise levels generated at
noise-sensitive receptors by individual construction activities, including intake approach
walls and slab construction, at specific areas of the proposed project during nonexempt hours. At the bottom of the table, the cumulative noise level is listed under each
noise-sensitive receptor column if the construction activities would be conducted
simultaneously from each respective construction activity area for the proposed project.
Figure 4 depicts the resulting cumulative noise contours if these construction activities
were conducted simultaneously. This is the same figure for Alternatives 2 and 3
because intake approach walls and slab activities are the quietest noise generating
activities that would be conducted at the Approach Channel/Spur Dike Area for both
alternatives. Table 34 explores potential combinations of construction activities and lists
the modeled noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors if specific activities are removed
from simultaneous non-exempt hour construction activities. In Tables 33 and 34,
individual and cumulative noise levels are highlighted in gray if the 45 dBA L50 nighttime
noise threshold would be exceeded during non-exempt hours at each noise-sensitive
receptor. It should be noted that there is a 50 dBA L50 daytime noise standard that
would be applicable from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. because noise construction activities
would potentially occur during this timeframe and outside of the construction noise
exempt hours. The 50 dBA L50 daytime noise standard would not be allowed to be
exceeded from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as well. The 45 dBA L50 nighttime noise
standard is the most restrictive non-exempt hour noise standard and it is used for
analyzing potential noise impacts outside of construction noise exempt hours since
there is no definitive construction schedule.
Many of the construction activities listed in Table 17 have the potential to be
activities would be conducted during non-exempt construction hours. Tables 31, 32, 33
and 34 illustrate that certain construction activities generate higher levels of noise
impacts at specific receptors. A brief description of the major noise contributing
construction activities that could generate noise impacts at each noise-sensitive
receptor is included below. Major noise contributing construction activities are defined
as activities that generate noise levels of 35 dBA or higher at any noise-sensitive
receptors.
1.
At Folsom State Prison (MR-1a and MR-1b), it is assumed that the prison
structures would provide a minimum of 30 dBA attenuation due to the concrete
walls and small, thick glass windows. It is also assumed that the exterior
concrete walls surrounding the prison facility would provide an additional 5 dBA
of attenuation. Taking these assumptions into account, noise levels at Folsom
State Prison would not be significant.
2.
At Tacana Drive and East Natoma Street (LT-2), fill cells, transload facility
construction/removal, and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities would
generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise
standard if the activities would be conducted individually. The major noise
October 2012
2-40
2.0 IMPACTS
contributing activities at LT-2 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction

activities, transload facility construction/removal activities, and utilization of the
Dike 7 staging area. Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at
LT-2 if construction activities are conducted outside of construction noise exempt
hours and mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at LT-2.
3.
At Mountain View Drive (LT-3), fill cells, transload facility construction/removal,

and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that
exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be
conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities at LT-3 would be
construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 7 and Overlook staging
areas, and utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area. Potential construction noise
4.
At East Natoma Street and Green Valley Road (LT-4), fills cells and MIAD
disposal and staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that
exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if the activities would be
conducted individually. The major noise contributing activities at LT-4 would be
construction/removal activities, utilization of the Dike 8 disposal area, and
utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging areas. Potential construction noise
5.
At East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint Circle (LT-6), fills cells and Prison
staging area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45
individually. The major noise contributing activities at LT-6 would be Approach
Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, utilization of the Prison or Overlook
staging areas, and transload facility construction/removal activities. Potential
construction noise impacts may be generated at LT-6 if construction activities are
conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and mitigation may be
necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at LT-6.
6.
At the Beals Point Campground (ST-7), guests would be staying overnight. Fill
cells construction activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA
L50 nighttime exterior noise standard if it would be conducted by itself without any
other simultaneous construction activities. The major noise contributing activities
at ST-7 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike construction activities, transload
facility construction/removal activities, utilization of the Overlook staging area.
Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at ST-7 if construction
activities are conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and
mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at ST-7.
October 2012
2-41
2.0 IMPACTS
7.
At Folsom Point Park (ST-8), guests would not be staying overnight. Therefore,
there are no anticipated noise impacts during non-exempt hours.
8.
At East Natoma Street and Briggs Ranch Drive (MR-9), fill cells, transload facility
construction/removal, Dike 8 disposal area utilization, and MIAD staging and
disposal area utilization activities would generate noise levels that exceed the 45
individually. The major noise contributing activities at MR-9 are Approach
generated at MR-9 if construction activities are conducted outside of construction
impacts at MR-9.
9.
At Lorena Lane (MR-10), fill cells and Dike 7 staging area utilization activities
would generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise
contributing activities at MR-10 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
of the Dike 7 staging area, and utilization of the Overlook staging area. Potential
construction noise impacts may be generated at MR-10 if construction activities
are conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours and mitigation may be
necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at MR-10.
10.
At Folsom Point Church of Christ (MR-11), fill cells, transload facility

construction/removal, and Dike 8 disposal area utilization activities would
generate noise levels that exceed the 45 dBA L50 nighttime exterior noise
contributing activities at MR-11 would be Approach Channel/Spur Dike
of the Dike 8 disposal area, and utilization of the MIAD disposal and staging
area. Potential construction noise impacts may be generated at MR-11 if
and mitigation may be necessary in order to prevent noise impacts at MR-11.
Due to the uncertainty in regards to the time and location of construction

activities and equipment that would be utilized during nighttime hours, it is difficult to
ascertain when there would or would not be noise impacts at specific noise-sensitive
receptors. Under Alternative 3, mitigation measures would be necessary for all of these
long-term, short-term, and modeled receiver sites where the daytime and nighttime
exterior noise standards would be exceeded outside of construction noise exempt
hours. Implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in Section 2.4 would
reduce the construction noise effects during non-exempt hours at human noise sensitive
receptors to less than significant. Additionally, if noise complaints are to occur from
construction activities in non-exempt hours, it is expected that the Corps contractor
would address those complaints and implement further mitigation, as needed, to reduce
these effects. As a result, it is assumed that any significant effects associated with
October 2012
2-42
2.0 IMPACTS
noise would be reduced to less than significant, with the implementation of the
mitigation discussed in Section 2.4, and by responding to noise complaints when they
are received. Furthermore, due to the many variables that need to be taken into
account for non-exempt construction activities, it is recommended that a noise
monitoring program be instituted in order to ensure compliance and establish the
there are no expected impacts to wildlife habitat during non-exempt construction noise
hours.
2.3.7
Noise Prediction Model Results and Analysis for Blasting Activities
A noise modeling program known as BNoise2 is used in order to determine the

sound power level of an individual blast. Assumptions are made based on data provided
by the USACE and information in Appendix E (Technical Noise Report) of the 2010
EA/IS for the Joint Federal Project for the Construction of the Control Structure and
Lining of the Spillway Chute and Stilling Basin. The following assumptions are:
There would be approximately 400 blasts in-the-wet and 200 blasts in-thedry from February 2014 to August 2017 (approximately 1,100 days of
work) for Alternative 2. This results in an approximately one blast every
other day
There would be approximately 200 blasts in-the-wet and 280 blasts in-thedry from February 2014 to August 2017 (approximately 1,100 days of
work) for Alternative 3. This results in approximately one blast every other
day
Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) charges would be used
A charge weight of 44 pounds would be packed in 20-foot deep borings
The borings would be spaced 5 feet apart in a 20-foot-wide bench
The most charges that would be used during any blast is 75 charges
Using the assumptions above, BNoise2 calculated a SPL of 84.5 dBC SEL at
328 feet for one charge. If 75 charges are used, the PWL would be 141.2 dBA at 328
feet. This PWL is input into the Cadna/A model at the approach channel excavation
area in order to account for changes in topography. Table 35 shows the resulting SELs
at each noise-sensitive receiver.
Table 35. Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive
Receivers due to Individual Blasts
Noise Level
due to
Individual
Blast (dBA
SEL)
54
50
Site ID
MR-1a
MR-1b
October 2012
2-43
2.0 IMPACTS
Table 35. Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive

Receivers due to Individual Blasts
Noise Level
due to
Individual
Blast (dBA
SEL)
48
60
45
51
57
60
59
54
51
48
40
55
43
41
45
50
44
44
Site ID
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-5
LT-6
ST-7
ST-8
MR-9
MR-10
MR-11
Bio-1
Bio-2
Bio-3
Bio-4
Bio-5
Bio-6
Bio-7
Bio-8
Blasting would be conducted during construction noise exempt hours and would
only be at the noise levels listed in Table 35 for no more than a few seconds. This would
not significantly increase any of the modeled Leqs for other construction noise exempt
hour activities. There would be no noise impacts at human or wildlife noise-sensitive
receivers due to blasting.
2.3.8
Noise Impacts on Fish

Potential Impacts on Fish. As identified previously, underwater sound from
blasting and pile driving has the potential to impact fish inhabiting Folsom Lake.
Noise potentially causes both auditory and non-auditory effects on fish. The nonauditory effects of noise may be obvious, for instance when an underwater
detonation of explosives results in floating dead fish. Other injuries, such as swim
bladder rupture in fish, may be shown only by dissection of exposed individuals.
These adverse impacts only occur at high levels of sound, typically within tens, or
October 2012
2-44
2.0 IMPACTS
at most a few hundred meters of underwater blasts, and hence affect relatively
small areas and numbers of individuals (Nedwell and Edwards 2004).
The auditory effects of sound include temporary or permanent noise-induced
deafness. Behavioral effects elicited by underwater noise can include a startle reaction
or a species avoiding an area of high noise. Such responses are poorly understood or
documented, yet behavioral effects may have an influence over great ranges, often
kilometers, reaching much larger numbers of individuals. Fish response to sound can
also be varied, ranging from the classic fright response that results in a startle behavior
and sudden burst of short duration and distance swimming, to other responses such as
packing or balling, polarizing, increasing swimming speed, diving, or avoidance (Olsen
1969).
Extremely loud sound levels can have very negative effects on fish including
temporary or permanent deafness, tissue damage, and even acute mortality. The most
severe instances, often associated with explosive sources, result from a high amplitude
shock wave caused by the initial impulse and the negative pressure wave reflected by
the water surface (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994; Houghton and Munday 1987). Tissue
damage arises when the wave passes through tissues of different densities. A wave
passed through the tissues at different speeds can result in a shear environment, and in
extreme cases the tissues can be torn apart. This is most severe where tissue density
differences are the greatest, which in the case of demersal fish, is at the muscle - swim
bladder interface (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994).
This physical trauma, often termed barotrauma, has a direct impact on the fish
and health of the fish. The degree of this impact has been characterized as a numerical
scale (OKeefe and Young 1984; based on an earlier scale developed by Hubbs et al.
1960). These numerical explosion damage criteria for fish cover the range of gross
visible effects from exposure to large high amplitude shockwaves:
1. No damage (fish survives)
2. Light hemorrhaging (fish survives)
3. Light hemorrhaging and some kidney damage (impaired escape response
and possible increased vulnerability to predation)
4. Swimbladder bursts and gross kidney damage (fish killed)
5. Incomplete body wall break and gross internal damage (fish killed)
6. Complete rupture of body cavity and organ destruction (fish killed)
While this range is diagnostic for direct trauma due to high amplitude
shockwaves, it also applies for high intensity sound waves generated by other sources
such as impact pile driving.
This definition of direct effects also implies indirect effects to fish due to noise
impacts. These indirect effects usually manifest themselves as a reduction in the ability
to evade predation (stunning, or reduced swimming ability), a change in behavior that
October 2012
2-45
2.0 IMPACTS
leads to increased exposure to predation (inability to access a refuge habitat), or an

inability to detect predators or prey effectively (temporary or permanent deafness).
The underwater sound levels associated with blasting depends on the size of the
charge.
Blasting In-the-Wet. Wet blasting will generate very little airborne noise, but has
the potential to kill fish in Folsom Lake. It is likely that some fish will be killed
during wet blasting. Recommended mitigation procedures are described in the
mitigation section.
Drilling In-the-Wet. Drilling generates noise from both the drill bit striking the rock
near the collar of the holes, as well as from mechanical equipment and
compressors used on the drills. If the drilling occurs with three or more feet of
water, noise made from drill bit striking the rock will be almost immeasurable in
air. Drilling from platforms will not occur in less than 35 feet of water, and thus is
not expected to generate measurable noise in air. It is likely that some fish will be
disturbed during drilling, but underwater sound levels are not expected to result
in injury or death to fish.
2.4
Mitigation
The following measures would be implemented in order to reduce noise effects from
general construction activities to less than significant. Any activity that would generate
noise that could not be mitigated to less than significant would be conducted only during
those hours when construction noise is exempt.
(1).
Conduct the loudest construction activities only during construction noise exempt
hours. These activities include pile driving, blasting, drilling, and dredging.
(2).
Establish a noise monitoring program for construction activities conducted

outside of construction noise exempt hours in order to maintain compliance with
exterior noise standards.
(3).
Contractor would be responsible for maintaining equipment in best possible

working condition.
(4).
Each piece of construction equipment would be fitted with efficient, wellmaintained mufflers.
(5).
Schedule truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations during non-exempt

construction hours as much as practical.
(6).
Locate construction equipment as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive

receptors. In particular, locating the batch plant at the Folsom Overlook staging
area would reduce noise effects on sensitive receptors during non-exempt hours.
(7).
Situate construction equipment so that natural berms or aggregate stockpiles are

located in between the equipment and noise-sensitive receptors.
October 2012
2-46
2.0 IMPACTS
(8).
Enclose pumps that are not submerged and enclose above-ground conveyor
systems in acoustically treated enclosures.
(9).
Line or cover hoppers, conveyor transfer points, storage bins and chutes with
sound-deadening material.
(10). Acoustically attenuating shielding (barriers) and shrouds would be used when
possible.
(11). Use blast mats to cover blasts in order to minimize the possibility of fly rock.
(12). For construction activities being conducted outside of construction noise exempt
hours, the Contractor would obtain a permit from all nearby cities and counties in
the vicinity of the project.
(13). For drilling activities in the water, the use of down-the-hole-hammers are
recommended, which produce much less noise than top-hammer drills from the
striking bar.
If all of these mitigation procedures are put into practice for Alternatives 2 and 3,
there is still the potential for construction activities that are conducted during nonexempt hours to exceed the daytime and nighttime noise standards at noise-sensitive
receptors.
Specific mitigation measures should be utilized in order to reduce noise levels
from blasting. The BMPs listed below assume use of the standard practice of linear
(rather than spherical) charges, and standard timing separation of 8 milliseconds to
reduce cumulative effects between adjacent charges. BMPs include:
Designing efficient detonations (blast design) that fracture the rock with
minimal energy released to surrounding water. [1] Efficient detonations are
achieved by:
o Establishing a not-to-exceed peak pressure-change (over-pressure) limit
of 100kPa (14.5 psi).
o Controlling maximum pressure thresholds by establishing cautious charge
confinement rules regarding the type and amount of stemming[2] (material
placed in the upper portions of blast holes), and the amount of confining
rock burden between charges and the free or open face to which they
break.
o Monitoring peak blast-induced pressure and impulse;
[1]
The use of stemming to confine blasts, results in several typically listed BMPs becoming less necessary to
minimize the impact of the underwater blast on fish. Stemming is used to control extreme peak pressures spikes
released in the water. Another method of removing steep peak pressure spikes is to specify the burn rate of the
exploding charge or Velocity of Detonation (VOD) which impacts the relative amounts of gas versus shock energy.
Specifying the explosive properties, therefore, is not necessary as a BMP when proper stemming is utilized.
[2]
Stemming is the practice of placing inert material on the top of the charge to help confine the energy released by
the charge to the material to be demolished, and reduce the energy released to the water or air.
October 2012
2-47
2.0 IMPACTS
o Requiring the use of multiple time-sequenced charges that will reduce the
cumulative impacts on the water environment;
o Timing blasting when fish tend to be in streams in northern tributaries far
from the blast site, e.g., February through June for rainbow trout; the
timing of spawning of Chinook salmon in Folsom Lake is not well
characterized.
o Setting off small charges (scare charges) or firing air-cannons into the
water before blasting to chase fish from the blast area;
o Grouping continuous periods of noisy work or simultaneous noisy work
(e.g., multiple drill barges) to prevent the fish from re-entering the area
during short quiet periods);
o Using air curtains or bubble curtains to attenuate pressure waves. Air
supply to bubble pipes would be provided by clean-air compressors that
contain no oil or other contaminants.
o Not using ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixtures (ANFO) in or near water
because they will not function as desired and if released into water they
will dissolve and release toxic by-products (ammonia and nitrates)
2.5
For drilling activities in the water, BMPs include the use of down-the-holehammers, which produce much less noise than top-hammer drills from the
striking bar.
Cumulative
There is the potential for future construction activities that are conducted
concurrently throughout the life of the Folsom Dam JFP and involved with other projects
in the vicinity of the Project to temporarily increase noise levels in the surrounding
areas. The projects include:
Johnny Cash Folsom Prison Blues Trail: Historic Truss Bridge to Green
Valley Road Segment
Raw Water Bypass Pipeline Project
Central California Area Office Building Replacement Project
Lower American River Salmonid Spawning Gravel Augmentation and
Side-channel Habitat Establishment Program
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project Ongoing
Construction Activities
Widening of Green Valley Road
Folsom Dam Raise
Simultaneous construction of these projects would increase noise levels, from

onsite construction and transport of materials. The worst case assumption indicates that
simultaneous construction could potentially increase source noise emissions by 3 dBA.
If these construction projects are implemented concurrently, the combined cumulative
October 2012
2-48
2.0 IMPACTS
effects could be above significance thresholds. If this were the case, each project would
need to mitigate individual noise effects which could decrease overall cumulative
effects. However, without consideration of scheduling and sequence of activities,
determination of whether concurrent construction projects within and adjacent to Folsom
Lake could have significant cumulative noise effects is not possible. Construction
involved with both the Folsom Dam JFP and the projects listed above are temporary in
nature and, therefore, there would be no cumulative noise effects other than increases
in noise levels during simultaneous construction activities.
2.6
Summary/Conclusion
The largest noise impacts from the proposed Project are due to construction
activities being conducted outside of construction noise exempt hours. There is no
definitive schedule in regards to the time and location of construction equipment
utilization during non-exempt hours. Therefore, construction activities conducted
outside of the construction noise exempt hours may exceed the noise significance
critieria. Mitigation would be necessary in order to reduce noise impacts, but even with
mitigation, there is the potential for noise impacts outside of construction noise exempt
hours.
Noise levels would not exceed the 60 dBA Leq at wildlife receptor sites. There are
no expected noise impacts.
October 2012
2-49
3.0 REFERENCES
3.0
REFERENCES
Beranek, L.L. (ed.), 1988, Noise and Vibration Control, Second Edition, Institute
of Noise Control Engineering
El Dorado, County of. El Dorado County, California General Plan. Chapter 6.5.
2004.
Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992,
Modified by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004
Folsom, CA. City of Folsom, California Municipal Code. Chapter 8.42, Table
8.42.040. 1993.
Forrest, Mike. Personal conversation with Rebecca Verity. January 3, 2012.
Harris, C.M. (ed.), 1991, The Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise
Control, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York
Houghton, J.P. and D.R. Munday. 1987. Effects of Linear Explosive Seismic
Energy Releases on Fish in Alaskas Transition Zone. Final Report to The Alaska Oil
and Gas Association. Dames & Moore, Anchorage, Alaska.
Hubbs, C.L., E.P. Schultz, and R. Wisner. 1960. Investigations of effects on
caged fish from underwater nitro-carbo-nitrate explosions. Unpublished Preliminary
Report, Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental Conditions: Noise. City of Folsom General
Plan. Policy 30.5, 1988. Irvine, CA, 2003. Available at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/
500/files/Noise.pdf
Nedwell, J.R. and B. Edwards. 2004. A review of measurements of underwater
man-made noise carried out by Subacoustech Ltd, 1993 2003. prepared for DTI by
Subacoustech Ltd, Southampton, Hampshire.
O'Keefe, D. J. and G. A. Young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of
underwater explosions. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448.
Report No. NSWC TR 83-240.
Olsen, K. 1969. Directional response in herring to sound and noise stimuli.
International Council for The Exploration of the Sea. 8 p.
Placer, County of. Placer County, California Municipal Code. Chapter 9.36. 2004.
Reherman, Clay N, Judith L. Rochat, Erich S. Thalheimer, Michael C. Lau, Gregg
G. Fleming, Mark Ferroni, and Christopher Corbisier. 2006. FHWA RCNM, Version 1.0
Users Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Cambridge, MA.
Turnpenny, A. and J. R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on marine fish, diving
mammals and birds of underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. Prepared for
October 2012
3-1
3.0 REFERENCES
the UK Offshore Operators Association by Subacoustech Ltd, Southampton,

Hampshire. Appendix A
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Equipment Estimate Summary. October
24, 2011.
URS Corporation. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Environmental
Impact Report: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Control Structure,
Chute and Stilling Basin Work. August, 2010.
URS Corporation. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Environmental
Impact Report: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Control Structure,
Chute and Stilling Basin Work. August, 2010.
URS Corporation. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Initial Study:
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Early Approach Channel
Excavation. August 2009.
October 2012
3-2
APPENDIX A LONG-TERM MEASUREMENT DATA
LT-2 (Tacana Drive and E. Natoma St.)
Da te
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
3/26/2009
October 2012
S ta rt Tim e
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
En d Tim e
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
Ho u rly
Le q
(d BA)
68.9
68.4
67.8
65.9
65.7
62.9
60.0
56.6
56.9
51.5
58.8
57.1
63.8
67.6
68.3
69.4
68.4
67.8
69.0
68.1
68.6
69.1
68.8
69.4
LT-3 (Mountain View Dr.)
Date
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
October 2012
Start Time
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
End Time
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
47.5
46.3
48.7
45.7
43.1
42.2
42.1
41.1
40.7
35.9
34.7
32.8
34.3
37.6
42.0
46.4
49.9
50.6
47.6
47.9
49.5
50.5
50.9
50.7
LT-4 (E. Natoma St. and Green Valley Rd.)
Date
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
October 2012
Start Time
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
End Time
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
73.8
73.9
74.1
74.1
73.8
72.2
71.2
71.2
68.1
65.4
62.5
61.0
58.0
60.1
65.1
70.1
73.2
75.2
75.0
73.3
73.5
73.1
72.9
74.1
LT-5 (Shadowfax Court)
Date
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
October 2012
Start Time
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
End Time
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
50.9
46.0
49.0
48.9
50.8
57.5
48.5
47.9
49.0
41.4
39.8
39.5
34.1
36.4
33.1
37.1
44.1
50.2
50.1
49.3
44.9
44.0
43.3
45.7
LT-6 (East of Folsom Auburn Rd. and Pierpoint

Circle)
Date
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
October 2012
Start Time
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
End Time
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
56.8
54.5
49.6
40.8
47.1
45.9
41.6
38.2
35.7
34.4
35.4
31.7
36.4
33.5
38.2
41.5
45.9
49.0
45.4
51.1
49.1
48.8
51.0
52.7
APPENDIX B SHORT-TERM MEASUREMENT DATA
Site
ID
Location
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-2 Tacana Dr.
and E. Natoma
St.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-3 Mountain View
Dr.
ST-4 E. Natoma St.
and Green
Valley Rd.
ST-4 E. Natoma St.
and Green
Valley Rd.
ST-4 E. Natoma St.
and Green
Valley Rd.
October 2012
Start
Time
Start
(10 min. Leq
Lmax Lmin L90
L50
L10
Date
Meas.) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
3/25/2009 16:40:00 66.2 79.5 39.6 47.4 63.8 69.9
3/25/2009 16:50:00
67.7
86.8
40.7
52.2
64.7
71.1
3/25/2009 20:28:00
63.0
79.7
39.2
45.3
53.3
67.2
3/25/2009 20:39:00
62.4
78.5
41.9
45.5
55.1
66.7
3/26/2009 0:11:00
53.0
71.3
31.9
34.7
38.3
53.0
3/26/2009 0:21:00
53.6
72.4
32.6
35.1
38.7
53.0
3/24/2009 17:25:00
45.1
61.0
36.1
39.6
42.9
47.6
3/24/2009 17:35:00
46.1
60.7
39.2
41.7
44.5
48.7
3/24/2009 20:40:00
41.1
53.7
35.5
37.9
40.5
43.3
3/24/2009 20:51:00
40.1
57.6
34.5
36.6
39.3
42.1
3/24/2009 22:49:00
40.7
55.8
33.3
35.9
39.5
43.7
3/24/2009 22:59:00
39.0
54.3
33.2
35.4
37.5
41.4
3/24/2009 17:52:00
70.5
87.3
44.9
55.6
69.2
73.8
3/24/2009 18:02:00
70.8
79.8
51.6
60.1
69.6
74.1
3/24/2009 21:08:00
69.4
83.4
47.2
57.8
67.2
73.0
Site
ID
ST-4
ST-4
ST-4
ST-5
ST-5
ST-5
ST-5
ST-5
ST-5
ST-6
ST-6
ST-6
ST-6
ST-6
ST-6
ST-7
ST-7
Start
Time
Start
(10 min. Leq
Lmax Lmin
Location
Date
Meas.) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
E. Natoma St. 3/24/2009 21:18:00 69.6 84.4 46.7
and Green
Valley Rd.
E. Natoma St. 3/24/2009 23:46:00 60.4 75.2 31.8
and Green
Valley Rd.
E. Natoma St. 3/24/2009 23:56:00 62.8 81.4 31.4
and Green
Valley Rd.
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 18:18:00 60.9 78.4 43.3
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 18:28:00 52.4 71.3 43.2
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 21:34:00 47.4 62.7 40.9
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 21:45:00 50.7 62.8 40.7
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 23:18:00 41.7 70.6 30.7
Shadowfax Ct. 3/24/2009 23:29:00 41.3 60.5 31.5
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 15:19:00 50.2 64.8 36.6
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 15:29:00 50.9 72.9 41.1
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 19:52:00 40.6 60.6 32.3
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 20:02:00 42.6 59.9 35.0
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 23:31:00 35.4 51.7 31.2
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of Folsom 3/25/2009 23:41:00 34.9 47.6 29.6
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
Beals Point
3/24/2009 15:11:00 48.9 71.1 38.0
(Campground)
Beals Point
3/24/2009 15:22:00 49.0 79.2 35.9
(Campground)
October 2012
L90
L50
L10
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
57.2 67.0 73.6
36.0
46.5
65.4
36.3
47.6
66.5
47.3
45.6
44.2
44.0
34.9
35.8
40.1
50.9
48.4
46.9
46.8
38.7
39.6
44.3
59.8
51.3
49.4
53.0
42.7
44.2
55.0
45.4
48.8
53.6
34.7
36.9
42.1
38.3
40.7
45.4
32.6
34.2
37.1
31.1
32.8
36.1
40.8
43.2
51.1
39.1
42.2
46.4
Site
ID
Location
ST-8 Folsom Point
(Park)
ST-8 Folsom Point
(Park)
ST-8 Folsom Point
(Park)
ST-8 Folsom Point
(Park)
October 2012
Start
Time
Start
(10 min. Leq
Lmax Lmin L90
L50
L10
Date
Meas.) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
3/24/2009 16:57:00 43.7 57.7 34.8 37.1 39.6 47.7
3/24/2009 17:07:00
41.3
52.8
35.6
37.5
39.1
44.7
3/24/2009 20:12:00
41.3
61.8
31.3
35.5
37.6
40.1
3/24/2009 20:22:00
40.9
54.1
31.7
34.0
36.7
45.7
10
APPENDIX C BIO-RECEPTOR MEASUREMENT DATA
S ite
ID
BIO-1
BIO-1
BIO-1
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-3
BIO-3
BIO-3
BIO-4
Lo c a tio n
Main St.
Main St.
Main St.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
East of
Folsom
Auburn Rd.
and Robin Ln.
Erwin Ave.
and Snipes
Blvd.
Erwin Ave.
and Snipes
Blvd.
Erwin Ave.
and Snipes
Blvd.
S. Lexington
Dr. and Oak
Avenue
Parkway
October 2012
S ta rt
Da te
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
3/25/2009
S ta rt
Tim e
(10 m in . Le q
Me a s .) (d BA)
10:51:00 44.1
19:26:00 48.8
22:53:00 44.2
15:19:00 50.2
Lm a x
(d BA)
62.6
65.4
59.6
64.8
Lm in
(d BA)
35.4
31.9
34.0
36.6
L90
(d BA)
38.3
37.8
36.9
40.1
L50
(d BA)
41.6
44.3
40.4
44.3
L10
(d BA)
46.8
52.3
48.2
55.0
3/25/2009 15:29:00
50.9
72.9
41.1
45.4
48.8
53.6
3/25/2009 19:52:00
40.6
60.6
32.3
34.7
36.9
42.1
3/25/2009 20:02:00
42.6
59.9
35.0
38.3
40.7
45.4
3/25/2009 23:31:00
35.4
51.7
31.2
32.6
34.2
37.1
3/25/2009 23:41:00
34.9
47.6
29.6
31.1
32.8
36.1
3/25/2009 10:30:00
43.4
59.5
36.8
39.1
42.2
45.8
3/25/2009 19:08:00
44.8
65.4
34.0
36.1
37.9
45.1
3/25/2009 23:09:00
36.9
47.9
32.1
34.2
35.8
39.1
3/26/2009 15:57:00
51.0
68.4
45.0
47.2
50.4
53.2
11
S ite
ID
Lo c a tio n
BIO-4 S. Lexington
Dr. and Oak
Avenue
Parkway
BIO-4 S. Lexington
Dr. and Oak
Avenue
Parkway
BIO-5 Willow Bend
Rd. and Grey
Fox Ct.
BIO-5 Willow Bend
Rd. and Grey
Fox Ct.
BIO-5 Willow Bend
Rd. and Grey
Fox Ct.
BIO-6 Haddington
Dr. and E.
Natoma St.
BIO-6 Haddington
Dr. and E.
Natoma St.
BIO-6 Haddington
Dr. and E.
Natoma St.
BIO-7 Sturbridge Dr.
and Stonemill
Dr.
and Stonemill
Dr.
and Stonemill
Dr.
BIO-8 Wellington
Way and
Grizzly Way
October 2012
S ta rt
Tim e
S ta rt
(10 m in . Le q
Lm a x Lm in
L90
L50
L10
Da te
Me a s .) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA)
3/26/2009 20:58:00 49.6 61.0 44.0 46.4 48.5 51.3
3/26/2009 23:48:00
43.1
63.1
34.4
36.4
40.1
45.1
3/26/2009 14:21:00
49.8
60.5
43.2
45.8
49.0
52.0
3/26/2009 20:13:00
46.4
56.8
37.7
40.6
43.8
50.1
3/26/2009 23:07:00
37.1
51.1
27.5
30.5
34.6
40.2
3/26/2009 13:45:00
51.9
63.5
45.3
48.1
50.9
54.1
3/26/2009 19:53:00
52.0
64.7
40.9
45.5
49.4
55.8
3/26/2009 22:49:00
47.9
66.5
31.4
36.0
42.3
48.5
3/26/2009 14:54:00
42.7
59.5
34.5
36.8
40.6
45.5
3/26/2009 20:34:00
38.5
52.6
32.6
35.5
37.6
40.5
3/26/2009 23:27:00
31.4
43.8
26.7
29.1
30.6
32.8
3/24/2009 15:53:00
58.0
67.5
42.9
48.3
56.5
61.7
12
S ite
ID
Lo c a tio n
BIO-8 Wellington
Way and
Grizzly Way
BIO-8 Wellington
Way and
Grizzly Way
October 2012
S ta rt
Tim e
S ta rt
(10 m in . Le q
Lm a x Lm in
L90
L50
L10
Da te
Me a s .) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA) (d BA)
3/24/2009 19:38:00 59.9 71.4 44.5 49.9 56.7 63.7
3/24/2009 22:18:00
13
51.2
68.7
39.5
42.9
45.0
53.6
APPENDIX D EQUIPMENT ESTIMATE SUMMARIES
Alternative 2 Equipment Estimate Summary
Equipment
Quantity
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
Generator
Welding Machines
Outboard powered workskiffs
Rock Import Trucks
Small Tug
Super 30 carrylift
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
10
1
1
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
225T Crane
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
8 Mgal Water WAGON
Off HWY 50 TN Trucks
Rock Import Trucks
Large Excavator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Total SPL of Equipment at 50
(HP)
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
Site Prep / Haul Rd Prep
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
81.0
275
80%
84.0
250
80%
79.0
200
80%
80.0
350
80%
75.0
200
65%
82.1
30
50%
77.0
40
40%
78.2
350
90%
85.5
250
80%
86.2
350
70%
83.5
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
81.0
275
80%
84.0
250
30%
74.8
400
80%
80.0
200
80%
80.0
350
80%
75.0
450
80%
75.0
650
80%
78.0
350
70%
79.2
550
90%
80.5
14
Total PWL of Equipment

