oversight

Savings Available Under the Program for Relocating Roads and Bridges at the Auburn Dam and Reservoir in California

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-05-07.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

REPORT TO THE C
                              lllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllll
                                     LM095665




Savings Available Un
Program For Relocating
And Bridges At The
And Reservoir In Califor        ’    6 -125045




Bureau of Reclamation
Department  of the Interior




BY THE COiW’TROELER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
              COMPTROLLER     GENERAL     OF      THE   UNITED   STATES
                            WASHINGTON.    D.C.     20548




B-125045




To the President   of the Senate and the
Speaker  of the House of Representatives

       This is our report    on the savings available      under the
program  for relocating    roads and bridges     at the Auburn
Dam and Reservoir      in California,  as administered       by the
Bureau of Reclamation,      Department    of the Interior,

         Our review was made pursuant     to the Budget and Ac-
counting    Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C.  53), and the Accounting  and
Auditing    Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

        Copies of this        report are being sent to the Director,
Office of Management            and Budget,  and to the Secretary    of
the Interior.




                                               Comptroller            General
                                               of the United          States




                     SOTH ANNIVERSARY                   1921 - 1971
COM?TROLLER GEPJERAL'S                     SAVINGS AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROGRAM FOR
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                     RELOCATING ROADS AND BRIDGES AT THE AUBURN
                                           DAM AND RESERVOIR IN CALIFORNIA
                                           Bureau of Reclamation
                                           Department of the Interior  B-125045


 DIGEST
--m-v-


WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

       Roads and bridges     to be flooded    as a result    of water resources      projects
       of the Bureau of Reclamation,        Department    of the Interior,    may, by stat-
       utory authority,    be relocated     by the Bureau.      The law directs    that re-
       placement of a road or bridge must be designed on the basis of current
       traffic   and must be constructed      in accordance with applicable        State or
       county standards.       If a replacement    is constructed     to higher standards,
       the additional    cost must be paid by the owners usually           the local govern-
       mental unit having jurisdiction.          (See p. 10.)

       Because of the large amount of money--about           $52 million--involved       in re-
       locating   roads and bridges    to be flooded    following      completion  of the
       Auburn Dam and Reservoir      (a part of the Central        Valley Project    near
       Auburn, California)    and because of indications         that these relocations
       were not being carried     out as the law directed,         the General Accounting
       Office   (GAO) reviewed the policies,      procedures,      and practices   followed
       by the Bureau in the relocation       program.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

       The Auburn-Foresthill     Bridge is being constructed     to meet projected
       (not current)    traffic  needs and the Bureau is financing       the entire   cost.
       The additional     cost of constructing     the bridge to standards   higher than
       required   to meet current    traffic   needs-- at least $1.5 million    in this
       case--was not eligible     for Federal participation     under the Flood Control
       Act of 1960, as amended.

       Although   legislation      enacted on December 31, 1970, specifically        autho-
       rized the Bureau's       version   of the bridge,    there is need for a Bureau
       policy   to preclude     the occurrence   of similar     relocation problems.     (See
       P. 8.)

       The Bureau is planning      to replace  certain,   little-used,         local dirt   roads
       and bridges   upstream from the Auburn Dam with a new highway system at an
       estimated   cost of $26.2 million.      GAO believes       that,    on the basis of the
       condition   of the existing    roads, the current       traffic,     the purposes served,
       and the availability     of other roads and bridges           to serve existing    traffic,

Tear Sheet
     replacevwt      -is not justified       and that       the local        upstream    roads    and
     bridges    should be abandoned.          (See p.       19.)

     The Bureau is planning          to relocate  existing    State Highway 49 across the                      i
     crest of the Auburn       Dam at an estimated        cost of $10.5 million.         On the                i
     basis of rough estimates          by the Sureau, GAO believes        that there is a pos-                 I
     sibility     that $5.5 million       could be saved by relocating         the road down-                  I
                                                                                                               I
     stream from the dam. More importantly,              this alternative       would permit                   I
     annual benefits--the         value of products     or services    resulting     from the                  I

     project--of      as much as $59 million      to begin to be realized         from the Auburn              i
     project     3 years earlier.       (See pQ 34.)                                                           I
                                                                                                               I

                                                                                                               I
RECOMMEfiDATIONS OR SUfGESTTOXS                                                                                I

     The Secretary     of the Interior         should   require       the     Commissioner       of l?ecla-    i
     mation to                                                                                                 I

        --establish   policies     and procedures   for relocating  roads and bridges                          I
                                                                                                               I
           in accordance with      the Flood Control   Act of 1960, as amended (see                            I
          p.   1%                                                                                              I
                                                                                                               I


        --abandon  the existing,         little-used,        local    dirt     roads    and bridges
           (see p0 33);

        --develop  criteria    for determining when roads or bridges   affected                         by     I
                                                                                                               I
           Bureau projects    should be abandoned rather than replaced    (see                                 I
           p* 33);                                                                                             I
                                                                                                               I
        --reconsider      several  alternatives   for relocating the State Highway                       49    f
           bridge    to determine which is the most economical      when both costs                      and   ,
           benefits    are considered     (see p* 40); and

        --develop   procedures   for all Bureau water resources     projects      to provide
           for consideration    of the effect    that road and bridge    relocations     will                  i
           have on the realization    of project     benefits (see p, 40);                                     I




AGENCY ACY'Il31.7SA,VD LWRES0L-iVED
                         __-_-    ISSUES                                                                       I
                                                                                                               I

     Tine Department   of the Interior          disagreed      with     GAO's recommendations           and,   i
     in effect,   took the position                                                                            I
                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                               I
       --that,irrespective         of the legislation      enacted on December 31, 1970,                       I

           regarding      the construction    of the Auburn-Foresthill       Bridge,    the Bu-                    i
           reau did not agree with GAO's conclusion             that construction      of the                      I
                                                                                                                   I
           bridge to meet projected        traffic    needs was a violation       of law (see                      I
           p* 16);                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                   I
        --that,   in zdoptfng   the Bureau's   feasibility      report  and authorizing                            I
            the project,    the Congress recognized        the need for replacing     the dirt                     i
            roads and bridges     upstream from the Auburn Dam (see p* 32);                                        I
                                                                                                                   I


                                                                                                                   I
                                                  3                                                                I
           --that    a more detailed     cost estimate    for relocating  Highway 49 down-
               stream from the dam would probably         be considerably  higher than the
               $5 million     rough estimate   and that it appeared highly     doubtful   that _
               the Office    of Management and Budget and the Congress would be amenable
               to appropriating     funds sufficient    for the highway relocation      and the
               dam construction     to be undertaken    at the same time (see p. 39).

         GAO has evaluated the Department's views and continues              to believe   that
         the recommended actions should be implemented.
I
I
I
I
    MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS

         These matters   are being reported      to the Congress      because of the oppor-
         tunity  for substantial    savings   in the relocation       of roads and bridges    at
         the Auburn Dam and Reservoir       and the need for the       Bureau to adopt poli-
         ties and procedures     consistent   with the intent    of    the Flood Control   Act
         of 1960,as amended.
                             Contents
                                                                          Page

DIGEST                                                                      1

CHAPTER

   1       INTRODUCTION                                                     4

   2       IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN RELOCATING ROADS AND
           BRIDGES                                                          8
               Need for improved           guidance    in relocating
                 roads and bridges                                          9
                    Department       of the Interior        comments       15
                    Recommendation          to the Secretary       of
                       the Interior                                        18
               Replacement      of existing        roads and bridges
                 not justified                                             19
                    Existing     facilities                                19
                    Proposed new road system                               27
                           Department       of the Interior       com-
                             ments                                         32
                           Recommendations         to the Secretary
                             of the Interior                               33
               Uneconomical       relocation       of State highway
                 across crest        of dam                                34
                    Department       of the Interior        comments       39
                    Recommendations           to the Secretary       of
                       the Interior                                        40

   3       SCOPE OF REVIEW                                                 41

APPENDIX

   I       Letter    dated December 22, 1970, from            the Di-
              rector    of Survey and Review to the           General
              Accounting    Office                                         45

   II      Principal    officials    of the Department      of the
              Interior   and the Bureau of Reclamation         re-
              sponsible     for administration   of activities
              discussed     in this  report                                59
COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                     SAVINGS AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROGRAM FOR
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                   RELOCATING ROADS AND BRIDGES AT THE AUBURN
                                         DAM AND RESERVOIR IN CALIFORNIA
                                         Bureau of Reclamation
                                         Department of the Interior  B-125045


 DIGEST
------

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

     Roads and bridges     to be flooded    as a result    of water resources      projects
     of the Bureau of Reclamation,        Department    of the Interior,    may, by stat-
     utory authority,    be relocated    by the Bureau.       The law directs    that re-
     placement of a road or bridge must be designed on the basis of current
     traffic   and must be constructed      in accordance with applicable        State or
     county standards.       If a replacement    is constructed     to higher standards,
     the additional    cost must be paid by the owner, usually           the local govern-
     mental unit having jurisdiction.         (See p. 10.)

     Because of the large amount of money--about           $52 million--involved       in re-
     locating   roads and bridges    to be flooded    following      completion  of the
     Auburn Dam and Reservoir      (a part of the Central        Valley Project    near
     Auburn, California)    and because of indications         that these relocations
     were not being carried     out as the law directed,         the General Accounting
     Office   (GAO) reviewed the policies,      procedures,      and practices   followed
     by the Bureau in the relocation       program.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

     The Auburn-Foresthill     Bridge is being constructed     to meet projected
     (not current)   traffic   needs and the Bureau is financing      the entire    cost.
     The additional    cost of constructing    the bridge to standards     higher than
     required   to meet current    traffic  needs --at  least $1.5 million    in this
     case--was not eligible     for Federal participation     under the Flood Control
     Act of 1960, as amended.

     Although   legislation      enacted on December 31, 1970, specifically        autho-
     rized the Bureau's       version   of the bridge,    there is need for a Bureau
     policy   to preclude     the occurrence   of similar     relocation problems.     (See
     P- 8.1

     The Bureau is planning      to replace  certain,   little-used,         local dirt   roads
     and bridges   upstream from the Auburn Dam with a new highway system at an
     estimated   cost of $26.2 million.      GAO believes       that,    on the basis of the
     condition   of the existing    roads, the current       traffic,     the purposes served,
     and the availability     of other roads and bridges           to serve existing    traffic,,
     replacement   is not justified            and that the local             upstream    roads    and
     bridges  should be abandoned.              (See p. 19.)

     The Bureau is planning          to relocate  existing    State Highway 49 across the
     crest of the Auburn Dam at an estimated              cost of $10.5 million.         On the
     basis of rough estimates          by the Bureau, GAO believes        that there is a pos-
     sibility     that $5.5 million       could be saved by relocating         the road down-
     stream from the dam. More importantly,              this alternative       would permit
     annual benefits--the         value of products     or services    resulting     from the
     project--of      as much as $59 million      to begin to be realized         from the Auburn
     project     3 years earlier.       (See p. 34.)


RECOMiVENDATIONSOR SUGGESTIWS

     The Secretary    of the    Interior         should   require      the Commissioner           of Recla-
     mation to

       --establish   policies      and procedures  for relocating   roads and bridges
          in accordance with       the Flood Control   Act of 1960, as amended (see
          p. 1%

       --abandon  the existing,            little-used,       local    dirt     roads    and bridges
          (see p. 33);

       --develop  criteria      for determining when roads or bridges   affected                         by
          Bureau projects      should be abandoned rather than replaced    (see
          p. 33);

       --reconsider    several  alternatives   for relocating the State Highway                           49
          bridge to determine which is the most economical when both costs                                and
          benefits  are considered     (see pQ 40); and

       --develop   procedures    for all Bureau water-resources     projects   to provide
          for consideration    of the effect     that road and bridge relocations     will
          have on the realization     of project     benefits (see pa 40);


AGENCY ACTIONS AiVD UrJRESOLVEDISSUES

     The Department of the Interior               disagreed     with    GAO's recommendations            and,
     in effect,  took the position

       --that,irrespective         of the legislation      enacted on December 31, 1970,
           regarding      the construction    of the Auburn-Foresthill       Bridge,    the Bu-
           reau did not agree with GAO's conclusion             that construction      of the
           bridge to meet projected        traffic    needs was a violation       of law (see
           p. 16);

       --that,in     adopting the Bureau's    feasibility      report  and authorizing
           the project,     the Congress recognized       the need for replacing     the dirt
           roads and bridges     upstream from the Auburn Dam (see p. 32);


                                                   2
       --that    a more detailed    cost estimate    for relocating  Highway 49 down-
           stream from the dam would probably        be considerably  higher   than the
           $5 million    rough estimate   and that it appeared highly     doubtful   that
           the Office    of Management and Budget and the Congress would be amenable
           to appropriating    funds sufficient    for the highway relocation      and the
           dam construction    to be undertaken    at the same time (see p. 39).

    GAO has evaluated  the Department's views and continues              to believe   that
    the recommended actions  should be implemented.


MA!M'ERSFOR CONSTDERUl-ON
                        BY !llYE CONGRESS
     These matters   are being reported      to the Congress      because of the oppor-
     tunity  for substantial    savings in the relocation         of roads and bridges    at
     the Auburn Dam and Reservoir       and the need for the       Bureau to adopt poli-
     cies and procedures     consistent   with the intent    of    the Flood Control   Act
     of 1960,as amended.
                                          CHAPTER      1


                                       INTRODUCTION

          The General       Accounting     Office   has made a review           of the
policies,        procedures,        and practices     of the Bureau          of Recla-
mation,       Department       of the Interior,       for    road and bridge        re-
locations        necessitated        by the construction         of the Auburn-
Folsom       South Unit,       Central    Valley   Project,      California,       which
was authorized           by Public     Law 89-161,      dated    September      2,
1965 (79 Stat.           615).

        The Bureau    of Reclamation         is authorized       to construct,
operate,    and maintain       facilities      for    the storage     and dis-
tribution    of water      for   irrigating      arid    and semiarid      lands
in 17 western      States.       In addition       to providing      water     for
irrigation,     the Bureau       is authorized        to provide     water     for
domestic    and industrial         uses and for       the generation       of hy-
droelectric     energy.

          The authority        of the Bureau       to acquire         public      service
facilities,           such as roads      and bridges,         for   relocation         neces-
sitated        by the construction           of water     resources        projects        is
derived        primarily     from   section     14 of the Reclamation                Proj-
ect Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C.                 389) and section           207(c)      of the
Flood       Control      Act of 1960,      as amended by Public              Law 87-874,
dated       October      23, 1962 (33 U.S.C.         701r-l(c)).

         Section      14 of the Reclamation                 Project       Act of 1939
authorizes         the Secretary           of the Interior,             in connection
with     the construction            or operation           and maintenance           of any
water      resources       project,        to (1) purchase            or condemn        suit-
able     lands     or interests          in lands       for    relocating         highways
and roads,         the relocation            of which       is necessitated           by the
project,        (2) perform         any or all        work     involved        in such relo-
cations,        and (3) enter          into     contracts        with     the owners        of
the highways          and roads        to acquire         the property           needed     for
the relocation           or to perform           any or all          work    involved       in
the relocation.

      Section       207(c)     of the Flood       Control   Act of 1960,           as
amended,     authorizes        the Bureau      to relocate     or replace          exist-
ing roads     which     would     interfere      with   the construction           of
water   resources       projects.          The act also provides         definitive


                                                4
criteria       as to the types     of               substitute          roads       to   be con-
structed       with Federal   funds.                   Section         207(c)       of   the act        pro-
vides    that:

          I’***    For water            resources       projects          to be con-
          structed          in the future,            when the taking                by the
          Federal         Government          of an existing              public       road
          necessitates              replacement,          the substitute              pro-
          vided      will,        as nearly         as practicable,              serve       in
          the same manner                 and reasonably            as well        as the
          existing          road.         The head of the Agency                   concerned
          is authorized               to construct          such substitute                roads
          to design           standards         comparable          to those         of the
          State,        or,    where       applicable         State       standards          do not
          exist,        those       of the owning           political          division          in
          which      the road           is located,         for     roads      of the same
          classification                as the road being               replaced.            The
          traffic         existing         at the time          of the taking              shall
          be used in the determination                          of the classifica-
          tion.         In any case where               a State         or political             sub-
          division          thereof        requests       that      such a substitute
          road be constructed                   to a higher           standard         than      that
          provided          in the preceding              provisions           of this         sub-
          section,          and pays,         prior     to commencement                of such
          construction,               the additional            costs       involved         due to
          such higher             standard,         such Agency           head is autho-
          rized       to construct             such road        to such higher               stan-
          dard.         Federal         costs     under     the provisions               of this
          subsection            shall      be part      of the nonreimbursable
          project         costs.”

       The Bureau’s         policy        for     the relocation     of roads     in ac-
cordance     with       the Flood        Control       Act of 1960,    as amended,
states    that     the classification                of a road    is determined      by
the actual       traffic     volume         existing       at the time    of taking,
not by the projected              traffic        volume.

         The Bureau’s       policy     also     provides      for    the use of ap-
plicable       State,   county,      or local        design     standards     when they
exist;      and, when applicable            standards       do not exist,        the
policy     provides     for     the road      to be relocated           to standards
comparable        to those      of the road being           replaced.

          The    purposes     of the           Auburn-Folsom          South     Unit         are irri-
gation,         power   production,             municipal          and industrial             water,
recreation,          fish    and wildlife         enhancement,        and flood        con-
trol,       The costs        allocated      to irrigation,           power     production,
municipal        and industrial          water,      and a portion          of the costs
allocated        to recreation         and fish         and wildlife        enhancement
are reimbursable             to the Government             from project       revenues.
The costs        allocated        to flood      control       and a portion        of the
costs     allocated        to recreation         and fish        and wildlife        enhance-
ment are not reimbursable.

        The Bureau’s          policy     for    relocating          roads       and highways
pursuant       to the      Flood     Control      Act of        1960,    as     amended,   pro-
vides    that:

        1.   The cost   of a relocation                   in kind     be allocated       to
             both  the reimbursable                 and     nonreimbursable        purposes
             of the project.

        2.   The additional        cost        associated          with       relocating       roads
             to current     standards           for    current         traffic         be   a non-
             reimbursable      project          cost.

        3.   The additional         cost   of relocating                roads   to standards
             higher    than current        standards     for            current   traffic
             be a nonproject          cost   and be borne               by the State      or
             political      subdivision.

        The prinicpal          features        of     the Auburn-Folsom               South Unit
are the Auburn           Dam and Reservoir                which   will     be located          near
Auburn,     on the       American       River.          The reservoir          will     have a
storage     capacity        of about       2.5      million     acre-feet           of water.
In January        1970    the estimated             cost     of the Auburn-Folsom
South    Unit     was    $530 million.              At that     time     the Unit         was
about    5-percent        completed        and      was scheduled          for      completion
sometime      after      1976.

        We have reviewed         the Bureau’s        plans    for     constructing
four    bridges     and relocating       portions       of (1) State           Highway
49, (2) two county          roads,    and (3) a Federal            fire      road,     eat h
of which       will  be inundated      when the Auburn            Reservoir        is
filled.        (See map of Auburn        relocations        on p. 7.)          The Bu-
reau estimates         that   it will    cost     about    $52 million          to con-
struct      the bridges     and relocate        the roads.
                         -~             1
                                                                                             D BRIDGES
                             IN -WE VK3Nli-Y OF AUBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR
                                                         3
                                             COLFAX




                                                                                        COLFAX-FORESTHILL               BRIDGE




                CALlFORNlA
                0,“.   OF FORESTRY
                ,RON MINE CONSER
                “ATION     CAMP




                                                                           GREENWOOD         BRlDGE




                         /                            A.   .          5,      SPANISH      DRY   DIGGINGS



AUBURN     FOREST
    HILL   BRIDGE




                                                                              CALIFORNIA
                                                                               \

                                                                 /1
                                                                              DIV.   OF  FORES:
                                                                              GROWLERSs”RG            rRY
                                                                                                        \      GEORGETOWN
                                                               A-1            CONSERVATION




                                                      r-u                          LEGEND


                                                                                         EXISTING      RDADS

                                                                                         REPLACEMENT            ROADS

                                                                                         RIVER

                                                      1                                                                     I
                                                 CHAPTER         2


        IMPROVEMENTS             NEEDED         IN   RELOCATING            ROADS AND BRIDGES

        The Bureau        is planning        three     separate                      relocations--in-
cluding     four    bridges--at          the Auburn-Folsom                           South Unit       at an
estimated      cost     to the Federal           Government      of                    $52 million.
Two of the relocations               involve      one road      and                    one bridge       each;
the other      relocation         involves       one road and                        two bridges.
One relocation,           Auburn-Foresthill           Road and                       Bridge,       is cur-
rently    under     construction.            The two remaining                            relocations
have not been started.

          We believe            that    the Bureau            can modify           its     plans       for
the relocation                of the roads             and bridges,            without         affecting
the manner            in which        existing          traffic        is being          served,         and
can realize             savings       of about          $31.7      million.            For the relo-
cation       already         under      way--Auburn-Foresthill--we                           found        that
the bridge            was being         constructed             to standards             higher        than
required          to meet current               traffic         needs and that               the Bureau
was financing              the entire           construction             cost.         Although          the
additional            cost --at       least       $1.52 million--of                  relocating             the
road      to standards             higher       than required              to meet current                  traf-
fic    needs was not eligible                       for     Federal       participation               under
legislation             existing        at the time             the construction                 contracts
were awarded,              specific         legislation             subsequently            was enacted
which       gave the Bureau               the authority              to construct              the bridge
to higher           standards         at Government               expense.           We believe             that
a policy         is needed,           however,          to prevent           other       similar         relo-
cation       problems.

         For one of the other                 relocations,             the Bureau          is plan-
ning     to replace       certain,         little-used,             local      dirt      roads    and
bridges       with   13 miles        of new highway,                 including         two bridges,
at an estimated           cost     of $26.2           million.           Our review          of the
condition         of the roads,          the existing             traffic,          the purposes
served,       and the availability                  of other        roads      and bridges          to
serve      existing     traffic        indicates            that    replacement            of the
roads      and bridges         is not justified                and that        they      should     be
abandoned.

      For the remaining       relocation,    the Bureau     plans  to
route  an existing    State     road across     the crest   of the Auburn
Dam at an estimated      cost     of $10.5  million.      On the basis   of


                                                         8
an unrefined     cost estimate    of the Bureau, we believe               that
there is a possibility       that $5.5 million          could be saved by
relocating    the road on a different         alignment       downstream
from the dam. More importantly,           this     alternative       alignment
would permit     annual benefits    --the   value of products            or ser-
vices resulting      from the project--of         as much as $59 million
to begin to be realized        some 3 years earlier.

        Our findings     on the above matters          are   discussed     in   the
following     sections    of the report.

NEED FOR IMPROVED GUIDANCE IN
RELOCATING ROADS AND BRIDGES

        Construction      of the Auburn Dam will         necessitate        the
relocation      of a portion     of the county-owned          two-lane
Auburn-Foresthill         Road at an estimated        cost of $1.9 million
and the construction          of a new bridge      to carry     the road
across     the North Fork of the American            River at an estimated
cost of $13.9 million.           Although     the Bureau recognized             that
traffic      on the road did not justify         more than a two-lane
bridge,      it awarded two contracts         for the construction            of
the new bridge        which provided      for heavier     piers     and abut-
ments (substructure)          and a deck truss       (superstructure)           ca-
pable of supporting         four lanes of traffic.            The Flood Con-
trol    Act of 1960, as amended, limits            the Bureau's        partici-
pation     in the cost of the bridge          to the cost of contructing
a facility      to accommodate two lanes of traffic.                  The addi-
tional     cost of providing       the heavier     substructure        and su-
perstructure        to support   four lanes of traffic           could not be
borne by the Government under the Flood Control                     Act of 1960,
as amended.

       The existing     two-lane    road connects   the communities     of
Auburn and Foresthill         and covers a distance    of about 20
miles.    The road crosses       the North Fork of the American
River at the bottom of the American           Canyon and will     be inun-
dated when the Auburn Dam begins          to impound water.        The new
bridge   will   be 2,428 feet long and about 700 feet above the
present   level    of the North Fork of the American        River.

       In a letter     dated December 13, 1967, to the Commis-
sioner   of Reclamation,     the Acting  Regional   Director,     Re-
gion 2 of the Bureau of Reclamation,         stated  that the Bu-
reau's   legal   obligation,    under the Flood Control       Act of


                                          9
1960,      as amended,         was limited           to the construction                 of a
two-lane        bridge      but that       traffic         would     require       a four-lane
bridge      by 1985.          The Acting          Regional       Director        stated      also
that     it would        be much more economical                   to provide          for   future
widening        of the bridge          at the time            of contruction             than to
attempt       the extremely          difficult           and costly         task     of build-
ing a second           bridge     at a later           date.       He stated         further
that     the cost        of providing          for     future      widening        of the
bridge      would,       under    normal       circumstances,             be financed          by
the owner- -Placer             County--but           that,      because       the county
could      not finance         the heavier           bridge      structure,          he believed
that     the Bureau         should     bear       the cost.

         Under     the Flood      Control        Act of 1960,            as amended,              the
Bureau       is authorized        to construct           substitute            roads        and
bridges        to applicable        State      or county        standards             for    the
classifications            of roads       being     replaced;         the classification
must be based upon current,                    not projected,              traffic.            If a
road     is constructed         to higher         standards,          the owner must pay
the additional           cost   that      is attributable             to the higher
standards.           The Bureau       recognized         that     traffic           on the ex-
isting       road,    at the time of taking,                was 2,000             vehicles          a
day and that,           under   State       standards,        a four-lane               bridge
would      not be required          until      the traffic          reached          7,500       ve-
hicles       a day.

        The   additional         cost     of providing       a bridge      structure
capable     of supporting           four     lanes,    as opposed       to two lanes,
was estimated         by the Bureau            in March     1968 to be about
$4.4 million.            In accordance           with  the Flood      Control       Act of
1960,     as amended,        this     additional       cost    should     have been
paid    by Placer        County     prior      to commencement        of construc-
tion    of the bridge.

         However,          in a letter       dated    May 7, 1968,           to the Re-
gional      Director,         Region     2, the Acting          Commissioner           of Rec-
lamation        approved         the construction,           at Bureau         expense,     of a
two-lane        bridge       with     a substructure         and superstructure             ca-
pable     of supporting             four   lanes.       The Acting         Commissioner
stated      that,        if the Bureau        constructed         the bridge          as pro-
posed,      it would         be not only        a relocation          under     the Flood
Control       Act of 1960,            as amended,       but also        a part      of the
project       facilities           under   the general         authorization           for  the
project,        Public       Law 89-161.          He stated       also     that     the addi-
tional      cost       of constructing          the heavier         bridge      structure


                                                    10
would   be a reimbursable        cost   incurred                      for    the benefit         of
the project       and not a nonreimbursable                           cost     pursuant      to the
Flood   Control     Act of 1960,      as amended.                         He stated      further
that  the additional      two lanes       would   be                    constructed        at a
later   date    by the appropriate        highway                     authority.

         The primary           reason      given       by the Acting            Commissioner
for    considering           the heavier           bridge       structure         as beneficial
to the project             was the possible               monetary         losses      to the Bu-
reau     if it was not provided.                       The Acting          Commissioner          con-
cluded       that,      since      Placer      County       could      not    finance       the   bet-
terment)         the only        feasible        alternative           to the Bureau’s            fi-
nancing        the betterment             would      be the future            construction           of
a second         bridge      by the County.               Future       construction           of a
second       bridge       would      necessitate          drawing        down the Auburn
Reservoir          during      construction            of the second            bridge      and
would      result       in (1) power           revenue        losses       of about        $10.5     mil-
lion,       (2) municipal            and industrial             water      revenue       losses      of
about      $1 million,            (3) potential           losses       due to possible            dam-
age to the reservoir                  basin      from     slides       during       the drawdown
period,        and (4) adverse             effects        of excessive            water     demands
on Folsom          Lake,     which      is located          immediately           downstream
from Auburn           Dam.

         The Bureau’s              legal       authority           for     financing        the con-
struction          of a bridge             structure           capable          of carrying         four
lanes       rather        than two was questioned                        in a draft         report        by
Audit       Operations,            Office        of Survey           and Review,           Department
of the Interior,                dated        February          1969.         The draft         report
noted       that      the assumption               that      future        bridge      construction
would       require         a drawdown           of the reservoir                 presupposed           the
fact      that      (1) a second            bridge         would       be needed        within        about
15 years,           (2) the County               would       elect       to construct            a bridge
which       would       require        drawing         down the reservoir,                  and (3) the
Bureau        would       be obligated             to draw down the reservoir                         and
bear      the related            financial           losses.           The draft         report       recom-
mended that             the Bureau           either        redesign           the structure           to a
two-lane          bridge       or obtain           an advance            of funds        from     Placer
County        for     the additional               cost      of providing            the betterment.
As a third            choice,        the draft           report        recommended           the submis-
 sion     of the matter              for     congressional                approval.