(dBA)
115.6
115.6
118.6
113.6
114.6
109.6
116.7
111.6
112.8
120.1
120.7
118.0
115.6
115.6
118.6
109.4
114.6
114.6
109.6
109.6
112.6
113.8
115.1
Equipment
Quantity
Rub Tire Backhoe

Loader 980 size
Super 30 carrylift
Loader 966 size
1
1
1
1
Large Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Excavator
8 Mgal water truck
40 TN Articulated Trucks
80 Ton Crane
Super 20 Carrylift
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Large Dozer
1200 CFM Compressor
Large Roller
Drill Rig
100 Ton Crane
8 Mgal Water WAGON
20 CY Dump Trucks
Rub Tire Backhoe
Loader 360 Wheel Loader
Loader 966 size
Cement Mixer
Large Excavator
1
4
1
2
2
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Excavator
2
1
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
125
70%
76.5
350
70%
77.5
350
70%
83.5
300
80%
78.0
570
80%
81.0
275
80%
84.0
532
60%
78.8
490
90%
75.5
405
90%
78.6
350
80%
80.0
225
60%
82.8
570
80%
81.0
575
15%
75.8
250
10%
70.0
670
30%
81.8
643
30%
78.8
450
20%
69.0
350
30%
76.8
125
80%
80.0
100
80%
81.0
300
80%
81.0
25
80%
77.0
700
90%
80.5
Common Excavation to Waste*
570
90%
84.6
428
90%
80.5
15

(dBA)
111.0
112.0
118.0
112.6
115.6
118.6
113.4
110.1
113.1
114.6
117.4
115.6
110.4
104.6
116.4
113.4
103.6
111.4
114.6
115.6
115.6
111.6
115.1
119.1
115.1
Equipment
8 MG Water Pull
Large Motor Grader
Dozer
Roller
Rock Drills
Large Excavator
8 MG Water Pull
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Motor Grader
8 MG Water Pull
Dozer
Powder Truck
Cat D-8 Dozer -Ripper
Cat 980 Loader
Cat 730 Articulated trucks
Highway 10-wheeler dump truck
Graders 140H
Water Truck 4000gal
Highway tractor - trailer
Mech trucks
Fuel trucks
Pipe Fitters Truck
Flatbed trucks
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
7
650
80%
83.5
1
450
90%
75.5
1
400
90%
84.5
1
185
90%
81.5
1
250
50%
77.0
Rock Excavation Dry*
4
250
100%
87.0
1
428
90%
80.5
6
650
80%
82.8
1
450
90%
75.5
1
550
90%
81.5
1
400
40%
81.0
1
450
90%
75.5
1
185
90%
81.5
1
350
90%
75.5
Mobilization for Approach Walls (Road, Crane Pads)*
1
305
81.0
80%
1
318
78.0
80%
3
317
79.8
80%
1
330
75.0
80%
1
165
84.0
80%
1
330
75.0
80%
1
330
73.8
60%
1
200
74.5
70%
2
200
77.5
70%
2
250
77.5
70%
1
200
74.5
70%
2
200
75.8
60%
Quantity
16

(dBA)
118.1
110.1
119.1
116.1
111.6
121.6
115.1
117.4
110.1
116.1
115.6
110.1
116.1
110.1
115.6
112.6
114.4
109.6
118.6
109.6
108.4
109.0
112.0
112.0
109.0
110.4
Equipment
Quantity
Pickup's standard F-150 (gas)

5
2
Manitowoc 555 - 150 ton Crawler

50 ton Hydraulic Crane
Concrete Boom Pump
1
1
1
1
1
Tendors
Dozer
Mid size Excavator
Small Tug
Large Tug
1500 CFM Compressors
80 TN crane
Super 20 Carrylift
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
Large long reach Excavator/cutter

250 Ton Clam Derrick Barge
Large Tug
85 TN Rock Trucks
Light plants
Dozer
Large Loader
Barge Winches
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
Rock Drills
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
380
79.0
50%
411
75.0
50%
Intake Approach Walls & Slab*
340
79.5
70%
174
79.5
70%
330
79.5
70%
330
74.5
70%
411
72.0
50%
Set up/Operate Bubble Curtain/Silt Curtain*
200
87.6
70%
250
81.0
80%
200
80.0
80%
250
86.2
80%
400
86.9
60%
600
75.8
15%
250
80.0
80%
200
82.8
60%
Dredge Common to Rock*
1100
93.1
90%
450
81.0
50%
500
90.1
50%
650
79.2
70%
40
83.9
100%
450
80.5
70%
500
69.0
10%
400
85.2
40%
Drill and Shoot/Dredge Rock Wet*
350
84.8
80%
17

(dBA)
113.6
109.6
114.0
114.0
114.0
109.0
106.6
122.2
115.6
114.6
120.7
121.5
110.4
114.6
117.4
127.7
115.6
124.7
113.8
118.5
115.0
103.6
119.8
119.4
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
1100
92.6
80%
450
81.0
50%
250
83.1
40%
500
87.9
60%
600
81.7
75%
40
83.0
60%
450
79.0
50%
500
72.0
20%
250
89.2
20%
350
75.0
80%
Spur Dike Rip Rap*
570
80%
81.0
275
80%
84.0
532
60%
78.8
490
90%
75.5
405
90%
78.6
350
80%
80.0
225
60%
82.8
84.6
570
90%
80.5
428
90%
83.5
650
80%
75.5
450
90%
84.5
400
90%
81.5
250
90%
87.9
500
60%
91.3
1100
60%
Equipment
Quantity

Small Tug
Large Tug
50 TN Rock Trucks
Light plants
Large Dozer
Large Loader
Barge Winches
Powder Truck
1
2
1
1
5
4
1
1
8
1
Large Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Excavator
8 Mgal water truck
80 Ton Crane
Super 20 Carrylift
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Excavator
8 MG Water Pull
Large Motor Grader
Dozer
2
1
7
1
1
1
Large Tug
1
1
October 2012
18

(dBA)
127.2
115.6
117.7
122.5
116.3
117.5
113.6
106.6
123.7
109.6
115.6
118.6
113.4
110.1
113.1
114.6
117.4
119.1
115.1
118.1
110.1
119.1
116.1
122.5
125.9
Equipment
Quantity

Small Tug
Large Loader
Barge Winches
50 TN Rock Trucks
Large Dozer
Tendors
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
225T Crane
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
8 Mgal Water WAGON
Rock Import Trucks
Large Excavator
Rub Tire Backhoe
Loader 980 size
Super 30 carrylift
Loader 966 size
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
Rock Crusher
Batch Plant
Large Dozer
1
1
2
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
80.6
600
90%
86.2
250
80%
83.0
450
80%
75.0
500
40%
89.2
250
40%
76.0
600
50%
79.0
450
50%
84.6
200
70%
81.0
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
84.0
275
80%
74.8
250
30%
80.0
400
80%
80.0
200
80%
75.0
350
80%
75.0
450
80%
78.0
650
80%
79.2
350
70%
80.5
550
90%
76.5
125
70%
77.5
350
70%
83.5
350
70%
78.0
300
80%
Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
100%**
83.0
n/a
100%**
83.0
n/a
100%**
82.0
570
19

(dBA)
115.1
120.7
117.6
109.6
123.7
110.6
113.6
119.2
115.6
115.6
118.6
109.4
114.6
114.6
109.6
109.6
112.6
113.8
115.1
111.0
112.0
118.0
112.6
117.6
117.6
116.6
Equipment
Quantity
Belly dump truck
Batch Plant
Large Dozer
Belly dump truck
1
2
2
Batch Plant
**assumed 100% duty cycle
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
100%**
79.0
300
Staging Area w/out Rock Crusher
100%**
83.0
n/a
100%**
82.0
570
100%**
79.0
300
Batch Plant Activities at Staging Area*
100%**
83.0
n/a
20

(dBA)
113.6
117.6
116.6
113.6
117.6
Alternative 3 Equipment Estimate Summary

Equipment
Quantity
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
Generator
Welding Machines
Outboard powered workskiffs
Rock Import Trucks
Small Tug
Super 30 carrylift
Mid size Excavator
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
10
1
1
1
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
225T Crane
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
8 Mgal Water WAGON
Rock Import Trucks
Large Excavator
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
(HP)
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
81.0
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
84.0
275
80%
79.0
250
80%
80.0
200
80%
75.0
350
80%
82.1
200
65%
77.0
30
50%
78.2
40
40%
85.5
350
90%
86.2
250
80%
79.5
350
70%
84.0
200
80%
Construct Transload Facility
81.0
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
84.0
275
80%
74.8
250
30%
80.0
400
80%
80.0
200
80%
75.0
350
80%
75.0
450
80%
78.0
650
80%
79.2
350
70%
80.5
550
90%
21
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
115.6
115.6
118.6
113.6
114.6
109.6
116.7
111.6
112.8
120.1
120.7
114.0
118.6
115.6
115.6
118.6
109.4
114.6
114.6
109.6
109.6
112.6
113.8
115.1
Equipment
Quantity
Rub Tire Backhoe

Loader 980 size
Super 30 carrylift
Loader 966 size
1
1
1
1
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Excavator
8 MG Water Pull
Large Motor Grader
Dozer
2
1
7
1
1
1
Large Long Reach Excavator/

Cutter
Large Tug
85 TN Rock Trucks
Light Plants
Dozer
Large Loader
Barge Winches
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
4100 Manitowoc Crane

Barge Winches
Vibro Hammer
Pile Hammer
Generator
250 CFM Compressor
1
2
1
1
1
1
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
76.5
125
70%
77.5
350
70%
83.5
350
70%
78.0
300
80%
Common Excavation Below Cofferdam
84.6
570
90%
80.5
428
90%
83.5
650
80%
75.5
450
90%
84.5
400
90%
81.5
250
90%
Common Dredge Below Cofferdam
1100
90%
450
50%
500
50%
650
70%
40
100%
450
70%
500
10%
400
40%
Conststruction of Sheet Pile Cells
364
100%
400
50%
250
80%
250
20%
250
50%
150
50%
22
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
111.0
112.0
118.0
112.6
119.1
115.1
118.1
110.1
119.1
116.1
93.1
127.7
89.7
90.1
79.2
83.9
80.5
69.0
85.2
124.3
124.7
113.8
118.5
115.0
103.6
119.8
81.0
89.2
100.0
94.0
78.0
75.0
115.6
123.7
134.6
128.6
112.6
109.6
Equipment
Quantity
Welding Machine
Pump
Yard crane
Outboard powered worksiffs
Material Transport Tugboat
1
1
1
1
1
20 CY bottom dump trucks

Front end loader
Barge Winches
Vibro Hammer
Pile Hammer
Generator
250 CFM Compressor
Welding Machine
Pump
Fill Processing Plant
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cat D-8 Dozer -Ripper

Cat 980 Loader
Cat 730 Articulated trucks
Highway 10-wheeler dump truck
Graders 140H
Water Truck 4000gal
Mech trucks
Fuel trucks
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
67.0
30
20%
68.0
200
5%
74.0
350
20%
73.1
40
25%
90.1
500
100%
Fill Cells
82.5
300
75%
77.8
200
75%
81.0
364
100%
92.2
800
50%
100.0
250
80%
94.0
250
20%
78.0
250
50%
75.0
150
50%
67.0
30
20%
68.0
200
5%
93.1
1100
90%
Mobilization for Approach Walls
81.0
305
80%
78.0
318
80%
79.8
317
80%
75.0
330
80%
84.0
165
80%
75.0
330
80%
73.8
330
60%
74.5
200
70%
77.5
200
70%
77.5
250
70%
23
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
101.6
102.6
108.6
107.7
124.7
117.1
112.3
115.6
126.8
134.6
128.6
112.6
109.6
101.6
102.6
127.7
115.6
112.6
114.4
109.6
118.6
109.6
108.4
109.0
112.0
112.0
Equipment
Pipe Fitters Truck
Flatbed trucks
Pickup's standard F-150 (gas)
Manitowoc 555 - 150 ton Crawler
50 ton Hydraulic Crane
Concrete Boom Pump
20 CY bottom dump trucks
Dozer
Barge Winches
Vibro Hammer
Pile Hammer
Generator
250 CFM Compressor
Welding Machine
Pump
Material Transport Tugboat
Yard crane
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Excavator
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
74.5
1
200
70%
74.8
2
200
60%
79.0
5
380
50%
75.0
2
411
50%
79.5
1
340
70%
79.5
1
174
70%
79.5
1
330
70%
74.5
1
330
70%
72.0
1
411
50%
Remove Cell Rubble Fill
80.0
1
300
80%
83.8
6
300
100%
84.0
2
180
80%
Remove Sheets
81.0
1
364
100%
89.2
2
400
50%
86.2
1
250
80%
80.1
1
250
20%
78.0
1
250
50%
75.0
1
150
50%
67.0
1
30
20%
68.0
1
200
5%
90.1
1
500
100%
81.0
1
350
100%
84.6
2
570
90%
80.5
1
428
90%
Quantity
24
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
109.0
109.4
113.6
109.6
114.0
114.0
114.0
109.0
106.6
114.6
118.4
118.6
115.6
123.7
120.7
114.7
112.6
109.6
101.6
102.6
124.7
115.6
119.1
115.1
Equipment
8 MG Water Pull
Large Motor Grader
Dozer
7
1
1
1
Rock Drills
Large Excavator
8 MG Water Pull
Large Dozer-Ripper
Large Motor Grader
8 MG Water Pull
Dozer
Powder Truck
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pump
Tendors
Dozer
Mid size Excavator
Small Tug
Large Tug
80 TN crane
Super 20 Carrylift
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1

1
2
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
83.5
650
80%
75.5
450
90%
84.5
400
90%
81.5
250
90%
Rock Excavation Dry*
87.0
250
100%
80.5
428
90%
82.0
650
80%
75.5
450
90%
81.5
550
90%
81.0
400
40%
75.5
450
90%
81.5
185
90%
75.5
350
90%
85%
95.9
2200
Set up/operate Bubble Curtain/Silt Curtain
70%
87.6
200
250
80%
81.0
80%
80.0
200
250
80%
86.2
60%
86.9
400
600
15%
75.8
80%
80.0
250
200
60%
78.8
Dredge Common to Rock*
1100
90%
93.1
50%
81.0
450
Quantity
25
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
118.1
110.1
119.1
116.1
121.6
115.1
116.6
110.1
116.1
115.6
110.1
116.1
110.1
130.4
122.2
115.6
114.6
120.7
121.5
110.4
114.6
113.4
127.7
115.6
Equipment
Large Tug
85 TN Rock Trucks
Light plants
Dozer
Large Loader
Barge Winches
2
3
3
1
1
1
Rock Drills
250 Ton Crane/Derrick
Small Tug
Large Tug
50 TN Rock Trucks
Light plants
Large Dozer
Large Loader
Barge Winches
Powder Truck
3
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
1
8
1
Large Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Excavator
8 Mgal water truck
80 Ton Crane
Super 20 Carrylift
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Large Tug
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
500
50%
90.1
70%
79.2
650
40
100%
83.9
70%
80.5
450
500
10%
69.0
40%
85.2
400
Drill and Shoot/Dredge Rock Wet*
80%
84.8
350
1100
80%
92.6
50%
81.0
450
250
40%
83.1
60%
87.9
500
600
60%
78.6
60%
83.0
40
450
50%
79.0
20%
72.0
500
250
20%
89.2
80%
75.0
350
Spur Dike Rip Rap
80%
81.0
570
275
80%
84.0
60%
78.8
532
490
90%
75.5
90%
78.6
405
350
80%
80.0
60%
82.8
225
87.9
500
60%
Quantity
26
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
124.7
113.8
118.5
115.0
103.6
119.8
119.4
127.2
115.6
117.7
122.5
113.1
117.5
113.6
106.6
123.7
109.6
115.6
118.6
113.4
110.1
113.1
114.6
117.4
122.5
Equipment
Quantity

Small Tug
Large Loader
Barge Winches
50 TN Rock Trucks
Large Dozer
Tendors
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
Large Dozer
Small Dozer
Large Motor Grader
Large Roller
225T Crane
80 Ton Crane
4 Mgal Water Truck
8 Mgal Water WAGON
Rock Import Trucks
Large Excavator
Rub Tire Backhoe
Loader 980 size
Super 30 carrylift
Loader 966 size
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
Rock Crusher
Batch Plant
1
1
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
91.3
1100
60%
80.6
600
90%
86.2
250
80%
83.0
450
80%
75.0
500
40%
89.2
250
40%
76.0
600
50%
79.0
450
50%
84.6
200
70%
81.0
570
80%
81.0
185
80%
84.0
275
80%
74.8
250
30%
80.0
400
80%
80.0
200
80%
75.0
350
80%
75.0
450
80%
78.0
650
80%
79.2
350
70%
80.5
550
90%
76.5
125
70%
77.5
350
70%
83.5
350
70%
78.0
300
80%
Staging Area w/ Rock Crusher
100%**
83.0
n/a
100%**
83.0
n/a
27
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
125.9
115.1
120.7
117.6
109.6
123.7
110.6
113.6
119.2
115.6
115.6
118.6
109.4
114.6
114.6
109.6
109.6
112.6
113.8
115.1
111.0
112.0
118.0
112.6
117.6
117.6
Equipment
Quantity
Large Dozer
Belly dump truck
2
2
Batch Plant
Large Dozer
Belly dump truck
1
2
2
Batch Plant
**assumed 100% duty cycle
October 2012
Horsepower
Duty
Cycle
Feet (dBA Leq)
(HP)
100%**
82.0
570
100%**
79.0
300
Staging Area w/out Rock Crusher
100%**
83.0
n/a
100%**
82.0
570
100%**
79.0
300
Batch Plant Activities at Staging Area*
100%**
83.0
n/a
28
Total PWL of
Equipment (dBA)
116.6
113.6
117.6
116.6
113.6
117.6
APPENDIX E NOISE CONTROL PLAN
The City of Folsom is the nearest jurisdiction to the Proposed Project and has the most
restrictive noise control ordinance in terms of noise level and exempt hours. Compliance
with the City of Folsom Noise Ordinance will ensure Project compliance with noise
standards for other jurisdictions. Construction noise is exempt from these regulations
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
weekends. A summary of the City of Folsom Noise Standards is provided in Table E-1.
Construction activities conducted prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. weekdays or prior
to 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. weekends must comply with the noise levels shown in
Table E-1.
Table E-1: Noise Ordinance Standards (City of Folsom)*
Be Exc e e de d In
(d BA)**
Exp o s u re
30 Minutes/Hour
15 Minutes/Hour
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
No is e
Me tric
L50
L25
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
5 Minutes/Hour
1 Minute/Hour
Any period of time
L8.3
L1.7
Lmax
7 a .m . to 10 p .m . to
10 p .m .
7 a .m .
50
45
55
50
60
55
65
60
70
65
45
50
55
35
40
45

SOURCE: City of Folsom, CA Municipal Code. Chapter 8.42, Table 8.42.040
Construction activities have the potential to exceed City of Folsom noise standards
during non-exempt hours. In order to ensure compliance with the noise levels shown in
Table E-1, or other noise standards as approved by the City of Folsom during nonexempt hours, the contractor shall implement and enforce a Noise Control Plan.
October 2012
29
APPENDIX E NOISE CONTROL PLAN
The Noise Control Plan will be developed by a qualified acoustical consultant 1 and will
ensure that cumulative noise levels from all construction activities conducted prior to
7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. weekdays or prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. weekends
will not exceed the levels shown in Table E-1, or other noise standards as approved by
the City of Folsom, at any noise-sensitive receptor location.
All construction activities conducted outside of the construction noise exempt hours will
be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant. If cumulative noise levels from
construction activities are predicted to exceed the levels shown in Table E-1, or other
noise standards as approved by the City of Folsom, noise mitigation measures will be
employed to reduce noise to an acceptable level and a Noise Measurement Plan will be
implemented to ensure effective mitigation. The Noise Measurement Plan will
incorporate Type 1 (Precision) Sound Level Meter(s) as specified by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.4-1971 (R1976) or S1.4-1983,
"Specifications for Sound Level Meters" and will include a protocol to verify compliance
with Table E-1 or other noise standards as approved by the City of Folsom.
A Qualified Acoustical Consultant is an acoustical consultant qualified to perform

acoustical analyses within the City of Folsom, El Dorado County, Sacramento County or
Placer County. These jurisdictions should be contacted for a listing of qualified
acoustical consultants. A list of Sacramento County qualified consultants is available
online at http://www.dera.saccounty.net/Portals/0/docs/All%20Specialties-Consultants.pdf
October 2012
30
Appendix I
Cultural Resources
Joint Federal Project Section 106 Consultation Record*

*May not include all communication for project.
Date
2007
Type of Contact
Outgoing Letters
Title
Archaeologist
Archaeologist
Chairperson, Tribal
Administrator, Vice
Chairperson
Cultural Resources
Office Manager
Phase II "No Adverse Effect" SHPO Letter

Phase II SHPO Concurrence Letter
Phase III NA Consultation Letters
10/24/2011 Incoming Letter
Organization
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
SHPO
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
Shingle Springs
SHPO
SHPO
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
SHPO
SHPO
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn,
Tsi-Akim Maidu
Shingle Springs
11/7/2011
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Cultural Resources
Office Manager
Links to requested information on past projects, request to meet with tribal members.
11/7/2011
Incoming Email
United Auburn
THPO
Email from notifying us of letter and asking for inventory and environmental information.
11/7/2011
Outgoing Email
United Auburn
THPO
Provided project map, links to previous environmental reports, propose meeting with
tribe.
United Auburn
Tribal Administrator, Request for environmental and cultural reports, request tribal monitors, request a site visit.
THPO
12/6/2011
Tribal Consultation
Meeting
United Auburn
THPO, Preservation
Committee Chair,
Lead Tribal Monitor
Tribal consultation meeting with United Auburn. Provided project history, maps of
project, descriptive information, details of process, answered questions.
12/7/2011
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Follow up to email sent 11/7/2011 to request meeting with tribal members, ask if more
information was needed.
12/15/2011 Outgoing Email
United Auburn
THPO
Follow up to consultation meeting with the tribe, provided updated records search data.
12/15/2011 Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
11/18/2008 Outgoing Letter

3/9/2009
4/29/2009
5/5/2009
6/3/2010
Incoming Phone Call

Outgoing Letter
Incoming Letter
Outgoing Letters

10/13/2011 Outgoing Letters

Archaeologist
Chairperson
Contents of Communication
Bureau of Reclamation completed EIS/EIR for Dam Safety components of JFP (May
2006)
Phase I SHPO APE Letter
Phase I NA Consultation Letters
Archaeologist
Archaeologist
Chairperson
No known sites in APE.

Phase I "No Adverse Effect" SHPO Letter
Phase I SHPO Concurrence Letter
Phase II NA Consultation Letters
Initiation of consultation, consultation of cultural and historic resource issues, request for
information, request to be added as consulting party to identify TCPs.
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Shingle Springs, Chairperson, Tribal
United Auburn, Administrator, Vice
Tsi-Akim Maidu Chairperson
SHPO
Archaeologist
United Auburn
Tribal Administrator,
THPO
Follow up to emails sent 11/7/2011 and 12/7/2011, provided updated records search data
and request meeting with tribal members.
Request scheduling meeting with tribe.

Attempt to schedule tribal consultation meeting on 1/30/2012.
1/17/2012
1/17/2012
Incoming Phone Call

Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Shingle Springs
1/17/2012
Incoming Email
Shingle Springs
1/25/2012
1/30/2012
Incoming Letter
Outgoing Email
SHPO
Shingle Springs
2/6/2012
Incoming Email
Shingle Springs
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Archaeologist
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Description of project APE, project activities, identifcation efforts, communication to

date, asking for information.
Letter describing APE and project, and efforts to identify historic properties.
Letter communicating that the tribe does not have further archaeological concerns for the
project, request mitigation banking use native plants and resources.
Confirmation of tribal consultation meeting on 1/30/2012.

SHPO concurrence with the APE and efforts to identify historic properties.
Tribe cancelled consultation meeting, need to reschedule.
Acceptance of tribal consultation meeting on 2/13/12
Date
Type of Contact
Organization
Title
Contents of Communication
2/13/2012
Incoming Email
Shingle Springs
Tribe cancelled consultation meeting, need to reschedule.
2/13/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
2/27/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
2/27/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
3/16/2012
Tribal Consultation
Meeting
Shingle Springs
3/21/2012
Incoming Email
Shingle Springs
4/27/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
6/11/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
7/2/2012
7/2/2012
7/5/2012
Incoming Email
Outgoing Voicemail
Outgoing Voicemail
Shingle Springs THPO

Tsi-Akim Maidu
Tsi-Akim Maidu
7/6/2012
7/16/2012
Incoming Email
Outgoing Email
United Auburn
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
7/18/2012
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs,
United Auburn
7/19/2012
7/19/2012
Incoming Email
Site Visit
United Auburn
Shingle Springs
THPO
Cancellation of attendance at 7/19/12 site visit.

Tribal site visit of JFP Project.
7/24/2012
7/25/2012
Outgoing Phone Call

Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Shingle Springs
THPO
THPO
Follow up to site visit on 7/19/12. Left voice mail message.

Follow up to site visit on 7/19/12.
7/27/2012
7/27/2012
7/31/2012
8/27/2012
Incoming Email
Outgoing Email
Outgoing Phone Call
Outgoing Email
Shingle Springs
Shingle Springs
Shingle Springs
Shingle Springs
THPO
THPO
THPO
THPO
Communication that tribe still needs to review site visit notes.

Acknowledgement of email from tribe.
Follow up to site visit on 7/19/12. Left voice mail message.
Follow up email in regard to site visit on 7/19/12 to inquire if the tribe has any comments,
questions, or concerns. Reaffirmed the end of the public comment period of EIS/EIR on
9/10/12.
Reschedule of tribal meeting on 2/27/12. Tribe accepted.

Corps cancelled consultation meeting, need to reschedule.
Schedule of tribal consultation meeting on 3/16/2012.
Tribal consultation meeting with Shingle Springs. Tribe expressed wish for a field visit,
their impression that previous Section 106 consultation was not adequate, their concerns
that TCPs might be in the APE, their concerns about operation of the dam/reservoir, and
downstream effects. Corps committed to scheduling field visit, tribe to review already
provided information.
Cultural Respurces
Office Manager
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
THPO
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Cultural Resources
Office Manager,
THPO
Crystal confirmed receipt of previous consultation letters, previous environmental

documents, records and literature search data.
Schedule of tribal site visit on 6/13/12.
Corps cancelled tribal site visit, rescheduled to 7/19/2012.
Shingle Springs confirmed attendance for 7/19/12 field visit.

Called and left message on voicemail to invite Tsi-Akim Maidu to 7/19/12 site visit.
Called and left second message on voicemail to invite Tsi-Akim Maidu to 7/19/12 site
visit.
United Auburn confirmed attendance for 7/19/12 field visit.
Informed tribes of public meetings for the public comment period of the EIS/EIR to be
held in August.
Confirmation of tribal site visit on 7/19/12.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLY TO
ATI'ENTION OF
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, 95814-2922
Environmental Resources Branch

Mr. Nicholas Fonseca
Chairperson
P.O. Box 1340
Shingle Springs, California 95682
()CT
liiDI
Dear Mr. Fonseca:

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, we are writing to inform you of the proposed Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach
Channel project near Folsom, California. The California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) are constructing the Project as a
component of the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP). The Bureau of Reclamation (BUR)
has previously consulted on the Darn Safety component of the JFP in 2006 and 2007. The Corps
is responsible for completion of the Flood Risk Management (FRM) components of the JFP, to
include construction of an auxiliary spillway. The Corps has consulted with potentially
interested Native American tribes on previous phases of the overall JFP in 2008 and 2010. At
this time we are beginning identification efforts for a supplemental environmental impact
statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) for the JFP and more specifically, on the
Folsom Darn Modifications, Approach Channel project (Project).
The area of potential effects (APE) for the Project is located near the left and right
abutments of Folsom Dam and near Dikes 7 and 8 and the Morman Island Auxiliary Dam in
Sacramento County. The project is located on the Folsom, California, 7.5-minute U.S.G.S.
topographic map, TlON R7E, and R8E in portions of Section 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 29, and
30 (enclosure 1). The EIS/EIR will address construction alternatives that are intended to
improve dam safety and provide FRM within the APE. Alternatives analyzed for the EIS/EIR
may include one or more of the following design measures: installation of a temporary cofferdam
or cutoff walls, construction of a spur dike, blasting to remove bedrock material, dredging,
terrestrial deposition of dredge material, and temporary modification of existing terrestrial sites
for haul routes and staging areas.
We have completed a records and literature search at the North Central Information
Center at California State University, Sacramento. Other than Folsom Dam, there are no known
historic properties located within the APE for the Project. We also plan to conduct a pedestrian
survey of the APE not previously consulted on during the BUR's consultation. If buried or
previously unidentified resources are located during project activities, all work in the vicinity of
the find would cease, and the California State Historic Preservation Office would be contacted
for additional consultation per 36 CFR 800.13, Post Review Discoveries, and interested Native
American representatives would be consulted.
-2-
A public scoping meeting for the Project will be held to present an overview of the
Project and the EIS/EIR process, and to afford all interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on the scope of the analysis and potential alternatives. The public scoping meeting
will be held at the Folsom Community Center at 52 Natoma Street in Folsom, California on
October 20, 2011. Presentation on the Project will begin at 6 p.m. and we invite you to attend as
an interested party.
We have contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, who provided your name
as being potentially interested in our proposed project. We are sensitive to traditional cultural
properties and sacred sites, and make every effort to avoid them. Please let us know if you have
knowledge of locations of archeological sites, or areas of traditional cultural value or concern in
or near the Project APE. Correspondence may be sent to Ms. Melissa Montag, U.S. Army Corps
ofEngineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922. Ifyou
have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Ms. Montag at (916)
557-7907 or by email at: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
Alicia E. Kirchner
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, 958142922

Mr. Gregory S. Baker, Tribal Administrator
United Auburn Indian Community
Auburn Rancheria
10720 Indian Hill Road
Auburn, California 95603
OCT 112011
Dear Mr. Baker:

as amended, we are writing to inform you ofthe proposed Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach
has previously consulted on the Dam Safety component of the JFP in 2006 and 2007. The Corps
is responsible for completion ofthe Flood Risk Management (FRM) components ofthe JFP, to
Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach Channel project (Project).
topographic map, T10N R7E, and R8E in portions of Section 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 29, and
survey of the APE not previously consulted on during the BUR's consultation. Ifburied or
-2-
knowledge of locations of archeological sites, or areas of traditional cultural value or concern in
Sincerely,
~Alicia
E. Kirchner
~Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET

Mr. David Keyser, Chairperson
Auburn Rancheria
OCT 111011
Dear Mr. Keyser:

has previously consulted on the Dam Safety component of the JFP in 2006 and 2007. The Corps
interested Native American tribes on previous phases ofthe overall JFP in 2008 and 2010. At
statement/environmental impact report (EISIEIR) for the JFP and more specifically, on the
30 (enclosure 1). The EISIEIR will address construction alternatives that are intended to
improve dam safety and provide FRM within the APE. Alternatives analyzed for the EISIEIR
survey of the APE not previously consulted on during the BUR's consultation. Ifburied or
-2-
knowledge oflocations of archeological sites, or areas of traditional cultural value or concern in
Sincerely,
Alicia E. Kirchner
Enclosure
REPLY TO

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
ATIENTION OF

Ms. Eileen Moon
Vice Chairperson
Tsi-Akim Maidu
1239 East Main Street
Grass Valley, California 95945
OCT 18 2011
Dear Ms. Moon:

component ofthe Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP). The Bureau of Reclamation (BUR)
has previously consulted on the Dam Safety component ofthe JFP in 2006 and 2007. The Corps
or cutoffwalls, construction of a spur dike, blasting to remove bedrock material, dredging,
survey of the APE not previously consulted on during the BUR's consultation. If buried or
-2-
knowledge oflocations of archeological sites, or areas of traditional cultural value or concern in
of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922. Ifyou
Sincerely,
Alicia E. Kirchner
Enclosure
SHINGLE SPRINGS RANCHERIA

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians,
Shingle Springs Rancheria
(Verona Tract), California
5281 Honpie Road, Placerville, CA 95667
P.O. Box 1340, Shingle Springs, CA 95682
(530) 676-8010 Office (530)676-8033 Fax
October 24, 2011

Department of the Army
U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922
RE: The Proposed Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach Channel Project near Folsom
California
Dear Ms. Melissa Montag
The Most likely Descendant, Daniel Fonseca would like to initiate consultation process with
the Department of the Army for Folsom Dam Modifications Approach Channel Project
located in Sacramento County. Among other things, we would like this consultation to
address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Prior to meeting we would like to request any and all completed record searches and or
surveys that were done in or around the project area up to and including environmental,
archaeological and cultural reports.
Please let this letter serve as a formal request for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
to be added as a consulting party in identifying any Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)
that may exist within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE).
Please contact Crystal Dilworth, Cultural Resource Office Manager at 530-698-1471 to
schedule a consultation meeting pursuant to Section 106 of the NHP A.
sincerely,r
~~
-----------/-
Daniel Fonseca
Cultural Resources Director
Montag, Melissa L SPK

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Monday, November 07, 2011 1:54PM
Marcos Guerrero
Tribal Preservation; Melodi McAdams; Greg Baker
RE: Folsom Dam Modifications (UNCLASSIFIED)
Project_Map_2.pdf
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Hello Marcos,
We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the project. I'm attaching and sending some links to
information on previous environmental and cultural resources compliance done in the project area for your information and
review. The current proposed work is a part of the larger Joint Federal Project, a combined venture between the Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation that was included in an Environmental Impact Statement in 2007. We are presently
working towards NEPA and Section 106 compliance in a supplemental EIS to that 2007 document.
I'm also included an aerial map that shows some of the project features in a little more detail. Although the area was almost
entirely included within the Bureau's NEPA and Section 106 compliance efforts there are some areas and activities not
previously included. As a result I have requested an updated records and literature search from the North Central Information
Center. Once I have received those results I would be happy to share with you the information on previous surveys and known
sites in the area.
The Corps has a website where we are posting information on the current project as it becomes available:
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/projects/civil/americanriver/jfp/docs.html
The Corps has posted several NEPA compliance related documents at an ftp site here:
ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/spk/Folsom JFP/
And the Bureau has a fairly exhaustive list of documents they completed as part of the Joint Federal Project here:
http://www .usbr.gov/mp/nepa!nepa projdetails.cfm?Project ID= 1808
I would like to propose that we meet sometime in early December. I would like to plan to have a few Corps technical team
members present in order to be able to describe the project and answer any questions you may have. We would be able to host
the meeting in our offices at 1325 J Street in Sacramento or we would be happy to come to wherever is convenient for you. We
could follow up that meeting with a site visit later, if needed. If you have some dates and times in early December that would
work best for you please let me know, we will work around your schedule.
Melissa Montag
Senior Environmental Manager/Historian
Cultural, Recreation & Social Assessment Section (CESPK-PD-RC)
1325 J Street
(916) 557-7907
e-mail: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil Please note that due to security requirements our out of the office notification has
been disabled. Ifl do not respond to your message in a few days, I may be out of the office. I will respond as soon as I am
able. Thank you.
-----Original Message----From: Marcos Guerrero [mailto:mguerrero@aubumrancheria.com]

Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Montag, Melissa L SPK
1
Cc: Tribal Preservation; Melodi McAdams; Greg Baker

Subject: Folsom Dam Modifications
Hello Melissa,
You will be receiving a Jetter in the mail from Greg Baker, Tribal Administrator, regarding this project. In the mean time I
would like to set up a meeting/site visit and go over some of the tribes concerns. We are currently reviewing our inventory or
any resources in your project area, but consider it sensitive for cultural and environmental resources. We also have qualified
UAIC tribal members that would also like to participate in the survey.
Please Jet me know when we could discuss your project.