        In commenting             on the draft    report,                  the    Commissioner,
in    a letter dated             March  28, 1969,    stated:
        “We do not agree               with      the recommendations                  of the
        auditors         and we do not propose                   to follow          the
        courses        of action         advocated.            Section       14 of the
        1939 Reclamation               Act,      as well       as the Reclamation
        Act of 1902,            as amended and supplemented,                          gives
        the Secretary             broad      administrative            authority            to
        determine          what action           should      be taken        in connec-
        tion     with      the construction               of Reclamation              projects
        which     are in the best                interest       of the Government.
        Under      this      authority         the Bureau          has on a number
        of occasions            provided         additional         construction              not
        directly         related       to initial           developments,             but
        which     is necessary             for     future      works,      facilities
        or project           operations,           yet to be authorized                   or
        for which          additional          appropriations           may be re-
        quired.”

               *                  *                 *                  *                 *


       “It     is axiomatic           that     specific        authorizations
       such as P.L.           89-161,       which       authorized         the Auburn-
       Folsom       South Unit          of the Central            Valley       Project,
       only      enumerate        gross      features        and leave         detailed
       decisions         on construction              and operation            to the
       discretion          of the Secretary               operating        within       the
       framework         of Reclamation             law.      The decision            with
       regard       to the construction                 of the substructure                of
       the Foresthill             Bridge       is in this         category.           This
       heavier        substructure          and the additional                 cost     as
       a reimbursable             project        expense       (and not as a non-
       reimbursable           P.L.      87-874      betterment         cost)      were
       carefully         considered         by the Solicitor’s                Office
       prior      to our May 7, 1968,                 letter      and that        Office
       concurred         therein.       ”

         In May 1969 the Bureau                   awarded    a contract              in the
amount       of $2.9 million     for            the construction         of          a substruc-
ture     for   the bridge    capable              of supporting       four           lanes   of
traffic.

       An assistant       solicitor           in the Office       of the Solicitor,
Department      of the Interior,             advised    us in September        1969
that   no formal     opinion        had been rendered           by the Solicitor’s
Office     on the Bureau’s          authority        to finance     the entire      cost
of constructing       the bridge          but that      the May 7, 1968,        letter


                                                    12
of the Acting         Commissioner        to the Regional       Director,      Re-
gion    2, had been approved            by the Solicitor’s          Office.     He
acknowledged,         however,     that     Placer      County could     not legally
require     the Bureau       to draw down the reservoir              to permit       the
future    construction         of a second         bridge.

         By letter        dated    April       13, 1970,     we advised        the Secre-
tary     of the Interior            that,      in our opinion,        the bridge         was
not an operational               component         of the Auburn-Folsom           South
Unit.        We stated        that    the operation,         maintenance,         control,
and ownership           of the project            would   be vested       in the U.S.
Government         while      the ownership          of the Auburn-Foresthill
Bridge--       as well     as its       operation,       maintenance,        and control--
would      be vested        in Placer        County.      Moreover,       the two addi-
tional       lanes    that      may be added to the bridge                at some indef-
inite      future     date would          not be constructed          by the Bureau          of
Reclamation         but by the appropriate                highway     authority.

          We stated        that,      since       the bridge          was not an opera-
tional       component         of the project,               section      207(c)      of the
Flood       Control      Act of 1960,             as amended,          which     relates      spe-
cifically         to road relocations                   necessitated          by the construc-
tion      of projects          for    the development               of water       resources,
was the proper             authority          for    constructing           the bridge        and
that      Bureau     participation              in the cost           of the Auburn-
Foresthill          Bridge       should       be limited          to the cost          of con-
structing         a two-lane          bridge        with     a substructure            and super-
structure         capable        of supporting             only     two lanes.           We recom-
mended that          the Bureau           relocate         the bridge         in accordance
with      the provisions            of the Flood             Control      Act of 1960,         as
amended,        rather       than Public            Law 89-161.

        In a letter        to us dated        July   15, 1970,        the Director,
Office    of Survey        and Review,        stated    that      the matter       had
been referred         to the Department’s            Solicitor        for   an opinion
and that      the opinion       rendered        by the Associate          Solicitor,
Reclamation        and Power,      on June 1, 1970,              had sustained         the
Bureau’s      action      and had concluded          that      the Bureau      acted
within     the scope of its          authority       and in compliance             with
the act that         authorized      the Auburn-Folsom              South Unit.

       On July     31, 1970,      the Bureau     awarded    a contract    for
$9 million     for     the construction      of the superstructure          which
was designed       with    the capability      of supporting       four lanes
of traffic.        A Bureau     official    advised     us that    the work    to


                                                  13
be accomplished             under  the       contract      for      the    superstructure
would  complete           the bridge         construction.

        The opinion       rendered        by the Associate         Solicitor,          Rec-
lamation       and Power,      on *June 1, 1970,           simply    restated        the
basis    for     the Bureau’s        decision        to construct      the bridge
 (see PP~ 10 to 12) and stated                   that   the additional          cost     of
making     provision      for    future       enlargement       of the bridge          was a
project      reimbursable        cost     under     the Auburn-Folsom           South
Unit    authorizing       legislation.             He concluded      that     the addi-
tional     cost     could   be borne        by the Federal        Government.

        The Associate            Solicitor        also     stated     that,      because         of
earthquake         stress      requirements,           the cost       of constructing               a
substructure           capable      of supporting            a four-lane         bridge       would
be the same as that               for      a two-lane        bridge.        He stated         that
the additional            cost    of making         provisions        for    future       traffic
needs     therefore         was reduced         from     $4.4 million          to $1.52         miP-
lion    and that        all    of the $1.52          million       was related          to the
cost    of the enlarged             superstructure.

        The Associate          Solicitor          stated,    as part    of his opinion,
that    the cost      of providing            the substructure         and superstruc-
ture    necessary       for    future        enlargement      of the bridge        was a
project     reimbursable           cost.        Our review      of the Bureau’s        pro-
cedures     indicated        that,       if the additional         cost    of construct-
ing the bridge          to higher          standards      was to be fully        reim-
bursable,      such cost         would      have to be allocated           in a manner
not presently         provided        for by the Bureau’s            procedures.

        In a letter         dated      August      21, 1970,       the Assistant         Re-
gional      Director,        Region      2, advised        the Commissioner          that,
on the basis           of recent       cost    estimates        which     included     a
factor      for    contingencies,           it would       cost    $13,894,000       to con-
struct      the bridge        substructure          and superstructure.              He pro-
vided     the following           information         regarding       the estimated
cost   for      replacing       the old bridge           (1) in kind,          (2) to cur-
rent   standards,          and     (3)  with    provision        for    expansion      to
four   lanes.
                                                                                            cost
                                              Sub-            Super -                      in-
                                          structure         structure          Total    crease

                                                            (000   omitted)

Replacement      in kind                   $4,008            $8,142           $12,150   $          -
Two-lane    bridge      to
  current     standards                      4,224            8,150            12,374          224
Two-lane    bridge      with
  provision      for    ex-
  pansion     to four
   lanes                                     4,224            9,670            13,894       1,520

        Under    the Bureau’s           normal       allocation         procedures        and in
accordance       with     the Flood        Control        Act of 1960,           as amended,
the cost      of $12,150,000            for replacement             in kind       would    be al-
located      as a project          cost     to the various            reimbursable         and
nonreimbursable           project       purposes.           The additional           cost    of
$224,000      associated         with     going      from     a replacement          in kind
to a structure          that     meets     current        standards        would     be a non-
reimbursable         cost     to be borne          by the Federal            Government.
Any cost      above that          necessary        to provide         a facility        to cur-
rent    standards,        the $1.52        million,         would     be borne       by the
owning     State     or political           subdivision.

      The Department              of the Interior              maintains    that,     contrary
to these   procedures,              the Government             can provide      a bridge
that  exceeds     current           standards    and         that    the additional        costs
are fully     reimbursable             from project            revenues.

        Since    the opinion      of the Associate           Solicitor      did not
contain      any new facts      or evidence       which      we had not consid-
ered in reaching          the conclusion       set forth        in our letter          to
the Secretary        of the Interior,        dated     April      13, 1970,      we ad-
vised     the Secretary       by letter     dated    September         23, 1970,
that    the Bureau      did not have the authority                to finance       the
entire      cost   of a bridge      capable    of supporting           four   lanes.

Department        of   the     Interior          comments

         On October    1, 1970,    we proposed       in a draft   report                      that
the Commissioner         of Reclamation      (1) limit    the Bureau’s
participation        in the cost     of constructing      the Auburn-
Foresthill      Bridge     to the cost   of constructing        a two-lane
bridge      with   a substructure        and superstructure        capable     of
supporting        only    two lanes    and (2) clarify        the Bureau’s
policies        to require     that  all    roads    and bridges     be relocated
under     the provisions         of section      207(c)   of the Flood      Control
Act of 1960,         as amended,     when such roads         and bridges     are
not an operational           component      of a project.

           In commenting            on our draft            report,         the Director,              Of-
fice      of Survey          and Review,            by letter         dated      December          22,
1970 (see app.               I),    agreed        that    the additional               cost      of the
enlarged          superstructure               to provide         for     future       traffic         needs
was $1.52          million.           The Director            stated        that     legislation
had been introduced                   in the Congress               to remove          any question
of the Bureau’s                authority          to proceed          with     construction              of
the bridge          .     The Director           added,       however 9 that             the Bureau
had previously               stated       its    reasons       and justifications                   for
proceeding            with     construction            of the Auburn-Foresthill                       Bridge
to standards              capable       of supporting            a future          four-lane          di-
vided        highway       and that          the Bureau’s           position         on construc-
tion      of the bridge             remained         unchanged.             The reasons            and
justifications               referred          to by the Director,                 which       were
known to us at the time we concluded                                  that     the Bureau           did
not have the authority                       to finance        the entire            cost      of the
bridge,         are set forth             in previous          sections          of this         report.

         The Director       stated    that       the relocation          of the Auburn-
Foresthill        Road and Bridge         was no different             from   other     relo-
cations       of State    and county         roads     undertaken        as a matter        of
course      in connection        with   the construction             of other      recla-
mation     projects.        He stated        also    that      (I) in almost       all
cases,     relocated      highway     facilities          were not operational
components        of reclamation        projects         and (2) reference           to the
bridge     as a nonoperational            component         of the project         was
therefore       not germane        to accepted         practices       of the Bureau
of Reclamation.

        The legislation        referred                  to by the Director--the
Flood    Control     Act of 1970--was                      introduced     in the Congress
on November      30, 1970,       and was                 enacted      on December    31, 1970
(Public    Law 91-611).          Section                 222 of the act states          that
the Secretary        of the Interior,                      in financing      the relocation
of the existing         Auburn-Foresthill                       Road,

         ‘IA** may provide              for   the cost          of construction               of
         a two-lane   river             level    bridge         across    the North             Fork


                                                    16
        of the American   River    with                  a substructure           and deck
        truss  capable  of supporting                     a four-lane         bridge.”

The financing           of the      construction            cost   of the bridge           con-
forms   to the        provisions         of the         Flood    Control Act of           1970.

         Although        the question            regarding      the authority         of the
Bureau       to finance         the entire          cost     of the substructure            and
deck truss          has now been resolved                  by legislation,        we believe
that     similar       relocation           problems       may be encountered           in the
future       at other       projects         unless      the Department        changes        its
position         and establishes             policies        and procedures       for     the
guidance         of Bureau        officials         in implementing         the legislatio              n
that     is applicable            to the relocation             of roads      and bridges.

         The basic    issue    is a definitization            of the circum-
stances     under    which   the Bureau       can relocate         roads    and
bridges     pursuant      to the legislation         authorizing         the con-
struction      of a project       (Public     Law 89-161,        in this      case)
without     regard    to the conditions          and limitations           contained
in the Flood        Control    Act of 1960,        as amended.

         We agree       with       the Director’s           comment      that    most relo-
cated      highway      facilities            are not operational             components          of
projects        and that         in this        respect     the construction            of the
Auburn-Foresthill                Bridge       is no different          from other         reloca-
tions      of State       and county            roads    undertaken         in connection
with     the construction               of other        Bureau    projects.         Since       the
Department         agrees        that     the bridge        is a nonoperational               com-
ponent        of the project,             we do not understand,               nor can we ac-
cept,      its   position          that     the relocation          can be performed              un-
der the provisions                 of the legislation             authorizing         the proj-
ect.

         If the Director’s           position        regarding          authority         for    re-
location        of the Auburn-Foresthill                Bridge        is valid,         it ap-
pears      that    any relocation          could     be accomplished               in the same
manner.         We cannot      agree     with    this       position.          We believe
that     the relocation         of any road          facility         that     is not an op-
erational         component     of the project              must be performed               under
the provisions            of the Flood        Control         Act of 1960,           as amended.
It appears          that,   if all     road relocations               could       be performed
under      the legislation          authorizing          a project         without        regard
to whether          it is an operational             component          of that       project,



                                                   17
the provisions           of the Flood   Control  Act                of 1960,        as   amended,
would  have no          application   to any Bureau                 projects.

        The authority             to decide      upon the legality         of Government
expenditures            is vested        by law in the Comptroller             General,
and his decisions               are final       and conclusive      with     respect    to
executive          agencies.         In accordance      with   this     authority,      we
have determined              that   any road or bridge         which     is not an
operational           component        of a project     must be relocated            by the
Bureau      strictly         in accordance        with  the provisions           of the
Flood     Control         Act of 1960,        as amended,

          In view       of the facts           discussed        in this     report       regard-
ing the relocation                 of the Auburn-Foresthill                 Bridge       and the
subsequent           legislation          specifically          authorizing         the con-
struction          to higher         standards         than   those     permitted        by exist-
ing legislation,                we are concerned            with     the Bureau’s          view
that      its  position          regarding         the justification            for    its    ac-
tion      is still        valid.

Recommendation           to   the    Secretary        of   the    Interior

      We recommend       that  the Secretary          of the Interior            re-
quire   the Commissioner       of Reclamation            to establish        policies
and procedures,      including      specific      criteria,        for   the guid-
ance of Bureau     officials      in relocating            roads   and bridges
in accordance    with      the provisions       of the Flood           Control       Act
of 1960,    as amended.




                                                 18
REPLACEMENT         OF EXISTING   ROADS
AND BRIDGES         NOT JUSTIFIED

           Filling       of the Auburn             Reservoir      will    result       in inunda-
tion       of portions            of (1) a little-used             dirt     road     and two
river        crossings          that    are owned by the Federal                 Government       and
(2) a similar              dirt      road and one river            crossing        that   are
owned by Placer                 County.         The Bureau      plans     to replace        these
facilities           with       a single        road and two bridges             at an esti-
mated        cost    of $26.2          million.        In our opinion,           however,      pres-
ent traffic            is not sufficient               to justify       replacement         of the
roads        and river          crossings.

        We believe     that     the relocated              Auburn-Foresthill           Road
will    serve   the present         rate     of traffic           reasonably      as well
as the existing        road     system       does.         Because      of the insignifi-
cant    amount    of traffic        on these       dirt       roads,      we believe      that
the Bureau      should      abandon      them rather            than replace        them.
A description       of the existing             facilities           and a discussion
of the Bureau’s        basis      for    its    plans       and our views         thereon
follow.

Existing       facilities

         The so-called     upstream            crossings     include       (1) two cross-
ings     on Ponderosa    Way which             is owned by the Federal            Govern-
ment     (only    one of which     has         an existing       bridge)      and (2) one
crossing       on the Colfax-Foresthill                  Road which      is owned by
Placer      County.

         Ponderosa       Way, on which          the two Federal           crossings          are
located,        is a 1J.S. Forest          Service       road which       crosses         both
%he North         and Middle      Forks     of the American            River       and con-
nects     the communities           of Weimar         in the north        with       Spanish
Dry Diggings          in the south.           (See map on p. 7.)                 The single-
lane roadway          is unsurfaced         and has numerous            hairpin         curves
and some grades            exceeding       15 percent.           The single-lane,
suspension-type            bridge     which     formerly       crossed       the Middle
Fork of the American              River     on Ponderosa          Way was washed             out
by a flood          in 1964 and has not been replaced.                         There      is a
single-lane,          truss-type       bridge       crossing      the North          Fork,
which     was constructed           in 1936 and has a weight                   limit      of
8 tons       and a deck width           of 13 feet         2 inches.

       The     following         photographs          show the       condition       of
Ponderosa        Way and       the two river            crossings.

                                                 19
                                                                                                 .


*-   -._.                                                               THE   AMERICAN   RlVER
                          EX ISTING   BRIDGE   ACROSS NORTH   FORK OF
      PONDEROSA   WAY -




                                                 20
PONDEROSA   WAY - BRIDGE   ACROSS MIDDLE FORK OF THE   AMERICAN   RIVER   WAS
                             WASHED OUT IN 1964




                                    21
PONDEROSA   WAY - APPROACHING  WASHED OUT CROSSING   OF THE MIDDLE   FORK
                         OF THE AMERICAN RIVER



                                   22
         Ponderosa     Way is used primarily               for    fire    prevention
and suppression          activities.          A few    recreationists,            esti-
mated by the Forest              Service     as of June 1969 at the rate                    of
six or eight        cars     a day per weekend,            do use the existing
bridge      and road     in the summer.           Although        Ponderosa       Way is a
Forest      Service    road)       the boundaries        of the national            forests
in the area have been contracted                    since      the road was built
and the Forest         Service        has come to rely           on it less        and less.
The California         Division        of Forestry’        now operates         and main-
tains     the road under           a special    use permit           from   the Forest
Service.

        Although        the major       purpose         of the road          is for use in
fire    control,        the weight        limitations            of the existing             bridge
will    not permit         the movement            of heavy        equipment         and the
movement        of manpower        is very         slow because           of the poor          condi-
tion    of the road.            Any equipment             needed      for    fire      suppres-
sion    on the Foresthill              Divide        (the    area between            the North
and Middle         Forks     of the American              River)      must be brought             in
by way of the Auburn-Foresthill                         Road discussed             in the pre-
vious      section      of this      report.           The new bridge             on the Auburn-
Foresthill         Road will       improve         access      to the Foresthill               Divide
and will        improve      the area’s         firefighting            posture.

         The river       crossing       owned by Placer          County       is located
on a road connecting               the communities           of Colfax        and Forest-
hill     and crosses         the North      Fork of the American                 River     about
3 miles       upstream       of the bridge        on Ponderosa          Way.        This    road,
like     the Forest        Service’s       Ponderosa       Way, is an unsurfaced
single-lane          road with       numerous     hairpin       curves.          An indica-
tion     of the road’s          condition      is the fact         that     the U.S.        Post
Office      stopped      using     it for mail        service      in 19.54 “due to bad
road conditions          0 I’ We were told         by a Bureau          official         that
the road was originally                  a wagon trail         over which          gold min-
ers moved their            supplies.



 ‘The California           Division        of Forestry      is the agency           respon-
   sible    for    fire    control       west      of the National       Forests,       which
   includes     most of the Auburn                 Dam and Reservoir        area.        The
   Forest     Service      continues         to maintain      an interest         in the
   area because          of threats        to the National         Forests      (Tahoe      and
   El Dorado)         from   fires     originating        in the area of California
   Division      of Forestry         jurisdiction.


                                                    23
        A Bureau    official    advised      us that    no traffic       count     had
ever been taken         on this  road.       The bridge     on this      road was
constructed       in 1857 and was moved to new piers                and rehabil-
itated      in the 1920’s.      This    bridge    also   has a weight        limit
of 8 tons      but the deck width         is only    12 feet      6 inches.

       The following        photographs        show   the   condition    of   the
county    road and     bridge.




                                          24
     Y
     -




25
Proposed        new    road     system

         To replace            the existing             little-used           dirt      roads      and
bridges,         which       the Bureau           has referred             to as “little            more
than bulldozed               trails       $” the Bureau             is planning           to construct
a modern,          two-lane,           all-weather,             paved road system                from old
U.S.     Highway         40 about          halfway         between      Weimar        and Colfax,
across      the North            Fork of the American                   River,        over     the
Foresthill           Divide,          across      the Middle           Fork of the American
River,      and then           to an El Dorado                 County      road near         Spanish
Dry Diggings--a                distance         of about          13 miles.           (See map on
PO 7.)         The proposed              road,      estimated          by the Bureau             to cost
$26.2      million,         will       have a design              speed of 30 miles                per
hour with          provision           for     being       upgraded        to 45 miles           per hour
and will         have two bridges--one                       across      the North          Fork and
one across           the Middle            Fork of the American                    River.        The new
road and bridges                 will      be owned either              by the State             of Cali-
fornia      or by Placer                County.

        The new bridge       over     the North      Fork of the American
River    will     cross the river        near    Placer      County’s      existing
Colfax-Foresthill         Bridge,       and the new bridge            over     the Mid-
dle Fork of the American              River    will     cross     the river       near
the site       of the U.S.     Forest      Service’s       Middle     Fork bridge
which    was washed     out in 1964.

         The Bureau’s        justification          for the new road         system    is
based on (1) future               project-generated        traffic,       (2) fire
protection         purposes,        and (3) the fact       that     there    are exist-
ing bridges         which    will      be inundated.       Each of these          is dis-
cussed      below.

         1.   With     regard       to the. need to accommodate                     future
              project-generated                 traffic,          the Flood      Control        Act of
              1960,      as amended,            provides          that   traffic      at the time
              of taking)          not future             traffic,       be used to determine
              the type         of road        to be constructed.                 Bureau       policy
              states       that     current         traffic,         not projected          traffic,
              is the sole           criterion            to be used in determining                     the
              type     of road        to be constructed.                   In view      of the ex-
              isting       legislation            and policy,           we believe        that       the
              construction            of a new road               system     based on future
              traffic        is not justified.




                                                    27
     We believe,            furthermore,         that     the small         amount       of
     traffic        now using          the existing         roads     will     be served
     reasonably          as well         by the relocation            of the Auburn-
     Foresthill          Road discussed            in the previous              section
     of this        report.          For example,         driving       time      and dis-
     tance      from     Colfax       to Foresthill,            using      Placer
     County’s         existing        Colfax-Foresthill              Road,     are about
     33 minutes          and 15 miles,           respectively.              Travel       time
     and distance             on the proposed           replacement           would      be
     about      41 minutes           and 17 miles,          respectively.              Compa -
     rable      figures         using      the relocated         Auburn-Foresthill
     Road would          be about         41 minutes        and 31 miles,            re-
     spectively.

2.   Concerning         the second         point,       fire    protection,         the
     California         Division        of Forestry          has responsibility
     for    fire    protection          in the area served               by the ex-
     isting      roads.        As indicated           previously         the Cali-
     fornia      Division        of Forestry          maintains        the existing
     Ponderosa        Way for      fire      protection         purposes       through
     a special        use permit          granted       by the U.S.         Forest
     Service.

     Included           in a report         submitted         to the Bureau               in
     December          1967 by El Dorado               and Placer           Counties          on
     their       recommended           road replacement               plan was a study
     prepared          by the California               Division         of Forestry             on
     its    fire       protection          needs.        In the study,               the Cali-
     fornia        Division        of Forestry           indicated          a need to re-
     place       the washed-out             Middle      Fork crossing                on
     Ponderosa            Way.     According         to information                that     the
     State       furnished         to the Department                in April           1969,     a
     Middle        Fork crossing            was needed          for     fire-fighting
     forces        located        south     of the reservoir                to be used
     for    initial         attack       on any fires           on the Foresthill
     Divide         (the    area between           the North          and Middle            Forks
     of the American               River).

     According        to data       developed        by the Bureau,                  fire
     fighters       located       at the State’s           Growlersburg                 Conser-
     vation     Camp-- the major           fire-fighting          force              south      of
     the reservoir         --will      experience        an increase                 in dis-
     tance     and time of 5.3 miles                 and 8 minutes,                  respec-
     tively,      to reach        the community          of Foresthill                  if a
     Middle     Fork crossing           is not provided.              The            California


                                          28
     Division      of Forestry          also       has indicated       that,     with-
     out a Middle           Fork crossing,             it may be forced        to con-
     struct      a fire-fighting            facility         on the Foresthill
     Divide.       From the information                   that  the State      fur-
     nished      to the Department              in April       1969,   it appears
     that     the initial        construction             cost  plus   cost    of
     operation        and maintenance              of such facilities          would
     be significantly            less     than       the cost     of replacing
     the roads.

     Although         the fire-fighting               forces     south       of the res-
     ervoir       may experience            an increase          in time        and dis-
     tance      to reach        Foresthill,          our review          showed      that
     the fire-fighting               forces       north      of the reservoir             area
     would      be able       to reach         the Foresthill            Divide      in
     less     time      by using       the relocated            Auburn-Foresthill
     Road.        For example 9 a Bureau                  study     shows that         it
     presently          takes    State      fire      fighters       at the Iron
     Mine Conservation               Camp--the          major    fire-fighting
     force      north      of the reservoir--about                    55 minutes
     traveling          over    29.1 miles          of road      to reach         the com-
     munity       of Foresthill.

     Iron    Mine fire       fighters     will     be able     to reach
     Foresthill        by the relocated          Auburn-Foresthill           Road,
     a distance         of 24.6 miles,         in 44 minutes--a         reduc-
     tion    of 4.5 miles          and 11 minutes.          It presently
     takes      Growlersburg         fire fighters       59 minutes       to reach
     Foresthill         from    the area     south   of the reservoir.

     Therefore     9 although       it will        take     the fire-fighting
     forces     on the south        side      of the reservoir             about
     8 minutes      longer      to reach        the community           of Forest-
     hill    than   it presently         takes,        the fire-fighting
     forces     on the north        side will          be able      to reach       the
     community,       using     the relocated            Auburn-Foresthill
     Road,     11 minutes       sooner      than     they     presently       can.
     We believe       that    the California             Division       of Forestry
     requirements        would     be served         reasonably         as well      by
     the relocated         Auburn-Foresthill              Road and Bridge.

3.   During      negotiations           in 1969 with         Federal,    State,
     and county         officials         for    replacement       of the upstream
     crossings      9 the Bureau            advised      the officials      that,
     under     the Flood          Control      Act of 1960,        as amended,    it


                                        29
               had a “basic    obligation”                    to provide             a one-lane
               bridge   at each of the                   three   crossings              (including
               the crossing    previously                   washed    out)           at an estimated
               cost   of $21.4  million.

               The Bureau     subsequently       revised       the estimate                        to
               $24.4  million     in recognition         of 1970 prices.                             The
               Bureau  decided,      however,      that    this   replacement                         plan:

                        ‘c***    would      not be too practical,        and it
                        would     certainly       develop adverse      public
                        reaction       to have millions       of dollars
                        worth     of work accessible        only by several
                        miles     of truck      trails.”     (Emphasis      added                   .)

               The Bureau        developed        plans       for     the new, two-lane,
               paved replacement            road which            conforms        essentially
               to a plan       requested        in December             1967 by Placer              and
               El Dorado       Counties       to accommodate               future       traffic.
               According       to the Bureau,             interested           Federal,          State,
               and county        agencies       have advised             the Bureau            that
               they    are willing        to support            and justify          the plan
               for   the new two-lane             road but are not in a position
               to contribute          any funds         to carry         out the plan.                The
               Bureau     therefore       is seeking           ways and means of obtain-
               ing additional          authorization              for    the expenditure                of
               appropriated         funds     for    financing           the replacement
               plan.

         Inasmuch           as the Bureau            considered           its   “basic       obligation”
to provide             a one-lane           bridge       at each of the three                 crossings
as impractical                p it appears           to us that           the Bureau         should       have
considered             abandoning           the crossings             rather      than developing
plans        which        exceeded        its    basic       obligation.            According         to
Bureau         officials,             abandonment          of the crossings               was never
considered,                 The Bureau’s           policies         provided        that,     in special
situations,               facilities           be abandcned           rather      than replaced;
but no guidance                    is provided         for    determining           whether       a spe-
cial       situation             exists.        The policies            provide       also    that,       if
facilities             are abandoned,              nominal        or salvage          value     of the
abandoned            facilities           will     be the basis             for  settlement           with
the owner.

      The     Bureau’s    policy            is to relocate              facilities            to current
standards        in conformity              with the Flood              Control         Act     of 1960,


                                                    30
as amended,         but,     if no applicable          standards      exist       for  the
facility      being      relocated,         as in the case of the upstream
crossings,        the policy          provides     for   “replacement         in kind.”
It was on this           basis      that     the Bureau     developed       the single-
lane bridge         replacement          plan which      it considered          to be its
“basic     obligation”          but which       was found       to be impractical.