Thank you and we look forward to your response,
Marcos Guerrero, RPA, THPO

Tribal Historic Preservation Committee
Auburn, CA 95603
Office: (530) 883-2364
Cell: (916) 420-0213
Fax: (530) 885-5476
Caveats: NONE

......,.,,.
"
MIWOK
MAIDU

of the Auburn Rancheria
David Keyser
Chairman
Kimberly DuBach
Vice Chair
Gene Whitehouse
Secretary
"1"""eo""~"'
.........
Brenda Conway
Treasurer
"
"'"'eoMt<A"'
Calvin Moman
Council Member
November 16, 2011

Melissa Montag
1325 J Street
Subject: Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach Channel Project
Dear Ms. Montag,
Thank you for requesting information regarding the above referenced project. The United Auburn Indian
Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria is comprised ofMiwok and Southern Maidu (Nisenan)
people whose tribal lands are within Placer County and ancestral territory spans into El Dorado, Nevada,
Sacramento, Sutter, and Yuba counties. The UAIC is concerned about development within its aboriginal
territory that has potential to impact the lifeways, cultural sites, and landscapes that may be of sacred or
ceremonial significance. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this and other projects in your
jurisdiction.
In order to ascertain whether or not the project could affect cultural resources that may be of importance
to the UAIC, we would like to receive copies of any archaeological reports that have been, or will be,
completed for the project. We also request copies of future environmental documents for the proposed
project so that we have the opportunity to comment on potential impacts and proposed mitigation
measures related to cultural resources. The UAIC would also like the opportunity to have our tribal
monitors accompany you during the field survey and ground disturbing activities. The information
gathered will provide us with a better understanding of the project and cultural resources on site and is
invaluable for consultation purposes.
The UAIC's preservation committee has identified cultural resources within your project area and in close
proximity, and would like to request a site visit to confirm their locations and meet with you regarding
this project. Thank you again for taking these matters into consideration, and for involving the UAIC
early in the planning process. We look forward to reviewing the aforementioned documents as requested.
Please contact Marcos Guerrero, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, at (530) 883-2364 or email at
mguerrero(ci),auburnrancheria.com if you have any questions.
A~~
Gregory S. Baker,
Tribal Administrator
CC: Marcos Guerrero; UAJC
Tribal Office
Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 883-2390
FAX (530) 883-2380

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:51 PM
Marcos Guerrero
Joint Federal Project- Folsom Dam Modifications- Phase Ill Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
USACE Records Search Reports List JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.xlsx; USACE Records Search
Reports B JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.pdf; USACE Records Search Reports A JFP Phase Ill
Dec2011.pdf; USACE Records Search Resources JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.pdf
Caveats: NONE
Hi Marcos,
As you requested, I am providing you with scanned copies of the just completed records and literature search for the Joint
Federal Project Folsom Dam Modifications, Phase III Project that we met with you on last week. The files are a little
large but I'm hoping they come through okay, I didn't want to reduce the file size and lose image quality. I'm reluctant to
post them on our public ftp site since this is considered confidential information so if you have any issues getting the files
let me know and I will reproduce and send you hard copies.
I'm also including a brief bibliography ofthe report numbers referenced on the map. As you know, the records and
information are considered privileged and confidential and should not be shared publically. Let me know if you have any
questions about the information. You mentioned that you would like to conduct a site visit of the project, which we would
be happy to coordinate. Perhaps if you have some available dates and times in January I can work on coordinating that on
my end?
And I will be sending a letter with some additional information, maps, and summarization of communication in the near
future as part of our continuing consultation process. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.ivtc!t:ssa
us.
Cldtural. Recremion & Social Asstcs:mwnt Section (C'ES'PK-PDRC)
1325
5/unmJtnto, C/1 95814-2922
557-7907
t'
mail- Melissa.L.Montag@usace.arm,v.mii
Please note that due to

our out of the office notification has been disabled. If I do not res1poncd to your
message in a few days, 1 may be out ofthe office. I will
as soon as l am able. Thank you.
Caveats: NONE

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:58 PM
Crystal Dilworth
dfonseca@ssband.org; Montag, Melissa L SPK
RE: Follow up on Corps Folsom Dam Modifications Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
USAGE Records Search Reports List JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.xlsx; USAGE Records Search
Reports B JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.pdf; USAGE Records Search Reports A JFP Phase Ill
Dec2011.pdf; USAGE Records Search Reports List JFP Phase Ill Dec2011.xlsx
Caveats: NONE
Hello Crystal,
As you requested in your October 24, 2011 letter to the Corps of Engineers, I am providing you with scanned copies of the just
completed records and literature search for the Joint Federal Project Folsom Dam Modifications, Phase Ill Project. The files are
a little large but I'm hoping they come through okay, I didn't want to reduce the file size and lose image quality. I'm reluctant
to post them on our public ftp site since this is considered confidential information so if you have any issues getting the files let
me know and I will reproduce and send you hard copies.
I'm also including a brief bibliography of the report numbers referenced on the map. As you know, the records and information
are considered privileged and confidential and should not be shared publically. Let me know if you have any questions about
the information.
If you would like to meet to discuss the project or would like additional information please let me know. I would like to plan to
have a few Corps technical team members present in order to be able to describe the project and answer any questions you may
have. We would be able to host the meeting in our offices at 1325 J Street in Sacramento or we would be happy to come to
wherever is convenient for you. We could follow up that meeting with a site visit later, if needed.
Thank you for your interest in our project.
Sincerely,
Melissa Montag
1325 J Street
(916) 557-7907
e-mail: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil
Please note that due to security requirements our out of the office notification has been disabled. Ifl do not respond to your
message in a few days, I may be out of the office. I will respond as soon as I am able. Thank you.
-----Original Message----From: Montag, Melissa L SPK

Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:53AM
To: 'Crystal Dilworth'
Cc: 'dfonseca@ssband.org'
Subject: FW: Follow up on Corps Folsom Dam Modifications Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Caveats: NONE
1
Hello Crystal,
I wanted to follow up with you in reference to my email below. I received the October 24, 2011 letter from Mr. Fonseca
requesting information on the project, and environmental and cultural reports on the Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach
Channel Project, an aspect of the overall Join Federal Project. I replied with links to information in my email below but wanted
to see if you had any additional information requests at this time. I am awaiting the results of an updated records and literature
search and once I have received that I will send you a scan of the map depicting surveys and sites in the project area.
Additionally, as mentioned in my November 7, 2011 email below, please let me know if you would like to meet. I would like
to plan to have a few Corps technical team members present in order to be able to describe the project and answer any questions
you may have. We would be able to host the meeting in our offices at 1325 J Street in Sacramento or we would be happy to
come to wherever is convenient for you. We could follow up that meeting with a site visit later, if needed.
Sincerely,
Melissa Montag
1325 J Street
(916) 557-7907
e-mail: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil Please note that due to security requirements our out of the office notification has
been disabled. If I do not respond to your message in a few days, I may be out of the office. I will respond as soon as I am
able. Thank you.
-----Original Message----From: Montag, Melissa L SPK

Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 2:00PM
To: Crystal Dilworth
Subject: Follow up on Corps Folsom Dam Modifications Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Caveats: NONE
Hello Crystal,
I received the letter dated October 24, 2011 from Daniel Fonseca that requested additional information on the Folsom Dam
Modifications, Approach Channel Project and that requested to meet with the Corps in reference to the project.
We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the project. As was requested in the letter, I'm attaching
and sending some links to information on previous environmental and cultural resources compliance done in the project area for
your information and review. The current proposed work is a part of the larger Joint Federal Project, a combined venture
between the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation that was included in an Environmental Impact Statement in
2007. We are presently working towards NEPA and Section 106 compliance in a supplemental EIS to that 2007 document.
I'm also included an aerial map that shows some of the project features in a little more detail. Although the area was almost
entirely included within the Bureau's NEPA and Section 106 compliance efforts there are some areas and activities not
previously included. As a result I have requested an updated records and literature search from the North Central Information
Center. Once I have received those results I would be happy to share with you the information on previous surveys and known
sites in the area.
The Corps has a website where we are posting information on the current project as it becomes available:
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/projects/civil/americanriver/jfp/docs.html
The Corps has posted several NEPA compliance related documents at an ftp site here:
ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/spk/Folsom_JFP/
And the Bureau has a fairly exhaustive list of documents they completed as part of the Joint Federal Project here:
I would like to propose that we meet sometime in early December. I would like to plan to have a few Corps technical team
members present in order to be able to describe the project and answer any questions you may have. We would be able to host
the meeting in our offices at 1325 J Street in Sacramento or we would be happy to come to wherever is convenient for you. We
could follow up that meeting with a site visit later, if needed. If you have some dates and times in early December that would
work best for you please let me know, we will work around your schedule.
Sincerely,
Melissa Montag
1325 J Street
(916) 557-7907
e-mail: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil
Please note that due to security requirements our out of the office notification has been disabled. Ifl do not respond to your
message in a few days, I may be out of the office. I will respond as soon as I am able. Thank you.
Caveats: NONE
3
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
DEC 2 2 2011
Mr. Marcos Guerrero
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Dear Mr. Guerrero:
In accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
Channel Phase III (Phase III) Project near Folsom, California. The Phase III Project is a
component of the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP), which includes Flood Damage
Reduction (FDR) measures to Folsom Dam, its dikes, and associated features. The U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR) is responsible for construction of Dam Safety features for the JFP while
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is in the process of constructing the FDR features of
the overall JFP. The Corps has consulted with potentially interested Native American tribes and
individuals on previous phases of the overall JFP in 2008 and 2010. We contacted you in a letter
dated October 13, 2011 to inform you ofthe Phase III Project, provide you with general project
information, invite you to the public seeping meeting, and ask for any interest you may have on
the Phase III Project.
We received your letter dated November 16, 2011, requesting information on the Phase
III Project, as well as all record searches, surveys, environmental, archaeological and cultural
reports completed in or around the APE. As you requested in an email to Ms. Melissa Montag,
Corps Historian, on November 7, 2011, Ms. Montag provided links to the available requested
reports and Phase III Project background on the USBR website and our project and ftp websites.
We met with you on December 6, 2011, to discuss the Phase III Project further and in an email
on December 15, 2011 Ms. Montag provided you with copies of the recently completed records
and literature search for the Phase III Project.
In accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, we are writing you now to further define the area of potential effects (APE), provide
additional information, describe our efforts to identify historic properties, and further request if
you have any information or if you have interest in the Phase III Project. We are in the process
of completing a supplemental environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for
the JFP and more specifically, on the Phase III Project.
The Corps, in coordination with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, is implementing the JFP FDR features in order to
significantly decrease the flood risk in the Sacramento area. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part
800.2( c)(2)(ii)(A) we are offering you the opportunity to identify any concerns you may have
-2-
about the project, and advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including
those of traditional religious and cultural importance, within the APE.
The APE for the Phase III Project is located near the left abutment of Folsom Dam and
near Dikes 7 and 8 and the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) in Sacramento County. The
project is located on the Folsom, California, 7.5-minute U.S.G.S. topographic map, TlON R7E,
in portions of Section 19, 29, and 30 (Enclosure 1). This is an expanded APE from our 2010
correspondence and includes all the currently known FDR features of the JFP. The revised APE
is almost entirely within the APE that the USBR included in their consultation during the
completion of the 2007 JFP Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and
Section 106 compliance.
Phase III of the Project includes the completion ofthe approach channel and spur dike for
the auxiliary spillway at Folsom Dam. Components for construction of these features include:
Construction of a transload facility adjacent to Dike 7.

Construction of a concrete batch plant.
Installation of a 1,000 foot long concrete secant pile cutoff wall between the rock
plug and the control structure.
Placement of fill material along the east side of the rock plug to maintain the
80 foot wide haul road connection to the spillway.
Excavation of material from the rock plug between the control structure and the
cutoff wall.
Installation of the approach channel slab and concrete walls.
Excavation of the remaining rock plug to flood the approach channel.
Dredging of the remaining material to complete the approach channel.
Disposal of material at MIAD and temporary stockpile of material at Dike 7.
Construction of a spur dike on the north side ofthe approach channel.
We have determined that the APE includes those areas highlighted and outlined in
Enclosure 1. Most of the APE for the Phase III Project was included in the Section 106
consultation conducted by the USBR for excavation of the spillway under the JFP in 2006 and
2007 and during our previous Section 106 consultation for the Phase I and II ofthe Corps' JFP
FDR measures. The only portion of the APE not included in the previous consultation efforts is
the section of the transload facility that extends into Folsom Reservoir.
We have completed an updated records and literature search at the North Central
Information Center at California State University, Sacramento. The only known cultural
resources within the APE for the Phase III Project are Folsom Dam, Dike 7, Dike 8, and MIAD.
Folsom Dam and its associated features are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. The known cultural resources within the APE will not be adversely affected by
-3-
the Phase III Project. Other than the portions of the Phase III Project that extend into Folsom
Reservoir (the transload facility, the spillway approach channel, and the spur dike) all of the APE
has been previously surveyed or heavily disturbed by construction of the dam in the 1950s;
follow on modification, maintenance, and repair of Folsom Dam, dikes and MIAD; or
construction of roads and other development around Folsom Reservoir.
If buried or previously unidentified resources are located during project activities, all
work in the vicinity of the find would cease, and the California State Historic Preservation Office
would be contacted for additional consultation per 36 CFR 800.13, Post Review Discoveries, and
interested Native American representatives would be consulted.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.3(f)(2), we request that you notify us if you have interest in
the Phase III Project or if you may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties
in the APE. We are sensitive to traditional cultural properties and sacred sites, and make every
effort to avoid them. Please let us know if you have knowledge of locations of archeological
sites, traditional cultural properties, or areas of traditional cultural value or concern in or near the
Phase III Project APE.
Correspondence may be sent to Ms. Melissa Montag, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922. If you have any
questions or would like additional information about the Section 106 compliance and
consultation, please contact Ms. Montag at (916) 557-7907 or by email at:
Melissa.L.Montag@usace.arrny.mil. Please contact Ms. Pamela Arnie, Project Manager, at
(916) 557-7811 with any specific project questions.
Sincerely,
I.\
/-
~licia
E. Kirchner
Enclosure
Cc (w/enclosures):
Mr. Gregory S. Baker, Tribal Administrator, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn
Rancheria, 10720 Indian Hill Road, Auburn, California 95603
Ms. Anastasia Leigh, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage
Way, MP-153, Sacramento, California 95825
REPLY TO

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
AITENTION OF

Mr. Daniel Fonseca
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Shingle Springs Rancheria
P.O. Box 1340
Shingle Springs, California 95682
DEC 2 2 2011
Dear Mr. Fonseca:

dated October 13, 2011 to inform you of the Phase III Project, provide you with general project
information, invite you to the public seeping meeting, and ask for any interest you may have on
We received your letter dated October 24, 2011, requesting initiation of the consultation
process on the Phase III Project, as well as all record searches, surveys, environmental,
archaeological and cultural reports completed in or around the APE. In your letter you also
formally requested that the Shingle Springs Band ofMiwok Indians be added as a consulting
party in identifying any traditional cultural properties that may exist within the area of potential
effects (APE). As requested, Ms. Melissa Montag, Corps Historian, contacted Ms. Crystal
Dilworth, leaving a phone message on October 28, 2011 to discuss the project further.
Ms. Montag followed that phone message with an email on November 7, 2011 providing links to
the available requested reports and Phase III Project background. On December 7, 2011,
Ms. Montag sent an email to arrange for a meeting with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok
Indians as requested and in an email on December 15, 2011, Ms. Montag provided you with
copies of the recently completed records and literature search for the Phase III Project. We ask
that you notify us if you would like to meet to discuss the project, arrange for a site visit, or
would like additional information.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, we are writing you now to further define the APE, provide additional information,
describe our efforts to identify historic properties, and further request if you have any
information or if you have interest in the Phase III Project. We are in the process of completing
-2-
a supplemental environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for the JFP and
more specifically, on the Phase III Project.
800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A) we are offering you the opportunity to identify any concerns you may have
completion ofthe 2007 JFP Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and
Phase III of the Project includes the completion of the approach channel and spur dike for
Construction of a trans load facility adjacent to Dike 7.

cutoff wall.
Construction of a spur dike on the north side of the approach channel.
Enclosure 1. Most of the APE for the Phase III Project was included in the Section 106
2007 and during our previous Section 106 consultation for the Phase I and II of the Corps' JFP
-3-
the section of the transload facility that extends into Folsom Reservoir.
the Phase III Project. Other than the portions of the Phase III Project that extend into Folsom
Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922. Ifyou have any
Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil. Please contact Ms. Pamela Arnie, Project Manager, at
Sincerely,
I J -~----~licia E. Kirchner

Enclosure
Cc (w/enclosures):
Ms. Crystal Dilworth, Cultural Resource Office Manager, Shingle Springs Rancheria, P.O. Box
1340, Shingle Springs, California 95682
Ms. Anastasia Leigh, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage
REPLY TO
ATIENTION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET

Ms. Eileen Moon
Vice Chairperson
Tsi-Akim Maidu
1239 East Main Street
Grass Valley, California 95945
DEC 2 2 2011
Dear Ms. Moon:

dated October 13, 2011 to inform you of the Phase III Project, provide you with general project
information, invite you to the public scoping meeting, and ask for any interest you may have on
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, we are writing you now to further define the area of potential effects (APE), provide
additional information, describe our efforts to identify historic properties, and further request if
you have any information or if you have interest in the Phase III Project. We are in the process
of completing a supplemental environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for
the JFP and more specifically, on the Phase III Project.
800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A) we are offering you the opportunity to identify any concerns you may have
project is located on the Folsom, California, 7.5-minute U.S.G.S. topographic map, T10N R7E,
-2-
completion of the 2007 JFP Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and
Phase III of the Project includes the completion of the approach channel and spur dike for
Construction of a transload facility adjacent to Dike 7.

cutoff wall.
Enclosure 1. Most of the APE for the Phase III Project was included in the Section I 06
consultation conducted by the USBR for excavation ofthe spillway under the JFP in 2006 and
2007 and during our previous Section 106 consultation for the Phase I and II of the Corps' JFP
the section of the trans load facility that extends into Folsom Reservoir.
the Phase III Project. Other than the portions of the Phase Ill Project that extend into Folsom
-3-
Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil. Please contact Ms. Pamela Arnie, Project Manager, at
Sincerely,
eo-Alicia E. Kirchner
Enclosure
Cc (w/enclosures):
Ms. Anastasia Leigh, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage
.s".(tf,JJ.\11..,,.,.
II
fl
MIWOK
MAIDU
II
~ '"'<\<Cu~ot"'""
~'"'"'Cot~&"'""~
.\,
II
~
..,~Co!ol"'""

of the Au bum Rancheria
David Keyser
Chairman
Kimberly DuBach
Vice Chair
Gene Whitehouse
Secretary
Brenda Conway
Treasurer
Calvin Moman
Council Member
January 12, 2012