        Although        the Flood       Control         Act of 1960,           as amended,
does not discuss             abandonment,          it &yes ctate             that,     “when      the
taking      ***    of an existing          public         road necessitates              replace-
ment,     the substitute           provided        will      ***    serve”       (emphasis
added),       which     implies      that   all      roads       taken     may not neces-
sarily      have to be replaced.                 In October           1962 the Senate
Committee         on Public       Works,     in commenting             on the provisions
of a proposed           amendment       to the Flood             Control       Act of 1960,
stated      “It    is not the intention                 of the committee             to con-
strue     that     every     road    taken     in a reservoir              area     should     be
replaced        *** . ”

      It appears     therefore      that                  the Congress    did not expect
the Bureau    to replace       each and                   every road and bridge         that
would   be taken   in constructing                        water resources     projects.

       We believe            that  the limited      traffic  and the                     other    fac-
tors   considered            by the Bureau     are not sufficient                        to justify
replacement       of       the roads   at an estimated       cost  to                    the Fed-
eral    Government           of about  $26.2    million.

           We believe         also     that    the Bureau’s             inadequate         policies
and procedures              for determining             whether        an existing          road
should       be replaced           or abandoned           contributed            to the decision
to provide           the new road.             Guidance        should        be provided,            in
our opinion,            for     determining,          in similar           situations,           when
facilities           should      be abandoned           or replaced.               Such guidance
would       provide       a sounder         basis     for    planning          for    replacement
roads       and bridges          as well       as for      reducing          the possibility
of unnecessary              relocation         costs      being      incurred         under      future
Bureau        projects.          We    believe      that     such       guidance        should       be
directed          toward      determining         whether        traffic         on a road         that
is to be inundated                 could      be served        reasonably           as well
through         (1) an existing             road    system       or (2) the relocation
of other         roads      in the area that              would      be affected           by con-
struction           and operation           of the project.




                                                     31
Denartment              of   the   Interior     comments

        We brought     these      matters      to the attention            of the Depart-
ment in our draft            report      and proposed        that     the Commissioner
of Reclamation          (1) abandon         the existing         roads     without      re-
placement       and (2) develop           procedures       setting       forth      specific
criteria      for   determining         when roads       or bridges          affected        by
Bureau     projects       should     be abandoned        rather       than replaced.

      In commenting                on this     matter      (see app.     I),     the Direc-
tor   of Survey    and             Review    reiterated        the Bureau’s         position
that    the new road               system    was needed        for  fire     protection.
This    position   and             our views       thereon     have been discussed           on
pages     28 and 29 of               this  report.

      With regard           to our proposal      to develop     procedures     set-
ting     forth     specific     criteria    for    determining     when roads     and
bridges        should     be abandoned    rather      than replaced,       the Direc-
tor    stated      that:

                If***the question      is given        full     consideration
       in the planning      stage     before      authorization           of the
       project.      The determination          of which        procedure      to
       follow   is reached      after    carefully          weighing      all  the
       purposes     and needs of the roads            and this        is docu-
       mented   in the feasibility           reports        submitted       to the
       Congress   .”

        With respect          to our proposal             to abandon        the upstream
crossings,          the Director          stated      that     we had not given            proper
consideration            to the feasibility               report      which     was the basis
for     the legislation            authorizing          the project         and which        spe-
cifically         recognized        the need to replace                the upstream          cross-
ings.         He stated       that    the Congress           had recognized           the need
for     replacing        the upstream          crossings         and,    in adopting         the
feasibility           report,      had approved           such replacements             and had
authorized          the Bureau,         by enactment           of Public        Law 89-161,         to
carry       them out.         The   Director        also     referred       to    language       con-
tained        in House Report           295, dated          May 6, 1965,         of the Com-
mitee       on Interior         and Insular        Affairs,         which     reads:

      “***    Several   roads    cross   the reservoir                    site     at
      present     and would    have to be relocated.                          Bridges
      would    be provided     as necessary     to carry                    these
      roads    across    the reservoir.”


                                                   32
          We cannot        agree     with    the Director’s           comment       that     the
Congress        approved        the relocation            of the upstream           crossings
by adopting,           through        enactment       of Public       Law 89-161,          the
feasibility          report.          It appears        from   the language           contained
in the feasibility                report     that     the Bureau        intended        to fur-
ther      evaluate       ways of meeting            the traffic        needs of the area.
For example,           in commenting           on the upstream            crossings,         the
report       stated      that     the cost      of relocating           the roads         was in-
cluded       in the cost          estimates       for     the project         but that       more
detailed        studies       in the future           could    result       in a reduction
of the relocation               requirements          and cost.

        Further)         we do not agree            with    the Director’s         view    that
the language           contained        in House Report           295 specifically           im-
plies      that     the upstream          crossings        must be relocated.             We
believe        that    neither       the feasibility           report      nor the legis-
lation       authorizing         construction           of the Auburn-Folsom            South
Unit--which           contained        no reference         to the relocation           of
roads --requires             the replacement            of all    existing     roads      and
bridges        or restricts          the Bureau         from abandoning        the cross-
ings     if such action            is indicated           as a result       of more de-
tailed       studies       of the traffic           needs of the area.

         Although         the Bureau’s             policies         state       that     in special
situations         facilities             can be abandoned                rather       than replaced,
no guidance          is provided             for     determining            whether        a special
situation        exists.            We found         no other         policies         relating         to
the question           of abandoning               roads,        and Bureau          officials          were
unable       to furnish           any policies             relating         to this        matter.
Moreover,        Bureau         officials          advised        us during          our audit          that,
in the case of the upstream                          crossings,           abandonment           was
never      considered.              We believe           therefore          that     the Bureau
needs specific              criteria         for     the guidance             of Bureau         officials
in weighing          alternatives              for     the purpose            of determining              the
need for       replacement              of existing            roads      and bridges           versus
their      abandonment           e

Recommendations               to    the    Secretarv          of   the     Interior

        We recommend           that     the Secretary           of the Interior     require
the Commissioner             of Reclamation             to (1) abandon       the existing
upstream     crossings           without       replacement         and (2) develop      pro-
cedures     setting        forth      criteria        for    determining     when roads
or bridges        affected         by Bureau        projects       should  be abandoned
rather    than replaced.


                                                       33
UNECONOFIICAL RELOCATION OF STATE
HIGHWAY ACROSS CREST OF DAM

         Construction           of the Auburn          Dam and Reservoir          will      nec-
essitate       relocating          about      8.3 miles        of State   Highway        49
which     presently          crosses      the North         Fork of the American
River     about      2 miles       upstream       from      the Auburn    Dam site.          The
Bureau      plans       to relocate         that    portion      of Highway     49 by pro-
viding      a road between            the communities            of Auburn     and Cool,
which     will     utilize        an elevated        crossing       above   the crest        of
the dam and a connection                    to Interstate          80 in Auburn        at an
estimated        cost      of $10.5      million.

        Our review       showed     that,    if the highway       were relocated
so that      it crossed      the river       at a site     below   the dam, the
project      would   begin     to realize,      about     3 years    earlier,      ben-
efits     of as much as $59 million             annually.        Rough estimates
prepared       by the Bureau        indicate    that    such a relocation          plan
could     cost   as little       as $5 million,       or $5.5 million         less
than    the plan     adopted      by the Bureau.

         The State         of California          and the Bureau           exchanged       let-
ters     dated     September         14 and October          12, 1965,         in which      they
agreed        to study       various     possible       routes      for    relocating
State       Highway      49.      Under   an agreement          dated      June 20, 1967,
the Bureau         requested         the State       of California           to make studies
and report         on the possible           relocation         alternatives          for    that
portion         of State      Highway     49 which        would     be affected         by the
construction           of the Auburn         Dam and Reservoir.                  On June 22,
1967,       the Bureau        advised     the Division          of Highways,          State     of
California,          that:

        “We have previously                   indicated           it to be inconve-
        nient      for    the relocation                of Highway          49 to be
        across       the crest          of the concrete                arch dam.          How-
        ever,      data developed               during        the course         of our com-
        parative        dam studies             indicates           that    the savings
        which      would      result        from constructing                 Highway       49
        on the arch           crest       far     outweigh          any inconvenience.
        We,    therefore,           intend        to   establish          the limit         of
        our obligation              as the cost             of a location           on the
        dam crest.            Other       locations           are possible          but they
        will     require        financial           participation             by an agency
        other      than     the Bureau            of Reclamation              to cover
        costs      in excess          of those         for      the crest        location.”


                                                 34
       On October        11, 1967,      the California       Division        of High-
ways submitted        its    report     to the Bureau,       which     included
cost    estimates     for    five   possible     relocation       routes       for
Highway      49, ranging       from   $9.5 million        to $19.3     million.
The low estimate          was for     the road     to be relocated           across
the crest       of the dam.

         By letter         dated      December         14, 1967,         the Bureau         for-
warded       the information              contained         in the California               Division
of Highways’           report       to the Commissioner                  of Reclamation
after      adding      one more alternate                 relocation          route,      referred
to as J, and after                reducing,          on the basis           of its      own study,
the estimated            cost     of relocating             the road across             the crest
of the dam from              $9.5 million            to $7 million.              The Bureau v s
alternate         relocation          route      J--considered             as a “rough           recon-
naissance”          low-level         alternative--was               estimated        to cost
about      $5 million          and would         require       a bridge         about     750 feet
long     located       as close         to the river           level       as practicable
downstream          from     the dam.

         A comparison     of the costs      of the various        alternative
routings      in the California      Division        of Highways’       study                      and
the Bureau’s        December    14, 1967,     letter    is  shown     below.

                                                                  California
                                                                Division      of
                                                               Highways      study       Bureau letter
Al ternate                      Routing                         October      1967        December 1967

      Aca)         Across     crest     of earth dam             $18,200,000               $18,200,000
      B            Over reservoir          via high-
                      level     bridge                            19,300,000                19,300,000
      E(b)         Across     crest     of concrete
                      arch dam                                      9,500,000                 7,000,000
      F            Downstream        from dam via
                      high-level        bridge                     15,900,000               15,900,000
      G            Over reservoir          via high-
                      level     bridge                             16,400,000               16,400,000
      J            Downstream        from dam via
                      low-level        bridge                                                 5,000,000

 aOriginally  an earth    dam was being considered,    but,    by the time the State
  study was issued,    the Bureau had decided     to construct    a concrete  arch
  dam.
 b The Bureau reduced      the California     Division    of Highways’     estimate            by
   $2.5 million   after    developing     a more detailed      cost study for the              routing.
   The $7 million    estimate     was subsequently     revised     to $10.5 million.




                                                     35
         From the time             the State      study      was issued          i.n October
1967,      there      has been considerable                controversy           concerning
which      alternate         route       should  be selected            and the extent              of
the Government’s               contribution.           El Dorado          and Placer           Coun-
ties     have stated           that      they want      (1) the highway              relocated
over     the reservoir             (alternate       G) rather         than across            the
crest      of the dam and (2) the Bureau                      to pay the entire                  cost,
estimated          at $16.4       million.       Throughout           this     controversy
the Bureau           has consistently           maintained          that     it has no objec-
tion     to the selection               of an alternate           route      other       than
across       the crest         of the dam but that              the Bureau’s             contribu-
tion     would       be limited         to the cost        of the crest            location.
The position            taken     by the Bureau          is that        it will        contribute
to the lowest             cost    relocation       of Highway           49 that        can be con-
structed         in accordance            with  existing        law and Bureau              policy.

       Because      alternate      J appeared    to be the least    costly
plan   for   relocating        Highway    49, we asked   the Bureau     in
March    1970 their        reasons    for  not giving  more consideration
to this    plan.

       The Bureau    advised    us that      (1) alternate       J was elimi-
nated    as an acceptable     route     because      it would    not serve    the
communities     of Cool and Georgetown           in the same manner,        and
reasonably    as well,     as the existing         road and (2) the esti-
mated cost    of alternate      J was not developed            in the same man-
ner or detail     as the other      estimates        developed    by the State
and therefore     the costs     were not comparable.

         Although      the distance      from     the communities          of Cool and
 Georgetown        to Auburn     would   be about        5 miles    longer    by alter-
nate     route     J than by the existing             highway,    it appears        that
 the travel        time would      be about     the same since         the new route
would      be constructed        to current       standards,      as required         by
the Flood        Control     Act of 1960,       as amended.         Any inconve-
nience       to the residents         of Cool and Georgetown--which                 in
1960 had populations             of about      50 and 700, respectively--
would,       in our opinion,        be offset       to some extent         by the ad-
ditional       convenience       to through       travelers,      because     alternate
route      J provides      more direct       access      to the town of Auburn,
which      has a population         of about      6,000,     from   other    more pop-
ulated      areas,     such as the town of Placerville                 with   a popu-
lation      of about      4,500.




                                                 36
      Although         the Bureau’s           estimated       cost   of alternate         J
may not have been developed                     in the same detailed             manner     as
the State       estimates,        we believe          that,     in view of the indi-
cated   significant          cost     difference         between     alternates         E and
J, the Bureau          should     make a more detailed               evaluation         of the
cost  of alternate           J to determine             whether    that     alternative
would   be in the best            interest         of the Government.

         Alternate       J has the additional         advantage       of providing
greater       project     benefits     at a lower     cost   than     the plan       se-
lected       by the Bureau.         If Highway      49 is relocated         across
the crest         of the dam, road construction             cannot      begin    until
the dam is completed.               As a result,      water    cannot      be im-
pounded       until    the relocation      is completed        as the existing
Highway        49 cannot     be inundated     until     the new route         is con-
structed.

        The type    of dam finally             selected    for      Auburn      is a con-
crete    arch dam which,     unlike            the earth     fill     dam originally
considered,      can begin    storing            water  during       construction.

        The Bureau      currently        estimates       that      it will    take
3 years      to construct        the dam, another            l-1/4    years     to con-
struct     the relocated         highway      over   the crest        of the dam, and
a minimum       of 2 additional          years     to fill       the reservoir.
Therefore,        under   the Bureauss         plan,     it would       be 6-l/4       years
before     the reservoir         would    be filled        and project        benefits
could     begin     to be realized.