Melissa Montag
Sacramento District
1325 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814-2922
Subject: Folsom Dam Modifications, Approach Channel Phase III (Phase III) Project near Folsom,
California, component of the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP)
Dear Ms. Montag,
Thank you for the opportunity to consult on the above referenced project. The United Auburn Indian
Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria is comprised ofMiwok and Southern Maidu (Nisenan)
people whose tribal lands are within Placer County and ancestral territory spans into ElDorado, Nevada,
Sacramento, Sutter, and Yuba counties. The UAIC is concerned about development within its aboriginal
territory that has potential to impact the lifeways, cultural sites, and landscapes that may be of sacred or
ceremonial significance. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this and other projects in your
jurisdiction.
The UAIC has reviewed relevant project information and all requests and recommendations have been
addressed. Based on the negative finding the Tribe concludes that the UAIC does not have any further
archaeological concerns for this project. It is reasonable to conclude that the project should not result in
the alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to any significant archaeological or historical
burials, sites, structures, objects, or buildings; nor should the project have the potential to cause a physical
change that would affect unique cultural values or restrict pre-historic religious or sacred uses of the
project area. However, when a mitigation bank is chosen, the UAIC would like for Native plants and
resources to be considered in the restoration effort. The UAIC also welcomes restoration and mitigation
bank opportunities and programs on Tribal lands.
Thank you again for the opportunity to consult on this project. ~lease cpntact Marcos Guerrero, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer, at (530) 883-2364 or email at mgue~ero@auburnrancheria.com if you have
any questions.
~~~
Gregory S. Baker,
Tribal Administrator
CC: Marcos Guerrero, THPO
Tribal Office
Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 883-2390
FAX (530) 883-2380
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET

Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson
Office ofHistoric Preservation
P.O. Box 942896
DEC 2 2 2011
Dear Mr. Donaldson:

In accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
ofReclamation (USBR) is responsible for construction of Dam Safety features for the JFP while
the overall JFP. The USBR has previously consulted on the Dam Safety component of the JFP
with your office under reference number BUR061114A.
significantly decrease the flood risk in the Sacramento area. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.3 we
are initiating the Section 106 process for the Phase III Project and we are asking for your
comments on our proposed efforts to identify historic properties under 36 CFR Part 800.4. We
are also asking for your concurrence with our determination of the area of potential effects
(APE) for the Phase III Project in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(1).
Previous consultation with your office occurred under reference number
COE081120C for Phases I and II of the Corps' JFP FDR measures (Enclosure 1). In a
letter dated May 5, 2009, Mr. William Soule of your office concurred with our finding of
No Adverse Effect, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(b), for the Phase I Project. In a letter
dated July 26, 2010, Mr. Soule concurred with our finding ofNo Adverse Effect, in accordance
with 36 CFR 800.5(b), for the Phase II Project.
As described in our previous consultation, the overall FDR measures that we will be
constructing for the JFP consist of a continuing series of construction projects with separate
environmental compliance efforts for each project (Enclosure 2). Due to the nature of these
iterative phases, because descriptive information on what each construction effort will include
will not be available until plans are developed in the months leading up to the estimated
construction schedule, and in consultation with your office, we determined that the Section 106
compliance for each phase would be handled separately and as information becomes available.
-2-
As a result, we are defining the APE for the Phase III Project and we are providing you with
information on the current proposed construction effort for the Corps' JFP FDR measures.
correspondence and includes all the currently known FDR features of the JFP. The Phase III
Project revised APE is similar to the APE consulted on for the Phase II Project (Enclosure 4),
with an additional area identified for the proposed location of a temporary transload facility near
Dike 7. The revised APE is almost entirely within the APE that the USBR included in their
consultation during the completion of the 2007 JFP Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Section 106 compliance.
Phase III ofthe Project includes the completion of the approach channel and spur dike for
Construction of a trans load facility adjacent to Dike 7.

Installation of a 1,000 foot long concrete secant pile cutoff wall between the rock plug
and the control structure.
Placement of fill material along the east side ofthe rock plug to maintain the 80 foot wide
haul road connection to the spillway.
Excavation of material from the rock plug between the control structure and the cutoff
wall.
Disposal of material at the MIAD and temporary stockpile of material at Dike 7.
We have preliminarily determined that the APE includes those areas highlighted and
outlined in Enclosure 3. We invite any comments you may have on our preliminary
determination of the APE. Most of the APE for the Phase III Project was included in the
2007 and during our previous consultation for the Phase I and II of the Corps' JFP FDR
measures. The only portion of the APE not included in the previous consultation efforts is the
section of the transload facility that extends into Folsom Reservoir. We would also like to ask
for your comments on our proposed efforts to identify historic properties as outlined below.
-3-
If there are areas not previously included in the USBR's or our previous survey and consultation
we plan to conduct a pedestrian survey of those portions of the APE.
We obtained a list of potentially interested Native Americans from the Native American
Heritage Commission and contacted them in letters dated October 13,2011 to inquire ifthey
have knowledge of locations of archeological sites, or areas of traditional cultural value or
concern in or near the Phase III Project APE. Both the United Auburn Indian Community of the
Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) and the Shingle Springs Rancheria (SSR) have contacted us in
reference to the Phase III Project and have asked to meet with us. We met with representatives
of the UAIC on December 6, 2011 and plan to continue communicating with the UAIC on the
Phase III Project. We have contacted the SSR by phone and email to coordinate a time to meet,
but they have not responded to our inquiries. We plan to continue to try to coordinate with the
SSR to determine if they have interest in the Phase III Project.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(l), we request your comments on our preliminary
determination ofthe APE for the Phase III Project. We also request any comments your office
may have of our proposed efforts to identify historic properties under 36 CFR Part 800.4.
questions or would like additional information, please contact Ms. Montag at
(916) 557-7907 or by email at: Melissa.L.Montag@usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
~licia
E. Kirchner
Enclosures
Cc (w/enclosures):
Anastasia Leigh, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way,
MP-153, Sacramento, California 95825
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23' Street, Suite 1oo
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
calshpo@parks.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
January 25, 2012

Reply to: COE081120C
Alicia E. Kirchner
Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
RE: Folsom Dam Modification Approach Channel Phase III, Sacramento County, California
Dear Ms. Kirchner:
Thank you for requesting my comments on the above cited undertaking. You have requested my
comments in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended.
My staff has reviewed the documentation you provided and I would like to offer the following
comments.
The current undertaking is the next phase ofthe Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project which is
being undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. In your letter
of December 22, 2011 you identify an area of potential effect (APE) for this phase of the
undertaking. I do not object to how you have drawn the APE for this undertaking. In addition, I
find your efforts to date and those proposed reasonable and sufficient to identify historic
properties within the undertaking's APE.
Ifmy staff can be of any further assistance, please contact Dwight Dutschke at 916-445-7010.
Sincerely,
~own~~fr
Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAlA
Appendix J
USFWS Coordination Act Report
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
In Reply Refer To
81420-2011-CPA-0170-2
NOV -1 2012
Alicia Kirchner
Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
1325 J Street
Dear Ms. Kirchner:
The Corps of Engineers (Corps) has requested coordination under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) for the American River Watershed Investigation: Folsom Dam
Modification Project, Approach Channel. The proposed project would occur within and adjacent
Folsom Reservoir, Sacramento County, California, and is intended to function in conjunction with
the new spillway and control structure, as well as spillway releases from the main dam, to pass the
Probable Maximum Flood event. The enclosed report constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's FWCA report for the proposed project.
If you have any questions regarding this report on the proposed project, please contact
Doug Weimich at (916) 414-6563.
Sincerely,
Daniel Welsh
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Jaime LeFevre, COE, Sacramento, CA
Nancy Sandburg, COE, Sacramento, CA
Howard Brown, NOAA Fisheries, Sacramento, CA
Kevin Thomas, CDFG, Rancho Cordova, CA
Jay Rowan, CDFG, Rancho Cordova, CA
Kenneth Kundargi, CDFG, Rancho Cordova, CA
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED INVESTIGATION
FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, APPROACH CHANNEL
CALIFORNIA
October 2012
This is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report
on the effects that excavation of the proposed Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach
Channel (Project) would have on fish and wildlife resources within Folsom Reservoir, lands
adjacent the left wing dam of Folsom Dam, and the lower American River in Folsom, California.
This report has been prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as amended:
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq).
BACKGROUND
The Corps of Engineers (Corps), Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation), Central Valley Flood
Protection Board, and Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency are seeking to significantly reduce
the risk of flooding along the main stem of the American River in the Sacramento area while
meeting dam safety and public safety objectives. The Energy and Water Appropriations Act of
2006 directed the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Interior to collaborate on authorized
activities to maximize enhanced flood protection improvements and address dam safety risk
reduction needs at Folsom Dam and Reservoir (Folsom Facility) as one Joint Federal Project.
The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom Facility do not have sufficient discharge capacity
for managing the predicted Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and lesser event flood inflows
above a 1 in 100 year event (an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year).
Currently, the Folsom Facility can safely release flood flows between 115,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and 160,000 cfs for a duration which provides a level of protection provided by
downstream levees associated with a 1 in 100 year event. Structural modifications associated
with the Joint Federal Project are proposed to address increasing discharge capability and/or
increasing storage during extreme flood events above the 1 in 200 year event (an event that has a
0.5% chance of occurring an any given year) up to the PMF. -combined, the modifications would
be able to safely release flood flows between 115,000 cfs and 160,000 cfs for a longer duration
equivalent to a 1 in 200 year event level. A new auxiliary spillway is a major feature that would
address the need to safely pass part or the entire PMF event. Increasing discharge capability and
increasing storage would potentially achieve the goal of a greater than 1 in 200 year flood
protection objective (USBR et al. 2006).
An auxiliary spillway consisting of a 1,100-foot-long approach channel on the waterside of a
control structure, a spur dike, a gated control structure, and a 3,000-foot-long discharge chute on
the downstream side of the control structure is being constructed (Figure 1).
Legend
Approach Channel
"""'"""'"""""
Ollil<e7
c:
MIAO "'""""' SOe
Spur Dike
Te~
Or....,......c.......,
!:J ........,.._,
--
J..
==ttauiRoad
"
....
O.t
Translaad Facii1y

0.2
WI Army Corps
ofiEIIIJi-
...................
"
'iMiSt'
f'llllh:~_d-cAIOVFGhalrl_~..J)Ioii-~CollliMJY:li12'GGGt!>_~~..}llllp.ml<d
SOURCE: Corps ofEngineers
Figure 1. Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel.

2
Flows from the auxiliary spillway would enter the American River about 1,500 feet downstream
of Folsom Dam. This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report only addresses Phase 4 of the
new auxiliary spillway consisting of the excavation of the proposed spillway approach channel
and construction of the spur dike. The other features of the spillway (control structure, discharge
chute, etc.) were covered in earlier coordination with the Service (USFWS 2007, 2009, 2010).
==~~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is being phased such that the excavation and construction of the gated control
structure is being conducted using the existing topography and natural rock formation (paved
overlook/parking area to the east ofthe Left Wing Dam) as a natural dam or plug. The Corps is
evaluating two alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Thes~ are
Alternative 2: Approach Channel Excavation with CutoffWall and Alternative 3: Approach
Channel with Cofferdam.
Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative. In addition to construction of the

approach channel and cutoff wall, a spur dike, transload facility, and concrete batch plant are
necessary. After the control structure becomes operational, the approach channel and rock plug
will be excavated and a cutoff wall will be installed. Construction is slated to begin in the
summer/fall of 2013 and would be completed in about 4 years. Construction features and other
project details are summarized below.
Reclamation completed the excavation of the spillway chute and stilling basin and a partial
excavation for the control structure. The Corps is responsible for the final excavation for the
gated control structure and the approach channel, as well as for the construction of concrete
structures. The approach channel for the auxiliary spillway is expected to extend about
1, 100 feet into the reservoir from the concrete control structure. The invert of the approach
channel would be at elevation 362.34 (NAVD 88 datum) and the approach channel excavation
would narrow towards the control structure. The approach channel slopes would be 2H: 1V in
overburden, decomposed and highly-weathered rock, and 0.5H:1V in less weathered rock. There
would be a 30-foot-wide by 10-foot-deep rock trap at the upstream end of the approach channel
apron to block debris from entering the spillway. A spur dike on the north side of the approach
channel will be required based on the results of hydraulic model tests (refer to Figure 1).
The first step in the excavation effort for the approach channel would consist of removal of rock
plug material between the constructed control structure and the cutoff wall. A combination of
ripping and blasting would be required to facilitate rock excavation. Once enough material is
removed from this area, the approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed over an
18 month period. During this timeframe the control structure's bulkhead gates would be
completed and operational. Excavation of the rock plug would continue in-the-dry until the
approach channel is ready for flooding.
The remaining material from the rock plug would be excavated in-the-wet. Blasting and
dredging would be required for this operation. Dredging of soft material and silts on the lake
bottom would be conducted first to reduce turbidity during the blasting phase. Large silt
containing curtains would be utilized for all operations conducted in-the-wet in order to
minimize turbidity. Preferably, this dredging would occur at the lowest lake level available.
3
After fine materials are removed, the underlying rock would be blasted. Blasted material would
be dredged using a barge-mounted clam shell or hydraulic excavator dredge, down to an
elevation of 350 feet. The dredging would be performed from barges and would require marine
equipment to be mobilized and the transload facility to be operational .
The proposed cutoff wall would be located adjacent to Folsom Reservoir southeast ofthe left
wing dam and east ofthe auxiliary spillway chute excavation. The cutoffwall would consist of a
reinforced concrete secant pile wall socketed into the underlying highly weathered granitic in situ
rock. The proposed spur dike, in Folsom Reservoir and an upland site near Dike 8 would serve
as permanent disposal sites for the excavated material. The Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
(MIAD) and an uplandarea near Dike 7 would serve as temporary disposal sites, where
excavated material would be eventually removed and used for other purposes. Use of the MIAD
site would need to be coordinated with Reclamation's Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam
Modification Project. Due to potential conflicts in site use, it is possible this site would not be
available during multiple years of construction.
Land-based rock excavation would consist of conventional drilling and blasting methods.
Drilling would be performed in lifts and patterns to facilitate thorough pulverization of the
granite material. In dry holes, ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) would be used and primed
with cast boosters. Water-resistant emulsified slurry would be required since water intrusion is
anticipated. Explosives would be stored off-site. The explosives storage facility is assumed to
be located in Jamestown, California, about 80 miles from the site. Explosives would be trucked
to the site on a daily basis.
Blasting would typically consist of 15,000 cubic yards (cys) rock shots. Blasted rock would be
excavated with shovels or loaders, placed in haul trucks, and hauled to a disposal area, located
within about 1.5 to 2 miles from the excavation area.
Underwater rock excavation would be accomplished by drill and blast methods. Barge platforms
would be transported and assembled on-site to accommodate drilling and excavation equipment.
Down-the-hole hammer drills would bore 5-inch holes and the holes would be charged with
emulsified slurry explosives. Prior to detonations, the drill and fleeting barge would move 300 to
500 feet from the blast area. Each blast would produce about 2,000 cys of rock. The removal of
material would be completed in two lifts when the rock depth exceeds 30 to 40 feet. Current
estimates are for up to 400 blasts over a 3-year period.
Explosives would be stored off-site. The explosives storage facility is assumed again to be
located in Jamestown, California. Explosives would be trucked to the site on a daily basis. After
verification all charges have been detonated, a long stick excavator or crane supported clam shell
would dredge the shot rock into material barges for tow to the temporary transload facility.
All charges at least 20-charge diameters would be confined by rock burden and crushed stone
stemming to limit the blast over-pressures. A bubble curtain may be used to reduce the blastinduced dynamic water pressure that could otherwise be transmitted to the lake (contractor
option).
The dredging equipment that could be utilized for this project includes barges and excavators:
A barge-mounted large long reach excavator, with an effective excavating depth of90 to
95 feet. Different size buckets exist and they can be changed out for the various soil and
rock materials to be encountered during construction. The excavator method is limited by
its effective digging depth. Accordingly, the 3'li month (mid-November to end of
February) low lake level window would need to be used to effectively dredge to the final
grades.
A 225-ton class barge-mounted crawler crane clam shell unit would supplement the
hydraulic excavator to dredge shot rock and common material to grade in periods where
the lake level is too high for the hydraulic excavator to dredge to final grade.
The long reach excavator, conventional clam shell, and other overwater equipment would be
mounted on portable "Flexifloat" units, sized and assembled to maintain stability and manage
the excavation sets. The size of the "Flexifloat" barges would be about 180 to 200 feet by 40 to
50 feet by 7 feet deep. The barges would be held in position by large winch controlled spuds, or
in water over 50 feet deep, by a four-point mooring system using bottom founded anchors.
The proposed spur dike is an embankment designed to direct water into the approach channel.
The spur dike would be located directly to the northwest of the approach channel and have a
surface area of about 9 acres. The core of the spur dike would be constructed of decomposed
granite. This would be followed by a compacted random rock fill followed by a stone riprap cap.
The quantity of material estimated to complete the spur dike is about 1.4 million cys. Material
for the spur dike construction would come from the excavation of the approach channel
excavation, or MIAD. The construction equipment needed to build the spur dike consists of
normal scrapers, bulldozers, and sheep-foot rollers for the body of the spur dike, and backhoes,
bulldozers, and smooth rollers for the bedding, riprap, and surfacing materials. The construction
would take place over 24 months in 2015 and 2017.
A transload facility would be needed for mobilization and demobilization of marine equipment
(e.g., sectional barges and heavy cranes), dredged spoil off-loading from barges to trucks, marine
equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges; equipment maintenance, and marine
crew deployment. The proposed transload facility would be comprised of a ramp, crane and
crane pad, and a fuel transfer station. The transload facility would be located adjacent to Dike 7.
The ramp structure would need to accommodate seasonal and variable lake levels between the
elevations of 355 to 475 feet (NAVD 88).
The ramp dimensions are roughly 50 feet wide and 1,500 feet long, with a maximum slope of
10 percent. .The width allows large haul trucks the ability to turnaround and two-way passage
along the ramp. At about 1,000 feet from the haul road, the ramp would intersect the existing
lake bottom. From this point, steel planks would lie on the existing bottom to control mud and
minimize siltation and turbidity within the lake.
The ramp would be constructed from about 250,000 cys of compacted 3-inch maximum graded
fill with little or no fines. About 20,000 cys of V4 ton riprap would be placed on top of the main
5
fill for protection from wave action. Aggregate materi~l would be imported from offsite
locations. Dredging out ana.verage~ofJ_feetoJmateyi_a.l_und~l"lh~ f0()1print of the ramp ~bout
18,000 cys) may be required depending on the soils at th~ latcebottom.
Depending on lake levels, the ramp material may be placed directly into the water. The fines
content of the ramp material would be reduced as much as possible to limit water turbidity during
placement of material. Full depth silt curtains would surround the ramp installation to control
turbidity and silt movement into the greater lake body.
-~----~~-~--
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -
extension___ -- .
The ramp would incur progressive construction, with each stage of horizontal
dependent upon existing lake level, and depth needed to accommodate the reach to barges.
Ramp construction would begil!_at_th;~ ~hgrelip.ejll1l~~on withthe haulroacl_and e)(!f;!nc! intg the
lake. The ramp would be extended as neeaea~in response to ft:Uctuatifigla:Ke levels tlufiiig
approach channel and-cofferdam-cmrstructiurr-activities~The-estimate-fer-Gomph~te-.faiTln--------extension is 4 months.
- .-.-.-~---~--_o~=--=-c-oo~-~ ~~-~--- - - -
To off-load the dredged material from barges, a crane would be placed on a level crushed rock
pad located near the bottom of the ramp just above lake level. Timber mats would form a work
platform for the crane~- The pad. would -need to be ielC>catedto accommodate fluctuating lake
levels.
A fuel transfer station would be located on the ramp. The transfer station would include a
flexible hose from the ramp, which would be supported intermittently by a small float anchored
offshore. The float would be used to service a utility barge with a storage tank, and then recalled
to the ramp to prevent severage by boat traffic. The tank would hold one day's supply of fuel for
the floating equipment at the project site. Fuel would be delivered by trucks and pumped from
the trucks through the fuel transfer facility to the tank on the utility barge.
The transload facility is potentially permanent or may be removed after the completion of the
approach channel project in 2017. If the ramp is removed, ramp material would be removed with
excavators and hauled for disposal at one of disposal sites.
--
--
_-
--
--
---
---
--
The construction of the approach channel and cutoff \\'all would require large quantities of
_
temperature controlled concrete. This would necessitate the use of a contractor-provided, on-site
concrete batch plant and deliveries of-large quantities of concrete aggregate, concrete sand, and
cement. The batch plant would be powered by electricity from overhead Sacramento Municipal
Utility District lines. The batch plant would be located either at the Dike 7 staging area, MIAD,
the overlook, chute, or the Folsob:f Prison sites.
About 13,000 cys of concrete would be needed for the approach channel and about 11,200 cys of
concrete would be needed for the cutoff wall. The batch plant would produce concrete for the
approach channel's 18 month construction period.
The concrete batch plant area would consist of the aggregate storage system, aggregate rescreen
system (if needed), rewashing facility (if needed), the hatching system, cement storage, ice
manufacturing, and the concrete mixing and loading system. The aggregate storage system is
6
designed to have sufficient storage on-hand of input materials to produce about 3,000 cys of
concrete. The aggregate storage system consists of three coarse aggregate piles and a fine
blended sand pile. The aggregate would be transported to the project in belly type trucks. The
trucks would dump the aggregate into a, truck unloading hopper, after which it would be
conveyed up to an overhead shuttle conveyer, and dropped into respective storage piles.
The sand and the aggregate would be loaded out of the storage piles with a front end loader,
placed into bin hoppers, and conveyed to the hatching day hoppers. The aggregates would then
be mixed and transported into transit agitator trucks or mixer trucks. Once ready for placement,
the concrete would be transported by truck or conveyer from the batch plant site across the
spillway access road to the concrete conveyor or truck unloading hopper
It is estimated that about 24,200 cys of aggregate material would be needed to provide concrete
for the construction of the approach channel. It is anticipated that the aggregates needed for the
concrete would come from existing local commercial off-site sources and delivered to the site.
Generally, work associated with the batch plant operations would occur during the hours of
7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m., however, it is likely that some hatching and placements would have to
occur in the very early morning or night-time hours. This is especially true for large volume
placements and placements that occur in the hot summer season. Early morning or night-time
placements would be subject to traffic and noise limitations ofthe City ofFolsom's ordinances
and would have to be coordinated with the City by the contractor.
The description of the batch plant operation would be the same for the cutoff wall; however, the
overall production rates would likely be less than those for the approach channel.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The American River and nearby areas, although highly modified from conditions of 150 years
ago, support a diverse and highly valuable area for biological resources. The 23-mile-long reach
of the American River Parkway downstream ofFolsom Dam encompasses about 4,000 acres, the
majority ofwhich are in State designated floodway and contain large areas of annual grasslands,
riparian forest and scrub-shrub, oak woodlands, bare sand and gravel, and surface waters of the
river and its associated sloughs and dredge ponds (USFWS 2003). The Folsom State Recreation
Area includes about 18,000 acres ofland and water at Folsom Reservoir and some downstream
areas to Nimbus Dam. About 6,000 acres of land around Folsom Reservoir are managed by the
State of California.
Vegetation
The terrestrial portion of the project area currently supports limited annual grassland and oak
woodland. The annual grassland is characterized by species such as ripgut brome, wild oat, and
various forbs. The oak woodland in the project area occurs as single trees to small patches.
Typically the understory is dominated by annual grass and other forbs and shrubs such as
elderberry. The in-reservoir portion of the project area for the spur dike does not contain any
vegetation. However, during prolonged low water periods willows occasionally colonize within
the reservoir area.
At the Dike 8 permanent disposal area there is about 15.8 acres of undisturbed habitat, including
30 trees, which would be affected by the use of the site. The landward side of site is primarily
non-native grasslands with trees and/or shrub species interspersed throughout the site. The
waterward side of the site has a few shrubby willow species with a few areas of annual grasses,
most of the area is barren as it is inundated by reservoir storage. The diameter at breast height
(dbh) of the affected trees ranges from 4.5 to 55.5 inches (Figure 2). The current plan is to
revegetate the disposal site after construction is completed with annual grasses and trees.
Wildlife
The project area including the lower American River corridor provides a mosaic of riparian,
riverine, grassland, and oak woodland habitat These diverse habitats support a corresponding
diversity of wildlife.
The lands near the project area provide feeding, resting, and/or nesting habitat for many bird
species, many of which require the aquatic areas of the river and backwaters, or the riparian
vegetation of the ecosystem. Riparian areas are known to support a species-rich songbird
community (Gaines 1977), and the lower American River also provides habitat for many raptors,
including Swainson's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, Cooper's hawks, and great-homed owls, all
of which require or are closely associated with riparian vegetation. Bald eagles, which are more
common around Folsom Reservoir, occasionally use the lower river, which provides roosting and
foraging habitat. Waterfowl, particularly mallards and Canada geese, also use the area
extensively.
More than 50 species of mammals have been recorded for the area (USFWS 1986). Common
species include beaver, black-tailed jackrabbit, striped skunk, Virginia opossum, raccoon,
California ground squirrel, gophers, and many small rodents and insectivores including voles,
moles, shrews, deer mice, and pocket gophers. Uncommon species include several carnivores,
such as badger, long-tailed weasel, river otter, gray fox, coyote, bobcat, and mink.
Reptile species likely found in the area include common kingsnake, western rattlesnake, Gilbert
and western skinks, southern alligator lizard, western fence lizard, gopher snake, and several
garter snakes. Common amphibians include Pacific treefrog, California newt, California slender
salamander, western toad, and the introduced bullfrog.
Relatively little is known about invertebrates in the area, but elderberry plants are fairly common
in areas, and provide habitat for the endangered valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Fish
Folsom Reservoir encompasses about 10,000 surface acres when full (around 1 million acre-feet)
and there are about 75 miies of shoreline. The reservoir extends about 15 miles up the North
Fork and 10.5 miles up the South Fork ofthe American River. The reservoir supports a "twostage" fishery: warmwater species such as bass (largemouth, smallmouth and spotted) and
panfish (crappie, bluegill and sunfish) in the upper waters, and trout and landlocked salmon
(kokanee and Chinook) in the deeper waters (USFWS 2007). Various common catfish can also
Trees Potentially Affected at the Proposed Dike 8 Disposal Area
be found near the bottom of shallower areas. Fish habitat is present within the inundation zone
in the forms of young willow dominated riparian habitat which establishes during extended
period of drought, as well as brush piles placed there in the past by the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) and various sportsman groups. Both warmwater and coldwater fisheries
tend to benefit from increased peak spring water storage as this results in better coldwater
reserves for the salmonid fishes as well as increasing spawning and rearing for warmwater fish
(USFWS 2010). Sport fishing is an important and popular recreation activity at Folsom
Reservoir.
The lower American River supports a diverse and abundant fish community; altogether, at least
41 species of fish are known to inhabit the river (USFWS 1986). In recognition of its
"outstanding and remarkable" fishery resources, the entire lower American River was included in
~==~-the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1981, which provides some protection for these resources ----(USFWS 1991). Four anadromous species are important from a commercial and recreational
perspective. The lower river supports a large run of fall-run Chinook salmon, a species with both
commercial and recreational values. The salmon run is sustained by natural reproduction in the
river, and by hatchery production at the Nimbus Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery, operated by
CDFG. The average annual run of salmon in the American River is 25,948 (CDFG 2006).
-~~--~~-------r~----
Steelhead, a popular sport fish, are largely sustained in the river by production from the Nimbus
Hatchery, because summer water temperatures often exceed the tolerances of juvenile steelhead,
which typically spend about 1 year in the river. American shad and striped bass enter the river to
spawn; these two species, introduced into the Sacramento River system in the late 1800s, now
support popular sport fisheries. In addition to species of economic interest, the lower American
River supports many nongame species, including Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker,
tule perch, and hardhead (USFWS 1994).
Endangered Species
Based on a search of the Folsom USGS quadrangle map dated July 3, 2012, there are federallylisted species which could occur within or near the project area. The species under the
jurisdiction of the Service which may be affected by the project include the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle. The complete list is included in Enclosure 1 as well as a summary of Federal
agencies responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Corps
initiated section 7 consultation with the Service concerning the effects of the project on the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle on October 31,2012. The comp_le!edcol}sultationis includedin
Enclosure 1.
DISCUSSION
Service Mitigation Policy
The recommendations provided herein for the protection of fish and wildlife resources are in
accordance with the Service's Mitigation Policy as published in the Federal Register (46:15;
January 23, 1981 ).
The Mitigation Policy provides Service personnel with guidance in making recommendations to
protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. The policy helps ensure consistent and effective
Service recommendations, while allowing agencies and developers to anticipate Service
10
recommendations and plan early for mitigation needs. The intent of the policy is to ensure
protection and conservation of the most important and valuable fish and wildlife resources, while
allowing reasonable and balanced use of the Nation's natural resources.
Under the Mitigation Policy, resources are assigned to one of four distinct Resource Categories,
each having a mitigation planning goal which is consistent with the fish and wildlife values
involved. The Resource Categories cover a range of habitat values from those considered to be
unique and irreplaceable to those believed to be much more common and of relatively lesser
value to fish and wildlife. However, the Mitigation Policy does not apply to threatened and
endangered species, Service recommendations for completed Federal projects or projects
permitted or licensed prior to enactment of Service authorities, ot Service recommendations
related to the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
In applying the Mitigation Policy during an impact assessment, the Service first identifies each
specific habitat or cover-type that may be impacted by the project. Evaluation species which
utilize each habitat or cover-type are then selected for Resource Category analysis. Selection of
evaluation species can be based on several rationale, as follows: (1) species known to be
sensitive to specific land- and water-use actions; (2) species that play a key role in nutrient
cycling or energy flow; (3) species that utilize a common environmental resource; or (4) species
that are associated with Important Resource Problems, such as anadromous fish and migratory
birds, as designated by the Director or Regional Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Based on the relative importance of each specific habitat to its selected evaluation species, and
the habitat's relative abundance, the appropriate Resource Category and associated mitigation
planning goal are determined.
Mitigation planning goals range from "no loss of existing habitat value" (i.e., Resource Category
1), to "minimize loss of habitat value" (i.e., Resource Category 4 ). The planning goal of
Resource Category 2 is "no net loss of in-kind habitat value;" to achieve this goal, any
unavoidable losses would need to be replaced in-kind. "In-kind replacement" means providing
or managing substitute resources to replace the habitat value ofthe resources lost, where such
substitute resources are physically and biologically the same or closely approximate those lost.
In addition to mitigation planning goals based on habitat values, Region 8 of the Service, which
includes California, has a mitigation planning goal of no net loss of acreage and value for
wetland habitat. This goal is applied in all impact analyses.
In recommending mitigation for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, the Service uses the
same sequential mitigation steps recommended in the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations. These mitigation steps (in order of preference) are: avoidance, minimization,
rectification of measures, measures to reduce or eliminate impacts over time, and compensation.
Four fish and/or wildlife habitats were identified in the project area which had potential for
impacts from the project: oak woodland, annual grassland, and lakebed and "other." The
resource categories, evaluation species, and mitigation planning goal for the habitats impacted by
the project are summarized in Table 1.
11
Table 1. Resource categories, evaluation species, and mitigation planning goal for the habitats
possibly impacted by the proposed excavation of the Folsom Dam Modification
'-'"'...._ .........,., Sacramento
California.
Oak Woodland
Open water
Acorn woodpecker
Turkey
Deer
Freshwatersport fish
Annual grassland
Red-tailed hawk
Folsom Lakebed
Other
None
None
4
4
----------
No net loss of in-kind habitat

value or acreage.
No net loss of habitat value while
minimizing loss of in-kind habitat
value.
No net loss of habitat value while
minimizing loss of in-kind habitat
value ..
Minimize loss of habitat value.
Minimize loss of habitat value.
The evaluation species selected for the oak woodland that would be impacted are acorn
woodpecker, turkey, and mule deer. Acorn woodpeckers utilize oak woodlands for nearly all
their life requisites; 50-60 percent of the acorn woodpecker's annual diet consists of acorns.
Acorn woodpeckers can also represent impacts to other canopy-dwelling species. Turkeys forage
and breed in oak woodlands and are abundant in the project area. Mule deer also heavily depend
on acorns as a dietary item in the fall and spring; the abundance of acorns and other browse
influence the seasonal pattern of habitat use by deer. These latter species represent species which
utilize the ground component of the habitat and both have important consumptive and nonconsumptive human uses (i.e., hunting and bird watching). Based on the high value of oak
woodlands to the evaluation species, and their declining abundance, the Service has determined
oak woodlands which would be affected by the project should be placed in Resource Category 2,
with an associated mitigation planrting goal of"no net loss of in-kind habitat value."
The evaluation species selected for the open water cover-type that would be impacted is
freshwater sport fish. The open water cover-type is comprised of Folsom Reservoir. These
species were chosen because of their consumptive and recreational value to humans and their
importance as prey species to raptors and wading birds. Although this area is highly impacted by
recreational activities during portions of the year, it does support significant fishing activity.
Therefore, the Service designates the "other" cover-type in the project area as Resource
Category 3. Our associated mitigation planning goal for these areas is "no net loss of habitat
value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value."
The evaluation species selected for the annual grassland cover-type is the red-tailed hawk, which
utilizes these areas for foraging. This species was selected because of the Service's
responsibility for their protection and management under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and
their overall high non-consumptive values to humans. Annual grassland areas potentially
impacted by the project vary in their relative values to the evaluation species, depending on the
degree ofhuman disturbance, plant species composition, and juxtaposition to other foraging and
nesting areas. Therefore, the Service designates the annual grassland cover-type in the project
12
area as Resource Category 3. Our associated mitigation planning goal for these areas is "no net
loss ofhabitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value."
No evaluation species were identified for the Folsom lakebed cover-type. Generally this covertype would not provide any significant habitat value for wildlife species. Canada geese and other
avian species, as well as small mammals, may occasionally forage on the lakebed as waters
recede. Therefore, the Service designates the lakebed cover-type in the project area as Resource
Category 4. Our associated mitigation planning goal for these areas is "minimize loss of habitat
value."
No evaluation species were identified for the "other" cover-type. The "other" cover-type
encompasses those areas which do not fall within the other cover-types such as gravel and paved
roads, parking areas, buildings, bare ground, riprap, etc. Generally this cover-type would not
provide any significant habitat value for wildlife species. Therefore, the Service designates the
"other" cover-type in the project area as Resource Category 4. Our associated mitigation
planning goal for these areas is "minimize loss of habitat value."
Based on our review of the proposed project most of the potential impacts for wildlife species
would be temporal losses ofhabitat value (for species utilizing nearby annual grasslands and oak
woodlands) during construction. Much of this area is already highly disturbed by past and ongoing construction activities and the opening of the new Folsom Point Road. Wildlife species
utilizing these areas, as well as the lakebed, have been displaced during the on-going
construction activities and there would be little, if any, additional temporal loss of habitat values.
Mitigation plantings have been put in place or will be put in place for the previous construction
activities in this area. If new areas are disturbed (i.e., annual grassland at the Folsom Prison
staging site), impacts could be minimized by reseeding all disturbed areas with annual grasses at
the completion of construction.
At the Dike 8 disposal area about 15.8 acres of annual grassland/oak woodland would be
disturbed including the loss of 30 trees, predominately valley oaks, live oaks and cottonwoods.
The site is planned to be restored at completion of construction by establishing annual grasses
and tree species. The details of :this plan have not yet been developed. In order to be successful
it may be necessary to import soil material to intersperse in the upper layers of any rock disposed
of at the site as well as to cap the site for revegetation to be successful.
The proposed project would take place over a 37 month period. Construction activities in the
spring have the potential for adverse impacts to nesting migratory birds. Construction activities
proposed for the spring or summer months should include measures to avoid impacts to
migratory birds which may be nesting in affected vegetation and nearby areas around the staging
area, haul roads, and MIAD disposal site. Since construction has been occurring in this area for
several years any birds choosiug to nest in the area should be adapted to the noise and activity
levels. However, pre-construction surveys should be performed to determine if there are
migratory birds nesting in these areas. If nests are located, work should be monitored to see if
there are adverse effects or deferred until any young have fledged the nest.
13
The potential impacts to the aquatic resources of Folsom Reservoir from the proposed
construction range from increasing turbidity and mobilization of existing sediment contaminants
to introduction of aquatic invasive species and direct mortality to aquatic species.
Turbidity impacts are being minimized by conducting the excavation work in the dry to the
extent possible. Turbidity from underwater excavation and blasting would be minimized by
installing silt curtains around the work area. Since there will be heavy equipment operating on
the dry lakebed there is the possibility that contaminants (fuels, oils, hydraulic fluids, etc.) could
be released into or adjacent the reservoir. A physical barrier has been proposed between the
work area and the water to avoid any construction-related activities from affecting the water.
Additional measures to minimize introducing contaminants into reservoir waters can be
implemented such as restricting fueling and vehicle maintenance to areas outside the reservoir
area.
The Service has expressed concern in the past about in water disturbance (dredging and blasting)
associated with construction of the various features of the combined Joint Federal Project. The
proposed approach channel excavation has the potential to remobilize sediment-bound
contaminants, particularly mercury and the possibility for mercury methylation and subsequent
bioaccumulation into the food chain. The Corps has conducted sediment testing in the reservoir
in the vicinity of the approach channel and offload facility. The mercury elutriate test had a high
value. Material excavated from the approach channel and offload facility would be used for
construction of the spur dike, placed in the reservoir bottom, or transported and stored at the
MIAD or other upland disposal site. A dredging plan has not yet been developed, but it is
presumed silt curtains and erosion containment features would be required.
The project has the potential to introduce aquatic nuisance species into Folsom Reservoir through
use of watercraft (boats and barges) and other equipment which has been in contact with other
bodies of water containing these potentially harmful species if the exploratory borings are
conducted by barge. On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112,
which directs the agencies of the executive branch of the Federal government to work to prevent
and control the introduction and spread of invasive species. Species that are likely to harm the
environment, human health, or the economy are of particular concern. The executive order
builds on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Noxious Weed Act of
1974, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prevent the introduction of invasive species;
provide for their control; and take measures to minimize economic, ecological, and human health
effects.
Since it is currently unknown who the contractor may be or where their equipment may come
from it should be a condition that the contractor develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point Plan (HACCP) based on the following seven principles if in-water work is proposed:
Conduct a hazard analysis. Prepare a list of steps in the process where significant hazards
occur and describe preventive measures.
Identify the critical control points (CCP) in the process.
Establish controls for each CCP identified.
14
Establish CCP monitoring requirements. Establish procedures for using monitoring

results to adjust the process and maintain control.
Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring indicates a deviation from an
established critical limit.
Establish procedures to verify that the HACCP system is working correctly.
Establish effective record-keeping procedures that document the HACCP system.
To prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species all vessels and vessel accessories should be
thoroughly inspected. For watercraft and vessels with jet drives, impeller areas can contain
quagga and zebra mussels and aquatic plants. Once upon the trailer, run the engine for 5 to 10
seconds to blow out excess water, mussels and plants. Before leaving watei access, inspect and
remove any mussels or plants from intake, steering nozzle, hull, and trailer.
All vessels should be cleaned with a high pressure wash of hot water. This is especially
important if the vessel has been moored for more than a day.
Remove aquatic plants from boat, motor and trailer. Check all underwater fittings and
equipment, such as rollers, axle, bilge and trailer, and above water equipment, such as
anchors. Place any aquatic plants in trash if possible.
Drain any lake or river water from equipment including the motor, bilges, heat
exchangers and coolers. Ensure all drained areas are dry. Ensure the watercraft's lower
outboard unit is drained and dry.
Be aware that transferring a vessel that has been in infested waters will allow the spread
of quagga mussels, or the closely related zebra mussels. Physically inspect all exposed
surfaces. The presence of quagga mussels will feel like sandpaper to the touch. Report
presence of quagga mussels to CDFG hotline at (866) 440-9530, open from 8 am to 5 pm
PST.
Any vessel traveling from Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, the Colorado River,
or lakes that receive water from the Colorado Aqueduct, including: Lake Skinner
(Riverside County), Lake Mathews (Riverside County), San Vicente Reservoir (San
Diego County), Dixon Lake (San Diego County), Lower Otay Reservoir (San Diego
County), and Lake Murray (San Diego County) should remain dry and out of water for a
minimum of 5 days.
Wet or underwater blasting is expected to generate very little airborne noise, but has the potential
to kill fish in Folsom Reservoir. It is likely that some fish will be killed during wet blasting.
Noise potentially causes both auditory and non-auditory effects on fish. Injuries such as swim
bladder rupture in fish may be shown only by dissection of exposed individuals. These adverse
impacts only occur at high levels of sound, typically within tens, or at most a few hundred meters
of underwater blasts, and hence affect relatively small areas and numbers of individuals (Nedwell
and Edwards 2004 in Nedwell et al. 2007).
Fish response to sound can also be varied, ranging from the classic fright response that results in
a startle behavior and sudden burst of short duration and distance swimming, to other responses
such as packing or balling, increasing swimming speed, diving, or avoidance. Extremely loud
sound levels can have very negative effects on fish including temporary or permanent deafness,
tissue damage, and even acute mortality.
15
Indirect effects usually manifest themselves as a reduction in the ability to evade predation, a
change in behavior that leads to increased exposure to predation, or an inability to detect
predators or prey effectively (temporary or permanent deafness).
The Corps proposes to have the contractor use the Best Management Practice (BMP) listed
below which assume use of the standard practice of linear (rather than spherical) charges, and
standard timing separation of 8 milliseconds to reduce cumulative effects between adjacent
charges. The BMPs include:
Designing efficient detonations ("blast design") that fracture the rock with minimal energy
released to surrounding water. This can be accomplished by the use of stemming to confine
blasts. Efficient detonations are achieved by:
Establishing a not-to-exceed peak pressure-change (over.;;pressure) limit of lOOkPa
(14.5 psi).
Controlling maximum pressure thresholds by establishing cautious charge confinement
rules regarding the type and amount of stemming (material placed in the upper portions of
blast holes), and the amount of confining rock burden between charges and the free or
open face to which they break.
Monitoring peak blast-induced pressure and impulse.
Requiring the use of multiple time-sequenced charges that will reduce the cumulative
impacts on the water environment.
Timing blasting when fish tend to be in streams in northern tributaries far from the blast
site, e.g., February through June for rainbow trout.
Setting off small charges ("scare charges") or firing air-cannons into the water before
blasting to chase fish from the blast area.
Grouping continuous periods of noisy work or simultaneous noisy work (e.g., multiple
drill barges) to prevent the fish from re-entering the area during short quiet periods).
Potentially using air curtains or bubble curtains to attenuate pressure waves. Air supply
to bubble pipes would be provided by clean-air compressors that contain no oil or other
contaminants.
Not using ANFO mixtures in or near water because they will not function as desired and
if released into water they will dissolve and release toxic by-products (ammonia and
nitrates).
The use of a bubble curtain is an option for the contractor, so specific detail on the installation
and operation and maintenance of a bubble curtain is not yet available to identify possible
adverse effects on fish and /or wildlife resources. Prior to use of a bubble curtain, this
information should be provided to the appropriate resources agencies for review. Also,
determining the direct and indirect mortality on fish resources would be difficult to quantify. We
believe the appropriate mitigation measure for this activity should be three-fold, culminating in
the re-stocking of sportfish in the reservoir following CDFG policy after the blasting activities
are complete. The mortality impact should be documented by the resource agencies through
conducting boat surveys of the blast area after blasting to record any direct fish mortality. This
data would then be used by a multi-agency team (resource agencies and the Corps) to develop a
stocking strategy, followed by stocking the reservoir.
16
The project is located away from the American River and thus no direct impacts are anticipated
for fish species downstream of Folsom Dam.
RECOMM~NDATIONS
The Service recommends:

1. Avoid impacts to native trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation outside of the Dike 8 disposal
area. Any native trees or shrubs removed with a diameter at breast height of 2 inches or
greater should be replaced on-site, in-kind with container plantings so that the combined
diameter of the container plantings is equal to the combined diameter of the trees removed.
These replacement plantings should be monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to
be established and self-sustaining. The planting site(s) should be protected in perpetuity.
2. Avoid future impacts to the site by ensuring all fill material used for the spur dike and to cap
permanent disposal sites is free of contaminants.
3. Avoid impacts to migratory birds nesting along the access routes and adjacent to the proposed
construction sites by conducting pre-construction surveys for active nests along proposed
construction site, haul roads, staging areas, and disposal/stockpile sites. Work activity
around active nests should be avoided until the young have fledged. The following protocol
from the CDFG for Swainson's hawk would suffice for the pre-construction survey for
raptors.
A focused survey for Swainson 's hawk nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist
during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to identifY active nests within 0.25 miles
of the project area. The survey will be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30
days prior to the beginning of construction. If nesting Swainson 's hawks are found within
0.25 miles of the project area, no construction will occur during the active nesting season of
February 1 to August 31, or until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified
biologist), unless otherwise negotiated with the California Department ofFish and Game. If
work is begun and completed between September 1 and February 28, a survey is not
required.
4. Avoid introducing aquatic invasive species into the reservoir by requiring the contractor to
develop and implement a HACCP as described above. This plan should be provided to the
resource agencies for review and approval prior to any in-water work.
5. Avoid introduction of fuels/lubricants by requiring containment on barges and conducting
land-based fueling operation in areas where spills cannot enter the reservoir (containment
areas).
6. Minimize impacts to sportfishery resources by implementing the BMPs discussed above for
all in-water blasting.
7. Minimize project impacts by reseeding all disturbed areas outside the reservoir area at the
completion of construction with forbs and grasses.
17
8. Minimize potential for mobilizing contaminated sediments outside the immediate work area
(sediment removal area and transload facility) by developing a dredging plan prior to
construction which utilizes silt curtains or other means to prevent sediment from being
released into the lake and potentially the lower American River.
9. Minimize the potential impacts from fuel/oil/lubricant spills by requiring the contractor
develop a spill response plan. The plan should include a provision where emergency oil
containment boom material and absorbent pads are on-site and workers are properly trained
in proper deployment.
10. Compensate for the loss of the 30 trees with a dbh of2 inches or greater known to be lost by
the project by planting 3,134 seedlings (live and valley oaks, cottonwoods) on a 13.34 acre
site(s). Development of this site should be coordinated with the Service and CDFG. These
plantings should be monitored for 5 years or until they are determined to be established and
self-sustaining. The planting site(s) should be protected in perpetuity.
Note: The compensation identified in Recommendation #10 above was derived by totaling the dbh ofthe 30
impacted trees (783.5 inches) and multiplying it by 4 (assumes each seedling is lf.t-inch in diameter) to get 3,134
trees. The area for plantings was based on information provided by the Corps on planting densities used for oak
woodland (235/acre) on other projects.
11. Compensate for losses to fish resources by re-stocking Folsom Reservoir at the end of
construction. The species and quantity of stocking should be developed by a work group
comprised of the Corps and resources agencies.
12. Contact National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries for possible effects of
the project on federally-listed species under their jurisdiction.
13. Contact the CDFG regarding possible effects of the project on State listed species.
18
REFERENCES
CDFG (California Department ofFish and Game). 2006. Nimbus Hatchery Salmon (Online)
Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov!Jands/fhlnimbus/salmon.htmb September 29, 2006.
Gaines, D.A. 1977. The valley riparian forests of California: their importance to bird
populations. Pages 57-85 in Riparian Forests in California: their ecology and conservation.
A. Sands, ed. University of California, Davis, Inst ofEcology Publ. no. 15.
Nedwell, J.R., A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, J.A.L. Spinks, and
D.Howell. 2007. A validation of the dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory
effects of underwater noise. Subacoustic Ltd, United Kingdom.
USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of
Water Resources, California Reclamation Board, and Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency. 2006. Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft EIS/EIR. MidPacific Region, Sacramento California.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife from
alternative actions for increasing flood control along the lower American River, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
_____. 1991. American River Watershed Investigation, Auburn Area, Substantiating
Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
_____. 1994. Planning Aid Report for the American River Watershed Investigation,
Raising of Folsom Dam Alternative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
_____. 2003. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the American River
Watershed Investigation Long-Term Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
_ _ _ _ . 2007. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Folsom Dam Safety and
Flood Damage Reduction Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
_ _ _ _. 2009. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the American River
Watershed Investigation: Joint Federal Project-Folsom Auxiliary Approach Channel Project.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
_ _ _ _ . 2010. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the American River .
Watershed Investigation: Joint Federal Project-Folsom Auxiliary Approach Channel Control
Structure Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
19
ENCLOSURE!
FEDERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES CONSULTATION
Appendix K
Special Status Species Coordination
REPLY TO
ATT EN TION OF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET

Ms. Susan Moore, Field Supervisor
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605
OCT I 1 2012
Dear Ms. Moore:

We are writing to initiate formal consultation for the Federally listed valley elderberry
longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus) (VELB) under Section 7(a) of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for the Folsom Darn Modification Project,
Sacramento County, California. We are requesting formal consultation under the programmatic
agreement 1-1-96-F-66 dated September 19, 1996. The project is located in the city ofFolsorn at
Folsom Darn, approximately 20 miles northeast of Sacramento (Enclosure 1). Folsom Darn and
Reservoir are located downstream from the confluence of the north and south forks of the
American River.
The Folsom Darn Modification Project, also referred to as the Folsom Darn Safety/Flood
Damage Reduction Project or the Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom JFP), is a cooperative
effort between the U.S. Department oflnterior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), the State of Calif ornia Central Valley Flood Protection Board
(CVFPB), and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). The Folsom JFP was
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to implement darn safety and
security features along with flood damage reduction features at Folsom Darn and its associated
facilities. An auxiliary spillway adjacent to Folsom Darn was selected as the plan to meet
USBR's darn safety risk reduction objective and the Corps' flood damage reduction objective to
form the Folsom JFP. The proposed alternatives, potential environmental effects, and proposed
mitigation associated with the Folsom Modification Project was assessed in the Folsom Darn
Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (2007 FEIS/EIR), issued by USBR in March 2007. The Corps was a cooperating
agency for the preparation of the 2007 FEIS/EIR and adopted the findings of the 2007 FEIS/EIR
in a joint record of decision (ROD) that was issued in May 2007.
The 2007 FEIS/EIR conducted a programmatic or general analysis of proposed design
features available at that time. The 2007 Final EIS/EIR stated that the design ofthe spillway
approach channel would be determined in the Corps' pre-construction, engineering, and design
phase and if needed, supplemental NEP A/CEQ A documentation would be prepared. As
construction of the Folsom JFP progresses, it has been determined that the active treatment
system (ATS) needs to be relocated from its current location. The proposed action consists of
removing the A TS in Spring 2013 and leveling the approximate 3 -acre area for use as a
contractor staging area. In addition, Dike 8 would be used as a permanent disposal area for
-2-
material excavated from the approach channel. These actions would require removal of the
vegetation in the area including elderberry shrubs (Sambucus sp.) (Enclosures 2 and 3).
The Folsom JFP project area is highly disturbed areas of Federal land and largely devoid
of vegetation, with the exception of small areas of annual grasses and forbs. The area where the
ATS is located has been developed under previous actions of the Folsom JFP and is an active
construction zone. The area provides little to no habitat for wildlife and has little to no
vegetation or ground cover.
The habitat at Dike 8 consists of an open water/reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone,
transitional wetland, and ruderal herbaceous vegetation (Enclosure 4). Folsom Reservoir
experiences extreme seasonal water level fluctuations ranging from elevation 425 feet to 466
feet, which corresponds with the minimum and maximum pool volumes for the reservoir.
Following the recession of lake waters, the shoreline zone is seasonally vegetated with a mix of
ruderal (disturbed, weedy) and grassland species, with large areas of shoreline that remain barren
with rip rap on the upper slopes. Willow shrubs (Salix sp.) are sporadic at the very lowest
elevations of the shore. Open water habitat provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other
wetland species.
The ruderal herbaceous vegetation community is a native community that occurs in and
around the Dike 8. Oak trees are sporadic within this area. The predominant oak species include
valley oak and live oak. Ruderal herbaceous community provides cover and foraging habitat for
resident and migratory songbirds, small mammals, and reptiles. Between the haul road and the
ruderal herbaceous habitat there is transitional wetland habitat. This area floods through a
culvert beneath the haul road when reservoir levels are high, but remains dry when reservoir
levels are low. When flooded, this area provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other
wetland species.
Surveys were conducted June 6, June 11, and August 8, 2012 with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) staff to collect data on the elderberry shrubs. At the A TS site, three elderberry
shrubs were measured with one stem 3 to 5 inches in diameter, and two stems 1 to 3 inches in
diameter at ground level (Enclosure 5). Four shrubs were measured at Dike 8 with 2 stems 1 to 3
inches in diameter, and 2 stems greater than 5 inches in diameter at ground level (Enclosure 6).
No exit holes were observed. The project area is considered non-riparian. After further review
with USFWS, the Corps determined that all seven of these shrubs will be impacted by the project
and need to be transplanted. Since the work may begin in Spring 2013, the Corps proposes to
transplant the shrubs within the approved window for elderberry shrubs to minimize the adverse
effects to the beetle.
-3-
In addition, the Corps proposes to implement the following conservation measures to

minimize the effect on the beetle.
Dust suppression measures would be used.
Construction representatives and contractor personnel would be given awareness training

relating to the beetle and its habitat.
The Corps would purchase 2.4 credits at USFWS approved mitigation bank.
Disturbed areas would be restored to the pre-project condition and reseeded with native
grasses.
The Corps has determined that removing the A TS to create a contractor use area and the
use of Dike 8 as a permanent disposal area is likely to adversely affect the VELB or its habitat.
No VELB critical habitat exists in the project area, therefore none will be adversely modified by
the proposed project. Based on the information described above, the Corps is requesting that
USFWS append this project to the VELB Programmatic Biological Opinion dated September 19,
1996.
If you need additional information or have questions regarding this project, please contact
Ms. Jamie LeFevre, Environmental Resources Branch, at (916) 557-6693 or e-mail:
Jamie.M.LeFevre@usace .army.mil. Thank you for your coordination on this project.
Sincerely,
Alicia E. Kirchner
Enclosures
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Doug Weinrich, U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 , Sacramento,
California 95825-1846
Project Area
!
Project Area
!
Nevada
California
Project Vicinity Map

Modification
Project,
Folsom DamFolsom
SafetyDam
and Flood
Damage
Reduction,
Approach Channel
Date:
10
20
Miles
Enclosure 1Plate 2
2/27/2012
Plate 2
Active Treatment System

Elderberry Shrubs
1 3
2
ShrubNo. StemSize NumberofStems

Location
ExitHoles
1
35"
1
NonRiparian
No
2
13"
1
NonRiparian
No
3
13"
1
NonRiparian
No
Total
3
Enclosure 22
Attachment

Elderberry Shrubs
1 42 3
Shrub No.
Stem Size Number of Stems
Location
Exit Holes
5 +
Non-Riparian
No
1-3
Non-Riparian
No
1-3
Non-Riparian
No
5 +
Non-Riparian
No
Total
Enclosure 33
Attachment
LEGEND
Valley Elderberry Bush
c:Jopen Water
[II] Transitional Wetlands
Ruderal Herbaceous
E:ZI Non Native Ruderal

Oak Savannah
[IJ Disturbed Developed
([Zil
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Sacrament o Distric1
Folsom Dam Safety

and Flood Damage Reduction,
JointApproach
FederalChannel
Project
SEIS/ EIR
Habitat Map
Map
Habitat
Enclosure 4
October 2012
Plate- 7
Zlo 1tJI
fe:p~i2.14!...
f-'!'110:Stt- T
Elderberry Shrub Stem Count Data
DATE-~-'-~<t-~.l_I'L.=-Shrub#
Riparian
Habitat?
I
'J
NtJ
tJo
r/Jv
Stem Size At Ground Level

21"&:5:3"
> 3" & < 5"
2 5"
Exit Holes
Present?
;Jv
N6
J
I
J\){)
...
Enclosure 5

FOLSOM DAM APPROACH CHANNEL
Elderberry Shrub Stem Count Data
G. &./l'l
DATE
&( 11/12-..
Shrub#
Riparian
Habitat?
/)..
No
No
No
No
"'
w1 11oa~
~1t;~
!-/- )~~-
.~ n~
(';,~ vN'"J
"'"
,~3 ,,
-)
, _ d.~Jit-J
(1'$ ,,.
~j;J_
r
I,, .J
~s"
i'l'
M-v~~..:. J-t'!'.if.l~.
3~
Co \-1-o vt ~J (3 sit,..}
,-.
'~-
No
!!~
f);~~..,
~'3.c
()r}l,h-
J){''
JV
oi~ k,
C.OH-vn ~
.z{
~-~-.
tu.c 1-.o-h~
3~.
.,
L"te Oak
It
.,
ltf))<{("'
;J.!) ,,
31, 5
9 ,,
r_.~ odl<-
M"+
_,
~-
13 _,
4~1.-vh
fJo
jJ~,
1-/
~c.
~~
:?: 5"
No
Ill.
()cdc
>3"&<5"
:?: I" & :> 3"
12-
\j,
Exit Holes
Present?
Stem Size At Ground Level
'.
({JA,)i,
( S\---7'
v.
GO.k
\).
\f-
C.~<v 1._
LL
u.k
iYtA.k_
o0.L
i'l)
zv
j.; ' ; /,
'1 ..
L("
cPq 1<.-
')I .
It
fNcJ~__. '6 ) IS'. s-) 7

[._
/I
j.D,/.0
I z.. 5 t/
------V 6Cvk
1 /.0
Oo..~
,,;;
L.- 00\ tl- } . I)
Enclosure 6
Affected elderberry plant minimization ratios based on location,

stem diameter, and presence of exit holes
Worksheet
location
non-riparian
non-riparian
non-riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
totals
elderberry
planting
associated
native
planting
native
ratios
2
2
4
3
6
2
4
3
6
4
8
0
12
0
12
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
elderberry
ratios
stems
holes
greater than or = 1" &

less than or = 3"
greater than 3" & less
than 5"
No
yes
No
yes
No
greater than or = 5"

greater than or = 1" &
less than or = 3"
greater than 3" & less
than 5"
yes
No
yes
No
yes
No
greater than or = 5"
yes
Enter
number of
stems
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
multi. No. of
stems by
Calculations:
basins
total basins=
total acres need
for
compensation
nativeselderberrys
2.4
2.4
4320
0.099173554
0
0

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
In reply refer to:
OSESMF00-2013-F-0044
NOV -1 2012
- -.~
_.
Alicia E. Kirchner
Corps ofEngineers, Sacramento District
1325 J Street
Subject:
Request to Append the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Sacramento County,

California, to the Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with
Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the
Jurisdiction ofthe Sacramento Field Office, California (1-1-96-F-66)
Dear Ms. Kirchner:

This letter is in response to your October 31, 2012, request for initiation of formal consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed Folsom Dam Modification
Project (project), in Sacramento County. Your request was received by the Service on
October 31, 2012. The Service has reviewed the biological information submitted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) describing the effects of the proposed project on the
federally-listed as threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus) (beetle).
The Corps has determined that the project is likely to adversely affect the beetle. The Service
. . concurs with this determination, and has concluded the project can be appended to the
Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office,
California (programmatic consultation) (Enclosure 1).
Although critical habitat has been designated for the beetle, the proposed project is not within the
critical habitat area. Therefore, critical habitat for the beetle will not be affected. This response
is in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) (Act).
Ms. Alicia E. Kirchner
The findings and recommendations in this formal consultation are based on: 1) your
October 31, 2012, letter requesting formal consultation; 2) phone and email conversations
between Corps and Service staff; 3) site visits on June 6, 2012, June 11, 2012, and
August 8, 2012; and 4) other information available to the Service.
Desc11iption of the Proposed Project
The Folsom'.R<W1.M;odifibktion Project, also referred to as the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage
Reduction Project or the Folsom Joint Federal Project (Folsom JFP), is a cooperative effort
between the U.S. Department ofinterior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Corps, the State
of Cal.ifomia Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency. The Folsom JFP was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of2007 to
implement dam safety and security features along with flood damage reduction features at
Folsom Dam and its associated facilities. An auxiliary spillway adjacent to Folsom Dam was
selected as the plan to meet USBR's dam safety risk reduction objective and the Corps' flood
damage reduction objective to form the Folsom JFP. The proposed alternatives, potential
environmental effects, and proposed mitigation associated with the Folsom Modification Project
was assessed in the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (2007 FEISIEIR), issued by Reclamation in
March 2007. The Corps was a cooperating agency for the preparation of the 2007 FEIS/EIR and
adopted the findings of the 2007 FEISIEIR in a joint record of decision that was issued in
May2007.
The 2007 FEISIEIR conducted a programmatic or general analysis of proposed design features
available at that time. The 2007 Final EISIEIR stated that the design of the spillway approach
channel would be determined in the Corps' pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and
. if needed, supplemental NEP A/CEQ A documentation would be prepared.
As construction of the Folsom JFP progresses, it has been determined that the active treatment
system (ATS) for storm runoff needs to be relocated from its current location. The proposed
action consists of removing the ATS in Spring 2013 and leveling the approximate 3-acre area for
use as a contractor staging area. In addition, an area near Dike 8 would be used as a permanent
disposal area for material excavated from the approach channel. These actions would require
removal of the vegetation in the area including elderberry shrubs (Sambucus sp.).
The Folsom JFP project area is highly disturbed areas of Federal land from on-going construction
activities and is largely devoid of vegetation, with the exception of small areas of annual grasses
and forbs. The area where the ATS is located has been developed under previous actions of the
Folsom JFP and is an active construction zone. The area provides little to no habitat for wildlife
and hats little to no vegetation or ground cover.
The habitat at Dike 8 consists of an open water/reservoir shoreline fluctuation zone, transitional
wetlarAd, and ruderal herbaceous. Folsom Reservoir experiences extreme seasonal water level
fluctuations ranging from elevation 425 feet to 466 feet, which corresponds with the minimum

and maximum pool volumes for the reservoir. Following the recession oflake waters, the
shoreline zone is seasonally vegetated with a mix ofruderal (disturbed, weedy) and grassland
species, with large areas that remain mostly barren shorelines with rip rap on the upper slopes.
Willow shrubs (Salix sp.) are sporadic at the very lowest elevations of the shore. Open water
habitat provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other wetland species.
The ruderal herbaceous community is a native community that occurs in and around the Dike 8.
Oak trees are sporadic within this area. The predominant oak species include valley oak and live
oak. The ruderal herbaceous community provides cover and foraging habitat for resident and
migratory songbirds, small mammals, and reptiles. Between the haul road and the ruderal
herbaceous habitat there is transitional wetland habitat. This area is flooded when reservoir
levels are high by a culvert beneath the haul route, but remains dry when reservoir levels are low.
When flooded, this area provides foraging habitat for waterfowl and other wetland species.
A total of seven elderberry shrubs have been recorded at the ATS site and proposed Dike 8
disposal area near Folsom Dam. The Corps has determined that all seven shrubs, the obligate
host plant of the beetle, will be disturbed by construction activity and will result in adverse
effects to individual beetles, pupae, or larvae, as well as loss of habitat.
The elderberry plants that cannot be avoided will be transplanted to a Service-approved
conservation area in accordance with the Service's conservation guidelines.(Enclosure 2) for the
beetle. Each elderberry stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level that is
adversely affected (i.e., transplanted or destroyed) will be replaced in the conservation area with
elderberry seedlings or cuttings as shown in Table 1. If the Service determines that the
elderberry plants on the proposed project site are unsuitable candidates for transplanting,
additional plantings will be made to offset the additional habitat loss.
' '' ~ ' ~'

)./,, ':;,
Non
Riparian
3"-5"
> 5"
Total
1
2
7
No
No
2:1
3:I
4
2
6
I: I
I: 1
I: 1
12
24/10=2.4 basins* 1800 = 0.10 acre
Conservation Measures
The Corps will implement the following conservation measures proposed in the
October 31, 2012, letter in addition to those listed in the programmatic consultation.
4
2
6
12
1. Dust suppression measures would be used.

2. Construction representatives and contractor personnel would be given awareness training
relating to the beetle and its habitat.
3. The Corps would purchase 2.4 credits at a Service-approved conservation banlc
4. Disturbed areas would be restored to the pre-project condition and reseeded with native grasses.
The Corps will assure that the conservation measures described above and the terms and
conditions of the programmatic consultation are implemented.
Appending to the Programmatic Biological Opinion
The Service has determined that it is appropriate to append the proposed project to the
programmatic consultation. This letter is an agreement by the Service to append the proposed
project to the programmatic consultation and represents the Service's biological opinion on the
effects ofthe proposed project. Compensation implemented through the programmatic should
lead to the development of protected habitat areas distributed across the landscape. These
protected areas can then be used as foundations for future habitat conservation plans by local
communities.
The Service is tracking losses of beetle habitat permitted under the programmatic consultation.
The Service reevaluates the effectiveness of this programmatic consultation at least every
6 months to ensure continued imp~ementation will not result in unacceptable effects to the
species or thehabitat upon which i1l: depends.
Action Area
The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02, as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly
by the Federal action and not mere:ly the immediate area involved in the action." For the
proposed action, the Service considers the action area to be the footprint for the proposed
auxiliary spillway for Folsom Dam, including the construction staging areas, access routes and
haul roads, permanent and temporary excavated material disposal areas, and the habitat within
one hundred feet of any elderberry shrubs associated with the proposed project in which
construction activities take place.
Effects of the Proposed Action
The proposed action will affect aU valley elderberry longhorn beetles inhabiting seven elderberry
plants with at least one stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. All seven
elderberry plants will be transplanted to a conservation area. Removing these elderberry shrubs
will adversely affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Any beetle larvae occupying these
plants are likely to be killed when the plants are removed.

To compensate for these effects, each elderberry shrub that has one or more stems measuring
1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level that is adversely affected will be replaced at
Service-approved conservation area. Replacement will be done with elderberry seedlings or
cuttings at a ratio of 1: 1 to 3: 1 (new plantings to affected stems) and will be planted along with
associated native species in accordance with Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle (Enclosure 2).
,
Transplantation of elderberry shrubs that are or could be used by beetle larvae is expected to
adversely affect the beetle. Beetle larvae may be killed or the beetle's life cycle interrupted
during or after the transplanting process. For example:
1. Transplanted elderberry shrubs may experience stress or become unhealthy due to

changes in soil, hydrology, microclimate, or associated vegetation. This may reduce their
quality as habitat for the beetle, or impair their production of habitat-quality stems in the
future.
2. Elderberry shrubs may die as a result of transplantation.
3. Branches containing larvae may be cut, broken, or crushed as a result of the
transplantation process.
Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the
Service's biological opinion that the project to be permitted under this programmatic biological
opinion, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened valley
elderberry longhorn beetle. Our opinion is based on the relatively small numbers of elderberry
stems that will be impacted and the new plantings that will be done to provide habitat for the
beetle in perpetuity. Although critical habitat has been designated for the beetle, the proposed
action would not affect its critical habitat.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act prohibits take (i.e. to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife
without a special exemption. Harass is defined as intentional or negligent acts that create the
likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Harm is defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding,
or sheltering. Incidental take is any taking of listed animal species which results from, but is not
the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or the
applicant. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and
not intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be implemented by the Corps so
that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to an applicant, as appropriate,
in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to
regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps: (1) fails to require
applicants to adhere to the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement through
enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, and/or (2) fails to retain
oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of
section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take the Corps must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the
incidental take statement [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)].
Amount or Extent of Take
The Service has determined that implementation of the programmatic process authorized by this
biological opinion will result in the loss of all. valley elderberry longhorn beetles inhabiting as
many as, but no more than, four stems between 1 and 3 inches in diameter at ground level, one
stem between 3 and 5 inches in diameter at ground level, and two stems greater than 5 inches in
diameter at ground level.
Effect of the Take
In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service has determined that this level of anticipated
take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
This concludes the Service's review of the proposed project as outlined in your request. As
provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary
Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by
law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals
effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner
that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this
opinion; or, (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the
action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations
causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
If you have any questions or concerns the Folsom Dam Modification Project please contact
Doug Weinrich, Chief, Habitat Conservation Division at (916) 414-6563.
Sincerely,
Daniel Welsh
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
Jamie LeFevre, COE, Sacramento, CA
Regional Manager, CDFG, Rancho Cordova, CA
Central Valley Flood Protection Board, Sacramento, CA
SAFCA, Sacramento, CA
ENCLOSURE 1
Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office,
California (1-1-96-F-66)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
United. States Department of the Interior

IN RErLY REFER TO:
Ecological Services
Sacramento Field Office
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
1-1-96-F-66
September 19, 1996
Mr. Tom Coe
Regulatory Branch
Department of the Army
U.S. Apmy Engineer District, Sacramento
corps of- Engineers
1325 J Street _
Sacramento~ CA 95814-2922
Subject:
Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with

Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field
Office, California (Corps File #199600065)
Dear Mr. Coe:

- -- This document is in response to your request for formal consultation pursuant
to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 u.s.c. 1531
et seq.) (Act).;. regarding actions that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) may take on projects. with limited impacts on the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle {Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (beetle) or its habitat.
Your February 23, 1996, request for formal consultation was received on
February 27, 1996. This consultation addresses the effects of these projects
on the federally threatened beetle and its elderberry host-plant (Sambucus
species) . The geographic scope of this consultation is the area within the
jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) . This consultation document has been prepared pursuant to
SO CFR 402 of our interagency regulations governing section 7 of the Act.
The purpose of this programmatic document is to expedite consultations on
proposed projects with relatively small impacts on the beetle. Future
projects that meet the conditions specified below, or that the Service
determines will have similar impacts, may be appended to this programmatic
consultation.
-~---This-'t:onsultation
document is based on information provided in biological

assessments and biological reports provided to the Service by the Corps and
----------. _ other __ pro.j~ct: applicants and consultants. Information obtained by members of
my staff during site visits and at meetings with other agency personnel,
applicants, and consultants has also been used. Natural ~istory museums,
universities, and the scientific literature have also contributed to knowledge
of the beetle and its habitat. This information aided the development of
appropriate mitigation measures, which are discussed in the Mitigation
Guidelines for the beetle (Appendix) .
The Service will re-evaluate this programmatic consultation at least every six
(6) months to ensure that its continued application will not result in
unacceptable effects on the beetle or its ecosystem. Restricting this
programmatic consultation to projects with small impacts will limit the
effects of the programmatic process on the beetle and its_habitat.
Tracking
and restricting project impacts over time will serve to minimize cumulative
effects at local and regional levels.
Mr. Tom Coe
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Description of the Proposed Action

This consultation collectively covers projects with small effects on the
va1ley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desrnocerus californicus dirnorpbus) or its
host plant, elderberry (Sambucus species), in:or along the margins of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys (Central valley). of California. (Figure 1).
The area mapped roughly follows the 3000-foot elevation contour on the east
and the watershed of the Central Valley 6n the west. All or portions of 31
counties are included: Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra
Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Merced,
Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo,
Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba. The
Service may treat individual projects from outside this area under this
programmatic consultation at its discretion.
All projects implemented under this programmatic consultation will meet the
following four criteria, or will be determined by the Service to have impacts
similar in nature:
1.
no designated critical habitat [50 CFR 17.9S{i)] will be

affected,
2.
twenty-five (2S) or fewer elderberry plants, each with at least

one stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground
level, exist in the action area (action area is defined under SO
CFR 402.02 as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by
the Federal action and not merely the immediate area.. involved in
the action), and
3.
between one (1) and two hundred (200) elderberry st~s measuring
1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level exist in the
action area, and
4.
less than 2SO linear feet (76 m) of undeveloped watercourse exists

in the action area, measured down the centerline. An undeveloped