         If    route    J were adopted,         the road could             be relocated
during       the time      the dam was being            constructed          and the res-
ervoir       (1) could       begin    storing     water      l-1/4      years     after    the
start      of dam construction              and (2) would          be full      3-l/4    years
after      the start       of dam construction.                Therefore,         the advan-
tage     of route       J would      be that    project        benefits        could    begin
to be      realized      3 years       sooner   than      if the road were relo-
cated      over      the crest     of the dam.

        According        to the Secretary          of the Interior’s              supple-
mental     report      on the Auburn        project,      dated       October       1963,
the total       average     annual      benefits      for   irrigation,           flood     con-
trol,    power,      etc.,    would     be about      $59 million.            Although        the
full    value     of these     benefits        may not be realized             during       the
initial      years     of operation,        we believe        that      the amount        real-
ized would        be substantial         and,    together       with      the estimated


                                                37
construction           costs  of      alternative          J,    should    have been          con-
sidered       by   the Bureau         in determining             the least     costly         alter-
native      for    relocating         Highway     49.

         We believe     that,      in evaluating            alternative       relocation
plans,      the Bureau      should       have given         consideration         not only
to the estimated          cost     of the various             plans     but also     to the
benefits       that would       result      under      each plan.          An evaluation
relating       the costs      with     the benefits           of each plan would          show
which     plan would      be in the best             interest        of the Government
from an overall         economic         standpoint.

        On the basis            of our review,            it appears           that   alternate
J is the most economical                  plan      for     relocating           Highway     49
since     it has the advantage                of providing             significantly           more
project       benefits        at the least          cost.        Although          the cost      es-
timates       for    alternate        J may not be as refined                     as the esti-
mates     for     the other        plans,     we believe           that      there     is suffi-
cient     evidence         to warrant       the Bureau’s             reconsidering           its
plan    for     relocating        Highway       49.




                                                  38
Department         of   the     Interior       comments

         We proposed        in our draft      report  that    the Commissioner
of Keclamation          have a detailed         study made of the estimated
cost     of alternate         route    J to determine    which    of the various
alternative        plans      was the most economical        when both    costs
and project        benefits        were considered.

          We proposed       also    that      the Commissioner        of Reclamation
have procedures            developed        that     require,   for   all   Bureau   wa-
ter     resources      projects,        that      consideration      be given     to the
effect       that   road and bridge             relocations     will    have on the re-
alization         of project      benefits.

         In   commenting         on our draft         report,      the Director           of
Survey      and Review         stated      that     no detailed       cost      estimate          had
been prepared           for    route     J but that,          if the estimated            cost
of alternate          J had been prepared                in the same manner              and      de-
tail    as the estimated              costs     for   the other       alternatives,               the
estimate        for   alternate        J would       have far      exceeded         the $5        mil-
lion     “rough     reconnaissance”             estimate       0

         The Director            stated      also       that to achieve         the project
benefits       associated            with    alternate       J would      require         substan-
tial     amounts        of money for            relocating      the road at the same
time     that    large       amounts        were required          for   constructing            the
dam.       He stated         that      it was highly         doubtful       that      the Office
of Management             and Budget         and the Congress            would      appropriate
amounts       sufficient           for work         to go forward        on two such ex-
pensive       activities           at the same time.               The Director           stated
that     the Bureau          intended         to proceed       with    the plan         to relo-
cate     the road over             the crest          of the dam because            it believed
that     this     route      would       prove      to be the most economical                  of
all    routes       considered.

         Although     we recognize         that    the $5 million       estimate     of
the alternate         route      J is not as refined          as the estimates
for    the other      alternatives       p we believe       that    the potential
savings       are significant         enough     to justify      having     a more de-
tailed       estimate     prepared     for    use in determining          the alter-
native       most advantageous         to the Government,

      We believe              also    that    the least  costly            alternative      is
not necessarily               the most advantageous         from           an overall     eco-
nomic  standpoint               since     the project   benefits             to be realized


                                                   39
from each plan vary.                 We believe       further        that     the advan-
tages    of providing           benefits      at an earlier            date     should     be
considered,        even if        a detailed       cost     estimate        for    alter-
nate    J showed      that      it would      cost    more than alternate                 E,
across      the crest      of     the dam.       All    the other         alternatives
have the advantage              of permitting         project       benefits         to be re-
alized      sooner    than      alternate       E.

        The Director’s         comment      that      the Congress           and the Office
of Management        and Budget       would       not appropriate,               simulta-
neously      , the substantial         amounts        needed      for    relocating         the
road    and constructing           the dam is,           in our opinion,             somewhat
speculative.         We believe        that     the Bureau          should,        on the ba-
sis of an evaluation             of the benefits              and costs        of the vari-
ous alternatives,           decide     the most economical                 plan      for  relo-
cating      the highway      and provide          justification            for     that   plan
when requesting          the necessary          appropriations.                Such a pro-
cedure      would  provide       a more reasonable               basis     for decision-
making      than would      an attempt        to anticipate            the actions          that
might     be taken     by the Office          of Management            and Budget         or
the Congress.

Recommendations           to    the   Secretary       of   the    Interior

        We recommend    that  the Secretary        of the Interior      re-
quire    the Commissioner     of Reclamation         to make a detailed
study    of the estimated     cost  of alternate        route   J and to de-
termine     which  of the several     alternatives        is the most eco-
nomical     when both   costs   and benefits       are considered.

         We recommend       also   that   the Secretary        of the Interior
direct     the Commissioner          to develop     procedures       that   will
provide      that,    for   all   Bureau    water   resources     projects,          con-
sideration         be given     to the effect     that    road and bridge            re-
locations       will    have on the realization           of project       benefits.




                                               40
                                          CHAPTER       3


                                     SCOPE OF REVIEW

           Our  review    was performed    at the Bureau   of Reclamation
regional        office    in Sacramento,     California  (Region   2),   and
Bureau       headquarters     in Washington,        D.C.

         We examined        applicable         legislation,          pertinent        Bureau
instructions,          planning       reports,         relocation       agreements,            plans
and specifications,              and cost        estimates.          We also     reviewed
correspondence           and other       pertinent           documents      and interviewed
Bureau       officials      on (1) determinations                 of design       standards
of the facilities             to be relocated,               (2) records       of negotia-
tions,       and (3) justifications                for     the replacement          facilities
provided.




                                                 41
APPENDIXES




   43
                                                                        APPENDIX I



         United States             epartment of the Interior
                         OFFICE OF THE         SECRETARY
                          WASHINGTON,          D.C.  20240




                                                             DEC 22 1970


Dear Mr. Voss:

The Department of the Interior    has reviewed the October 1, 1970
GAO draft  report to Congress entitled,     "Savings Available    in
Relocating  Roads and Bridges at the Central Valley Project,
Bureau of Reclamation,   Department of the Interior."        Our comments
take cognizance of the General Accounting      Office's  letters    of
April13,   and September 23, 1970.

The GAO draft report       is a review with conclusions       and
recommendations     of (1) the relocation     of the Auburn-Foresthill
Road, including     construction    of the Auburn-Foresthill       Bridge
across the north fork of the American River;          (2) the replacement
of existing    Forest Service and county roads within          the Auburn
Reservoir   area; and (3) the proposed relocation           of California
State Highway 49 in connection        with the construction       of Auburn
Dam.

The Comptroller        General's        letter     of September 23, 1970, as well as
the Director,       Civil      Division's      letter   of April 13, 1970, is addressed
to the issue of whether the Bureau of Reclamation                      is authorized
to proceed with construction                 of the Auburn-Foresthill        Bridge with
the substructure          (piers     and abutments)       and the superstructure         to
standards     sufficient        to carry a future         four-lane   divided highway
but with provision           for only two lanes in the initial              construction.

The Comptroller      General has advised in his September 23 letter
that "should the Department proceed as presently            planned (with
construction      of the Auburn-Foresthill    Bridge),   we will be
required     to issue a Notice of Exception      against the account of
the certifying      officer.   Formal exception    will be taken against
the total      amount paid for the bridge until      a determination  has
been made by the Department of the amount paid in excess of the
amount that should have been paid for a two-lane            facility * * *."

Our comments on the issues          raised by the GAO are set forth
hereinafter    under headings       and in the order as they appear            in
the draft   report.


                                          45
APPENDIX I

                        BRIDGE CONSTRUCTKD 'l-0 KiGHER STANDARDS
                                 TIIAN PERblITTFID BY LAN


This section        of the GAD report         reviews     the authority         available     to the
Bureau of Reclamation             for constructing        the relocated        Aubur‘,-Foresthill
r2ad, including        a high-level        bridge    across the North Fork of the America1
River,    and the Eureau's           determination      to provide       in this case a
bridge    structure     capable of supporting             four traffic        lanes at some future
date but with only two lanes completed                    initially.        The procedure         adopted
in this case was first             examined by Interior's            auditors     of the Office        of
Survey and Review (OSR) in the early part of 1969.                            The views and con-
clusions     of that office          are set forth      in a report        of February      1969
entitled,     "Review of Proposed Relocation                  of Auburn-Foresthill         Bridge,
Placer    County,     California,        Region 2 - Bureau of Reclamation."                  In com-
mcnting    ori tt>is yp;l;i71t, tlie E-ureau of Reclz,lation,               in a memorandum of
March 28, 19G4, to OSR stated:

       'We do not agree with the recommendations                 of the auditors        and
       we do not propose to involve            thecoursesof        action    advocated.
       Section    14 of the 1939 Reclamation           Act, as well as the Reclamation
       Act of 1902 as amended and supplemented,                gives the Secretary
       broad administrative        authority      to determine      what action      should
       be taken in connection         with the construction           of Reclamation
       projects    which are in the best interest            of the Government.
       Under this authority,         the Bclreau has on a number of occasions-
       provided    additional     construction      not directly       related    to
       initial    developments     but which is necessary           for future     works,
       facilities     or project    operations      yet to be authorized          or for
       which additional       appropriations       may be required.



       "It is axiomatic         that specific       authorizations          such as P.L. 89-161,
       which authorized         the Auburn-Folsom        South Unit of the Central               Valley
       Project,     only enumerate      gross features          and leave detailed          decisions
       on constrluction        and operation      to the discretion            of the Secretary
       operating     within     the framework       of Reclamation          I,aw.   The decision,
       with regard      to the construction          of the substructure            of the
       Foresthill      Bridge,     is in this category.            This heavier        substructure
       and the additional          cost as a reimbursable           project       expense (and
       not as a nonreimbursable           P,L. 87-874 betterment               cost) was care-
       fully    considered      by the Solicitor's        Office      prior     to our May 7,
       1968, letter       and that office      concurred        therein."

The Solicitor's   Office    reviewed    and concurred  in our March 28, 1969,
memorandum which contained        the language quoted.    The GAO draft report
rtfers   to that statcm,lnt    but makes no comment thereon.
                                                                                                   APPEh'DIS         1


Nevertheless,           and in spite        of the Associate         Solicitor’s              opinion       of
June 1, 1970, which              supported       the procedure       adopted        by the Bureau,               the
Comptroller         has concluded          and has recommended           that     the Secretary               of the
Interior       direct      the Bureau       of,Reclamation        (1) to limit             its     participation
in the construction              cost    of the Auburn-Foresthill                Bridge        to the cost           of
constructing          a two-lane       bridge     with    a substructure          and superstructure
which will         support      only   two lanes       and (2) to clarify             its      instructions            to
require      that     all    roads    and bridges       be relocated        under        the provisions              of
Section      207(c) of the Flood              Control     Act of 1960,        as amended,             when roads
and bridges         are not an operational              component      of a project.

The Bureau        of Reclamation’s           reasons      and justifications               for proceeding
with    the construction            of the Auburn-Foresthill                Bridge       to standards
capable     of supporting           a future      four-lane        divided      highway       but i;litIil    only
two lanes       initially        arc fully       set forth       in letters         of August      18, 1970,
to the Chairmen            of the House and Senate               Appropriations            Committees,          signed
by the Assistant             Secretary     of the Department              of the Interior,           Water        and
Power Development.               The considerations             and conclusions            of the Bureau           to
proceed     in the manner            it hasare      explained        in that      letter      and its       enclosures.
The Bureau’s          position      on construction           of the Auburn-Foresthill                   Bridge
remains unchanged,              and it would        be unnecessary          to repeat         here    the consid-
erations      leading        to that    position.

There     are,      however,      severai       points     in the GAO draft             report      which   deserve
comment-         On page 11 reference                is made to the statement                  in the Associate
Solicitor's          memorandum        of June 1, 1970,            that    the cost         of constructing         a
substructure           capable     of supporting            a four-lane       bridge        would     be the same as
the cost        for a two-lane           bridge      because     of the design            considerations
necessary         to meet      the earthquake           stress     requirements.              The report      then
goes on to state             that    “based       on discussions         with     officials         of the Federal
Highway Administration,                  and a review          of cost     estimates          for a comparable
bridge      designed       by the Corps           of Engineers        in the same geological                area,     we
believe       that     the difference           in cost      of the substructure                between    a two-lane
and a four-lane            bridge      could      be as high       as 10 percent.”

The    Bureau      is   not
                          informed     of the nature           of the data or designs                  developed
by the      two Federal     agencies     mentioned,        which      led      to the stated            conclusion.
The Bureau   would      be interested         in having        such data and designs                  for review
by its design     office,       although      it   is questionable             whether       either       the Corps
of Engineers     or the Federal          Highway       Administration            has had comparable
experience    in designing          and constructing           bridge      piers      of heights          similar
to those in the Auburn Reservoir                 in an active           earthquake          area.      On the
other hand, the Bureau of Reclamation                     has built        piers      of substantially
the same design        for the Pit       River     Bridge      over     the Pit       River     Arm of Shasta
Reservoir     on the Sacramento           River      in Northern          California.           On the basis
of this experience          and the application             of the most advanced                 technology,
its design    engineers        have determined          that     the cost        of the piers           of the
substructure     for the Auburn-Foresthill                 Bridge       is practically             the same as
it would be for piers            to support      only     a two-lane         bridge.




                                                          47
 APPENDIX I

On pages 12 and 13 of the GAO draft,                  reference      is made to the estimates
of cost furnished        by the Bureau's          Regional     Director      in Sacramento      for
construction       of the substructure          and superstructure           for three different
types of bridges.          These estimates         are the latest         of many studies       over
the last several        years on various          designs of bridges           to be provided       at
this location.         Enclosed is a chronology             of cost estimates         for the
Foresthill      Bridge from the time estimates               were prepared        based on pre-
liminary     data to the current          estimates      based on firm data and design
criteria.       Your attention       is called      particularly        to the subparagraph          at
the bottom of page 3 of the statement                  which explains          the reasons why
the cost of piers        for a two-lane         road or a four-lane           road is practically
the same, and therefore           the cost differential             between piers       for a two-
lane and a four-lane         bridge     is infinitesimal.            The difference        in total
cost for a t:llo-lanc? bridge          and a four-lane         bridge     (with two lanes con-
structed)     has been reduced to $1,520,000.                  Irrespective       of this fact,
we understand       that legislation         has been or will          be introduced       in the
present    session of Congress to remove any question                      of the Bureau's
authority     to proceed with construction               of the bridge.