watercourse is one without human-made levees, channelization, riprap, or other artificial alteration, and may be either permanent
or seasonal. This requirement may be w~ived if no elderberry
plants occur in the vicinity of the watercourse(s).
In order to be considered for inclusion under this programmatic document, the

biological assessment for the project (SO CFR 402.12), or equivalent
document(s) provided to the Service, '1ill include a descript~on of the
project, a vicinity map, a legal location description, and the results of a
survey for the beetle and for elderberry plants, performed by a qualified
biologist. The written report on the survey will include at least the
following information:
1.
a map showing the boundaries of the project site on a u. s.

Geological Survey 7.S minute quadrangle and identifying the county
or counties in which the project is to occur,
2.
a map (scale 1" = 100' or 1" = 200') delineating the major

vegetation communities pres.ent on the site,
3.
the acreage to be affected by the project that:
Mr. Tom Coe
a.
b.
c.
lies within SO feet of any elderberry plant,

lies within riparian vegetation of any kind, and
lies outside of. riparian vegetation but within SO feet of an
elderberry plant.
If the project lies in more than one cotmty, these figures will be
provided for each county separately as well as in total,
4.
a map showing the precise location of all elderberry plants onsite, and the precise or estimated location of other elderberry
plants that may be affected by the project,
5.
an accounting of the number of e~derberry plants present in the

action area, and an accounting for each plant that will include
the estimated height, number of stems greater than 1.0 inch in
diameter at ground level, and presence or absence of e~it holes of
the beetle,
6.
an assessment of potential habitat for the beetle within 2000 feet

of the site boundary if accessible; if not accessible, an estimate
of potential habitat for the beetle and a general description of
the unaccessible area(s),
7.
an analysis of the effects of the project on the beetle and its

habitat, including cumulative effects as defined under 50 CFR
402.02 as those effects of future State or private activities,
na~ involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to
occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to
consultation, and,
8.
a similar analysis of effects of the alternate actions considered.
The information provided in the biological assessment will be used by the

Service to assess and monitor the local, county-level, and regional impacts of
the programmatic consultation on the beetle. Projects that are not consistent
with these conditions may be appended tQ this biological opinion only as the
Service deems appropriate. For example, the Service may elect to treat under
this programmatic consultation aproject that affects 40 elderberry plants,
but has effects similar in nature and scope to those analyzed here, and is
implemented in a manner consistent with the process described in this
biological opinion. Projects with other listed or proposed species present
will undergo individual review, but, upon determination by the Service, may
have the beetle included as part of this consultation.
The following process will be.used when proposed projects are presented for
inclusion under this programmatic bio~ogical opinion:
1.
After reviewing the proposed action, the Corps will forward to the
Service's Sacramento Field Office:
a.
a letter requesting that the proposed project be appended to

this biological opinion; and
b.
the biological assessment for the project, or equivalent

document(s), along with all other pertinent information,
including a complete description of the project, the field
survey report, and maps, as described above. Any other
threatened, endangered, or proposed spe~ies that may be
affected by the project will be included in the biological
assessment.
Mr. Tom Coe
2.
The Service will designate a staff biologist to serve as the

contact and lead. The Service will review the proposed project.
If the effects of the proposed project do not meet the criteria
for inclusion in this programmatic biological opinion, the Service
will inform the Corps within J.S days of the date the request for
initiation of consultation was r~ceived by. the Service, and the
Service will recommend a separate consultation. Otherwise;
3.
The Service will take one of three actions:

a.
If the proposed mitigation is adequate, the Service will

deliver to the Corps a letter approving the proposed
mitigation and appending the proposed project to this
programmatic consultation. .
b.
If the proposed mitigation is inadequate, the Service may

deliver to the Corps a letter appending the proposed project
to this programmatic consultation, provided tha~ additional
measures (terms and conditions) specified in the Service's
letter are undertaken by the applicant in order to
adequately mitigate the.effects of tb,e proposed action; or,
c.
if the proposed mitigation is inadequate, the Service may

deliver to the Corps a letter instructing the applicant to
contact the Service's staff biologist (identified in the
letter) for assistance in determining the applicant's
mitigation responsibilities.
::.
4.
The Corps will forwardthe above letter to the applicant. If the

proposed mitigation has not been approved, the Corps will instruct
the applicant to contact the Service's staff biologist (identified
in the Service's letter) for assistance in determining the
applicant's mitigation responsibilities.
Appropriate measures have been developed to reducethe impacts of a variety of

projects on the beetle. These measures have been implemented and tested in
the form ofMitigation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle,
issued and revised periodically by the Service (USFWS 1996) (Guidelines) .
Projects that will be authorized under this biological opinion will minimize
impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle by following these Guidelines
or by otherwise mitigating in a manner acceptable to the Service. These
Guidelines
,.. are attached (Appendix}. These Guidelines are also available from
this off~ce as a separate document with examples.
Trackingand Reassessment of the
Prog~ammatic
Process by the Service
To ensure that incremental losses of habitat are not so great that they
jeopardize the continued existence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle in
any county, the Service will implement a system to track the effects of. this
programmatic consultation~ Every six (6} months from the date of this
biological opinion, the Service will re-evaluate the impacts and effectiveness
of the programmatic process.
It is not possible to ~ccurately assess the amount of existing habitat that
remains (i.e., the number and location of all elderberry plants within the
beetle's range} . Therefore, to access the effects of this programmatic
consultation, the Service will track, for each county, the total amount of
potential habitat (i.e., the number of acres, elderberry shrubs, and stems)
for the beetle that is affected by projects permitted under this biological
Mr. Tom Coe
opinion and the total amount of habitat that i~ created and restored as a
result. of mitigation for these effects. Potential habitat acres will be
defined as all area within 50 feet of any elderberry plant, or within riparian
areas suitable for the growth of elderberry plants.
Mitigation may be on-site or off-site with Service approval.
To the extent
practical and when it contributes to the recovery of the beetle, mitigation
will occur in the same general areas as impacts. Mitigation may be
coordinated with local planning efforts with Service approval. Mitigation
responsibilities may also be met by purchasing the appropriate number _of acres
in a mitigat~on bank that meets the compensation requirements (i.e., meets or
exceeds the required number of plantings and provides for transplantation of
effected elderberry shrubs) identified in the Guidelines.
Because precise information on the existing environmental baseline (number of
elderberry plants occurring in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills)
cannot be assessed at this time, the amount of incidental take that will be
allowed under this programmatic consultation has been determined based on the
amount of incidental take that has been permitted during the last two years.
The Service has determined that this amount of take has not jeopardized the
continued existence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Based on this
information, effects of all projects permitted under this programmatic
consultation within a six-month period will be limited to no more than 250
elderberry shrubs with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in
diameter at. ground level or no more than 2000 stems measuring 1.0 inch or
greater in diameter at ground level, whichever number is smaller.
~,
A comprehensive review of the effects and mitigation (i.e., the number and
location of acres, shrubs, and stems destroyed and created/restored within
each county) will be conducted at the end of each six-month period. As a
result of these reviews, it may be determined that: (1) small projects
effecting the beetle may continue to be appended to this programmatic
consultation for another six-month period with the current mitigation process
in place, (2) proposed project effects may need to the limited in specific
areas, (3} changes in the mitigation process are needed, or (4) further
impacts in specific areas may jeopardize the beetle or other listed species,
and use of this programmatic consultation is not appropriate for these areas~
The Service will work closely with recovery efforts to ensure that created and
restored areas are distributed across the landscape in such a manner as to
allow them to function effectively and contribute to the recovery of the
beetle.
Status of the Species
on August 8, 1980, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle was listed as a
threatened species {45 FR 52803) . Two areas along the American River in the
Sacramento metropolitan area have been designated as critical habitat for the
beetle.
In addition, an area along Putah Creek, Solano County, and the area
east of Nimbus Dam along the American River Parkway, Sacramento County, are
considered essential habitat, according to the Recovery Plan for the beetle
(USFWS 1984) . These areas support large numbers of mature elderberry shrubs
with extensive evidence of use by the beetle.
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is dependent on its host plant,
elderberry (Sambucus species), which is a common component of the remaining
riparian forests of the Central Valley. Use of the plants by the animal, a.
wood borer, is rarely apparent. Frequently, the only exterior evidence of the
shrub's use by the beetle is an exit hole created by the larva just prior to
the pupal stage. Recent field work along the Cosumnes River and in the Folsom
Lake area indicates that larval galleries can be found in elderberry stems
Mr. Tom Coe
with no evidence of exit holes; the larvae either succumb prior to

constructing an exit hole or are not far enough along in the developmental
process to construct an exit hole. Larvae appear to be distributed in stems
which are 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. The Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) and Barr (1991) contain
further details on the beetle's life history.
Population densities of the beetle are probably naturally low (USFWS 1984) ;
and it has been suggested, based on the spatial distribution of occupied
shrubs (Barr.1991), that the beetle is a poor disperser. Low density and
limited disp~rsal capability may cause che beetle to be vulnerable to the
negative effects of the isolation of small subpopulations due to habitat
fragmentation;
Environmental.Baseline
Extensive destruction of California's Central Valley riparian forests-has
occurred during the last 150 years due to agricultural and urban development
(Katibah 1984, Katibah et aL 1984, Smith 1977, Thompson 1961). Based on a
1979 aerial survey, only about 102,000 acres out of an estimated 922,000 acres
of Central Valley riparian forest remain (Katibah et al. 1981}. More extreme
figures .. were given by Frayer et al. (1989), who reported that approximately
85~ of all wetland acreage in the Central Valley was lost before 1939; and
that from 1939 to the mid-1980's, the acreage of wetlands dominated by forests
-and other woody vegetation declined from 65,400 acres to 34,600 acres.
Differences in methodology may explain the diferences between- the studies.
In any case, the historical loss of riparian habitat in the Central Valley
strongly 'suggests that the rang~ of the beetle has been reduced and its
distribution greatly fragmented. Loss of non-riparian habitat where
elderberry occurs (e.g. savanna and grassland adjacent to riparian areas, oak
woodland, mixed chaparral-woodland), and where the beetle has been recorded
(Barr 1991}, suggests further reduction of the beet.le's range and increased
fragmentation of its upland habitat.
The beetle's current distribution is patchy throughout the remaining habitat
of the Central Valley from Redding to Bakersfield. Surveys conducted in 1991
(Barr 1991} found evidence of beetle activity at 28 percent of the 230 sites
with elderberry. The beetle appears to be only locally common, i.e., found in
population clusters which are not evenly distributed across available
elderberry shrubs.
Frequently oniy particular clumps or trees in the study
areas were found to harbor the beetle. Plants used by the beetle usually show
evidenc~ of repeated use over a period of several years, but sometimes only
one or two exit holes are present. Similar observations on the clustered
distribution of exit holes were made by Jones and Stokes (1987) . Barr (1991}
noted that elderberry shrubs and trees with many exit holes were most often
large, mature plants; young stands wer,e seldom occupied.
The action area of this programmatic consultation covers the known range of
the beetle, since projects that may be authorized under this biological
opinion are likely to exist throughout its range. Therefore, the environmental baseline for the beetle in the action area is equivalent to the
rangewide status of the beetle, which is addressed above. To summarize, the
Service believes that the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, though wideranging, is in long-term decline due to widespread alteration and
fragmentation of its riparian, and to a lesser extent, its upland, habitats by
human activities.
Mr. Tom Coe
Effects of the Proposed Action

The proposed action may affect all valley elderberry longhorn beetles
inhabiting as many as 250 elderberry plants with at least one stem measuring
1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level or as many as 2000 elderberry
stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level in or adjacent
to the Central Valley within a six-month period. This action will adversely
affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Any beetle larvae occupying
these plants are likely to be killed when the plants are removed.
To mitigate ;for these effects, ,project!5_ pe._rmitted under this programmatic
consultation would relocate (transplant) elderberry shrubs that have one or
more sterns measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level and would
plant additional elderberry, in the forrnof seedlings or cuttings, and
associated native species in accordance with Mitigation Guidelines for the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Appendix) .
Transplantation of elderberry shrubs that are or could be used by beetle
larvae is expected to adversely affect the beetle. Beetle larvae may be
killed .or the beetles' life cycle interrupted during or after the
transplanting process. For example:
1.
Transplanted elderberry shrubs may experience stress or become

unhealthy due to changes in soil, hydrology, microclimate, or
associated vegetation. This may reduce their quality as habitat
for the beetle, or impair their production of habitat-quality
stems in the future.
2.
Elderberry shrubs may die as a result of transplantation.
3.
Branches containing larvae may be cut, broken, or crushed as a

result_ of the transplantation process.
Elderberry-plants which are too small to be likely to support larval beetles

(i.e., consist of no stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground
level) may be destroyed without transplantation or compensation. However,
were they not destroyed, such small plants could potentially grow larger and
produce stems capable of serving as habitat for the beetle.
Temporal loss of habitat will occur. Although mitigation for impacts on the
beetle involve creation or restoration of habitat, it generally takes five or
more years for elderberry plants to become large enough to support beetles,
and it generally takes 25 years or longer for riparian habitats to reach their
full value (USFWS 1994) . Temporal loss of habitat will temporarily reduce the
amount of habitat available to beetles and may cause fragmentation of habitat
and isolation of subpopulations.
The construction and operation of proposed projects which may be appended to
this programmatic may have indirect effects on the beetle.
Impacts to the
beetle from construction and operation of the projects, in relative proximity
to elderberry host plants, may include but are not limited to:
fragmentation
of habitat, altered hydrology, leaching or drift of fertilizers or pesticides
(including herbicides) , trampling by increased pedestrian traffic, disturbance
of mating or dispersal by increased artificial lighting, and increased fungal
parasitism due to elevated humidity near irrigated areas. Also, accidental
grading in areas designated as avoidance areas, or other careless handling of
heavy equipment during construction, could destroy or injure elderberry plants
used by the beetle.
Mr. Tom Coe
The Mitigation Guidelines provided by the Service (Appendix), which will be

followed by projects approved under this programmatic consultation, are
intended to take into account and offset these adverse effects, in part by
incorporating elevated habitat replacement ratios. Elderberry plants will be
transplanted whenever possible and habitat will be created or restored for the
beetle to offset these adverse effects.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are those effects of future State, local, or private
actions on endangered. and threatened species or critical habitat that are
reasonably certain to occur in the act:lon area considered in this biological
opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are
not considered in this section because they require separate consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
The Service is not aware of specific projects that might affect the beetle or
its critical habitat .that are currently under review by State, county, and
local authorities, Nevertheless, continued human population growth in the
Central Valley and other parts of California is expected to drive further
development of agriculture, cities, industry, transportation, and water
resources in the foreseeable future. Some of these future activities will not
be subject to Federal jurisdiction (and thus are. considered toenter into
cumulative effects), and are likely to result in loss of the. riparian and
other habitats where elderberry plants and the beetle live. On the other
hand, this programmatic consultation is intended to have a somewhat positive
net effect on 'the survival and recovery of the beetle, achieved either through
the present or revised compensation measures. Thus, at the present time, the
Service neither foresees with certainty any effects cumulative to this
co~sultation that might endangeJ; the beetle, nor anticipates that the net
effect of this consultation will worsen any unforeseen cumulative effects.
Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle,
the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects_ of the proposed
action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion
that the projects-to be permitted under this programmatic biological opinion,
as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Although critical habitat has
been designated for the beetle, the proposed action would not affect critical
habitat.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
'
Section 9 of the Act prohibits take (i.e. to harass, harm, 'pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct) of listed species. of fish or wildlife without a special exemption.
Harass is defined as intentional or negligent acts that create the likelihood
of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harm is defined to include
signifi'cant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such
as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is any taking of listed
animal species which results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency-or the applicant.
Under the terms of section 7(b) (4) and section 7(o) (2), taking that is
incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered
Mr. Tom Coe
a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms
and conditions of this incidental take statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary arid must be implemented by
the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued
to an applicant, as appropriate, in order for the exemption in section 7(o) (2)
to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by
this incidental take statement. If the Corps:
(1) fails to require
applicants to adhere to the terms and conditions of this incidental take
statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant
document, ari~/or (2) fails to retain oversight to.ensure compliance with these
terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o) (2) may lapse.
Amount or Extent of Incidental Take
The Service has determined that implementation of the programmatic process
authorized by.. this biological opinion will result in the loss of all valley
e1.derberry longhorn beetles inhabiting as many as, but no more than, 250
elderberry plants, each with at least one stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater
in diameter at ground level, or 2000 elderberry stems measuring 1.0 inch or
greater in diameter at ground level in or adjacent to the Central Valley
within a six-month period.
Effect of the Take
In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service has determined that this
level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle or destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is
necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle:
Minimize the effects of project impacts to the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle and to elderberry plants (habitat) . on all proposed
project sites.
Terms and Conditions
To be exempt from the.prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps will
ensure implementation of the following term and condition, which implements
the reasonable and prudent measure described above. This term and condition
is non-discretionary.
All applicants shall comply with the Mitigation Guidelines for the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Appendix) .
The reasonable and prudent measure, with its implementing term and condition,
is designed to minimize incidental take that might otherwise result from the
proposed action.. With implementation of this measure the Service believes
that no more than 25 elderberry plants, each with at least one stem measuring
1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level, or 200 elderberry stems
.measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level, which provide
habitat for the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle, will be
incidentally taken as a result of each project appended to this programmatic
consultation. And, with implementation of this measure, the Service believes
that the programmatic process; as described, will result in the incidental
Mr. Tom Coe
J.O
taking of no more than 250 elderberry plants, each with at least one stem
measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level, or 2000 elderberry
stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level, which provide
habitat for the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle, in and adjacent
to the Central Valley within a six-month period.
If, during the course of the
action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take
represents new information requiring review of the reasonable and prudent
measures provided.
The Corps must immediately provide an explanation of the
causes of the taking and review with .the Service the need for possible
modification of the reasonable and prudept measure or the suitability of the
proposed project for inclusion under this progr?mmatic consultation.
Reporting Requirements
The Service's Sacramento Field Office is to be notified within three working
days of the finding of any dead, sick, or injured valley elderberry longhorn.
beetles or any unanticipated harm to beetles or:elderberry plants associated
with projects authorized under this incidental take statement.
The Service
contact person for this information is. the entomqlogist for the Central Valley
Branch, Endangered Species Division, at (916) 979-2728. Any dead or severely
injured beetles found (adults,:pupae,.or larvae) that are not required for
pesticide anal.ysis shall be deposited in the; Entomology Department of the
California Academy of Sciences.
The Academyscontact is the Senior Curator
of Coleoptera at (415) 750-7239. All observations of valley elderberry
longhorn beetles-=-live, injured; or dead-or fresh beetle exit holes shall be
. recorded on California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) field sheets and
sent to the Cc:i:lifornia Department of Fish and Game, 1220 S Street, Sacramento,
California 95814.
Any other federally listed or proposed:species found on or adjacent to the
site must be reported within three working days of its finding.
The Service
contact for this information is the Assistant Field Supervisor, Endangered
Species Division, at (916) 979-2725.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a) (1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation
programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation
recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid
adverse effects of a.proposed action on listed spec~es or critical habitat, to
.help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
The Service recommends that the Corps assist in the recovery of the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle by support~ng an assessment of where beetle habitat
is most needed along riparian corridors within its range (e.g. where gaps in
suitable habitat occur along riparian courses}. This information should then
be made available to the Service, other agencies, project applicants, and
conservation organizations, in an effort to coordinate the needs of both the
development and environmental conservation communities. In order for the
Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects
or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests
notification of the implementation of this recommendation.
REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the request.
As
provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required
Mr. Tom Coe
11
where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has
been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of
incidental take is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not considered in this opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in this opinion, or (4) a new species is
listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
In
instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
If you have any questiops concerning this biological opinion, please contact
Deborah Mead of my staff at (916) 979-2732, extension 421.
Sincerely,
cc:
AES, Portland, OR
SFO, Sacramento, CA (Attn: Wetlands Branch)
SFO, Sacramento, CA (At:tn: Corps Branch)
CDFG, Environmental Services, Sacramento, CA (Attn: Darlene McGriff)
CDFG, Environmental Services, Rancho Cordova, CA .(Attn: David Zezulak)
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA (Attn: Thomas Moritz)
LITERATURE CITED
Barr, C. B. 1991. The distribution, habitat, and status of the valley

elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorpbus. u.s. Fish
and Wildlife Service; Sacramento, California.
Frayer, W. E., D. D. Peters, and H. R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the
California Central Valley: Status and Trends, 1939 to mid-1980's.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, Oregon.
U.S.
Jones & Stokes Associates. 19B7. Final Report: survey of.habitat and
populations of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle along the
Sacramento River; Prepared for the U. s. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prepared by Jones & stokes Associates, Inc.; Sacramento, California.
November 1987.
Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central
Valley of California. In: Warner, R. E. and K. M. Hendrix (eds.).
California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive
management. University of California Press, Berkeley. pp. 23-29.
Katibah, E. F., K. J. Dummer, and N. Nedeff. 1981. Evaluation of the
riparian vegetation resource i~ the Great Central Valley of California
using remote sensing techniques. Technical Papers of the American
Society of Photogrammetry. ASP-ACSM Fall Tech. Mtg., San Francisco,

Sept .. 9-11 and Honolulu Sept. 14-16, 1981. pp. 234-246.
1984. Current condition of riparian resources in the Central Valley
of Cali~ornia.
In: Warner, R. E. and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California
riparian'systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management.
University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 314-321.
smith, F.
i977. A short review of the status of riparian fore~ts in
California.
In: Riparian forests in California: their ecology and
conservation.
Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15, Davis,
California. pp. 1-2.
Thompson, K. 1961. Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley, California.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 51: 294-315.
USFWS.
1984. Recover plan for the valley elderberry longho~n beetle. u.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program; Portland, Oregon.
1994. An evaluation of selected wetland creation projects authorized
through the Corps of Engineers section 404 program. u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office; Sacramento, California.
May. 17, 1994.
1996. c. Mitigation guidelines :for the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office;
Sacramento, California. September 19, 1996.
cs<
,. ,.., ,.....
r,,.,, L,
FIGURE 1:
Geographic area covered
by this programmatic
biological opinion
..
,,.
.
..
\
-L--.--
ENCLOSURE2
Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Revised July 9, 1999
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
______,__
- L ___
J]n~.ted
States Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage W~y,RoomW-2605
Sacramento, Califon:iia 95825
______ C_ollf!I"Y~tiori Guidelines for
the. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Revised July 9,1999
____ Tb~ fQ1lQ~~l1g guidelines have been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) to assist Federal agencies and non-federal project applicants needing incidental
-take authorization through a section 7 consultation or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit in
developing measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects on the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle. The Service will revise these guidelines as needed in the future. The
most recently issued version of these guidelines should be used in developing "all projects
and habitat restoration plans. The survey and monitoring procedures described below are
designed to avoid any adverse effects to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Thus a
recovery permit is not needed to survey for the beetle or its habitat or to monitor
conservation areas. If you are interested in a recovery permit for research purposes
. --- ---- -----please_call_theService's Regional Office at (503) 231-2063.
Background Information
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), was listed
as a threatened species on August 8, 1980 (Federal Register 45: 52803-52807). This
animal is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle) is completely
---dependent on its host plant; elderberry (Sambucus species), which is a common
component of the remaining riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats of California's
Central Valley. Use of the elderberry by the beetle, a wood borer, is rarely apparent.
Frequently, the only exterior evidence of the elderberry's use by the beetle is an exit hole
- created, by the larva just prior to ~thepupal stage. The life cycle takes one or two years to
.. complete. 'The animal spendS most of hs life in the larval stage, living within the stems
of an elderberry plant Adult emergence is from late March through June, about the same
time the. elderberry produces flowers. The adult stage is short-lived. F_urther information
on the life history, ecology, behavior, and distribution of the beetle can be found in a
report by Barr (1991) and the recovery plan for the bee~le (USFWS 1984).
Surveys
Proposed project sites within the range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle should
be surveyed for the presence of the beetle and its elderberry host plant by a qualifi~d
biologist. The beetle's range extends throughout California's Central Valley and
associated foothills from about the 3,000-foot elevation contour on the east and the
watershed of the Central Valley on the west (Figure 1). All or portions of 31 counties are
included: Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno,
Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer,
Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba.
If elderberry plants with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at
ground level occur on or adjacent to the proposed project site, or are otherwise located
where they may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action, minimization
measures which include planting replacement habitat (conservation planting) are
required (Table 1).
All elderberry shrubs with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter
at ground level that occur on or adjacent to a proposed project site must be thoroughly
searched for beetle exit holes (external evidence of beetle presence). In addition, all
elderberry stems one inch or greater in diameter at ground level must be tallied by
diameter size Class (Table 1). As outlined in Table 1, the numbers of elderberry
seedlings/cuttings and associated riparian native trees/shrubs to be planted as
replacement habitat are detennined by stem size class of affected elderberry shrubs,
presence or absence of exit holes, and whether a proposed project lies in a riparian or
non-riparian area:
Elderberry plants with no stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level
are unlikely to be habitat for the beetle because of their small size and/or immaturity.
Therefore, no minimization measures are required for removal of elderberry plants with
no stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level with no exit holes.
Surveys are valid for a period of two years.
Avoid and Protect Habitat Whenever Possible

Project sites that do not contain beetle habitat are preferred. If suitable habitat for the
beetle occurs on the project site, or within close proximity where beetles will be affected
by the project, these areas must be designated as avoidance areas and must be protected
from disturbance during the construction and operation of the project. When possible,
projects should be designed such that avoidance areas are connected with adjacent
habitat to prevent fragmentation and isolation of beetle populations. Any beetle habitat
that cannot be avoided as described below should be considered impacted and
appropriate minimization measures should be proposed as described below.
Avoidance: Establishment and Maintenance of a Buffer Zone

Complete avoidance (i.e., no adverse effects) may be assumed when a 100-foot (or
wider) buffer is established and maintained around elderberry plants containing stems
measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. Firebreaks may not be
included in the buffer zone. In buffer areas construction-related disturbance should be
minimized, and any damaged area should be promptly restored following construction.
The Service must be consulted before any disturbances within the buffer area are
considered. In addition, the Service must be provided with a map identifying the
avoidance area and written details describing avoidance measures.
Protective Measures
1. Fence and flag all areas to be avoided during construction activities. In

areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by the
Service, provide a minimum setback of at least 20 feet from the dripline of
each elderberry plant.
2. Brief contractors on the need to avoid damaging the elderberry plants and
the possible penalties for not complying with these requirements.
3. Erect signs every 50 feet along t~e edge of the avoidance area with the
following information: "This area is habitat of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This
species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment." The signs
should be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet, and must be
maintained for the duration of construction.
4. Instruct work crews about the status of the beetle and the need to protect
its elderberry host plant.
Restoration and Maintenance

Restore any damage done to the buffer area (area within 100 feet of
elderberry plants) during construction. Provide erosion control andrevegetate with appropriate native plants.
Buffer areas must continue to be protected after construction from adverse
effects of the project. Measures such as fencing, signs, weeding, and trash
removal are usually appropriate.
No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals that might harm
the beetle or its host plant should be used in the buffer areas, or within 100
feet of any elderberry plant with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or
greater in diameter at ground level.
The applicant must provide a written description of how the buffer areas are
to be restored, protected, and maintained after construction is completed.
Mowing of grasses/ground cover may occur from July through April to
reduce fire hazard No mowing should occ'ur within five (5) feet of
elderberry plant stems. Mowing must be done in a manner that avoids
damaging plants (e.g., stripping away bark through careless use of
mowing/trimming equipment).
Transplant Elderberry Plants That Cannot Be Avoided

Elderberry plants must be transplanted if they can not be avoided by the proposed
project. All elderberry plants with one or more stem.S measuring 1.0 inch or greater in
diameter at ground level must be transplanted to a conservation area (see below). At the
Service's discretion, a plant that is unlikely to survive transplantation because of poor
condition or location, or a plant that would be extremely difficult to move because of

access problems, may be exempted from transplantation. In cases where transplantation
is not possible the minimization ratios in Table 1 may be increased to offset the
additional habitat loss.
Trimming of elderberry plants (e.g., pruning along roadways, bike paths, or trails) with
one or more stems 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level, may result in take of
beetles. Therefore, trimming is subject to appropriate minimization measures as outlined
in Table 1.
1. Monitor. A qualified biologist (monitor) must be on-site for the duration
of the transplanting of the elderberry plants to insure that no unauthorized
take of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurs. If unauthorized take
occurs, the monitor must have the authority to stop work until corrective
measures have been completed. The monitor must immediately report any
unauthorized take of the beetle or its habitat to the Service and to the
California Department of Fish and Game.
2. Timing. Transplant elderberry plants when the plants are dormant,
approximately November through the first two weeks in February, after they
have lost their leaves. Transplanting during the non-growing season will
reduce shock to the plant and increase transplantation success.
3. Transplanting Procedure.
a. Cut the plant back 3 to 6 feet from the ground or to 50
percent of its height (whichever is taller) by removing branches
and stems above this height. The trunk and all stems measuring
1.0 inch or gre-ater in diameter at ground level should be
replanted. Any leaves remaining on the plant should be
removed.
b. Excavate a hole of adequate size to receive the transplant.
c. Excavate the plant using a Vemeer spade, backhoe, front end
loader, or other suitable equipment, taking as much of the root
ball as possible, and replant immediately at the conservation
area. Move the plant only by the root ball. If the plant is to be
moved and transplanted off site, secure the root ball with wire
and wrap it with burlap. Dampen the burlap with water, as
necessary, to keep the root ball wet. Do not let the roots dry out.
Care should be taken to ensure that the soil is not dislodged
from around the roots of the transplant. If the site receiving the
transplant does not have adequate soil moisture, pre-wet the soil
a day or two before transplantation.
d. The planting area must be at least 1,800 square feet for each
elderberry transplant. The root ball should be planted so that its
top is level with the existing ground. Compact the soil
sufficiently so that settlement does not occur. As many as five
(5) additional elderberry plantings (cuttings or seedlings) and

up to five (5) associated native species plantings (see below)
may also be planted within the 1,800 square foot area with the
transplant. The transplant and each new planting should have its
own watering basin measuring at least three (3) feet in
diameter. Watering basins should have a continuous berm
measuring a,pproximately eight (8) inches wide at the base and
six (6) inches high.
e. Saturate the soil with water, Do not use fertilizers or other
supplements or paint the tips of stems with pruning substances,
as the effects of these compounds on the beetle are unknown.
f. Monitor to ascertain if additional watering is necessary. If the
soil is sandy and well-drained, plants may need to be watered
weekly or twice monthly. If the soil is clayey and poorlydrained, it may not be necessary to water after the initial
saturation. However, most transplants require watering through
the first summer. A drip watering system and timer is ideal.
However, in situations where this is not possible, a water truck
or other apparatus may be used.
Plant Additional Seedlings or Cuttings

Each elderberry stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level that is
adversely affected (i.e., transplanted or destroyed) must be replaced, in the conservation
area, with elderberry seedlings or cuttings at a ratio ranging from 1:1 to 8:1 (new
plantings to affected stems). Minimization ratios are listed and explained in Table 1.
Stock of either seedlings or cuttings should be obtained from local sources. Cuttings may
be obtained from the plants to be transplanted if the project site is in the vicinity of the
conservation area If the Service determines that the elderberry plants on the proposed
project site are unsuitable candidates for transplanting, the Service may allow the
applicant to plant seedlings or cuttings at higher than the stated ratios in Table 1 for each
elderberry plant that cannot be transplanted.
Plant Associated Native Species

Studies have found that the beetle is more abundant in dense native plant communities
with a mature overstory and a mixed understory. Therefore, a mix of native plants
associated with the elderberry plants at the project site or similar sites will be planted at
ratios ranging from 1:1 to 2:1 [native tree/plant species to each elderberry seedling or
cutting (see Table 1)]. These native plantings must be monitored with the same survival
criteria used for the elderberry seedlings (see below). Stock of saplings, cuttings, and
seedlings should be obtained from local sources. If the parent stock is obtained from a
distance greater than one I'nile from the conservation area, approval by the Service of the
native plant donor sites must be obtained prior to initiation of the revegetation work.
Planting or seeding the conservation area with native herbaceous species is encouraged.
Establishing native grasses and forbs may discourage unwanted non-nativf! species from
becoming established or persisting at the conservation area. Only stock from local
sources should be used.
Examples
Example 1
The project will adversely affect beetle habitat on a vacant lot on the land
side of a river levee. This levee now separates beetle habitat on the vacant
lot from extant Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest (Holland 1986) adjacent
to the river. However, it is clear that the beetle habitat located on the vacant
lot was part of a more extensive ~ed riparian forest ecosystem extending
farther from the river's edge prior to agricultural development and levee
construction. Therefore, the beetle habitat on site is considered riparian. A
total of two elderberry plants with at least one stem measuring 1.0 inch or
greater in diameter at ground level will be affected by the proposed action.
The two plants have a total of 15 stems measuring over 1.0 inch. No exit
holes were found.on either plant. Ten of the ste;ms are between 1.0 and 3.0
inches in diameter and five of the stems are greater than 5.0 inches in
diameter. The conservation area is suited for riparian forest habitat.
Associated-natives adjacent to the conservation area are box elder (Acer
negundo c:alifornica), walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), sycamore
(Platanus racemosa), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix
gooddingii and S. laevigata), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), ash (Fraxinus
latifolia), button willow (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and wild grape (Vitis
californica).
Minimization (based on ratios in Table 1):
Transplant the nyo elderberry plants that will be affected to the
conservation area.
Plant 40 elderberry rooted cuttings (10 affected stems compensated at 2:1
ratio and 5 affected stems compensated at 4: 1 ratio, cuttings planted: stems
affected)
Plant 40 associated native species (ratio of associated natives to elderberry
plantings is 1:1 in areas with.no exit holes):
5 saplings each of box elder, sycamore, and cottonwood
5 willow seedlings
5 white alder seedlings
5 saplings each of walnut atl.d ash
3 California button willow
2 wild grape vines
Total: 40 associated native species
Total area required is a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. for one to five elderberry
seedlings and up to 5 associated natives. Since, a total of 80 plants must be
planted (40 elderberries and 40 associated natives), a total of 0.33 acre
(14,400 square feet) will be required for conservation plantings. The
conservation area will be seeded and planted with native grasses and forbs,
and closely monitored and maintained throughout the monitoring period.
Example2
i'
The project will adversely affect beetle habitat in Blue Oak Woodland
(Holland 1986). One elderberry plant with at least one stem measuring 1.0
inch or ~eater in diameter at ground level will be affected by the proposed
action. The plant has a total of 10 sterns measuring over 1.0 inch. Exit holes
were found on the plant. Five of the stems are between 1.0 and 3.0 inches in
diameter and five of the stems are between 3.0 and 5.0 inches in diameter.
The conservation area is suited for elderberry savanna (non-riparian habitat).
Associated natives adjacent to the conservation area are willow (Salix
species), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii),
sycamore, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and wild grape.
Minimization (ba.Sed on ratios in Table 1):
Transplant the one elderberry plant that will be affected to the conservation
area
Plant 30 elderberry seedlings (5 affected stems compensated at 2:1 ratio
and 5 affected stems compensated at 4:1 ratio, cuttings planted: stems
affected)
Plant 60 associated native species (ratio of associated natives to elderberry
plantings is 2:1 in areas with exit holes):
20 saplings of blue oak, 20 saplings of sycamore, and 20
' saplings of willow, and seed and plant with a mixture of native
grasses and forbs
Total area required is a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. for one to five elderberry
seedlings and up to 5 associated natives. Since, a total of 90 plants must be
planted (30 elderberries and 60 associated natives), a total.of 0.37 acre
(16,200 square feet) will be required for conservation plantings. The
conservation area will be seeded and planted with native grasses and forbs,
and closely monitored and maintained throughout the monitoring period.
Conservation Area-Provide Habitat for' the Beetle in PerpetUity

The conservation area i~ distinct from the avoidance area (though the two may adjoin),
and serves to receive and protect the transplanted elderberry plants and the elderberry
and other native plantings. The Service may accept proposals for off-site conservation
areas where appropriate.
1. Size. The conservation area must provide at least 1,800 square feet for
each transplanted elderberry plant. As many as 10 conservation plantings
(i.e., elderberry cuttings or seedlings and/or associated native plants) may be
planted within the 1800 square foot area with each transplanted elderberry.
An additional1,800 square feet shall be provided for every additional10
conservation plants. Each planting should have its own watering basin
measuring approximately three feet in diameter. Watering basins should be
constructed with a continuous berm measuring approximately eight inches
wide at the base and six inches hig~.
The planting density specified above is primarily for riparian forest habitats
or other habitats with naturally dense cover. If the conservation area is an
open habitat (i.e., elderberry savanna, oak woodland) more area may be
needed for the required plantings. Contact the Service for assistance if the
above planting recommendations are no~ appropriate for the proposed
conservation area.
as
No area to be maintained as a firebreak may be co~nted conservation

area. Like the avoidance area, the conservation area should connect with
adjacent habitat wherever possible, to prevent isolation of beetle
populations.
Depending on adjacent land use, a buffer area may also be needed between
the conservatioiJ area and the adjacent lands. For example, herbicides and
pesticides are often used on orchards or vineyards. J?ese chemicals may
drift or runoff onto the conservation area if an adequate buffer area is not
provided.
2. Long-Term Protection. The conservation area must be protected in
perpetuity as habitat for the valley. elderberry longhorn beetle. A
conservation easement or deed restrictions to protect the conservation area
must be arranged. Conservation areas may be transferred to a resource
agency or appropriate private organization for long-term management. The
Service must be provided with a map anq written details identifying the
conservation area; and the applicant must receive approval from the Service
that the conservation area is acceptable prior to initiating the conservation
program. A tJ;ue, recorded copy of the deed transfer, conserva~on easement,
or deed restrictions protecting the conservation area in perpetuity must be
provided to the Service before project implementation.
Adequate funds must be provided to ensure that the conservation area is
managed in perpetuity. The applicant must dedicate an endowment fund for
this purpose, and designate the party or entity that will be responsible for
long-term management of the conservation area. The Service must be
provided with written documentation that funding and management of the
conservation area (items 3-8 above) will be provided in perpetuity.
3. Weed Control. Weeds and other plants that are not native to the
conservation area must be removed at least once a year, or at the discretion
of the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Mechanical
means should be used; herbicides are prohibited unless approved by the
Service.
4. Pesticide and Toxicant Control. Measures must be taken to insure that no
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemical agents enter the
conservation area No spraying of these agents must be done within one 100
feet of the area, or if they have the potential to drift, flow, or be washed into
the area in the opinion of biologists or law enforcement personnel from the
Service or the California Departme~t of Fish and Game.
5. Litter Control. No dumping of trash or other material may occhr within
the conservation area. Any trash or other foreign material found deposited
within the conservation area must be removed within 10 working days of
discovery.
6. Fencing. Permanent fencing must be placed completely around the
conservation area to prevent unauthorized entry by off-road vehicles,
equestrians, and other parties that might damage or destroy. the habitat of the
beetle, unless approved by the Service. The applicant must receive written
approval from the Service that the fencing is acceptable prior to initiation of
the conservation program. The fence must be maintained in perpetuity, and
must be repaired/replaced within 10 working days if it is found to be
damaged Some conservation areas may be made available to the public for
appropriate recreational and educational opportunities with written approval
from the Service. In these cases appropriate fencing and signs informing the
public of the beetle's threatened status and its natural history and ecology
should be used and maintained in perpetuity.
7. Signs. A minimum of two prominent signs must be placed and maintained
in perpetuity at the conservation area, unless otherwise approved by the
Service. The signs should note that the site is habitat of the federally
threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle and, if appropriate, include
information on the beetle's natural history and ecology. The signs must be
approved by the Service; The signs must be repaired or replaced within 10
working days if they are found to be damaged or destroyed
Monitoring
The population of valley elderberry longhorn beetles, the general condition of the
.conservation area, and the condition of the elderberry and associated native plantings in
the conservation area must be monitored over a period of either ten (10) consecutive
years or for seven (7) years over a IS-year period. The applicant may elect either 10
years of monitoring, with surveys and reports every year; or 15 years of monitoring, with
surveys and reports on years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15. The conservation plan provided by
the applicant must state which monitoring schedule will be followed. No change in
monitoring schedule will be accepted after the project is initiated. If conservation .
planting is done in stages (i.e., not all planting is implemented in the same time period),
each stage of conservation planting will have a different start date for the required
monitoring time.
Surveys. In any survey year, a minimum of two site visits between February 14 and June
30 of each year must be made by a qualified biologist. Surveys must include:
1. A population census of the adult beetles, including the number of beetles
obser'Ved; their condition, behavior, and their precise locations. Visual

counts must be used; mark-recapture or other methodS involving handling or
harassment must not be used.

2. A census of beetle exit holes in ~lderberry stems, noting their precise
locations and estimated ages.
3. An evaluation of the elderberry plants and associated native plants on the
site, and on the conservation area, if disjunct, including the number of
plants, their size and condition.
4. An evaluation of the adequacy of the fencing; signs, and weed control
efforts in the avoidance and conservation areas.
5. A general assessment of the habitat, including any real or potential threats
to the beetle and its host plants, such as erosion, frre, excessive grazing, offroad vehicle use, vandalism, excessive weed growth_. etc.
The materials and methods to be used in the monitoring studies must be reviewed and
approved by the Service. All appropriate Federal permits must be obtained prior to
initiating the field studies.
'
Reports. A written report, presenting and analyzing the data from the project monitoring,
must be prepared by a qualified biologist in each of the years in which a monitoring
survey is required. Copies of the report must be submitted by December 31 of the same
year to' the Service (Chief of Endangered Species, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office),
and the Department of Fish and Game (Supervisor, Environmental Services, Department
ofFish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814; and Staff
Zoologist, California Natural Diversity Data Base, Department of Fish and Game, 1220
S Street, Sacramento, California 95814). The report must explicitly address the status
and progress of the transplanted and planted elderberry and associated native plants and
trees, as well as any failings of the conservation plan and the steps taken to correct them.
Any observations of beetles or fresh exit holes must be noted. Copies of original field
notes, raw data, and photpgraphs of the conservation area must be included with the
report. A vicinity map of the site and maps showing where the individual adult beetles
and exit holes were observed must be included. For the elderberry and associated native
plants, the survival rate, condition, and size of the plants must be analyzed. Real and
likely future threats must be addressed along with suggested remedies and preventative
measures (e.g. limiting public access, more frequent removal of invasive non-native
vegetation, etc.).
A copy of each monitoring report, along with the original field notes, photographs,
correspondence, and all other pertinent material, should be deposited at the California
Academy of Sciences (Librarian, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park,
San Francisco, CA 94118) by December 31 of the year that monitoring is done and the
report is prepared. The Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office should be
provided with a copy of the receipt from the Academy library acknowledging receipt of
the material, or the library catalog number assigned to it.
Access. Biologists and law enforcement personnel from the California Department of
Fish and Game and the Service must be given complete access to the project site to
monitor transplanting activities. Personnel from both these agencies must be given
complete access to the project and the conservation area to monitor the beetle and its
habitat in perpetuity.
.,..
Success Criteria
A minimum silrvival rate of at least 60 percent of the elderberry plants and 60 percent of
the associated native plants must be maintained throughout the monitoring period.
Within one year of discovery that survival has dropped below 60 percent, the applicant
must replace failed plantings to bring survival !J.bove this level. The Service will make
any determination as to the applicant's replacement responsibilities arising from
circumstances beyond its control, such as plants damaged or killed as a result of severe
. flooding or vandalism.
Service Contact
These guidelines were prepared by the Endangered Species Division of the Service's
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. If you have questions regarding these guidelines or
to request a copy of the most recent guidelines, telephone (916) 414-6600, or write to:
Ecological Services
2800 Cottage Way, W-2605
Literature Cited
Barr, C. B. 1991. The distribution, habitat, and status of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus. U.S .. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sa~ramento,
California
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California. Unpublished Report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department
ofFish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California.
USFWS. 1980. Listing the valley elderberry longhorn beetle as a threatened species with
critical habitat Federal Register 45:52803-52807.
USFWS. 1984. Recovery plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program; Portland, Oregon.
Table 1: Minimization ratios based on location (riparian vs. non-riparian), stem diameter
of affected elderberry plants at ground level, and presence or absence of exit holes.
Location
Stems (maximum
diameter at ground
level)
.-; .
non-riparian
non-riparian
non-riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
stems $ 1" & # 3"
stems > 3" & < 5"
stems$ 5"
stems $ 1" & # 3"
stems> 3" & < 5"
stems$ 5"
Exit
Holes on
Shrub
YIN
(quantify)
Elderberry
Seedling
Associated Native
Plant Ratio3
Ratio2
1
No:
1:1
1:1
Yes:
2:1
2:1
No:
2:1
1:1
Yes:
4:1
2:1
No:
3:1
1:1
Yes:
6:1
2:1
No:
2:1
1:1
Yes:
4:1
2:1
No:
3:1
1:1
Yes:
6:1
2:1
No:
4:1
1:1
Yes:
8:1
2:1
1 Ali stems measuring one inch or greater in diameter a1 ground level on a single shrub are considered occupied when exit holes are present
anyWhere on the shrub.
2 Ratios in the Eldcrbeny Seedling Ratio column correspond to the number of cuttings or seedlings to be planted per elderberry stem (one
inch or greater in diameter a1 ~und Ievel) affected by a project.
3 Ratios in the Associated Nali ve Plant Ratio column correspond to the number of associated native species to be planted per elderberry
(seedling or rotting) planted.
Click for range map

Endangered Speci~.s_Di~. Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office, U.S. fi~.h_&_WHdlif~-S~!Yi9f2
Selected Elements by Scientific Name

California Natural Diversity Database
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFG
SSC or FP
Accipiter cooperii
ABNKC12040
None
None
G5
S3
WL
ABPBXB0020
None
None
G2G3
S2
SSC
IIHYM35030
None
None
G2
S2
AMACC10010
None
None
G5
S3
ABNGA04040
None
None
G5
S4
ABNGA04010
None
None
G5
S4
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S2
ICBRA03030
Threatened
None
G3
S2S3
PDRHA04190
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.2
PMLIL0G020
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
PDONA05053
None
None
G4G5T3
S3
1B.2
IICOL48011
Threatened
None
G3T2
S2
PDCAM060C0
None
None
G2
S2
2.2
ABNKC06010
None
None
G5
S3
FP
ARAAD02030
None
None
G3G4
S3
SSC
ABNKD06030
None
None
G5
S3
WL
PDSTE03030
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.2
PDRUB0N0E7
Endangered
Rare
G5T1
S1
1B.2
ABNKC10010
Delisted
Endangered
G5
S2
FP
PDCIS020F0
None
None
G2Q
S2.2
3.2
IICOL5V010
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
Cooper's hawk
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Andrena blennospermatis
Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee
Antrozous pallidus
SSC
pallid bat
Ardea alba
great egret
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
Athene cunicularia
SSC
burrowing owl
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Ceanothus roderickii
Pine Hill ceanothus
Chlorogalum grandiflorum
Red Hills soaproot
Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae
Brandegee's clarkia
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Falco columbarius
merlin
Fremontodendron decumbens
Pine Hill flannelbush
Galium californicum ssp. sierrae
El Dorado bedstraw
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
Helianthemum suffrutescens
Bisbee Peak rush-rose
Hydrochara rickseckeri
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle
Government Version -- Dated June, 5 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch

Report Printed on Monday, June 18, 2012
Page 1 of 2
Information Expires 12/5/2012
Selected Elements by Scientific Name

California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFG
SSC or FP
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Lasionycteris noctivagans
AMACC02010
None
None
G5
S3S4
ICBRA06010
None
None
G3
S2S3
PDPLM0C0X1
None
None
G1T1
S1.1
CTT44110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
CTT44132CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
PMPOA4G070
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
PDAST8H1V0
Threatened
Rare
G2
S2
1B.2
ABNFD01020
None
None
G5
S3
WL
AAABH01022
Threatened
None
G4T2T3
S2S3
SSC
PMALI040Q0
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
AAABF02020
None
None
G3
S3
SSC
CTT42110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
PDAST9X0D0
None
None
G2
S2
silver-haired bat
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii
1B.1
pincushion navarretia
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
Orcuttia viscida
Sacramento Orcutt grass
Packera layneae
Layne's ragwort
Phalacrocorax auritus
double-crested cormorant
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Wyethia reticulata
1B.2
El Dorado County mule ears

Record Count: 34
Government Version -- Dated June, 5 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch

Report Printed on Monday, June 18, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Information Expires 12/5/2012
Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List
Page 1 of 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office

Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in
or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/or
U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested
Document Number: 120613030801

Database Last Updated: September 18, 2011
Quad Lists
Listed Species
Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservatio
Conservancy fairy shrimp (E)
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp (T)
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T)
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp (E)
Fish
Hypomesus transpacificus
delta smelt (T)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS)
Critical habitat, Central Valley steelhead (X) (NMFS)
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS)
winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS)
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander, central population (T)
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog (T)
Reptiles
Thamnophis gigas
giant garter snake (T)
Plants
Calystegia stebbinsii
Stebbins's morning-glory (E)
Ceanothus roderickii
Pine Hill ceanothus (E)
Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens
Pine Hill flannelbush (E)
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists.cfm
6/13/2012
Page 2 of 4
Galium californicum ssp. sierrae

El Dorado bedstraw (E)
Orcuttia viscida
Critical habitat, Sacramento Orcutt grass (X)
Sacramento Orcutt grass (E)
Senecio layneae
Layne's butterweed (=ragwort) (T)
Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species:

CLARKSVILLE (511A)
FOLSOM (511B)
County Lists
No county species lists requested.
Key:
(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.
(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.
(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service.
Consult with them directly about these species.
Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.
(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.
(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.
(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.
(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species
Important Information About Your Species List

How We Make Species Lists
We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological
Survey 7 minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the
size of San Francisco.
The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects
within, the quads covered by the list.
Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your
quad or if water use in your quad might affect them.
Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be
carried to their habitat by air currents.
Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the
county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.
Plants
Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by the
list. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find out
what's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
6/13/2012
Page 3 of 4
Surveying
Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist
and/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should
determine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We
recommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list.
See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages.
For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental
documents prepared for your project.
Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act

All animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of
a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal.
Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or shelter (50 CFR 17.3).
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two

procedures:
If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that may
result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service.
During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together to
avoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result
in a biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed and
proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take.
If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as
part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The
Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the species
that would be affected by your project.
Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and are
likely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and the
California Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct and
indirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should
include the plan in any environmental documents you file.
Critical Habitat
When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential
to its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special
management considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements;
cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or
seed dispersal.
Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these
lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to
listed wildlife.
If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a
separate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be
6/13/2012
Page 4 of 4
found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal
Regulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.
Candidate Species
We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals
on our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them
for listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning
process you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates
was listed before the end of your project.
Species of Concern
The Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern.
However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. These
lists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts.
More info
Wetlands
If your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined
by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you
will need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland
habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands,
please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6520.
Updates
Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you
address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem.
However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be
September 11, 2012.
6/13/2012
Appendix L
Public Involvement
Organization of Appendix K
Appendix K is organized into the following sections.
Section 1 explains the purpose of this response to comments appendix.
Section 2 provides responses to comments sorted by the resource categories of the EIS/EIR and
has been provided so that the reader may easily find all responses to any specific resource
category.
Section 3 contains copies of comments received. The comments are organized, according to the
affiliation of the commenter, into five categories: Federal Agency, State Agency, Regional and
Local Agency, and General Public. Specific issues within comments received have been assigned
a response report identification number. Response identification number(s) are shown in
parenthesis following the comment listing.
Section 4 contains the comments received from the Notice of Preparation.
Section 1
Introduction
Purpose
This is Appendix K of the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction, Folsom
Dam Joint Federal Project Folsom Dam Modification Project Approach Channel Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). This
appendix contains the responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR. The
45-day public review period for the draft document began on July 25, 2012 and ended on
September 10, 2012. A notice of availability (NOA) of the draft SEIS/EIR was published in the
Federal Register July 20 prior to public review. A public workshop and hearing were held on
August 23, 2012 at Folsom City Hall to provide additional opportunities for comments on the
Draft SEIS/EIR. As required by environmental regulatory policies National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB),
as lead agencies for the Final Supplemental EIS/EIR, are required to respond to substantive
environmental issues raised during the review and consultation process.
During the public review period, comments were received on the Draft Supplemental
EIS/EIR from Federal, State, and local agencies, and the general public. Comments were
received in a variety of media, including letters, emails, telephone, and public workshop verbal
comment transcriptions. These are collectively referred to as comments throughout this
appendix. This appendix contains copies of all written and email comments received on the Draft
Supplemental EIS/EIR and all verbal comments received at the August 23, 2012 workshop (in
the form of the written transcripts of the meeting).
Seven comment letters were received on the draft SEIS/EIR from Federal, State, and
local agencies and one letter and one personal conversation from members of the public. Most
comments were focused around air quality, water quality, blasting and disposal of materials,
recreational impacts and public safety, and site restoration.
Section 2
Comments and Responses on Draft EIS/EIR
Comments and Responses

on
Draft SEIS/EIR for Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Folsom Dam Modification Project
Approach Channel
December 2012
No. Agency
Comment
Response
1.
Reclamation suggests installing signage at the boat launches explaining the purpose of the
barrier around the blast site and the effects that underwater blasting can have on people if they
are in the water and in range of the blast.
Discussion in Section 4.7.6 has been revised to

include explaining the purpose of the safety barriers
and blasting effects in the public outreach.
Concerning disposal of material in the reservoir: If fine dredge material is placed in the
reservoir will it be close enough that it will mobilize when the spillway is operated?
Mobilized sediment from the Dike 7 disposal area is

highly unlikely based on the distance from the
channel. Modeling was performed to determine if
the new channel configuration will induce vortices.
The model confirmed the velocities are not great
enough to mobilize these sediments.
2.4.6, page 27: Reclamation refers to the work at MIAD as the Morman Island Auxiliary Dam
Modification Project
Discussion in Section 2.4.6 has been revised to

include the project name.
4.7.4, page 189: Impacts to recreation (exclusion of public access) should be assessed should
be analyzed using the average surface area during peak use periods.
Recreation effects were analyzed using gross pool to

address the maximum surface area affected by the
safety and exclusion boundary. Topography is a
steep grade along the south shoreline of Folsom
Lake, including proximity to Folsom Dam, and with
decline of lake level, the surface area of Folsom
Lake does not change substantially. The safety
boundary would cover less than 3% of Folsom
Lakes surface area at average summer elevation.
Section 4.7.4 has been revised to include the
following: "Recreation access and reservoir levels
would not be affected by the recreation safety
boundary. The boundary will not change as
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
2.
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
3.
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
4.
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
reservoir levels change."

5.
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
6.
U.S.
Department of
Interior
7.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
8.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
9.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
10.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
11.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
12.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
Figure 17: Placement of the safety boundary looks like it would isolate the Folsom Point boat
launch at lower levels. Is this the case and if so how will these impacts be mitigated?
Figure 17 has been updated with the new safety and

exclusion boundary. Folsom Point boat launch
access would not be affected at low lake levels.
The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has no
comments to offer.
Thank you for your comment.
EPA has reviewed this document and rated it Environmental Concerns- Insufficient
Information (EC-2) (see enclosed "Summary of Rating Definitions").We continue to urge
implementation of aggressive mitigation measures to reduce project-related emissions to the
maximum extent feasible.
The Corps is adopting unprecedented measures to

lower emissions including adoption of Green
Construction policies in the use of higher tiered and
electrified equipment.
We commend the Army Corps of Engineers' commitment to use the cleanest on-road vehicles
available and the most recent pollution control equipment for all off-road and marine
equipment We recommend that the Supplemental Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD)
include a clear commitment to these project refinements and the list of control measures with
their emission reduction data.
Additionally, Table 30 - "Comparison of Mitigated Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Total
Emissions" is unclear. This table is labeled as being in tons/year, but it is also labeled as being
"total emissions." The project is anticipated to be constructed over five years. EPA urges the
Corps to explain this discrepancy.
It is with the SMAQMDs cooperation and support

that the Corps has been able to accomplish these
actions. A clear commitment will be reflected in the
Final EIS, ROD and Contract Specifications for the
project.
Please note that, starting October 1,2012, EPA Headquarters will not accept paper copies or
CDs of EISs for official filing purposes. Submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be
made through EPA's new electronic EIS submittal tool: e-NEPA.
This is noted and EIS submission will be made

electronically.
Please send a copy of the Supplemental Final EIS to the above address (mail code: CED-2)
when it becomes available.
The USEPA will continue to be on the mailing list.
DPR is unsure if the Draft EIR/EIS fully describes and addresses the potential human health
and public safety issues regarding the underwater blasting and aquatic recreation, we believe
the final document should disclose and address these issues.
Discussion in Section 3.1.6 has been updated to

included additional information on underwater
blasting.
This has been corrected to read tons.
13.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
14.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
15.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
16.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
17.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
18.
California
State Parks,
It is our understanding that the report produced for the Corps on the underwater blasting
Fish Protection Against Waterborne Pressures by Ben C. Gerwick, Inc recommended a
bubble curtain to mitigate potential impacts from blasting. We are interested in better
understanding why this measure will not be required.
It appears the Corps may be leaving some of the decisions and mitigation regarding
underwater blasting for the contractor to determine... DPR would like to see the Corps define a
maximum pressure or intensity at the blast location, or some other means, to ensure the
required safety exclusion zone will be effective.
The Corps decided to provide the contractor with

contract flexibility and instead instituted a safety
limitation on the underwater production blasts of 5.8
psi at 2,500 feet. Test blasts will be limited in size
up to one fifth of production blasts with constant
monitoring to ensure the limit is not exceeded.
Implementation of a bubble curtain remains an
option for the contractor. The bubble curtain is not a
requirement in order to allow contract flexibility for
the contractor. This protective option was not
requested by regulatory agencies.
The contractor will be required to meet a safe
blasting pressure limitation of 5.8 psi at 2,500 feet.
This is a conservative value that is expected to
provide full protection to recreational swimmers.
It is our understanding that the test blasting and the production blasting program will not
require closure of any Folsom Lake SRA recreation facility. If the project did require closure
of any recreation facility, such as Folsom Point, there would be impacts to visitor use and DPR
revenues.
Closure of Folsom Point and/or other Folsom Lake

SRA recreation facilities is not anticipated during
test blasting. Coordination between the Corps and
State Parks would continue throughout the project.
We would like to confirm that the contractor will be required to install a continuous log boom
to exclude boats from the blasting safety zone in Folsom Reservoir and will have adequate
warning signs/buoys and patrol boats in the area. It is our understanding that the Corps will be
limiting blasting intensity so that this safety exclusion zone can be sized so it will not impact
public access to Folsom Lake at Folsom Point or Beals Point and that the public can be
effectively excluded from the safety zone area by the contractor or Corps.
The contractor will be required to construct a

physical barrier 3,000 feet from the blast zone which
will be maintained throughout the construction
period. Blasting pressures will be limited in order to
provide public underwater safety and allow full
access to Folsom Point launch. The safety exclusion
barrier will also permit full access from the Folsom
Point boat launch. Boat patrols will be required
before, during and immediately after blasts.
Discussion on page 194 has been revised
accordingly.
Interruption to recreation is anticipated to be
minimal during the project. Every effort will be
made to ensure public health and safety.
DPRs interests are ensuring public safety, minimizing the impact on recreation use and public
disclosure of potential effects from underwater blasting on human health.
After all construction activities, DPR would like to see a portion of the haul road from the
spillway gate construction site to Folsom Point made available for development of a recreation
trail (including potentially a paved trail) from Dike 7 to Folsom Point and across the top of
3
The haul road would be regraded and revegetated

with native grasses to return the area to a natural
state consistent with the shoreline of Folsom Lake.
Gold Fields
District
19.
California
State Parks,
Gold Fields
District
20.
Central Valley
Regional WQ
Control Board
21.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
22.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
23.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
24.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
25.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
MIAD to the intersection of Green Valley Rd and Sophia Parkway.

After all construction activities, DPR would like to see the area around Dike 7 which is a
spoils deposition site - made available for recreation facilities, including a potential future
trailhead facility and parking area at Dike 7.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and
groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those
issues.
Further development of recreational trails would

need to be coordinated with USBR. This comment
will be forwarded to USBR.
The work sites and staging areas would be restored
to pre-project conditions. Any un-vegetated areas
disturbed during construction would be hydro-seeded
with native grass species. Further development of
recreational facilities on lands under jurisdiction of
the USBR would require coordination with USBR.
This comment will be forwarded to USBR.
All required permits related to water quality will be
obtained by the Corps and contractor prior to
initiation of construction. The Corps will ensure that
the contractor complies with certification and permit
requirements to be implemented during construction.
(Page 53) Clarify in the Attainment Status section that General Conformity thresholds are for
ozone precursors.
GC thresholds have been clarified in the document.
(Page 54) In the Attainment Status section, remove threshold in reference to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.
Threshold has been removed from this section.
(Page 54) The status of SIP planning regarding ozone needs to include both the 1994 1-hour
ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone SIPs. Details may be obtained from the following website:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/index.shtml.
The details have been obtained and both 1- hour and

8-hour ozone SIPs have been included in the
document.
(Page 54) The status of SIP planning regarding PM2.5 needs to be updated based on the
request to USEPA Region 9 to find the region in attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(5/9/12 CARB letter, website reference:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/pm/PM2.5/SacRegCleanDataTransmitalAndEnclosuresigned.pdf) SMAQMD is preparing a redesignation request and maintenance plan for
submission in early 2013.
The SIP planning status has been updated in the

document.
(Page 123) In the Basis of Significance section, two clarifications are needed:
a. Change ROG from 50 tons/year to 25 tons/year to reflect the General Conformity
requirement, which is consistent with Table 18.
b. Clarify that for PM10 a significant impact may occur if the project emits PM10 at a level
that substantially contributes to an existing or projected violation of the PM10 California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which is 5% of the CAAQS. SMAQMD does not
The clarifications have been added to the document.
meet the PM10 CAAQS, therefore the substantial contribution threshold is used, which is
much lower than the actual CAAQS listed. (SMAQMD Threshold Table, website reference:
http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch2TableThresholds.pdf)
26.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
(Page 124) The SMAQMD CEQA Thresholds section states the SMAQMD has not
designated construction thresholds for PM2.5, ROG, CO or SO2. The SMAQMDs Threshold
Table (referenced in comment 5.b. above) indicates that the CAAQS are concentration
thresholds for both construction and operational emissions.
27.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
28.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
29.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
30.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
31.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
32.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
33.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
(Page 125) Similar to comment 5.b. above, Table 19 needs to be updated to recognize the
PM10 threshold as a substantial contribution to an existing or projected violation of the
ambient air quality standards listed.
(Page 125) Table 19 needs to be corrected to show the concentrations and units either g/m3
or ppm as noted in the SMAQMDs Thresholds of Significance Table:
http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch2TableThresholds.pdf.
This statement has been removed from the

document.
Table 19 in Section 4.2.2 has been updated to

include this statement.
Table 19 has been corrected.
(Pages 124, 129 (table 24) and 133 (table 29)) The mitigation fee rate noted in various sections
of the document is $16,640 per ton of NOX. As of July 1, 2012 that fee rate changed to
$17,080.
The fee rate has been changed to $ 17,080.
(Page 125) Provide justification for selecting 3 pounds/hour as the significance threshold for
diesel particulate matter emissions.
This statement has been removed from the

document.
(Page 137) Clarify that Interim Tier 4 and/or Final Tier 4 off-road equipment will be used
beginning in 2015.
Clarification has been made for Tier 4 equipment in

Section 4.2.7.
(Page 137) Add language to the mitigation that in addition to using Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road
equipment, contractors must report their equipment specifications to the SMAQMD and the
Army Corps to ensure the mitigation is being implemented.
Language has been added in Section 4.2.7 that

contractors must report equipment specifications to
SMAQMD.
(Pages 138 and 139) Clarify that MY 2010 or newer haul trucks will be used for the duration
of the project and that use of those trucks will guarantee the best available emission controls
for NOx and PM emissions, not Tier 3 emissions.
Clarification that MY 2010 or newer haul trucks will

be used to guarantee best emissions controls has
been added to Section 4.2.7.
34.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
35.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
36.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
37.
38.
Sac Metro AQ
Management
District
Rennie James
(Page 138) To ensure there wont be confusion at the time of construction, please add that the
NOx Mitigation Fee applies to all emissions from the project: on-road (on- and off-site), offroad, portable, marine and stationary equipment and vehicles.
Application to all emissions from the project has

been added to Section 4.2.7.
(Page 225) In the discussion of Unavoidable Adverse Effects there is a statement that NOx
levels are reduced to zero. NOx levels are being reduced to 85 pounds/day, the SMAQMDs
threshold of significance, not zero.
This statement has been corrected in Section 4.2.7.
(Pages 229, 250 and ES-13) There is not a climate change SIP as noted in Tables 51, 54 and
ES-1).
SIP references have been removed from climate

change.
(Page 244) Does the Army Corps plan to coordinate construction timing with other agencies to
reduce cumulative emissions to less than significant, or is a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact being determined?
I would like this project to increase to the maximum the greatest capacity of the reservoir to
contain water. I believe that silting of the reservoir over the decades has reduced the stated
capacity. To assist in this effort I would like to see all material in the water side of the dam and
associated dikes that is disturbed be removed from that wet side and deposited on the dry side
of the projected final high water shore line and not within any wetland or potential flood zone.
Simply put if you have to move material within the projected final high water elevation then
that material must be deposited outside that area.
You may accomplish that by: a. depositing the material to bulk up the dikes and Morman
Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) on the dry side. b. allow large area materials resource
companies to bid on the rock and fines and allow them to transport it off site. c. when material
suppliers bring concrete building materials require them to transport out excess site materials.
d. utilize the material to construct an auxiliary parking area for overflow vehicles at Folsom
Point where the MIAD deposit site is currently growing and plant oaks around the site.
39.
Rennie James
Mitigation of trees and bushes should be on site rather than Mississippi Bar when possible.
Oaks and Elderberry can be replanted on site to restore habitation for wildlife.
The Corps is not able to coordinate construction

timing with other agencies to reduce cumulative
emissions. This statement has been removed.
Manipulated water levels within the reservoir are
outside the scope of this EIS/EIR, but will be
addressed by the NEPA/CEQA process for the
Folsom Dam Raise Project and Folsom Dam Water
Control Manual update. The site(s) used for disposal
of excavated material will be decided by the