One further    conclusion  in         the GAO report  with respect to the Auburn-
Foresthill    Bridge deserves           comment.  On page 14 of the draft this state-
ment appears:

       "In our opinion,     the bridge    is not an operational       component of
      the project.      The operation,      maintenance,   control,    and ownership
      of the Auburn project      will    be vested in the United       States Govern-
      ment while    the ownership      of the Auburn-Foresthill       Bridge - as
      well as its operation,       maintenance,      and control    - will  be vested
      in Placer    County."

The relocation       of the Auburn-Foresthill            road, including       construction       of
the bridge,      is no different     in this case than the relocation                 of State
and county roads undertaken          as a matter        of course in connection           with
construction       of other Reclamation       projects.          In almost all cases, relocated
highway facilities        ;xe not operational         components of Reclamation             projects
and upon conpletion         of the rel.ocated      facilities,       they are turned over to
States    or counties     for permanent operation              and maintenance.      We therefore
believe     that the GAO statement       referring         to the bridge     as a nonoperational
component of the project          is not germane to accepted practice                 of the Bureau
of Reclamation,       nor of other Federal         construction        agencies,    and confuses
the issue.




                                               48
                                                                                   APPENDIX       I


                            REPLACEMENT OF EXISTI??G ROADS
                              AND JiRPDGES NOT JUSTIFIED


This section    of the GAO draft    is concerned with the upstream roads in
the Auburn Reservoir     area including    (1) two crossings     on the Ponderosa
Way Road owned by the Federal       Government   (Forest  Service)    and (2) one
crossing   on the Colfax-Forcsthill     Road which is owned by Placer County.

The roads are as described     in the GAO draft,             one-lane   unpaved roads with
sharp curves and very steep grades.      They are              carried  across the North
Fork of the American River on a single-lane,                 truss-type    bridge.  The
bridge    across the Middle Fork, also a one-lane               bridge,  was washed out
by a fiood in 1964 and has not been replaced                 in view of the imminent
construction     of the Auburn Dam and Reservoir.

These roads have been used by the Forest     Service              and the California
Division    of Forestry for fire control and forest               management of the        forested
region   north and east of the prOpOSed  reservoir               area,

The GAO has stated          that the relocated       Auburn-Foresthill          road could be
used for fire       fighting     and forest    management purposes almost as effectively
as would be the case if the existing                upstream roads were relocated.               The
GAi) ilas furtiler     suggested     tilat dn expenditure        by the Caiifornia       Division
of Forestry      of $6,000,000       for a fire-fighting         facility      on the Foresthill
Divide    would provide        adequate fire    protection       for a period       of 30 years.
Such an installation           and activity    would not be in keeping with the proposed
recreational       developmept      on the Foresthill       Divide       as planned jointly      by
the Bureau and the State.

The GAO has concluded      that the volume of traffic       using the existing    road
is not sufficient     to justify   replacement    of the system in an estimated
cost of the Federal     Government of about $30,000,000.          The GAO is also of
the belief    that the decision    to provide    a new road system has resulted
from inadequate    Bureau policies      and procedures  'for determining    whether    an
existing   road should be replaced       or abandoned.

The GAO has recommended that the Secretary          of the Interior      direct     the
Commissioner     of Reclamation   to (1) abandon the existing       roads without
replacement     and (2) develop procedures    setting    forth  specific     criteria
for determining     when roads or bridges   affected     by Bureau projects         should
be abandoned rather      than replaced,

Extensive  studies   by the Bureau of Reclamation,    the two counties  involved,
the Forest  Service   and other interested    parties have led to the conclusion
that the replacement    road system across the upstream    arms of Auburn Reservoir
is clearly   the best alternative.     Any plan which does not include    a replacement




                                                  49
 crossing      over the upper North Fork arm is unacceptable                   to the agencies
concerned        since such replacement         access is essential         to assure the safety
of the public          in the event of fire.           The Middle Fork replacement           crossing
is also needed for public             safety    and, in addition,        is vitally      important
 to the efficient          use of fire    protection       resources.      Studies    conducted      by
the U. S. Forest           Service   and the State Division           of Forestry     indicate     that
 the initial        cost and present      worth of the annual 06M expenses of the facil-
ities     needed to provide        the same level of fire protection                as now exists
without      the Middle Fork replacement             crossing     would be almost $11 million.
The GAO report          indicates    on page 23 a cost of $6 million              as being "adequate"
for fire       protection.

In addition      to the fire protection          and public    safety     requirements,      other
 important    values and considerations           which establish       the need to restore
 the upstream road system, including              crossings   over both arms of the
reservoir,     include    watershed    protection,       the maintenance        of water quality,
the maintenance       of aesthetic     values,      and the protection        of fish and wild-
life;    all of which are directly          related     and of vital      concern to the Auburn
project.      Unless these values are protected             and maintained,          a large Federal
investment     in the project      might well be negated.            On page 19, 2d sentence
of the GAO report       it is stated      that the (poor) condition             of the road is
indicated     by the fact that the U. S. Post Office               stopped using it for mail
service     in 1954 "due to bad road conditions,"               Evidently,        this statement
was intended       to show that the road is impassable,               If so, it is not correct
as the road is passable          and is in use.

We do not believe  that the GAO has given proper weight    to the feasibility
report on the Auburn-Folsom  South Unit of the Central   Valley  Project,
which was the basis for the authorization  of the project.

Public     Law No. 89-161, which authorized           the construction          of the Auburn Dam
and Reservoir,       was based on the project         feasibility       reports    contained    in
H,D. 305, 87th Congress,         2d Session,     and H-D, 171, 88th Congress,              1st
Session.       These feasibility    reports     specifically        recognized     the need to
replace     the upstream crossings,       although      the definite       plan (including
standards)      of replacement    was not identified.             The comments of the Department
of Agriculture       appended to both House Documents,              especially     emphasized the
need to replace       the Middle Fork (Greenwood)            crossing    primarily     for fire
protection.

The comments of the Department   of Agriculture                on this    matter    as contained
in H.D. 171 are particularly   pertinent:

      '@All other bridge    replacements      in this general     area should provide
      for appropriate    Load connections        needed for administrative,
      recreational,   and fire     control    purposes.     Also, it should be noted
      that the road replacements         designated,    "Greenwood Branch road and




                                                 58
        and bridge,”    in the project            report       are cscczntial.
                                                                      ___--__.-____for     fire
        control                      Californs’,7
                  needs of the---____~-                  Divi.sjo~:   of. Forestry
                                                                               __.-_--.-_  ;ir,d  ~12~
        United   StatCs   Forest    Sfarvice        ;:.:d fol- Rcccst:     by tllil Fltiorado
                                                                                          _-__--_
        and Taho? Nation31       Fclrcs t..”        ‘(Lmphasi s :i;dded)

Recognition         by the Congress    of            the need to replace       roads    crossing    t?~e
reservoir       site,    as well  as the             particular   river   crossings        to be jnunrlnLcd,
is contained          in Report  No. 295             of Ik!ay 6, 1965,  to the CORXG ttee        of t-hr
whole     House     from the Committee               on Interior    and Insular      Affairs.      The
language      reads:

        “Several       roads   cross    the reservoir        site  at present   and would
        have to       be relocated.        Bridges    i,?ould be provided     as nc-ccssnrl
        to carry       out rhcse     roads    across     the reservoir.”

It   is therefore       evident     that    Congress    reco;;nizcd    the                need for replacing
or relocating        the upstream        roads   and in adoptinG       the                fensibility   reports
approved      such replacements          and authorized        the Bureau                 by enactment    of
P.L,   89-161     to carry      them out 0

Under     the authority           available        to the Cureau         of Reclamation               for relocating
these     roads,       the roads       and bri.dges       woul~d be constructed               to standards            of
“replacement-ill-I<ind,”               that    is one-lane        roads     2nd bridges            will    replace
one-ianc      roads       and bridges.           ihe Bureau       and other        ag:crlcies        concCrnc:J       wi:‘i,
this    problem        recognjzcl      t!int   the relocation          o!Y the rocds           to one-lane         stand-rds
would     be 2 very        costly      undertaking,         amounting       to    SOClfi  $24,400;000           at    1970
prices.        In    view    of   modern     highway      policy      and   the    prospective            uses     of   the
relocated        roads,      consLructing          one-lane      bridges       would     be an inefficient                use
of Federal         funds.

Accordingly,          in July     1969 a meeting          of the several             interested           agencies      and
entities       was held       to discuss      the replacement           of the upstream                 road systen!.
As a result,         a Task Force        was created         to study         alternate          replacement        plaxs
and to recommend            a plan to the various              governing         bodies         and administrators.
Several       meetings     were held       during     the following            months,          and eventually,           a
plan     (designated        plan   P-4)    evolved      which     would      provide          for a two-lane,           aii-
weather       paved road extending            from old United           States         Highway        40 near Wein;ar
across      the North       Fork   and Xiddle        Fork    of the Arxrlcan               River      to the Eldorado
County      road near Spanish           Dry Diggings.           This    plan,incl.uding               two-lane      bridzes,
provides        for   a 30 m.p.h.       standard      road constructed               initially          on an nligxent
which     could     be upgraded       to a 45 m.p.h.           standard         at a later          date.       Construction
acc0rdi.r.g       to this     plan would      cost    about      $2G.2 million             based on 1970 prices.
At a meeting         on June 25, 1970,            the members        of the Task Force                  unanimously
adopted       a plan     and requested        that    the Bureau         initiate           action      to carry      out
the plan       as adopted.
    APPENDIX I

The Bureau has asked each member of the Task Force whether                       and to what
extent     its agency is willing          to contribute    to the cost of the relocation
plan over and above the cost for replacement-in-kind.                       The Bureau is
willing      to contribute       to the plan the estimated         amount it would cost for
replacement-in-kind.             All members of the Task Force have advised that
while    they are willing          and ready to support      and justify      the relocation
plan,   none are in a position            to contribute    any funds for carrying          out the
plan.      Accordingly,       the Bureau is seeking ways and means of obtaining
additional      authorization        for the expenditure      of appropriated       funds for
the plan or other means of financing                the relocation      project.

With respect    to the GAO's recommendation           that the Bureau of Reclamation
develop procedures      setting   forth   specific      criteria      for determining    when
roads and bridges      affected   by Bureau projects           should be abandoned rather
than replaced,      the question    is given full       consideration      in the planning
stage before    authorization     of the project.          The determination       of which
procedure    to follow    is reached after      carefully        weighing  all the purposes
and needs of the roads and this is documented in the feasibility                      reports
submitted    to the Congress.

                              UNECONOXICAL
                              -----          RCLOCATION OF
                           STATE 1IIClIWA~ ACROSS CREST OF DAM


This section    of the GAO draft     report    deals with the relocation       of about
8.3 miles of California       State Highway 49 from a point near Cool to a
junct-,icc with Interstate     89 within    t!>c city limits     of Auburn.    The existinn 0
highway now crosses       the North Fork of the American River about 1.5 miles
upstream of the Auburn Damsite.          This site will      be inundated    when the
Auburn Reservoir     is formed; hence, the necessity          for relocating     the highway.

The GAO report   indicates  that the so-called    "J route,"    one of several
routes   for the relocated  highway studied    by the Bureau of Reclamation        and
the State of California,    should be used rather      than relocating    the highway
over the top of the dam as presently     contemplated.       The GAO report   states
that such a route would cost about $5,000,000       or $5.5 million     less than
the relocation   over the top of the dam.

It is further      suggested     that adoption   of the "J route"  would result    in
additional     benefits    to the Government as a highway in this location         could
be constructed      and utilized     while water was being stored behind Auburn
Dam. If the highway         was located    on top of the dam, no storage     could com-
mence until     the dam and the highway relocation        were contemplated.

It is recommended that the Secretary                  of the Interior          require   the Bureau
to reconsider        the alternatives         and make a detailed           study of the cost for
 the "J route"        to determine       if a low-level       crossing      below the Auburn Dam is
the most    economical       alternative       when both cost and benefits             are considered.
It is further        recommended that the Secretary                instruct      the Commissioner     of
Reclamation      to develop procedures            requiring      that consideration         be given to
the effect     road and bridge          relocations       would have on the realization            of
project    benefits,
                                                                                         APPENDIX       1



Shortly      after      authorization        of the Auburn Dam and Reservoir,           the
California         State Division        of Highways made studies          of various     alternative
routes     for the relocation            of Highway 49 under a route study agreement
financed      by the Bureau of Reclamation.                   In October   1967 the State Highway
engineer       furnished       the Bureau copies of the Division's              report    which
describes        the alternatives          considered      and the Division's      view on each.
This report         was   supplemented         by a later     report   from the Division       of High-
ways, which provides              additional      information       on two of the alternatives
considered         in its report.

In addition,    the Bureau of Reclamation                made studies   of possible     relocation
routes   both upstream   and downstream of               the dam. The route studies         and esti-
mated cost of each as de.:eloped by the                  Stafc Division   of highrjays     and
the Dureau of Reclamation     are shown in               the tabulation   below.    'I'he infor-
mation   is also shown on page 29 of the                 GAO report.

       Route      A - State    Highway   Department       Study     - $ 18,200,OOO

       Route      B - State    Highway   Department       Study     -     19,300,000
                   F/
       Route      E - State Highway Department  Study               -        7,000,000
                      (across  top of Auburn Dam)

       Route      F - State    Highway   Department       Study     -       15,000,000

       Route      G - State    Highway   Department       Study     -       16,400,OOO

       Modified      Route    G - Bureau    of Reclamation          Study     - 16,400,OOO

       Route      J - Bureau    of Reclamation         Study        -        5,000,000

i/    This     estimate   has been subsequently           revised       to about     $10.5   million.

The modified      "Route G" was one selected     by the Bureau for the Auburn-
Foresthill      County road reiocation,    and which utilized     a different      bridge
location     than the State Highway Department's       'Route G," and was not con-
sidered    in the State's    report.    The State studied     an alignment    similar     to
the Bureau's      'Flodified Route G" and found it was not acceptable           for State
Highway purposes.