contractor to provide for contract flexibility. Two
terrestrial sites will be available for disposal of
excavated material; these sites are Dike 8 and MIAD
as delineated in the SEIS/EIR. Dike 8 will serve as
permanent storage, and temporary disposal material
at MIAD will be available for transport off-site.
Materials transport will be a contractor decision
agencies may request rock and fines material for
other projects. Overflow parking at Folsom Point is
outside the scope of this project and is under the
jurisdiction of the USBR, but this recommendation
will be forwarded to USBR. Oaks that are removed
will be replaced per USFWS recommendations.
Construction would be implemented in a manner that
minimizes disturbance. Native trees, shrubs, and
aquatic vegetation will be avoided to the greatest
extent feasible. Compensatory mitigation would be
completed onsite when possible. Off-site mitigation

would be necessary to compensate for impacts to
wetlands and open water habitat. The USBR would
conduct additional native vegetative plantings after
project completion outside the scope of the Corps
project work.
40.
Rennie James
The dry side of Dike 8 between the dike and church could be used to deposit material and
planted with trees to improve the view from the church and new homes facing the dry side of
the dike. It is a relatively small space devoid of significant vegetation other than invasive
plants. The trees could be resourced from the City of Folsom as an improvement project.
Dike 8 is proposed as a site for disposal of up to 720,

000 cy of excavated material, however, USBR has
withdrawn the dry side from consideration for
disposal due to dike safety concerns. Native trees
and shrubs will be protected and left in place
wherever possible. The USBR will conduct native
vegetation plantings after project completion.
Recommendations for planting the unused side of
Dike 8 will be provided to the USBR.
41.
Rennie James
I prefer alternative 3 as it will require less concrete to be installed than alternative 2.
Preference for Alternative 3 is noted. The Corps has

chosen Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative due
to reduced construction risk and time savings in the
schedule. This decision was made in the interest of
public safety to ensure the fastest completion of the
spillway.
42.
Rennie James
The prison has been offered excavation material, but

has not requested material at this time.
43.
Rennie James
Store the excess material in the area underneath the new bridge and or on Folsom Prison
property above any potential flood level and the prison may be able to use the area for future
activities or construction projects.
I would like to see emergency response equipment and materials on scene for immediate use
during a spill of contaminates, be it diesel, gasoline
44.
Folsom
Church of
Christ, Pastor
Personal communication September 12 and 13, 2012. Concern was expressed by

representatives of the Folsom Church of Christ primarily regarding an existing drainage issue
at the southern base of Dike 8 and potential amplification of the drainage issues resulting from
7
The contractor will be required to provide a detailed

contaminants containment plan and exhibit
emergency response and spill containment
equipment and materials before construction begins.
Water quality thresholds would be required of the
Corps by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board to protect drinking water; these
standards will be strictly complied with during the
project.
Engineering expertise was offered for a meeting to
address drainage issues. However, after the draft
EIS/EIR was issued, USBR removed the southern
Posey; Steve
Dickey
construction material disposal on the southern side of Dike 8.
half of Dike 8 for consideration, which appears to

alleviate drainage concerns for the church; the
remaining drainage area is directed down to the lake
on the north side of the dike, away from Folsom
Church of Christ.
Section 3
Comments Letters on Draft EIS/EIR
LeFevre, Jamie M SPK

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stewart, Chelsea D [CStewart@usbr.gov]

Monday, September 10, 2012 4:49 PM
Sandburg, Nancy H SPK; LeFevre, Jamie M SPK
Re: Comments on Folsom Dam Modification Project Draft SEIS/EIR
HiJamie/Nancy,
Mycommentsareasfollows:
Reclamationsuggestsinstallingsignageattheboatlaunchesexplainingthepurposeofthe
barrieraroundtheblastsiteandtheeffectsthatunderwaterblastingcanhaveonpeopleif
theyareinthewaterandinrangeoftheblast.
Concerningdisposalofmaterialinthereservoir:Iffinedredgematerialisplacedinthe
reservoirwillitbecloseenoughthatitwillmobilizewhenthespillwayisoperated?
2.4.6,page27:ReclamationreferstotheworkatMIADastheMormanIslandAuxiliaryDam
ModificationProject.
4.7.4,page189:Impactstorecreation(exclusionofpublicaccess)shouldbeassessed
shouldbeanalyzedusingtheaveragesurfaceareaduringpeakuseperiods.
Figure17:PlacementofthesafetyboundarylookslikeitwouldisolatetheFolsomPoint
boatlaunchatlowerlevels.Isthisthecaseandifsohowwilltheseimpactsbe
mitigated?
Thankyoufortheopportunitytocomment,
ChelseaStewart
NaturalResourceSpecialist
BureauofReclamation
(916)9897155

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Pacific Southwest Region
333 Bush Street, Suite 515
San Francisco, CA 941 04
IN REPLY REFER TO.
(ER 12/524)
Filed Electronically
05 September 2012
Sacramento District
Attn: Mr. Todd Plain
Auxiliary Spillway Project
1325 J Street, Room 1513
Subject:
Review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the
Folsom Dam Modification Project Approach Channel, Placer and El Dorado
Counties, CA
Dear Mr. Plain:

The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has no
comments to offer.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
Sincerely,
Patricia Sanderson Port

Regional Environmental Officer
cc:
Director, OEPC
Loretta Sutton, OEPC StaffContact
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
SEP 1 0 2012
Alicia E. Kirchner
1325 J Street
Subject:
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Folsom Dam Modification
Project Approach Channel (CEQ# 20120239)
Dear Ms. Kirchner:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and our NEPA review authority
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
The Supplemental Draft EIS was prepared by the Corps to augment the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. EPA has reviewed this document and
rated it Environmental Concerns- Insufficient Information (EC-2) (see enclosed "Summary of Rating
Definitions"). EPA appreciates the additional information regarding the construction of the auxiliary
spillway approach channel that was evaluated programmatically in the previous EIS. We continue to
urge implementation of aggressive mitigation measures to reduce project-related emissions to the
maximum extent feasible.
We commend the Army Corps of Engineers' commitment to use the cleanest on-road vehicles available
and the most recent pollution control equipment for all off-road and marine equipment, use of electrical
power for all stationary equipment, reduction of haulage miles, and scheduling changes to minimize the
overlap of emission producing activities. These emission control measures will be essential to meet
Federal General Conformity de minimis thresholds and reduce air quality impacts to the greatest extent
possible. We recommend that the Supplemental Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) include a clear
commitment to these project refinements and the list of control measures with their emission reduction
data.
Additionally, Table 30- "Comparison of Mitigated Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Total Emissions" is
unclear. This table is labeled as being in tons/year, but it is also labeled as being "total emissions." The
project is anticipated to be constructed over five years. EPA urges the Corps to explain this discrepancy.
Please note that, starting October 1, 2012, EPA Headquarters will not accept paper copies or CDs of
EISs for official filing purposes. Submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through EPA's
new electronic EIS submittal tool: e-NEPA. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's
electronic reporting site- https://cdx.epa.gov/epa home.asp. Electronic filing with EPA Headquarters
does not change the requirement to submit a hard copy to the EPA Region 9 Office for review.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Supplemental Draft EIS. Please send a copy of the
Supplemental Final EIS to the above address (mail code: CED-2) when it becomes available. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 415-972-3521, or contact Stephanie Skophammer, the lead
reviewer for this project, at 415-972-3098 or Skophammer.stephanie@epa.gov.
Sinerely, :
fbnzd( /Ju#jr
Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager
Environmental Review Office
Communities and Ecosystems Division
Enclosure:
Summary of Rating Definitions
SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS*

This rating system was developed as a means to summarize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
level of concern with a proposed action. The ratings are a combination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of
the environmental impacts of the proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

"LO" (Lack of Objections)
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the
proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be
accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
"EC" (Environmental Concerns)

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the
environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation
measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these
impacts.
"EO" (Environmental Objections)

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide
adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred
alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new
alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
"EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory)

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with
the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS
stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

"Category 1" (Adequate)
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of
the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the
reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.
"Category 2" (Insufficient Information)

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available
alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be
. included in the final EIS.
"Category 3" (Inadequate)

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the
action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of
alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which should be analysed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of
such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is
adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made
available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts
involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
*From EPA Manual 1640, Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Micheaels, Jim
Sandburg, Nancy H SPK
Green, Matt; Preston, Rich
Comments regarding Approach Channel DEIR/DEIS
Friday, August 31, 2012 5:03:16 PM
Nancy
Please consider this note the comments of the Gold Fields District of California State Parks regarding the
Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for the Folsom Dam Modification Approach Channel. Gold Fields District staff
appreciates the recent meetings and information the Corps has provided regarding the project, including
the provisions for underwater blasting. We also appreciate some of the changes the Corps is making to
minimize the impacts of underwater blasting on recreation use and the public. The current version of
the DEIR/DEIS does not fully address all of the issues regarding underwater blasting and public safety
and we understand the Corps will be making changes to the final document to address some of these
issues. Here are some specific comments based on our current understanding of the project and safety
provisions the Corps is putting in place.
-DPR is unsure if the Draft EIR/EIS fully describes and addresses the potential human health and public
safety issues regarding the underwater blasting and aquatic recreation, we believe the final document
should disclose and address these issues.
-It is our understanding that the report produced for the Corps on the underwater blasting Fish
Protection Against Waterborne Pressures by Ben C. Gerwick, Inc recommended a bubble curtain to
mitigate potential impacts from blasting. We are interested in better understanding why this measure
will not be required.
-It appears the Corps may be leaving some of the decisions and mitigation regarding underwater
blasting for the contractor to determine. As an example, instead of requiring a bubble curtain to
minimize the potential effects of underwater blasting on humans, the Corps is leaving it up to the
contractor to assess if a curtain will be needed. The Corps is specifying a certain pressure at a certain
distance from the blasting and will be monitoring the blasting and addressing with the contractor when
blasts exceed the standard. This after-the-fact monitoring doesnt absolutely ensure that there will be
no safety concern for aquatic recreation. DPR would like to see the Corps define a maximum pressure
or intensity at the blast location, or some other means, to ensure the required safety exclusion zone will
be effective.
-It is our understanding that the test blasting and the production blasting program will not require
closure of any Folsom Lake SRA recreation facility. If the project did require closure of any recreation
facility, such as Folsom Point, there would be impacts to visitor use and DPR revenues.
-We would like to confirm that the contractor will be required to install a continuous log boom to
exclude boats from the blasting safety zone in Folsom Reservoir and will have adequate warning
signs/buoys and patrol boats in the area. It is our understanding that the Corps will be limiting blasting
intensity so that this safety exclusion zone can be sized so it will not impact public access to Folsom
Lake at Folsom Point or Beals Point and that the public can be effectively excluded from the safety zone
area by the contractor or Corps.
-DPRs interests are ensuring public safety, minimizing the impact on recreation use and public
disclosure of potential effects from underwater blasting on human health.
Other items that we have mentioned before in past comment letters on the Folsom Dam Modification
Project which remain interests and concerns are:
-After all construction activities, DPR would like to see a portion of the haul road from the spillway gate
construction site to Folsom Point made available for development of a recreation trail (including
potentially a paved trail) from Dike 7 to Folsom Point and across the top of MIAD to the intersection of
Green Valley Rd and Sophia Parkway.
-After all construction activities, DPR would like to see the area around Dike 7 which is a spoils
deposition site - made available for recreation facilities, including a potential future trailhead facility and
parking area at Dike 7.
Thank you.
Jim Micheaels, Senior Park & Recreation Specialist

Gold Fields District
7806 Folsom-Auburn Road
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 988-0513
(916) 988-9062 fax
20 August 2012
David Martasian
3310 El Camino Avenue, Room 151
CERTIFIED MAIL
7011 2970 0003 8939 1736
COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION
PROJECT, SCH NO. 2012072039, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse's 20 July 2012 request, the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Folsom Dam Modification
Project, located in Sacramento County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and
groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those
issues.
Construction Storm Water General Permit

Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than
one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more
acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General
Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not
include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity
of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation
of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources
Control Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml.
KMI~
E: . ...oNO~EY SeD,
P.E . c~/\11'1 I PAMELA C. Cr~ccooN P.E .. BCEE. cxccur1vt OFfiCER
1 1020 Sut"' Center Orlv t200 Rancno Cordova CA e~e70
I www waterboards c:a oov/ cenlrl'tlvalley
Folsom Dam Modification Project

Sacramento County
-2-
20 August 2012
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits1

The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from
new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the
maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards,
also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a
hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for
LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA
process and the development plan review process.
For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central
Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_permits/.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations
contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 97-03-DWQ.
For more information on the Industrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley
Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water;_issues/storm_water/industrial_general_perm
itslindex.shtml.
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or
wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the
USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that
discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage
realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for
information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements.
If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact
the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACOE at (916) 557-5250.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit- Water Quality Certification
If an USACOE permit, or any other federal permit, is required for this project due to the
disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water
Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of
project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications.
Municipal Permits The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized
Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over
250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small
MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.
Folsom Dam Modification Project

Sacramento County
-3-
20 August 2012
Waste Discharge Requirements

If USACOE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., "non-federal" waters
of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project will require a Waste
Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State,
including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated
wetlands, are subject to State regulation.
For more information on the Water Quality Certification and WDR processes, visit the Central
Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/business_ help/permit2.shtml.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or
tcleak@waterboaids. ca. gov.
~/~
Trevor Cleak
Environmental Scientist
cc:
State Clearinghouse Unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Larry Greene
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
August 29, 2012

SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Mr. Todd Plain

Public Affairs Specialist
1325 J Street
Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR (SAC200500806I)
Dear Mr. Plain:
Thank you for providing the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) for the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD) for review. Because the Army Corps coordinated extensively with
SMAQMD on the air quality analysis and mitigation associated with the project, minor comments on the EIS/EIR
are being provided.
1. (Page 53) Clarify in the Attainment Status section that General Conformity thresholds are for ozone
precursors.
2. (Page 54) In the Attainment Status section, remove threshold in reference to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
3. (Page 54) The status of SIP planning regarding ozone needs to include both the 1994 1-hour ozone and 1997
8-hour ozone SIPs. Details may be obtained from the following website:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/index.shtml.
4. (Page 54) The status of SIP planning regarding PM2.5 needs to be updated based on the request to USEPA
Region 9 to find the region in attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(5/9/12 CARB letter, website reference:
http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/pm/PM2.5/SacRegCleanDataTransmitalAndEnclosure-signed.pdf)
SMAQMD is preparing a redesignation request and maintenance plan for submission in early 2013.
5. (Page 123) In the Basis of Significance section, two clarifications are needed:
a. Change ROG from 50 tons/year to 25 tons/year to reflect the General Conformity requirement, which is
consistent with Table 18.
b. Clarify that for PM10 a significant impact may occur if the project emits PM10 at a level that
substantially contributes to an existing or projected violation of the PM10 California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS), which is 5% of the CAAQS. SMAQMD does not meet the PM10 CAAQS, therefore the
substantial contribution threshold is used, which is much lower than the actual CAAQS listed. (SMAQMD
Threshold Table, website reference:
http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch2TableThresholds.pdf)
6. (Page 124) The SMAQMD CEQA Thresholds section states the SMAQMD has not designated construction
thresholds for PM2.5, ROG, CO or SO2. The SMAQMDs Threshold Table (referenced in comment 5.b.
777 12th Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-1908
916/874-4800 916/874-4899 fax
www.airquality.org
Mr. Plain
August 29, 2012
Page 2
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
above) indicates that the CAAQS are concentration thresholds for both construction and operational
emissions.
(Page 125) Similar to comment 5.b. above, Table 19 needs to be updated to recognize the PM10 threshold
as a substantial contribution to an existing or projected violation of the ambient air quality standards listed.
(Page 125) Table 19 needs to be corrected to show the concentrations and units either g/m3 or ppm as
noted in the SMAQMDs Thresholds of Significance Table:
http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch2TableThresholds.pdf.
(Pages 124, 129 (table 24) and 133 (table 29)) The mitigation fee rate noted in various sections of the
document is $16,640 per ton of NOX. As of July 1, 2012 that fee rate changed to $17,080.
(Page 125) Provide justification for selecting 3 pounds/hour as the significance threshold for diesel
particulate matter emissions.
(Page 137) Clarify that Interim Tier 4 and/or Final Tier 4 off-road equipment will be used beginning in 2015.
(Page 137) Add language to the mitigation that in addition to using Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road equipment,
contractors must report their equipment specifications to the SMAQMD and the Army Corps to ensure the
mitigation is being implemented.
(Pages 138 and 139) Clarify that MY 2010 or newer haul trucks will be used for the duration of the project
and that use of those trucks will guarantee the best available emission controls for NOx and PM emissions,
not Tier 3 emissions.
(Page 138) To ensure there wont be confusion at the time of construction, please add that the NOx
Mitigation Fee applies to all emissions from the project: on-road (on- and off-site), off-road, portable,
marine and stationary equipment and vehicles.
(Page 225) In the discussion of Unavoidable Adverse Effects there is a statement that NOx levels are reduced
to zero. NOx levels are being reduced to 85 pounds/day, the SMAQMDs threshold of significance, not zero.
(Pages 229, 250 and ES-13) There is not a climate change SIP as noted in Tables 51, 54 and ES-1).
(Page 244) Does the Army Corps plan to coordinate construction timing with other agencies to reduce
cumulative emissions to less than significant, or is a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact being
determined?
Please contact me at 916-874-4881 or khuss@airquality.org if you have any questions regarding these
comments.
Sincerely,
Karen Huss
Associate Air Quality Planner/Analyst
Land Use and Mobile Sources Division
Cc:
Larry Robinson, SMAQMD

Charles Anderson, SMAQMD
Nancy Sandburg, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
From: Sandburg, Nancy H SPK

Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Sandburg, Nancy H SPK
Subject:
REnnie James comments (UNCLASSIFIED)
Caveats: NONE
Hi Nancy,
Thank you for assisting me with the proper web address. However, I had
difficulty getting this document to complete the process so I am sending it to
you in hopes you will forward it to the proper persons.
Thank you again,
Rennie James
125 Landrum Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
________________________________
From: spk-pao@usace.army.mil
To: CESPK-PD@usace.army.mil, rennie1@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:13:55 PM
Subject: Sacramento District Contact Form: Folsom Dam Modification Approach
Channel SEIS/EIR
This message was sent from the Sacramento District website.
Message From: Rennie James
Email: rennie1@comcast.net
Response requested: Yes
Message:
Dear Madam or Sir,
I participated in a public event in Folsom on 23August 2012 to review the
project and it's plans and projected impacts on the area. I have a few
preferences that I as a neighbor to the project would like you to consider.
1. I would like this project to increase to the maximum the greatest capacity
of the reservoir to contain water, I believe that silting of the reservoir
over the decadades has reduced the stated capacity. To assist in this effort I
would like to see all material in the wet side of the dam and associated dikes
that is disturbed be removed from that wet side and deposited on the dry side
of the projected final high water shore line and not within any wetland or
potential flood zone. Simply put if you have to move material within the
projected final high water elevation then that materal must be deposited
outside that area.
file:///C|/...jml/Documents/JFP%20Approach%20Channel/Public%20Comments/REnnie%20James%20comments%20(UNCLASSIFIED).txt[10/12/2012 2:00:46 PM]
You may accomplish that by: a. depositing the material to bulk up the dikes
and Morman Island Auxilary Dam (MIAD)on the dry side. b. allow large area
materials resouce companies to bid on the rock and fines and allow them to
transport it off site. c. when material suppliers bring concrete building
materials require them to transport out excess site materials. d. utilize the
material to construct an auxilary parking area for overflow vehicles at Folsom
Point where the MIAD deposit site is currently growing and plant oaks around
the site.
2. Mitigation of trees and bushes should be on site rather than Mississippi
Bar when possible. Oaks and Elderberry can be replanted on site to restore
habitation for wildlife.
3. The dry side of Dike 8 between the dike and church could be used to deposit
material and planted with trees to improve the view from the church and new
homes facing the dry side of the dike. It is a relatively small spave devoid
of significant vegetation other than invasive plants. The trees could be
resourced from the City of Folsom as an improvement project.
4. I prefer alternative 3 as it will require less concrete to be installed
than alternative 2. Alternative 2 requires concrete be brought in, errected as
a barrier then dismanteled and removed. Alternative 3 allows the use of
dredged material to be used for the coffer dam and then remove it from the wet
side of the projected high water mark and placed outside any potential water
storage area.
5. Store the excess material in the area underneath the new bridge and or on
Folsom Prison property above any potential flood level and the prison may be
able to use the area for future activities or construction projects.
6. There are at least two manufacturing companies that have moved to Folsom
specifically for water quality, Kikkoman and Gekkeikan Sake. I would like to
see emergency response equipment and materials on scene for immediate use
during a spill of contaminates, be it diesel, gasoline or some other material
I am not familiar with. Simply having a plan without onsite material is
inadequate in my estimation.
In summation I would like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity
to have input for this project. I have followed it for my grandchildren more
than anything else. I have followed the project closely and appreciate the
work so far completed and the care for the community that managers of this JPA
has shown.
Thank you very sincerely, Rennie James 125 Landrum Circle, Folsom, CA 95630
Caveats: NONE
Nancy H. Sandburg
Planning, Environmental Analysis Section
1325 J Street
(916)-557-7134; nancy.h.sandburg@usace.army.mil
file:///C|/...jml/Documents/JFP%20Approach%20Channel/Public%20Comments/REnnie%20James%20comments%20(UNCLASSIFIED).txt[10/12/2012 2:00:46 PM]
Section 4
Comments Letters on NOI/NOP
LS. Department of Homeland Security

FEMA Region IX
Ill! Broadway. Suite 1200
Oakland. CA. 94607-4052
8J FEMA
<-1.>;o
s~c; r;;::;:-;::~===--===--o
RECEIVED
October 11, 20 11
BY:
David Martasian
Sacramento, California 95821
Dear Mr. Martasian:
This is in response to your request for comments on the Notice of Preparation (Revised) of Draft
Supplemental EIS/EIR and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting regarding the Folsom Dam
Safety/Flood Damage Reduction - Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel Project.
Please review the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the City of Folsom
(Community Number 060263), Maps dated September 30, 1992; Sacramento County
(Community Number 060262), Maps revised December 8, 2008; ElDorado County (Community
Number 060040), Maps revised September 26, 2008; and Placer County (Community Number
060239), Maps dated November 21 , 2001. Please note that the above-referenced communities
are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The minimum, basic NFIP
floodplain management building requirements are described in Vol. 44 Code of Federal
Regulations (44 CFR), Sections 59 through 65.
A summary of these NFIP floodplain management building requirements are as follows:
All buildings constructed within a riverine floodplain, (i.e. , Flood Zones A, AO, AH, AE,
and A 1 through A30 as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated so that the lowest
floor is at or above the Base Flood Elevation level in accordance with the effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map.
If the area of construction is located within a Regulatory Floodway as delineated on the

FIRM, any development must not increase base flood elevation levels. The term
development means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,
including but not limited to buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or
materials. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of
development, and must demonstrate that the development would not cause any rise in
base flood levels. No rise is permitted within regulatory floodways.
www.fcma.gov
David Martasian
Page 2
October 11 , 2011
All buildings constructed within a coastal high hazard area, (any of the "V" Flood Zones
as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated on pilings and columns, so that the lowest
horizontal structural member, (excluding the pilings and columns), is elevated to or above
the base flood elevation level. ln addition, the posts and pilings foundation and the
structure attached thereto, is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement
due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building
components.
Upon completion of any development that changes existing Special Flood Hazard Areas,
the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and
hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision. In accordance with 44 CFR, Section 65.3,
as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data becomes available, a
community shall notify FEMA of the changes by submitting technical data for a flood
map revision. To obtain copies ofFEMA's Flood Map Revision Application Packages,
please refer to the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/business/ nfip/forms.shtm.
Please Note:
Many NFIP participating communities have adopted floodplain management building
requirements which are more restrictive than the minimum federal standards described in 44
CFR. Please contact the local community's floodplain manager for more information on local
floodplain management building requirements. The City of Folsom floodplain manager can be
reached by calling David Miller, Community Development Director, at (916) 355-7224. The
Sacramento County floodplain manager can be reached by calling George Booth, Senior Civil
Engineer, at (916) 874-6484. TheEl Dorado County floodplain manager can be reached by
calling Roger Trout at (530) 621-5775. The Placer County floodplain manager can be reached
by calling Ken Grehm, Floodplain Administrator, at (530) 745-7588.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Cynthia McKenzie at (5 I 0)
627-7190 and/or Michael Hornick at (510) 627-7260 ofthe Mitigation staff.
Gregor Blackburn, CFM, Branch Chief

Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch
www.fcma.gov
David Martasian
Page 3
October 11, 2011
cc:
David Miller, Community Development Director, City of Folsom
George Booth, Senior Civil Engineer, County of Sacramento, Department of Water Resources
Roger Trout, E lDorado County
Ken Grehm, Floodplain Administrator, Placer County
Ray Lee, WREA, State of California, Department of Water Resources, N orth Central Region
Office
Cynthia McKenzie, Senior Floodplanner, CFM, DHS/FEMA Region IX
Michael Hornick, Floodplanner, CFM, DHS/FEMA Region IX
Alessandro Amaglio, Environmental Officer, DHS/FEMA Region IX
www.fcma.gov
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southwest Reg1on
650 Cap1tol Mall. Suite 5-100
Sacramento CA 95814-4700
'lrT 1 7 2011
RECEIVED
OCT 2 0 2011
BY:
Dave Martasian
Room 147
331 0 El Camino A venue
Sacramento, California 95821
Dear Mr. Martasian:
I am writing in response to the "Notice of Preparation (Revised) of Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR"
for the "Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction - Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel
Project." NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the
management and protection of anadromous fish resources and their habitats.
In the American River, the anadromous species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act
include the threatened California Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct
population segment (DPS), and the threatened Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris). In addition, NMFS is responsible for reviewing projects that may affect
the designated critical habitats for these species (steelhead and North American green sturgeon).
NMFS is also responsible for Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), and for reviewing actions for
potential adverse effects to the Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
NMFS responsibilities include consulting in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended.
NMFS requests the Central Valley Flood Protection Board address any potential effects of the
proposed project on anadromous species in the supplemental environmental impact statement
and environmental impact report. Specifically, we request the following potential impacts be
addressed:
(I) Identify changes in existing operations and how those changes will affect the Folsom
Reservoir cold water pool , and water temperatures in the lower American River;
(2) identify potential effects downstream to the San Francisco Bay;
(3) identify how the proposed project will affect fish passage of anadromous fish upstream of
Folsom Dam, including collection of downstream migrating fish,
(4) identify potential effects on flows and ramping in the American River; and
(5) Identify potential water quality effects.
Because flood operations potentially result in take of federally listed species, NMFS also
recommends that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers include this project in a request for consultation
under the Federal Endangered Species Act for the California Central Valley Flood Control
Project.
If you have any questions concerning this project, or require additional information, please
contact Gary Sprague at (916) 930-3615, or via email at: Gary. Sprague([ noaa. go\ . Thank you
for the opportunity to provide comments on the scoping for this project.
Sincerely,
Ht've... -- f~~
Maria Rea
Supervisor, Central Valley Office
cc: Copy to File ARN: 151422SWR2004SA9097
NMFS-PRD, Long Beach, CA
= .,.~-""'
4!>
Edmund G. Brown J r., Governor
State of California Natural Resources Agency
Ruth Coleman, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Gold Fields District

7806 Folsom Auburn Road
Folsom, CA 95630
October 26, 2011
David Martasian
RECEIVED \
NOV- 0 1 ZOH
,BY:
c1?>
Dear Mr. Martasian,

This letter is to express the comments and concerns of the Gold Fields District of
California State Parks in response to the Notice of Preparation regard ing the Auxiliary
Spillway Approach Channel Project (SCH# 2006022091 ). The Gold Fields District of
California State Parks manages recreation and public use at Folsom Lake State
Recreation Area through an agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. There are
approximately 1.5 million visitors to Folsom Lake SRA annually. The proposed
approach channel Project would occur within portions of the land and waters within
Folsom Lake SRA. State Parks staff have provided preliminary input to U.S. Corps of
Engineers staff who are working on this project. State Parks has previously commented
on other aspects of the Auxiliary Spillway Joint Federal Project, including a January 26,
2007 letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regarding the Folsom Dam Safety and
Flood Damage Reduction Draft EIR/EIS.
One of State Parks' key concerns regarding the Ap proach Channel Project is the
potential impacts to recreation and public access at Folsom Point or elsewhere within
Folsom Lake SRA. This would include closure of Folsom Point for construction staging,
spoils transfer or project elements. The recreation facilities at Folsom Point include a
boat ramp and 125 vehicle parking lot, and picnic area. As noted in our 2007 letter,
approximately 112,000 visitors recreate at Folsom Point annually. Closure of the
Folsom Point or other recreation areas for the Approach Channel, either temporary or
longer term, would not only impact visitation but also user fee revenues collected.
In the 2007 Record of Decision for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage
Red uction EIS, Reclamation indicated the public would have near continuous access to
the main recreation facilities at Folsom Lake throughout the construction period. State
Parks hopes this commitment remains true for the Approach Channel phase of the
project. We understand that the U.S. Corps of Engineers is designing a temporary
transload facility in the vicinity of Dike 7 which would be used to transfer spoil material
from barges to trucks and transport the material via the existing haul road to the
Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) disposal site. This approach would avoid impacts
to public access and recreation at Folsom Point. The Folsom Point overpass of the haul
road to the MIAD disposal site was specifically constructed to maintain public access to
Folsom Point.
State Parks has a general concern about in-water blasting and excavation activities and
the safety of recreational users on Folsom Lake. Recreational use on Folsom Lake
includes boating, water skiing and wa keboarding, fishing, canoeing, kayaking,
windsurfing and swimming. We presume the lead agencies will ta ke appropriate actions,
including an adequate exclusion zone around the wo rk area to avoid any safety issues
with the recreating public.
State Parks also has a general concern about potential water quality impacts in Folsom
Lake and downstream from the in-water excavation activities. Again, we presume
appropriate measures will be taken to co ntain turbidity and prevent water quality
impacts down stream in Lake Natoma.
State Parks has previously commented (in our 1/26/07 letter to Reclamation) on the
desire to see that the spillway haul road , from Dike 7 to Folsom Point, is able to be
utilized as the alignment for a paved bike path following the Dam Safety and Flood
Protection construction activities. State Parks does not expect that the Dam Safety and
Flood Protection Project would construct the actual trail, but that the haul road could be
restored to or left in a cond ition that would make it suitable for a future paved trail.
Development of a paved bike path route between Dike 7 and Folsom Point is included
in the guidelines for the General Plan/Resource Management Plan for Folsom Lake
SRA, completed in 2009. A paved trail alignment in this area is also acknowledged in
the City of Folsom Bikeway Master Plan. A paved trail between Dike 7 and Folsom
Point would connect to the paved bike path on the new Folsom Lake Crossing Bridge
and the City of Folsom proposed bicycle overcrossing of the Folsom Lake Crossing
Road. The trail co uld also connect across the top of MIAD to the tra ilhead and parking
area at Mormon Island Cove (Sophia Parkway).
State Parks also has an interest in the final disposition of the areas where spoils are
being deposited at Dike 7. The Dike 7 area has the potential to be developed as a
trailhead access point and/or potentially other recreation facilities in the future. While the
construction of the haul road and the deposition area at Dike 7 are not necessarily part
of the Approach Channel Project, they are part of the larger Dam Safety and Flood
Protection Project and may be utilized for the construction of the Approach Channel.
Thank you for considering these comments. If you have questions regard ing this letter
please contact District Planner Jim Micheaels at (916) 988-0513.
Sincerely,
Scott Nakaji
Gold Fields District Superintendent
CC
Mike Finnegan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Nancy Sandburg, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
oof.
U.S. Department
Homeland Security
United States .
Coast Guard
i1;
Commander
Eleventh District
U.S. Coast Guard Island

Building 50-2
Alameda, CA 94501-5100
Staff Symbol: (dpw)
Phone: (510) 437-3514
Fax: (510) 437-5836
16591
American River
East of Folsom Dam
November 2, 2011
Attn: :Mr. Jay S. Punia
. 3310 El Camino Ave., Rm 151
Dear Mr. Punia:
We have completed our' review of the Central Vall~y Flood Protection Board Notice of
Preparatimi of Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR dated October 3, 2011, for the Folsom Dam Safety/
Flood Damage Redqction project, East of Folsom Dam, Folsom Lake, American River, City of
Folsom, Counties of Sacramento/Folsom!E~ Dorado, CA.
It appears the project involves no bridges or bridge related projects across navigable waters of,
the United States, under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Therefore, The General Bridge Act
of 1946 does not apply and the Coast Guard will not exercise jurisdiction for bridge permitting
purposes.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
.SULO
Chief, Bridge Sectio
Eleventh Coast Guard District
By direction of the District C<?mmander
Copy: Corps of Engineers
Waatewater Managenaent
,CEl'\l ED
November 8, 20 II
Mam Office
NU 1 i 5 2011
David Martasian
3310 EI Camino Ave, Room 147
Sacramento CA 95821
10060 Goethe Road

sc,cramf! to CA 95o27 -3553
BY:
~s
Tele [916 876-6000

F<P<.
Subject: The Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction- Auxiliary Spillway

Approach Channel Project
91 6 876-6160
Dear Mr. Martas ian:

Sacramento Regtonal Wa
t<-
at~
Treatment Plant
8521 La 1una Statto Road
Elk Gro e CA 95756-9550

Tel
(916] 875-9000
Fax
l 16]&75-90 &
a...l of Dludan
Represennng:
County of Sacramento
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) has received the Folsom
Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction - Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel
Project and has the follow ing comments:
Currently SRCSD operates the Arden Force Main and the Northeast Interceptor
which both cross under the American River. The Arden Force Main consists of two
paralle l 60-inch sewer force mains within twin 72-inch casings that convey as much
as 100 million gallons of wastewater per day. The depth of the Arden Force Main
ranges from 30 to 40 feet beneath the American Ri ver.
The Northeast Interceptor Section 3 is a triple siphon undercrossing which consists of
three 48-inch pipelines that are buried approximately I 0 feet below the American
River bottom.
There is two feet of rip-rap protection above the crown of the
pipeline. These pipelines convey up to 75 million gallons of wastewater per day.
Changes that have the potential of increasing scouring velocities of the American
river may affect the abi lity of Northeast Interceptor and the Arden Force Main
crossings to convey wastewater.
Decreased pipe cover on both of these river
crossings have the potential to cause significant impacts to these two pipel ines and
could pose issues to both the environment and human health and safety .
County of Yolo
City of Citrus He ights
City of El k Grove
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 8769994.
City of Folsom
City of Rancho Cordov a
City of Sacramento
City of West Sacramento
Sarenna Moore
SRCSD/SASD
Policy and Planning
Stru1 R. Dean
DiJtrict Engineer
Prabhakar Somavarapu
Director ofPolicy and Planning
cc: Prabhakar Somavarapu

Dave Ocenosak
Michael Meyer
SRCSD Development Services
SASD Development Services
Ruben Robles
Director ofOperaJions
' ' llol ,,,:,,, , l,.f' li ..
W b It -
rud com
Sacramento
Regional
County
Sanitation
Di5trict
.....

Folsom Dam Modification Project - Approach Channel

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Folsom Dam Modification Project - Approach Channel

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel

State Clearinghouse SCH # 2012072039