The Bureau's         *'Route 3" consisted   of a low-level    bridge   crossing   the river
approximately          2 4 miles downstream   from the concrete     damsite.    The cost
estimate       for   this route was based on data of a rough reconnaissance            nature.

The GAO's contention    that the Bureau should give further     consideration      to
the "J Route" evidently     originated  from a letter  from the Bureau's      Regional
Director  in Sacramento    dated December 14, 1967, to the Commissioner,        which
showed that "Route J" would be $2,000,000      cheaper to construct     than the




                                                  53
        APPENDIX         I


 reLocation              o\‘cr    the C@tlC.ietC  dam.  When asked hy the GAO’s regional                  office
 for     colllnlct~izs       on this   m:;ttcr,   the 1~urca;1’s     field people    replisd,      in effect,
 that        “Route       J” was not an acceptnh1.c         alt.ernntive    and that       its   cost   rs’;imate
 was     extremeiy             rough ; hence ~ it’ was not comparable         i-n quality      to those       of
 the     other         relocat-ion      plans.

Additional           circumstances           bearing       on the rejection                of the ‘,J Route”            hy the
Bureau       of J1cclamation            are that       the route          study       was projected           on I” = 2,000’
United       States        Geological        Survey      tcpography            (having       a contour        interval      of
40 feet)        at a time when an earth                    dam was under              consideration           at a site
several        miles       downstream        from    the damsite            finally        selected.          Several     alter-
native       ro~.ltes      were projeTted          during        this     rough       study,     one across          the ea,:th
dam itself           and othc--:-s upstream            and dorYnstrc3m              rrom it.         The “2 Route”          as
projected          on the 1” r= 2,000’             topography           assumed        a river       crossing        by a low-
level      bridg?        and ~;ls essential.ly             a “replaccmcnt-in-kind”                     investigation.
Al though       a uni form gr adt> of 6 percr>nt                    was assumed            in projecting           the “pnpc-r
location”         up and down tl>e steep                canyon        walls,        the minimum          sadi-us     of curvature
was assumed            to be that        of the existing              State       Higllway     49, which         in places
has curve         radii        as low as 90 feet            rind in one case only                  75 feet.         These were
the standards               (far   below    current        State      Highway         Standards)         used in arri.ving
at the $5,000,000                cost    estimate       quoted        by GAO in reference                  to the Regional
Director’s           letter      of December         14, 1967,          for     the “J Route.”

An alignment       with    the assumed        standards       would     permit   highway       speeds    of
perhaps    15 to 25 miles         IJC!r  hour.      Any attempt         to itnpose     50 miles     per !lour
standards     of curvature        requiring       minimum      radii      of 850 feet     would     have
resulted    in very heavy         cuts    and fills        exceeding        150 feet.      Asi.de from      the
additional      cost    of such heavy        construction,           the effect       on the landscape
and the environment           general.ly     wou1.d be unacceptable.

No cost         estimate        was prepared           during        the “3 Route”           study     or subsequently
for      a location         based upon both             a 6 percent            grade      (the minimum          required       by
the      State      for highways          of this       class)         and 850 feet          radius      curves      which      are
the minimum            standards        for 50 m.p.h.             speeds.          If one had been prepared,                    the
Bureau        is confident          thrit     because       of the exceptionally                  heavy     cuts     and fills
involved          and the generally              high     standards          for     the road and bridge,               the
estimate          would     have far exceeded               tl~e “rough          reconnaissance”            estimate
developed           at the time.           Ede believe          this     judgement         is corroborated            by the
State       Division        of I!igh\~:ays         estimate         of $15.5 million               for their       “Route      F,”
which      was in generally               si.milar      terrain         and involved           cuts    and fills        up to
50 feet         even    tllough    a longer         and higher           bridge.      was assumed,           The State’s
estimate          for the “F Route”              was based on a design                   speed of 50 m.p.h.,               with
maximum         gradient        of 6 percent           and a maximum             radius      of curvature          of 850 feet.

The “F Route”      or plan was the southern-most            al ternativc      considered                              by the
State   Divi sion    of tii ghways.      We conclude    from this      that   the State                             could       not
find   an acceptable       altcxrnntive     further  to the south,          As noted     in                         the State’
report   , the State    abandoned       the “F Route”     as being     an unacceptable                                alternnti




                                                               54
                                                                                                    APPENDIX          I




and the final          comparison      made by the State            Highway     Commission     was actually
between       the basic       “E and G alternatives.”               The alternatives        considered        in
the State        reports     were based on good topography                 and are detailed         estimates
of feasibility           grade which      can be compared           with   confidence.       On the other
hand,     the Bureau’s          “J Route”    estimate       is not only       based on meager         data,
without       good topography,         and on rough         reconnaissance         methods   but most
importantly         it assumed      only   15-25 m.p.h.          standards      in contrast      to the 50
m.p.h.      standards       for the other       alternatives.

It is unfortunate          that     the tabulation       included        in the Regional        Director’s
December      14, 1967,      letter     included    the “J Route”            cost   estimate    without     a
full   discussion      and explanation           of this     basic     difference        in assumption.
As a matter       of fact,       the “J Route”      was never        sericusly       considered      by the
Bureau     and was rejected           as an undesirable         location        from the start.          It
should    never    have been included            in any part       of the record.

At a meeting        of the California       Highway    Commission        on February        20, 1969,
after     more than a year       of study     of possible      alternate      routes      for   the
relocation       of Highway    49, the Commission         voted     unanimously        in f&or      of
routing      the Highway    over    the crest     of Auburn      Dam as being        the most
economical       and in the public      interest.

With-respect            to the GAO’s observations                that     greater        project       benefits          would
accrue        if   the “J Route”          was adopted        by allowing           the reiocation            work and
the filling           of the reservoir             to proceed      at an earlier             date,      such a pro-
cedure        would     require      substantial         sums of money for              the relocation              at the
same time          that    large     amounts       are required       for      continuing          the work on the
dam.       It    is therefore          highly      doubtful,     in view         of the prevailing                tight
fund     situation         which     is expected         to continue         for     several       years,       that     the
Bureau        of the Budget          and the Congress          would       be amenable           to appropriating
sums sufficient              for work to go forward              on these          two expensive            activities
at the same time.                On the other          hand,   with      the dam substantially                    completed,
the need of funds               therefore        would     be drastically            reduced       and lesser           appro-
priations          would     be required         to carry     out the relocation                 over     the top of the
dam.

In view    of the foregoing           explanation,       we believe     that    the relocation        over
the top of the dam will             prove     to be the most economical            of all    routes      con-
sidered    and will        serve   the people       in the area as well         as the traveling          public
in the most       effective      manner.        The Bureau    therefore      proposes     to proceed        with
the relocation         involving      the road across       the top of the dam, subject                to such
minor   variation        in the location         between   Cool and the left          abutment      of the
dam as the California            Highway     Commission     may determine.




                                                               55
                          Chronology         of   Cost   Estimates
                                           for
                            Auburn-.Foresthill            Bridge
                          Auburn-Folsom      South        Unit,  CVP


The initial    cost estimates      for Auburn-Foresthill   Rridge were prepared
in the Chief Engineer's       Office    of the Bureau of Reclamation   in
November 1967.      The estimated      costs for the bridge with a deck truss
superstructure     were as follows:

                               Substructure
                               ---                          Superstructure        Total
2-lane bridge                  $G,OW,OOO                      $6,542,000      $13,030,000
k-lane     bridge
    (2-lane     deck)            8,011,000                       8,789,OOO      16,800,OOO
4-lane     bridge                7,594,ooo                      10,006,000      18,000,000

The above initial       estimates    were based on earthquake      design criteria
with piers    similar     to those used in the design of the Pit River Bridge
near Kedding,     California      (357-foot  6-inch pier height).       A36 and A441
steels   were used for the deck truss.           On Narch 20, 1968, the initial
estimate   was revised       for a deck arrangement     similar  to that shown in
the issued Specifications          No. DC-6834.    The revised   costs were:

                               Substructure                 Superstructure        Total
2-lane      bridge
    (4-lane     truss)         $7,994,000                       $9,476,000    $17,470,000
4-lane     bridge               7,994,ooo                        9,876,OOO     17,870,OOO

After   bids     were received,     the Office  of the Director    of Design and
Construction        repriced  the quantities    used for the November 1967 esti-
mates with       unit prices    obtained   by averaging    the bid prices  of the three
low bids.        The revised    cost estimates    obtained    arc:

                              Substructure
                              --                            SuFerstructure        Total
2-l  ace bridge               $5,218,000                     $10,543,000      $15,761,000
4-lane      bridge
    (2-lane     deck)           5,231,OOO                       14,459,ooo     19,690,000
4-lane     bridge               5,217,OOO                       16,259,OOO     21,476,OOO

The above revised    substructure    costs support   the conclusion           that the
substructure   costs are essentially      the same for the 2-lane            and 4-lane
bridges.

The Bureau of Reclamation      actually      has not prepared   a detailed      design
for a 2-lane br;clg:c.    Thcrcforc,      it does not have a cost      estimate      for
that kind of a bridge based on detailed            designs.   Considerable      time
would be required    to prepare      that kind of estimate.      The nearest         esti-
mate  is for bridge    number (2) prepared       in August 1970.     The estimates
                                                                                                     APPENDIX            I



prepared   in May 1970               included        an estimate            for    replacement-in-kind
bridge   as follows:

                                      Substructure                       Superstructure                        Total
(1)    Replacement-in-
          kind     bridge             $4,008,000                            $8,142,000                    $12,150,000
(2)    2-lane      bridge              4,224,OOO                             8,150,OOO                     12,374,OOO
(3)    4-lane      bridge
           (2-l anes con-
           structed)                   4,224,OOO                             9,670,OOO                     13,894,OOO

The replacement-in-kind                  bridge      (1) was based on estimated                   quantities
with    unit     prices      obtained        by averaging         the three         1.0~ bid unit         prices.
The substructure             for the 2-lane            (2) and 2-lane           with    provisions          for
expansion        to 4-lane        (3) is based on predicted                    bid cost       considering          extra
work orders          for unforeseen           requirements.            The superstructure               for     the
2-lane      bridge      (2) is based on estimated                   quantities         and unit      prices.          The
superstructure           for    the 2-elane with           provisions          for expansion          to 4-lane          (3)
is based on actual              quantity        takeoff      from specifications               drawings         with
estimated        unit    prices     e In addition           each of the August                21, 1970,         esti-
mates includes           an allowance           of 20 percent          for     contingencies.

During    the      period    of final     bridge      design,     major  cost  savings     were
accomplished          by the use of digital             computers     and modern    earthquake    tcch-
nology.          The Following      items     contributed       to the greater      share    of COSK
savings        in the estimates:

1.     Use     of   continuous        composite            design    of     deck    system.

2.     Truss  design      using   all  welded      members     with  high-strength,    bolted
connections      and utilizing        high-strength,         quenched     and tempered  alloy
steels    a This     permitted      an economical        reduction     in member costs    with
a corresponding         reduction     in their       dead loads.

3.    Rolled        sections       were      used    in     lieu    of     laced    members      within        the   bracing
systems.

4,  The most           significant       substructure         savings      were obtained        by adopting
an hourglass           configuration        for   the piers.          This    shape reduced        the effect
of earthquake            loading     from water       acting     on the pier        shafts     and reduced
the required           size     of the pier      base.       The total      volume     of concrete       for
the two tall           piers     was reduced      by approximately            25,000     cubic    yards.

The substructure                for either          a 2-    or G-lane         bridge      was shown       to    be     the
same in the May                15, 1970,        figures       for the       following        reasons:

          The pier      design       for     the    bridge  is governed                 by the earthquake
          loadings     0 The       width       of   the top of pier     is              controlled   by spacing




                                                               57
The estimate       for a replacemrnt-       in-Ykind bridge      is for a. bridge having
a 2-l.ane suhctruct~~           an:! 2. ?-lzxe    superstructure      located   Gara.llel
to the presen: bridge.            Hot:ever, the deck is 40 feet lower,              decreasing
the total     truss Ien&h        by 60 feci..      Also, the truss depth at the
piers was decrezsed by 15 f'c? t but, tlie piers remained at the same
height     of 400 feei..      The net result       of aI1 these changes produced
a. t,r-LISS which coaLs qpro:;ilr&,eely         the szJ;J-rieas previously     ca,.lculated
for a 2-1~~       truss     at t.?e higher road;iay elevation.            The reduction
in pier width,        sine:? tht. span leqth        was decreased,       and depth along
with the led~xi. 7.o~ .     in a'cutmf:nt width and length yielded            a cost
estimate     of $~~,l?cG?,@Onor five percent           less than the $&,224,000
cost for a F-lane b-ri 4xcI ah ';hc hi,~her deck eleva+,ion.

TWea.ppreciat,r      the opp.vtmiC~:         Fifforded us i-n resolving       the issues raised
in the draft 4 as ~21.1 7s i.he z.:+;er_slve cocsultation                with your auditors
on the report        coni:cn-tc u As t'C2 result         .zf +,h~ sever,& conferences
on thi_s draft,        i?. j t GUT un&rst?andinfr        that the final     report will  be
revised   to e;:zlu?~c        k?le +rtio??    rel atI!& to the 3 cg%Lity of the
Blzeau's    aci;ior:: e Hecause of 31.s interest              expressed   and at your
request   !-he F~.lreau of I?erl.zxiation's           cnnments on sll aspects of
the drafi- repott         f~;re sui~l!ii;ed.
                                   PRINCIPAL   OFFICIALS     OF

                              THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND

                                  THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                      RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION         OF ACTIVITIES

                                  DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT


                                                              Tenure     of office
                                                              From                   -To

                                 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR:
     Rogers C. B. Morton                                   Jan.   1971       Present
     Fred J. Russell    (acting)                           Nov.   1970       Dec.    1970
     Walter  J. Hickel                                     Jan.   1969       Nov.    1970
     Stewart   L. Udall                                    Jan.   1961       Jan.    1969

 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER
   AND POWER DEVELOPMENT:
      James R. Smith                                       Mar.   1969       Present
      Kenneth Holum                                        Jan.   1961       Jan.    1969


                                     BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

 COMMISSIONER:
    Ellis  L. Armstrong                                    Nov.   1969       Present
    Floyd E. Dominy                                        May    1959       Oct.    1969




U.S.   GAO   Wash.,    D.C.



                                               59